ENGINEERING EVALUATION/COST ANALYSIS
TRONOX SETTLEMENT N AVAJO AREA URANIUM MINES
SECTION 10 MINE
MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
1201 Elm Street, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas 75270-2102
EPA Contract No. EP-S5-17-02
Technical Direction Document No. 0001/17-044
Weston Work Order No. 20600.012.001.1044
NRC No. N/A
SEMS No. NMN000605371
FPN N/A
SSID A6PK
EPA OSC Warren Zehner
Prepared by
SOLUTIONS
Weston Solutions, Inc.
2600 Parkway, Suite 280
Frisco, Texas 75034
February 2023
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-I
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1-2
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND 1-2
1.2.1 Grants Mining District 1-3
1.2.2 Ambrosia Lake Sub-District 1-5
1.2.3 Site Location 1-13
1.2.4 Operational Status 1-13
1.2.5 Structures, Topography, and Vegetation 1-14
1.2.6 Geology, Hydrogeology, and Soils 1-15
1.2.7 Hydrologic Setting 1-16
1.2.8 Surrounding Land Use and Population 1-16
1.2.9 Historical/Cultural Resources 1-17
1.2.10 Sensitive Ecosystems and Wildlife 1-18
1.2.11 Regional Climate 1-19
1.3 PREVIOUS REMOVAL ACTIONS 1-19
1.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION 1-19
1.4.1 Previous Investigations 1-20
1.4.2 Current Investigations 1-20
1.5 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK EVALUATION 1-28
1.5.1 Screening to Identify Contaminants of Potential Concern 1-28
1.5.2 Human Health Risk Assessment 1-28
1.5.3 Ecological Risk Evaluation 1-30
1.5.4 Evaluation of Grazing of Forage by Domesticated Animals and
Wildlife 1-33
2.0 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 2-1
2.1 STATUTORY LIMIT 2-1
2.2 REMOVAL ACTION SCOPE 2-2
2.2.1 Action Level 2-2
2.2.2 Principal Threat Waste 2-7
2.3 SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME ESTIMATE OF CONTAMINATED
MEDIA 2-9
2.4 REMOVAL ACTION SCHEDULE 2-9
3.0 REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 3-1
3.1 ALTERNATIVES SCREENED FROM CONSIDERATION 3-2
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.2 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
(ARARS) 3-2
3.2.1 Terms and Definitions 3-3
3.2.2 Other Considerations and Assumptions 3-5
3.3 ENGINEERING AND LOGISTICAL CONCERNS APPLICABLE TO
MOST ALTERNATIVES 3-6
3.3.1 Plans and Submittals 3-7
3.3.2 Mobilization and Site Setup 3-8
3.3.3 Site Security and Access Control 3-8
3.3.4 Road and Haul Route Improvements 3-9
3.3.5 Road and Haul Route Maintenance 3-9
3.3.6 Air Monitoring and Dust Control 3-10
3.3.7 Stormwater Management, Erosion Control, and Maintenance 3-10
3.3.8 Site Reclamation 3-11
3.4 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO FURTHER ACTION 3-12
3.4.1 Site Work Activities 3-12
3.4.2 Post-Excavation and Site Reclamation Activities 3-12
3.4.3 Site Controls and Security 3-13
3.4.4 Stormwater and Erosion Control 3-13
3.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Activities 3-13
3.5 ALTERNATIVE 2: EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF
CONTAMINATED SOILS AT A LICENSED LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY 3-13
3.5.1 Off-Site Rule 3-14
3.5.2 Site Work Activities 3-14
3.5.3 Post-Excavation and Site Reclamation Activities 3-15
3.5.4 Site Controls and Security 3-15
3.5.5 Stormwater and Erosion Control 3-16
3.5.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities 3-16
3.6 ALTERNATIVE 3: EXCAVATION, CONSOLIDATION AND LONG-
TERM MANAGEMENT OF THE RADIOLOGICALLY
CONTAMINATED SOILS/DEBRIS AT A ABOVE-GROUND ON-SITE
REPOSITORY 3-17
3.6.1 Engineering Design 3-17
3.6.2 Site Work Activities 3-18
3.6.3 Post-Excavation and Site Reclamation Activities 3-19
3.6.4 Site Controls and Security 3-19
3.6.5 Stormwater and Erosion Control 3-20
3.6.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities 3-20
3.7 ALTERNATIVE 4: CAPPING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL IN PLACE 3-20
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
11
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.7.1 Engineering Design 3-21
3.7.2 Site Work Activities 3-22
3.7.3 Post-Excavation and Site Reclamation Activities 3-23
3.7.4 Site Controls and Security 3-23
3.7.5 Stormwater and Erosion Control 3-23
3.7.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities 3-23
4.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH 4-1
4.1.1 Effectiveness 4-1
4.1.2 Implementability 4-2
4.1.3 Cost 4-2
4.2 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 4-3
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO FURTHER ACTION 4-4
4.3.1 Effectiveness 4-4
4.3.2 Implementability 4-5
4.3.3 Cost 4-5
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 2: OFF-SITE DISPOSAL AT A LICENSED LOW-
LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY 4-5
4.4.1 Effectiveness 4-5
4.4.2 Implementability 4-7
4.4.3 Cost 4-8
4.5 ALTERNATIVE 3: EXCAVATION, CONSOLIDATION AND LONG-
TERM MANAGEMENT OF THE RADIOLOGICALLY
CONTAMINATED SOILS/DEBRIS AT A ABOVE-GROUND ON-SITE
REPOSITORY 4-8
4.5.1 Effectiveness 4-8
4.5.2 Implementability 4-10
4.5.3 Cost 4-11
4.6 ALTERNATIVE 4: CAPPING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL IN PLACE 4-11
4.6.1 Effectiveness 4-11
4.6.2 Implementability 4-12
4.6.3 Cost 4-12
5.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES 5-1
5.1 EFFECTIVENESS 5-1
5.2 IMPLEMENTABILITY 5-2
5.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS 5-3
6.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 6-1
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
111
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
iv
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1
Site Location Map
Figure 1-2
Site Area Map
Figure 1-3
Ambrosia Lake Geologic Cross-section Map
Figure 1-4
Ambrosia Lake Fault Zone Map
Figure 1-5
Typical Underground Uranium Mine Diagram
Figure 1-6
Land Ownership Map
Figure 1-7
Site Layout Map
Figure 1-8
Site Geology Map
Figure 1-9
Site Soils Map
Figure 1-10
Site Surface Drainage Map
Figure 1-11
ASPECT Aerial Gamma Survey Map
Figure 1-12
Gamma Scanning Survey Results Map
Figure 1-13
Estimated Ra-226 Concentration Map
Figure 1-14
Surface Soil Sample Location Map
Figure 1-15
Subsurface Soil Sample Location Map
Figure 1-16
Radon Sample Location Map
Figure 1-17
Agricultural Parameters Sample Location Map
Figure 2-1
Soil Removal Estimate Map
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
V
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES-lRemoval Volume Estimates ES-4
Table 1-1 Background Reference Area Summary of Field and Laboratory Measurements
Table 1-2 Summary of Surface Soil Sample Radium-226 Results
Table 1-3 Summary of Subsurface Soil Sample Radium-226 Results
Table 1-4 Summary of Surface Soil Sample Metals Results
Table 1-5 Summary of Radon Sample Results
Table 2-1 Removal Volume Estimates 2-9
Table 3-1 Location-Specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time Critical Removal Action
Table 3-2 Action-Specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time Critical Removal Action
Table 3-3 Off-Site Transportation and Disposal Pricing
Table 4-1 Summary of Analysis of Alternatives
Table 4-2 Estimated Risk of Fatalities and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to Off-Site Trucking
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
vi
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Natural Resources Evaluation Report
Appendix B Cultural Resources Survey Report
Appendix C Eberline Analytical Services, Inc. Analytical Data Packages
Appendix D Background ProUCL Statistical Results
Appendix E Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory Analytical Results Data Package
Appendix F Accustar Analytical Results Data Package
Appendix G Mine Shaft and Ventilation Hole Video Surveillance Logging Data
Appendix H Revegetation Plan
Appendix I Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Appendix J PRG Calculator Output, DCGL and Ra-226 Risk Contribution Calculations, and
RESRAD Output
Appendix K Cost Estimate Details
Appendix L Long-Term Storage Facility (Repository) Radon Flux Calculations
Appendix M Long-Term Storage Facility (Repository) Preliminary Design Drawings
Appendix N Green Alternatives Assessment
Appendix O TDD No. 0001/17-044
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
vii
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
This page intentionally left blank.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
viii
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
(iR/hr microroentgens per hour
ALSD Ambrosia Lake Sub-District
ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
ASPECT Airborne Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection Technology
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials International
AUM abandoned uranium mine
bgs below ground surface
Bi-214 Bismuth-214
BLM Bureau of Land Management (of the U.S. Department of the Interior)
BRA background reference area
BTV background threshold value
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CC^e carbon dioxide equivalent
COC contaminant of concern
COPC contaminant of potential concern
COPEC contaminant of potential ecological concern
cpm counts per minute
CY cubic yards
DCGL Derived Concentration Guideline Level
DCGLemc Derived Concentration Guideline Level - elevated measurement comparison
DCGLw Derived Concentration Guideline Level - wide area
DOD Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DRS Documented Release Sampling Report
East GSA East Geographic Sub-Area
Eco-SSL ecological soil screening level
EE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
NMEMNRD New Mexico Energy, Minerals & Natural Resource Department
EMB Emergency Management Branch
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESL ecological screening level
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute
GMB Grants Mineral Belt
GMD Grants Mining District
GPS Global Positioning System
GSA Geographic Sub-Area
HQ hazard quotient
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
IX
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)
Marron
Marron and Associates
MARS SIM
Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual
MCA
Multi-Channel Analyzer
mg/kg
milligram per kilogram
MTL
maximum tolerable limit
NA
not applicable
Nal
sodium iodide
NAPL
nonaqueous phase liquid
NAUM
Navajo Area Uranium Mines
NCP
National Contingency Plan
NMAC
New Mexico Administrative Code
NMED
New Mexico Environment Department
NMEMD
New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department
NMHED
New Mexico Health and Environment Department
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL
National Priorities List
NPV
net present value
NRC
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NRCS
United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service
NTCRA
Non Time-Critical Removal Action
O&M
operation and maintenance
OSHA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OSRTI
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
pCi/g
picocuries per gram
pCi/1
picocuries per liter
pCi/m2
picocuries per square meter
PRB
Prevention and Response Branch
PRG
Preliminary Remediation Goal
PRP
Potential Responsible Party
PUF
polyurethane foam
Ra-226
radium-226
RAML
Rio Algom Mining, LLC
RAO
Removal Action Objective
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RESRAD
Residual Radiation
RSE
Removal Site Evaluation
RSL
Regional Screening Level
SEMS
Superfund Enterprise Management System
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
X
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS (CONTINUED)
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
SLO
State Land Office
START-3
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
TAL
Target Analyte Metals
TBC
To-Be-Considered
TCRA
Time-Critical Removal Action
TDD
Technical Direction Document
Tl-206
thallium-206
Tl-207
thallium-207
TO
Task Order
U02
Uraninite
U.S.
United States
USi04
Coffinite
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS
United States Geographic Survey
U-235
Uranium-23 5
U-238
Uranium-23 8
UTL95-95
95% upper tolerance limit with 95% coverage
UMTRCA
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
VSP
Visual Sampling Plan
WESTON®
Weston Solutions, Inc.
WRCC
Western Regional Climate Center
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
XI
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON®), the Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
(START) Contractor (EPA Team), was originally tasked by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 6 Prevention and Response Branch (PRB) under EP-W-06-042, Task Order
(TO) Number 0041 (West Geographic Sub-Area [GSA]) to conduct a Removal Site Evaluation
(RSE) and an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) at the Tronox Settlement Navajo
Area Uranium Mines (NAUM) Section 10 Mine Site (the Site) located in the Ambrosia Lake Sub-
District (ALSD) of the Grants Mining District (GMD), and northwest of San Mateo in McKinley
County, New Mexico. The Site was originally included within the West GSA; however, because
it has a different owner currently than the West GSA Mines, the Site was later awarded a unique
tasking document. The performance period for this task order ended on 22 March 2017. New
Technical Direction Document (TDD) No. 0009/Weston-042-1 7-015 (West Geographic Sub-
Area) was issued under the EPA Region 8 Contract No. EP-S8-13-01 on 23 March 2017 to
continue RSE activities at the Site. The performance period for this TDD ended on 17 August
2017. New TDD No. 0001/17-044 was issued by the EPA Emergency Management Branch (EMB)
under the EPA Region 6 START-4 Contract No. EP-S5-17-02 on 18 August 2017 to continue
START activities specifically for the Section 10 Mine Site. The period of performance for this
TDD is currently scheduled to end on 2 July 2023.
The activities conducted under the TO and TDDs are associated with abandoned uranium mines
(AUMs), including surrounding properties, and are part of an ongoing program to assess and
remediate Tronox -elated AUMs within the GMD, specifically those within the ALSD and outside
of Navajo lands. A Site Location Map is provided as Figure 1-1. A Site Area Map, provided as
Figure 1-2, presents an overview map of the different AUM GSAs in the ALSD and highlights the
Section 10 Mine area of interest. The purpose of this EE/CA is to present the available data
collected relative to the Site, describe the Removal Action Objectives (RAOs), describe the
removal alternatives available to address contamination at the Site to meet the RAOs, and provide
an analysis of the alternatives.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
ES-l
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Background and Site Description
In November 2014, the United States (U.S.) District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved a settlement agreement to resolve fraudulent conveyance claims against Kerr-McGee
Corporation and related subsidiaries of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. Among other
provisions, the settlement provides EPA funding for the assessment and cleanup of over fifty (54)
Tronox NAUM sites located in EPA Region 6 and EPA Region 9 jurisdictional areas. Twenty-one
of the 22 eligible mines are located within the ALSD; the other mine is located in the adjacent
Smith Lake Sub-District (SLSD). Of these 21 eligible mines within the ALSD, only 11 surface
operational areas are associated with these mines since several of the eligible mines operate
through a geographically central main shaft. All of these mining surface operational areas have
undergone some form of closure actions and removal of surface features. Some of these mines
were operated as "wet mines", where the underground workings were dewatered, and the collected
mine water was discharged to nearby surface drainage features such as creeks and arroyos. Little
environmental data currently exists on the Tronox NAUM Area Mines in general, or specifically,
regarding risks to the public health and/or the environment and/or any threat abatement actions
that may be necessary.
The EPA Region 6 Tronox NAUM Area comprises approximately 100 square miles within the
ALSD in McKinley County, New Mexico. The ALSD is located within the GMD, which is an area
of uranium mineralization occurrence approximately 100 miles long and 25 miles wide,
encompassing portions of McKinley, Cibola, Sandoval, and Bernalillo counties of New Mexico.
The Section 10 Mine Site is located in the ALSD approximately 20 miles north of Grants, Cibola
County, New Mexico, and 9 miles northwest of the intersection of New Mexico State Highways
509 and 605 (Figure 1-2).
The Section 10 Mine Site is composed of a former underground uranium mine that is located in
Section 10, Township 14 North, Range 10 West of the New Mexico Principal Baseline and
Meridian. The Site also includes related surface areas impacted by associated mining operations
from the Mine. The Section 10 Mine does not appear to have been a wet mine. Section 10 Mine
(Kermac Mine No. 10) drilling began in 1955 by Mid Continent and Dunn Bros, following claims
made by Stella Dysart at the ore body's eastern extent at the Dysart #1 Mine. Drilling continued
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
ES-2
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley Comity, New Mexico
until 1956 when Kerr-McGee (Kermac) obtained control of the property in 1956 and installed a
shaft (Holmquist, 1970). The mine went into production in 1957.
Kermac closed the mine in 1959 with plans for lessees Spahr and Allmon to take over operations.
Subsequent operations by the lessees closed again in 1962 before control reverted back to Stella
Dysart. Homestake-Sapin gained control in 1964 and shipped from protore stockpiles. By 1981,
Cobb Nuclear Corporation obtained mining claims over most of the southern half of Section 10,
which included the Section 10 Mine.
The Site is currently undeveloped, though livestock grazing occurs in many sections of the
Ambrosia Lake Valley. There are currently no residences in the former mining area of the Section
10 Mine Site, and it is highly unlikely that the property would be used for residential development
due to the remoteness of the area. Cattle ranching is likely to remain the future use of the site. A
rancher may be exposed to radiological contaminants through incidental ingestion of soil, external
radiation from contaminants, inhalation of fugitive dusts, and consumption of meat.
Section 10 Mine Site circa 1980
Nature and Extent of Contamination
The nature and extent of the contamination was defined through surface gamma scans and
subsurface soil sample collection. Based on the results of the risk assessment, the contaminant of
concern (COC) for the Section 10 Mine Site is radium-226 (Ra-226). Ra-226 is typically selected
as the radionuclide of interest at uranium mine sites for the following reasons: (a) it is found to be
a significant contributor of radiological risk to human health, (b) its decay products give off strong
gamma radiation that is easy and cost-effective to measure, (c) a cleanup standard is provided in
the State of New Mexico's Joint Guidance for the Cleanup and Reclamation of Existing Uranium
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
ES-3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley Comity, New Mexico
Mining Operations in New Mexico (NMEMNRD et al, March 2016), and (d) Ra-226 is the
radionuclide for which historical cleanup limits have been specified.
The total surface area exceeding the scanning-equivalent action level was established to be
20 acres. The total volume of soil exceeding the action level was determined to be 39,058 cubic
yards (CY), consisting of a surface area of approximately 20 acres at a 1 foot depth and a waste
stockpile volume of approximately 7,291 CY.
Table ES-1
Removal Volume Estimate
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Surface Area
Volume
Zone
Square
Feet
Acres
Cubic
Yards
1 ft. Excavation Area
857,700
20
31,767
Waste Pile (Aboveground)
NA
NA
7,291
TOTAL
857,700
20
39,058
Removal Action Objectives
The main objective of this removal action is to mitigate actual or potential risks to human health
and/or the environment posed by excess radiological on-site contamination, and to the extent
feasible, reclaim the entire Site for the projected future land use - livestock grazing. The scope of
the response action will be to address excess radiological contamination in soil greater than the
action level of 6.8 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) for Ra-226, which is inclusive of the Ra-226
background concentration (1.9 pCi/g) and represents an excess target cancer risk of 1.3xl0"4. The
response action is intended to be the final action for the surface and near-surface contaminated
soils/debris at the Site and to contribute to any potential remedial actions that may be contemplated
for the Site through source control.
Potential Removal Action Alternatives
The following removal action alternatives were considered as part of this EE/CA. Each of the
alternatives was evaluated against the criteria of effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
ES-4
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
• Alternative 1: No Further Action - included to satisfy the requirements of the National
Contingency Plan and to provide a basis for comparison of the remaining alternatives.
• Alternative 2: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Soils at a Licensed Low-
Level Radioactive Waste Facility - assumes that contaminated soils with concentrations of
Ra-226 greater than the action level would be excavated and disposed of off-site at a
licensed disposal facility permitted to receive the material. Three potential licensed
facilities that are authorized to accept low-level radioactive waste and/or naturally
occurring low-level radioactive soil with Ra-226 concentrations ranging from 2 pCi/g to
approximately 500 pCi/g were identified within the western United States.
• Alternative 3: Excavation, Consolidation, and Long-Term Management of the
Radiologically Contaminated Soils/Debris at an Above-Ground, On-Site Repository -
assumes that radiologically contaminated soils/debris with concentrations of Ra-226
greater than the action level would be excavated, consolidated, and managed in perpetuity
at a non-commercial, newly created repository located within the site boundary. The
repository would include an engineered cover of the consolidated contaminated soils.
• Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place - assumes that contaminated soils
with concentrations of Ra-226 greater than the action level would be capped in place using
an engineered cover.
Summary of Comparative Analysis
Alternative 1, No Further Action, does not meet removal action objectives or protectiveness
standards and therefore is not effective. Alternative 2, Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of
Contaminated Soils at a Licensed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facility, provides a high level of
long-term effectiveness; however, it has a medium level of short-term effectiveness since the
material would be transported off-site and hauled for long distances, increasing the risk of exposure
to the public and the environment. Alternative 3, Excavation, Consolidation and Long-Term
Management of the Radiologically Contaminated Soils/Debris at an Above-Ground On-Site
Repository, provides a medium level of long-term effectiveness to reduce the risk to humans and
the environment, while also providing a high level of short-term effectiveness, since none of the
material will need to be transported off-site. Although no permits are required for on-site action,
administrative feasibility for Alternative 3 is low due to the lack of a viable potential responsible
party (PRP) to conduct long-term operations and maintenance (O&M) of the repository.
Alternative 4, Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place, provides similar levels of short-term and
long-term effectiveness and low administrative feasibility as Alternative 3, also lacking a viable
potential responsible party (PRP) to conduct long-term O&M of the capped area.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
ES-5
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Although Alternatives 3 and 4 also share medium cost analysis rating, Alternative 3 is 37% more
cost-effective (i.e., less expensive) than Alternative 4. Alternative 2 is estimated to have a high
capital cost in comparison to Alternatives 3 and 4; therefore, although it is technically feasible,
Alternative 2 has a low-cost analysis rating. The excavation plan in Alternative 3 is straightforward
in nature, the repository design is based on industry standards, and nearby surface soils outside of
the contaminated area are readily available for the evapotranspiration cover; however, the
implementability of Alternative 3 is low due to the aforementioned administrative infeasibility
(lack of a PRP).
The technical implementability of Alternative 4 is considered medium due to the straightforward
nature of the capping plan and the evapotranspiration cover design based on industry standards;
however, the large volume of cap material would require the designation of a sizable off-site
borrow area. The administrative implementability of Alternative 4 would be low due to the
aforementioned administrative infeasibility and that subsurface contamination is not addressed by
the Multi-Agency Radiation Site Survey and Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), thus requiring a
unique, site-specific compliance plan.
Due to the non-effectiveness of Alternative 1 and the low implementability of Alternatives 3 and
4, Alternative 2 is identified as the recommended alternative.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
ES-6
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON®), the Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
(START) Contractor (EPA Team), was originally tasked by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 6 Prevention and Response Branch (PRB) under EP-W-06-042, Task Order
(TO) Number 0041 (West Geographic Sub-Area [GSA]) to conduct a Removal Site Evaluation
(RSE) and an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) at the Tronox Settlement Navajo
Area Uranium Mines (NAUM) Section 10 Mine Site (the Site) located in the Ambrosia Lake Sub-
District (ALSD) of the Grants Mining District (GMD), and northwest of San Mateo in McKinley
County, New Mexico (Figure 1-1). The Site was originally included within the West GSA;
however, because it has a different owner currently than the West GSA Mines, the Site was later
awarded a unique tasking document. The performance period for this task order ended on 22
March 2017. New Technical Direction Document (TDD) No. 0009/Weston-042-1 7-015 (West
Geographic Sub-Area) was issued under the EPA Region 8 Contract No. EP-S8-13-01 on 23
March 2017 to continue RSE activities at the Site. The performance period for this TDD ended on
17 August 2017. New TDD No. 0001/17-044 was issued by the EPA Emergency Management
Branch (EMB) under the EPA Region 6 START-4 Contract No. EP-S5-17-02 on 18 August 2017
to continue START activities specifically for the Section 10 Mine Site. The period of performance
for this TDD is currently scheduled to end on 14 August 2020. The Section 10 Mine-specific TDD
is provided in Appendix O. The Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) Identification
Number assigned to the Site is NMN000605371. This EE/CA will describe and summarize work
performed in support of the RSE and EE/CA field efforts and present alternative removal actions
and their evaluation to be completed as part of a Non Time-Critical Removal Action (NTCRA) at
the Site.
The activities conducted under the TO and TDDs are associated with abandoned uranium mines
(AUMs), including surrounding properties, and are part of an ongoing program to assess and
remediate Tronox-related AUMs within the GMD, specifically those within the ALSD and outside
of Navajo lands. A Site Area Map, provided as Figure 1-2, presents an overview map of the
different AUM GSAs in the ALSD and highlights the Section 10 Mine area of interest.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
l-i
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this EE/CA is to present the available data collected relative to the Site, describe
the Removal Action Objectives (RAOs), describe the removal alternatives available to address
contamination at the Site to meet the RAOs, and provide an analysis of the alternatives. This
EE/CA was conducted following the basic methodology outlined in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) §300.415 and further discussed in the EE/CA guidance (EPA, 1993). The
report is compiled in accordance with the guidance and standards established under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
guidance issued by the EPA, specifically Guidance for Conducting Non Time- Critical Removal
Actions (EPA/540-R-93-057, 1993); and A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates
During the Feasibility Study (EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response [OSWER]
9355.0-75; July 2000). The report is divided into seven sections as described below.
• Section 1: Introduction - Provides background information, summarizes the findings of
previous investigations and reports, summarizes the nature and extent of contamination,
and presents the results of human health and ecological risk assessments.
• Section 2: Removal Action Objectives - Presents the RAOs, identifies the surface area and
volumes of contaminated media, and discusses the removal action schedule.
• Section 3: Removal Action Alternatives - Lists applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and identifies and describes alternatives to address the removal
action goals.
• Section 4: Analysis of Alternatives - Provides an individual analysis of the alternatives
using EPA evaluation criteria.
• Section 5: Comparative Analysis of Removal Action Alternatives - Comparatively
analyzes the removal action alternatives.
• Section 6: Recommended Alternative - Based on comparative analysis, recommends one
alternative from the listed removal action alternatives.
• Section 7: References - Lists the references used in the development of this report.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The EPA Region 6 Tronox NAUM Area comprises approximately 100 square miles within the
center of the Ambrosia Lake Sub-District (ALSD) of the Grants Mining District (GMD) in
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-2
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
McKinley County, New Mexico. The following sections provide overviews of the GMD and
ALSD before providing a Site-specific description and background of the Section 10 Mine.
1.2.1 Grants Mining District
New Mexico has the second-largest identified uranium ore reserves of any state in the United
States after Wyoming (McLemore, 2007). Almost all of its uranium is found in the GMD (formerly
and occasionally still referred to by various entities as the Grants Mineral Belt [GMB]), an area
of uranium mineralization occurrence approximately 100 miles long and 25 miles wide
encompassing portions of McKinley, Cibola, Sandoval, and Bernalillo counties in the northwest
part of New Mexico. The GMD includes the Laguna and Marquez geographic sub-districts that
are wholly within EPA Region 6 jurisdiction and the ALSD that has shared EPA Region 6 and 9
jurisdictions. A Site Location Map is provided as Figure 1-1.
The GMD (hereafter to mean only those sub-districts wholly within EPA Region 6 jurisdiction or
the ALSD-shared jurisdiction areas) is within the Navajo and Datil sections of the Colorado
Plateau physiographic province. Characteristic land features include rugged mountains, broad flat
valleys, mesas, cuestas, rock terraces, steep escarpments, canyons, lava flows, volcanic cones,
buttes, and arroyos (EPA, 1975). The Continental Divide extends through the northwest corner of
the GMD. Thus, lying east of the Divide, streams and rivers in the GMD eventually flow into the
Rio Grande, one of the principal rivers of the western United States that runs through the length
of central New Mexico approximately 70 miles east of the center of the GMD. Nearly all of the
streams in the GMD are intermittent and flow only during periods of heavy precipitation (same).
The uranium ores in the GMD are found in the northward dipping limestone and sandstones that
were tilted as a result of the Zuni Uplift, which produced the Zuni Mountains that lie south and
generally parallel to the trend of the mineralized zone (Holmquist, 1970). The majority of the
uranium deposits in the GMD are in sandstone formations (McLemore, 2007). The first large
sandstone uranium deposit to be discovered in the GMD was found by Anaconda Company in the
early 1950's using aerial prospecting on the Laguna Reservation about 32 miles east of Grants,
New Mexico and about 8 miles north of Highway 66. This discovery, the Jackpile deposit,
probably influenced other large companies to investigate the Grants area for important deposits of
uranium (same).
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Upon the commercial discovery of uranium in New Mexico in 1950, the GMD was henceforth the
primary focus of uranium extraction and production activities in New Mexico from the 1950s until
the late 1990s. Several different companies moved into the region in the 1950s, particularly oil
companies. They included Anaconda Company, Phillips Petroleum Company, Rio de Oro
Uranium Mines, Inc., Kermac Nuclear Fuels Corporation (a cooperative of Kerr-McGee Oil
Industries, Anderson Development Corporation, and Pacific Uranium Mines, Inc.), Homestake
Mining Company, Sabre-Pinion Corporation, United Western Minerals Company, J. H. Whitney
and Company, White Weld & Co., San Jacinto Petroleum Corporation, Lisbon Uranium
Corporation, and Superior Oil Company (McLemore, 2007; TIME, 1957). Five uranium mills,
shown on Figure 1-1, operated in the GMD to process the ore into triuranium octoxide (U3O8),
commonly referred to as "yellowcake". Four of the mills were in the ALSD and one was located
in the Laguna Sub-District.
No uranium ore has been actively mined in the GMD since 1998, although Rio Algom continued
to recover uranium dissolved in water from its flooded underground mine workings in Ambrosia
Lake until 2002. The Navajo Nation, whose reservation contains much of the known ore deposits,
declared a moratorium on uranium mining in 2005 (McLemore, 2007).
The GMD contains 97 legacy uranium mines and five former uranium mill and tailing disposal
sites that were active during the Atomic Energy Commission uranium purchase years (1940s-
1970) and beyond until the 1990s. Over 52 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from these
mines, constituting approximately 68% of the total uranium ore mined in the United States (EPA,
2015a). In the GMD alone, over 300 mining permits were issued by the State of New Mexico on
lands consisting of public, tribal, and private property for mine exploration and mining operations.
The extraction of uranium-bearing ore occurred through open pits, from underground workings
that were extensively connected, and solution mining (same).
The State of New Mexico has specifically identified that the 97 legacy uranium mines require
assessment and possible cleanup. The mines had reportable ore production and surface expression
post mining (i.e., waste rock piles, vents/shafts, physical remnants, etc.) (same).
The EPA has identified four (4) categories with respect to entities that should be responsible for
addressing the legacy mines and operational impacts within the GMD.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-4
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
• Mines associated with Jackpile National Priorities List (NPL) Site (Laguna Sub-District).
• Mines covered by the Tronox settlement (ALSD).
• Mines with potential responsible parties (PRP).
• Mines without responsible parties (orphans).
Additionally, the Homestake Mining Mill NPL Site is located within the GMD near Milan, New
Mexico.
The Jackpile-Paguate mines (Figure 1-1) are located in the Laguna Sub-District on the Pueblo of
Laguna. The whole mine area was added to the NPL in December 2013 and will be addressed by
the EPA's Remedial Program. As stated previously, the EPA Region 6 Tronox NAUM Area lies
within ALSD. A description of the ALSD follows immediately below.
The progress of assessment and cleanup efforts of uranium mines, mills, residential areas, and
water supply sources throughout the GMD is tracked by EPA via 5-year plans located on the EPA
website at https://www.epa.gov/grants-mining-district/draft-2015-2020-grants-mining-district-
five-vear-plan.
1.2.2 Ambrosia Lake Sub-District
The ALSD is the largest of the sub-districts within the GMD, comprising approximately 760
square miles and stretching from Interstate Highway 40 to the south, New Mexico state highway
371 from Thoreau to Crownpoint to the west, a line 25 miles north of the Cibola County/ McKinley
County border to the north, and the western portion of the Cibola National Forest and
approximately 16 miles west of the McKinley County/Sandoval County border to the east (Figure
1-2). As referenced above, federal removal jurisdiction is held jointly within the ALSD by EPA
Regions 6 and 9. The western one-third of the ALSD is Navajo Nation (R9) or mixed ownership
and the remainder is private land under EPA Region 6 jurisdiction. The eastern half of the ALSD
lies almost wholly within the San Mateo Creek Watershed Basin.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-5
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Geology and Hydrogeology
The ALSD is located in the southeast corner of the Navajo section of the Colorado Plateau
physiographic province. The geology is characterized by elongated domal uplifts, monoclines, and
broad structural platforms. The majority of the regional structure formed during late Cretaceous to
early the Tertiary period (Hilpert, 1963) and was probably accompanied by east-west directed
tension that produced north- and northwest-trending faults and joints (Santos, 1970). Uranium
deposits within the ALSD occur at several stratigraphic levels within the Westwater Canyon
Member of the Jurassic Morrison Formation.
The following description of the lithology and hydrology of Ambrosia Lake was taken from a 1977
report by the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory on the geology and hydrology of Ambrosia Lake
(Purtymun et al, 1977). The description follows the order of oldest to youngest formation, i.e.,
rocks of the Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods. Figure 1-3 illustrates the rock
formations of the ALSD. Figure 1-4 illustrates the major fault zones of the ALSD.
Rocks of Permian age are the Glorieta Sandstone and the overlying San Andres Limestone. The
Glorieta Sandstone is about 16 meters thick and the San Andres Limestone is about 34 meters in
thickness.
The rocks of the Triassic period are the Chinle Formation and the overlying Wingate Sandstone.
The lower part of the Chinle Formation is a silty sandstone; the middle part is a hard sandstone;
and the upper part is siltstone and mudstone. The Chinle Formation is about 443 meters thick. The
Wingate Sandstone is a cross-bedded sandstone with a regional thickness of about 18 meters.
Rocks of the Jurassic period overlying the Wingate Sandstone are the San Rafael Group and the
Morrison Formation. The San Rafael Group is composed of four members which in ascending
order, are the Entrada Sandstone, the Todilto Limestone, the Summerville Formation, and the Bluff
Sandstone. The Entrada Sandstone is about 30 to 40 meters thick. The Todilto Limestone thickness
ranges from 9 to 13 meters. Overlying the Todilto Formation is the Summerville Formation, a fine-
grained sandstone with a thickness of approximately 100 meters. The uppermost member of the
San Rafael Group is the Bluff Sandstone, whose thickness ranges from 30 to about 90 meters.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-6
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
The Morrison Formation, also of the Jurassic period, is composed of three members which, in
ascending order, are the Recapture Member, the Westwater Canyon Member and uppermost
Brushy Basin Member. The Recapture Member is a siltstone with a thickness from 29 to about 45
meters. The Westwater Canyon Member is a fine- to coarse-grained, poorly sorted sandstone. The
sandstone is cross-bedded and locally contains conglomerate lenses as well as clay chert pebbles
and inclusions of petrified wood fragments. The Westwater Canyon Member, whose thickness
ranges from 44 to about 60 meters, contains extensive deposits of uranium and vanadium ores at
several stratigraphic levels. Most of the uranium ores exist in the form of the minerals coffinite
(USi04) and uraninite (UO2) (Thomson, undated). It also contains trace amounts of molybdenum,
iron, and various other metals (Kerr-McGee, undated) and is also the principal aquifer of the
ALSD. The uppermost Brushy Basin Member is a mudstone with thicknesses from 29 to 52 meters.
Rocks of the Cretaceous period are, in ascending order, the Dakota Sandstone, Mancos Shale, and
Crevasse Canyon Formation. The Dakota Sandstone thickness ranges from 18 to 24 meters and
outcrops along the southwestern edge of Ambrosia Lake. The overlying Mancos Shale forms the
floor of the Ambrosia Lake Valley and, in places, is covered by a thin veneer of alluvium. The
Mancos Shale is a thick lithologic unit composed of calcareous, fissile clay of marine origin.
Interbedded with the shale are three sandstone beds, the Tres Hermanos, each generally less than
9 meters thick. The upper surface of the shale is cut away by erosion, with thicknesses ranging
from 52 to 158 meters. East of the San Mateo Fault (Figure 1-4), the shale is about 310 meters
thick on the downthrown side of the fault. The overlying Crevasse Canyon Formation is composed
of shale, clay stone, siltstone, minor seams of coal, and tan sandstone. The Formation outcrops in
the northeastern part of Ambrosia Lake. Quaternary alluvium occurs along the Arroyo del Puerto
and in low areas and depressions in the valley. The alluvium is derived from the Crevasse Canyon
Formation and the Mancos Shale and is composed of silts, sands, gravels, and a few cobbles and
boulders of sandstone. The alluvium may, in part, be worked by water and, in places, consists of
wind-laid sand. The thickness ranges from a veneer to as much as 30 meters.
Overall, the Ambrosia Lake Valley is underlain by sedimentary rocks to depths greater than 1000
meters. These rocks are part of the structural element known as the Chaco Slope, a part of the
southern extension of the San Juan Basin. The highlands south of the Chaco Slope, the Zuni uplift,
have flexed the sedimentary rocks so that the general regional dip of these units is northward and
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-7
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
north-eastward across the Chaco Slope into the San Juan Basin. There is little, if any, structure in
the southern part of the Ambrosia Lake Valley except the general dip of the sedimentary beds to
the northeast at 1 to 3 degrees. The older rocks (Dakota Sandstone) outcrop on the southwestern
edge of the area, while the younger rocks (Crevasse Canyon Formation) outcrop to the northeast.
Two closely spaced, north-south trending normal faults in the central part of the area are
downthrown to the east. The largest fault, the San Mateo Fault, occurs along the eastern edge of
the area and is downthrown to the east about 150 meters.
Major drainage through the Ambrosia Lake Valley is the southeastern trending Arroyo del Puerto
that is a tributary of San Mateo Creek. The flow in Arroyo del Puerto is ephemeral but became a
perennial stream during the release of water pumped from the uranium mines in the area. The flow
extends to San Mateo Creek where it is lost to evaporation and infiltration into the underlying
rocks (Purtymun et al, 1977). The gradient on Arroyo del Puerto is low and the arroyo tends to
meander; thus, large areas of marsh grasses, sedges, and cattails occur along the channel.
Evapotranspiration reduces a large percentage of the flow during the summer months. Stream flow
losses into the Mancos Shale are probably quite small; however, losses are greater where the
channel is cut on sandstone units of the Mancos Shale or the Dakota Sandstone near the southern
border of the area. Minor amounts of recharge to these sandstones occur from stream flow into the
arroyo.
The principal aquifers in the GMD are the Glorieta Sandstone and San Andres Limestone of
Permian age, the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation of the late Jurassic
period, the Dakota Sandstone of the Cretaceous period and alluvium and basalt of the Quaternary
period (John and West, 1963). The Westwater Canyon Member furnishes most of the water supply
in the ALSD. Contamination of regional private wells with uranium mining-related constituents
above drinking water standards has been documented (EPA, 2015a). Shallow alluvial aquifers are
also contaminated with uranium mining-related constituents (same; NMHED, 1986). Water from
the Westwater Canyon Member was pumped out to access the uranium for many mines in the
ALSD.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-8
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Mining Practices
The following description of mining practices in the ALSD was taken from "An Overview of the
Uranium Industry" (NMEMD, 1979) and from "Uranium Mining and Processing" (Kerr-McGee,
undated). The uranium mines in the ALSD were conventional underground mines. A diagram of
a typical underground uranium mine operated by Kerr-McGee Corporation in the ALSD is
provided as Figure 1-5. Mine operations included vertical mine shafts sunk to the appropriate ore
depth and a station with ancillary drifts, pockets, trenches, and sumps. Shafts were typically around
15 feet in diameter and concrete-lined, with hoisting compartments through skips to bring ore and
waste rock to the surface and for the conveyance of miners and materials. Groundwater flowed to
the shaft and down to a collecting sump at the bottom of the shaft where it was pumped to the
surface.
Aboveground, the main pad area might include main and auxiliary buildings, a shaft-area pad with
a head frame up to 100-feet high, oil and fuel storage, a power facilities area, a concrete batch
plant, an ore storage pad, a materials storage yard, and a powder magazine. The main building
contained the hoist room, warehouse, maintenance shops, and administrative offices.
Mine development included horizontal drifts driven outward from the shaft and beneath the
elevation of the ore zones. The drifts were approximately 9 feet wide by 9 feet high and were
supported by rock bolts, wood and/or steel sets. Haulage drifts generally paralleled the long axes
of the ore bodies. Short drifts, called crosscuts, were driven as normal to the haulage drift as
required to reach the extremities of the ore bodies. As drifts extended further from the shaft,
ventilation holes of 36 to 72 inches in diameter were drilled to maintain air quality, typically
functioning as exhaust while the main shaft functioned as the fresh air intake. The ore bodies were
outlined by longhole drilling, which were probed to determine the location of the ore and to
dewater the ore bodies.
Extraction, "stoping", of an ore body began once development was complete. Generally, there
were three stoping methods employed: open stopes, room and pillar stopes, and square set stopes.
The selection for each ore body depended on the stability of the ground and the size and shape of
the ore body. Once mined, drifts were typically backfilled, sometimes with mill tailings to prevent
collapse.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-9
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Mine water re-circulation, sometimes referred to as in-situ stope leaching or solution mining, was
commonly performed to ALSD mines (NMEMD, 1979). The process is described as follows: In
the early years of mining, when retreat began from a worked-out area, the roof collapsed, making
it difficult to continue ore recovery using traditional techniques. To further increase recovery, mine
owners drilled holes to the top of the collapsed zone and sprayed water through these holes onto
the low-grade shattered ore. Mine water is slightly alkaline, and a small amount of leaching occurs
as the water runs through the shattered zone into collection sumps. The enriched water was then
pumped to ion exchange plants where the uranium was removed from the water. The water was
then returned for further leaching. After a period of time, no further leaching can occur. The
shattered zone was then allowed to "sit" until further oxidation of the ore occurred through natural
processes, usually about two weeks (same).
Mine-related wastes from the uranium mines commonly consist of low-grade ore of insufficient
quality to process economically, overburden (waste rock) that was removed to access high-grade
ore, or residuals from mine dewatering activities. Most of the mines in the ALSD conducted
extensive dewatering to access ore below the water table. Most effluent from dewatering received
little or no treatment before discharge to the ground or surface drainages during the majority of the
mine operational period, causing perennial stream flows in major drainages that were otherwise
ephemeral. Treatment of pre-discharge mine waters to extract uranium (ion exchange plants) and
Ra-226 (settling ponds with bioremediation) was incorporated into most mine operations
beginning in the 1970s. Other environmental impacts may have been caused by erosion and
leaching of mine waste materials, some of which were deposited into arroyos where they remain
today, and by the reported operation of on-site heap-leach and stope-leaching operations.
Additionally, the mine water effluent infiltrated and recharged the shallow alluvium directly or through
impoundment infiltration and overflow. From 30 years of mining operations, approximately 80 billion
gallons of mine water was extracted from the subsurface and discharged to surface drainages, the
majority being discharged into the San Mateo Creek Basin (EPA, 2015a). The effluent discharges may
impact regional bedrock drinking water aquifers and shallow alluvial aquifers. These aquifers are
accessed by scattered private residences and nearby municipal or community water supply systems.
Moreover, extensive dewatering of underground workings during mine operations created a regionally
extensive cone of depression into which oxygenated groundwater currently is flowing. The oxygenated
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-10
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
groundwater may dissolve and mobilize unmined uranium and associated constituents within the
aquifers (same).
Most of the uranium mine sites in the ALSD have undergone some form of surface reclamation,
although some mines still have physical hazards such as open adits, vent holes, and shafts, as well
as uncontrolled waste rock and ore piles on-site. Some reclamations occurred prior to the New
Mexico Mining Act of 1993 and all occurred prior to the promulgation of uranium mine cleanup
and reclamation guidelines by the state of New Mexico in 2016, which specifies a limit of 5.0
pCi/g Ra-226, averaged over the first 15 centimeters of soil below the surface, averaged over any
area of 100 square meters.
Four uranium mills operated in the ALSD (Figure 1-2). Milling activities occurred at the Phillips
Petroleum Mill from 1958 to 1982, at the Homestake Mill from 1957 to 1990, at the Anaconda-
Bluewater Mill from 1953 to 1982, and at the Rio Algom Mill from 1958 to 2002 (EPA, 2015a).
The Department of Energy (DOE), with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) oversight, is
responsible for long-term surveillance and maintenance duties at the Phillips Petroleum and
Anaconda-Bluewater Mills. The NRC, in coordination with the EPA and the New Mexico
Environment Department (NMED), currently regulates ongoing remedial activities at the
Homestake Mill Superfund site. The NRC also oversees reclamation in coordination with the
NMED at the Rio Algom Mill (same).
Mine Sites in the ALSD
In November 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
approved a settlement agreement to resolve fraudulent conveyance claims against Kerr-McGee
Corporation and related subsidiaries of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation. Settlement proceeds
were distributed in January 2015, and the EPA received funding for the assessment and subsequent
cleanup of over fifty Tronox NAUM sites located in both EPA Region 6 and EPA Region 9
jurisdictional areas.
Twenty-two legacy uranium mine operations are eligible for Litigation Trust funding in the EPA
Region 6 Tronox NAUM. Twenty-one of the 22 eligible mines are located within the ALSD, the
other mine is located in the adjacent Smith Lake Sub-District (SLSD). Of the 21 eligible mines
within the ALSD, only 11 surface operational areas are associated with these mines due to several
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-11
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
of the eligible mines being operated through a geographically central main shaft. All of these mines
have undergone some form of closure operations and removal of operational surface features.
Some of these mines were operated as "wet mines," where the underground workings were
dewatered, and the collected mine water discharged to nearby surface drainage features such as
creeks and arroyos. Little environmental data currently exists on the Tronox NAUM in general, or
specifically, regarding risks to public health, the environment and/or any threat abatement actions
that may be necessary. EPA Region 6 has been tasked to obtain the data required to evaluate the
risks posed by these legacy mine sites and conduct appropriate risk abatement activities.
The Tronox NAUM Area within the ALSD is divided into two stand-alone mine Sites, the Section
10 and Spencer (U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management [BLM]- led)
Mines, and three geographic sub-areas (GSAs), and the East (Sections 35 and 36 Mines), Central
(mines east of State Highway 509; Sections 17, 19, 30, and 33 Mines), and West (Sections 22, 24,
and 30W Mines) GSAs (Figure 1-2). The Tronox Sections 32 and 33 Mines site is located in the
SLSD (note that although the Site is located technically within the ALSD of the GMD, EPA
considers it more closely aligned with the SLSD and will therefore be considered within the SLSD
for the purposes of this EE/CA report). As more information is gathered about orphan mines and
mines with PRPs, further GSAs may be identified.
Land ownership within the Tronox NAUM Area varies predominantly by geographic section; that
is, the vast majority of the geographic sections have one landowner. The majority of land in each
of the areas referenced above is privately owned, with the East GSA also including lands owned
by the State of New Mexico, the Central GSA also including lands owned by the BLM, and the
BLM and the Spencer Mine also being located on land owned by the BLM. The Sections 32 and
33 Mines also include land owned by the Navajo Nation. Ownership of the Tronox NAUM Area
and surrounding lands is illustrated on Figure 1-6.
In addition to the Tronox sites, other mines sites in the ALSD include the Ann Lee Uranium Mine,
the John Bully Uranium Mine, the Sandstone Uranium Mine, and the Homestake-New Mexico
Partners Uranium Mine (Figure 1-2). The PRP for the Ann Lee, John Bully and the Sandstone
mines is United Nuclear, while Homestake Mining Company is the PRP for its namesake mine.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-12
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
The Section 10 Mine is the subject of this EE/CA; activities associated with the East, Central and
West GSAs as well as the Sections 32 and 33 Mines will be reported under separate EE/CAs.
1.2.3 Site Location
The Section 10 Mine Site is located in the ALSD approximately 20 miles north of Grants, Cibola
County, New Mexico, and 9 miles northwest of the intersection of New Mexico State Highways
509 and 605 (Figure 1-2). The Site area is shown on the Ambrosia Lake quadrangle United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Topographical Map. The Site is composed of a former underground
uranium mine that is located in Section 10, Township 14 North, Range 10 West of the New Mexico
Principal Baseline and Meridian. The Site also includes related surface areas impacted by
associated mining operations from the mine. A Site Layout Map is provided as Figure 1-7.
The Site area lies approximately 7,130 to 7,150 feet in elevation above mean sea level. It is located
immediately 1.5 miles east of Pistol Butte and 0.5 miles north of Loma de la Gloria. The Site
occurs within the Semiarid Tablelands ecoregion, which is characterized by dry plains, mesas,
valleys, and canyons formed from sedimentary rocks.
The Site is accessed through an un-named road west of New Mexico State Highway 509. The
road is in generally good condition but can become very muddy and rutted after rain or snow.
The Site is currently undeveloped, though livestock grazing occurs there. There are currently no
residences on the Site, and it is unlikely that the property would be used for residential
development due to the remoteness of the area.
1.2.4 Operational Status
Section 10 Mine (Kermac Mine No. 10) drilling began in 1955 by Mid Continent and Dunn Bros
following claims made by Stella Dysart at the ore body's eastern extent at the Dysart #1 Mine.
Drilling continued until 1956 when Kerr-McGee (Kermac) obtained control of the property in
1956 and installed a shaft (Holmquist, 1970).
The Section 10 Mine was reported by Holmquist to be 510-feet deep (Holmquist, 1970) and by
Anderson to be 520-feet deep (Anderson, 1981). The Site consists of a tri-compartment, vertical
shaft and headframe with an approximately 6-foot high, 36-inch wide vent shaft located 300 feet
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-13
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
east-northeast of the shaft. The mine went into production in 1957 and produced uranium ore from
a cluster of deposits in the upper sands of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison
Formation (Holmquist, 1970). Although, as noted previously, the Westwater Canyon Member
furnishes most of the water supply in the ALSD, the Section 10 Westwater Canyon Formation is
on the up-dip side on the east side of Ambrosia Lake; therefore, the Section 10 Mine does not
appear to have been a wet mine. Relatedly, no evidence was uncovered regarding the presence of
an ion exchange plant or settling ponds associated with the Site.
Kermac closed the mine in 1959 with plans for lessees Spahr and Allmon to take over operations.
Subsequent operations by the lessees drove an incline below the former bottom mine level and
discovered higher grade ore (.23%) than that discovered by Kermac (0.05%). The mine closed
again in 1962 before control reverted back to Stella Dysart. Homestake-Sapin gained control in
1964 and shipped from protore stockpiles. A total of 130,767 tons of 0.20% ore was produced
(Holmquist, 1970).
By 1981, Cobb Nuclear Corporation obtained mining claims over most of the southern half of
Section 10 which included the Section 10 Mine (Anderson, 1981). Plans were made to reopen the
mine if market conditions became favorable, but operations have not resumed as of the date of this
report. A June 2017 investigation of the Section 10 Mine as part of the RSE determined that the
total shaft has been altered to an approximate 291-foot depth either due to mine shaft collapse,
backfill, or other unknown activities. See section 1.4.2.5 for additional details about the June 2017
investigation.
For the Section 10 Mine, EPA was unable to determine precise locations where mine ore was
staged prior to milling. Ore from the mines was milled at the Rio Algom Uranium Mill (Figure 1-
2).
1.2.5 Structures, Topography, and Vegetation
The Section 10 Mine site has not undergone reclamation (i.e., under the New Mexico Mining Act
of 1993, whose release standard reads, "thepermit area will be reclaimed to a condition that allows
for re-establishment of a self-containing ecosystem appropriate for the life of the surrounding
areas following closure unless conflicting with the approved post-mining land use"). The
buildings and all aboveground structures except the head frame have been removed, but the shaft
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-14
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
remains open. The open mine shaft is surrounded by a chain-link fence. Other features remaining
at the site include concrete slabs, piles of material presumed to be sub-economic ore (waste pile),
metal debris, two cattle ponds, and a vent hole with a 36-inch diameter steel casing (Figure 1-7).
The vent hole is covered with a steel plate that is not attached to the casing.
The Section 10 Mine Site occupies approximately 70 acres and lies approximately 6,920 to 7,200
feet in elevation above mean sea level. It is located east of Little Haystack Mountain and southwest
of San Mateo Mesa. The site area occurs within the Semiarid Tablelands ecoregion, which is
characterized by dry plains, mesas, valleys, and canyons formed from sedimentary rocks. It
supports arid and semi-arid grasslands, shrub/scrub zones, savannas, and woodlands. A detailed
description of site vegetation is presented in The Natural Resources Evaluation (January 2017)
performed by Marron and Associates (Marron) and is provided as Appendix A. The Natural
Resources Evaluation was conducted during the time that the Section 10 Mine Site was part of the
West GSA; therefore, the Evaluation covers the entirety of the West GSA and is not specific to
just the Site.
As discussed by Marron, the Site is located within primarily Desert Grassland and Great Basin
Desert Scrub vegetation communities. The grassland community most closely resembles the
Plains-Mesa Grassland community in structural components. In total, 104 species representing 34
families of vascular plants were identified on the West GSA Site, representing seven distinct
natural plant communities: Plains Mesa Grassland, Shrubby Grassland, Great Basin Desert Scrub,
Juniper Savannah, Coniferous Woodland, Arroyo Riparian, and Disclimax. Specific to Section 10,
Plains-Mesa Grassland is the largest plant community, supported over 40% absolute vegetation
cover, and was heavily dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and galleta (Pleurapis
jamesii). Great Basin Scrub communities, dominated by rabbitbrush, blue gramma, and galleta,
and the Arroyo Riparian community, consisting of vegetation within waterway channels and
dominated by rabbitbrush and western wheat grass, also occur within Section 10.
1.2.6 Geology, Hydrogeology, and Soils
The geology and hydrology of Section 10 was covered previously in Section 1.2.2 ALSD;
however, there is no surface expression of the Permian or Triassic periods formations in Section
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-15
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
10 and mining activities were not conducted in these formations. A geologic map of the mine
vicinity is provided as Figure 1-8.
Soils at the study area consist of the following U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2016) map units listed by highest percent occurrence in
the study area: Sparank-San Mateo-Zia complex, 0-to-3% slopes (soil unit: 230); Marianolake-
Skyvillage complex, l-to-8% slopes (soil unit: 210); Uranium Mined Lands (Soil unit 265); and
the Querencia-Lavodnas association, 2-to-15% slopes. The study area soils are expected to be
comprised of sandy loam and silty clay loam surface textures, according to NRCS mapping. They
are generally well drained, not hydric, or slightly hydric, moderately susceptible to wind and water
erosion, and occur more than 200 centimeters from groundwater depth. For additional details about
Site soils, refer to Appendix A Natural Resources Evaluation Report. A Site Soils Map is provided
as Figure 1-9.
1.2.7 Hydrologic Setting
The Site is within the San Mateo Creek local watershed and in the Rio San Jose 8-digit Hydrologic
Unit Code 13020207, which occurs in the larger Middle Rio Grande drainage basin. Surface water
drainage flow from the Section 10 Mine occurs to the north through sheet flow to Martin Draw
(Figure 1-10). Martin Draw flows generally to the southeast into the Arroyo del Puerto. The
Arroyo del Puerto flows into San Mateo Creek approximately 9 miles south-southeast of the Site.
Martin Draw, the Arroyo del Puerto, and San Mateo Creek are intermittent streams in the vicinity
of the Mines.
1.2.8 Surrounding Land Use and Population
McKinley County, New Mexico has a total land area of approximately 5,455 square miles and a
population of 71,492 (2010 US Census; American Fact Finder, factfinder2.census.gov). The
closest community to the Site is San Mateo (Cibola County), which has a population of 161. The
Census Tracts immediately surrounding the Site (Census Tract 9440 and 9460) have populations
of 2,186 and 5,677 persons, respectively, with the majority of the population occurring on the
Navajo Nation.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-16
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
There are currently no residences located on or near the Site. The nearest residences are located in
Section 18 of T14N, R9W, approximately 3 miles east-southeast of the Site, and in Section 34 of
T14N, R10W, approximately 3.7 miles south of the Site.
Many sections of the Ambrosia Lake Valley are used for livestock grazing and cattle were noted
in Section 10. Hunting activities are popular in the area. Although public access to the Site is
moderately restricted through perimeter barbed wire fencing and locked gates, trespass hunting
activities are possible. It is presumed that hunting likely occurs on the Site, both with and without
permission.
1.2.9 Historical/Cultural Resources
In consideration of future corrective actions at the Site, a cultural resources survey was conducted
to meet the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A team of
archaeologists conducted the survey over the Site between 10 October 2016 and 03 November
2016. The Cultural Resources Survey Report is provided as Appendix B. The survey included all
areas that were shown to be contaminated above the action level (discussed in Section 2.2.1), plus
an additional 50-foot buffer zone around the contaminated area.
The Cultural Resource Survey Report has been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and the Trust Archeologist in the State Land Office (SLO) for review. EPA will also
extend an invitation for consultation to the Tribes that have identified an interest to the NM SHPO
in potential consultation on federal undertakings in McKinley County, New Mexico. Any further
actions required by the SHPO, the SLO, or from tribal consultation will be considered during final
alternative selection and included in final alternative design. A Cultural Resources Protection Plan
will be developed prior to the initiation of removal activities and will include protections for
historical/cultural resources documented during the survey, as applicable. The plan will include
mitigation requirements determined by the stakeholders, including the SHPO and Tribes. Removal
activities will be scheduled to provide adequate time to institute the mitigation activities to avoid
any disturbance to the Sites visually identified until clearance is provided to the EPA.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
1.2.10 Sensitive Ecosystems and Wildlife
As mentioned in Section 1.2.3, a natural resource survey was performed to identify protected
species and general wildlife habitat, and general vegetation and vegetative community types for
the Site area (Appendix A). Information gained during the survey was used during the completion
of an Ecological Risk Assessment (Section 1.5.3). Marron conducted the survey within the Site
boundary in September 2016 and October 2016. The Evaluation was conducted during the time
that the Section 10 Mine Site was part of the West GSA; therefore, the Evaluation covers the
entirety of the West GSA and is not specific to just the Site. The Site boundary, as outlined in
Section 2.3, was adjusted to include the extent of contamination based on the action level discussed
in Section 2.2.1.
At least 36 bird species and 11 mammal species, or signs of them, were either observed at the West
GSA site. Five reptiles were observed at the site. No amphibians were observed, but at least two
were expected. No designated or proposed critical habitat occurs within the site.
Overall, birds were not present in abundance, though it is expected that many more species would
be present during the spring migration and breeding season. A possible reason for the low number
of birds was lack of vertical structure, as there is hardly any vegetation present above knee height.
Common bird species included scaled quail, roadrunner, horned larks, vesper sparrow, western
meadowlark, chipping sparrow, Brewer's sparrow, wintering white-crowned sparrow, dark-eyed
junco, loggerhead shrike, golden eagle, northern harrier, western burrowing owl, American kestrel,
and prairie falcon. Red-tailed hawks were not observed but are most likely present on the Site.
The American kestrel, prairie falcon, and northern harrier are likely flyovers, as no suitable nesting
habitat for these species is present on Site.
Several big game and common wildlife species or their signs were observed including elk, mule
deer, mountain lion, and coyote. Neither bobcat, gray fox, nor their signs were observed but are
expected to be present on the Site. Burrowing mammals, such as the banner-tailed kangaroo rat,
Gunnerson's prairie dog, Ord's kangaroo rat, Botta's pocket gopher, cottontail rabbit, and the
black-tailed jackrabbit, or their signs, were observed on Site. Burrowing wildlife would be
affected adversely to varying degrees by the removal of vegetation and a 1-foot layer of soil during
a removal action.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Six species of reptiles were observed during the Evaluation. Most common were the plateau striped
whiptail and the southwestern lizard. There were no amphibians present during the survey.
An Environmental Protection Plan will be developed prior to the initiation of removal activities
and will identify sensitive ecological habitats and species documented during the survey. Removal
activities may be scheduled to avoid certain critical periods of the year such as nesting or breeding
seasons. The areas of concern will be visually identified to avoid any disturbance until clearance
is provided to the EPA.
1.2.11 Regional Climate
Climate at the Site can be described as semi-arid although the mountainous terrain results in a large
variation of temperature and precipitation. Monthly climate data is available for the period from 1
April 1918 to 29 February 1988 from a meteorological data station (#297918) at San Mateo, New
Mexico. Winter temperatures range from 16 °F to 63 °F, averaging 49 °F during the day. Summer
temperatures range between 31 °F to 83 °F (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC], 2015),
averaging 75 °F during the day.
There is considerable variation in monthly precipitation totals although most of the precipitation
in the Site area occurs during late summer thunderstorms. Monthly precipitation generally varies
between 0.28 inches (February) and 2.11 inches (August), with an annual average of 8.66 inches
(WRCC, 2015).
1.3 PREVIOUS REMOVAL ACTIONS
No removal actions have previously been performed at the Site. EPA has been unable to find any
record of reclamation activity at the Site pursuant to the Mining Act Reclamation Program under
the New Mexico Mining Act of 1993.
1.4 NATURE AND EXTENT OF SOIL CONTAMINATION
The nature and extent of the contamination was defined through surface gamma scans and surface
and subsurface soil sample collection as described in Sections 1.4.2.2 and 1.4.2.3. Based on the
results of the risk assessment (Section 1.5), the COC for the Section 10 Mine Site is Ra-226.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-19
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
1.4.1 Previous Investigations
A Pre-assessment Screen and Determination: Rio Algom Mines and Quivira Mill Site, McKinley
County, New Mexico, was performed by the New Mexico Office of Natural Resources Trustee in
September 2010. This report documents the pathways by which natural resources have been
adversely affected by a release from various Rio Algom Mining LLC (RAML) mines and mills in
McKinley County, including the Section 10 Mine (New Mexico Office of Natural Resources
Trustee, 2010).
In 2011, as part of the EPA San Mateo Creek Basin assessment activities, the EPA Airborne
Spectral Photometric Environmental Collection Technology (ASPECT) platform (airplane)
conducted an aerial gamma screening survey of the ALSD, including the Section 10 Mine Site
(Dynamac, 2011). The ASPECT survey indicated high levels of gamma radiation, ranging to
greater than 45 micro roentgens per hour (|iR/hr) (with a terrestrial background between 5 to 10 |iR/h)
at the Site. Results of the survey indicated that wastes from these mines have migrated off-site and
onto adjacent properties (Figure 1-11).
The EPA Region 6 EMB conducted a Documented Release Sampling Report (DRS) at the Section
10 Mine Site on 26 February 2013 that included collecting surface gamma radiation measurements
in addition to conducting sampling and performing chemical/radiological analyses of surface soil.
The specific sampling objectives for the DRS were to collect data that could be used to document
a potential release of hazardous substances to the environment and that may potentially warrant
further site investigation and/or reclamation. Based on the results of the DRS sampling event, soil
contamination attributable to the Site was documented. (Weston, 2013).
1.4.2 Current Investigations
EPA initiated an RSE of the Site, including the development of a background reference area
(BRA), completion of surface gamma surveys, collection of subsurface soil samples, and
completion of a subsurface geophysical investigation. The RSE determined the nature and extent
of contamination above an action level. The following sections describe the activities included in
each stage of the investigation. As discussed previously in Section 1.2.3, Section 1.2.4, Section
1.2.7, and Section 1.2.8, a natural resource evaluation and a cultural resource survey of the Site
were also performed.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
1.4.2.1 Background Reference Area Study
In order to provide a point of reference by which Site conditions can be compared to "pre-mining"
conditions, a background radiation level was established by the EPA. Site cleanup levels are
typically established as concentrations in excess of background levels that have been characterized
in carefully selected BRAs. Selection criteria for the BRA are provided in Section 4.5 of the Multi-
Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) and include absence of
contamination, and similarity in physical, chemical, geological, radiological, and biological
characteristics to the contaminated areas being evaluated.
Several areas were evaluated for the Section 10 Mine to meet the MARSSIM guidelines. Gamma
scans were conducted in several locations to identify a potential BRA. Ultimately, an area up-
gradient of the Section 10 Mine with no known impact from mining activities (i.e., haul roads,
stockpiles, etc.) within Section 10 of Township 14 North, Range 10 West was selected
(approximately 2,500 feet southwest of the Section 10 Mine surface expression; see Figure 1-12).
The identified BRA exhibits similar physical, chemical, geological, radiological and biological
characteristics as the Site.
A square area of approximately 0.75 acres was selected within Section 10 to represent the BRA.
One-minute, stationary gamma measurements using a 2-inch by 2-inch sodium iodide (Nal)
detector were collected from 20 evenly spaced points within a rectangular-shaped grid in the BRA.
The starting point for the grid was randomly generated. Soil samples were co-located with the
stationary gamma measurements and submitted to Eberline Services, Inc. in Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, for gamma spectroscopy analysis.
EPA conducted radiation toxicity modeling using two different models that considered
contribution to human health impacts from all of the isotopes in the Uranium-238 (U-238) and
Uranium-235 (U-235) decay chains. Ra-226, a daughter product in the U-238 decay chain, was
determined to be the COC (see Section 2.2.1) for which a background value was calculated.
Statistical analysis of the background data set was performed using ProUCL 5.1 (EPA, 2015b).
The average (mean) concentration for Ra-226 in the 20 samples is 1.52 pCi/g, the median is
1.545 pCi/g (indicating lack of skewness), and the standard deviation is 0.146 pCi/g. The
coefficient of variation was 0.0963, indicating a homogeneous background data set in accordance
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-21
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
with MARS SIM guidance. A goodness-of-fit test indicated that the data set was normally
distributed as well as gamma and log normally distributed. However, the normal distribution was
selected as the most appropriate model. Dixon's outlier test did not identify any outliers. A
histogram, box plot, and quantile-quantile plot were generated, and visual inspection indicated a
well-behaving data set without outliers that confirmed a normal distribution. Finally, a background
threshold value (BTV) was calculated at a 95% upper tolerance limit with 95% coverage (UTL95-
95), equaling 1.87 pCi/g Ra-226. This BTV represents the upper limit of the background data set
such that 95% of background values are less than 1.87 pCi/g with 95% confidence. The UTL95-
95 was selected as an appropriate and defensible BTV as recommended by EPA's ProUCL Version
5.1, User Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for Data Sets with and
without Nondetect Observations, EPA/600/R-07/041, October 2015 to reduce decision errors.
The average (mean) of the 20 1-minute gamma measurements is 16,258 cpm, the median is 16,335
cpm (again, indicating lack of skewness), and the standard deviation is 313 cpm. Again, using
ProUCL, a normal distribution was confirmed and a UTL95-95 of 17,009 cpm was calculated as
the BTV. A summary of background laboratory analytical results and field measurements is
provided in Table 1-1. The Eberline Analytical Services, Inc. Analytical Data Package is provided
as Appendix C. The background ProUCL statistical results are provided as Appendix D.
1.4.2.2 Surface Gamma Survey
As part of the RSE, the EPA determined the lateral extent of surface contamination at the Site by
conducting a gamma scanning survey in June 2016 using the following three basic data recording
techniques that all used a 2-inch by 2-inch Nal detector paired with a GPS.
• Areas with fairly level topography and little vegetative obstructions were surveyed using
an array of five detectors mounted on a utility terrain vehicle, which was driven in transects
across the properties.
• Areas with some topographical relief and vegetative obstructions were surveyed using a
single detector mounted on a cart that was pushed in transects across the properties.
• Areas not conducive to using wheeled vehicles were surveyed using a single detector and
backpack-mounted GPS unit carried by site personnel over transects in a walkover survey.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-22
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
The distance between transects varied depending on whether the area being scanned was clearly
contaminated, not contaminated, or at the border of contamination and non-contamination based
on initial gamma measurements. Initial transects were approximately 200-feet apart until these
distinctions became apparent. Areas at the borders of contamination and non-contamination
received the most tightly spaced transects, ranging approximately 20-to-30 feet apart.
Non-contaminated and contaminated areas received successively less tightly spaced transects,
respectively. Maximum distances between transects in clearly contaminated areas ranged from
approximately 150 to 200 feet; distances between transects in non-contaminated areas were
approximately 100 feet. The survey was conducted throughout approximately 75% of the section
to verify that there was no spread of contamination in a non-contiguous manner by undocumented
mining activities.
The results of the gamma scanning survey were plotted in counts per minute (cpm) on a map using
color-coded icons to represent the detector measurements (Figure 1-12). Measurements were
displayed in six ranges of values, two of which were relative to the BTV and the action level.
Derivation of the action level in pCi/g and its conversion to cpm is described in detail in Section
2.2.1. The figure reflects areas below the BTV, areas of contamination above the BTV but below
the action level, and areas above the action level. The maximum surface gamma measurement was
575,483 cpm, approximately 34 times the BTV and 24 times the action level.
The results of the gamma scanning survey were then plotted similarly on a second map in pCi/g
using color-coded icons to represent the converted measurements (Figure 1-13). Scan values
greater than the BTV were converted to pCi/g similarly to the conversion of the action level in
pCi/g to cpm as described in Section 2.2.1.
1.4.2.3 Soil Sample Collection
Soil samples were collected and analyzed by gamma spectroscopy to confirm the gamma survey
measurements and to estimate the depth of radiological contamination. Soil samples were also
collected and analyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals plus uranium to determine if these
constituents posed a threat to human health and the environment.
EPA collected surface soil samples in Section 10 from June 2016 through February 2017 to verify
that radioactive contamination existed in areas of elevated gamma survey measurements. Ten
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-23
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
surface soil grab samples were collected and analyzed via gamma spectroscopy, including two
samples upgradient of the mine, one sample downgradient of the mine, and seven samples from
the sub-economic ore pile. Sample locations are shown on Figure 1-14.
To determine vertical extent of radiological contamination, subsurface soil grab samples were
collected in November 2016. Sample locations were distributed throughout the surface-
contaminated areas using the Visual Sample Plan (VSP) program (Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Version 7.7). The samples were collected at a density of one sample for each 2 acres.
The samples were collected by digging a 1-foot-deep hole and collecting a sample from the bottom
of the hole using a bucket auger. A total of 11 subsurface samples including one duplicate, were
collected for gamma spectroscopy analysis. The sample locations are provided on Figure 1-15.
The soil samples were dried, ground/pulverized as necessary, and sieved, then analyzed in EPA's
field laboratory using gamma spectroscopy with an on-site Multi-Channel Analyzer (MCA) for
Ra-226. The MCA measured the gamma radiation emitted by Bismuth-214 (Bi-214) rather than
Ra-226, since Ra-226 does emit a strong gamma signal. Samples were held in a sealed Marinelli
jar for a minimum of 21 days to ensure that the Bi-214 and Ra-226 were in equilibrium before
being analyzed on the MCA. Seventeen samples were analyzed in the EPA field laboratory and
four were also submitted to Eberline Services, Inc. in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for gamma
spectroscopy analysis, as verification of the on-site MCA results. The Eberline Analytical
Services, Inc. Analytical Data Package is provided as Appendix C.
Two surface soil grab samples collected upgradient of the mine and one surface soil grab sample
collected downgradient were all below the action level of 6.8 pCi/g Ra-226 (See Section 2.2.1 for
derivation of action level). Seven grab surface soil samples collected from the sub-economic ore
pile were all above the action level. All 10 subsurface soil samples and one field duplicate were
below the Action Level. Surface soil sample results were used in the human health and ecological
risk assessments (Section 1.5) and subsurface soil samples were used to determine an estimated
removal volume after an action level was developed for the Site (see Section 2.2.1).
Additionally, the EPA Team collected eight surface soil samples plus one duplicate for analysis of
Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals plus uranium (chemical toxicity). Samples were submitted to
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico for analysis. The surface
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-24
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
soil sample locations are shown on Figure 1-14. The metals analytical results were also used in the
human health and ecological risk assessments (Section 1.5). The Hall Laboratory analytical data
package is provided as Appendix E. All eight soil sample results plus one field duplicate for TAL
metals plus uranium were below the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
Industrial/Occupational Soil Screening Levels (Cancer Target Risk [TR]=lE-05, Non-Cancer
Total Hazard Quotient [THQ]=1) (NMED, 2019). The soil sample analytical results for gamma
spectroscopy are provided in Tables 1-2 and 1-3. The metals analytical results are provided in
Table 1-4.
1.4.2.4 Radon Monitoring
In order to ensure EPA worker health during RSE activities, the EPA collected seven radon
samples from within and near enclosed spaces (i.e. the mineshaft and a ventilation shaft) to
determine potential hazards to people working near the shafts. From 28 October 2016 through 3
November 2016, EPA collected two short-term (6-day) radon samples from inside of the mine
shaft. Both samples were lowered into the shaft on string. One sample was collected 50 feet below
ground surface (bgs) and one sample was collected 100 feet bgs.
From 29 June 2017 through 5 July of 2017, EPA collected short-term radon samples from
aboveground near the mine and ventilation shafts. One sample was collected on the ground at the
very edge of the mine shaft and two samples were collected from approximately 5 feet and 20 feet
from the mine shaft. At the ventilation shaft, EPA collected one sample from the partially-opened
ventilation shaft and one from 20 feet from the ventilation shaft. Samples were submitted to
Accustar Laboratory in Medway, Massachusetts, for analysis. The radon sample locations are
shown on Figure 1-16.
The two samples collected from inside of the mine shaft at depths of 50 feet and 100 feet were
both significantly above the 4 pCi/1 level recommended for indoor exposure (6,304.9 and 8,170.5
pCi/1, respectively) by EPA. Samples collected from the edge of the mine shaft and the ventilation
shaft were both above 4 pCi/1 (11.1 and 1,247.9 pCi/1, respectively). Samples collected 5 feet and
20 feet from the edge of the mine shaft and from 20 feet from the edge of the ventilation shaft were
all below 4 pCi/1. Results of the radon samples are presented in Table 1-5. The Accustar
Laboratory analytical report is provided in Appendix F.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-25
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
1.4.2.5 Mine Shaft Investigation
On 18 July 2017, the EPA Team subcontracted a well-logging company to investigate the Section
10 Mine shaft and the ventilation shaft. The well-loggers lowered a camera into the mine shaft
and reached "fill material" (soil) at 291 feet bgs. No side tunnels were noted at any point. The
mine was reported to be over 500 feet deep (Holmquist, 1970, and Anderson, 1981), which
suggests that either the mine was partially filled intentionally or there was collapse of materials
from the walls of the shaft.
The camera was lowered into the ventilation shaft and reached fill material at 351 feet bgs. The
vent casing appeared to continue into the fill material, suggesting that the vent hole casing
continued even deeper. The mine shaft and vent hole video surveillance logging report is presented
as Appendix G.
1.4.2.6 Reclamation Plan
A post-remedial reclamation plan will be developed for implementation upon completion of
remedial activities. The reclamation plan will be comprised of two parts, natural regrading and
revegetation.
Natural Regrading
Post-remedial natural regrading will seek to return the topography of the site to a pre-disturbed
(pre-mining) natural state. The regrading will provide erosion-resistant slopes and stream channels,
with an aim toward minimizing long-term operation and maintenance costs.
Currently the surface water drainage features on-site consist of sheet flow from the Section 10
Mine northward to Martin Draw (Figure 1-10). Martin Draw flows generally to the southeast into
the Arroyo del Puerto. The Arroyo del Puerto flows into San Mateo Creek approximately 9 miles
south-southeast of the Site. Martin Draw, the Arroyo del Puerto, and San Mateo Creek are
intermittent streams.
Conceptual Revegetation Plan
Based on the results of the site-specific natural resource evaluation (Appendix A) and the
associated soil and vegetation sample analytical results, Marron developed a draft conceptual
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-26
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
revegetation plan for the Site assuming removal actions would be implemented (Appendix H). A
final revegetation plan will be developed by reviewing and updating the conceptual plan with
actual post-removal conditions before revegetation implementation. The assumed objectives
considered in developing the conceptual revegetation plan were grazing capacity, suitability for
wildlife use, and ecosystem sustainability. The conceptual revegetation plan was developed to
comply with the standards of:
• NMED and NMEMNRD Joint Guidance for Cleanup and Reclamation of Existing
Uranium Mining Operations in New Mexico, March 2016 (Attachments 1 and 2).
• New Mexico State Land Office Reclamation Plan for State Mineral Lease Rule 5 Template
(7-14-15).
As described in the plan, the Site was divided into two reclamation units for planting purposes:
• Unit 1 - Plains Mesa Grassland (Loamy Soils)
• Unit 2 - Great Basin Scrub/Rabbitbrush (Clay Loam Soils)
Units 1 and 2 would be grassland and scrub communities to provide habitat for keystone species
such as prairie dogs and associated animals such as burrowing owl. They also provide browse and
forage for elk and deer, graze for cattle, cover for a variety of small mammals and reptiles, and
nesting sites for small songbirds. All vegetation provides erosion control. Grasses provide a food
source for mammals and insects. Insects provide a food source for reptiles, mammals, and birds.
Potential enhancements to maximize water availability to vegetation, wildlife, or livestock, as well
as prevent seedbed loss and sedimentation due to sheet flow during large storm events, were
included in the revegetation plan. Post-remedial regrade discussed above may render these
enhancements unnecessary. A final determination will be made to include or exclude these
enhancements based on post-remedial conditions.
The conceptual revegetation plan details the proper times of the year for specific activities to
minimize the disturbance to wildlife and to maximize the potential for plants to become
established. The plan also specifies soil amendments and nutrients to prepare the soil for reseeding,
specific seed mixes to be used in each unit, mulching, and watering schedules.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-27
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
1.5 HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK EVALUATION
Risk assessments were performed to evaluate the potential impacts of site-derived contaminants
on human health and the environment in the event that no cleanup action is taken. Results of the
human health and ecological risk assessments were used to determine whether residual levels of
contaminants in site media are protective of human health and the environment and may be left in
their current state, or if a cleanup action should be considered. Calculations and methodology used
in performing the human health and ecological risk assessments are described in Appendix I.
1.5.1 Screening to Identify Contaminants of Potential Concern
Analytical results of soil samples collected during the RSE at the Site served as input data for the
human health and ecological risk assessments (Weston, 2019). These samples were analyzed for
radioisotopes via gamma spectroscopy, and some samples were also analyzed for TAL Metals.
The metals analysis was performed to assess the actual or potential risk from sub-economic or
proto-ore, which was brought to surface during the mining operations but was not sent to the mill
for further processing. The analytical results used in the risk evaluations are summarized in
Appendix I, Tables 1-1 and 1-2. All the metals sampling results were screened against the EPA
(2019a) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) (https://semspub.epa.gov/work/03/2229055.pdf)) and
the local background concentrations to determine the contaminants of potential concern (COPCs).
Table 1-2 summarizes the metals data screening process, showing contaminants that were
considered, the minimum and maximum concentrations detected, associated RSLs, and
background concentrations. It either identifies each contaminant as a COPC or explains why it was
screened from consideration. Aluminum, cobalt, iron, and manganese exceeded RSLs but did not
exceed background levels. Arsenic, selenium, uranium, and vanadium were identified as non-
radionuclide COPCs. All isotopes of the U-235 and U-238 decay chains were carried through a
risk assessment to determine if they should be identified as COCs to be addressed in a cleanup
action.
1.5.2 Human Health Risk Assessment
Cancer is the major effect of concern from radionuclides. The potential excess lifetime cancer risk
on human receptors from exposure to radium in soil was assessed for the Section 10 Mine Site.
Radionuclides in the soil may be absorbed by plants and consumed by livestock and humans.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-28
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Persons working at the Site may be exposed to contaminated dust by inhalation of particulate
matter. Whole body (external) radiation may be experienced by people on or near the Site itself.
The Site is currently undeveloped, though livestock grazing is common in the area. There are
currently no residences in the former mining area of the Section 10 Mine Site, and it is highly
unlikely that the property would be used for residential development due to the remoteness of the
area. Cattle ranching is considered to remain the likely future use of the Site. A rancher may be
exposed to radiological contaminants through incidental ingestion of soil, external radiation from
contaminants, inhalation of fugitive dusts, and consumption of meat, and to non-radiological
contaminants through incidental ingestion of soil, dermal absorption of soil contaminants,
inhalation of fugitive dusts, and consumption of meat.
1.5.2.1 Human Health Risk Assessment Assumptions
The current and future use of the Site is cattle ranching. Risk estimates based on a ranching land-
use scenario were calculated for isotopes in the U-235 and U-238 decay chains (calculated from
measured Ra-226 concentrations in soil). Again, the ranching land-use scenario considers routes
of exposure from radioisotopes to be soil incidental ingestion, external radiation from
contaminants in soil, inhalation of fugitive dust, and consumption of site-grown beef. Note that a
radon inhalation pathway for outdoor radon is not addressed (as opposed to indoor radon, which
is) in EPA's guidance on conducting radiological risk assessments at CERCLA sites (EPA, 2014).
An EPA review of radon data collected at uranium mine and mill sites in the vicinity of the Site
verified that clean-air dilution of radon emissions from those sites rapidly reduces the airborne
concentrations to inconsequential levels (less than the EPA recommended limit for indoor
concentrations of 4 pCi/1) (RAML, 2016).
The risk characterization considered all isotopes of the U-235 and U-238 decay chains defined by
the EPA Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) Calculator for Radionuclides (EPA, 2019b). The
risk assessment identified Ra-226 as the most significant radiological human health COPC.
Radium-226 is typically selected as the radionuclide of interest at uranium mine sites for the
following reasons: (a) it is found to be a significant contributor of radiological risk to human health,
(b) its decay products give off strong gamma radiation that is easy and cost-effective to measure,
(c) a cleanup standard is provided in the State of New Mexico's Joint Guidance for the Cleanup
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-29
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
and Reclamation of Existing Uranium Mining Operations in New Mexico (NMEMNRD et al,
March 2016), and (d) Ra-226 is the radionuclide for which historical cleanup limits have been
specified.
The risk characterization also considered cancer risk estimates and non-cancer hazard quotients
(HQs) for non-radionuclide COPCs. Additional human health risk assumptions and details about
the risk assessment process are presented in Appendix I.
1.5.2.2 Human Health Risk Estimates
The PRG Calculator was used to calculate risk estimates for a rancher potentially exposed to
radionuclides in soil, applying maximum and average (mean) Ra-226 concentrations to assess the
range of potential risk. EPA manages risk to achieve 10"6 to 10"4 overall excess cancer risks. As
shown in Table 1-1 (Appendix I), the current total cancer risk for isotopes of the U-235 and U-238
decay chains for the Section 10 Mine Site area exceeds the 10"4 excess cancer risk level. These
results indicate the need for a response action to control releases and prevent radionuclide
exposure. Note that these risk estimates also include contribution of background levels as
calculated from the Ra-226 BTV of 1.9 pCi/g (Appendix I, Table 1-1).
The RSL Calculator was used to develop the non-radionuclide risk estimates for the outdoor
ranching activities (Appendix I, Table 1-3). There is potential for noncancer health effects from
exposure to uranium. Additionally, arsenic yielded a potential cancer risk of lxlO"5. The elevated
non-radionuclide concentrations in soil were located in close proximity to the elevated
radionuclides. It is anticipated that site actions to address radionuclide exposure by human
receptors will be protective for exposure of human receptors to both radionuclides and non-
radionuclide chemicals.
1.5.3 Ecological Risk Evaluation
The Section 10 Mine Site is located in a remote area with the revegetated, previously disturbed
mine area potentially providing habitat for ecological receptors. Wildlife inhabiting the Site may
directly ingest radionuclides and chemicals, which may then be transported to organs or other sites
within the wildlife receptors. Radionuclides and chemicals in the soil may be absorbed by plants
consumed by wildlife. Radionuclides such as uranium and daughter progeny including radium may
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-30
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
be inhaled on dust particles, creating alpha-particle-emitting sources in the lungs of wildlife
receptors. A screening level ecological risk assessment (i.e., Steps 1 and 2 of the EPA's 8-step
ecological risk assessment process [EPA, 1997a]) was performed to assess potential risk to
ecological receptors from both radionuclide and non-radionuclide chemical contaminants. The
results of the screening level ecological risk characterization are included in Appendix I, Table I-
4 (radionuclides) and Table 1-5 (metals). A refinement of conservative screening level assumptions
(i.e., Step 3a of the EPA's 8-step ecological risk assessment process [EPA, 2001]) was also
performed to consider how the risk estimates would change if more realistic assumptions were
used. The results of the refined ecological risk characterization are included in Appendix I, Table
1-6. The process and conclusions are described below.
1.5.3.1 Ecological Risk-Based Screening Values
Literature-based ecological screening benchmark values for direct contact and food-chain
evaluations are used to characterize potential ecological effects. The following sources were used
to identify proposed ecological screening benchmark values for radionuclides and non-
radionuclide chemicals:
• EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) (http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossn
• Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ECORISK database, Release 4.1 (LANL, 2017).
The Eco-SSLs include values for plant, soil invertebrate, bird, and mammal exposure to metals
through direct contact and the food chain. The Eco-SSLs are based on no-effect toxicity values
to (1) ensure risks are not underestimated and (2) provide a defensible conclusion that negligible
ecological risk exists, or that certain contaminants and exposure pathways can be eliminated from
consideration (EPA, 1997).
The LANL ECORISK database includes ecological screening levels (ESLs) for avian, mammalian,
earthworm, and plant exposure models for radionuclides and non-radionuclide chemicals in soil.
The LANL ECORISK database provides both no-effect and low-effect ESLs. The no-effect ESL
is protective of wildlife populations and sensitive individuals because it represents an exposure
that is not associated with adverse impacts of low-level, long-term chemical effects (i.e., adverse
effects on ability of individuals to develop into viable organisms, search for mates, breed
successfully, and produce live and equally viable offspring). The low-effect ESL applies a lowest-
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-31
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
observed-adverse-effect-level-based toxicity reference value that is the lowest chronic effect level
and is generally considered to be protective of wildlife populations (LANL, 2017).
1.5.3.2 Ecological Risk Estimates
Screening level risk characterization was performed using the hazard quotient (HQ) method to
compare maximum soil concentrations to Eco-SSLs and no-effect ESLs. An HQ of less than one
indicates that the concentration is unlikely to cause adverse ecological effects. An HQ greater than
one indicates that the potential for ecological risk is present and therefore the risk assessment
process should continue (EPA, 2005). The screening process considered the isotopes of the U-235
and U-238 decay chains, though ESLs were not available for all isotopes. The screening-level
ecological risk assessment indicates potential for risk to ecological receptors from Ra-226, Th-
230, aluminum, arsenic, barium, lead, mercury, selenium, uranium, and vanadium (Table 1-4 for
radionuclides and Table 1-5 for metals, Appendix I). Concentrations of aluminum, barium, and
lead were below background levels (Table 1-4, Appendix I); therefore, these three metals were not
considered to be contaminants of potential ecological concern (COPEC).
A screening-level ecological risk assessment uses conservative screening-level assumptions such
as 100% site use, 100% bioavailability, 100% diet consisting of the most contaminated dietary
media, and no-effect toxicity data to evaluate risk to populations of upper level organisms. Under
more realistic site use conditions, the potential risk to individual organisms would be reduced. The
representative average soil concentration and low-effect ecological screening values were used to
refine these risk estimates. The refined ecological risk assessment indicates potential for risk to
ecological receptors from exposure to Ra-226 (soil invertebrates only), selenium, and vanadium
(Appendix I, Table 1-6).
Locations where elevated levels of selenium and vanadium were measured are co-located with
locations of elevated Ra-226. ESLs for radionuclides are higher (less stringent) than the proposed
action level for protection of human health. Thus, it is anticipated that site actions to address
radionuclide exposure by human receptors will be protective for exposure of ecological receptors
to both radionuclides and non-radionuclide chemicals.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-32
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
1.5.4 Evaluation of Grazing of Forage by Domesticated Animals and Wildlife
EPA collected 22 vegetative metals uptake samples within the entire West GSA in order to
determine the current vegetative nutrient values and uptake of potential hazardous constituents
available to grazing animals (domesticated animals and wildlife). Two of the native plant
vegetation samples (P-ll and P-12) were collected from the Section 10 Mine. Tissue samples
were analyzed for nutrients (iron, zinc, copper, and manganese) and for toxicity metals
(molybdenum, uranium, vanadium, and selenium).
The results of the evaluation of the vegetative metals uptake samples are included in Table 1-7 and
sample locations are illustrated on Figure 1-17. Tissue concentrations were compared to maximum
tolerable limits (MTLs) developed by the National Research Council's Committee on Minerals
and Toxic Substances in Diets and Water for Animals (National Research Council, 2005). The
MTL is defined as "the dietary level that, when fed for a defined period of time, will not impair
animal health or performance." Tissue concentrations are also compared to concentrations of trace
elements in mature leaf tissue that are considered sufficient or normal and excessive or toxic
(Kabata-Pendias and Pendias, 1992). As shown in Table 1-7, nutrient concentrations are less than
MTLs for animals and within or less than sufficient/normal concentrations for plants, while the
P12 tissue sample for the toxic metal selenium exceeds thresholds for animals and plants. An
elevated selenium concentration (81 milligram per kilogram [mg/kg]) was measured in soil
collected from an area approximately northwest of the Kermac Mine where the P12 tissue sample
was collected. While selenium is a common micronutrient supplement for cattle and sheep, it can
be toxic at elevated concentrations. Native selenium has been found in the sandstone formations
in the GMB area (Brookins, 1982) and as an impurity, it may have been a waste metal in the
uranium mine wastes.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
1-33
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
2.0 REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
The first step in developing removal alternatives is to establish RAOs. These objectives are
typically based on anticipated land use, ARARs, and the findings of the human health and
ecological risk assessments. General response actions describing measures that will satisfy the
RAOs are then developed. This includes estimating the areas or volumes to which the response
actions may be applied.
The main objective of this removal action is to mitigate the actual or potential risks to human
health and or the environment posed by the excess radiological on-site contamination, and to the
extent feasible, reclaim the entire Site for the expected future land use - livestock grazing.
Removal action alternatives will address mine wastes and surface soils/debris that were
contaminated by mine wastes as part of mine operations. The risk posed by potential contaminant
migration to groundwater will be addressed by the EPA Region 6 Remedial section as part of a
San Mateo Creek Basin groundwater investigation; however, proposed actions are consistent with
and will contribute to any contemplated future remedial actions regarding groundwater through
source control by greatly reducing or eliminating the potential for contaminants to migrate from
the surface to groundwater. Removal action alternatives also do not address any potential
contamination from mill tailings directly, though indirect address may occur.
As stated in Section 1.5.2, there are currently no residences in the Section 10 Mine area of ALSD.
Due to the remoteness of the area, it is unlikely that the property will be used for residential
development after the radioactive contamination is removed from the soil. Many sections of the
Ambrosia Lake Valley are used for livestock grazing, although some sections are not currently
grazed due to the current radioactive contamination in the surface soil. Consequently, it is more
likely that the property will continue to be used for grazing than converted to future residential
use.
2.1 STATUTORY LIMIT
Pursuant to Section 104(c)(1), CERCLA places statutory limits of 2 million dollars and 12 months
on Fund-financed removal actions. The statutory limits do not apply to this action since the
selected action will be funded by proceeds of settlement from an enforcement action and not by
the Fund.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
2.2 REMOVAL ACTION SCOPE
The scope of the response action will be to address excess radiological contamination in surface
and subsurface soils/debris and is intended to be the final action for the soils at the Site. Options
to be analyzed include response actions that would allow unrestricted/uncontrolled grazing use
and associated ranching activities. Characterization of the Site identified the primary
environmental concern to be radiological contamination.
2.2.1 Action Level
In June 2014, EPA issued OSWER 9285.6-20, Radiation Risk Assessment at CERCLA Sites:
Q&A (EPA, 2014). According to this guidance, risks from radionuclide exposures at CERCLA
sites should be estimated in a manner analogous to that used for chemical contaminants. The
estimates of intake values for parameters associated with site-specific routes of exposure estimated
for the land use should be coupled with the appropriate slope factors for each radionuclide and
exposure pathway. The guidance further recommends the use of EPA's on-line PRG Calculator
for this assessment. When calculating radiological threat abatement levels, the total incremental
lifetime cancer risk attributed to radiation exposure is estimated as the sum of the risks from all
radionuclides in all exposure pathways. Accordingly, the EPA Team used the PRG Calculator and
coordinated with the national radiation expert in EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation (OSRTI) to calculate a site-specific soil Derived Concentration Guideline
Level (DCGL).
The DCGL is a term referenced in MARSSIM, a document prepared collaboratively by four
Federal agencies having authority and control over radioactive materials: EPA, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), Department of Energy (DOE), and Department of Defense
(DOD). The MARSSIM, published in 2000, provides a nationally consistent consensus approach
to conducting radiation surveys and investigations at potentially contaminated sites. In addition to
planning, conducting, and assessing radiological surveys of surface soils and building surfaces, the
document provides a decision-making process to determine if site conditions are in compliance
with dose-based or risk-based regulatory criteria. As defined by MARSSIM, the DCGL is a
radionuclide-specific soil concentration determined through pathway modeling that would result
in a risk equal to the release criterion above background. EPA used a cancer morbidity risk of
lxlO"4 as the release criterion above, or exclusive of, background.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-2
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Four exposure pathways were considered to develop the DCGL: (1) incidental ingestion of soil;
(2) inhalation of soil particulates; (3) direct, external exposure to ionizing gamma radiation in soil;
and (4) meat (ranched beef) consumption. These four exposure pathways were considered to be
the only pathways applicable for the Site, taking into account its potential future land use of cattle
grazing and associated ranching activities. Note that a radon inhalation pathway for outdoor radon
is not addressed (as opposed to indoor radon, which is) in EPA's guidance on conducting
radiological risk assessments at CERCLA sites (EPA, 2014). An open mine shaft and an air-
ventilation vent hole do remain at the Site; however, any remedial/removal action plan
contemplated at the site by EPA will include closure of the open shaft and vent hole. Radon
samples were collected at the site for worker safety purposes and are reported in report section
1.4.2.4.
A combination of three land-use scenario templates in the PRG Calculator were used to develop
the DCGL: the "Composite Worker", to model Outdoor ranching activities; the "Indoor Worker",
to model ranching activities inside a Truck; and "Farmer", to model the consumption of site-raised
beef. Two cattle ranchers who operate on lands near the Site were interviewed to determine a
reasonable maximum amount of time a cattle rancher might spend on this activity. Consequently,
EPA used a value of 400 hours per year (1.6 hours per day [interview] for 250 days per year [PRG
Calculator default value for Composite and Indoor Worker]) for annual exposure frequency. EPA
used a value of 25 years for lifetime exposure duration, which is the PRG Calculator default value
for a Composite and Indoor Worker. Of the 1.6 hours per day spent on ranching activities, 50%
(0.8 hours) were determined to be spent outdoors and the remaining 0.8 hours were determined to
be spent inside a truck. This determination was made from Table 16-24 of the 2011 Exposure
Factors Handbook (Time Spent in Truck/day, Western Census Region, 95th percentile, revealing
a figure of approximately 50% of an 8-hour day) (EPA, 2011). A truck was estimated to provide
a gamma shielding factor of 0.7 (Appendix I, Attachment 2). EPA used PRG Calculator default
values representing a Composite Worker for soil ingestion and inhalation rates. PRG Calculator
default values represent reasonable maximum exposure to broad-based populations, typically 90
to 95 percentile values, which are well above the mean.
EPA used PRG Calculator default values for beef consumption (165.3 grams per day) for 350 days
per year. Cattle were considered to graze on-site % of the time annually, based on research citing
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
that rangeland experts suggest only 25-to-50% of arid rangeland in fair to good condition should
be consumed or used by livestock in order to leave sufficient vegetation for regeneration and
wildlife use (Hurd et al, 2007). EPA considered that a rancher would consume 48% of beef from
on-site animals, based on the 50th percentile value for "percent of home-raised meat consumed by
Western households who farm" presented in Table 13-19 of EPA's 2011 Exposure Factors
Handbook (EPA, 2011). EPA used PRG Calculator Beef default values for fodder and soil intake
rates. The PRG Calculator-produced echo of input values is provided in Appendix J.
The radiological contaminants of concern include the entire U-238 decay chain up to, and
including, thallium-206 (Tl-206), of which Ra-226 is a member, and the entire U-235 decay chain
up to, and including, thallium-207 (Tl-207). It is assumed the U-238 and U-235 decay chains exist
in secular equilibrium (due to lack of ore processing at the site; see Section 1.2.4) and that the U-
235 concentration is 2.2% of the total uranium (U-238, U-235, and U-234) concentration (Argonne
National Laboratory, 2007). The PRG Calculator-produced output is provided in Appendix J.
The action level established for the Site for a ranching land-use scenario is 6.8 pCi/g for Ra-226,
reflecting a PRG Calculator-derived DCGL of 4.9 pCi/g above the Ra-226 BTV of 1.9 pCi/g. The
action-level calculations are presented in Appendix J. Although the cumulative DCGL of 4.9 pCi/g
represents the concentration of each radioisotope in the U-238 decay chain which together
represent a cancer morbidity risk of lin 10,000 persons (commonly referred to as a lxlO"4 risk),
the action level is established for Ra-226 because: (a) it was found to be a significant contributor
of radiological risk to human health (44% [Ra-226 plus short-lived daughter progeny through
polonium-214] (see Appendix J); (b) the U-238 decay chain is in equilibrium, with analysis of Ra-
226 (or specifically its short-lived daughter radioisotope Bi-214cost-effective due to its readily
identifiable gamma ray energy signature via gamma spectroscopy, (c) a cleanup standard is
provided in the State of New Mexico's Joint Guidance for the Cleanup and Reclamation of
Existing Uranium Mining Operations in New Mexico (NMEMNRD et al, March 2016), and (d)
Ra-226 is the radionuclide for which historical cleanup limits have been specified. Note that when
addressing contamination associated with Ra-226, contamination associated with the full U-238
and U-235 decay chains will also be addressed, as they are co-located with Ra-226.
An action level of 6.8 pCi/g represents a cancer risk of 1.4xl0"4, inclusive of background
conditions. This risk-based action level is proposed for the following reasons:
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-4
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
• It is within the risk range (10"6 to 10"4 overall excess cancer risks) cited in the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR 300.430(e) (2)(I)).
More specifically, it is less than the risk, 2xl0"4, that EPA has a history of accepting for
radionuclides at uranium mining-waste sites as protective, per discussion with OSRTI.
• It is distinguishable from background and therefore measurable in the field.
• It is above the analytical detection limit.
• It meets the standard (5.0 pCi/g Ra-226 above background, averaged over the first 15
centimeters of soil below the surface, averaged over any area of 100 square meters) set
forth in the State of New Mexico's Joint Guidance for the Cleanup and Reclamation of
Existing Uranium Mining Operations in New Mexico (NMEMNRD, et al., March 2016).
Under a ranching land-use scenario and at the low end of the range within which EPA manages
risk (lxlO"6), a PRG Calculator-derived DCGL for Ra-226 equals 0.05 pCi/g. This concentration
is below the analytical detection limit of 0.1 pCi/g for Ra-226.
As surface soil contamination was measured during the RSE in part via gamma scanning, a
scanning-equivalent DCGL in cpm was calculated by the following analysis. Using Microshield®
gamma ray shielding and dose assessment software (Microshield version 6.02 [Grove, 2008]), the
exposure rate above an infinite plane of Ra-226 at 1.0 pCi/g was calculated to be 1.93 [xR/hr. From
Table 6.7 in MARSSIM, the response factor for a 2-inch by 2-inch Nal detector exposed to Ra-226
is 760 cpm/[xR/hr. Given a DCGL of 4.9 pCi/g, a 2-inch by 2-inch Nal gamma detector would
have a reading of 7,187 cpm above background. Adding this value to the BTV in cpm of 17,009,
a cpm-equivalent action level of 24,192 was calculated to correlate to the action level of 6.8 pCi/g.
As part of its ongoing mission, EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
(OSRTI) periodically updates the PRG calculator model to reflect new and updated science related
to radiological risk. These updates may or may not affect the existing risk calculation for a Site
which are based on Site specific conditions and exposure pathways. In July 2022, OSRTI released
an update of the PRG calculator model. EPA Region 6 reviewed and evaluated the updated PRG
calculator model utilizing Site specific data from Tronox Settlement NAUM Section 10 Mine
Site. These model results were compared with the May 2019 PRG calculator model output that
was used for this EE/CA. The two sets of model outputs were evaluated by EPA Region 6 technical
staff (including risk assessors) for statistically significant differences in the level of excess
radiological risk from Radium-226 posed to the public and/or the environment on this Site. The
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-5
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
evaluation of the model results indicated that there was not a statistically significant difference in
the level of excess radiological risk from Radium-226 based on the current site conditions at the
Tronox Settlement NAUM Section 10 Mine Site (See Appendix J for details). Based on this
extensive review and comparison of the model results and the lack of additional excess radiological
risk protection, EPA Region 6 is continuing to utilize the results of the May 2019 PRG calculator,
and the associated risk assessment determination described above.
2.2.1.1 RESRAD Calculator
The OSWER 9285.6-20 guidance document states that although EPA recommends using the PRG
Calculator to model radionuclide risk to ensure consistency with CERCLA, the NCP and EPA's
Superfund guidance for remedial sites, an alternative model may be used if justification is
developed (EPA, 2014). Justification should include the model runs using both the recommended
EPA PRG Calculator and the alternative model. Pursuant to this goal as an independent check of
PRG Calculator results, EPA reviewed several available modeling programs to determine an
appropriate alternative model. While none of the models reviewed provided a direct excess risk
value, all the available models would calculate an excess dose value that could be converted to a
comparable excess risk value. EPA selected to also model excess radiological risk (converted
from excess dose) and calculated a soil action level for this Site using the RESRAD On-Site 7.2
software developed by Argonne National Laboratory. The RESRAD model is well established and
is generally viewed as the default go to model in the Health Physics community. PRG Calculator
input values, including default values, for all parameters across the four exposure pathways noted
previously as well as the U-238 and U-235 decay-chain contaminants of concern were replicated
in RESRAD to the maximum extent possible to comport with OSWER 9285.6-20 guidance. The
same four exposure pathways considered in the PRG Calculator, described in the preceding sub-
section, were duplicated in RESRAD.
The RESRAD model outcome of 8.4 pCi/g Ra-226, when added to the BTV of 1.9 pCi/g, results
in an action level of 10.3 pCi/g for Ra-226. The modeled run results indicated a significant
difference between the two models used. Differences in modeled run results are common due to
the way that each model addresses and weighs the various input parameters. EPA reviewed the
input parameters for accuracy in both models and found no input errors. EPA determined that the
action level derived by the PRG Calculator was appropriate and valid for this Site since the PRG
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-6
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Calculator was designed by EPA for the specific needs of the agency for the calculation of excess
radiological risk. The RESRAD output is provided in Appendix J for reference and comparison to
the PRG output.
2.2.2 Principal Threat Waste
The EPA Guidance on Principal Threat and Low-Level Threat Waste recommends treatment of
principal threat waste when practicable (EPA, 1991a). The guidance aligns with, and supports, the
NCP, promulgated on 8 March 1990, which states that EPA expects to use "treatment to address
the principal threats posed by a site, wherever practicable" (40 CFR Section 300.430(a)(l)(iii)).
The expectation is derived from the mandates of CERCLA § 121 and the guidance was developed
to communicate the types of remedies that the EPA generally anticipates to find appropriate for
specific types of wastes. It reflects EPA's belief that certain source materials are addressed best
through treatment because of technical limitations to the long-term reliability of containment
technologies or the serious consequences of exposure should a release occur.
The concept of principal threat waste and low-level threat waste as developed by EPA in the NCP
is to be applied on a site-specific basis when characterizing source material. Source material is
defined as that which includes or contains hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that
act as a reservoir for migration of contamination to ground water, to surface water, to air, or acts
as a source for direct exposure. Examples of source materials include drummed wastes,
contaminated soil and debris, "pools" of dense non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) submerged
beneath ground water or in fractured bedrock, NAPLs floating on ground water, and contaminated
sediments and sludges. Principal threat wastes are in turn those source materials considered to be
highly toxic or highly mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained or would present a
significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure occur. They include liquids
and other highly mobile materials (e.g., solvents) or materials having high concentrations of toxic
compounds. No "threshold level" of toxicity/risk has been established to equate to "principal
threat"; however, where toxicity and mobility of source material combine to pose a potential risk
of 10"3 or greater, generally, treatment alternatives should be evaluated. In summary,
determinations as to whether a source material is a principal or low-level threat waste should be
based on the inherent toxicity as well as a consideration of the physical state of the material, the
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-7
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
potential mobility of the wastes in the particular environmental setting, and the lability and
degradation products of the material.
These determinations serve as general guidelines and do not dictate the selection of a particular
remedial alternative. In fact, the preamble to the NCP (55 FR at 8703, March 8, 1990) states that
there may be situations where wastes identified as constituting a principal threat may be contained
rather than treated due to difficulties in treating the wastes. Specific situations that may limit the
use of treatment include:
• Treatment technologies are not technically feasible or are not available within a reasonable
time frame.
• The extraordinary volume of materials or complexity of the site make implementation of
treatment technologies impractical.
• Implementation of a treatment-based remedy would result in greater overall risk to human
health and the environment due to risks posed to workers or the surrounding community
during implementation.
• Severe effects across environmental media resulting from implementation would occur.
Aside from the expectation that treatment would be used to addressed principal threat waste when
practicable, the selection of an appropriate waste management strategy is determined solely
through the remedy selection process outlined in the NCP (i.e., all remedy selection decisions are
site-specific and must be based on a comparative analysis of the alternatives using the nine criteria
in accordance with the NCP). Independent of the expectation, selected remedies must be
protective, ARAR-compliant, and cost-effective, and must use permanent solutions or treatment
to the maximum extent practicable.
The purpose of the principal threat waste designation is to identify waste that warrants
consideration of treatment. EPA Region 6 is not making a principal threat waste determination for
mining waste at the Section 10 mine but has evaluated if treatment was the best alternative to
remediate the waste at the site. EPA Region 6 concludes that there is not a feasible treatment
method for Ra-226 in soil (see Section 3.1). EPA Region 6 is confident that a containment remedy
in a licensed off-site disposal facility is sufficient to abate the risks to human health and the
environment presented by the Site.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-8
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley Comity, New Mexico
2.3 SURFACE AREA AND VOLUME ESTIMATE OF CONTAMINATED MEDIA
The lateral and vertical extent of areas exceeding the action level were determined via gamma
scanning and soil sampling, respectively, then plotting the results geographically using
Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcGIS ArcMap version 10.3. The lateral and
vertical extent of contamination that requires corrective action is based on comparisons to the
action level (24,192 cpm [lateral extent] and 6.8 pCi/g Ra-226 [vertical extent]). EPA added a
500-foot buffer around the outermost elevated sample, without extending beyond the lateral extent
of contamination, to demarcate the areal extent of vertical contamination above the RAL, given
the nature of soil sampling providing less than 100% assessment coverage.
The total surface area exceeding the action level was established to be 857,700 square feet (ft2) or
20 acres. The total volume of soil exceeding the action level was determined to be 39,058 CY,
consisting of a surface area of approximately 20 acres at a 1-foot depth and a waste stockpile
volume of approximately 7,291 CY. The areal extent of contamination and the associated removal-
volumetric calculations are illustrated in Figure 2-1 and in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1
Removal Volume Estimates
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Surface Area
Volume
Zone
Square Feet
Acres
Cubic
Yards
1 ft. Excavation Area
857,700
20
31,767
Waste Pile (Aboveground)
NA
NA
7,291
TOTAL
857,700
20
39,058
2.4 REMOVAL ACTION SCHEDULE
The NCP requires a public comment period of at least 30 days following release of the EE/CA
report by the EPA (40 CFR 300.415(n)(4)(iii)). The EPA will respond to significant comments
received during the public comment period and will publish an Action Memorandum following
the response to comments. Upon concurrence by representatives of EPA, the State of New Mexico,
and involved parties regarding the threat to public health and the environment and the proposed
alternative to resolve the threat, the EPA will begin removal operations within 6 to 9 months of
the signed memorandum. The removal start date will be contingent on multiple factors including
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-9
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
weather, contract approval, and funding availability. The EPA will provide public notification of
the schedule for this process upon issuance of the Action Memorandum.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
2-10
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.0 REMOVAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
EPA guidance for preparing EE/CAs suggests identifying and assessing a limited number of
alternatives appropriate for addressing the RAOs (EPA, 1993). Removal technologies applicable
to each alternative are identified and discussed with respect to their effectiveness and
implementability. Technologies that were initially considered but were screened as infeasible for
technical reasons are presented and discussed in Section 3.1 and a discussion of ARARs is
provided in Section 3.2. The applicable technologies are then assembled into removal alternatives
in Sections 3.4 through 3.7. Based on knowledge and experience with removal actions at similar
sites, the following four removal action alternatives were evaluated for the Section 10 Mine Site:
Alternative 1: No Further Action
Alternative 2: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Soils at a Licensed
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facility
Alternative 3: Excavation, Consolidation, and Long-Term Management of the
Radiologically Contaminated Soils/Debris at an Above-Ground On-Site
Repository
Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place
The alternatives have been developed to mitigate potential threats posed by controlling human
exposure to materials with concentrations of Ra-226 above the action level. These alternatives
were also developed based on federal guidance as described in Section 3.2. Section 4.0 and Section
5.0 evaluate the alternatives individually and comparatively using the criteria established by the
EPA. Figure 2-1 illustrates the excavation areas and presents the volumes of contaminated soil that
would be transferred off-site for Alternative 2, or would be relocated to an on-site repository for
Alternative 3, or capped in place for Alternative 4. Table K-l in Appendix K summarizes the
alternatives, presenting the estimated costs and schedules for each. Several other alternatives were
considered but ruled out as not viable, as described below in Section 3.1.
The conceptual design assumptions used for each alternative are discussed in the following
sections. As described in Section 2.3, the area and depth estimates used to calculate the removal
action volumes were determined through Arc-GIS analysis based on plotting on-site gamma
scanning and soil sampling data. As additional site data are obtained, it is anticipated that the
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
volume estimate would be refined. However, the EPA considers the volume estimates summarized
in Figure 2-1 to be sufficiently accurate for the purposes of comparing costs and conceptual designs
in this EE/CA.
3.1 ALTERNATIVES SCREENED FROM CONSIDERATION
The process of identifying and evaluating alternatives to meet the RAOs began with an initial
screening of alternatives to determine if any were considered to be technically or administratively
infeasible. The following alternatives were screened from consideration during the prescreening
process for the East GSA EE/CA (TDD 0001/17-040) (Weston, 2020), which also apply to the
Section 10 Mine Site. See Section 3.1 of the East GSA EE/CA for the detailed discussion and
reasoning for screening the following alternatives from consideration:
• Institutional Controls
• Vegetative Extraction (Phytoremediation)
• Soil Washing
• Soil Sorting
In addition to the above alternatives screened in the East GSA EE/CA (Weston 2020), specific to
the Section 10 Mine Site, the alternative of constructing a long-term, on-site, incised (below-
ground) repository was also screened from consideration.
• On-Site Incised (below-ground) Repository
Due to the unknown locations and conditions of historic subsurface mining facilities, deep
excavations at the Section 10 Mine Site are not recommended without first collecting additional
information. Due to the unknown extent of the engineering challenges that would be involved and
the costly and highly specialized underground mapping operation that would be undertaken to
collect such information of the existing underground facilities, this alternative was screened from
further consideration.
3.2 APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
(ARARS)
This EE/CA was developed following the basic methodology outlined in 40 CFR §300.415 and
further discussed in the EE/CA Guidance (EPA, 1993). Section 121(d) of CERCLA requires that
response actions comply with state and federal ARARs unless a waiver is justified. ARARs are
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-2
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
used to assist in determining the appropriate extent of site cleanup, to scope and formulate removal
action alternatives, and to govern the implementation of a selected response action (EPA, 1988
and 1989). The following sections provide a definition of ARARs and describe the ARARs that
are specific to the Site.
3.2.1 Terms and Definitions
The NCP provides that response actions must attain ARARs to the extent practicable, considering
the exigencies of the situation (40 CFR 300.415(j)). As discussed in the EPA Guidance on the
Consideration of ARARs during Removal Actions (EPA, 1991b), NTCRAs will generally, where
practicable, allow for greater compliance with ARARs than time-critical removal actions
(TCRAs).
In the course of conducting the EE/CA for the Site, ARARs as well as other "To Be Considered"
(TBC) criteria were identified from policy or guidance documents that may be pertinent to
evaluating and implementing removal options. ARARs and TBC criteria are defined as follows:
• Applicable Requirements are cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state environmental laws
that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site.
• Relevant and Appropriate Requirements are cleanup standards, standards of control, and
other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or state
environmental laws that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant, con-
taminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site and
are well-suited to the particular site.
• TBC Criteria consist of advisories, criteria, or guidance that were developed by EPA, other
federal agencies, or states that may be useful in developing CERCLA remedies and include
non-promulgated guidance or advisories that are not legally binding and that do not have
the status of potential ARARs. TBCs generally fall within three categories: health effects
information with a high degree of credibility, technical information on how to perform or
evaluate site investigations or response actions, and policy.
The EPA has divided ARARs into two categories: location-specific, and action-specific. The
categories are described below:
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
• Location-Specific ARARs apply to the geographical or physical location of a site. These
requirements limit where and how the removal action can occur.
• Action-Specific ARARs include performance, design, or other controls on the specific
activities to be performed as part of the removal action for a site.
ARARs and TBC criteria for the Section 10 Mine Site, along with a brief description of each, are
provided in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 list the Federal and State of New Mexico action- and location-specific ARARs
and TBC requirements selected in the Action Memorandum for the NTCRA for the Site. There are
no chemical-specific ARARs selected for this Site. Cleanup standards were derived through the
EPA risk assessment process, in accordance with EPA guidance (EPA, 1997b; EPA, 1998; EPA,
2014).
The tables list ARARs and TBCs for the NTCRA selected for the Site to address surface
contamination from underground mining operations and related support activities. If unforeseen
situations arise or previously unknown hazardous substances are found during implementation of
the removal action to which additional legal standards may be germane, EPA will identify any
additional ARARs and/or TBCs promptly and secure compliance with the substantive
requirements in Site response activities.
The uranium, Ra-226, and related daughter progeny contamination in the soil/debris is from the
mining of uranium, which is a solid waste, but not a hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), because it is solid waste from the extraction,
beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals within the meaning of 40 CFR § 261.4 (b)(7).
Since the materials are not a hazardous waste under RCRA, EPA does not consider RCRA
hazardous waste management requirements to be applicable, including without limitation the
waste analysis requirements found at 40 CFR §§ 261.20 and 261.30, the RCRA manifesting
requirements found at 40 CFR § 262.20, and the RCRA packaging and labeling requirements
found at 40 CFR § 262.30. Since the removal action involves no on-site storage of hazardous
wastes, storage requirements found at 40 CFR Part 265 are not ARARs.
Although the hazardous substances which are the subject of this removal action are solid waste
and not hazardous waste under RCRA, it is useful in this Site-specific situation for EPA to use
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-4
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
certain RCRA procedures to control and track waste sent off-site. Accordingly, RCRA waste
analysis requirements found at 40 CFR §§ 261.20 and 261.30, RCRA manifesting requirements
found at 40 CFR § 262.20, and RCRA packaging and labeling requirements found at 40 CFR §
262.30 are deemed to be relevant and appropriate requirements and will be used for off-site
disposal of wastes and other contaminated material generated during this removal action. Because
on-site storage of repackaged hazardous wastes is not expected to exceed ninety (90) days, specific
storage requirements found at 40 CFR Part 265 are neither applicable nor relevant and appropriate
(See 40 CFR § 262.34).
3.2.2 Other Considerations and Assumptions
The following additional considerations and assumptions were made during the ARAR
identification process.
3.2.2.1 Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has promulgated standards for the
protection of workers who may be exposed to hazardous substances at RCRA or CERCLA sites
(29 CFR Parts 1910.120 and 1926.65). The EPA requires compliance with OSHA standards in the
NCP (40 CFR 300.150), but not through the ARAR process. Therefore, OSHA standards are not
considered ARARs. Since the requirements, standards, and regulations of OSHA are not ARARs
and cannot be waived, they will be complied with during the removal action.
3.2.2.2 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) programs are categorized under Title I
and Title II. Title I addresses specific inactive uranium processing sites, and Title II addresses
active sites that are required to have a license from the NRC. Under UMTRCA, the EPA was
directed to devise standards for both the control and cleanup of excess radiation from uranium mill
tailings. The Section 10 Mine is not a listed site under Title I of UMTRCA, nor would Section 10
Mine wastes be classified under Title II. However, UMTRCA requirements may be ARARs
(relevant and appropriate) under certain circumstances, as reflected in Table 3-2.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-5
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.2.2.3 Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual
The activities conducted as part of this removal action shall be conducted in a manner consistent
with MARS SIM specifications to facilitate implementation of a final status survey at the
completion of mitigation activities. MARSSIM is guidance, not a promulgated standard, and thus
is not an ARAR, though it may be applied as a TBC.
For the purposes of the final status survey, the DCGL referenced in MARSSIM will be equivalent
to 4.9 pCi/g of Ra-226, a value equivalent to the PRG Calculator result (i.e., the action level
exclusive of background; see section 2.2.1). The DCGL is a radionuclide-specific soil
concentration that would result in a risk equal to the release criterion (i.e., 4.9 pCi/g above
background). If radioactivity is relatively evenly distributed over a large area, MARSSIM
considers the average concentration over the entire area (termed DCGLw; meaning DCGL for a
wide area"). Thus, more specifically, the DCGLw will be equivalent to 4.9 pCi/g of Ra-226.
Concentrations greater than the DCGLw are allowed provided that the average concentration over
the survey area is less than the DCGLw. The MARSSIM approach allows for calculation of a
higher DCGL, for small areas of concentrated radioactivity within the 'wide area', based upon
"area weighting factors." This value is termed the DCGLemc ("emc" represents the elevated
measurement comparison). The DCGLemc is typically a multiple of the DCGLw and will differ
depending on the distance between sample points collected during the MARSSIM final status
survey (over-arching release criterion prescribed by MARSSIM) in each survey unit. This
approach accounts for the fact that the resident will receive a greater dose from a smaller area of
contaminated soil than from the more homogenously contaminated 'wide area', but because the
DCGLemc is not exceeded, the average dose to a receptor is still in compliance with the release
criterion, assuming the survey unit passes an appropriate statistical test. Calculations of DCGLemc
values will be calculated post-removal as part of final status surveys.
3.3 ENGINEERING AND LOGISTICAL CONCERNS APPLICABLE TO MOST
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives 2 through 4 each require the following common components and activities:
• Plans and submittals
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-6
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
• Mobilization and site setup
• Clearing and grubbing
• Site security and access controls
• Road and haul route improvements
• Road and haul route maintenance
• On-site traffic control
• Air monitoring and dust control
• Storm water management, erosion control, and maintenance
• Site reclamation
The costs for these common activities are included in the estimated cost for each alternative
(Appendix K).
3.3.1 Plans and Submittals
Prior to mobilization activities, construction plans, drawings, and specifications would need to be
prepared for Alternatives 2 through 4. Work Plans and construction drawings and specifications
will consider information presented in the Natural Resource Evaluation (Appendix A) and Cultural
Resource Survey (Appendix B) as well as recommendations or requirements from the New Mexico
SHPO, New Mexico SLO, or tribal consultation.
Additional required plans would include, at a minimum, a Removal Action Work Plan to include
a Health and Safety Plan, Environmental Protection Plan, Quality Assurance Project Plan, Field
Sampling/Monitoring Plan, Site Access and Security Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Storm Water
Management and Erosion Control Plan, Cultural Resource Protection Plan, Dust Control Plan, and
Final Status Survey Plan.
The design process will also require an evaluation of the potential environmental footprint of the
project, prepared in accordance with the EPA guidance document Methodology for Understanding
and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint (EPA, 2012) and the ASTM International
Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups, E2983-16el (ASTM, 2016).
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-7
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.3.2 Mobilization and Site Setup
A gamma activity survey in conjunction with soil sampling has been completed to delineate the
areas to be excavated. Temporary on-site facilities for project management and project controls
would be mobilized to the Site for the duration of the project. Temporary on-site facilities would
be constructed for decontamination of personnel and equipment (e.g., tools, salvageable
equipment, passenger vehicles and heavy equipment). Aboveground electrical lines cross the site.
A subsurface utility survey is necessary to identify and/or verify the location of buried utilities.
Areas scheduled for utility surveys would include excavation, borrow and transfer areas, heavy
equipment traversing paths, areas slated for drainage way improvements, and areas where material
may be stockpiled.
To prepare the Site for implementation of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the ecological and cultural
resource surveys of the repository area would be reviewed prior to mobilization. If necessary,
additional surveys would be performed by EPA-approved biologists or archeologists. Based on
the information gathered in the survey completed and for the purposes of this EE/CA, and
consistent with other CERCLA actions taken in this area, it is assumed that cultural resources can
be avoided or protected during site work activities.
As stated in Section 1.2.10, an Environmental Protection Plan will be developed prior to the
initiation of removal activities and will identify sensitive ecological habitats and species
documented during the survey. Removal activities may be scheduled to avoid certain critical
periods of the year such as nesting or breeding seasons.
3.3.3 Site Security and Access Control
Security would be maintained during all non-working hours while site work is occurring. The Site
Manager and the Health and Safety Officer would be responsible for personnel while they are on
the Site. To restrict access, the Site would remain completely fenced throughout the duration of
construction activities occurring using Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, along with appropriate signage
designating potential hazards and contacts to obtain additional information. Temporary fencing
would be used whenever the permanent fence must be removed for construction access. Alternate
entrances that may be required for portions of the work would be secured when not in use.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-8
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
The EPA and its authorized representatives, including its contractors, would have access to the
Site at all times. A Site Access and Security Plan would describe the activities used to monitor and
control access to the Site during implementation of the response actions using Alternatives 2, 3,
and 4 and the periods of work performance.
3.3.4 Road and Haul Route Improvements
Currently, there is a basic network of roads present on the Site that were used for mining and/or
mining related operations in the past. Prior to any work occurring, the current road network will
be evaluated to determine the feasibility of using the roads in their current condition for
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. If the existing road network requires improvement, appropriate
improvements will be made to sustain the anticipated removal activities on the Site.
All roads for long-term use during the removal action will have appropriately sized gravel
surfacing, which would need to be maintained for the duration of the removal action. Without
surfacing, many of the Site roads would become unusable during precipitation events due to the
high clay content of the soils composing those roads.
3.3.5 Road and Haul Route Maintenance
The alternatives being considered (2, 3, and 4) require haul traffic both on-site and off-site for a
few months to achieve completion. During transport, traffic controls would be necessary for on-
site and off-site haulage. A Traffic Control Plan will be developed and followed throughout the
removal action operations.
It is possible that rail transportation may be an alternative for off-site disposal of the materials at a
licensed low-level radioactive waste facility (Alternative 2); however, the cost estimate in this
report assumed truck transport of the materials to an approved disposal facility. Table 3-3 presents
cost estimates of different transportation options at these facilities.
Off-road haul routes would be maintained so that dust, debris, or mud are not created, and so that
these items are not tracked onto paved surfaces. Earthen haul routes would be shaped or otherwise
improved so that they are free draining and would not easily erode. Signs and barriers would be
provided, if necessary, to contain traffic along the designated routes.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-9
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.3.6 Air Monitoring and Dust Control
As part of the Site Sampling and Analysis Plan, specific methods and procedures would be
included for air quality monitoring, collecting, analyzing, and evaluating air samples within and at
the perimeter of work zones as described for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Prior to commencing
dust generating activities in the contaminated excavation areas, perimeter work zone samples
would be collected to establish background alpha and beta activity concentrations in ambient air.
The background air samples would be used to establish the COPC activity concentrations that are
naturally occurring in the air and are unrelated to the removal activities occurring at the Site.
Perimeter and work zone air monitoring stations would be positioned and operated to monitor
emissions during grubbing, excavation, stockpiling, loading of bulk-carriers, stockpile
management, and site reclamation.
The Dust Control Plan, referenced in Section 3.3.1, will detail how air monitoring results and dust
suppression measures would be implemented to document that potential off-site migration of
contaminants at unacceptable radiological activity concentrations does not occur, to maintain
compliant air quality conditions and a safe working environment, and to protect the health of
workers, the general public, and the environment during removal operations using Alternatives 2,
3, and 4. Dust controls would also be used to minimize fugitive dust generated from soil imported
from off-site borrow sources. Perimeter air monitoring would be performed during earthmoving
activities associated with site reclamation. Frequent water or water/tackifier solution spraying
would be used during soil moving activities at the Site and during construction and material-
placement work at the repository, if selected. Appropriate Stop Work protocols will be
incorporated in the Dust Control Plan for seasonal high-wind events when dust suppression using
watering or a water/tackifier solution is ineffective.
For costing purposes, it was assumed that water for dust control would be obtained and hauled
from Grants, New Mexico, and stored on-site in mobile water tank trailer towers.
3.3.7 Stormwater Management, Erosion Control, and Maintenance
As described above, the Site is located in an arid to semi-arid area of New Mexico. While
thunderstorms and significant moisture events are generally confined to the monsoon season,
significant snow events can occur, along with flash flooding events. Stormwater management and
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-10
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
erosion control are of significant concern based on the size and the extent of the excavation
activities associated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 of this removal action. As referenced in Section
3.3.1, a Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan will be prepared to address stormwater
management and erosion control procedures during the duration of the removal activities on this
Site.
Excavated areas would be graded and re-contoured to reduce overland and low-energy
concentrated flow rates and patterns. A natural regrading design would seek to integrate the post-
removal reclaimed area topography and existing drainage patterns to facilitate the development of
a stable land surface for the development of a viable post-removal ecosystem. All removal related
activities at the Site must be evaluated for potential impacts on federally listed species and critical
habitat for certification to meet the substantive requirements of the Notice of Intent, under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit. Once
the Site has been stabilized, monitoring of construction stormwater runoff would cease and post-
removal site controls would be initiated. The cost estimates include provisions for ongoing cover
maintenance, and fence inspection and repair at the final repository for Alternative 3.
3.3.8 Site Reclamation
Prior to initiation of reclamation activities, topographical and meteorological data for the Site
would be collected to produce a conceptual plan for reclamation. The plan would strive to return
the topography of the Site to pre-mining conditions, which would provide a stable land surface,
reduced erosion effects, and a sustainable ecosystem. The plan would also provide strategies for
using on-site fill materials to reduce costs associated with importing backfill. The plan would be
available for review by stakeholders prior to commencement of activities.
Grading where excavation of mine or mine-related waste materials has occurred using Alternative
3 would be performed to aid in erosion control (i.e., a slope of 4H:1V or flatter) where erodible
soils are present. Re-contouring of the Site would include filling excavations to restore natural
drainage conditions. On-site, clean backfill soil may be used for re-contouring the landscape. The
material would be compacted, and in-place soil density and moisture testing would be performed
to ensure a minimum of 85% relative compaction is achieved. Revegetation of excavated
contaminated areas would be completed to reduce erosion potential while improving grazing
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-11
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
suitability and wildlife habitat. Areas to be revegetated will require tilling and soil amendments
following re-contouring efforts. As summarized in Section 1.4.2.6, a conceptual revegetation plan
was developed for the Section 10 Mine Site. The conceptual revegetation plan is included in
Appendix H.
Vegetation establishment would help to minimize erosion and increase the durability of the cover
of the repository. Vegetation should attempt to emulate the local ecological conditions including
structure, function, diversity, and dynamics of native plant communities in the area. A diverse
mixture of native and naturalized plants would maximize water efficiency of water usage and
remain more resilient given variable and unpredictable changes in the environment resulting from
pathogen and pest outbreaks, disturbances (e.g., grazing, fire, etc.), and climatic fluctuations.
Therefore, the vegetation plan for the repository cover would include species that are sustainable,
once established, under typical climate and resource use patterns.
3.4 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO FURTHER ACTION
Under Alternative 1, no new treatment, containment, or removal action would occur at the Section
10 Mine Site. The no-action alternative has been included as a requirement in Section 300.430(e)
of the NCP and to provide a basis for the comparison of the remaining alternatives.
3.4.1 Site Work Activities
This alternative would include no new site work activities. Impacted materials would be left in
place. The current site conditions such as slope, surface treatment, and aspect that have been graded
would not be modified. Since the current site conditions do not provide a radon or gamma radiation
barrier, future site visitors may be exposed to radiation hazards. The potential for contact with
eroded radioactive material or exposure to fugitive dust may also occur due to the lack of
stabilization measures.
3.4.2 Post-Excavation and Site Reclamation Activities
Since there would be no new work activities at the Site under this alternative, there would be no
site reclamation.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-12
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.4.3 Site Controls and Security
The public and livestock are currently restricted access to the Section 10 Mine Site by chain-link
fence around the mine shaft and a cattle guard. However, the fence can be damaged or bypassed,
presenting a potential exposure to gamma radiation, fugitive dust, and radon emissions for
unauthorized personnel.
3.4.4 Stormwater and Erosion Control
No new stormwater or erosion control activities would be implemented under Alternative 1.
3.4.5 Operation and Maintenance Activities
The Site would require operation and maintenance (O&M) to ensure that the current level of
protectiveness provided by the existing fencing is maintained. Existing storm water and erosion
controls would be maintained as necessary.
3.5 ALTERNATIVE 2: EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF
CONTAMINATED SOILS AT A LICENSED LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
WASTE FACILITY
Alternative 2 assumes that contaminated soils with concentrations greater than the action level of
6.8 pCi/g Ra-226 would be excavated and disposed of off-site at a licensed disposal facility
permitted to receive the material, or at a processing mill that would reprocess and then dispose of
the soil.
Work recently completed by EPA identified three licensed disposal facilities within the western
United States that are authorized to accept low-level radioactive waste and/or naturally occurring
low-level radioactive soil with Ra-226 concentrations ranging from 2 pCi/g to approximately
500 pCi/g:
• Clean Harbors, Deer Trail, Colorado
• U.S. Ecology, Beatty, Nevada
• U.S. Ecology, Grand View, Idaho
Transportation and disposal pricing from January 2022 was used (See Table 3-3). This information
was used to develop the detailed cost estimates included in Appendix K. The estimate assumes a
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-13
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
transportation and disposal rate of $146.90/ton, which includes the pricing to transport, process,
and dispose of the material at the Clean Harbors Landfill in Deer Trail, Colorado.
3.5.1 Off-Site Rule
Alternative 2 would require compliance with the Off-Site Rule of CERCLA. In general, the Off-
Site Rule requires that facilities that accept contaminated or hazardous substances from a CERCLA
site must be in compliance with all applicable regulations and laws (i.e., they must be approved to
take those wastes and be in compliance with the applicable federal, state, and local requirements
to do so). A licensed disposal facility for Alternative 2 would have existing approval under the
Off-Site Rule.
3.5.2 Site Work Activities
The initial site removal work includes clearing and grubbing to remove organic debris. Stormwater
controls would be implemented during these activities and continued throughout the excavation
and backfill process. Contaminated soil would be excavated by a combination of heavy mining
equipment including scrapers, bulldozers, graders, excavators, front-end loaders, and haul trucks.
Contaminated soil would be loaded onto haul trucks for transport directly to the final disposal
facility. Alternatively, transportation by rail or a combination of trucking and rail may be an option.
Material would need to be trucked from the Site to Milan, New Mexico, where a transfer station
would need to be established. The material could then be loaded to rail cars and shipped to the
selected disposal facility.
In addition to the site removal work, an existing steel headworks structure will be demolished and
disposed of and an existing vertical adit shaft and vertical vent shaft will be plugged using
polyurethane foam (PUF). Figures M-2 and M-3 (Appendix M) illustrate example typical details
of adit and vent shaft closures, respectively.
Contaminated areas of the Section 10 Mine Site as shown in Figure 2-1 would be excavated. The
on-site excavation and trucking activities are estimated to take 7 months, with planning expected
to take an additional 3 months before construction mobilization, for a total removal time of 10
months before completion.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-14
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Traffic controls would be in place in order to maintain safe driving conditions due to equipment
and vehicles entering and leaving the site. During the course of the removal action it is estimated
that approximately 2,710 truckloads (assuming 45,000 pounds/load for highway legal trucks)
would be required to remove material from the Site at a rate of 150 trucks per day. As an
alternative, rail transport from the Site might be evaluated to minimize transportation costs, as
there is a rail line approximately 0.5 miles east of the Site. The largest equipment that can
reasonably be used on the Site, with quick travel times, and that would cause minimal damage to
access routes, should be considered to maximize efficiency. Under this alternative, it was assumed
that the majority of traffic would use the existing and upgraded access roads to move the material.
3.5.3 Post-Excavation and Site Reclamation Activities
Concurrent with the excavation activities, confirmation testing of the bottom and side soils in each
excavated area would help determine the remaining vertical and lateral extent of contamination.
Excavation would continue until the action level is met.
After the mine and mine-related waste are removed from the Section 10 Mine Site, the area would
be reclaimed for livestock grazing and wildlife habitat. Clean fill soil and rock used to construct
and repair roads, or used as general fill or rock armoring, would be obtained from segregated
overburden (if feasible) or a borrow area located off-site. Excavated areas would be recontoured
and possibly backfilled with on-site, clean soil as required to restore grades and promote positive
drainage. At least 6 inches of the topsoil would be tilled and enriched with soil amendments to
serve as growing media. Revegetation efforts would follow the final Revegetation Plan developed
from the draft conceptual Revegetation Plan (Appendix H) and modified for final post removal
conditions. Progressive revegetation would occur for disturbed and reclaimed areas after
completion of removal activities in each removal unit.
3.5.4 Site Controls and Security
During the Alternative 2 removal and reclamation activities, Site access would be restricted by a
newly installed fence. Domestic livestock would not be allowed to enter the Site until reclaimed.
Once vegetation is re-established and the Site has stabilized, perimeter fencing may be removed.
Reclamation activities may take 5 years or more before adequate vegetation is re-established in
place and final stabilization is achieved.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-15
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.5.5 Stormwater and Erosion Control
Stormwater management and erosion control are of significant concern based on the size and the
extent of the excavation activities associated with Alternative 2. As referenced in Section 3.3.1
and 3.3.7 above, a Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plan would be prepared to
address stormwater management and erosion control procedures during the duration of the removal
activities on this Site. The Site would be returned to a sustainable topography with natural features
to reduce the risk of erosion.
Excavated areas would be graded and recontoured to reduce overland and low-energy concentrated
flow rates and patterns. The natural regrading design integrates the post-removal reclaimed area
topography and existing drainage patterns to facilitate the development of a stable land surface for
the development of a viable post removal ecosystem. All removal related activities at the Site must
be evaluated for potential impacts on federally listed species and critical habitat for certification
to meet the substantive requirements of the Notice of Intent, under the NPDES Multi-Sector
General Permit. Once the Site has been stabilized, monitoring of construction stormwater runoff
would cease and post removal site controls would be initiated.
Recontouring of the Site would include filling excavations to restore natural drainage conditions.
On-site, clean backfill soil may be used for recontouring the landscape. The material would be
compacted, and in-place soil density and moisture testing would be performed to ensure a
minimum of 85% relative compaction is achieved. Revegetation and reclamation activities
described above would further contribute to stormwater and erosion control once the removal
action is complete.
3.5.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities
Operation and maintenance of the Site during the removal and reclamation activities would be the
responsibility of the EPA. After completion of reclamation activities, O&M would be conveyed to
the State of New Mexico at a date to be determined. Monitoring and maintenance of revegetation
efforts would occur for an estimated 12 years following revegetation (Appendix H).
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-16
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.6 ALTERNATIVE 3: EXCAVATION, CONSOLIDATION AND LONG-TERM
MANAGEMENT OF THE RADIOLOGICALLY CONTAMINATED
SOILS/DEBRIS AT A ABOVE-GROUND ON-SITE REPOSITORY
In Alternative 3, contaminated mine and mine-related materials greater than the action level of 6.8
pCi/g Ra-226 would be excavated, transported, and consolidated into a non-commercial, newly
created repository located on the Section 10 Mine Site.
3.6.1 Engineering Design
Alternative 3 uses an engineered cover as part of the removal solution. The conceptual model used
for the capping options included in the cost analysis for this alternative is described below. Figure
M-l (Appendix M) illustrates the final grading plan of the proposed design of a 40,000 CY,
8.7-acre repository.
Regarding the remediation of mine wastes, Title I UMTRCA standards (Subpart A of 40 CFR
192.02 (a) and (d) and 40 CFR Part 61), which are ARARs (relevant and appropriate [see Table 3-
2]), offer the following guidance. Remediation should:
• Be designed to be effective for up to 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable, but
for up to 200 years at a minimum.
• Provide reasonable assurance that releases of radon-222 will not exceed an average release
rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2-s).
Several critical factors were considered in designing a cover. These design elements are discussed
briefly below, and assumptions are made in order to prepare the cost analysis for the alternative.
These assumptions may change upon further investigation of the Site. Ultimately the containment
design would be based on comprehensive planning and site-specific risk analysis.
• Longevity of the Cover - The engineered cover would be designed to be effective for up
to 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable, for up to 200 years at a minimum; this
lifespan is highly dependent upon continuing maintenance of the cover and would require
long-term monitoring. The net present value (NPV) for the long-term inspections and
maintenance of the cover for 100 years is included in the cost estimate.
• Protection from Radon Emanation - The final cap thickness for Alternative 3 would be
determined based on NRC guidance and using Regulatory Guide 3.64, Calculation of
Radon Flux Attenuation by Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers (NRC, 1989).
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Preliminary calculations were performed for this report following 40 CFR Part 61 limiting
the release rate of radon-222 through the cover to 20 pCi/m2-s (Appendix L), which
resulted in a cap thickness of 3 feet.
• Water Infiltration - The cover must protect the contaminated soils and reduce leachate
development by minimizing the infiltration of water from precipitation. The cover design
would incorporate drainage features and use evapotranspiration to limit water infiltration.
• Erosion Control - Cap shaping, sloping, and proper drainage patterns are also important
to ensure stability of the final consolidated material. The current area has had problems
with erosion of cover soils. For this reason, the cost estimates presented for this alternative
uses a maximum 20H:1V slope ratio (5% grade) and incorporate drainage features. Water
diversion, velocity breaks, rock intermixed with the surface layer, and placement of rip rap
or other protective lining in concentrated flow areas are expected to be the most effective
surficial erosion mitigation measures. The repository would be positioned at a sufficient
distance from any surface water features to be protective of surface waters. Similarly,
information obtained during the ecological and cultural resource surveys would be
considered in the repository location placement.
• Cover Design - The cost estimate uses an evapotranspiration cover assumed design with
a 3-foot-thick radon barrier comprised of a 2-foot layer of native soil or borrow material
and overlain by a 1-foot-thick layer of soil, mixed with both rock and organic material,
which would be used on the top of the radon cover to promote revegetation and control
erosion.
Although the final design may vary, the major cost factors—thickness of cover and source
of material—would likely not be significantly different from the cost estimate assumptions.
Final design parameters for the consolidation repository would be determined by EPA in
consultation with the State of New Mexico and other key stakeholders as necessary. All
engineering and design parameters for the proposed repository are consistent with the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7918; 2022, 40 CFR
§§192.02(a) and (d); and 2022, 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. Criteria 1, 4, 6(1), 6(3), 6(5)
and 6(7) (ARARs [relevant and appropriate]) and the Joint Guidance for the Cleanup and
Reclamation of Existing Uranium Mining Operations in New Mexico (March 2016) (TBC).
3.6.2 Site Work Activities
The initial Section 10 Mine Site removal work includes clearing and grubbing and removal of
organic debris. Stormwater controls would be implemented during these activities and continued
throughout the excavation and site restoration process. Contaminated soil would be excavated by
a combination of heavy mining equipment including scrapers, bulldozers, graders, excavators,
front-end loaders, and haul trucks. Since the repository is located within the contamination area,
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
contaminated soil would be transported directly to the final disposal facility by the excavation
equipment rather than haul trucks. Areas excavated would include impacted areas as shown in
Figure 2-1.
During the removal action, it is estimated that approximately 1,000 truckloads (assuming 34 CY
capacity off-road haul trucks) would be required to transport clean fill material from the borrow
site to the repository site. The largest equipment that can reasonably be used on-site, with quick
travel times, and that would cause minimal damage to access routes should be considered to
maximize efficiency. Under this alternative, the majority of traffic would use the existing and
upgraded access roads. The preferred route would be developed in consultation with Tronox during
the design phase.
In addition to the site removal work, an existing steel headworks structure will be demolished and
disposed and an existing vertical adit shaft and vertical vent shaft will be plugged using PUF.
Figures M-2 and M-3 (Appendix M) illustrate example typical details of adit and vent shaft
closures, respectively.
The on-site excavation and trucking activities are estimated to take approximately 7 months, with
planning expected to take an additional 3 months before construction mobilization, for a total
implementation time of 8 months before completion.
3.6.3 Post-Excavation and Site Reclamation Activities
Post-excavation and site reclamation activities are consistent between Alternative 3 and those
described for Alternative 2 in Section 3.5.3.
3.6.4 Site Controls and Security
During the Alternative 3 removal and reclamation activities, Site access would be restricted by a
fence. Domestic livestock would not be allowed to enter the Site until reclaimed. Once vegetation
is re-established and the Site has stabilized, perimeter fencing may be removed. Reclamation
activities may take 5 years or more before adequate vegetation has been re-established and final
stabilization is achieved.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-19
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.6.5 Stormwater and Erosion Control
As for Alternative 2, stormwater management and erosion control are of significant concern based
on the size and the extent of the excavation activities associated with Alternative 3. Controls for
Alternative 3 would be consistent with those previously described for Alternative 2 (Section 3.5.5).
3.6.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities
Operation and maintenance of the Site during the removal and reclamation activities would be the
responsibility of the EPA. After completion of reclamation activities, O&M would be conveyed to
Tronox at a date to be determined. Tronox is expected to inspect and maintain storm water and
erosion control features for perpetuity. Monitoring and maintenance of revegetation efforts would
occur for an estimated 12 years following revegetation (Appendix H). The repository
grades/slopes, cap condition, cap vegetation, erosion control measures, access roads, fencing, and
other site operation and maintenance would require more frequent inspections and a higher level
of scrutiny than the other reclaimed and revegetated areas of the Section 10 Mine Site. The cap
would be inspected for differential settling, erosional rilling and gullying, wildlife damage,
unauthorized access, and revegetation success. Repairs and maintenance would be completed
accordingly.
3.7 ALTERNATIVE 4: CAPPING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL IN PLACE
In Alternative 4, contaminated mine and mine-related materials greater than the action level of 6.8
pCi/g Ra-226 would be capped in place at the Section 10 Mine Site. This alternative would involve
excavating clean material from onsite or importing the material from another location. This
alternative envisions ultimately a future land-use of cattle ranching across the capped site, which
would require cap thickness(es) able to attenuate risk emanating from all ranching routes of
exposure (i.e., direct external gamma, inhalation of soil particulates, incidental ingestion of soil,
and beef consumption). Varying surface and subsurface Ra-226 concentrations across the Site
would require the development of statistical units for which varying cap thicknesses would be
calculated, based on an appropriate Ra-226 concentration (e.g. the 95UCL mean or the maximum
single-point concentration) and subsequent risk modeling with the PRG Calculator. Alternatively,
an 'over-design', one-size cap thickness can be considered for the entire site, calculated to
attenuate the risk from a ranching scenario using the appropriate Ra-226 concentration of the most
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
elevated statistical unit. For the purposes of comparing remedial alternatives in this EE/CA, the
latter cap-design approach was used and a cap thickness of 3 feet was calculated to attenuate the
risk of a Ra-226 concentration of 57 pCi/g for a ranching scenario.
In order to cover 20-contaminated acres with a 3-foot cover, approximately 106,000 CY of cover
material would be required. The above value of cover material has an added 10% contingency
amount, taking into account the topography of the large area.
3.7.1 Engineering Design
Alternative 4 uses an engineered cover as the removal solution. The conceptual model used for the
capping-in-place alternative included in the cost analysis is described below. The excavation area
shown on Figure 2-1 illustrates the area that would be capped in place.
Several critical factors were considered in designing a cover. These design elements are discussed
briefly below, and assumptions are made in order to prepare the cost analysis for the alternative.
These assumptions may change upon further investigation of the Site. Ultimately the containment
design would be based on comprehensive planning and site-specific risk analysis.
• Longevity of the Cover - The engineered cover would be designed similar to what is
outlined for Alternative 3 in Section 3.6.1.
• Protection from All Routes of Exposure for a Ranching Scenario - The final cap
thickness(es) for Alternative 4 would be based on risk modeling of a ranching scenario via
the PRG Calculator.
• Water Infiltration - The assumptions used for water infiltration were similar to those for
Alternative 3 in Section 3.6.1.
• Erosion Control - Cap shaping, sloping, and proper drainage patterns are important to
ensure stability of the final capped material. The current area has had problems with erosion
of cover soils. For this reason, the cost estimate presented for this alternative assumes that
transitions from the capped area to existing grades would be achieved with slopes no
greater than 4H:1V. Water diversion, velocity breaks, rock intermixed with the surface
layer, and placement of rip rap or other protective lining in concentrated flow areas are
expected to be the most effective surficial erosion mitigation measures. Surface water
features such as arroyos will have to be studied to determine how capping in place will
affect storm water drainage in these areas. In addition to studying the areas being capped,
the borrow area where fill material will be taken for the cap would have to be designed to
control drainage patters and erosion due to stormwater events.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-21
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
• Cover Design - The cost estimate uses assumptions similar to those for Alternative 3 in
Section 3.6.1. Although the final design may vary, the major cost factors—thickness of
cover and source of material—would likely not be significantly different from the cost
estimate assumptions. Final design parameters for the consolidation repository would be
determined by EPA in consultation with the State of New Mexico and other key
stakeholders as necessary.
3.7.2 Site Work Activities
The initial Section 10 Mine Site removal work includes clearing and grubbing and removal of
organic debris. Stormwater controls would be implemented during these activities and continued
throughout the excavation and site restoration process. Clean fill material would be excavated from
the designated borrow area and transported and placed on top of contaminated soil. The fill
material would be compacted and seeded. The earthwork would be accomplished using a
combination of heavy mining equipment including scrapers, bulldozers, graders, excavators, front-
end loaders, and haul trucks.
During the course of the removal action it is estimated that approximately 3,800 truckloads
(assuming 34 CY capacity off-road haul trucks) would be required to transport clean fill material.
The largest equipment that can reasonably be used on-site, with quick travel times, and that would
cause minimal damage to access routes should be considered to maximize efficiency. Under this
alternative, the majority of traffic would use the existing and upgraded access roads to move
capping material to the Site. The preferred route would be developed in consultation with Tronox
during the design phase.
In addition to the site removal work, an existing steel headworks structure will be demolished and
disposed of and an existing vertical adit shaft and a vertical vent shaft will be plugged using PUF.
Figures M-2 and M-3 (Appendix M) illustrate example typical details of adit and vent shaft
closures, respectively.
Excavation, placing of fill material, and trucking activities for Alternative 4 are estimated to take
approximately 9 months, with planning expected to take an additional 3 months before
construction mobilization, for a total implementation time of 1 year before completion.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-22
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
3.7.3 Post-Excavation and Site Reclamation Activities
Site reclamation activities are consistent between Alternative 4 and those described for Alternative
2 in Section 3.5.3.
3.7.4 Site Controls and Security
Site controls and security would be consistent between Alternative 4 and those described for
Alternative 3 in Section 3.6.4.
3.7.5 Stormwater and Erosion Control
As with Alternative 2, storm water management and erosion control are of significant concern
based on the size and the extent of the excavation activities associated with Alternative 4. Controls
for Alternative 4 would be consistent with those previously described for Alternative 2 in Section
3.5.5.
3.7.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities
Operation and maintenance of the Site would be consistent between Alternative 4 and those
described for Alternative 3 in Section 3.6.6.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
3-23
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
4.0 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The detailed analysis of alternatives is intended to provide the relevant information required to
select a preferred remedy. Each alternative was evaluated based on effectiveness,
implementability, and cost, as set forth in the NCP and EPA guidance on conducting an EE/CA
for a removal action (EPA, 1993). A summary of the analyses of the individual alternatives is
included as Table 4-1.
4.1 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS APPROACH
4.1.1 Effectiveness
Effectiveness refers to the ability of an alternative to meet the RAOs. The following criteria are
used to evaluate effectiveness:
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment - This criterion provides a final
check to assess whether each alternative provides adequate protection of human health and the
environment. The assessment of overall protection draws on the evaluation of the other criteria,
especially long-term effectiveness and permanence, short-term effectiveness, and compliance with
ARARs.
Evaluation of the overall protectiveness of an alternative would focus on whether a specific
alternative achieves adequate protection and would describe how site risks posed through each
pathway addressed by the EE/CA are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering, or institutional controls. This evaluation would allow for consideration of whether an
alternative poses any unacceptable short-term or cross-media impacts.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence - This criterion evaluates results of the removal
action in terms of the risk remaining at the Site after response objectives have been met. The
primary focus of this evaluation would be the extent and effectiveness of the controls that may be
required to manage the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated materials remaining at
the Site.
Short-Term Effectiveness - This criterion evaluates the effects that the alternative would have
on human health and the environment during its construction and implementation phase. It
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
includes both radiation exposure risks to the contaminated soils and risks to the workers and
communities from construction work and traffic during implementation and the time necessary to
complete the action.
Compliance with ARARs - This criterion is used to determine whether each alternative would
meet the identified ARARs. The detailed analyses would summarize which requirements are
applicable or relevant and appropriate to an alternative and describe how the alternative meets
these requirements.
4.1.2 Implementability
This criterion evaluates the technical and administrative feasibility of implementing an alternative
and the availability of various services and materials required to construct and provide O&M. The
following criteria are used to evaluate implementability:
• Technical feasibility
• Administrative feasibility
• Availability of services and materials
Also considered is the reliability of the technology, the ability to monitor the effectiveness of the
remedy, and the ease of undertaking additional remedial actions, if necessary.
4.1.3 Cost
Cost estimates were prepared for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 to compare the alternatives and support
remedy selection. The types of costs that were assessed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.430
(e)(9)(iii)(G) include the following: (1) capital costs, including both direct and indirect costs; (2)
annual operations and maintenance costs; and (3) net present value (NPV) of capital and O&M
costs. Capital costs were included as 2016 dollars. In accordance with EPA guidance, the cost
estimates were prepared to provide accuracy in the range of 50% greater to 30% lower than actual
costs.
An NPV analysis relates costs that occur over different time periods to present costs by discounting
all future costs to the present value. This allows the cost of removal alternatives to be compared
on the basis of a single figure that represents the capital required in 2022 dollars to construct,
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-2
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
operate, and maintain the removal alternative throughout its planned life. The NPV calculations
were based on a discount rate of 7% (EPA, 2000), which represents the average rate of return on
private investment, before taxes and after inflation. Cost estimate details are located in Appendix
K.
The scope and costs presented for the various alternatives are based on the best available
information regarding current site conditions and readily available information on the applicability
and effectiveness of the selected removal actions. However, uncertainties and data gaps remain
because the site characterization was based on a limited number of samples, observations, and
analyses. In preparing the cost estimates, conservative assumptions have been used and an overall
contingency has been added to each alternative to account for these uncertainties. Changes in the
cost elements are likely as new information is available and site conditions change during the
removal action design. Cost assumptions are included in Appendix K.
Actual costs may vary from these estimates depending on variations in actual site conditions from
those estimated, such as weather conditions; inflation; actual fuel costs; actual insurance and
bonding costs; the availability and market costs of materials, equipment, and labor; changes in
regulatory requirements; and other factors that are difficult to estimate or control.
4.2 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES
Except for Alternative 1 (No Further Action), each of the removal action alternatives would result
in an overall improvement to the local environment. However, for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, it is
important to note that there would be some unavoidable impacts. These include:
• Short-term inconvenience to local populations using New Mexico Highways 509 and 605;
general disturbance from heavy equipment activity for the assumed construction periods;
and increased truck traffic in the area.
• Disruption of cattle grazing and wildlife access to the removal action areas due to the
construction activities and for vegetation re-establishment.
• Long-term O&M activities are required for maintenance of the cover, stormwater diversion
measures, revegetation efforts, and fencing.
• Increased risks of traffic fatalities due to off-site trucking of material (Table 4-2).
• Increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to off-site and on-site trucking of contaminated
material and clean fill material (Table 4-2).
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO FURTHER ACTION
The No Further Action alternative does not provide protection to human or environmental
exposure, nor is it considered a permanent remedy because it does not reduce the concentration,
volume, or mobility of the hazardous substances on the Site. The No Further Action alternative
has been included as a requirement of the NCP and to provide a basis for the comparison of the
remaining alternatives. No new activities would occur at the Site under this alternative; however,
implementation of Alternative 1, No Further Action, would require the following O&M steps to
maintain the existing level of protection:
• Erosion and stormwater control maintenance.
• Fencing maintenance and repair.
4.3.1 Effectiveness
This alternative would not minimize the potential exposure to, or transport of, contaminated soils
from the Section 10 Mine Site. This alternative would not provide control through treatment of
soils with concentrations of Ra-226 above the action level or reduce volume or mobility of
contaminants and thus would not reduce risks to human health or the environment. The resultant
risks associated with the No Further Action Alternative would be similar to those that existed at
the time of the RSE. Therefore, increased protection of human health and the environment would
not be achieved under the alternative.
Surface water discharge from the Site would have continued potential to transport contaminated
soils to the downstream watershed. Site workers and visitors would continue to be potentially
exposed to windborne and waterborne contaminants. The Site would continue to be unacceptable
for livestock grazing use.
Other than routine storm water pollution prevention plan maintenance, no controls or long-term
measures would be implemented to control contaminated soils at the Site under the No Further
Action Alternative; therefore, this alternative offers no long-term or short-term effectiveness in
reducing potential risks to human and ecological receptors.
The effectiveness of the No Further Action Alternative is considered low for achieving the removal
action goals.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-4
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
4.3.2 Implementability
This alternative is easily implemented because there are no construction or permitting
considerations. EPA guidance requires that the reliability of the technology be considered along
with feasibility. Since No Further Action is inherently an unreliable remedy, this criterion is rated
low.
4.3.3 Cost
The total cost of Alternative 1 is estimated to be $561,000 (Appendix K [Tables K-l and K-2]).
There are no new direct or indirect capital costs, and annual O&M costs are estimated at $18,901
per year. Because the overall effectiveness of Alternative 1 is low, the cost analysis rating of
Alternative 1 is low.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 2: OFF-SITE DISPOSAL AT A LICENSED LOW-LEVEL
RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITY
Implementation of Alternative 2, excavation and off-site disposal of all materials, would require
the following steps:
• Excavation of all excess radiologically contaminated materials on the Site (Figure 2-1).
• Off-site disposal of excavated contaminated materials.
• Site reclamation with erosion and stormwater controls, recontouring and revegetation.
4.4.1 Effectiveness
Alternative 2 would provide a high level of protection of human health and the environment. All
soils above the action level would be excavated within the Site boundary and removed for off-site
transportation and disposal at a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility. This alternative
would significantly minimize potential exposure to contaminated soils from the Site. This
alternative would provide control of mobility and a reduction in risk to human health and the
environment at the Site. Potential exposures during excavation, transport, and at the final disposal
site would be managed through engineering controls.
Federal and state ARARs would be met for the Site under Alternative 2 (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2).
Location-specific requirements would include regulations addressing cultural resources; human
remains, funerary and sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony for Native Americans; and
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-5
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
migratory birds, threatened or endangered indigenous wildlife species to the state, and endangered
plant species. Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for this alternative include protection of surface
water quality through control of run-off from construction activity, protection of air quality via
fugitive dust control, protection of the public, and the environment from low-level radioactivity,
and standards for post-removal reclamation. Rules and regulations on manifesting and the on-site
and off-site transport of hazardous materials would also be action-specific ARARs for
implementation of Alternative 2. Federal requirements for hazardous waste disposal would be
ARARs if the removal action encounters wastes subject to these requirements.
Short-term effectiveness under Alternative 2 is medium because of the disturbance of the entire
contaminated area and the large amount of trucking to transport the entire volume of material. The
primary considerations for short-term effectiveness are protection of the community, workers, and
environmental impacts during and after implementation. Alternative 2 involves excavation,
material transfer, stockpile development/management, loading of bulk carriers, and site restoration
activities. Heavy construction equipment would be used to clear and grub, excavate, transfer, load,
and grade impacted materials. Potential exposure and protection procedures for workers engaged
in these activities would be addressed in detail under a Site Health and Safety Plan. During
excavation and material handling activities, measures would be taken to reduce fugitive dust
emissions and associated impacts to workers. Water would be obtained from Grants, New Mexico,
for dust control, and workers in the controlled area would don the appropriate safety equipment
and implement safety practices such as air monitoring. Work areas would be secured (e.g., marked
or fenced) to ensure access by authorized personnel only.
Bulk carriers hauling the removal-action-derived contaminated materials off-site would be
covered, secured, and weighed to document compliance with total and axle load limits. Truck
traffic would be coordinated under an Off-Site Transportation Plan for routes, times of operation,
and on-site traffic rules. Emergency spill containment and cleanup contingencies would also be
included in the transportation plan to address material spills. Due to the large number of truckloads
(approximately 2,700 loads of contaminated soil leaving the Site) and the long drive to the disposal
facility (up to 5 hours one-way), it is estimated that the time period of implementation of
Alternative 2 would be 7 months, following 3 months of planning and permitting. This alternative
also has the highest amount of trucking and heavy equipment use in vehicle hours; therefore, it has
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-6
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
the highest potential for additional vehicular accidents and for increased wear and tear on
infrastructure, it produces the highest amount of air pollution (from particulate matter in vehicle
exhaust), and it uses the greatest amount of fossil fuels. A risk of 0.04 additional fatalities and
5,308 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, calculated as a carbon dioxide equivalent (CChe),
are estimated due to the increased truck traffic (see Table 4-2).
Long-term effectiveness of this alternative is high. Since all contaminated soils would be
excavated and removed from the Site, potential exposure reductions to those accessing the Site
would be permanent. Alternative 2 is expected to effectively mitigate the long-term effects on
potential on-site human and ecological receptors.
4.4.2 Implementability
Alternative 2 rates medium in technical and administrative implementability since it is technically
feasible and would use conventional techniques, materials, or labor for the excavation and
associated activities. The Site is readily accessible. Excavation would be scheduled and performed
to maximize direct loading and ensure worker and public safety. Engineering controls for fugitive
dust and site monitoring would be used to control potential exposures to sensitive receptors.
Profiling and manifesting of the material would be done in coordination with the transporters and
off-site disposal facility. Rail shipment is a possibility; a transload facility to transfer material from
trucks to railcars could be established as close as 0.5 miles from the Site. The cost of setting up
the facility, stationing an excavator with scaling bucket, maintaining a water supply for dust
control, providing security at the Site, and scheduling would need to be evaluated against the cost
of trucking.
Alternative 2 would be administratively feasible since shipping of contaminated material is fairly
common and would only require scheduling and obtaining the necessary permits. All contaminated
soil is anticipated to be accepted by permitted facilities, although due to the large quantity of
material to be disposed off-site, it is possible that one facility may not ultimately be able to accept
all the material.
The excavation of contaminated material would be accomplished using a variety of conventional
equipment. Heavy construction equipment needed for this project such as scrapers, excavators,
dozers, loaders, and compactors and/or bulk carriers are commercially available. Working space
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-7
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
is available for establishing temporary construction office trailers. Electricity is already available
at the Site and portable sanitary services and refuse disposal are locally available. Construction
materials for the site reclamation activities (localized drainage structures, erosion control,
recontouring, and seeding), and an off-site laboratory for sample analysis are commercially
available.
Trained and experienced labor is available for site work activities. Special certifications and
training requirements are commercially available. Health and safety training to comply with
OSHA regulations, including radiation and hazardous material handling training, is available.
Water for dust control can be obtained and hauled from Grants, New Mexico, and stored on-site
in mobile water tank trailer towers.
4.4.3 Cost
The total cost of Alternative 2 is estimated to be $30,055,000 (Appendix K [Tables K-l and K-3).
The long-term effectiveness and permanence is high while the short-term effectiveness is medium.
Because the cost is very high, the cost analysis rating of Alternative 2 is low.
4.5 ALTERNATIVE 3: EXCAVATION, CONSOLIDATION AND LONG-TERM
MANAGEMENT OF THE RADIOLOGICALLY CONTAMINATED
SOILS/DEBRIS AT A ABOVE-GROUND ON-SITE REPOSITORY
Implementation of Alternative 3, constructing a capped repository located on the Site, would
require the following steps:
• Design, siting, and construction of an aboveground repository.
• Excavation of all excess radiologically contaminated materials on the Site (Figure 2-1).
• Transportation to and placement of contaminated materials in the constructed repository.
• Construction of an engineered, clean-soil cap over the repository.
• Site reclamation with erosion and stormwater controls, recontouring, and revegetation.
4.5.1 Effectiveness
Alternative 3 would protect human health and the environment as all contaminated soils would be
placed in a covered repository. These activities would prevent direct contact between these soils
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-8
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
and humans and the environment in the future. Long-term maintenance of the cover and
stormwater infrastructure would be necessary.
The repository design would include a cover to fully contain and isolate contaminated soils.
Stormwater controls would be included in the design so that surface water would be diverted from
the area. The cover is a physical barrier that offers protection from water infiltration to the
contaminated soils, protects groundwater resources, and provides adequate shielding from ionizing
radiation to protect human health and the environment.
The removal action would provide compliance with location-specific and action-specific ARARs
and TBCs (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2). Location-specific requirements would include regulations
addressing cultural resources; human remains, funerary and sacred objects, and objects of cultural
patrimony for Native Americans; and migratory birds, threatened or endangered indigenous
wildlife species to the state, and endangered plant species. A Cultural Resources Protection Plan
would be developed for monitoring protocols during the work activities and would include a
review and evaluation of potential impacts to historic properties and locations. Natural resource
(e.g., biological and botanical) surveys have been conducted at the Site and information from these
surveys would be included in the Environmental Protection Plan. The plan would include a review
and evaluation of potential impacts on government-protected species and critical habitats.
Action -specific ARARs and TBCs for this alternative include protection of surface water quality
through control of run-off from construction activity; protection of air quality via fugitive dust
control; protection of the public and the environment from low-level radioactivity; standards for
post-removal reclamation; and repository design, construction, performance, and revegetation.
Short-term effectiveness under Alternative 3 is high. The primary considerations in the rating for
short-term effectiveness are protection of the community, workers, and environmental impacts
during and after implementation. Alternative 3 involves excavation, material transfer, stockpile
development/management, and site reclamation activities. Heavy equipment would be used to
clear and grub, excavate, transfer, load, and grade impacted materials. Potential exposure and
protection procedures for workers engaged in these activities would be addressed in detail under a
site safety and health plan. During excavation and material handling activities, measures would be
taken to reduce fugitive dust emissions and associated impacts to workers. Water would be
available on-site for dust control, and workers in the controlled area would don the appropriate
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-9
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
safety equipment and implement safety practices such as air monitoring. Work areas would be
secured (e.g., marked or fenced) to control access by authorized personnel only.
On-site truck traffic would be coordinated under the previously referenced Traffic Control Plan
for the Site. On-site truck accidental spill containment and cleanup procedures would be included
in the aforementioned plan. It is estimated that the time period of implementation of Alternative 3
would be approximately 6 months, following 3 months of planning and permitting. Minimal risk
of additional fatalities and 72 metric tons of C02e emissions are estimated due to the increased
truck traffic (see Table 4-2).
The long-term effectiveness of Alternative 3 is medium because it is dependent on the future
maintenance activities at the repository. If properly maintained, the cover, repository, and
diversion structures would minimize water infiltration and the cap would prohibit human or animal
disturbance to the contaminated soils.
4.5.2 Implementability
Alternative 3 rates high in regard to technical implementability. It is technically feasible and would
require conventional techniques, materials, and labor for the excavation and associated activities
since the sites are readily accessible. Excavation would be scheduled and performed to maximize
direct loading and ensure worker and public safety. Engineering controls for fugitive dust and site
monitoring would be used to control potential exposure to human and environmental receptors.
Alternative 3 is administratively feasible. The contaminated soils may be transported within the
site boundary, which would include the repository. Transportation permits would not be necessary.
Construction of an engineered cover would not require permitting because contaminated soils are
considered low-level radioactive materials and are not a RCRA hazardous waste. In addition,
permits are not required for on-site CERCLA actions. On-site CERCLA actions must comply with
the substantive requirements of any state or local permit, but not the administrative requirements.
The excavation of contaminated material would be accomplished using a variety of conventional
equipment. Heavy mining equipment needed for this project, such as scrapers, excavators, dozers,
loaders, and compactors and/or bulk carriers, are commercially available. Working space is
available for establishing temporary construction office trailers. Electricity is already available at
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-10
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
the Site and portable sanitary services and refuse disposal are locally available. Construction
materials for the cover and site restoration activities (recontouring and seeding) and an off-site
laboratory for sample analysis are commercially available. During non-construction periods, best
management practices would be employed in accordance with stormwater control plans to help
secure the Site during extreme storm events to protect human health and wildlife. On-site water
would be required for construction water and is readily accessible. It would need to be treated and
stored on-site in a water farm.
Trained and experienced labor is available for site work activities. Special certifications and
training requirements are commercially available. Health and safety training to comply with
OSHA regulations, including radiation and hazardous material handling training, is available.
4.5.3 Cost
The total cost of Alternative 3 is estimated to be $15,424,000 (Appendix K [Tables K-l and K-4]).
The long-term effectiveness is medium, and the short-term effectiveness is high. The cost is also
medium, so the cost analysis rating of Alternative 3 is medium.
4.6 ALTERNATIVE 4: CAPPING OF CONTAMINATED SOIL IN PLACE
Implementation of Alternative 4, capping in place, would require the following steps:
• Design, siting, and construction of an aboveground cap.
• Excavation and transportation of clean-soil cap material.
• Construction of an engineered, clean-soil cap over the contaminated area.
• Site reclamation with erosion and stormwater controls, recontouring, and revegetation.
4.6.1 Effectiveness
The effectiveness of Alternative 4 would be consistent with that for Alternative 3 as described in
Section 4.5.1. It is estimated that the time period of implementation of Alternative 4 would be
approximately 9 months, following 3 months of planning and permitting. Minimal risk of
additional fatalities and 268 metric tons of C02e emissions are estimated due to the increased truck
traffic (see Table 4-2).
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-11
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
4.6.2 Implementability
The implementability of Alternative 4 would be medium. Alternative 4 is readily implementable
and technically feasible, but administrative implementability is medium as MARSSIM does not
address subsurface contamination; thus, Alternative 4 would require a site-specific, unique
compliance standard.
4.6.3 Cost
The total cost of Alternative 4 is estimated to be approximately $24,565,000 (Appendix K [Tables
K-l and K-5). The long-term effectiveness is medium, and the short-term effectiveness is high.
The cost is also medium, so the cost analysis rating of Alternative 4 is medium.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
4-12
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
5.0 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMOVAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVES
This Section of the EE/CA provides a comparison of the four removal action alternatives and
options as described in Section 3 using the analyses presented in Section 4. Alternatives screened
from further consideration are not compared. In addition, and based on EPA guidance, there are
five core (key) elements in "greener cleanup activities" that should be considered throughout the
remedy selection process (EPA, 2016). These key elements include: (a) minimizing total energy
use and increasing the percentage of renewable energy; (b) minimizing air pollutants and
greenhouse gas emissions; (c) minimizing water use and negative impacts on water resources; (d)
protecting ecosystem services; and (e) improving materials management and waste reduction
efforts by reducing, reusing, or recycling whenever feasible (EPA, 2012). This analysis compares
the effects each removal action alternative, described in Section 3.0, has on the five key "green"
elements. Each of the five elements was qualitatively scored for each alternative (1, 2, 3, and 4)
using a numerical ranking system 1-4, with a 1 being best and a 4 being worst (i.e., low scores are
greener cleanup alternatives). The alternative's Greener Cleanup Assessment Score was derived
from the sum of the five scores for that alternative. The results of this assessment are summarized
in Appendix N.
5.1 EFFECTIVENESS
Alternative 1: No Further Action does not protect human health of ranchers or recreational visitors
(hunters) to the Site or protect the environment. The effectiveness of this alternative is low.
Alternative 2: Off-Site Disposal, Alternative 3: Above-Ground Repository Construction, and
Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place each provide for protection of human health
and the environment to ranchers and hunters for the Site and are individually rated high. The Site
would be suitable for unrestricted grazing use under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Any chance for
exposure would occur prior to and during removal activities. Grazing and open space use may or
may not be limited based on erosion and vegetation performance and cover maintenance
requirements.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4comply with the ARARs and are equal under this criterion. Alternative 1
retains the greatest chance for contaminant mobility and would rank below the other alternatives.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
5-1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
The short-term effectiveness is considered medium for Alternative 2 and high for Alternatives 3
and 4. Alternatives 3 and 4 require excavation or capping of the entire contaminated soil area;
however, Alternative 2 requires a large transportation effort to remove all contaminated soil off-
site. Alternatives 3 and 4 do not require off-site transport of the material, but contaminated soil
would need to be transported to the on-site repository for Alternative 3. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4
would have a potential impact to workers and on-site visitors during construction activities. The
number of trucks required to transport the contaminated soil to an off-site disposal facility would
increase risk of traffic accidents and increase the carbon footprint for Alternative 2, whereas
Alternatives 3 and 4 would introduce much lower risks for traffic accidents and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Under each of the action alternatives, engineering controls would prevent off-site impacts from
materials such as windborne dust. Alternative 1 has the lowest short-term and long-term
effectiveness and is not considered a permanent solution and is ranked low. Alternative 2, ranked
high, provides better long-term effectiveness and permanence because the materials would be
managed by a third party in a location with contaminated materials from other sites. Alternatives
3 and 4 were rated medium for long-term effectiveness and permanence. Although materials would
be managed in an engineered repository or capped area, maintenance of the cover would be
required.
5.2 IMPLEMENTABILITY
Implementation of Alternative 1, No Further Action, is ranked low because no action is taken.
Alternative 2 is technically feasible to implement and would use conventional techniques,
materials, and labor for the excavation and associated activities. However, Alternative 2 requires
a large amount of off-site trucking, and providing enough trucks each day to maintain production
levels may be difficult to schedule and obtain. Alternative 2 is ranked medium for
implementability.
Alternatives 3 and 4 are easily implemented as they are technically feasible and would use
conventional techniques, materials, or labor for the excavation and associated activities.
Alternative 3 is also administratively feasible since the material and the repository are on one
contiguous site. Alternative 4 is technically feasible but administratively would require a site-
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
5-2
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
specific, unique compliance standard as MARSSIM does not address subsurface soils. Alternative
3 ranked high and Alternative 4 ranked medium for implementability.
All action alternatives require a large amount of water for dust control and revegetation efforts.
Water is available at Grants, New Mexico, and potentially closer to the project site. Additional
sources of water should be investigated during the planning phase.
5.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Alternative 1 only involves O&M costs to maintain existing fencing and is the least expensive, but
also the least cost-effective option because it does not address risks posed by leaving contaminated
material in its current state. Alternative 2, removing the material from the Site and disposing of it
in a licensed low-level radioactive waste facility, has the highest long-term effectiveness; however,
because of the high cost associated with this alternative, it has a low-cost analysis rating compared
to Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would allow unrestricted use of the Site. The most
cost-effective alternative is Alternative 3, which involves on-site consolidation of contaminated
materials. Use restrictions would be applicable at the repository site, but the Site would be restored
for controlled and restricted access for perpetuity under the stipulations of a federal enforcement
document.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
5-3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
6.0 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The alternatives evaluated for potential response actions at the Section 10 Mine Site are:
Alternative 1: No Further Action
Alternative 2: Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Soils at a Licensed
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facility
Alternative3: Excavation, Consolidation and Long-Term Management of the
Radiologically Contaminated Soils/Debris at a Non-Incised On-Site
Repository
Alternative 4: Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place
Laboratory data for soil samples collected during the RSE, as well as gamma surveys, indicate that
approximately 20 acres of the Section 10 Mine Site surface soils (ranging from 0 to 1 foot deep)
exceed the established action level, for a total volume of approximately 39,000 CY (Figure 2-1).
Removing the material exceeding the action level will reduce human and ecological exposure to
the contaminants and will reduce potential release and/or migration of these contaminants to
downstream areas.
Alternative 1, No Further Action, is not protective, and therefore is not effective. Alternative 2,
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal, provides a high level of long-term effectiveness; however, it
has a medium level of short-term effectiveness since the material would be transported off-site and
hauled for long distances, increasing the risk of exposure to the public and the environment.
Alternative 2 is also estimated to have a high capital cost in comparison to Alternatives 3 and 4;
therefore, although it is technically feasible, Alternative 2 has a low-cost analysis rating.
Alternative 3, Excavation, Consolidation and Long-term Management of the Radiologically
Contaminated Soils/Debris at a Non-Incised On-Site Repository, provides a medium level of long-
term effectiveness to reduce the risk to humans and the environment, while also providing a high
level of short-term effectiveness since none of the material would need to be transported off-site.
Implementability of Alternative 3 is considered to be low; although the excavation plan and the
repository design based on industry standards are straightforward in nature, the Site lacks a viable
PRP to conduct long-term O&M of the repository and is therefore infeasible. Alternative 3 capital
costs are estimated to be moderate in comparison to Alternative 2.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
6-1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
Alternative 4, Capping of Contaminated Soils in Place provides a medium level of long-term
effectiveness to reduce the risk to humans and the environment, while also providing a high level
of short-term effectiveness since none of the material would need to be transported off-site.
Implementability of Alternative 4 is considered to be low due to the lack of excavation; lack of
repository siting; importation of cover material for the evapotranspiration cover; the inability to
accept additional programmatic materials; the need for a site-specific, unique compliance standard
for subsurface soils; and the lack of a viable PRP to conduct long-term 0& M of the capped area.
The lack of a viable PRP to conduct long-term O&M of the capped area makes the
implementability of Alternative 4 infeasible. Capital costs associated with Alternative 4 are
moderate in comparison to Alternative 2, but approximately 63% higher than Alternative 3.
Due to the non-effectiveness of Alternative 1 and the infeasibility of both Alternatives 3 and 4,
Alternative 2 is identified as the recommended alternative.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
6-2
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
7.0 REFERENCES
Anderson, Orin, J., 1981. Abandoned or Inactive Mines in New Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of
Mines and Mineral Resources; Open File Report 148.
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). March 2007. Radiological and Chemical Fact Sheets to
Support Health Risk Analyses for Contaminated Areas.
https://www.remm.nlm.sov/ANL ContaminantFactSheetsAll 070418.pdf
ASTM 2016. Standard Guide for Greener Cleanups. ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, May 2016
Brookins, D.G. 1982. Geochemistry of clay minerals for uranium exploration in the Grants
Mineral Belt, New Mexico. Mineral. Deposits 17, 37-53.
Dynamac Corporation (Dynamac). 2011. Aerial Radiological Surveys Ambrosia Lake Uranium
Mines, Ambrosia, NM. United State Environmental Protection Agency Office of Emergency
Management, National Decontamination Team. August.
Grove. 2008. Microshield® - Microshield comprehensive photon/gamma ray shielding and dose
assessment software. Version 6.02. Grove Software, Inc. Lynchburg, VA.
Hilpert, Lowell S. 1963. Regional and Local Stratigraphy of Uranium-Bearing Rocks, Geology
and Technology of the Grants Uranium Region. New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral
Resources, Memoir 15, compiled by Vincent C. Kelley.
Holmquist, Ray J. 1970. The Discovery and Development of Uranium in the Grants Mineral Belt,
New Mexico. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Grand Junction, Colorado. June.
Hurd, Brian H.; Torell, Allen L. and McDaniel, Kirk C. 2007. Perspectives on Rangeland
Management: Stocking Rates, Seasonal Forecasts, and the Value of Weather Information to New
Mexico Ranchers. New Mexico State University. Agricultural Experiment Station. Research
Report 759. December 2007.
John, Edward C. and West, S.W. 1963. Ground Water in the Grants District, Geology and
Technology of the Grants Uranium Region. New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources,
Memoir 15, compiled by Vincent C. Kelley.
Kabata-Pendias, Alina and Henryk Pendias. 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. 2nd Edition.
CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
Kerr-McGee Corporation. Undated. Uranium Mining and Processing. Kerr McGee Litho P-739-
7M.
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). September 2017. ECORISK Database (Release 4.1),
LA-UR-17-26376, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
7-1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
McLemore, V. 2007. Uranium Resources in New Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and
Mineral Resources. SME Annual Meeting. February.
National Research Council. 2005. Mineral Tolerance of Animals: Second Revised Edition. The
National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2016. Soil Mapper.
http://websoilsurvev.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
New Mexico Energy and Mineral Department (NMEMD). 1979. An Overview of the New Mexico
Uranium Industry. January.
New Mexico Energy, Minerals & Natural Resource Department (NMEMNRD) and New Mexico
Environment Department. 2016. Joint Guidance for the Cleanup and Reclamation of Existing
Uranium Mining Operations in New Mexico. March.
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). February 2019. Risk Assessment Guidance for
Site Investigation and Remediation, Volume 1, Soil Screening Guidance for Human Health Risk
Assessments. Table A-1.
NMED. 2017. Risk Assessment Guidance for Site Investigations and Remediation. Volume II -
Soil Screening Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessments. March 2017
NMHED. 1986. Impacts of Uranium Mining on Surface and Shallow Groundwaters - Grants
Mineral Belt, New Mexico. Environmental Improvement Division. EID/GWH-86/2. September.
New Mexico Office of Natural Resources Trustee, September 2010. Preassessment Screen and
Determination: Rio Algom Mines and QuiviraMill Site, McKinley County, New Mexico.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Visual Sample Plan version 7.7. http://vsp.pnnl.gov/
Purtymun, W. D., Weinke, Caroline L., and Dreesen, David R. 1977. Geology and Hydrology in
the Vicinity of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Pile, Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico. Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory. Los Alamos, New Mexico. LA-6839-MS. June
Rio Algom Mining LLC (RAML). 2016. Semi-annual Effluent Report-lst Half 2016. License
SUA-1473, Docket No. 40-8905. Submitted to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Materials Decommissioning Branch. August 29.
Santos, Elmer S. 1970. Stratigraphy of the Morrison Formation and Structure of the Ambrosia
Lake District, New Mexico, Contributions to Economic Geology, Geological Survey Bulletin
1272-E, Ore-bearing strata and tectonic features in a major uranium-mining district in
northwestern New Mexico. U.S. Geological Survey.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
7-2
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
Thomson, Bruce. Undated. Uranium Mining and Milling in New Mexico: Past Activities and
Environmental Challenges. Civil Engineering and Water Resources, University of New Mexico.
TIME. 1957. Atomic Energy: Uranium Jackpot. September 30.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1975. Water Quality Impacts of Uranium Mining
and Milling Activities in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico. Region VI, Dallas, Texas. EPA
906/9-75-002. September.
EPA. 1988. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Interim Final. EPA/540/G-89/006.
Dated August 1988.
EPA. 1989. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Part II. Clean Air Act and Other
Environmental and State Requirements. EPA/540/G-89/009. Dated August 1989.
EPA. 1991a. A Guide to Principal Threat and Low-Level Threat Wastes, OSWER 9380.3-06FS,
November.
EPA. 1991b. Superfund Removal Procedures, Guidance on the Consideration of ARARS During
Removal Actions. OSWER 9360.3-02, August.
EPA. 1993. Guidance for Conducting Non Time-Critical Removal Actions. EPA/540/R-93/057,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response [OSWER] Directive 9355.3-01. August 1993.
EPA. 1997a. ERA Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting ERAs. Interim
Final. Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-97/006. June.
EPA. 1997b. Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive No. 9200.4-18 August.
EPA. 1998. Use of Soil Cleanup Criteria in 40 CFR Part 192 as Remediation Goals for CERCLA
Sites. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive No. 9200.4-25. February.
EPA. 2000. A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Publication 9355.0-75. July.
EPA. 2001. The Role of Screening-Level Risk Assessments and Refining Contaminants of
Concern in Baseline Ecological Risk Assessments. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. OSWER, EPA 540/F-01/014. June.
EPA. 2005. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. November 2003, Revised February
2005. http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/index.html; Last updated October 20, 2010.
EPA. 2009. Principles for Greener Cleanups. August 27.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
7-3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
EE/CA for Tronox Settlement Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-09/052F. September 2011.
EPA. 2012. Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint,
EPA 542-R-12-002. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, February 2012.
EPA, 2014. Radiation Risk Assessment at CERCLA Sites: Q&A. OSWER Directive 92856.6-20.
June.
EPA. 2015a. Draft Grants Mining District, New Mexico - 2015-2020 Five-Year Plan to Assess
and Address Health and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Mining and Milling.
https://www.epa.gOv/grants-mining-district/draft-2015-2020-grants-mining-district-five-vear-
plan. Last Update 09 October.
EPA. 2015b. ProUCL Version 5.1, User Guide, Statistical Software for Environmental
Applications for Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations, EPA/600/R-07/041, October
2015.
EPA. 2016. Memorandum: Consideration of Greener Cleanup Activities in the Superfund
Cleanup Process. August 2.
EPA. 2019a. Regional Screening Level Table and User's Guide (November 2019). Final. Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-
tables
EPA. 2019b. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Radionuclides, PRG Calculator and User's
Guide, https://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/. Accessed November 2019.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1989. Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by
Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers. Regulatory Guide, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research,
Regulatory Guide 3.64 (Task WM 503-4). June 1989.
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2015, Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary
4/1/1918 to 2/29/1988. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl7nmsanm
WESTON. 2013. Documented Release Sampling Report for Section 10 Uranium Mine, Grants,
McKinley County, New Mexico. Prepared for USEPA. September 2013.
WESTON. 2019. Removal Site Evaluation Reportfor Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines Section
10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico. Prepared for USEPA. September 2019.
WESTON. 2020. Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Tronox Settlement Navajo Area
Uranium Mines East Geographic Sub-Area of the Ambrosia Lake Sub-District, Grants Mining
District, McKinley County, New Mexico. Prepared for USEPA. January 2020
Section 10 Mine EE/CA
7-4
TDD No. 0001/17-044
SEMS Nos. NMN000605371
-------
FIGURES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
McKinley
County
Crownpoint
Sandoval
County
Former Rio Aigom
Uranium Mill
Section
32 Mine
Former Phillips
Petroleum
Uranium IVIill
United Nuclear
Corporation
Mill-Northeast Church
Rock (UNC-NECRjj
Superfund site, 30 miles
west of ALSD,
Section
33 Mine
i ihoreau
Tronox Mines1
Former Homestake
Uranium Mill
Former Anaconda
Bluewater Uranium Mill
\Bernalil
\Courit
Grants
Former L-Bar
Uranium Mill
Jackpile-Paguate
Superfund Site
MAP INSET
Valencia
County
f
i
L
I I
LEGEND
~ Ambrosia Lake Sub-District ~ Uranium
of the Grants Mining District
~ Laguna Sub-District of the
Grants Mining District
aMarquez Sub-District of
the Grants Mining District
West GSA Mines Site
Central GSA Mines Site
East GSA Mines Site
Section 10 Mine Site
Site
County Boundary
Continental Divide
Tronox Surface Expression
SSiD:A6PK
SEMS: NMN000605371
TDD: 0001/17-044
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
7.5
Miles
15
New Mexico
INI
am I USEPA REGION 6
^ PRC^
FIGURE 1-1
SITE LOCATION MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-1 - Site Location Map.mxd 11:30:38 AM 2/7£020 GRANTSGIS
-------
Prewitt
Former Rio Algom
Uranium Mill
-Sandstone Mine
John Bully Mine
Spencer Mine
McKinley
" "CTBoIa
Smith Lake
Uhoreau
Homestake-New
Mexico Partners
Mine (Section 32)
- Ann Lee Mine
Former Phillips Petroleum
Uranium Mill
Former Anaconda
Blue water Uranium Mill
Former Homestake
Uranium Mill
ii
OKOU I
UtmjN
i-'-.r
I Sec. 10 Mine
Sec. 17 Mine
Sec. 24 Mine
Sec. 22 Mine
Sec. 19 Mine
I— Sec. 33 Mine
MAP INSET
- Sec. 35 Mine
Sec. 30 W Mine
Sec. 30 Mine
— Sec. 36 Mine
Grants
LEGEND
Ambrosia Lake Sub-District
~
San Mateo Creek Basin
~
West GSA Mines Site
Central GSA Mines Site
~
East GSA Mines Site
•
Section 10 Mine Site
Former Rio Algom Uranium
Mill Evaporation Ponds
Tronox Surface Expression
Non-Tronox Surface
Expression (SEMS Site)
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
New Mexico
ami USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-2
SITE AREA MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSO
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
¦Crown point
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-2- Site Area Map.mxd 11:32:25 AM 21712020 GRANTSGIS
-------
s.w.
N.E.
GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE
IN OUTCROP AREAS
~^c0s
— ^£5 Aver,
JShy
r^sr.
e4s//v
WATer
r£ca
Rcany(
:apturs
^ BLUFp
O/v
SAM
^4/v
-4$.,
c^e"CG/?°ap
GtO/?/c„. L'M&
*£ta
Sa"°sto°^
GENERALIZED CROSS-SECTION OF AMBROSIA LAKE AREA
New Mexico
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,
1977. "Geology and Hydrology in the Vicinity of the Inactive Uranium
Mill Tailings Pile, Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico"
2? '' \ 7-.
w
^ PRo-retf^
USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-3
AMBROSIA LAKE GEOLOGIC
CROSS-SECTION
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-3 - Ambrosia Lake Geologic Cross-section.mxd 11:33:46 AM 2/7£020 GRANTSGIS
-------
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
Section 10 Mine
Legend
Ambrosia Lake Sub-District
West GSA Mines Site
Fault Line
~ Section 10 Mine
NS>
hflgi USEPAREGION 6
Note:
- Fault iines sourced from Green, GN, and Jones
G.E., 1997, The Digital Geologic Map of New
Mexico in ARC/INFO Format: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 97-0052, 9p.;
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1992/ofr-92-0052.
- GIS metadata sourced from https://pubs.usgs.
gov/of/2005/1351/documents/NMmetadata.htm
FIGURE 1-4
AMBROSIA LAKE FAULT ZONE MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSO
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
20600.012.001.1044
AS SHOWN
FEB 2020
-------
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-5 - Typical Underground Uranium Mine Diagram.mxd 11:40:18 AM 2/7£020 GRANTSGIS
-------
LEGEND
Land Ownership
BLM
Forest Service
Navajo Allotment
Private
State
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
' Section Boundary
Section 10 Mine Site
West GSA Mines Site
Central GSA Mines Site
East GSA Mines Site
B Tronox Surface Expression
New Mexico
N
I USEPA REGION 6
^ PRC
FIGURE 1-6
LAND OWNERSHIP MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DATE
DEC 2017
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-6- Land Ownership Map.mxd 12:02:13 PM 2/7£020 GRANTSGIS
-------
c
c
I
New Mexico
Legend
Vent Hole Location
Shaft Opening & Head Frame
Cattle Pond
Concrete Slab, Metal, & Fencing
Section 10 Mine Site
Sub-Economic Material Piie
Section Boundary
N
400
Feet
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-7
SITE LAYOUT MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSO
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY. NEW MEXICO
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE &&&&& 1
-------
LEGEND
Tronox Surface Expression
Section 10 Mine Site
Jnrstr»p
Private
Qt
Qal
Qc
SE J
% s
0 -
-------
Legend (Soil Type)
¦ Hospah-Skyvillage-Rock outcrop
complex, 2 to 35 percent slopes
~ Marianolake-Skyvillage complex,
1 to 8 percent slopes
~ Penistaja-Tlntero complex, 1 to
10 percent slopes
~ Querencia-Lavodnas
association, 2 to 15 percent
slopes
Rock outcrop-Westmion-
I Skyvillage complex, 30 to 80
percent slopes
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Uranium mined lands
02
I
I
I
I
I
\
New Mexico
LEGEND
~ Tronox Surface Expression
i J Section Boundary
1 1 Section 10 Mine Site
Feet
1,600
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY; USDASoil Survey Geographic
(SSURGO) Database (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/
WebSoilSurvey.aspx)
hjggi USEPAREGION 6
FIGURE 1-9
SITE SOILS MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-9 - Site Soils Map.mxd 12:06:11 PM 2/7/2020 GRANTSGIS
-------
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-10 - Site Surface Drainage Map.mxd 12:06:58 PM 2/7/2020 GRANTSGIS
New Mexico
Legend
~ Tronox Surface Expression
— Flow Direction
Surface Drainage
Section 10 Mine Site
hjggi USEPA REGION 6
^ PRore^
FIGURE 1-10
SITE SURFACE DRAINAGE MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
-------
New Mexico
Legend
Central GSA Mines Site
East GSA Mines Site
Section 10 Mine Site
Section Boundary
~ Non-Tronox Surface Expression
~ Tronox Surface Expression
Exposure Rate
(mlcroR/hr)
< 5.0000
I 15.0000: 10.000
10.000: 15.000
15.000: 20.000
20.000 : 25.000
25.000: 30.000
I 30.000: 35.000
I [ 35.000 : 40.000
I ,40.000:45.000
^¦>•45.000
Note:
- Dynamac Corporation, 2011. Aerial Radiological Surveys,
Ambrosia Lake Uranium Mines, Ambrosia, New Mexcio,
2011. EPA Emergency Management National
Decontamination Team.
- Data collected August 22-25, 2011
Sec. 38 Mine
Miles
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-11
ASPECT AERIAL GAMMA SURVEY MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
PROJECT NO
SCALE
AS SHOWN
file i i f ^ .'y *
-------
Note:
- Removal Action Level = 24,192 CPM.
- Theoretical 24,192 CPM Removal Action Level = BTV in CPM (17,009) +DCGL (4.897 pCi/g)
converted to CPM as follows: DCGL x 1.93 pR/hr per pCi/g Ra-226 (Microshield® output)
x 760 cpm per pR/hr Ra-226 for 2x2 Nal detector (MARSSIM Table 6.7). BTV = Background
Threshold Value; DCGL = Derived Concentration Guideline Level using EPA's online risk
calculator 'PRG Calculator for Radionuclides'.
- Gamma scan data collected June 2016.
- Measurements collected using a Ludlum Model 2221 ratemeter paired with a Model 44-10 2x2 Nal
detector.
New Mexico
LEGEND
© Background Reference Area
~ Tronox Surface Expression
Section 10 Mine Site
i_ _ J Section Boundary
Gamma Scan Results
In Counts Per Minute (CPM)
0-17,009
(Background Threshold Value)
17,010-24,192
(Removal Action Level)
24,193-28,934
28,935 - 43,602
• 43,603 - 58,270
• 58,271 - 575.483
Feet
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
2g J USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-12
GAMMA SCANNING SURVEY RESULTS MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
bection 1U
Mine
: Q: £0* I ¦MBsswfe-Maj %% V:
-------
Note:
- Data Collected June 2016.
- Measurements collected using a Ludlum Model 2221 ratemeter paired with a Model 44-10 2x2 Nal
detector.
- Gamma scan values in cpm greater than the BTV of 17,009 cpm were converted to pCi/g Ra-226 by
the following analysis: Using Microshield®, the exposure rate above an infinite plane of
Ra-226 at 1.0 pCi/g was calculated to be 1.93 pR/hr. From MARSSIM Table 6.7, the response
factor for a 2-inch x 2-inch Nal detector exposed to Ra-226 is 760 cpm per pR/hr.
- The BTV in pCi/g of 1.9 is the UTL95-95 of the Background soil sample data set.
- Removal Action Level of 6.8 pCi/g = BTV of 1.9 + Derived Concentration Guideline Level (DCGL)
of 4.9 pCi/g Ra-226 derived from PRG Calculator.
New Mexico
LEGEND
© Background Reference Area
~ Tronox Surface Expression
Section 10 Mine Site
i_ _ | Section Boundary
Gamma Scan Results
In Picocuries Per Gram (pCi/g)
0-1.9 (Background Threshold Value)
• 2.0 - 6.8 (Removal Action Level)
6.9-10
10.1 -20
• 20.1-30
• 30.1 +
Feet
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
S I - - - -I o
USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-13
ESTIMATED Ra-226 CONCENTRATION MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-13 - Estimated Ra-226 Concentration Map.mxd 12:13:27 PM 2/7/2020 GRANTSGIS
-------
'V
B> Jj
10-10-31-170202
" 53 Si
|gl 10-06-31-181031-M
10-7-31-170202 ^ 10-9-31-170202 *
u
.%<3
10-6-31-170202
15 '
10-8-31-170202
10-5-31-170202 10-05-31 -181031-MP
01 A 10-05-32-181031;Ml ,
10-02-31-160628
Ekj
~ * * jS
< KB
* ¦
10-01-31-160628
B
10-08-31-181031-M
10-07-31-181031-M
Vt
©•
!
ectiori 10 Mine
1-181031-M '
~
10-01-31-161101-M
10-04-31-160628
10-03-31-160628
»!?¦
10-04-31-1 81031-M
• I
I
:
i
10-02-31-181 031^mPP
© ¦
i
"
i
i
i
i
i
i
•
:
I
;
25
•, *
¦ "~L - - *
# V
New Mexico
LEGEND
Soil Sample Analyzed
for TAL Metals
® Surface (0"-6") Sample Location
~ Tronox Surface Expression
_ J Section Boundary
NOTE:
- Soil samples collected 0-1 ft.
below ground surface.
1,000
Feet
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
ar i
USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-14
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY. NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE ' Stiffen S I Uin " ! 12
-------
10-04-2-31-161112
10-04-2-32-161112
10-05-2-31-161112-
10-06-2-31-161112
10-03-2-31-161112 —i
10-07-2-31-161112# ® ©
10-10^1-161112—
10-08-2-31-161112
Section 10 Mine
10-02-2-31 -161112 —^ / J
10-01-2-31-161112 —' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w-*, %
I
i
New Mexico
LEGEND
~ Tronox Surface Expression
i_ _ J Section Boundary
Subsurface (12" -18")
Soil Sample Concentration
# <6.8 pCi/g (Proposed Action Level)
NOTE:
- Subsurface soil samples were collected
May-August 2016
1,000
Feet
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
g MJH *£
iasi
USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-15
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLE
LOCATION MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY. NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
-------
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-16 - Radon Sample Location Map.mxd 12:20:00 PM 2/7/2020 GRANTSGIS
-------
"V
Sec. 10 Mine —
P12-161101 D
S12-161101 ©
P11-161101 ®
S11-161101
' ••
New Mexico
LEGEND
Tronox Surface Expression
~
Soil arid Vegetation
Sample Location
1,000
Feet
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
S i - - - J o
USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 1-17
SOIL AND VEGETATION
SAMPLE LOCATION MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE. ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECA Maps\Figure 1-17 - Soil and Vegetation Sample Location Map.mxd 12:20:58 PM 2/7/2020 GRANTSGIS
-------
| Zone
SA (Acres) SA (ft2)
Volume (ft3)
Volume (yd3)
1ft. Excavation Area
19.7
857,699.8
857,699.8
31,766.7
Sub-economic Material Pile
n/a
n/a
196,869.0
7,291.4
TOTAL
19.7
857,699.8
1,054,568.8
39,058.1
THEORETICAL ESTIMATES
Section 10
14N 10W
©
y//-
Kh
*• * 9K
NOTES
-1 ft. removal depth is based on gamma scan readings from the surface.
- Theoretical 24,192 CPM Removal Action Level = BTV in CPM (17,009) + DCGL (4.897 pCi/g) converted to CPM as follows: DCGL x 1.93 pR/hr per pCi/g Ra-226 (Microshield® output) x 760 cpm per (jR/hr Ra-226 for 2x2
Nal detector (MARSSIM Table 6.7). BTV = Background Threshold Value; DCGL = Derived Concentration Guideline Level using EPA's online risk calculator 'PRG Calculator for Radionuclides'.
- 2 ft. removal depth is based on laboratory analysis of soil samples. No depth samples were greater than the Removal Action Level; therefore, there is only a 0-1 ft. removal depth.
- Soil samples were collected November 2016.
-Areas inside the removal footprints are mine impacted.
Legend
© Background Reference Area
~ Tronox Surface Expression
Section 10 Mine Site
l _ Section Boudary
V//\ Sub Economic Material Pile
Soil Sample (2 ft. depth)
Concentration (pCi/g Ra-226)
® <6.8 (Removal Action Level)
Depth of Excavation Area
0-1 ft. (Theoretical 24,192 CPM Removal
Action Level)
IM
600
1,200
Feet
TDD: 0001/17-044
SEMS ID: NMN000605371
SOURCE: ESRI ONLINE IMAGERY
.LiJy.
m
USEPA REGION 6
FIGURE 2-1
SOIL REMOVAL ESTIMATE MAP
TRONOX SETTLEMENT NAUM
SECTION 10 MINE SITE, ALSD
GMD, MCKINLEY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO
DATE
FEB 2020
PROJECT NO
20600.012.001.1044
SCALE
AS SHOWN
FILE: Z:\TRONOX-WEST-GSA_GIS\mxd\Misc\EECA\Section 10 EECAMaps\Figure 2-1 - Soil Removal Estimate Map.mxd 12:24:36 PM 2/7/2020 GRANTSGIS
-------
TABLES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Table 1-1
Background Reference Area Summary of Field and Laboratory Measurements
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
1Ludlum 2"x2" Nal
One-Minute
Laboratory Gamma
Stationary
Spectroscopy Result
Measurement
Radium-226
(counts per minute
(picocuries per gram
Sample ID
[cpm])
[pCi/g])
10-01-61-160714
16,361
1.43
10-02-61-160714
16,232
1.73
10-03-61-160714
16,312
1.36
10-04-61-160714
16,238
1.45
10-05-61-160714
16,358
1.57
10-06-61-160714
16,363
1.44
10-07-61-160714
16,415
1.55
10-08-61-160714
16,541
1.40
10-09-61-160714
16,362
1.44
10-10-61-160714
16,581
1.56
10-11-61-160714
16,739
1.61
10-12-61-160714
16,464
1.58
10-13-61-160714
16,680
1.27
10-14-61-160714
16,302
1.53
10-15-61-160714
16,055
1.71
10-16-61-160714
16,127
1.54
10-17-61-160714
15,816
1.71
10-18-61-160714
15,781
1.78
10-19-61-160714
15,941
1.59
10-20-61-160714
15,497
1.22
Mean
16,258
1.5
Standard Deviation
306
0.15
Coefficient of Variance
0.02
0.1
^Dne-minute stationary gamma measurements were collected with a
Ludlum Model 2221 Rate Meter attached to a Model 44-10 Sodium
Iodide (Nal) 2-inch by 2-inch Scintillator Probe.
USEPA REGION 6
lof 1
TDD
-------
Table 1-2
Summary of Surface Soil Sample Radium-226 Results
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Sample ID12
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Sample Type
Radium-226
(picocuries per gram [pCi/g])6
Figure
Depicting
Sample
Location
Field Laboratory
Multichannel
Analyzer (MCA)34
Off-site
Commercial
Laboratory5
10-01-31-160628
35.461000
-107.877000
Grab
Field Sample
n/a
1.46
1-14
10-02-31-160628
35.457000
-107.877000
Grab
Field Sample
n/a
14.7
1-14
10-03-31-160628
35.451000
-107.879000
Grab
Field Sample
n/a
0.924
1-14
10-04-31-160628
35.451000
-107.882000
Grab
Field Sample
n/a
1.37
1-14
10-05-31-170202
35.457203
-107.877198
Grab
Field Sample
21.8
n/a
1-14
10-06-31-170202
35.457429
-107.877129
Grab
Field Sample
51.6
n/a
1-14
10-07-31-170202
35.457608
-107.877137
Grab
Field Sample
18.1
n/a
1-14
10-08-31-170202
35.457540
-107.876961
Grab
Field Sample
20.1
n/a
1-14
10-09-31-170202
35.457639
-107.877001
Grab
Field Sample
125.2
n/a
1-14
10-10-31-170202
35.457775
-107.876974
Grab
Field Sample
82.8
n/a
1-14
1 All samples collected from 0-6 inches below ground surface.
2 First two digits of the sample number indicate the section from which they were collected.
3 MCA and offsite laboratory both analyzed for Bismuth-214. Samples were held for 21 days before
analysis so that Bismuth-214 was in equilibrium with Radium-226.
4 n/a denotes that the sample was not analyzed with the MCA.
5 n/a denotes that the sample was not sent for offsite laboratory analysis.
6 Sample results above the 6.8 pCi/g Removal Action Level (RAL) are shaded in gray.
Q , USEPA REGION 6
1 of 1 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 1-3
Summary of Subsurface Soil Sample Radium-226 Results
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Sample ID12
Latitude
Longitude
Collection
Method
Sample Type
Radium-226
(picocuries per gram [pCi/g])
Figure
Depicting
Sample
Location
Field Laboratory
Multichannel
Analyzer (MCA)34
Off-site
Commercial
Laboratory5
10-01-2-31-161112
35.455244
-107.875290
Grab
Field Sample
2.1
n/a
1-15
10-02-2-31-161112
35.456115
-107.875321
Grab
Field Sample
3.3
n/a
1-15
10-03-2-31-161112
35.456985
-107.875352
Grab
Field Sample
4.6
n/a
1-15
10-04-2-31-161112
35.457856
-107.875383
Grab
Field Sample
3.3
n/a
1-15
10-04-2-32-161112
35.457856
-107.875383
Grab
Field Duplicate
3.3
n/a
1-15
10-05-2-31-161112
35.457830
-107.876447
Grab
Field Sample
3.4
n/a
1-15
10-06-2-31-161112
35.457805
-107.877511
Grab
Field Sample
2.5
n/a
1-15
10-07-2-31-161112
35.456935
-107.877480
Grab
Field Sample
2.9
n/a
1-15
10-08-2-31-161112
35.456064
-107.877449
Grab
Field Sample
1.9
n/a
1-15
10-09-2-31-161112
35.456089
-107.876385
Grab
Field Sample
2.6
n/a
1-15
10-10-2-31-161112
35.456960
-107.876416
Grab
Field Sample
3.3
n/a
1-15
1 All samples collected from 12-18 inches below ground surface.
2 First two digits of the sample number indicate the section from which they were collected.
3 MCA and offsite laboratory both analyzed for Bismuth-214. Samples were held for 21 days before
analysis so that Bismuth-214 was in equilibrium with Radium-226.
4 No sample results are above the 6.8 pCi/g Removal Action Level (RAL).
5 n/a denotes that the sample was not sent for offsite laboratory analysis.
US EPA REGION 6
lof 1
TDD No.
-------
Table 1-4
Summary of Surface Soil Sample Metals Results
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Values in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
Analyte!
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Mercury
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium
State Screening Level2
1,290,000
519
35.9
255,000
2,580
1,110
32,400,000
505
388
51,900
908,000
800
5,680,000
160,000
25,700
76,200,000
6,490
37,300,000
13
112
6,490
6,530
389,000
3,880
State Background3
54423
1
5.9
727
1
n/a
35808
55.5
8.8
21
20898
18.1
n/a
366.8
27.9
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1
71.4
44.3
n/a
Sample Number4
10-01-31-161101-M
6100
nd6
5.6
100
0.38
0.18
17000
3.4
2.2
19
12000
12
4200
140
3.5
1700
ND
47
ND
ND
82
160
38
73
10-02-31-181031-M
11000
ND
3.5
190
0.55
ND
12000
5.2
3.2
3
12000
5.7
3200
200
5.7
2300
ND
150
ND
0.014
ND
14
25
ND
10-03-31-181031-M
12000
ND
ND
77
0.62
ND
3300
7
4.7
6.2
13000
14
2900
210
7.1
3900
ND
180
ND
0.017
ND
38
38
ND
10-04-31-181031-M
10000
ND
4.2
73
0.61
ND
9500
5.3
2.7
3.2
10000
8.2
4100
140
4.8
2700
ND
150
ND
0.026
15
77
24
6.2
10-05-31-181031-M
14000
ND
ND
110
0.91
ND
10000
2.2
3
6.3
12000
6.8
3300
240
3.9
3400
ND
490
ND
0.028
87
110
26
70
10-05-32-181031-M
15000
ND
ND
100
0.97
ND
10000
2.5
3.1
6.4
12000
6.5
3700
260
4.1
3700
ND
560
ND
0.033
77
120
29
67
10-06-31-181031-M
6000
ND
20
210
0.56
ND
4100
ND
1.8
ND
10000
8.7
1700
140
1.6
880
ND
150
ND
0.12
86
250
17
310
10-07-31-181031-M
17000
ND
7.1
75
0.8
ND
5300
9.7
5.3
7.8
16000
5.4
4200
190
9.2
4700
ND
190
ND
0.022
ND
26
44
ND
10-08-31-181031-M
22000
ND
ND
88
1
ND
6800
13
6.1
9.5
19000
5.5
5300
240
11
5800
ND
210
ND
0.019
ND
34
53
ND
1 Analytes are from the Targeted Analyte List (https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/ism23a-c.pdf) plus Uranium.
2 NM-specific screening levels from: NMED Industrial/ Occupational Soil Screening Levels (Cancer Target Risk [TR]=lE-05, Non-Cancer Total Hazard Quotient [THQ]=1), June 2019 (https://www.env.nm.gov/hazardous-waste/guidance-documents/).
3 NM-specific background values were obtained from: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/guidance-developing-ecological-soil-screening-levels.
4 First two digits of the sample number indicate the section from which the sample was collected.
5 n/a indicates that the NM-specific screening level or NM-specific background is not available for that element.
6 ND indicates that the analyte was not detected.
USEPA REGION 6
lof 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 1-5
Summary of Radon Sample Results
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Sample
number
Date placed
Date
collected
Description of location
Radon-222 picocuries
per liter (pCi/IJi
Figure
Depicting
Sample
Location
SEC10A
10/28/2016
11/3/2016
Inside mine shaft, 50' deep
6,304.9
1-16
SEC10B
10/28/2016
11/3/2016
Inside mine shaft, 100' deep
8,170.5
1-16
SEC10C
6/29/2017
7/5/2017
Edge of mine shaft
11.1
1-16
SEC10D
6/29/2017
7/5/2017
5' from edge of mine shaft
0.7
1-16
SEC10E
6/29/2017
7/5/2017
20' from edge of mine shaft
0.9
1-16
SEC10F
6/29/2017
7/5/2017
Top of ventilation shaft
1,247.9
1-16
SEC10G
6/29/2017
7/5/2017
20' from ventilation shaft
2.1
1-16
•fThe EPA and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) acceptable exposure level for indoor radon exposure is 4
picocuries per liter (pCi/l). There is no recommended exposure level for outdoor radon.
US EPA REGION 6
lof 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1
Location-Specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Location-Specific AUAUs and TIK's
Location
Characteristics
Requirements
Prerequisite
Citation(s)
C ulfinal Resources
Presence of
archaeological
resources1
"Under section 6(a) of the Act, no person may
excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or
deface, or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or
otherwise alter or deface any archaeological
resource1 located on public lands or Indian lands
unless such activity is pursuant to a permit issued
under § 7.8 or exempted by § 7.5(b) of this part."
Action that would affect
archaeological resources1 on
public lands or Indian lands
- Relevant and
Appropriate to response on
private land.
43 C.F.R. § 7.4(a);
Regulation under 16
U.S.C. §470ee (a)
Archaeological
Resources Protection Act
(1979)
1 Archaeological resource means any material remains of human life or activities which are at least 100 years of age, and which are of archaeological interest. 40
C.F.R. § 7.3(a).
USEPA REGION 8
1 of9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Location-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Location-Specific AUAUs and TIK's
Location
Characteristics
Requirements
Prerequisite
Citation(s)
Presence of
archaeological
resources
"No permit shall be required under this part for any
person conducting activities on the public lands
under other permits, leases, licenses, or entitlements
for use, when those activities are exclusively for
purposes other than the excavation and/or removal
of archaeological resources, even though those
activities might incidentally result in the
disturbance of archaeological resources. General
earth-moving excavation conducted under a permit
or other authorization shall not be construed to
mean excavation and/or removal as used in this
part."
[NOTE: Although obtaining a permit is an
administrative requirement, stopping work and
notifying the State Historic Preservation Officer
prior to excavating and/or removal of
archaeological resources inadvertently
discovered is recommended. J
Excavation activities that
inadvertently discover
archaeological resources on
public lands or Indian lands
- Relevant and
Appropriate to response on
private land.
43 C.F.R. § 7.5.(b)(1)
Permit requirements and
exceptions
(Regulation under
Archaeological
Resources Protection Act
(1979))
USEPA REGION 8
2 of 9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Location-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Location-Specific AUAUs and TIK's
Location
Characteristics
Requirements
Prerequisite
Citation(s)
Presence of human
remains, funerary
objects, sacred
objects, or objects of
cultural patrimony
for Native
Americans
"Discovery. Any person who knows or has reason
to know that he or she has discovered inadvertently
human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or
objects of cultural patrimony on Federal or tribal
lands after November 16, 1990, must provide
immediate telephone notification of the inadvertent
discovery, with written confirmation, to the
responsible Federal agency official with respect to
Federal lands, and, with respect to tribal lands, to
the responsible Indian tribe official. The
requirements of these regulations regarding
inadvertent discoveries apply whether or not an
inadvertent discovery is duly reported. If written
confirmation is provided by certified mail, the
return receipt constitutes evidence of the receipt of
the written notification by the Federal agency
official or Indian tribe official."
[NOTE: Although notification is an
administrative requirement, EPA must notify the
County Medical Examiner of the inadvertent
discovery of human remains in accordance with
New Mexico law. The State Historic
Preservation Officer and State Archaeologist
should be notified of cultural artifact
discoveries.]
Any person who knows or
has reason to know that he or
she has discovered
inadvertently human
remains, funerary objects,
sacred objects, or objects of
cultural patrimony on
Federal or tribal lands after
November 16, 1990 -
Relevant and appropriate
to response on private land.
43 C.F.R. § 10.4(b)
Discovery
(Regulation under the
Native American Graves
Protection and
Repatriation Act)
USEPA REGION 8
3 of 9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Location-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Location-Specific AUAUs and TIK's
Location
Characteristics
Requirements
Prerequisite
Citation(s)
Presence of human
remains, funerary
objects, sacred
objects, or objects of
cultural patrimony
for Native
Americans
"Ceasing activity. If the inadvertent discovery
occurred in connection with an on-going activity on
Federal or tribal lands, the person, in addition to
providing the notice described above, must stop the
activity in the area of the inadvertent discovery and
make a reasonable effort to protect the human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects
of cultural patrimony discovered inadvertently."
[NOTE: Although notification is an administrative
requirement, EPA must cease any on-going
response activity in the area of discovery, and
notify the County Medical Examiner of the
inadvertent discovery of human remains in
accordance with New Mexico law. The State
Historic Preservation Officer and State
Archaeologist should be notified of cultural artifact
discoveries.]
Excavation activities that
inadvertently discover such
resources on federal lands
(or under federal control) or
tribal lands after November
16, 1999 - Relevant and
appropriate to response on
private land.
43 C.F.R. § 10.4(c)
Ceasing activity
(Regulation under the
Native American Graves
Protection and
Repatriation Act)
USEPA REGION 8
4 of 9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Location-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Location-Specific AUAUs and TIK's
Location
Characteristics
Requirements
Prerequisite
Citation(s)
Excavation of an
archaeological site2
"It is unlawful for any person or his agent or
employee to excavate with the use of mechanical
earth moving equipment an archaeological site for
the purpose of collecting or removing objects of
antiquity when the archaeological site2 is located on
private land in this state, unless the person has first
obtained a permit issued pursuant to the provisions
of this section for the excavation." [Contact State
Historic Preservation Officer and State
Archaeologist]
Discovery of material
evidence of the past life and
culture of human beings on
private land (excluding sites
of burial of human beings) -
Applicable if an
archaeological site is
discovered in the course of
excavations for site
response.
New Mexico Cultural
Properties Act, Section
18-6-11
2 As used in this section, an "archaeological site" means a location where there exists material evidence of the past life and culture of human beings in this state
but excludes the sites of burial of human beings.
USEPA REGION 8
5 of 9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Location-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Location-Specific AUAUs and TIK's
Location
Characteristics
Requirements
Prerequisite
Citation(s)
Excavation of
unmarked human
burial3'4
"A. Each human burial in the state interred in any
unmarked burial ground is accorded the protection
of law and shall receive appropriate and respectful
treatment and disposition.
B. A person who knowingly, willfully and
intentionally excavates, removes, disturbs or
destroys any human burial3 buried, entombed or
sepulchered in any unmarked burial ground4 in the
state, or any person who knowingly, willfully and
intentionally procures or employs any other person
to excavate, remove, disturb or destroy any human
burial buried, entombed or sepulchered in any
unmarked burial ground in the state, except by
authority of a permit issued by the state medical
investigator or by the committee with the
concurrence of the state archaeologist and state
historic preservation officer, is guilty of a fourth
degree felony and shall be punished by a fine not to
exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) or by
imprisonment for a definite term of eighteen
months, or both.
Discovery of unmarked
human burial may be
Relevant and Appropriate
if an unmarked human burial
is discovered in the course of
excavations for site
response.
New Mexico Cultural
Properties Act, Section
18-6-11.2(A)-(C)
3 "Human burial" means a human body or human skeletal remains and includes any funerary object, material object or artifact buried, entombed or sepulchered
with that human body or skeletal remains.
4"Unmarked burial ground" means a location where there exists a burial or burials of any human being which is not visibly marked on the surface of the ground
in any manner traditionally or customarily used for marking burials and includes any funerary object, material object or artifact associated with the burial or
burials.
l'^ j USEPA REGION 8
6 of 9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Location-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Location-Specific AUAUs and TIK's
Location
Characteristics
Requirements
Prerequisite
Citation(s)
Discovery of
unmarked human
burial
C. Any person who discovers a human burial in any
unmarked burial ground shall cease any activity that
may disturb that burial or any object or artifact
associated with that burial and shall notify the local
law enforcement agency having jurisdiction in the
area. The local law enforcement agency shall notify
the state medical investigator and the state historic
preservation officer."
Discovery of a human burial
in an unmarked burial
ground. Applicable if a
human burial is discovered
in the course of excavation
for site response.
New Mexico Cultural
Properties Act, Section
18-6-11.2
Wildlife. Threatened or Endangered Species
Presence of
Migratory birds
listed in 50 C.F.R.
§10.13
"No person may take, possess, import, export,
transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale,
purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts,
nests, or eggs of such bird except as may be
permitted under the terms of a valid permit issued
pursuant to the provisions of this part and part 13 of
this chapter, or as permitted by regulations in this
part, or part 20 of this subchapter (the hunting
regulations)."
Action that has potential
impacts on, or is likely to
result in a 'take' (as defined
in 50 C.F.R. § 10.12) of
migratory birds -
Applicable
Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, 16 U.S.C. §703(a)
50 C.F.R. § 21.11
USEPA REGION 8
7 of 9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Location-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Presence species of
wildlife indigenous
to the state that are
determined to be
threatened or
endangered within
the state
"Except as otherwise provided in the Wildlife
Conservation Act [17-2-37 NMSA 1978], it is
unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport,
export, process, sell or offer for sale or ship any
species of wildlife appearing on any of the
following lists:
(1) the list of wildlife indigenous to the state
determined to be endangered within the state as
set forth by regulations of the commission; and
(2) the United States lists of endangered native
and foreign fish and wildlife as set forth in
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 as endangered or threatened species, but
only to the extent that those lists are adopted for
this purpose by regulations of the commission;
provided that any species of wildlife appearing
on any of the lists set forth in this subsection,
transported into the state from another state or
from a point outside the territorial limits of the
United States and which is destined for a point
beyond the state, may be transported across the
state without restriction in accordance with the
terms of any federal permit or permit issued
under the laws or regulations of another state or
otherwise in accordance with the laws of
another state."
Action that has potential
impacts on, or is likely to
result in a 'take' of listed
wildlife species -
Applicable
NM Stat. §17-2-41 (C)
Endangered species.
USEPA REGION 8
8 of 9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-1 (Continued)
Location-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Location-Specific AUAUs and TIK's
Location
Characteristics
Requirements
Prerequisite
Citation(s)
Presence of New
Mexico State
Endangered Plant
Species
"The taking of plants listed in Section 9 of this Part,
LIST OF NEW MEXICO STATE ENDANGERED
PLANT SPECIES, other than taking under valid
permit issued by the State Forester, is hereby
prohibited.
Actions that have potential
impacts on, or are likely to
result in a 'take'5 of listed
plant species - Applicable
NMAC 19.21.2.15 A.
ARAR = applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
C.F.R. = Code of Federal Regulations
NM = New Mexico
NMAC = New Mexico Administrative Code
NMSA = New Mexico Statutes Annotated
Stat = statute
TBC = To be considered
U.S.C. = United States Code
5 "Taking" means the removal, with the intent to possess, transport, export, sell, or offer for sale any of the plants listed in Section 9 of this Part, from the places
in the state of New Mexico where they naturally grow. [NMAC 19.21.2.7 C.]
USEPA REGION 8
9 of 9 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKC'INC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
Urosion and Sediment Control. Control of Radioactive Materials. Reclamation
Protection of
Surface Water
Quality: Control
of stormwater
runoff from
construction
activity
"2.2 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS You must implement erosion and sediment
controls in accordance with the following requirements to minimize
the discharge of pollutants in stormwater from construction
activities.
2.2.1 Provide and maintain natural buffers and/or equivalent
erosion and sediment controls for discharges to any receiving
waters that is located within 50 feet of the site's earth disturbances.
Compliance Alternatives. For any discharges to receiving waters
located within 50 feet of your site's earth disturbances, you must
comply with one of the following alternatives: Provide and
maintain a 50-foot undisturbed natural buffer; or Provide and
maintain an undisturbed natural buffer that is less than 50 feet and
is supplemented by erosion and sediment controls that achieve, in
combination, the sediment load reduction equivalent to a 50-foot
undisturbed natural buffer; or If infeasible to provide and maintain
an undisturbed natural buffer of any size, implement erosion and
sediment controls to achieve the sediment load reduction equivalent
to a 50-foot undisturbed natural buffer. See Appendix F, Part F.2
for additional conditions applicable to each compliance alternative.
Exceptions. See Appendix F, Part F.2 for exceptions to the
compliance alternatives."
To be considered by
operators of construction
activities if there are
discharges to Waters of the
United States (WOTUS)
during on-site excavation,
waste consolidation, and
repository construction.
EPA National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) 2022
Construction General
Permit (CGP) for
Stormwater Discharges
from Construction
Activities
Part 2. Technology-
Based Effluent
Limitations. Section 2.2.
Erosion and Sediment
Control Requirements,
Subsection 2.2.1.
40 C.F.R. §§ 122.26(a)
and (b), Permit
Applications and
Special NPDES
Program Requirements,
Stormwater Discharges
l'^ j USEPA REGION 8
1 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
Radiation
Standards:
Repository Design
and Construction
"Control of residual radioactive materials and their listed
constituents shall be designed to:
(a) Be effective for up to one thousand years, to the extent
reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years,
and....
(d) Each site on which disposal occurs shall be designed and
stabilized in a manner that minimizes the need for future
maintenance."
Relevant and appropriate
to design and construction of
on-site mine waste
repository.
NOTE: These standards
apply to UMTRCA Title I
sites for disposal of uranium
mill tailings left after
uranium ore has been
processed to extract
uranium, resulting in a
different type of waste than
contaminated soil and waste
rock from underground
mining.
Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act,
42 U.S.C. §§7918 and
2022, 40 CFR
§§ 192.02(a) and (d)
^ US EPA REGION 6
2 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKC'INC ARARs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
Radiation
Standards:
Repository Design
and Construction
In selecting and designing uranium mill tailings disposal sites,
certain criteria must be considered, including remoteness,
hydrologic and topographic features, potential for erosion and
vegetation. Disposal sites must be covered by an earthen cap, or
approved alternative, that meets certain control requirements,
including limiting the release of radon-222 to the atmosphere.
When the final radon barrier is placed in phases, verification of the
radon-222 release rate must be completed for each portion of the
final radon barrier as it is emplaced. Waste or rock with elevated
levels of radium must not be placed near the surface of disposal
sites. Disposal sites must be closed in a manner that, to the extent
necessary, controls, minimizes, or eliminates post-closure escape of
non-radiological hazardous constituents, leachate, contaminated
rainwater, or waste decomposition products to the ground or surface
waters or atmosphere.
NOTE: Full text of criteria attached at bottom of table.
Relevant and appropriate
to design and construction of
on-site mine waste
repository.
NOTE: These standards
apply to UMTRCA Title I
sites for disposal of uranium
mill tailings left after
uranium ore has been
processed to extract
uranium, resulting in a
different type of waste than
contaminated soil and waste
rock from underground
mining.
Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act,
42 U.S.C. §§7918 and
2022, 10 CFRPart 40,
Appendix A. Criteria 1,
4, 6(1), 6(3), 6(5) and
6(7).
Protection of Air
Quality: Fugitive
Dust Control
"20.2.23.109 GENERAL PROVISIONS: No person subject to
this part, shall cause or allow visible emissions from fugitive dust
sources that:
A. pose a threat to public health;
B. interfere with public welfare, including animal or plant injury or
damage, visibility or the reasonable use of property.
20.2.23.110 EMISSION LIMITATIONS:
A. No person shall cause or allow visible emissions from the
following fugitive dust sources subject to this part to traverse any
Applicable to control of
fugitive dust from on-site
excavation, waste
consolidation, and repository
construction.
20.2.23 NMAC,
Fugitive Dust Control
^ US EPA REGION 6
3 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKC'INC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
exterior property line of the property on which the source is located
for more than a total of five minutes in any consecutive 60 minutes:
(1) construction or other activity, disturbed surface areas and
inactive disturbed surface areas;
(2) bulk material handling; or (3) bulk material storage.
B. Compliance with this condition shall be determined by a visible
emissions test conducted in accordance with reference method 22 in
40 CFR Subpart 60, Appendix A.
C. Alternative test methods to determine compliance including
opacity observations, visible crust determinations and vegetation
cover determinations, may be approved by the department on a
case-by-case basis.
20.2.23.111 CONTROL MEASURES FOR FUGITIVE DUST
SOURCES AND IMPLEMENTATION: Every person subject to
this part shall utilize one or more control measures included in
20.2.23.111 NMAC or one or more other control measure(s) for
fugitive dust sources under their control as necessary to meet the
requirements of 20.2.23.110 NMAC.
A. Implementation. Control measures must be implemented
before, after, and during any dust-generating operation, including
during weekends, after work hours and on holidays.
B. Disturbed surface areas and inactive disturbed surface areas.
Control measures include:
(1) scheduling or phasing of active operations to include
consideration of such factors as time of year and prevailing wind
direction;
^ US EPA REGION 6
4 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
(2) limiting disturbance of natural vegetation;
(3) application and maintenance of mulch, dust suppressants or
other control measures in accordance with manufacturer's
specifications;
(4) geotextiles, plastic covers, or erosion control mats or blankets;
(5) wind fencing;
(6) landscaping to include xeriscaping, reseeding and conventional
techniques;
(7) installing permanent perimeter and interior walls;
(8) restricting public access and use by fencing and signage;
(9) paving or application of gravel sufficient to prevent fugitive
dust emissions;
(10) prevention, clean up and removal of track-out material;
(11) restricting vehicle speed;
(12) substitution of conveyor systems for haul trucks and covering
of conveyor systems when conveyed loads are subject to wind
erosion; and
(13) cessation of operations."
Radiation
Protection
Standards:
Radioactive
Material
"Concentrations of radioactive material, which may be released to
the general environment in ground water, surface water, air, soil,
plants or animals, shall not result in an annual dose exceeding an
equivalent of 25 millirems (250 microsieverts) to the whole body,
75 millirems (750 microsieverts) to the thyroid and 25 millirems
(250 microsieverts) to any other organ of any member of the public.
Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of
Relevant and Appropriate
to exposure of any member
of the public to radionuclide
contamination.
20.3.13.1317 NMAC,
Protection of the
General Population
from Release of
Radioactivity.
^ US EPA REGION 6
5 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC ARARs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as
reasonably achievable."
Radiation
Protection
Standards: Land
Disposal of
Radioactive
Material
"Concentrations of radioactive material which may be released to
the general environment in groundwater, surface water, air, soil,
plants, or animals must not result in an annual dose exceeding an
equivalent of 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the
thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the
public. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of
radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is
reasonably achievable."
Land disposal of radioactive
waste licensed by NRC.
Relevant and appropriate
to exposure of any member
of the public to radionuclide
contamination.
10C.F.R. §61.41,
Protection of the
General Population
from Release of
Radioactivity.
Repository cap
performance
standard
The NESHAP standard for radon-222 emission from uranium
mill tailings piles contained in 40 CFR 40.61 is 20 pCi/m"2 s"1
cover design criteria.
NOTE: OSRTI requested that the cap performance standard also
be evaluated using risk assessment, not just ARARs.
Relevant and appropriate
to limiting radon emissions
from the repository cap once
constructed.
NOTE: See above re:
distinction between uranium
mine and uranium mill
waste.
40 CFR Part 61,
National Emission
Standardsfor
Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAPs).
Response Action
"A. The permit area will be reclaimed to a condition that allows for
re-establishment of a self-sustaining ecosystem appropriate for the
life zone of the surrounding areas following closure unless
conflicting with the approved post-mining land use."
NOTE: Actions required to meet this substantive standard will be
included in Site-specific SOW and Work Plans under CERCLA, not
in closure plan required of state-licensedfacilities.
Post-mining reclamation of
existing, non-coal mining
operations. Relevant and
appropriate to reclamation
of areas disturbed by
excavation necessary to meet
health-based cleanup
19.10.5.507(A) NMAC,
Performance and
Reclamation Standards
and Requirements for
Non-Coal Mining,
Existing Mining
^ US EPA REGION 6
6 of 20 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
standards.
Operations
Mining
"New discrete processing, leaching, excavation, storage or stockpile
units located within the permit area of an existing mining
operation.. .must also comply with the standards and requirements
set forth below. Site-specific characteristics, including the existing
mining operation, must be considered in applying the standards and
requirements....
C. Site Stabilization and Surface Configuration The permit area
shall be stabilized, to the extent practicable, to minimize future
impact to the environment and protect air and water resources. The
final surface configuration of the disturbed area shall be suitable for
achieving a self-sustaining ecosystem or approved post-mining land
use.
D. Erosion Control Reclamation of disturbed lands must result in a
condition that controls erosion. Revegetated lands must not
contribute suspended solids above background levels to intermittent
and perennial streams....
New Mexico Mining Act
standards for reclamation
plans for new non-coal
mining units may be
relevant and appropriate to
reclamation of on-site areas
disturbed by excavation
necessary to conduct Site
response (excavate
contaminated soils to meet
health-based cleanup
standards; construct mine
waste repository; control
erosion, etc.).
19.10.5.508 (C) and
(D) NMAC, Regulation
of Non-Coal Mining,
New Units
On-Site
Repository
construction and
capping.
3.1 Preferred Methodology The preferred reclamation method is
physical removal of all radiologically contaminated materials above
background value from the site, with disposal of this material to a
monitored disposal facility. This preferred methodology likely
provides a final site reclamation solution to the responsible party
for unrestricted public use to the site. However, the Agencies
recognize that attainment of this standard could require the removal
To be considered - applies
to reclamation by responsible
parties of radionuclide
contamination at legacy
uranium mines in New
Mexico, specific to design
and construction of on-site
MMD & NMED Joint
Guidance for the
Cleanup and
Reclamation of Existing
Uranium Mining
Operations in New
^ US EPA REGION 6
7 of 20 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
of a significant volume of materials that probably would include a
considerable amount of soils comprising natural background. Such
removal activity to an appropriate and monitored repository
potentially could incur high reclamation costs, adverse
environmental impacts, and unacceptable safety threat to on-site
reclamation workers.
3.2 Alternative Methodology. Under certain circumstances,
reclamation plans could include disposal of unprocessed ore or
contaminated waste materials into an abandoned underground mine,
particularly in mines where unsaturated conditions are likely to
persist. Alternatively, the responsible party may provide a plan to
construct an on-site, incised disposal repository using an
appropriately engineered cover with shallow slopes. Reclamation
using this alternative methodology should employ a modified store-
and-release cover (also called an evapotranspiration cover). Any
engineered elements of the reclamation plan (e.g., site or waste
impoundment cover system, site drainage channels, etc.) should
provide long-term protectiveness while minimizing maintenance
requirements. The durability of engineered solutions should be
documented by an engineering analysis that incorporates site and
regionally appropriate values for relevant climatic factors (e.g.,
precipitation and wind speed distribution)."
NOTE: Actions required to meet the substantive standards will be
included in Site-specific SOW and Work Plans under CERCLA, not
in the closure/closeout plan required of state-licensedfacilities.
repository.
Mexico (March 2016).
Section 3.0-3.2
^ US EPA REGION 6
of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1
IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
On-Site
Repository
construction,
capping, and
revegetation.
"4.0 Reclamation Considerations. The type, quality, and thickness
of cover system material chosen will be a critical component of
successful reclamation. The thickness of the material chosen will
also be a critical component. Because of the long half-life of
radioactive materials that may be found at the site, reclamation
must take into account Best Management Practices to address
erosion and stability. Cover material must be of sufficient thickness
and texture to remain in place, and not allow for the re-exposure of
buried TENORM material. While the use of rock armoring has very
good anti-erosion characteristics, the extreme coarseness of the
material does not allow sufficient vegetative growth for the creation
of a self-sustaining ecosystem. Similarly, clays may be added to the
cover design to help in the suppression of gamma activity and radon
gas emissions. However excessive clay is generally not suitable as a
vegetative growth media. To address the need to limit erosion over
long periods of time, the Agencies advocate establishing incised
repositories onsite for disposal of TENORM materials, and capping
the repositories with shallow sloping rock/soil covers. Reclamation
should be performed using a modified store-and-release cover (also
called an evapotranspiration cover) using an overall coarser soil for
erosional resistance combined with additional use of rock armoring
in areas that may be more susceptible to erosion. Re-establishment
of various vegetation such as native grasses and forbs on the cover
will also reduce erosion over time. Post-reclamation hydrology
must be addressed during reclamation in a way that supports
positive drainage away from contaminated areas, minimizes erosion
and prevents re-exposure of buried materials. Another option in
To be considered - applies
to reclamation by responsible
parties of radionuclide
contamination at legacy
uranium mines in New
Mexico, specific
considerations for aspects of
the response.
MMD & NMED Joint
Guidance for the
Cleanup and
Reclamation of Existing
Uranium Mining
Operations in New
Mexico (March 2016,
Section 4.0.
( w J
US EPA REGION 6
9 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
addressing contaminated material may be to place unprocessed ore
or waste material back into the underground mine, where the
workings are dry. Various materials can be applied as an erosion
control cap to prevent loss of cover from rain and wind erosion.
Since each mining and reclamation project will have unique
characteristics and physical properties, reclamation designs will
have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."
NOTE: Actions required to meet the substantive standards will be
included in Site-specific SOW and Work Plans under CERCLA, not
in the closure/closeout plan required of state-licensedfacilities.
On-Site
Repository
construction,
capping, and
revegetation.
"5.4 Reclamation Work Plan Following the submittal of the
characterization report, a site reclamation work plan should be
prepared and should propose a cleanup methodology pursuant to
Sections 2 and 3 of this guidance document.... If the responsible
party proposes to implement an alternative cleanup methodology,
the composition of proposed cover materials should achieve the
specified reclamation radiation performance criterion. The design
should also incorporate features such that the cover will both be
resistant to erosion and degradation without maintenance for the
long-term and reduce infiltration of precipitation to the maximum
extent practicable. Proposed activities under the reclamation work
plan also should include establishment of permanent markers to
delineate the boundaries of the reclaimed mine site area. Finally,
the reclamation work plan also should include a post-reclamation
radiation assessment and sampling program to document attainment
of reclamation goals. The reclamation work plan should also
To be considered - applies
to reclamation by responsible
parties of radionuclide
contamination at legacy
uranium mines in New
Mexico, specifically on
standards to be addressed by
response work, monitoring
future land use, and
recording institutional
controls in public records.
MMD & NMED Joint
Guidance for the
Cleanup and
Reclamation of Existing
Uranium Mining
Operations in New
Mexico (March 2016),
Section 5.4.
^ US EPA REGION 6
10 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
include a site management plan that provides an anticipated
maintenance schedule or inspection schedule for the site. Because
institutional controls on land usage are not legally enforceable in
New Mexico, the site management plan should also include
reporting of known or reasonably foreseeable changes in land use at
the reclaimed site."
NOTE: Actions required to meet the substantive standards will be
included in Site-specific SOW and Work Plans under CERCLA, not
in the closure/closeout plan required of state-licensedfacilities.
On-Site
Repository
construction,
capping, and
revegetation.
"5.5 Reclamation Summary Report A final reclamation report
should compile a record of all post-reclamation data, engineering
calculations, engineering drawings, and activities that were
conducted during reclamation, and include a tabulation of the
permanent marker locations that delineate the reclaimed mine site
area. As appropriate, this report should be provided to the surface
landowner and recorded with the appropriate county jurisdiction to
establish a permanent record."
NOTE: Reporting is generally considered an administrative, not a
substantive requirement, outside the definition of an ARAR. The
action of recording the report in the appropriate county jurisdiction
to put the public on notice of the completed action is considered
substantive as it will also inform site-specific institutional controls.
Actions required to meet the substantive standards will be included
in Site-specific SOW and Work Plans under CERCLA, not in the
closure/closeout plan required of state-licensedfacilities.
To be considered - applies
to reclamation by responsible
parties of radionuclide
contamination at legacy
uranium mines in New
Mexico, specifically on
recording institutional
controls in public record.
MMD & NMED Joint
Guidance for the
Cleanup and
Reclamation of Existing
Uranium Mining
Operations in New
Mexico (March 2016),
Section 5.5
^ US EPA REGION 6
11 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKC'INC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
RCRA Waste
Analysis
Requirements
Subpart C—Characteristics of Hazardous Waste § 261.20 General,
(a) A solid waste, as defined in §261.2, which is not excluded from
regulation as a hazardous waste under §261.4(b), is a hazardous
waste if it exhibits any of the characteristics identified in this
subpart. [Comment: §262.11 of this chapter sets forth the
generator's responsibility to determine whether his waste exhibits
one or more of the characteristics identified in this subpart] (b) A
hazardous waste which is identified by a characteristic in this
subpart is assigned every EPA Hazardous Waste Number that is
applicable as set forth in this subpart. This number must be used in
complying with the notification requirements of section 3010 of the
Act and all applicable recordkeeping and reporting requirements
under parts 262 through 265, 268, and 270 of this chapter, (c) For
purposes of this subpart, the Administrator will consider a sample
obtained using any of the applicable sampling methods specified in
appendix I to be a representative sample within the meaning of part
260 of this chapter. [Comment: Since the appendix I sampling
methods are not being formally adopted by the Administrator, a
person who desires to employ an alternative sampling method is not
required to demonstrate the equivalency of his method under the
procedures set forth in §§260.20 and 260.21.]
Subpart D—Lists of Hazardous Wastes § 261.30 General, (a) A
solid waste is a hazardous waste if it is listed in this subpart, unless
it has been excluded from this list under §§260.20 and 260.22. (b)
The Administrator will indicate his basis for listing the classes or
types of wastes listed in this subpart by employing one or more of
the following Hazard Codes: Ignitable Waste (I)
Relevant and Appropriate -
the hazardous substances
which are the subject of this
removal action are solid
waste and not hazardous
waste under RCRA because
they are solid waste from the
extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and
minerals, according to 40
CFR § 261.4(b)(7); however,
it is useful in this Site-
specific situation for EPA to
use certain RCRA
procedures to control and
track waste sent off-site.
These procedures will be
used for off-site disposal of
wastes and other
contaminated material
generated during this
removal action.
40 CFR §§261.20 and
261.30
\ USEPA REGION 6
, w *
12 of 20 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKC'INC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
Corrosive Waste (C) Reactive Waste
(R) Toxicity Characteristic Waste ... (E) Acute
Hazardous Waste (H) Toxic Waste (T)
Appendix VII identifies the constituent which caused the
Administrator to list the waste as a Toxicity Characteristic Waste
(E) or Toxic Waste (T) in §§261.31 and 261.32. (c) Each hazardous
waste listed in this subpart is assigned an EPA Hazardous Waste
Number which precedes the name of the waste. This number must
be used in complying with the notification requirements of Section
3010 of the Act and certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements under parts 262 through 265, 267, 268, and 270 of this
chapter, (d) The following hazardous wastes listed in §261.31 are
subject to the exclusion limits for acutely hazardous wastes
established in §261.5: EPA Hazardous Wastes Nos. F020, F021,
F022, F023, F026 and F027.
RCRA
Manifesting
Requirements
Subpart B—The Manifest § 262.20 General requirements, (a)(1) A
generator who transports or offers for transport a hazardous waste
for offsite treatment, storage, or disposal, or a treatment, storage,
and disposal facility who offers for transport a rejected hazardous
waste load, must prepare a Manifest (OMB Control number 2050-
0039) on EPA Form 8700-22, and, if necessary, EPA Form 8700-
22A, according to the instructions included in the appendix to this
part. (2) The revised manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR
260.10, 261.7, 262.20, 262.21, 262.27, 262.32, 262.34, 262.54,
262.60, and the appendix to part 262, shall not apply until
September 5, 2006. The manifest form and procedures in 40 CFR
Relevant and Appropriate -
the hazardous substances
which are the subject of this
removal action are solid
waste and not hazardous
waste under RCRA because
they are solid waste from the
extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and
minerals, according to 40
CFR § 261.4(b)(7); however,
40 CFR § 262.20 and §
262.21
^ US EPA REGION 6
13 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
260.10, 261.7, 262.20, 262.21, 262.32, 262.34, 262.54, 262.60, and
the appendix to part 262, contained in the 40 CFR, parts 260 to 265,
edition revised as of July 1, 2004, shall be applicable until
September 5, 2006. (b) A generator must designate on the manifest
one facility which is permitted to handle the waste described on the
manifest, (c) A generator may also designate on the manifest one
alternate facility which is permitted to handle his waste in the event
an emergency prevents delivery of the waste to the primary
designated facility, (d) If the transporter is unable to deliver the
hazardous waste to the designated facility or the alternate facility,
the generator must either designate another facility or instruct the
transporter to return the waste, (e) The requirements of this subpart
do not apply to hazardous waste produced by generators of greater
than 100 kg but less than 1000 kg in a calendar month where: (1)
The waste is reclaimed under a contractual agreement pursuant to
which: (i) The type of waste and frequency of shipments are
specified in the agreement; (ii) The vehicle used to transport the
waste to the recycling facility and to deliver regenerated material
back to the generator is owned and operated by the reclaimer of the
waste; and (2) The generator maintains a copy of the reclamation
agreement in his files for a period of at least three years after
termination or expiration of the agreement, (f) The requirements of
this subpart and §262.32(b) do not apply to the transport of
hazardous wastes on a public or private right-of-way within or
along the border of contiguous property under the control of the
same person, even if such contiguous property is divided by a
public or private right-of-way. Notwithstanding 40 CFR 263.10(a),
it is useful in this Site-
specific situation for EPA to
use certain RCRA
procedures to control and
track waste sent off-site.
These procedures will be
used for off-site disposal of
wastes and other
contaminated material
generated during this
removal action.
^ US EPA REGION 6
14 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKC'INC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
the generator or transporter must comply with the requirements for
transporters set forth in 40 CFR 263.30 and 263.31 in the event of a
discharge of hazardous waste on a public or private right-of-way.
§ 262.21 (a) thru (m) Manifest tracking numbers, manifest printing,
and obtaining manifests.
RCRA Packaging
and Labeling
Requirements
Subpart C—Pre-Transport Requirements § 262.30 Packaging.
Before transporting hazardous waste or offering hazardous waste
for transportation off-site, a generator must package the waste in
accordance with the applicable Department of Transportation
regulations on packaging under 49 CFR parts 173, 178, and 179. §
262.31 Labeling. Before transporting or offering hazardous waste
for transportation offsite, a generator must label each package in
accordance with the applicable Department of Transportation
regulations on hazardous materials under 49 CFR part 172.
Relevant and Appropriate -
the hazardous substances
which are the subject of this
removal action are solid
waste and not hazardous
waste under RCRA because
they are solid waste from the
extraction, beneficiation, and
processing of ores and
minerals, according to 40
CFR § 261.4(b)(7); however,
it is useful in this Site-
specific situation for EPA to
use certain RCRA
procedures to control and
track waste sent off-site.
These procedures will be
used for off-site disposal of
wastes and other
contaminated material
generated during this
40 CFR § 262.30 and §
262.31
^ US EPA REGION 6
15 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
ACTION—SPKCINC AUAUs and 1 IK s
Media/Activity
Requirement
Prerequisite
Citation
removal action.
ARAR = Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
CAA = Clean Air Act
CWA = Clean Water Act
MMD = New Mexico Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources
Department, Mining and Minerals Division
NMED = New Mexico Environment Department
NM = State of New Mexico
NMAC = New Mexico Administrative Code
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
TBC = To Be Considered
UMTRCA = Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
USC = United States Code
Full Text of Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7918 and 2022,10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A. Criteria 1, 4, 6(1), 6(3), 6(5) and 6(7).
Criterion 1 - The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated
contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical
reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6).
The following site features which will contribute to such a goal or objective must be considered in selecting among alternative
tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites:
^ US EPA REGION 6
16 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
Remoteness from populated areas;
Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobilization and isolation of contaminants from
groundwater sources; and
Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long term.
The site selection process must be an optimization to the maximum extent reasonably achievable in terms of these features.
In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis must be given to isolation of tailings or wastes, a matter having long-term impacts,
as opposed to consideration only of short-term convenience or benefits, such as minimization of transportation or land acquisition
costs. While isolation of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding consideration must be given to
siting features given the long-term nature of the tailings hazards.
Tailings should be disposed of in a manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.
Criterion 4 - The following site and design criteria must be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of above or below
grade.
(a) Upstream rainfall catchment areas must be minimized to decrease erosion potential and the size of the floods which could
erode or wash out sections of the tailings disposal area.
(b) Topographic features should provide good wind protection.
(c) Embankment and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to provide
conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which
are as close as possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead to
slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (lOh: lv) or less steep. In general, slopes should not be steeper than about 5h: lv. Where
steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep than 5h:lv would be impracticable should be provided, and
compensating factors and conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be identified.
US EPA REGION 6
17 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
(d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock cover employed to reduce wind and water erosion to
negligible levels.
Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid
regions, rock cover must be employed on slopes of the impoundment system. The NRC will consider relaxing this requirement for
extremely gentle slopes such as those which may exist on the top of the pile.
The following factors must be considered in establishing the final rock cover design to avoid displacement of rock particles by human
and animal traffic or by natural process, and to preclude undercutting and piping:
Shape, size, composition, and gradation of rock particles (excepting bedding material average particles size must be at least cobble
size or greater);
Rock cover thickness and zoning of particles by size; and
Steepness of underlying slopes.
Individual rock fragments must be dense, sound, and resistant to abrasion, and must be free from cracks, seams, and other defects that
would tend to unduly increase their destruction by water and frost actions. Weak, friable, or laminated aggregate may not be used.
Rock covering of slopes may be unnecessary where top covers are very thick (on the order of 10 m or greater); impoundment slopes
are very gentle (on the order of 10 h:lv or less); bulk cover materials have inherently favorable erosion resistance characteristics; and,
there is negligible drainage catchment area upstream of the pile and good wind protection as described in points (a) and (b) of this
Criterion.
Furthermore, all impoundment surfaces must be contoured to avoid areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharp changes in
slope gradient. In addition to rock cover on slopes, areas toward which surface runoff might be directed must be well protected with
substantial rock cover (rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability, erosion
potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain must be evaluated to assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes,
such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability.
^ US EPA REGION 6
18 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
(e) The impoundment may not be located near a capable fault that could cause a maximum credible earthquake larger than that
which the impoundment could reasonably be expected to withstand. As used in this criterion, the term "capable fault" has the same
meaning as defined in section 111(g) of appendix A of 10 CFR part 100. The term "maximum credible earthquake" means that
earthquake which would cause the maximum vibratory ground motion based upon an evaluation of earthquake potential
considering the regional and local geology and seismology and specific characteristics of local subsurface material.
(f) The impoundment, where feasible, should be designed to incorporate features which will promote deposition. For example,
design features which promote deposition of sediment suspended in any runoff which flows into the impoundment area might be
utilized; the object of such a design feature would be to enhance the thickness of cover over time.
(1) In disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved alternative) over tailings or
wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close the waste disposal area in accordance with a design111 which provides
reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to
(i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and
(ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the
atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2 s) to the extent
practicable throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (l)(i) of this Criterion. In computing required tailings
cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be
considered. Direct gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any thin
synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon exhalation level. If non-soil materials are
proposed as cover materials, it must be demonstrated that these materials will not crack or degrade by differential settlement,
weathering, or other mechanism, over long-term intervals....
(3) When phased emplacement of the final radon barrier is included in the applicable reclamation plan, the verification of radon-
222 release rates required in paragraph (2) of this criterion must be conducted for each portion of the pile or impoundment as the
final radon barrier for that portion is emplaced....
Criterion 6 -
US EPA REGION 6
19 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-2 (Continued)
Action-specific ARARs and TBCs for Non-Time-Critical Removal Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine Site
McKinley County, New Mexico
(5) Near surface cover materials {i.e., within the top three meters) may not include waste or rock that contains elevated levels of
radium; soils used for near surface cover must be essentially the same, as far as radioactivity is concerned, as that of surrounding
surface soils. This is to ensure that surface radon exhalation is not significantly above background because of the cover material
(7) The licensee shall also address the non-radiological hazards associated with the wastes in planning and implementing
closure. The licensee shall ensure that disposal areas are closed in a manner that minimizes the need for further maintenance. To
the extent necessary to prevent threats to human health and the environment, the licensee shall control, minimize, or eliminate
post-closure escape of non-radiological hazardous constituents, leachate, contaminated rainwater, or waste decomposition
products to the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere.
itself....
I US EPA REGION 6
20 of 20
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 3-3
Off-Site Transportation and Disposal Pricing
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Company
Landfill/Mill
Miles
(one-way)
Transportation
Costs ($/ton)
Disposal/Processing
Costs ($/ton)
2022 Total
Costs ($/ton)
Comments
Clean Harbors
Truck from Grants, NM
Direct Landfill Disposal
Deer Trail, CO
550
$62.15
$75.00
$137.15
Transportation cost based on
budgetary quote of $5,500 per truck
US Ecology
Truck from Grants, NM
Direct Landfill Disposal
Truck from Grants, NM
Direct Landfill Disposal
Beatty, NV
Grand View, ID
610
870
$237.30
$333.35
Included in
Transportation Costs
$237.30
$333.35
Rail transport is possible but costing
would require additional effort
Historical Cost Indices
January 2022
January 2019
Time Factor
261.6
232.2
1.13
Notes:
1) Assumed 45,000 pounds per truck load
2) May need to address questions such as the need for prevailing wage payment for transportation and other contract requirements that could increase costs.
3) Budgetary quotes were received from US Ecology and Clean Harbors in December 2019.
4) A price of $130/ton was used in the EE/CA cost estimate, which should allow processing and transport by truck to the Deer Trails Landfill (shown in bold).
5) Prices adjusted from 2019 to 2022 using Historical Cost Indices from RS Means.
US EPA REGION 6
1 of 1 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 4-1
Summary of Analysis of Alternatives
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Removal Alternative
Evaluation Criteria
Protection of Human
Health and the
Environment
Compliance
with ARARs
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Long-Term
Effectiveness and
Permanence
Implementability
Cost
Effectiveness
Alternative"!: No Further
Action
Low - No additional
protection provided.
Not
Applicable
Low - No action.
Low - Does not
provide any
effectiveness or
permanence.
Low - No action.
Low - No action.
Alternative 2:
Excavation and Off-Site
Disposal of
Contaminated Soils at a
Licensed Low-Level
Radioactive Waste
Facility
High - Protection
provided by waste
being placed in an off-
site engineered
repository.
High -
Complies with
ARARs.
Medium -
Disturbance of the
entire waste area
during excavation,
large off-site
transport effort, and
longer time to
implement.
High - Waste is
managed with other
waste at a
processing facility
or landfill permitted
to receive the
waste.
Medium - Readily
implementable.
Administratively and
technically feasible;
however, the large
amount of trucks
needed to maintain
production levels may
be difficult to
schedule.
Low
Alternative 3:
Excavation and
Disposal of
Contaminated Soil at a
Non-Incised On-Site
Repository
High - Protection
provided by waste
being placed in an on-
site engineered
repository.
Maintenance of cap
will be required.
High -
Complies with
ARARs.
High - Disturbance
of the entire waste
area during
excavation,
however all
transport effort is on
site.
Medium - Waste is
managed in an
engineered
repository.
Maintenance of the
cover is required.
Low - Readily
implementable.
Technically feasible,
but administratively
infeasible due to lack
of viable PRP to
conduct long-term
operations and
maintenance.
Medium
Alternative 4: Capping
of Contaminated Soil in
Place
High - Protection
provided by waste
being placed in an on-
site engineered
repository.
Maintenance of cap
will be required.
High -
Complies with
ARARs.
High - Disturbance
of the entire waste
area during
excavation,
however all
transport effort is on
site.
Medium - Waste is
managed beneath
an engineered cap.
Maintenance of the
cover is required.
Low - Readily
implementable.
Technically feasible
but subsurface
contamination is not
addressed by
MARSSIM.
Administratively
infeasible due to lack
of viable PRP to
conduct long-term
operations and
maintenance.
Medium
US EPA REGION §
1 of 1 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Table 4-2
Estimated Risk of Fatalities and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to Off-Site Trucking
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Truckloads of Waste
Miles Round Trip to
Transport Waste
Truckloads of Fill
Miles Round Trip to
Transport Fill
Total Miles
Estimated Fatalities
due to Off-Site
Trucking1
Estimated
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions due to Off-
Site Trucking 2 (metric
tons C02e)
Alternative 1, No Further Action
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0
Alternative 2, Excavation and Off-Site Processing and
Disposal of Contaminated Soils at Licensed Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Facility (Clean Harbors, Deer Trail, CO)
2,708
1,100
100
40
2,982,800
0.04
5,308
Alternative 3, Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Soil
at a Non-Incised, On-Site Repository
0
0
1,008
40
40,320
0.00
72
Alternative 4, Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place
0
0
3,758
40
150,320
0.00
268
Notes:
C02e= Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
1. A rate of 1.51 fatalities per 100 million large truck miles traveled was calculated as shown below using data (2010 - 2019) from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021, May). Large trucks: 2014 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 813 110). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813110).
Fatality Rate per
People Killed in Crashes Large-Truck Miles 100 Million Large-Truck-
Involving Large Trucks Traveled (millions) Miles Traveled
2010
3,686
286,527
1.29
2011
3,781
267,594
1.41
2012
3,944
269,207
1.47
2013
3,981
275,017
1.45
2014
3,903
279,132
1.40
2015
4,095
279,844
1.46
2016
4,678
287,895
1.62
2017
4,906
297,593
1.65
2018
5,006
304,864
1.64
2019
5,005
300,050
1.67
Average from 2010 - 2019 1.51 fatalities per 100 million miles traveled
2. Metric tons of C02e per large truck mile traveled was calculated as shown below using data and methods from the EPA GHG Equivalencies Calculator - Calculations and References (https://www.epa.gov/energy/ghg-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references). Carbon
dioxide emissions per gallon of diesel fuel was obtained from the US Energy Information Administration Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=307&t=ll). Mileage for Combination Trucks (Classification Types 8-13) was obtained from the FHWA
Highway Statistics Table VM-1 based on 2012 and 2013 data (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2013/vml.cfm).
22.44 lb C02/gallon diesel fuel X 1 C02e X 1 = 0.001780 metric tons C02e
2,205 lb C02/metric ton C02 0.986 C02 5.8 miles/gallon miles traveled
USEPA REGION 6
lof 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
APPENDIX A
NATURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION REPORT
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Natural Resources Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines
Western Geographic Sub Area
McKinley County, New Mexico
Prepared for
US Evi rem mental Protection Agency Region 6
Weston Solutions
cf
Qr
or
<
^dP£SOq,
January 2017
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
Proposed Action 1
Methods 1
EXISTING CONDITIONS/PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 2
Topography and Climate 2
Soils/Soil Chemistry and Fertility 2
Vegetation 3
Vegetation Summary 3
Historical Photo Comparison 4
Vegetation Transects and Community Discussion 4
New Mexico Noxious Weeds 9
Wildlife 9
Wildlife Summary 9
Wildlife Discussion 10
Grazing/Rangeland Value 14
Federal and State Listed and Otherwise Protected Species 14
Critical Habitat 15
Listed or Otherwise Protected Species Eliminated from Further Analysis 15
Listed or Otherwise Protected Species Evaluated Further 16
Migratory Birds 17
Other Listed Species 17
BLM Sensitive Species 18
New Mexico Heritage Critically Imperiled Species 19
Watershed 20
Waterways 20
Wetlands 20
Watershed Impacts/Recommendations 21
REVEGETATION/SOIL AMMEDMENT SUMMARY 21
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 22
PHOTOS 24
REFERENCES 31
1 :
-------
APPENDIX A. FIGURES 1-4
APPENDIX B. SOIL CHARACTERISITCS, VEGETATION TRANSECTS, SAMPLES
APPENDIX C. SPECIES LISTS, LOCATIONS
-------
INTRODUCTION
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposes to initiate mine waste removal on several
former uranium mine sites to reestablish pre-mine habitats and promote restoration to a sustainable arid
grassland ecology. The sites are located within the Ambrosia Lake Sub-District (ALSD) area of the Grants
Mining District of the Western Geographic Sub Area within McKinley County, New Mexico (Figure la in
Appendix D). The reclamation study area consists of former underground uranium mines (Kermac #10,
#23, Mine #24, Homestake Sapin #25) and associated lands. For the purposes of this report, the study
area totals approximately 2,300 acres. It is located in Township 14 North, Range 10 West Sections 10, 11,
15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and Range 9 West; Section 30 30. It appears on the Ambrosia Lake and Goat
Mountain, New Mexico US Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle maps (Figure la). The area is eligible
for abatement activities subject to the Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mine (NAUM) settlement, and this
study area has been identified as the West Geographic Sub Area.
The Tronox NAUM Area comprises approximately 100 square miles within the ALSD in McKinley County,
New Mexico. The ALSD is located within an area of uranium mineralization that extends approximately
100-miles long and 25-miles wide encompassing portions of McKinley, Cibola, Sandoval, and Bernalillo
counties of New Mexico. The study area is located approximately 17 miles north of Grants, and 5.0 miles
from the intersection of New Mexico State Highways 509 and 605 (Figure la).
Proposed Action
The USEPA proposes to excavate at least 12 inches of top soils throughout the site once reclamation areas
are identified based on soils and vegetation sampling for uranium levels. Scraped areas would be
revegetated and recontoured to restore, to the extent feasible, pre-mining site conditions. Several million
cubic yards of soils (potentially ranging from 1 to 3 feet of removal) over the study area surface could be
removed and disposed of at an approved site outside the study area.
Methods
Existing site conditions as they pertain to natural resources considerations relative to reclamation were
characterized by obtaining field observational data, documented physical site properties, literature review
information, and soil sampling results for the study area.
In-field and desktop investigations were performed. Existing soil and watershed conditions were identified
through a review of federal and state agency reports and webtools. Revegetation, and site
recommendations are tailored to site-specific conditions and based on recommendations from
agricultural and reclamation sources from the vicinity. Federal and state listed, as well as otherwise
protected species were identified through agency database query. Soil and vegetation samples were
collected by Weston Solutions and select results provided for use in generating recommendations for this
report.
Field surveys were performed to identify protected species, wildlife habitat, and vegetative community
types/percent cover and water resources. For the purposes of evaluating natural resources at the site,
approximately 17 percent of the study area (about 400 acres) was targeted for intensive ground surveys
(Figure lb). Other areas were assessed via reconnaissance as feasible, as many areas can be accessed via
vehicle. Field surveys were conducted during September and October of 2016. Full ground surveys were
completed within each survey polygon (Figure lb).
-------
Fifteen 50-meter long vegetation transects were identified via a random, then arbitrary method within
community. Each transect was read at 1 centimeter intervals to generate an estimate of cover by species
within each community. Along 13 of the 15 transects, vegetation clippings were obtained and soil samples
were taken from 12 inches deep (Weston Solutions 2016). A wildlife trail camera was placed at a pond
location. Wildlife or their sign were identified based on photos or observations, and identification of listed
species or habitat suitable for listed species was provided. Waterways and wetland areas as present within
surveyed areas were addressed. Reconnaissance surveys were completed to characterize those areas
outside the ground survey polygons.
Individuals certified with at a minimum 24-hour hazardous waste operations and emergency response
(HAZWOPER) level of training entered the site. No respiratory personal protective equipment use was
warranted based on low radioactivity levels present at the site.
EXISTING CONDITIONS/PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Topography and Climate
The study area occurs from approximately 6,920 to 7,200 feet in elevation above mean sea level. It is
located east of Little Haystack Mountain and southwest of San Mateo Mesa (Figure la).
Climate summaries for nearby San Mateo, New Mexico indicate that the area is semiarid with a total
average annual precipitation of 8.66 inches. Average monthly maximum temperatures range from 40.6
degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January to 83.1°F in July. Average minimum monthly temperatures range from
16.0°F in January to 55.3°F in July with freezing being common from November through April. There is
generally a pronounced peak in rainfall during the monsoon months from July to October (Western
Regional Climate Summaries 2016.
Soils/Soil Chemistry and Fertility
Soils at the study area consists of the following US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS 2015) map units listed by highest percent occurrence in the study area:
Penistaja-Tintero complex, 1 to 10 percent slopes (soil unit: 205); Marianolake-Skyvillage complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes (soil unit: 210); Hagerwest-Bond fine sandy loams, 1 to 8 percent slopes (soil unit: 220);
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes (soil unit: 230); and Uranium Mined Lands (Soil unit
265).
The NRCS soil data were accessed for more detailed physical and chemical characteristics of area soils
(Appendix A). The study area soils are expected to be comprised of sandy loam and silty clay loam surface
textures, according to NRCS mapping. They are generally well drained; not hydric or slightly hydric;
moderately susceptible to wind and water erosion; and occur more than 200 centimeters from ground
water depth. They are rated "very limited" for ponded reservoirs due to seepage and slope; and have
limited water capacity. The soils at the study area are located more than 200 centimeters from any
restrictive layer (loss of water or air infiltration), except areas in the southern periphery (unit 220), which
are rated at 89 centimeters from such a layer. This is a favorable indicator for successful revegetation.
Soil chemistry and fertility parameters were obtained via laboratory analysis of samples collected from
the site (Weston 2016). Detailed results are provided in Appendix A. In general, analyses indicate that area
soils have low fertility; are low in boron, zinc, and phosphorus; high in calcium, magnesium, and sodium;
-------
and have a low carbon/nitrogen ratio. While NRCS rating identified an expected pH ranging from 7.7 to7.9
for the study area, the pH of soil samples ranged from 7.9 to 9.0 (Appendix B).
Vegetation
The study area occurs within the Semiarid Tablelands ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2006). This ecoregion is
characterized by dry plains, mesas, valleys, and canyons formed from sedimentary rocks. It supports arid
and semi-arid grasslands, shrub/scrub zones, savannas, and woodlands.
According to Dick-Peddie (1993) the study area occurs primarily within Desert Grassland and Great Basin
Desert Scrub vegetation communities. In the field, the grassland community most closely resembles the
Plains-Mesa Grassland community in structural components, and this is the nomenclature used. The
dominant component communities and associated species present at the study area are discussed in
detail below. Vegetation communities at the site were identified and mapped based on ground surveys
and reconnaissance (Figure 2). Surveys were conducted during late summer and early fall of 2016. In total,
104 species representing 34 families of vascular plants were identified at the study area (Appendix B).
Vegetation Summary
Approximately 2,258 acres within the 2,302-acre study area are estimated to be vegetated. The
unvegetated areas were occupied by rock-covered slopes, roads, or other human-made features. The
study area is generally flat and for the most part lacks microhabitat conditions associated with aspect or
slope. It is dominated by large expanses of a mixture of Great Basin Desert Shrub communities and Plains
Mesa Grassland. In some areas, these communities intermix forming an ecotone Shrubby Grassland
community dominated by grasses but often with a diffuse distribution of shrubs. Warm season grasses
dominate the grassland communities. Only 3 of the 21 species of grasses documented on the site [western
wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), and squirrel-tail (Elymus elymoides)]
were cold season species. Both the wheatgrass and foxtail barley were found principally in the riparian
areas, squirrel tail was scattered in the grasslands and in the riparian habitats.
Many factors (disturbance, soil texture, soil nutrient content, and aspect) influence vegetation
composition; however within the relatively flat study area, soil texture appears to be an important
determinant of community type. The distribution of the grassland communities closely overlaps the
location of the fine loamy Penistaja Series soils (Appendix B). Many Great Basin Desert Scrub communities
occurred on the clay loams or clay soils, of the Sparank-San Mateo-Zia Complex.
Woodland and savanna communities are uncommon in the study area and contribute less than 1 percent
of the total vegetation cover.
Arroyo riparian vegetation occurs within the channels and active floodplains of all ephemeral waterways
within the study area. All these drainages are historically tributaries of Arroyo del Puerto. The vegetation
within these drainages is codominated by a mixture of shrubs and grasses. Although widespread across
the study area, these Arroyo Riparian communities account for only about 1 to 2 percent of the total
vegetation cover.
In aggregate, the grassland, shrubland, savanna, woodland, and riparian vegetation types form 8 distinct
natural plant communities/series (Table 1). A disclimax (weedy vegetation) area occurs in the southeast
corner of the study area. The plant community series were identified following Dick-Peddie (1993), except
when no applicable series has been published and adapting was necessary.
3
-------
Historical Photo Comparison
A historic aerial photograph of the study area from 1954 was compared with current study area
conditions. Substantial changes in vegetation communities were noted. The Juniper Savanna habitat,
which currently just enters the western edge of the study area in Section 22, extended about % mile
eastward in 1954 into the northeast % of Section 22. Pronounced surface scraping visible on current aerial
photography suggests that these trees were removed by mining operations.
Coniferous woodland located in the southern portion of Section 22 has the exactly the same footprint in
1954 as currently observed. The only difference is that the tree density within this community has
increased since 1954.
Based on the density and extent of vegetation observed on the 1954 photographs, the historic waterway
system appears to have been much less incised, with water spilling across a broader floodplain than what
currently exists. Areas of channels that were incised in 1954 appear to have supported much denser
vegetation than currently exists. Finally, 5 stock ponds currently occur along the main channel of Arroyo
del Puerto extending from the western edge to the eastern edge of the study area. None of these ponds
were present in 1954.
Grasslands were far more abundant and contiguous in 1954. The large patch of grassland that currently
dominates Section 24 extended southward to cover most of Section 25 in 1954. Additionally, most of
Section 30 appears to have been covered by grassland. Both of these areas now support a
grass/rabbitbrush community.
Great Basin shrub communities appear to have been present in 1954. Shrubs appear to have dominated
the sheet-flow flood zones that parallel the arroyos. Shrub communities mixed with pockets of grassland
also covered Sections 23 and 26. Today these areas still support these communities, but the shrubs are
more abundant today and appear to dominate in areas that had been subject to surface disturbance.
To restore to 1954 conditions, grassland habitats would have to be expanded throughout much of the
study area and the waterways would have to be restored to a more free-flowing condition.
Vegetation Transects and Community Discussion
Percent cover and species composition data were collected from 1-centimeter intervals along 50-meter-
long vegetation transects (Table 1, Figure 2). Fifteen transects were used. The final placement of transects
was based on a stratified, arbitrary, random technique, with the general location of transects being
selected randomly, but the final placement being arbitrary to best reflect the typical vegetation structure
within the community.
An estimate of percent absolute cover was calculated for all species present within transects. The
compiled data from each transect is provided in Appendix B (accompanied by the soil sample number
collected from 13 or 15 transects). Table 2 presents a compilation by community type.
Some plant communities were so large that multiple transects were required. In communities where
multiple transects occurred, the data were combined. Five community types presented in Table 2 are the
results of combined transects. Communities are discussed in detail by type.
-------
Table 1 - Area of Dominant Plant Communities and Associated Transects
COMMUNITY TYPE
SERIES: PRINCIPAL COMPONENT VEGETATION
EST.
ACRES
TRANSECTS
Plains-Mesa Grassland
Blue Grama/Galleta
763.26
1, 2, 4, 12, 13
Shrubby Grassland
(Ecotone)
Blue Grama /Galleta/Saltbush
260.11
4,9
Great Basin Desert Scrub
Saltbush/Blue Grama/Galleta
565.7
9, 10, 11
Rabbitbrush/ Blue Grama/Galleta (Grassy
Rabbitbrush Scrub)
454.75
3, 15
Saltbush/Dropseed/Snakeweed/Annuals
130.78
5
Juniper Savanna
One-seed Juniper/Galleta
4.78
6
Coniferous Woodland
One-seed Juniper/Pinyon Pine/Bigelow Sage
0.90
7
Arroyo Riparian
Rabbitbrush/Saltbush/Galleta
33.09
8, 14
Disclimax
Summer Cypress (Invasive Weed)
45.30
None
Plains-Mesa Grassland
Plains-Mesa Grassland is the largest plant community in the study area, covering approximately 763 acres.
It is concentrated in Township 14 North, Range 10 West, in the center of Section 24; the northeast and
southeast corners of Section 25; the northwest corner of Section 26 and within Section 10. This
community supported over 40 percent absolute vegetation cover (Table 2), and was heavily dominated
by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and galleta (Pleurapis jamesii). Together these 2 grasses accounted for
75 percent of the vegetative cover. Secondary grasses such as ring muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyi), Wright's
muhly (Muhlenbergia wrightii), and spike dropseed (Sporobolus contractus) were present, but appeared
infrequently and accounted for little more than 1.5 percent of the overall vegetative cover.
Shrubs appeared sporadically, with winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata) being the most common, and
four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and horsebush (Tetradymia canescens) being thinly distributed,
often in small localized enclaves. Ecologically this community type is important as nearly all the Gunnison's
prairie dog towns in the study area occur within Plains-Mesa Grassland, and concurrently the documented
western burrowing owls were within these prairie dog towns.
Shrubby Grassland (Ecotone)
The Shrubby Grassland Ecotone community occurs principally in the western third of the study area in
Section 22, with a smaller piece of this community occurring near the southeast corner of Section 30. At
both locations, this community occurs mostly within the overlap zone of Great Basin Shrub and Grassland
communities, and the vegetation is a mixture of both. This entire community is patchy in nature often
with small stands of grassland interrupted by enclaves of four-wing saltbush or other subshrubs.
Vegetative cover was over 40 percent with nearly half of this cover composed of blue grama and nearly a
quarter from four-wing saltbush. Portions of this community also support Gunnison's prairie dog colonies.
Great Basin Desert Scrub
Shrub communities dominate the Great Basin. Depending upon moisture, temperature, and soils, these
communities can vary in composition. Within the study area, 3 Great Basin Desert scrub communities
were defined, all of which had either four-wing-saltbush or rabbitbrush as their principal shrub
components, and all of which had substantial grass cover. The most abundant of these communities was
dominated by Saltbush/Blue Grama/Galleta. It covered over 500 acres and was found within the
southwest corner of Section 24; the southern portion of Section 23; the northern portion of Section 2;
ST (
1
*
-------
and the northwest corner of Section 25. The proportion of saltbush to grasses within this community
varied across the study area, but overall saltbush accounts for nearly half of the overall vegetative cover.
In addition to the native shrubs and grasses, the nonnative weed summer cypress (Bassia scoparia) also
was abundant, accounting for nearly a quarter of the total vegetative cover within this community.
The second most abundant of the Great Basin Scrub communities was dominated by rabbitbrush/blue
grama/galleta. This community is concentrated along the eastern edge of the study area within: Section
30 and Section 24. A portion also occurs within Sections 22 and 10. This community has nearly 60 percent
vegetative cover with a third of it from rabbitbrush and another third from blue grama. The remaining
third is composed principally of a mixture of grasses such as galleta, Wright's muhly, and dropseed
(Sporobolus) species. Along its margins, the shrub component of this community thins and intergrades
into Plains Mesa Grassland.
The last of these Great Basin Shrub communities is dominated by four-wing saltbush intermixed with
dropseed and snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae). This community is confined to northwest corner of the
study area within Section 15. It has some of the lowest overall vegetative cover in the study area
(approximately 25.9 percent) and more than half of this cover is derived from annual weedy species.
Fourwing saltbush accounts for about a quarter of the cover and of all the remaining grasses -less than a
quarter. This site appears to have suffered substantial surface disturbance in the past and is not fully
recovered.
Juniper Savanna
The Juniper Savanna community is limited to the western edge of the study area within Section 22. It is
dominated by one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) and covers less than 5 acres of the study area. It
had the lowest overall vegetative coverage (22.4 percent) of the communities. Grasses accounted for
more than half of this cover and Junipers about 3.6 percent. This community is located adjacent to the
most persistent water source and is heavily grazed. Although it occupies a small area relative to other
communities, it provides tree structure to the western half of the study area.
Coniferous Woodland
A tiny sliver of woodland community (less than an acre in size) extends into the study area within Section
22. Like the Juniper Savanna, this woodland habitat has low vegetative cover (27.12 percent) with nearly
half of the vegetative cover dominated by grasses. The pinyon (Pinus edulis) and one-seed juniper trees
account for less than a third of the cover. Although very small, the community is important in that it
provides the only trees in the southwestern portion of the study area.
Arroyo Riparian
A series of ephemeral waterways, all historic tributaries of Arroyo del Puerto, cross the study area. Many
convey surface water runoff as sheet flow that can spread across broad areas. Human intervention has
altered or curtailed the flows of these waterways. Berms have been installed across many segments of
Arroyo del Puerto interrupting stormwater surges and collecting the runoff in stock ponds. Approximately
33 acres of this Arroyo Riparian community type is spread out in linear form across approximately 4 miles
of the study area. With the exception of small segments of waterways in the sections 10 and 30, remaining
Arroyo Riparian habitat is confined to sections 22, 23, 25, and 26.
The Arroyo Riparian community consists of vegetation within waterway channels, as well as the various
ponds. The dominant vegetation within the active channels was consistent across all arroyo segments.
Usually it was dominated by rabbitbrush and western wheat grass. Together, these species account for
16
*
-------
more than 50 percent of the vegetative cover in the arroyos. In some locations, four-wing saltbush can be
locally abundant, but most remaining vegetative cover varies among a dozen species of grasses and herbs
such as gumweed (Grindelia nuda), galleta, and purple aster (Machaeranthera canescens).
Stock ponds along channels are dominated by weedy vegetation such as summer cypress with small
amounts of MacDougall verbena (Verbena Macdouglii) and western wheat grass often occurring along
the edge of the ponds. Satellite aerial photography from 1996 to 2014 and field observations suggest that
these ponds (with one exception) rarely have water present. The exception is a stock pond located in
Section 22. This pond is collecting runoff directly from nearby steep slopes. The dominant vegetation was
knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), spike rush (Eleocharis sp.), foxtail barley, marsh aster (Aster subulatus),
and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Nearly all these plants are wetland indicator species. Surface water was
present throughout September and most of October 2016 when the other ponds were dry.
Disclimax
An area of approximately 45 acres located in the southeast corner of the study area within Section 30 is
dominated by the invasive annual weed summer cypress. This annual weed can choke out other
vegetation leaving an unproductive habitat for wildlife. Since the overwhelming dominant within this area
was an annual invasive weed, vegetation cover data was not collected.
Table 2 - Species/Approximate Percent Cover at Vegetation Transects
VEGETATION COMMUNITY AND SERIES
PLANT SPECIES
TRANSECTS
PERCENT COVER
Plains Mesa Grassland
1,2,4,12,13
Bouteloua gracilis
26.57
Pleuraphis jamesii
5.5
Bassia scoparia
2.02
Salsola tragus
1.74
Krascheninnikovia lanata
1.27
Artemisia bigelovii
1.16
Muhlenbergia wrightii
1.02
At ripi ex canescens
0.97
Muhlenbergia torreyii
0.66
Tetradymia canescens
0.192
Sporobolus contractus
0.08
Gutierrezia sarothrae
0.05
Elymus elymoides
0.03
Total: 41.26
Shrubby Grassland (Ecotone)
4,9
At ri pi ex canescens
12.2
Bassia scoparia
4.81
Pleuraphis jamesii
3.40
Bouteloua gracilis
20.25
Muhlenbergia torreyi
1.47
Total: 42.13
Great Basin Desert Scrub -
(Saltbush/Blue Grama/Galleta)
9,10,11
At ri pi ex canescens
20.4
-------
VEGETATION COMMUNITY AND SERIES
PLANT SPECIES
TRANSECTS
¦
PERCENT COVER
Bassia scoparia
8.56
Bouteloua gracilis
8.3
Pleuraphis jamesii
2.16
Panicum obtusum
1.94
Elymus elymoides
1.64
Grindelia nuda
0.27
Pascopyrum smithii
0.26
Gutierrezia sarothrae
0.21
Scleropogon brevifolius
0.1
Sporobolus airoides
0.08
Total: 43.92
Great Basin Desert Scrub - (Rabbitbrush/
Blue Grama/Galleta (Grassy Rabbitbrush
Scrub)-
3,15
Bouteloua gracilis
22.69
Ericameria nauseosa
22.12
Pleuraphis jamesii
6.77
Grindelia nuda
2.22
Pascopyrum smithii
1.57
Muhlenbergia wrightii
1.39
Gutierrezia sarothrae
0.87
Bassia scoparia
0.83
Sporobolus airoides
0.63
Sporobolus contractus
0.03 1
Total: 59.12
Great Basin Desert Scrub-
(Saltbush/Dropseed/Snakeweed/Annuals)
5
Machaeranthera
canescens
8.38
Atriplex canescens
6.18
Salsola tragus
4.16
Gutierrezia sarothrae
2.24
Bassia scoparia
1.86
Pascopyrum smithii
1.42
Sporobolus contractus
1.70
Total: 25.94
Juniper Savanna
6
Pleuraphis jamesii
6.94
Sporobolus airoides
3.98
Juniperus monosperma
3.6
Atriplex canescens
2.52
Krascheninnikovia lanata
1.62
Gutierrezia sarothrae
1.36
Bouteloua gracilis
1.2
Aristida purpurea
0.9
1
* >4^^
-------
VEGETATION COMMUNITY AND SERIES
PLANT SPECIES
TRANSECTS
PERCENT COVER
Acnatherum hymenoides
0.3
Total: 22.42
Coniferous Woodland
7
Bouteloua gracilis
13.90
Juniperus monosperma
6.88
Artemisia bigelovii
4.58
Krascheninnikovia lanata
0.96
Pleuraphis jamesii
0.52
Erigeron sp
0.28
Total: 27.12
Arroyo Riparian
8,14
Ericameria nauseosa
14.06
Pascopyrum smithii
12.28
Grindelia nuda
6.58
Atriplex canescens
3.88
Pleuraphis jamesii
2.64
Bassia scoparia
2.13
Machaeranthera
canescens
1.94
Bouteloua gracilis
1.76
Sporobolus airoides
1.44
Bouteloua hirsuta
0.12
Gutierrezia sarothrae
0.11
Ambrosia acanthicarpa
0.06
Total: 47.00
New Mexico Noxious Weeds
The following three New Mexico Department of Agriculture Category C noxious weeds species were
observed in the study area: saltcedar, Russian olive, and Siberian elm. None of these occurred in
abundance. Siberian elms are mostly confined to the main paved access route that bisects the site.
Russian olive is represented by a handful of trees that are widely scattered. One salt cedar occurs at the
pond in Section 22 other diminutive specimens were observed along the waterways. No special treatment
of these weeds is recommended.
To prevent establishment of weeds during the revegetation process, it is recommended that the
contractor be required to wash all machinery prior to each site entry (if equipment is used at other sites
during the reclamation process) and upon leaving the site to reduce likelihood of transporting seeds into
and from the site. In addition, the application of mulch would reduce weedy species establishment.
Wildlife
Wildlife Summary
Several common species or their sign were observed within the study area. A list of species observed
onsite, as well as those expected to occur there based on other area surveys, is provided in Appendix B.
-------
Eleven species of mammals or their sign, including elk, mule deer, gophers, rabbits, kangaroo rats, prairie
dogs, mountain lion, and coyote were observed. Large prairie dog towns occur in and around the study
area. It is likely that bats roost within the cliff faces present nearby and hunt at stock ponds since the
presence of water would support insects. Migratory Myotis species would be expected to roost in cliffs
from March through October, and would be active at the ponds at night.
Thirty-six species of birds were observed, including residents such as: quail and roadrunner; songbirds
such as sparrows, juncos, towhee, and meadowlark; insect hunting species such as flycatchers, shrikes,
and phoebes; waterfowl and wading birds, and several birds of prey including hawks, falcons, eagles, and
owls. Many other species of songbirds and raptors are likely present in the area during migration and
nesting seasons.
Five reptiles were observed including three snakes and two lizards. Amphibians were not observed, but
at least two species are expected in the area.
It is recommended that nearby cliff and rock outcrop areas and pinyon/juniper woodlands be avoided
during proposed reclamation activities, which would harm these areas rather than improve them.
Avoidance of perch trees for raptors is also recommended. Prairie dogs colonies support burrowing owl
nests. Vegetation clearing, especially in areas that support owl burrows, should be limited to the late fall
and winter months (October to February).
Wildlife Discussion
In total, 53 vertebrate species were observed during the surveys of the study area (Appendix C), including
a wide range of birds with both upland and waterfowl species present. Based on the species list collected
on other surveys in the area, approximately 70 species of vertebrates could be present within the study
area. There are large populations of burrowing mammals present. Gunnison's prairie dog colonies cover
hundreds of acres within the area.
There are also some elk and mule deer, as well as large predators such as mountain lion and coyote
present, all of which are likely to leave the area during construction.
Birds
The survey was conducted late summer into the fall, and many more species, especially during spring
migration, are likely to occur in the study area during the breeding season. Overall, birds were not present
in great abundance. One possible reason for low bird population levels is the general lack of vertical
structure at the site. Aside from four-wing saltbush and rabbitbrush, hardly any shrubs above knee height
are present, excluding the small enclaves of juniper and pinyon trees along the extreme western end of
the study area. The remaining trees are principally Siberian elms along the main entrance road with a few
Russian olives and salt cedars.
Most birds observed occurred in small flocks within shrubby stands of four-wing saltbush and rabbitbrush,
or flyovers. Non-migratory resident birds, such as scaled quail (Callipepla squamata) and roadrunner
(Geococcyz californianus), were diffusely spread across the study area mostly in the shrub/grassland
ecotone areas.
Within the grassland habitats, birds represented by species such as horned larks (Eremophila alpestris),
vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus), and the occasional western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta).
110
1
*
-------
The brushy habitats supported a variety of sparrows including chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine),
Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri), wintering white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), dark-
eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).
The greatest diversity of birds occurred at the stock pond located within Section 22. The presence of water
throughout September and October not only provided a water source for upland birds but also supported
the use of shore birds and waterfowl such as great-blue heron (Ardea Herodias), killdeer (Charadrius
vociferous), mallard (Anasplatyrhynchos), gadwall (Anasstrepera), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), and
northern pintail (Anas acuta). More than half the birds observed in the study area occurred at or near the
wet stock pond, and the waterfowl and shorebirds were found only at this pond.
The following 5 bird-of-prey species were observed within the study area: golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), American
kestrel (Falco sparverius), and prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). One species that was expected, but not
observed, was red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). However, based on other surveys of the general area,
this species is likely to be present. The American kestrel, prairie falcon, and northern harrier appeared to
be fly-overs. Aside from hunting, very little suitable habitat was observed in the survey area.
Golden eagles were observed onsite during every visit. At least 3 different golden eagles were present.
The large prairie dog colonies within the area provide an excellent prey base for this species, and on two
occasions golden eagles were observed perching on the Siberian elm trees along the main paved access
road at the eastern edge of the study area (figures 3a,3b). There is no suitable nesting habitat present for
golden eagle within or immediately adjacent to the study area, but suitable nesting habitat does occur on
east facing cliffs along the east side of Little Haystack Mountain located within Section 20; which is
approximately 1.5 miles west of the western edge of the study area, and Mesa Redonda, which is
approximately 1.9 miles to the west (Figure 3b). Multiple large whitewash areas that could be golden
eagle nest sites were observed along this cliff face.
Additional suitable nesting habitat for golden eagle was also observed on multiple cliff faces within
Sections 34, 35, and 36 of Township 15 North, Range 10 West, and within sections 1, 2, and 3 of Township
14 North, Range 10 West.
This habitat occurs between 1.5 and 2.0 miles north of the portion of the study area within Section 10.
Some whitewash was noted present these cliffs, but no specific areas appeared to support an active
golden eagle nest site. Golden eagles are reported to hunt on a daily basis in a 7-mile radius around their
nest sites and any potential golden eagle nesting habitat in the general area would be close enough for
their use of the study area, which supports a prey base.
Western burrowing owls are a ground-dwelling species that usually occupy burrows created by mammals
such as prairie dogs. During the nesting season, they can use several burrows, moving their young from
burrow to burrow, as they mature. These burrows are usually clustered in tight proximity and, for the
purpose of this report, clustered burrows (that were used by burrowing owls in 2016) are referred to as
activity areas. During the course of the survey, 6 of these burrowing-owl activity areas were identified
that in aggregate contained 16 burrows used by burrowing owl (Figure 2, Appendix C). During the survey,
western burrowing owls were observed within 3 of these activity areas. All the owls observed occurred
within Gunnison's prairie dog towns and nearly all of them occurred within the Plains Mesa Grassland
community type. The 3 western burrowing owls observed during the survey were located near burrows
11
-------
1, 2, and 9 (Appendix C). Since surveys were not completed for the entire area, it is likely that many
additional owls were present in the study area but were not identified.
Mammals
Eleven species of mammals were observed in the survey area, and based on surveys of nearby areas,
others would be expected. The larger mammals present included both herbivores and predators. At the
time of the survey, elk (Cervuus elaphus) were active in the western portion of the study area. Mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) tracks and droppings were observed along the western edge of the study area.
Tracks of both of these species were observed at the stock pond in Section 22. Elk were photographed on
a wildlife camera at this location. Both these species could occur anywhere within the study area.
There were no observations or sign of bobcat (Lynx rufus) or gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), but
both are expected in the general area. Mountain lion (Puma concolor) and coyote (Canis latrans) were
present. Tracks of a solitary (likely juvenile) mountain lion were observed at the stock pond within Section
22. A rancher, who uses the study area, stated that in 2016 a female mountain lion and 2 nearly adult
cubs were observed along the edge of savanna/woodlands on the west side of the study area in Section
22. Coyote observations and signs (scat and tracks) occurred in all plant communities within the study
area. Most large mammals (both herbivores and predators) are likely to leave the area when reclamation
begins and return when vegetation has developed sufficiently to provide cover and a prey base.
The presence of small burrowing mammals within the study area is important to the restoration process
in that they provide the potential for soil mixing deep below the surface. The most likely species to do this
within the study area are the banner-tailed kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spectabilis) and Gunnison's prairie
dog (Cynomys gunnisoni). Banner-tailed kangaroo rats were present, but sporadic in their distribution,
occurring primarily within the Plains Mesa Grassland and the Great Basin Desert Scrub - Rabbitbrush
Grassland habitat. Kangaroo rats are strictly nocturnal and are not easily observed.
Although their activity level drops in the winter, they have been reported to be active on warm days.
Banner-tailed kangaroo rats have complex burrow systems that can exceed 1 meter in depth (Gano and
States 1982) and extend outward for several meters from the center of the mound. The centralized mound
associated with the burrow system often exhibits substantial amounts of soils mixing from collapsed
burrows. Much of the burrow system for typical banner-tailed kangaroo rat mounds is likely to occur
below the 12-inch deep soil removal zone.
Many rats may survive the soil removal by remaining in their deep burrows. However, with the removal
of vegetative surface cover above the burrow, no surface food will be available for quite some time.
However, banner-tailed kangaroo rats often maintain multiple granaries in the lower parts of the burrow
systems. These granaries can have 2 to 8 pounds of grain stored in them. It is likely that after the soil
removal the banner-tailed kangaroo rats that survived the process will be able to persist for some time
on their stored grains and may be able to hang on long enough for the new growth from the seed material.
Gunnison's prairie dogs can have a much larger subsurface footprint than banner-tailed kangaroo rats.
Their burrow systems can be several meters deep and can extend outward more than 10 meters. The
deep and steeply aligned burrows of Gunnison's prairie dogs allow points for surface soils to be conveyed
downward, well below the surface. Gunnison's prairie dog burrow systems are much deeper than the
proposed soil removal level and active burrow systems are likely to persist through the soil removal
12
-------
process. However, unlike the banner-tailed kangaroo rat, Gunnison's prairie dogs do not maintain
granaries and may not survive the removal of vegetation. Gunnison's prairie dogs were widespread and
abundant, covering at least 473 acres or approximately 20 percent of the entire study area (Figure 3a).
Spot checks around the periphery of the area verified that the Gunnison's prairie dogs extend far beyond
the study limits and would likely return to the site when vegetation has reestablished. Prairie dogs are a
keystone species, providing habitat for a variety of other species such as the western burrowing owl,
reptiles, and other mammals. Their colonies within the study area are wholly confined to the grassland
habitats, concentrated in Sections 23, 24, 25, and 26.
Rough field estimates suggested that approximately 10 to 15 percent of the burrows within these colonies
were active at the time of the survey.
Other burrowing animals observed within the study area included Ord's kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii)
and Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Ord's kangaroo rats are much smaller than banner-tailed
kangaroo rats, and, consequently, their burrows are smaller (rarely over 3 inches in diameter). Although
their burrow systems may reach as deep as the banner-tailed kangaroo rat, there are fewer burrows
present. Ord's kangaroo rats were locally common in areas with firm soils within the grassland habitats
throughout the study area. The Ord's kangaroo rat burrows are small but deep enough to extend below
the soil removal zone, and many are likely to survive the soil removal process. Like the banner-tailed
kangaroo rat, they also maintain granaries.
Botta's pocket gopher appeared sporadically in the study area, mostly in areas of looser soil. Pocket
gophers generally have shallow burrows, which are usually less than 1 meter deep and often much more
shallow, are generally only 5- to 35-centimeters deep but can be upwards of 45 meters in length (Gano
and States 1982). It is likely that most Botta's pocket gopher burrows would be taken by the soil removal
process.
Both cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni) and black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) were present and
widespread but did not occur in great abundance. Their burrow systems are deep enough to be unaffected
by the proposed soil removal. Those near the periphery of the study area are likely to move into adjacent
vegetated habitats when surface clearing begins.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Six species of reptiles were observed within the study area. Most common were the plateau striped
whiptail (Aspidoscelis velox) and the southwestern lizard (Sceloporus cowlesi). The plateaus striped
whiptail was found within most egetation communities in the study area. A prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus
viridis) and bull snake (Pituophis catenifer) were also observed. The most uncommon reptile observation
was a wandering (western terrestrial) garter snake (Thamnophis elegans vagrans), which was observed
only at the stock pond within Section 22.
There were no amphibians present during the survey. However, the stock pond habitat is suitable for tiger
salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), and it is likely that spadefoot toads (Spea multiplicata) could also be
present. The observed reptiles have the capacity to flee short-distances and many may move to the edge
of removal areas, but suitable habitat for their reoccupation of the site would not be available until
vegetation is reestablished.
-------
Grazing/Rangeland Value
The NRCS soil data were accessed for expected range production characteristics of area soils (Appendix
B). Range production ratings are given in pounds per acre per year. Ratings are provided for a normal year,
favorable year, and unfavorable year, respectively.
The most common soil unit present within the study area moderately well rated for range production:
Penistaja-Tintero complex, 1 to 10 percent slopes (soil unit: 205): 953, 1359, 547.
The second most common soil unit present within the study area is well rated for range production:
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes (soil unit: 230): 2177, 3557, 1102.
The remaining soil units are rated as follows: Marianolake-Skyvillage complex, 1 to 8 percent (soil unit:
220): 813, 1200, 416; Hagerwest-Bond fine sandy loams, 1 to 8 percent slopes (soil unit: 230): 794, 1171,
407; Uranium mined lands (soil unit: 265) are not rated for range production.
According to NRCS Rangeland productivity and plant composition expectations for the study area soils,
blue grama and western wheatgrass would be expected to comprise approximately 40 percent of the
characteristic vegetative grass cover for based on soils and ecological identification. Field observations
generally support expectations for blue grama in terms of composition, but western wheatgrass
expectations are not supported. Generally, winterfat coverage is lower and rabbitbrush is higher than
expected. Overall, grass coverage is lower than expected, based on soils and ecological site identification.
Successful revegetation would be expected to increase range production at the site significantly in some
areas and result in little change in others.
It is recommended that a five-year target composition and percent cover be identified to determine
whether the effort is successful at meeting objectives. The site should be surveyed during the late summer
(September) of the third year after planting to determine percent cover, species composition, and wildlife
use as compared to the existing condition and to the objective condition.
Any deficiencies in meeting five-year objectives or alteration of five-year objectives could be identified at
that time. This should be repeated after the five-year term in September as well. Range production should
be estimated and evaluated during monitoring activities by a qualified range specialist to determine what
level of grazing may be appropriate after objectives are met, or in keeping with any modified objectives.
Elk, deer, and cattle were observed at the study area. Grazing activity is high in some areas, and in others
is low and has not reduced vegetative cover across the range. Coverage data from the vegetation transects
confirms this observation.
Federal and State Listed and Otherwise Protected Species
Federally listed and otherwise protected species were identified through a review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS); and State of New Mexico agency lists (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
[NMDGF] and New Mexico Energy Mineral and Natural Resources Department [NMED] Forestry Division).
The USFWS maintains lists of federal endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species of plants
and animals. It also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection acts.
The NMDGF maintains lists of state endangered and threatened animals. The NMED Forestry Division
maintains a list of state endangered plant species. Species lists are provided in Appendix C.
-------
The potential for the proposed soil removal and revegetation to result in effects/impacts to species in
McKinley County appearing on at least one of the previously cited agency lists was evaluated. Nine federal
and state listed species were eliminated from consideration and 3 were evaluated further.
Critical Habitat
No designated or proposed critical habitat occurs within the study area. The CP-2 unit of designated
critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl is located approximately 12 miles southeast of the study area
within the Cibola National Forest (USFWS 2016b).
Listed or Otherwise Protected Species Eliminated from Further Analysis
The project would result in no effect/impact to the following eliminated species, for which, no suitable
habitat is present in the study area and none appears to be present within the action area (Table 3).
Table 3- Protected Species Eliminated from Further Analysis
Group
Name
Status
Habitat
Rationale for
Removal
Plants
Zuni fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus)
USFWS E
EMNRD E
Sparsely vegetated slopes in
pinyon-juniper woodlands
on Chinle/Baca formation
soils
No suitable
habitat
Goodding's onion (Allium gooddingii)
EMNRD E
Forested slopes above
7,500 feet in elevation
No suitable
habitat
Parish's alkali grass (Puccinellia
parishii)
EMNRD E
Alkaline seeps and wetlands
No suitable
habitat
Fishes
Zuni blue-head sucker (Catostomus
discobolus Yarrowi)
USFWS E
NMDGF E
Perennial waterways in the
Rio Nutria watershed
No suitable
habitat
Group
.... Rationale for
Name Status Habitat
Removal
Birds
Southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus)
USFWS E
NMDGF E
Nests in dense willow and
cottonwood riparian
woodlands
No suitable
habitat
Mexican spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis lucida)
USFWS T
Nests in old growth conifer
habitat
No suitable
habitat
Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus)
USFWS T
NMDGF S
Nests in canopy cover of
riparian woodlands
No suitable
habitat
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus
alascanus)
BGEPA
NMDGF T
Nests along large lakes and
rivers, winters in riparian
areas
No suitable
habitat
Least tern (Sternula antillarum)
NMDGF E
Nest in depressions in sand
or gravel bars near water
No suitable
habitat
Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae)
NMDGF T
Nests in Hidalgo County,
rare as a vagrant in other
parts of state
No suitable
habitat
E- Endangered, T- Threatened, BGEPA-Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
-------
Listed or Otherwise Protected Species Evaluated Further
Potential project-related impacts to 3 listed species that may occur within the study area or immediately
adjacent areas are evaluated further (Table 4).
Table 4 -Listed and Otherwise Protected Species with Potential to occur at the Study Area
Group
Name
Status
Habitat
Birds
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
BGEPA
Nest in arid remote cliff habitats
Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus
anatum/ tundrius)
NMDGFT
Steep mountain or shoreline cliffs near water
Gray vireo (Vireo vicinior)
NMDGFT
Sloped undeveloped Pinyon/Juniper woodlands
T- Threatened, BGEPA - Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
Birds
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) - Golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act from harm and harassment. This is a very large bird of prey with a wingspan of up to 71
inches. Their breeding range extends throughout Canada and much of the western United States. They
occur in open areas at lower to middle elevations throughout New Mexico. Preferred nesting sites are
cavities within ledges and cliffs of mountainsides, mesa escarpments, and canyon walls.
The cliffs that golden eagles typically use are greater than 30 meters in height, although they can use cliffs
of only 10 meters in height. The nesting cliffs are normally located directly adjacent to suitable foraging
habitats. In New Mexico, this species begins courtship and nest construction as early as February.
There are several rock outcrops, mesas, and cliffs located within the vicinity of the study area, and this
species is known to occur in the region. Telescopic observations of cliffs within the vicinity were conducted
to determine whether nests or sign were present. Several areas of whitewash on cliffs were observed.
However, the cliffs sufficient to provide nesting habitat for this species occur over 1 mile from the study
area.
This species was observed perching in elm trees located within the study area (Figures 3a and 3b) and
likely hunts there, as prairie dogs are abundant. It is recommended that removal activities avoid the perch
trees, or that artificial perches be installed to allow this species continued use of the site.
Gray vireo {Vireo vicinior) - This is a state threatened bird that is protected under the MBTA. It is found
through much of the western United States and northern Mexico. It normally occurs in open rolling
woodland, juniper savanna, and chaparral. It is found in arid lands, typically in pinyon-juniper habitat along
steep or rolling slopes. This vireo is an insectivore. In New Mexico, it is found during the months of April
through September when insects are most abundant.
No suitable nesting habitat for this species occurs within the study area, as small woodland parcels present
do not provide enough cover. However, suitable habitat occurs around much of the periphery of the study
boundary. This species likely nests in the vicinity, and it is possible that a territory occurs near the study.
If vegetation clearing is complete prior to the onset of the general migratory bird nest season (March 15
through September 30), individuals and nests would not be directly impacted.
However, potential indirect impacts associated with noise and activity during construction could not be
avoided once excavation and planting begins if the species is nesting within approximately 0.25 mile of
16
-------
construction activity. It is recommended that species-specific surveys for gray vireo be conducted (male
territorial calls played at intervals) during the nest season (May 15 to September 30) prior to the planned
fall/winter clearing to determine whether the species is nesting in the immediate area if reclamation will
occur within 0.25 miles of habitat.
If it does, the proximity of territories relative to the proposed work area should be estimated. Work
schedules can be sequenced in areas proximal to territories if needed to provide a buffer during the nest
season. The NMDGF does not currently provide a required buffer distance for avoiding indirect impacts
to this species. Marron recommends a 0.25-mile buffer. However, if the species is identified within the
area, the NMDGF should be contacted regarding specific avoidance requirements.
Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus anatum/tundrius) - Peregrine falcons are protected as a State of
New Mexico threatened species. These subspecies breed south of the Arctic tundra region of North
America, southward to Mexico. In New Mexico, they breed locally in mountainous areas and occur during
migration and winter essentially statewide, though primarily in the eastern plains (NMDGF 2015). They
summer and nest on tall, steep, rocky cliffs associated with forest or woodland in close proximity to water.
No suitable steep cliff habitat occurs within the study area, but the nearby cliff habitat suitable for eagles
could also provide nest sites for this species.
Migratory Birds
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code (USC). 703-712), as amended, protects migratory
birds, their parts, eggs, and occupied nests from take, pursuit, import/export, hunting, and capture. A list
of birds protected under the Act is available in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section
10.13.
Suitable nesting habitat for area tree and ground-nesting birds occurs within and adjacent to the study
area. During fall 2016 surveys, occupied burrows, which were used as nest sites by western burrowing
owls, were present in abandoned prairie dogs towns. Several occupied burrows were observed. Since
ground surveys were not completed for the entire study area, existing nests may be present but were
unidentified. In addition, the construction of new nests prior to the onset of reclamation is likely.
It is recommended that vegetation clearing within the site be initiated and completed outside the general
migratory bird nesting season for the area (March 15 to September 30) to prevent destruction of occupied
nests.
Raptors such as hawks and owls that may nest in the area begin nesting earlier in the year (late January
to early March), but are most likely to use woodlands and cliffs, which would not be cleared or reclaimed
under the currently proposed action. If it is necessary to clear vegetation during the nesting season, a
preconstruction nest survey should be provided at least two weeks ahead of work to identify any occupied
nests within the area. If occupied nests would be removed, a USFWS permit would be required first.
Other Listed Species
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) maintains a list of sensitive species for lands it manages and
evaluates proposed activities for consistency with the appropriate approved resource management plan.
The New Mexico Heritage Program list of critically imperiled species (SI) was reviewed for informational
purposes, as this is not a protected category.
17
-------
BLM Sensitive Species
Table 5 - BLM Sensitive Species Verified in the Farmington District
Group
Name
Habitat
Plants
Brack's fishhook cactus
Nacimiento formation soils in San
Juan County
Aztec gilia
Nacimiento formation soils in San
Juan County
San Juan milk weed
San Juan County
Mancos saltbush
Mancos clay in San Juan County
Mammals
"Gunnison's prairie dog
Grasslands
Spotted bat
Cliffs near open water
Townsend's big eared bat
Caves, mine shafts
Birds
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Riparian woodlands
Bald eagle
Nests near large water bodies
"Western burrowing owl
Grasslands/prairie dog burrows
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Riparian woodlands
Pinyon jay
Pinyon woodland/mixed conifer
Bendire's thrasher
Desert canyons/scrub
Amphibians
Northern leopard frog
Wetland/spring/riparian
Fishes
Zuni blue head sucker
Aquatic, Rio Nutria area
Flannelmouth sucker
Aquatic, San Juan Basin
*Present in study area
Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) — This owl is protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and is a BLM sensitive species. It occurs on plains, treeless valleys, and mesas and prefers empty
prairie dog or other rodent burrows that it can use for nesting and shelter, but can excavate its own
burrows if needed. This species is found throughout the mid and lower elevations of New Mexico. It
inhabits bare ground near areas such as golf courses and airports; open desert of yucca, cactus, and
mesquite; and grassland-juniper habitats. Occupied nesting habitat for this species occurs within the study
area.
Occupied burrows used as nest sites by western burrowing owls are present in abandoned prairie dogs
towns. Several occupied burrows were observed, and many others are likely present within unsurveyed
areas. This species tends toward a moderate to high nest site fidelity, and pairs are likely to attempt to
nest in the same location during future years. The following measures are recommended to prevent direct
impacts and reduce indirect impacts to this species:
Timing restrictions for vegetation clearing are recommended to avoid direct impacts to this species (avoid
clearing during the general nest season of March 15 through September 30).
During the later summer prior to the onset of removal activities, a survey of all areas, which may support
owl nests located within the final removal zone, should be provided. To the extent feasible, all occupied
burrows (or clusters of burrows, likely used by a single pair) should be identified. Where a cluster of
burrows that was occupied is removed, it is recommended that 2 artificial burrows be installed to offset
the loss of nesting habitat in the area. Artificial burrows could be removed (outside nesting season) once
the area is revegetated and supports prairie dogs again, potentially during final reclamation closeout
activities.
# !
1
18
-------
Gunnison's prairie dog (Cynomys gunnisoni) - This BLM sensitive species occurs in southeastern Utah,
southwestern Colorado, northwestern New Mexico and northern Arizona where they occur primarily on
lower elevation, warm and dry plains and plateaus. They are approximately 12 to 14 inches and weigh
from 1.5 to 2.5 lbs. Their coats are yellow-toned buff merged with black-colored hairs. Gunnison's prairie
dogs typically inhabit large colonies of up to several hundred individuals that are divided into smaller
territories occupied by communal groups or solitary individuals. They are a diurnal species that mates
from mid-March until mid-May and produces 4 to 5 pups per year. They occur in high desert, grasslands,
meadows and even floodplain often found among shrubs such as rabbitbrush, sagebrush, and saltbush.
They are very susceptible to plague, pest control measures, and protracted drought.
Gunnison's prairie dogs were widespread and abundant in the study area, and active colonies cover at
least 473 acres or approximately 20 percent of the entire study area (Figure 3a) and adjacent areas.
Active burrow systems are likely to persist through the soil removal process, but Gunnison's prairie dogs
do not maintain granaries and may not remain in the study area after the removal of vegetation. Once
vegetation is successfully established, they would likely return. If large numbers of individuals flee the
removal and migrate to adjacent areas, the adjacent populations may experience food shortage and other
pressures associated with an increased density and reduced resources. It may be possible to relocate
individuals occupying the study area to suitable but unoccupied areas within the vicinity, if such areas are
available; or, to temporarily provide grain drops to support them within the study area while vegetation
establishes. Either of these activities should be included in monitoring activities to determine whether
successful. It is recommended that the USEPA coordinate with the BLM prior to undertaking removal to
obtain specific information regarding these populations.
Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)/ Townsend's big-ear bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) - Spotted bats
are BLM sensitive and protected as a threatened species by the State of New Mexico. Townsend's big-ear
bat is a BLM-sensitive species. These bats are cliff and cave dwellers whose diurnal roosts are the cracks
and crevices, but are also known to roost in human-made structures. No suitable caves, cliffs or canyons
occur within the study area. These species may roost within nearby cliff habitats and could hunt at the
pond in Section 22 when it supports insects. The activity is not likely to impact bats if the pond is avoided,
or if other suitable hunting habitats are available within the vicinity.
New Mexico Heritage Critically Imperiled Species
New Mexico Heritage ranks native species into several categories. Heritage categories are not associated
with a legal protective mechanism. Critically imperiled ranked species for McKinley County are provided
in Table 5. Most are waterfowl that would be transients within the study area, if they were present.
Several are federally listed species for the County. The Northern leopard frog could occur within study
area stock ponds if they were nearly perennially wet, but current conditions are not likely suitable to
support frogs.
-------
Table 5 - New Mexico Heritage Critically Imperiled (SI) Species for McKinley County
Group
Name
Habitat
Birds
Ring-necked duck
Lacustrine/riparian
Little blue heron
Lacustrine/riparian
Bald eagle
Nests near large water bodies
Least tern
Lacustrine/riparian
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Riparian woodlands
Marsh wren
Lacustrine/riparian
Costa's hummingbird
Desert canyons/stream edges
Amphibians
Northern leopard frog
Wetland/spring/riparian
Fishes
Zuni blue head sucker
Aquatic, Rio Nutria area
Watershed
The study area occurs within the San Mateo Creek local watershed and in the Rio San Jose 8-digit
Hydrologic Unit Code 13020207, which occurs in the larger Middle Rio Grande drainage Basin.
Waterways
The study area occurs along and north of the Arroyo del Puerto, which is tributary to San Mateo Creek.
Martin Draw passes through the northern study area parcel. Waterways in the vicinity are poorly defined
and segmented. They do not currently appear to connect to San Mateo Creek, which confluences with the
Arroyo del Puerto south of the study area.
Several unnamed small and partially defined waterways were also observed during field surveys, but they
lose bed and bank features downslope/downstream, or end in stock ponds or sheet flow.
A historical 1954 aerial photograph of the area pre-mine development was obtained (Figure 4, Appendix
A). The image indicates that area surface flows were more regular (possibly near perennial in some
segments), channels were more organized and sinuous, and a riparian corridor was present along
stretches of both Martin Draw and the Arroyo del Puerto. In 1954 a branch of Arroyo del Puerto extended
into and across the northern third of Section 22.
A clearly defined channel also existed in the extreme southwest corner of Section 24. A less defined series
of channels and a large sheet flow area was evident along the eastern edge of Section 24.
Wetlands
One wetland was observed in the study area. It occurs in association with the stock pond located in Section
22. This pond maintained some surface water throughout the late summer and early fall of 2016. It was
dominated by a mixture of wetland indicator plants that included obligate, facultative wetland and
facultative species. Based on the persistence of surface water, the dominance of wetland plant species,
and the reduced soils noted in the bottom of the pond, this site appears to meet wetland criteria.
However, it is not located within a regulated water. Shrubby wetland vegetation (such as coyote willow
and Russian olive) appears occasionally in small pockets within portions of the Arroyo del Puerto drainage
system, none of these areas meet hydrology or soil criteria for a wetland.
There are a number of small stock ponds scattered along, and within, the channel of Arroyo del Puerto
that do occasionally collect water. Most support the weedy annual summer cypress. Summer cypress is a
-------
wetland indicator, but it is also a fast growing weed that can persist on very little water. Most of these
stock ponds do not appear to collect water frequently enough or long enough to qualify as wetland.
Watershed Impacts/Recommendations
Watershed impacts resulting from uranium mining activities area are well documented, and identification
and reclamation of legacy uranium mine surface and ground water quality are ongoing in the Ambrosia
Lake Sub-District. No water quality analysis was completed for this report. The successful removal of
uranium contaminated soils and revegetation of the site would be expected to reduce surface water
contact with uranium, which is expected to improve water quality.
Small arroyos that pass through study area do not support wetlands or a riparian corridor and appear to
convey insufficient flows to justify augmentation. It is recommended that existing arroyos remain
unaltered during reclamation. Alteration is likely to result in sediment being transported to downstream
areas and is not likely to result in improvement to the area habitat.
However, it is recommended that a hydrologic analysis be conducted prior to finalizing a revegetation
plan to determine whether flows in local arroyos are sufficient to warrant extending them into large
reclaimed grassland areas or implementing some other augmentation to improve the watershed.
Several stock pond features are present at the study area. One of these in Section 22 retains sufficient
flows to support wetland vegetation. It is recommended that stock pond features remain unscraped, as
feasible, as they pool water for wildlife and plant use after storm events. Additionally, the vegetation
present around the pond could be augmented to provide improved riparian habitat and tree canopy for
area birds. Tree shading would also reduce evaporation and improve growing conditions for plants. The
increase in cover would improve wildlife habitat.
REVEGETATION/SOIL AMMEDMENT SUMMARY
The revegetation strategy of the removal area, once identified, will be based on an ecological approach
that would attempt to restore arid grassland conditions to sustain native animal and plant communities
and enhance wildlife use of the area.
A Draft Revegtation Plan for the proposed removal area will be prepared prior to the identification of the
final removal area for review by cooperating agencies. The following summarizes the elements expected
to be addressed in the Draft Revegetation Plan.
Revegetation and Seed Mix Recommendations
Information used to develop the re-vegetation strategy will obtained from the following sources:
1. Historic aerial photographs that predate the uranium mining activities within the study area will
be reviewed.
2. Additional ground surveys will be conducted. Vegetation-covered transects will be identified and
surveyed to provide reference sites documenting the dominant perennial vegetation composition
and cover within each plant community on the site.
-------
3. Survey findings from nearby areas will be reviewed and un-mined adjacent habitats will be
surveyed briefly for comparison, if authorization for entry is obtained.
4. Data from previous and ongoing mining and reclamation actions in the area will be reviewed
The recommended seed mix and application rate will be determined based on the updated location of the
removal area.
Recommendations for planting of cover crops, mulching, watering, and amending soils, as well as special
planting recommendations for pond areas will also be provided.
Recommendations for amending soils are expected to address the following soil issues: Carbon/nitrogen
ratio, texture, and water holding capacity.
The addition of traditional organic soil amendments such as sawdust, bark, compost, and manure; as well
as the addition of humate, and their potential application rates at the site will be addressed.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarizes measures that are recommended to preserve existing resources/features or
improve the study area. Other measures directly related to reclamation activities will be provided in a
draft revegetation plan for the removal zone.
• Avoid cliffs and slopes located adjacent to the study area, which provide bird nesting and bat
roosting habitat.
• Avoid juniper and pinyon pine trees when removing vegetation.
• Clear vegetation during the fall and winter months outside the general nesting season for
migratory birds.
• Provide a species-specific survey for gray vireo to determine whether they are nesting within 0.25
mile of the study area if areas within this distance of suitable pinyon/juniper habitat will be
included in reclamation.
• Replace lost burrow clusters occupied by western burrowing owls with artificial nest boxes (2 per
cluster).
• Conduct a hydrological analysis of the removal area, once identified, to determine whether
sufficient surface flows are present to warrant arroyo extension or other improvement.
• Provide relocation or grain drops to allow small mammals to become re-established while
vegetation becomes established, in coordination with the BLM.
• Provide removal site monitoring during September at 3 and 5 years post planting to compare
observations with project objectives relative to plant species composition, percent cover, wildlife
use, and range production.
-------
• Avoid existing ponds or excavate new ponds in downslope areas to collect surface flows that
would promote wildlife use of the area.
• Plant species such as cottonwood to provide cover and habitat structure to the wetted pond.
16053
-------
PHOTOS
Photo A - Plains Mesa Grassland Vegetation
Photo B - Shrubby Grassland Vegetation
-------
Photo C - Great Basin Desert Scrub Vegetation
Photo D - Great Basin Desert Scrub Vegetation - Saltbush/Dropseed/Snakeweed/Annuals
-------
Photo E - Great Basin Desert Scrub Vegetation - Rabbitbrush/Biue Grama/Galleta
Photo F - Arroyo Riparian Vegetation
-------
Photo G - Juniper Savanna Vegetation
Photo H - Coniferous Woodland Vegetation
-------
tsiS
09-27-2016 20:51:35
Photo G - Elk at Stock Pond
Bushnell 09-29-201e 11:42:27
Photo H - Great Blue Heron at Stock Pond
-------
Photo I - Prairie Dog at Grassland Colony
Photo J - Western Terrestrial Garter Snake
29
-------
Photo K - Golden Eagle Leaving Perch Tree
Whitewash on Cliffs West of Study Area
-------
REFERENCES
Barclay, J.H.
2008. A Simple Artificial Burrow Design for Burrowing Owls. Journal of Raptor Research. 42 (1) 53-57.
Dick-Peddie, W. A.
1993. New Mexico vegetation: past, present, and future. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Findley, J. S., Harris, A. H., Wilson, D. E., & Jones, C.
1975. Mammals of New Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Gano, K.A. and J. B. States
1982. Habitat requirements and burrowing depths of rodents in relation to shallow waste burial sites.
PNL-4140, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, M.M. McGraw, G.Z. Jacobi, C.M. Canavan, T.S. Schrader, D. Mercer, R. Hill
and B.C. Moran. 2006. Ecoregions of New Mexico (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary
tables, and photographs): Reston Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (Map scale 1:1,400,000). Website:
www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm.
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.
2016. Bison-M Database. Santa Fe, NM: NMDGF. Website: http://www.bison-m.org/
New Mexico Environment Department. Ground Water Quality Bureau Superfund Oversight Section.
2008. Preliminary Assessment Report; San Mateo Creek Legacy Uranium Sites. Cerclis ID NMN00060664,
McKinley and Cibola Counties,New Mexico.
New Mexico Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department, Forestry Division (NMED).
2016. New Mexico Endangered Plants.
New Mexico Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department, Mining Division.
2014 Guidance for Meeting Radiation Criteria Levels and Reclamation at New Uranium Mining
Operations. Title 19, Chapter 10, Part3, and Part 6 (Draft).
New Mexico Mining Commission
2013. Petition to Amend 19.10.3 NMAC (Minimal Impact Rule) and Request for Hearing.
Website: http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/MMD/NMMC/documents/NMMiningCommissionPetitionl3-
l.pdf
New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission. New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water
Quality Bureau.
2014-2016. State of New Mexico Clean Water Act Section 303(d)/Section 305(b) Integrated Report.
Sublette, J. E., M. D. Hatch, and M. Sublette.
1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
-------
US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2007. Plant Guide. Website: http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/
US Department of Agriculture. National Resources Conservation Service.
2016. Web Soil Survey. Website: http://websoilsurvev.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
US Army Corps of Engineers.
2008. A field guide to the identification of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in the arid west region
of the western United States. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory.
US Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
1985. Jackpile Paguate Uranium Mine Reclamation Project, Environmental Impact Statement.
US Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land management.
2011. Sensitive Species Lists for Plants and Animals. Verified Species in the Farmington Field Office
District.
US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
1992. Solid Minerals Reclamation Handbook. Non-coal Leasable minerals, locatable minerals, salable
minerals. BLM Handbook H-3042-1.
US Environmental Protection Agency.
2010. Assessment of Health and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Mining and Milling. Five Year Plan,
Grants Mining District.
US Fish and Wildlife Service.
2016 (a). Official List of Resources for the Study Area. Website: http://www.fws.gov/ipac/.
US Fish and Wildlife Service.
2016 (b). Critical Habitat Mapper. Website: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov.
US Geological Survey. Langman, J.B., Sprague, J.E., and Durall, R.A.
2012. Geologic Framework, Regional Aquifer Properties (1940s-2009), and Spring, Creek, and Seep
Properties (2009-10) of the Upper San Mateo Creek Basin near Mount Taylor, New Mexico. Scientific
Investigations Report 2012-5019.
Western Regional Climate Center
2016. Western U.S. Historical Summaries (Individual Stations).
Website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/CLIMATEDATA.html
-------
APPENDIX A
Figures 1-4
-------
-------
&
£ -
Vf 2) w
jfc
r i\»
x
¦M "\
'.R
'•w£.. •&«&£$»& ¦ ¦*
I Hsesfc •¦'-.'
! ¦
' f1: w$kj-y
San Juan Rio Arriba JTaost Colfax
~gr^.Mj") Harding
J|ys-Project AreaXjJ
Study Area
Ground Survey Area
o Transect Endpoints
Goat Mountain, NM & T 14N, R 10W & 9W;
Ambrosia Lake, NM Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles McKinley County, New Mexico
Figure 1b
Survey Area Map
0.5
0.35
0.7
Kilometers
1.4
Miles
N
A
1:33,000
USEPA Tronox Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico
-------
Colfax
Rio Arriba
f Harding
p» Project Area \
Bernalillo 1 1 J"* Qua*
f""\—^-*—3 I Guadalupe
Torrance TJ"L_J-r
--^i [ I I Cu
I DeBaca I
McKinle
Cibola
Roosevelt
Catron
Lincoln
Grant
Otero
%- " .-.i-V .
Vegetation Communities
Arroyo Riparian Juniper Savanna
Disclimax Annual Vegetation Grassy Rabbitbrush Scrub
Coniferous Woodland
Saltbush/Galleta/Grama Grass Scrub
Plains-Mesa Grassland
Shrubby Grassland Ecotone
Saltbush/Dropseed Scrubland
.
Figure 2
Vegetation
Communities
Study Area
¦ Soil Sample Location
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles
T 14N, R 10W& 9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
McKinley County, New Mexico
N
0.5
0.35
0.7
I Kilometers
1.4
Miles
A
1:34,000
USEPA Tronox Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico
-------
Colfax
Rio Arriba
f Harding
p» Project Area \
Bernalillo 1 1 I"* Qua*
f""\—^-*—3 I Guadalupe
Torrance TJ"L_J-r
--^i [ I I Cu
I DeBaca I
McKinle
Cibola
Roosevelt
Catron
Lincoln
Grant
Otero
'egetation Communities
Juniper Savanna
Coniferous Woodland
Arroyo Riparian
Figure 3a
Resources
Study Area
Prairie Dog Colony
Burrowing Owl Area
Exclusion Area
Wetland
Perch Trees
Stream or River
T 14N, R 10W& 9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
Bernalillo County, New Mexico
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles
0.5
0.35
0.7
I Kilometers
1.4
Miles
N
A
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico
-------
San Juan
Rio Arriba
Colfax
/Harding
Project Area \
Bernalillo—I | Qua-,
h i |i 1 I Guadalupe^
Valencia Torrance
f I ICu
1 I 1 DeBaca I I—
McKinle
Cibola
Roosevelt
Socorro
Catron
Lincoln
Chaves
Grant
Otero
Dona,
Ana
Hidalgo
'Oitwter
IMaaaWasiefn
Study Area
Prairie Dog Colony
" Potential Eagle Nest Area
~ Perch Trees
,<^SSOC/
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles
T 14N, R 10W& 9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
Bernalillo County, New Mexico
Figure 3b
Golden Eagle
Resources
Kilometers
Miles 1:50,000
IISEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico
-------
11; T14N.R10W
12; T14N.R10W
Colfax
Rio Arriba
f Harding
p» Project Area \
Bernalillo 1 1 I"* Qua*
f""\—^-*—3 I Guadalupe
Torrance TJ"L_J-r
*—-»1 [ I I Cu
I DeBaca I
McKinle
Cibola
Roosevelt
Catron
Lincoln
Grant
Otero
Figure 4
Project Area
1954 Aerial Photo
Study Area Goat Mountain, NM & T 14N, R 10W & 9W;
' * Ambrosia Lake, NM Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles McKinley County, New Mexico
0 0.5 1 2
Kilometers
0 0.4 0.8 1.6
Miles
N
A
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico
-------
APPENDIX B
Soil Characteristics
Soil and Plant Sampling Results
Vegetation Sampling Results
Vegetation Transect Tables
-------
Soil Map—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
238000
¦ , J__
239000
I
240000
I
241000
I.
3
D
as
as
a®
as
as
as
as
r
—- %¦{ . ,
.<• '"k; '
-A"1:
m
m
m
m
m
m
as
243000
, I
mi
as
as
as
m
n 293
D as
as
"
m
—
f;"'
¥\
: m
®k alms
I
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
A
500
1000
2000
=i Meters
3000
^i Pqq^
0 2000 4000 8000 12000*
Map projection: WabMercator toner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
USDA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 1 of 3
-------
Soil Map—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of interest (AOi)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
|U Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
m
Clay Spot
0
Closed Depression
X
Gravel Pit
A
Gravelly Spot
II
Landfill
4
Lava Flow
.j...
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
*
Slide or Slip
0
Sodic Spot
a
Spoil Area
0
Stony Spot
til
Very Stony Spot
t
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
«*iwn Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG 3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources
1 Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 3
-------
Soil Map—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San
Juan Counties
4 mines
Map Unit Legend
McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero complex, 1 to
10 percent slopes
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8 percent
slopes
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine sandy
loams, 1 to 8 percent slopes
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
35° 23' 37"N
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") shed;.
.Mftere
500 1000 2000 3000
^— .Feet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: V\feb Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
242000
243000
Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola .
(4 mines)
§ 35° 28' 20" N
35° 23' 37" N
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/7/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
-------
Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer—McKiniey County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Not rated or not available
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
~
Area of Interest (AOI)
Water Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Soils
Streams and Canals
measurements.
Soil Rating Polygons
Transportation
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
~
0-25
f-t-f. Rails
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
~
25-50
Interstate Highways
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
~
50-100
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
US Routes
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
~
100 -150
Major Roads
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
~
150-200
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
Local Roads
calculations of distance or area are required.
~
> 200
Background
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
~
Not rated or not available
Aerial Photography
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Rating Lines
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
0-25
25 - 50
» 0 50-100
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
100-150
150-200
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
> 200
n I Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
g 0-25
~ 25-50
~ 50-100
~ 100-150
g 150-200
g > 200
US DA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 3
-------
Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer—McKiniey County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and
Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer
Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and
Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating (centimeters)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
>200
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
>200
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
89
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
>200
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
>200
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
A "restrictive layer" is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical,
chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water
and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable
root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and
frozen layers.
This theme presents the depth to any type of restrictive layer that is described for
each map unit. If more than one type of restrictive layer is described for an individual
soil type, the depth to the shallowest one is presented. If no restrictive layer is
described in a map unit, it is represented by the "> 200" depth class.
This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low
value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A
"representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the
component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.
Rating Options
Units of Measure: centimeters
Aggregation Method: Dominant Component
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Interpret Nulls as Zero: No
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
242000
243000
35° 23' 37"N
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") shed;.
.Mftere
500 1000 2000 3000
^— .Feet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: V\feb Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
35° 23' 37" N
K Factor, Whole Soil—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan ... ?
(4 mines) S
r-.
o
238000 239000 240000 241000 242000 243000
§ 35° 28' 20" N
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/7/2016
" 1 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
-------
K Factor, Whole Soil—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
~ Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
~
.02
~
.05
~
.10
~
.15
~
.17
~
.20
~
.24
~
.28
~
.32
~
.37
~
.43
~
.49
~
.55
~
.64
~
Not
* '
.24
Streams and Canals
r- *
.28
Transportation
* *
.32
4-H
Rails
,i*Sl*
.37
Interstate Highways
.43
US Routes
.49
.55
Major Roads
Local Roads
* f
.64
Not rated or not available
Background
Aerial Photography
Soil Rating Points
¦ .02
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
.02
k-V .05
.10
*•<»* .15
» « .17
^ * .20
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
.05
.10
.15
.17
.20
.24
.28
.32
.37
.43
.49
.55
.64
Not rated or not available
Water Features
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico,
McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov
7, 2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. Asa result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
US DA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 3
-------
K Factor, Whole Soil—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola
and San Juan Counties
4 mines
K Factor, Whole Soil
K Factor. Whole Soil— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts of Cibola
and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
.24
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
.28
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
.28
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
.37
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by
water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)
and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average
annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The
estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and
on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from
0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible
the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water.
"Erosion factor Kw (whole soil)" indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The
estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Surface Layer (Not applicable)
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
242000
243000
35° 23' 37"N
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") shed;.
.Mftere
500 1000 2000 3000
^— .Feet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: V\feb Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
35° 23' 37" N
Wind Erodibility Index—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan ... ?
(4 mines) S
r-.
o
238000 239000 240000 241000 242000 243000
§ 35° 28' 20" N
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/7/2016
" 1 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
-------
Wind Erodibility Index—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
~ Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
250
310
Not rated or not available
~
0
Soil Rating Points
~
0
~
38
~
38
~
48
~
48
~
56
~
56
~
86
~
86
~
134
~
134
~
160
~
160
~
180
~
180
~
220
~
220
~
250
~
250
~
310
¦
310
~
Not rated or not available
~
Not rated or not available
>oil Rating Lines
Water Features
0
Streams and Canals
* *
38
Transportation
,»v*
48
i i i
Rails
* 0
56
Interstate Highways
* »
86
US Routes
* *
134
Major Roads
* 0
160
Local Roads
180
Background
.-V
220
¦
Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
US DA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 3
-------
Wind Erodibility Index—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Wind Erodibility Index
Wind Erodibility Index— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts of Cibola
and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating (tons per acre
per year)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
86
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
86
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
86
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
86
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
The wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to
wind erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind
erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the
surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic
matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also
influence wind erosion.
Rating Options
Units of Measure: tons per acre per year
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
Soil Quality - Organic Matter—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts
of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Soil Quality - Organic Matter
Organic matter percent is the weight of decomposed plant and animal residue and
expressed as a weight percentage of the soil material less than 2 mm in diameter.
Significance
Organic matter influences the physical and chemical properties of soils far more
than the proportion to the small quantities present would suggest. The organic
fraction influences plant growth through its influence on soil properties. It
encourages granulation and good tilth, increases porosity and lowers bulk density,
promotes water infiltration, reduces plasticity and cohesion, and increases the
available water capacity. It has a high capacity to adsorb and exchange cations and
is important to pesticide binding. It furnishes energy to micro-organisms in the soil.
As it decomposes, it releases nitrogen, phosphorous, and sulfur. The distribution
of organic carbon according to depth indicates different episodes of soil deposition
or soil formation.
Soils that are very high in organic matter have poor engineering properties and
subside upon drying.
Measurement Laboratory measurements are made using a dry combustion method
to determine percent total carbon. For an estimate of organic carbon in calcareous
soils, the carbon present in carbonate compounds, such as CaC03, must be
calculated and then subtracted from the total carbon. This is done using the
equation: percent organic carbon = percent total carbon - [% less than 2mm CaC03
x0.12]. The results are given as the percent of organic carbon in dry soil. To convert
the figures for organic carbon to those for organic matter, multiply the organic
carbon percentage by 1.724. To convert the figures for organic matter to those for
organic carbon, divide the organic matter percentage by 1.724. The detailed
procedures are outlined in Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Soil Survey
Laboratory Methods Manual, Version 4.0, November 2004, USDA, NRCS.
Estimates Color and feel are the major properties used to estimate the amount of
organic matter. Color comparisons in areas of similar materials can be made
against laboratory data so that a soil scientist can make estimates. In general, black
or dark colors indicate high amounts of organic matter. The contrast of color
between the A horizon and subsurface horizons is also a good indicator.
Total organic carbon (TOC) is the carbon (C) stored in soil organic matter (SOM).
Organic carbon (OC) enters the soil through the decomposition of plant and animal
residues, root exudates, living and dead microorganisms, and soil biota. SOM is
the organic fraction of soil exclusive of non-decomposed plantand animal residues.
Nevertheless, most analytical methods do not distinguish between decomposed
and non-decomposed residues. SOM is a heterogeneous, dynamic substance that
varies in particle size, C content, decomposition rate, and turnover time.
Soil organic carbon (SOC) is the main source of energy for soil microorganisms.
The ease and speed with which SOC becomes available is related to the SOM
fraction in which it resides. In this respect, SOC can be partitioned into fractions
based on the size and breakdown rates of the SOM in which it is contained (table
1). The first three fractions are part of the active pool of SOM. Carbon sources in
this pool are relatively easy to break down.
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 1 of 5
-------
Soil Quality - Organic Matter—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts
of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
SOM contains approximately 58% C; therefore, a factor of 1.72 can be used to
convert OC to SOM. There is more inorganic C than TOC in calcareous soils. TOC
is expressed as percent C per 100 g of soil.
Factors Affecting
Inherent - Soil texture, climate, and time all affect SOC accumulation. Soils rich in
clay protect SOM from decomposition by stabilizing substances that bind to clay
surfaces. Aggregation, enabled by the presence of clay,also protects SOM from
microbial mineralization. Extractable aluminum and allophanes (present in volcanic
soils) can form stable compounds with SOM that resist microbial decomposition.
Warm temperatures decrease SOC content by increasing decomposition rates,
while high mean annual precipitation increases accumulation by stimulating the
production of plant biomass and associated SOC. With time, the breakdown of SOM
produces humus- carbon, which resists decomposition by microorganisms.
Carbon loss via soil erosion results in SOC variations along the slope gradient.
Level topography tends to have much more SOC than other slope classes. Both
elevation and topographic gradients to some extent control local climate, vegetation
distribution and soil properties, as well as associated biogeochemical processes,
including SOC dynamics. Microclimate cooling with elevation may favor SOC
accumulation. An analysis of factors affecting C in the conterminous United States
concluded that the effects of land use, topography (elevation and slope), and mean
annual precipitation on SOC are more obvious than that of mean annual
temperature. However, when other variables are highly restricted, there is clearly
a decline in SOC with increasing temperature.
Dynamic - Depending upon the rate of C mineralization, the amount and stage of
decomposition of plant residues and organic amendments added to soil controls
accrual of SOC. Turnover times for various organic materials shows that humus-
carbon mineralizes slowly and thus accumulates in the soil, whereas microbial
biomass C may disappear relatively quickly (table 1). Soil aggregates of different
sizes and stability are possible sites for physical protection of SOM from
decomposition and C mineralization. Soil disturbance and destruction of
aggregates may be the major factor responsible for increasing exposure of SOM
physically protected in aggregates to biodegradation.
Soil Organic Matter Fraction Particle Size (mm) Turnover Time (years)
Description
plant residues equal 2.0 less than 5
recognizable plant shoots and roots
particulate organic matter 0.06 - 2.0 less than 100
partially decomposed plant material, hyphae, seeds, etc
soil microbial biomass variable less than 3
living pool of soil organic matter, particularly bacteria and fungi
humus equal to 0.0053 100 to 5000
ultimate stage of decomposition, dominated by stable compounds
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 5
-------
Soil Quality - Organic Matter—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts
of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Crop residues incorporated in or left on the soil surface reduce erosion and SOC
losses in sediment. Liming to increase the pH of acidic soil increases microbial
activity, organic matter decomposition, and C02 release. Diversity of the soil
microbial population also affects SOC. For example, while soil bacteria
aggressively participate in C loss by mineralization, some fungi, such as
mycorrhizae, are believed to slow the decay of SOM by aggregating it with clay and
minerals. SOM and SOC are more resistant inside aggregates than in free form.
Soil depth affects the distribution of SOC. Thus, plowed deep soils tend to
accumulate SOC in layers beneath the disturbed top soils because of restricted
mineralization rates.
Relationship to Soil Function
SOC is one of the most important constituents of the soil due to its capacity to affect
plant growth as both a source of energy and a trigger for nutrient availability through
mineralization. SOC fractions in the active pool, previously described, are the main
source of energy and nutrients for soil microorganisms. Humus participates in
aggregate stability, and nutrient and water holding capacity.
OC compounds, such as polysaccharides (sugars) bind mineral particles together
into microaggregates. Glomalin, a SOM substance that may account for20% of soil
carbon, glues aggregates together and stabilizes soil structure making soil resistant
to erosion, but porous enough to allow air, water and plant roots to move through
the soil. Organic acids (e.g., oxalic acid), commonly released from decomposing
organic residues and manures, prevents phosphorus fixation by clay minerals and
improve its plant availability, especially in subtropical and tropical soils. An increase
in SOM, and therefore total C, leads to greater biological diversity in the soil, thus
increasing biological control of plant diseases and pests. Data also reveals that
interaction between dissolved OC released from manure with pesticides may
increase or decrease pesticide movement through soil into groundwater.
Problems with Poor Carbon Levels
A direct effect of poor SOC is reduced microbial biomass, activity, and nutrient
mineralization due to a shortage of energy sources. In non-calcareous soils,
aggregate stability, infiltration, drainage, and airflow are reduced. Scarce SOC
results in less diversity in soil biota with a risk of the food chain equilibrium being
disrupted, which can cause disturbance in the soil environment (e.g., plant pest and
disease increase, accumulation of toxic substances).
Improving Carbon Levels
Compiled data shows that farming practices have resulted in the loss of an
estimated 4.4x109 tons of C from soils of the United States, most of which is OC.
To compensate forthese losses, practices such as no-till may increase SOC (figure
1). Other practices that increase SOC include continuous application of manure
and compost, and use of summer and/or winter cover crops. Burning, harvesting,
or otherwise removing residues decreases SOC.
Measuring Total Organic Carbon
Presently, no methods existto measure TOC in the field. Attempts have been made
to develop color charts that match color to TOC content, but the correlation is better
within soil landscapes and only for limited soils. Near infrared spectroscopy has
been attempted to measure C directly in the field, but it is expensive. Numerous
laboratory methods are available.
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 5
-------
Soil Quality - Organic Matter—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts
of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Reference:
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. (http://soils.usda.gov)
Edwards JH, CW Wood, DL Thurlow, and ME Ruf. 1999. Tillage and crop rotation
effects on fertility status of a Hapludalf soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:1577-1582.
Sikora LJ and DE Stott. 1996. Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen. In: Doran JW,
Jones AJ, editors. Methods for assessing soil quality. Madison, Wl. p 157-167.
Time needed: Laboratory methods are variable.
Report—Soil Quality - Organic Matter
Soil Quality - Organic Matter-McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan
Counties
Map symbol and soil name
Horizon Name
Depth
(inches)
Organic matter low
(Pet)
Organic matter RV
(Pet)
Organic matter
high (Pet)
205—Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10 percent
slopes
Penistaja
A
0-3
1.0
1.5
2.0
Bt
3-19
0.5
0.8
1.0
Bk
19-65
0.5
0.8
1.0
Tintero
A
0-4
0.5
0.8
1.0
Bt
4-16
0.5
0.8
1.0
Bk1
16-48
0.5
0.8
1.0
Bk2
48-65
0.5
0.8
1.0
210—Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8 percent
slopes
Marianolake
A
0-5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Bt
5-11
0.5
0.8
1.0
Btk
11-47
0.5
0.8
1.0
Bk
47-65
0.5
0.8
1.0
Skyvillage
A
0-2
0.5
0.8
1.0
Bw1
2-5
0.2
0.4
0.6
Bw2
5-9
0.2
0.4
0.6
Bk
9-15
0.2
0.4
0.6
2R
15-20
—
—
—
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 4 of 5
-------
Soil Quality - Organic Matter—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts
of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Soil Quality - Organic Matter-McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan
Counties
Map symbol and soil name
Horizon Name
Depth
(inches)
Organic matter low
(Pet)
Organic matter RV
(Pet)
Organic matter
high (Pet)
220—Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8 percent
slopes
Hagerwest
A
0-2
0.5
0.8
1.0
Bt
2-13
0.2
0.5
0.8
Bk1
13-19
0.2
0.5
0.8
Bk2
19-35
0.2
0.5
0.8
2R
35-40
—
—
—
Bond
A
0-2
1.0
1.5
2.0
Bt1
2-5
0.5
0.7
0.9
Bt2
5-14
0.5
0.7
0.9
R
14-20
—
—
—
230—Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3 percent
slopes
Sparank
A
0-2
1.0
1.5
2.0
C1
2-25
0.5
0.8
1.0
C2
25-65
0.5
0.8
1.0
San mateo
A
0-2
1.0
1.5
2.0
C1
2-15
0.5
0.8
1.0
C2
15-30
0.5
0.8
1.0
C3
30-39
0.5
0.8
1.0
C4
39-45
0.5
0.8
1.0
C5
45-65
0.5
0.8
1.0
Zia
A
0-3
1.0
1.5
2.0
Bw
3-12
0.5
0.8
1.0
2C1
12-20
0.5
0.8
1.0
2C2
20-28
0.5
0.8
1.0
2C3
28-70
0.5
0.8
1.0
265—Uranium mined lands
Uranium mined lands
C
0-60
—
—
—
Data Source Information
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and
Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 5 of 5
-------
Range Production (Favorable Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola .
(4 mines)
238000
_ r,
239000
I
240000
_l_
241000
L
.
i&mm
a,
o jSWyr
r
3
D f
o 35° 28' 20" N
¦ '
.¦J&gp.
' PS M " ' l|M -Js: f-. . „
v " vf i' i * ¦
Jt ¦ 4Jk'~ • •-
-------
Range Production (Favorable Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
~ Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
~
~
~
<= 1171
> 1171 and <= 1200
> 1200 and <= 1359
Transportation
t-i-t Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
~ > 1359 and <= 3557
~ Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
<=1171
* t > 1171 and <= 1200
> 1200 and <= 1359
> 1359 and <=3557
h f Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
g <=1171
~ > 1171 and <= 1200
~ > 1200 and <= 1359
g > 1359 and <=3557
~ Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
US DA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 3
-------
Range Production (Favorable Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and
Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Range Production (Favorable Year)
Range Production (Favorable Year)— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and
Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating (pounds per
acre per year)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
1359
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
1200
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
1171
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
3557
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow
annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant
community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing
animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody
plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is
expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation. In a favorable year, the amount
and distribution of precipitation and the temperatures make growing conditions
substantially better than average. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-
dry moisture content.
In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and
amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil.
Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and
vegetation and water.
Rating Options
Units of Measure: pounds per acre per year
Aggregation Method: Weighted Average
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Interpret Nulls as Zero: Yes
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
242000
243000
35° 23' 37"N
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") shed;.
.Mftere
500 1000 2000 3000
^— .Feet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: V\feb Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
35° 23' 37" N
Range Production (Normal Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and ... ?
(4 mines) S
r-.
o
238000 239000 240000 241000 242000 243000
§ 35° 28' 20" N
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/7/2016
" 1 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
-------
Range Production (Normal Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
~ Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
~
~
~
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
<= 794
> 794 and <=813
>813 and <= 953
Background
Aerial Photography
~ > 953 and <= 2177
~ Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
<= 794
» » > 794 and <= 813
>813 and <=953
> 953 and <= 2177
h f Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
g <= 794
~ > 794 and <=813
~ >813 and <= 953
g > 953 and <= 2177
~ Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
t-i-t Rails
Interstate Highways
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
US DA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 3
-------
Range Production (Normal Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and
Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Range Production (Normal Year)
Range Production (Normal Year)— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts
of Cibola and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating (pounds per
acre per year)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
953
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
813
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
794
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
2177
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow
annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant
community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing
animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody
plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is
expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation. In a normal year, growing
conditions are about average. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry
moisture content.
In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and
amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil.
Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and
vegetation and water.
Rating Options
Units of Measure: pounds per acre per year
Aggregation Method: Weighted Average
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Interpret Nulls as Zero: Yes
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
242000
243000
Range Production (Unfavorable Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola ...
(4 mines)
35° 23' 37"N
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") shed;.
.Mftere
500 1000 2000 3000
^— .Feet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: V\feb Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
35° 23' 37" N
239000 240000
241000 242000
243000
§ 35° 28' 20" N
238000
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/7/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
-------
Range Production (Unfavorable Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
~ Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
~
~
~
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
<= 407
> 407 and <= 416
> 416 and <= 547
Background
Aerial Photography
~ > 547 and <=1102
~ Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
<= 407
» » > 407 and <= 416
>416 and <=547
,ii^ > 547 and <= 1102
h f Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
g <= 407
~ >407 and <=416
~ >416 and <=547
g > 547 and <= 1102
~ Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
t-i-t Rails
Interstate Highways
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
US DA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 3
-------
Range Production (Unfavorable Year)—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County
and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Range Production (Unfavorable Year)
Range Production (Unfavorable Year)— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and
Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating (pounds per
acre per year)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
547
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
416
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
407
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
1102
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow
annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant
community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing
animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody
plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is
expressed in pounds peracre of air-dry vegetation. In an unfavorable year, growing
conditions are well below average, generally because of low available soil moisture.
Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content.
In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and
amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil.
Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and
vegetation and water.
Rating Options
Units of Measure: pounds per acre per year
Aggregation Method: Weighted Average
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Interpret Nulls as Zero: Yes
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of.
(4 mines)
238000
_ r,
239000
I
240000
_l_
241000
L
8 35° 28' 20" N
; ' y
- - ; ¦ i J • . >S
¦ ¦*
;
lliS
35° 23' 37"N
i ¦
239000
240000
~
241000
I I
242000 243000
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
A
500
1000
2000
~ Meters
3000
^i poet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: WfebMercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
USDA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 1 of 3
-------
Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements
Soil Rating Polygons
| \ R035XA112NM
| I R035XA119NM
[ | Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
R035XA112NM
R035XA119NM
» 0 Not rated or not available
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG 3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Rating Points
Q R035XA112NM
~ R035XA119NM
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
~ Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
#-#-» Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/7/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
-------
Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site
Ecological Site ID: NRCS Rangeland Site— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County
and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
R035XA112NM
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
R035XA112NM
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
R035XA112NM
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
R035XA119NM
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
An "ecological site ID" is the symbol assigned to a particular ecological site. An
"ecological site" is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its
development. It has characteristic soils that have developed over time; a
characteristic hydrology, particularly infiltration and runoff, that has developed over
time; and a characteristic plant community (kind and amount of vegetation). The
vegetation, soils, and hydrology are all interrelated. Each is influenced by the others
and influences the development of the others. For example, the hydrology of the
site is influenced by development of the soil and plant community. The plant
community on an ecological site is typified by an association of species that differs
from that of other ecological sites in the kind and/or proportion of species or in total
production. Descriptions of ecological sites are provided in the Field Office
Technical Guide, which is available in local offices of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Rating Options
Class: NRCS Rangeland Site
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
Pond Reservoir Areas—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan .
(4 mines)
238000
'
. j f T"
239000
I
240000
_l_
241000
L
u
o 35° 28' 20" N
r
1
t , : .i
f •***;• ¦ y i /
:.', « .-.'"V £ jfc>; '
r
238000
T
240000
I
242000
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
~ Meters
A
500
1000
2000
3000
^i poet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: WfebMercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
USDA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 1 of 4
-------
Pond Reservoir Areas—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Very limited
~ Somewhat limited
~ Not limited
~ Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Very limited
0 0 Somewhat limited
Not limited
p* * Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Very limited
~ Somewhat limited
U Not limited
Qj Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG 3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
USDA Natural Resources
1 Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 4
-------
Pond Reservoir Areas—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Pond Reservoir Areas
Pond Reservoir Areas— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts of Cibola
and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Component
name (percent)
Rating reasons
(numeric
values)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to
10 percent
slopes
Very limited
Penistaja (45%)
Seepage (1.00)
1,166.7
50.7%
Tintero (40%)
Seepage (1.00)
Slope (0.32)
210
Marianolake-
Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
Very limited
Marianolake
(50%)
Seepage (1.00)
20.1
0.9%
Slope (0.08)
Skyvillage (30%)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Seepage (0.54)
Slope (0.08)
220
Hagerwest-Bond
fine sandy
loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
Very limited
Hagerwest (50%)
Seepage (1.00)
41.3
1.8%
Depth to bedrock
(0.69)
Bond (35%)
Depth to bedrock
(1.00)
Slope (0.08)
230
Sparank-San
Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
Very limited
San Mateo (35%)
Seepage (1.00)
787.0
34.2%
Zia (20%)
Seepage (1.00)
Escawetter (1 %)
Seepage (1.00)
265
Uranium mined
lands
Not rated
Uranium mined
lands (95%)
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Pond Reservoir Areas— Summary by Rating Value
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
Very limited
2,015.1
87.6%
Null or Not Rated
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 4
-------
Pond Reservoir Areas—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Description
Pond reservoir areas hold water behind a dam or embankment. Soils best suited
to this use have low seepage potential in the upper 60 inches. The seepage
potential is determined by the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the soil and
the depth to fractured bedrock or other permeable material. Excessive slope can
affect the storage capacity of the reservoir area.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent
to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use.
"Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the
specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected.
"Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately
favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by
special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate
maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more
features that are unfavorable forthe specified use. The limitations generally cannot
be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive
installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are
shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations
between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the
use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary
by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer
are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is
shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those
that have the same rating class as listed forthe map unit. The percent composition
of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better
understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The
ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be
viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil
Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to
validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 4 of 4
-------
242000
243000
35° 23' 37"N
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") shed;.
.Mftere
500 1000 2000 3000
^— .Feet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: V\feb Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
35° 23' 37" N
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San ... ?
(4 mines) S
r-.
o
238000 239000 240000 241000 242000 243000
§ 35° 28' 20" N
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/7/2016
" 1 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5
-------
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—McKiniey County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
~ Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
~ Hydric (100%)
~ Hydric (66 to 99%)
~ Hydric (33 to 65%)
~ Hydric (1 to 32%)
~ Not Hydric (0%)
~ Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
Soil Rating Points
B Hydric (100%)
~ Hydric (66 to 99%)
~ Hydric (33 to 65%)
~ Hydric (1 to 32%)
~ Not Hydric (0%)
p Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Hydric (100%)
Soil Survey Area: McKiniey County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey
Hydric (66 to 99%)
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
H '
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
r* *
or larger.
.-V
Not Hydric (0%)
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
K »
Not rated or not available
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
US DA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 5
-------
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—McKiniey County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Hydric Rating by Map Unit— Summary by Map Unit — McKiniey County Area. New Mexico. McKiniey County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
0
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
0
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
0
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
1
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
0
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 5
-------
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—McKiniey County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Description
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric
soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types,
each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up
dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in
the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly
of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower
positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective
components and the percentage of each component within the map unit.
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components.
The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99
percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent
hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components.
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the
map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each
map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.
Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either
saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the
growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.
The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with
wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric
soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and
duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated
soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register,
2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are
associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties
that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil
Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey
Division Staff, 1993).
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric,
they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These
visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite
determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006).
References:
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 4 of 5
-------
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—McKiniey County Area, New Mexico, McKiniey County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Percent Present
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 5 of 5
-------
Available Water Capacity—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San ... ?
(4 mines) &
I
'iWif.
#p.
'¦ .
*f'M "3- y... JSlSBt. J!wK ¦
¦ .iwSlll
i i
242000 243000
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
~ Meters
A
500
1000
2000
3000
^i poet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: WfebMercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 1 of 4
-------
Available Water Capacity—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Soil Rating Polygons
| | <=0.14
| | >0.14 and <=0.18
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
<=0.14
> 0.14 and <= 0.18
h * Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
g <=0.14
g > 0.14 and <= 0.18
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
4-1-1. Rails
0^ Interstate Highways
US Routes
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 4
-------
Available Water Capacity—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Available Water Capacity
Available Water Capacity— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating (centimeters per
centimeter)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
0.14
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
0.18
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
0.14
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
0.18
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
Available water capacity (AWC) refers to the quantity of water that the soil is
capable of storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in
centimeters of water per centimeter of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies,
depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important
properties are the content of organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil
structure, with corrections for salinity and rock fragments. Available water capacity
is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design
and management of irrigation systems. It is not an estimate of the quantity of water
actually available to plants at any given time.
Available water supply (AWS) is computed as AWC times the thickness of the soil.
For example, if AWC is 0.15 cm/cm, the available water supply for 25 centimeters
of soil would be 0.15 x 25, or 3.75 centimeters of water.
For each soil layer, AWC is recorded as three separate values in the database. A
low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute forthe soil component.
A "representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute forthe
component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.
Rating Options
Units of Measure: centimeters per centimeter
Aggregation Method: Dominant Component
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 4
-------
Available Water Capacity—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of
Cibola and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Interpret Nulls as Zero: No
Layer Options (Horizon Aggregation Method): Depth Range (Weighted Average)
Top Depth: 0
Bottom Depth: 36
Units of Measure: Inches
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 4 of 4
-------
35° 23' 37"N
Map Scale: 1:42,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") shed;.
.Mftere
500 1000 2000 3000
^— .Feet
0 2000 4000 8000 12000
Map projection: V\feb Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84
242000
243000
Depth to Water Table—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan .
(4 mines)
§ 35° 28' 20" N
35° 23' 37" N
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 11/7/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
-------
Depth to Water Table—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
(4 mines)
MAP LEGEND
MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Not rated or not available
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000.
~
Area of Interest (AOI)
Water Features
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
Soils
Streams and Canals
measurements.
Soil Rating Polygons
Transportation
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
~
0-25
f-t-f. Rails
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
~
25-50
Interstate Highways
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
~
50-100
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
US Routes
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
~
100 -150
Major Roads
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
~
150-200
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate
Local Roads
calculations of distance or area are required.
~
> 200
Background
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
~
Not rated or not available
Aerial Photography
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Rating Lines
Soil Survey Area: McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley
0-25
25 - 50
» 0 50-100
County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 11, Sep 26, 2014
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000
or larger.
100-150
150-200
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: May 21, 2010—Nov 7,
2010
> 200
n I Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
g 0-25
~ 25-50
~ 50-100
~ 100-150
g 150-200
g > 200
US DA
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 2 of 3
-------
Depth to Water Table—McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola
and San Juan Counties
4 mines
Depth to Water Table
Depth to Water Table— Summary by Map Unit — McKinley County Area. New Mexico. McKinley County and Parts of Cibola
and San Juan Counties (NM692)
Map unit symbol
Map unit name
Rating (centimeters)
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
205
Penistaja-Tintero
complex, 1 to 10
percent slopes
>200
1,166.7
50.7%
210
Marianolake-Skyvillage
complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes
>200
20.1
0.9%
220
Hagerwest-Bond fine
sandy loams, 1 to 8
percent slopes
>200
41.3
1.8%
230
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia
complex, 0 to 3
percent slopes
>200
787.0
34.2%
265
Uranium mined lands
>200
285.3
12.4%
Totals for Area of Interest
2,300.3
100.0%
Description
"Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the soil. It occurs during specified
months. Estimates of the upper limit are based mainly on observations of the water
table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors
(redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month
is not considered a water table.
This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low
value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A
"representative" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the
component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.
Rating Options
Units of Measure: centimeters
Aggregation Method: Dominant Component
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Lower
Interpret Nulls as Zero: No
Beginning Month: J a n u a ry
Ending Month: December
USPA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
11/7/2016
Page 3 of 3
-------
| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventory
tronox 4 mines
November 7, 2016
~ Estuarine arid Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other
Estuarine and Marine Wetland Q Freshwater Pond Riverine
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the
base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should
be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the
Wetlands Mapper web site.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
-------
IAS Laboratories
2515 East University Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
(602) 273-7248
Fax (602) 275-3836
Date: November BO, 2016
Submitted by: Weston Solutions
Report To: David Bordelon
Report #: 6654639
Date Received: November 21, 2016
SOIL ANALYSIS
* *
**
Sender
I.D.
Lab
No
Total
Carbon
%
Total
Nitrogen
%
C:N
Water Holding
Capacity - 0 Bar
%
WGSA-S01-160922
920
2.93
0.113
26:1
26.07
WGSA-S02-160922
921
1.175
0.093
13:1
26.92
WGSA-S03-160922
922
1.164
0.101
12:1
29.30
WGSA-S04-160922
923
0.932
0.041
23:1
20.27
WGSA-S05-160922
924
1.524
0.092
17:1
28.75
WGSA-S06-160926
925
4.138
0.088
47:1
26.46
WGSA-S07-160926
926
1.058
0.040
26:1
22.53
WGSA-S08-160926
927
1.683
0.051
33:1
26.09
WGSA-S09-160926
928
1.177
0.074
16:1
28.21
WGSA-S10-160926
929
1.67
0.044
38:1
27.46
WGSA-S11-161101
930
2.25
0.010
225:1
27.43
WGSA-S12-161101
931
0.809
0.001
809:1
22.31
WGSA-S13-161101
932
1.661
0.074
22:1
26.78
WGSA-S14-161101
933
1.219
0.110
11:1
33.66
WGSA-S15-161101
934
1.242
0.0418
30:1
32.69
WGSA-S16-161116
935
1.775
0.454
4:1
27.10
WGSA-S17-161116
936
1.338
0.065
21:1
31.85
WGSA-S18-161116
937
1.271
0.645
2:1
29.25
WGSA-S19-161116
938
1.79
0.044
41:1
28.42
WGSA-S20-161116
939
1.179
0.989
1:1
30.33
WGSA-S21-161116
940
1.491
0.039
38:1
17.33
WGSA-S22-161116
941
1.077
0.949
1:1
53.45
*AOAC Official Method 993.13
**ASTM D3152-72
-------
IAS Laboratories
2515 East University Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
(602) 273-7248
Fax (602) 275-3836
PLANT ANALYSIS
* *
Date: November 30, 2016
Submitted by: Weston Solutions
Report To: David Bordelon
Report #: 6654639
Date Received: November 21, 2016
Sender
Lab
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Manganese
Molybdenum
Uranium
Vanadium
Selenium
I.D.
No
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
WGSA-P01-160922
397
1320.4
63.1
3.8
20.4
1.07
<0.50
<0.04
<0.61
WGSA-P02-160922
398
394.0
40.3
7.1
27.7
0.81
<0.50
<0.04
<0.81
WGSA-P03-160922
399
198.5
17.2
3.5
38.8
0.46
8.95
<0.04
<1.41
WGSA-P04-160922
400
65.8
20.0
3.8
1.3
0.34
10.25
<0.04
1.25
WGSA-P05-160922
401
77.6
13.5
3.4
6.2
0.54
6.34
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P06-160926
402
160.0
16.3
4.7
1.2
0.90
12.33
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P07-160926
403
164.2
5.6
1.5
3.8
2.09
<0.50
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P08-160926
404
605.6
12.1
4.4
94.1
0.89
3.2
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P09-160926
405
98.5
25.0
4.3
31.3
87.61
0.64
<0.04
17.45
WGSA-P10-160926
406
213.1
16.3
5.6
39.4
3.44
<0.50
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P11-161101
407
275.1
23.9
3.5
22.6
1.47
<0.50
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P12-161101
408
157.8
40.4
6.4
8.2
1.98
4.63
<0.04
205.24
WGSA-P13-161101
409
583.8
14.8
4.5
64.0
0.83
4.93
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P14-161101
410
387.9
9.8
2.4
52.5
0.71
1.32
<0.04
<0.90
WGSA-P15-161101
411
255.5
8.9
1.5
15.8
0.56
<0.50
<0.04
<0.65
*EPA 3050B
-------
Date: November 30, 2016
Submitted by: Weston Solutions
Report To: David Bordelon
Report #: 6654639
Date Received: November 21, 2016
PLANT ANALYSIS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Sender
Lab
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Manganese
Molybdenum
Uranium
Vanadium
Selenium
I.D.
No
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
PPm
WGSA-P16-161116
412
260.9
10.6
4.9
56.7
0.98
1.4
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P17-161116
413
356.0
13.0
2.9
41.4
0.83
5.2
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P18-161116
414
633.8
10.5
3.2
60.8
1.07
11.9
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P19-161116
415
505.0
11.8
2.7
43.8
0.86
5.5
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P20-161116
416
760.2
17.3
5.4
53.6
2.30
7.5
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P21-161116
417
486.0
14.1
4.0
77.9
0.64
9.1
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P22-161116
418
220.1
9.9
2.4
44.9
0.57
6.5
<0.04
<0.65
IAS Laboratories
2515 East University Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
(602) 273-7248
Fax (602) 275-3836
*EPA 3050B
-------
IAS Laboratories
2515 East University Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
(602) 273-7248
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
Page 1
Today's Date:
Grower:
Submitted By:
Send Report To:
Report Number:
Crop:
Date Received:
11/30/2016
WGSA
David Bordelon
Weston Solutions
6654639
Native Plants
11/21/2016
VL= Very Low
L= Low
M= Medium
H = High
VH= Very High
Sender
Sample
Id
Depth
Lab#
PH
Calcium
(Ca)
PPM
Magnesium
(Mg)
PPM
Sodium
(Na)
PPM
Potash
(K)
PPM
Iron
(Fe)
PPM
Zinc
(Zn)
PPM
Manganese
(Mn)
PPM
Copper
(Cu)
PPM
Salinity
(EC x K)
dS/m
Nitrate
Nitrogen
(N03-N)
PPM
Phosphorus
(Bicarb -
Soluble P)
PPM
Computed
% Sodium
(ESP)
Sulfur
(S04-S)
PPM
Boron
(B)
PPM
Free
Lime
Level
S01-1609
22
920
9.0
6200 VH
430 VH
56 L
85 L
3.5 M
.12 VL
.34 VL
.15 L
.5 VL
9.1 L
5.9 L
.7
3.3 VL
.38 L
High
S02-1609
22
921
8.1
6100 VH
230 H
93 L
240 M
8.3 M
.22 L
1.5 M
.59 M
1.6 L
8.4 L
7.8 L
1.2
120 VH
.45 L
High
S03-1609
22
922
8.3
4200 H
410 VH
86 L
470 H
8.8 M
.14 VL
1.7 M
.74 M
.9 L
12.0 M
4.3 VL
1.4
3.9 VL
.39 L
Medium
S04-1609
22
923
8.7
1800 L
120 M
58 L
300 M
8.6 M
.46 L
1.6 M
.48 M
.4 VL
11.0 M
6.7 L
2.3
4.1 VL
.25 VL
Medium
S05-1609
22
924
8.5
6800 VH
400 VH
60 L
610 H
6.0 M
.34 L
1.6 M
.76 M
.9 L
10.0 L
7.1 L
.7
9.1 L
.43 L
High
S06-1609
26
925
7.9
33000 VH
290 H
120 M
290 M
2.8 M
.28 L
.91 L
.50 M
5.3 VH
12.0 M
4.8 VL
.3
1100 VH
.63 L
High
S07-1609
26
926
8.5
4600 H
210 M
53 L
140 L
5.6 M
.15 VL
1.4 M
.38 M
.9 L
8.6 L
5.3 L
.9
12 M
.22 VL
Medium
S08-1609
26
927
8.5
6800 VH
420 VH
60 L
390 M
6.1 M
.16 VL
1.8 M
.65 M
.7 L
11.0 M
6.2 L
.7
9.6 L
.28 VL
High
S09-1609
26
928
8.3
3400 M
220 M
52 L
310 M
16.0 M
2.9 M
3.9 M
2.3 H
.6 L
10.0 L
10.0 M
1.1
15 M
.24 VL
Medium
S10-1609
26
929
8.6
7000 VH
360 H
69 L
220 M
4.7 M
.16 VL
1.4 M
.50 M
.5 VL
8.9 L
5.8 L
.8
8.1 L
.21 VL
High
S11-1611
01
930
8.6
7200 VH
1000 VH
110 M
120 L
4.8 M
.07 VL
1.9 M
.20 L
1.0 L
9.1 L
4.3 VL
1.1
23 H
.38 L
High
S12-1611
01
931
8.6
1400 L
96 M
49 L
100 L
5.5 M
.34 L
1.1 M
.35 M
.3 VL
7.9 L
4.7 VL
2.6
5.1 VL
.10 VL
Low
-------
IAS Laboratories
2515 East University Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
(602) 273-7248
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT Page 2
Today's Date:
11/30/2016
Grower:
WGSA
VL= Very Low
Submitted By:
David Bordelon
L= Low
Send Report To:
Weston Solutions
M= Medium
Report Number:
6654639
H = High
Crop:
Native Plants
VH= Very High
Date Received:
11/21/2016
Sender
Sample
Id
Depth
Lab#
PH
Calcium
(Ca)
PPM
Magnesium
(Mg)
PPM
Sodium
(Na)
PPM
Potash
(K)
PPM
Iron
(Fe)
PPM
Zinc
(Zn)
PPM
Manganese
(Mn)
PPM
Copper
(Cu)
PPM
Salinity
(EC x K)
dS/m
Nitrate
Nitrogen
(N03-N)
PPM
Phosphorus
(Bicarb -
Soluble P)
PPM
Computed
% Sodium
(ESP)
Sulfur
(S04-S)
PPM
Boron
(B)
PPM
Free
Lime
Level
S13-1611
01
932
8.7
7400 VH
260 H
60 L
270 M
7.5 M
.08 VL
.90 L
.37 M
.5 VL
8.3 L
4.8 VL
.7
5.1 VL
.33 L
High
S14-1611
01
933
8.3
7800 VH
310 H
220 H
270 M
13.0 M
.31 L
2.1 M
.89 M
1.5 L
12.0 M
7.9 L
2.2
72 VH
.55 L
High
S15-1611
01
934
8.2
7100 VH
340 H
140 M
460 H
7.7 M
.32 L
2.4 M
1.0 H
1.8 L
17.0 M
9.2 L
1.5
110 VH
.43 L
High
S16-1611
16
935
8.6
7400 VH
370 H
49 L
150 M
4.5 M
.09 VL
1.2 M
.46 M
.5 VL
10.0 L
4.8 VL
.5
3.0 VL
.20 VL
High
S17-1611
16
936
8.4
5300 H
620 VH
74 L
920 VH
12.0 M
2.3 M
1.8 M
.55 M
1.4 L
8.7 L
5.9 L
.9
15 M
.42 L
Medium
S18-1611
16
937
8.4
7600 VH
520 VH
170 M
160 M
9.7 M
.92 M
2.0 M
.83 M
1.1 L
12.0 M
5.2 L
1.7
27 H
.68 L
High
S19-1611
16
938
8.2
7200 VH
330 H
94 L
440 H
5.4 M
.22 L
1.9 M
.77 M
1.7 L
44.0 H
6.2 L
1.0
54 VH
.40 L
High
S20-1611
16
939
7.9
7800 VH
330 H
230 H
210 M
7.8 M
.42 L
2.4 M
.93 M
5.3 VH
74.0 VH
7.8 L
2.3
500 VH
.53 L
High
S21-1611
16
940
8.1
6200 VH
310 H
100 L
120 L
6.1 M
.19 VL
1.4 M
.68 M
1.3 L
45.0 H
6.3 L
1.3
27 H
.50 L
Medium
S22-1611
16
941
8.2
6200 VH
450 VH
200 M
290 M
7.5 M
.15 VL
1.9 M
.87 M
1.7 L
30.0 H
5.1 L
2.4
57 VH
.49 L
Medium
-------
IAS Laboratories
2515 East University Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
(602) 273-7248
SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT
Page 3
Today's Date:
Grower:
Submitted By:
Send Report To:
Report Number:
Crop:
Date Received:
11/30/2016
WGSA
David Bordelon
Weston Solutions
6654639
Native Plants
11/21/2016
VL= Very Low
L= Low
M= Medium
H = High
VH= Very High
Sender
Depth
Lab
Organic
Cation
Gypsum
Sand
Silt
Clay
SoilTexture
Sample
#
Matter
Exchange
Requirement
Number
Capacity
%
MEQ/100G
Tons/Acre
%
%
%
301-160922
920
72
20
8
Sandy Loam
302-160922
921
40
20
40
Clay
303-160922
922
30
26
44
Clay
304-160922
923
74
10
16
Sandy Loam
305-160922
924
34
32
34
Clay Loam
306-160926
925
36
26
38
Clay Loam
307-160926
926
70
15
15
Sandy Loam
308-160926
927
44
30
26
Loam
309-160926
928
52
19
29
Sandy Clay Loam
310-160926
929
48
28
24
Sandy Clay Loam
311-161101
930
32
32
36
Clay Loam
312-161101
931
74
11
15
Sandy Loam
313-161101
932
56
24
20
Sandy Clay Loam
314-161101
933
14
30
56
Clay
315-161101
934
18
24
58
Clay
316-161116
935
46
31
23
Loam
317-161116
936
40
18
42
Clay
318-161116
937
28
22
50
Clay
319-161116
938
32
26
42
Clay
320-161116
939
22
28
50
Clay
321-161116
940
22
38
40
Clay
322-161116
941
36
20
44
Clay
-------
IAS Laboratories
2515 East University Drive SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
(602)273-7248 Lb/1000 Sq Ft
Grower: WGSA Send To: Weston Solutions
Report No: 6654639 Date: 11/21/2016 Page: 4
AMENDMENTS
Sender
Number
Crop
Nitrogen
N
Phosphate
P205
Potash
K20
Magnesium
Mq
Sulfur
S
Iron
Fe
Zinc
Zn
Manganese
Mn
Copper
Cu
Boron
B
Elemental
Sulfur
Gypsum
Lime
Leaching of
Excess Salts
S01-160922
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
1 c
¦2 a
¦4 i
.02 i
.02 h
30*
S02-160922
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
3.5 d
.1 g
.02 h
5*
S03-160922
Nat
ve Plants
1 a
2.5 b
¦2 g
.02 h
10*
S04-160922
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
.1 g
.02 h
15*
50#
S05-160922
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
.1 g
.02 h
10*
S06-160926
Nat
ve Plants
1 a
2.5 b
5 d
.1 g
¦4 i
.02 h
Yes
S07-160926
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
1 c
¦2 g
.02 h
10*
S08-160926
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
¦2 g
.02 h
10*
S09-160926
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
.02 h
10*
S10-160926
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
¦2 g
.02 h
15*
S11-161101
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2.5 b
1 c
¦2 g
.02 i
.02 h
15*
S12-161101
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2.5 b
1 c
.1 g
.02 h
15*
50#
S13-161101
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2.5 b
5 d
¦2 g
¦4 i
.02 h
15*
S14-161101
Nat
ve Plants
1 a
2b
4 d
.1 g
.02 h
10*
S15-161101
Nat
ve Plants
1 a
2b
1 d
.1 g
.02 h
5*
S16-161116
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2.5 b
¦2 g
.02 h
15*
S17-161116
Nat
ve Plants
2a
2b
.1 i
.02 h
10*
Yes
S18-161116
Nat
ve Plants
1 a
2b
.02 h
10*
S19-161116
Nat
ve Plants
2b
2d
.1 g
.02 h
5*
S20-161116
Nat
ve Plants
2b
3d
.1 g
.02 h
Yes
S21-161116
Nat
ve Plants
2b
1 c
¦2 g
.02 h
5*
S22-161116
Nat
ve Plants
2b
¦2q
.02 h
5*
Native Plants
a) Broadcast nitrogen and water then water the nitrogen into the soil.
b) Broadcast phosphorus and till into soil where possible. Phosphorus works best when it is closest to the roots.
c) Broadcast potassium and till into the soil. Then water the potassium into the ground.
d) Apply magnesium to balance the salts and to increase the water holding capacity of the soil.
g) Use zinc sulfate. Mix the zinc in water and then spray the zinc solution onto soil; then till,
j) Use manganese sulfate form. Best if mixed in water and sprayed on soil then tilled.
i) Copper sulfate can be used. Mix in water and spray on soil then till.
h) Apply boron by dissolving it in water and they spray it over the soil. If you cannot find a boron fertilizer you can use 20 mule team borax located in the laundry
-------
SOIL FERTILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Lb/1000 Sq Ft
Grower: WGSA Send To: Weston Solutions
Report No: 6654639 Date: 11/21/2016 Page: 5
AMENDMENTS
Sender
Crop
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Potash
Magnesium
Sulfur
Iron
Zinc
Manganese
Copper
Boron
Elemental
Gypsum
Lime
Leaching of
Number
N
P205
K20
Mg
S
Fe
Zn
Mn
Cu
B
Sulfur
Excess Salts
isle. If you use borax, mix 1 tbsp into 5 gallons of water. Then apply 2 gallons of solution per 1000 sqft.
#) Apply gypsum to balance the salts and to increase the amount of oxygen in the soil to reduce root rot.
*) Incorporate elemental sulfur into the soil to reduce the soil pH. Disper/sul or SSP are sulfur products that should dissolve readily and can be used if you can't till. This sulfur application will also help increase
the overall concentration of the soil. Sulfur is needed for enzyme formation in nitrogen utilization.
N) Irrigate with extra water to reduce the overall salinity and potassium. Salinity at 5 dS/m is high enough to harm some native plants and potassium concentrations over 900 ppm can cause plant leaf margin to
yellow.
-------
Transect 1
Species
Begin End
Total
BASC
685
700
15
BASC
720
746
26
BASC
795
801
6
BASC
1108
1117
9
BASC
1340
1348
8
BASC
1370
1372
2
BASC
1386
1401
15
BASC
1403
1441
38
BASC
1510
1525
15
BASC
1548
1561
13
BASC
1578
1582
4
BASC
1603
1608
5
BASC
1658
1663
5
BASC
1683
1701
18
BASC
1718
1726
8
BASC
1895
1908
13
BASC
1925
1931
6
BASC
1948
1961
13
BASC
2236
2258
22
BASC
2268
2281
13
BASC
2345
2358
13
BASC
2534
2558
24
BASC
2562
2575
13
BASC
2588
2561
-27
BASC
2710
2718
8
BASC
2738
2751
13
BASC
2778
2792
14
BASC
2855
2868
13
Pleuraphis jamesii
607
12.14
Bassia scoparia
507
10.14
Bouteloua gracilis
446
8.92
Salsola tragus
436
8.72
Krashcinnokovia lanata
96
1.92
Muhlenbergia torreyi
18
0.36
Elymus elymoides
8
0.16
Sporobolus conctractus
3
0.06
2121
42.42
-------
BASC
2870
2882
12
BASC
2891
2901
10
BASC
4308
4321
13
BASC
4518
4531
13
BASC
4554
4561
7
BASC
4576
4591
15
BASC
4618
4621
3
BASC
4648
4650
2
BASC
4678
4681
3
BASC
4695
4702
7
BASC
4721
4730
9
BASC
4745
4754
9
BASC
4759
4771
12
BASC
4805
4820
15
BASC
4871
4891
20
BASC
4891
4902
11
BASC
4950
4958
8
BASC
4968
4981
13
BOGR
0
29
29
BOGR
36
45
9
BOGR
58
92
34
BOGR
151
175
24
BOGR
565
570
5
BOGR
576
581
5
BOGR
590
610
20
BOGR
618
635
17
BOGR
664
670
6
BOGR
2618
2628
10
BOGR
3118
3172
54
BOGR
3359
3381
22
-------
BOGR
3394
3423
29
BOGR
3431
3480
49
BOGR
3494
3518
24
BOGR
3561
3582
21
BOGR
3641
3670
29
BOGR
3959
4018
59
ELEL
4108
4116
8
KRLA
885
902
17
KRLA
1218
1252
34
KRLA
3173
3191
18
KRLA
3608
3635
27
MUTO
3191
3205
14
MUTO
4038
4042
4
PLJA
208
342
134
PLJA
348
394
46
PLJA
410
515
105
PLJA
548
552
4
PLJA
918
938
20
PLJA
3208
3354
146
PLJA
3590
3608
18
PLJA
3690
3743
53
PLJA
3772
3810
38
PLJA
3846
3889
43
SATR
1148
1167
19
SATR
1172
1181
9
SATR
1623
1640
17
SATR
1778
1791
13
SATR
1825
1836
11
SATR
1862
1878
16
SATR
2004
2008
4
446
8
96
18
607
-------
SATR
2071
2076
5
SATR
2082
2088
6
SATR
2140
2151
11
SATR
2172
2183
11
SATR
2188
2199
11
SATR
2291
2302
11
SATR
2378
2391
13
SATR
2401
2418
17
SATR
2450
2562
112
SATR
2501
2507
6
SATR
2826
2831
5
SATR
2845
2851
6
SATR
2911
2916
5
SATR
2921
2942
21
SATR
3049
3061
12
SATR
3108
3116
8
SATR
4156
4162
6
SATR
4202
4231
29
SATR
4275
4290
15
SATR
4358
4360
2
SATR
4371
4390
19
SATR
4475
4491
16
SPCO
1202
1205
3
2121
-------
Transect 2
Species
Begin End
Total
ARBI
331
362
31
ARBI
3559
3608
49
ARBI
3877
3894
17
ARBI
3829
3858
29
ARBI
3879
3901
22
ARBI
4208
4251
43
ARBI
4577
4610
33
ARBI
4690
4708
18
ARBI
4830
4855
25
ARBI
4928
4951
23
BOGR
72
93
21
BOGR
141
172
31
BOGR
228
231
3
BOGR
404
431
27
BOGR
451
481
30
BOGR
489
518
29
BOGR
541
544
3
BOGR
571
602
31
BOGR
611
628
17
BOGR
651
666
15
BOGR
789
825
36
BOGR
840
851
11
BOGR
861
908
47
BOGR
925
961
36
BOGR
979
991
12
BOGR
985
1002
17
BOGR
1025
1036
11
BOGR
1059
1130
71
BOGR
1145
1185
40
BOGR
1198
1229
31
Bouteloua gracilis
1505
30.1
Pleuraphis jamesii
311
6.22
Artemisia bigelovii
290
5.8
Krascheninnikovia lanata
128
2.52
Tetradymia canescns
48
0.96
Gutierrezia sarothrae
13
0.26
2295
45.86
-------
BOGR
1270
1285
15
BOGR
1310
1330
20
BOGR
1351
1368
17
BOGR
1442
1451
9
BOGR
1461
1503
42
BOGR
1531
1534
3
BOGR
1541
1549
8
BOGR
1570
1575
5
BOGR
1670
1681
11
BOGR
1685
1702
17
BOGR
1728
1775
47
BOGR
1790
1830
40
BOGR
1872
1885
13
BOGR
1919
1928
9
BOGR
2000
2019
19
BOGR
2035
2061
26
BOGR
2075
2090
15
BOGR
2160
2221
61
BOGR
2251
2308
57
BOGR
2325
2348
23
BOGR
2370
2388
18
BOGR
2392
2416
24
BOGR
2535
2542
7
BOGR
2553
2561
8
BOGR
2578
2611
33
BOGR
2622
2645
23
BOGR
2680
2702
22
BOGR
2711
2735
24
BOGR
2848
2892
44
BOGR
2908
2920
12
BOGR
2928
2993
65
BOGR
3018
3039
21
-------
BOGR
3060
3085
25
BOGR
3099
3115
16
BOGR
3128
3150
22
BOGR
3188
3225
37
BOGR
3208
3289
81
BOGR
3351
3380
29
BOGR
4511
4529
18
GUSA
2768
2781
13
KRLA
444
451
7
KRLA
768
775
7
KRLA
1630
1655
25
KRLA
2055
2108
53
KRLA
2240
2251
11
KRLA
2791
2810
19
KRLA
3005
3011
6
PLJA
0
48
48
PLJA
172
210
38
PLJA
266
296
30
PLJA
362
391
29
PLJA
681
732
51
PLJA
741
753
12
PLJA
1948
1958
10
PLJA
1978
1989
11
PLJA
2118
2148
30
PLJA
4051
4083
32
PLJA
4951
4971
20
TECA
4441
4489
48
2295
1505
13
128
311
48
45.90%
2295
-------
Transect 3
Species
Begin End
Total
PASM
3195
3241
46
PASM
3781
3870
89
PASM
4049
4071
22
BASC
4208
4218
10
BASC
4248
4261
13
BASC
4328
4355
27
BASC
4801
4803
2
BASC
4818
4831
13
BASC
4971
4989
18
BOGR
0
31
31
BOGR
51
141
90
BOGR
161
241
80
BOGR
481
510
29
BOGR
571
602
31
BOGR
710
731
21
BOGR
749
761
12
BOGR
820
851
31
BOGR
908
931
23
BOGR
951
985
34
BOGR
1185
1359
174
BOGR
1471
1545
74
BOGR
1555
1604
49
BOGR
1789
2048
259
BOGR
2760
2902
142
BOGR
3566
3780
214
BOGR
3971
3989
18
BOGR
4471
4478
7
BOGR
4506
4531
25
Pascopyrum smithii 157 3.14
Bassia scoparia 83 1.66
-------
BOGR
4571
4608
37
BOGR
4678
4701
23
1404
ERNA
291
410
119
ERNA
1604
1789
185
ERNA
2055
2071
16
ERNA
2079
2401
322
ERNA
2401
2491
90
ERNA
2630
2760
130
ERNA
2902
3141
239
ERNA
3285
3494
209
1310
GUSA
775
785
10
GUSA
1048
1061
13
GUSA
1071
1099
28
GUSA
1455
1471
16
67
PLJA
3850
3971
121
PLJA
4091
4172
81
PLJA
4720
4748
28
PLJA
4778
4801
23
PLJA
4861
4868
7
PLJA
4938
4971
33
293
SPAR
671
710
39
SPAR
3908
3932
24
63
SPCO
4638
4641
3
3
3380
3380
Bouteloua gracilis
1404 28.08
Ericameria nauseosa 1310 26.02
Gutierrezia sarothrae 67 1.34
Pleuraphis jamesii 293 5.86
Sporobolus airoides 63 1.26
Sporobolus contractus 3 0.06
3380 67.42
-------
Species
Begin End
ATCA
205
220
ATCA
335
351
ATCA
789
821
ATCA
1410
1421
ATCA
1938
1961
ATCA
2039
2096
ATCA
2415
2435
ATCA
3080
3131
ATCA
4248
4261
BOGR
235
246
BOGR
670
736
BOGR
765
795
BOGR
850
878
BOGR
970
990
BOGR
1010
1030
BOGR
1140
1180
BOGR
1190
1210
BOGR
1240
1290
BOGR
1345
1360
BOGR
1378
1410
BOGR
1440
1461
BOGR
1536
1575
BOGR
1592
1654
BOGR
1685
1710
BOGR
1725
1742
BOGR
1765
1778
BOGR
1800
1821
BOGR
1851
1872
Transect 4
238 4.76 Atriplex canescens
15
16
32
11
23
57
20
51
13
11
66
30
28
20
20
40
20
50
15
32
21
39
62
25
17
13
21
21
-------
BOGR
1901
1938
37
BOGR
1965
1983
18
BOGR
1998
2031
33
BOGR
2125
2155
30
BOGR
2175
2204
29
BOGR
2216
2245
29
BOGR
2312
2369
57
BOGR
2455
2481
26
BOGR
2501
2530
29
BOGR
2531
2592
61
BOGR
2661
2672
11
BOGR
2755
2778
23
BOGR
2829
2949
120
BOGR
2851
2872
21
BOGR
2901
2932
31
BOGR
2972
3039
67
BOGR
3138
3187
49
BOGR
3218
3331
113
BOGR
3380
3385
5
BOGR
3401
3448
47
BOGR
3529
3551
22
BOGR
3576
3600
24
BOGR
3660
3681
21
BOGR
3728
3735
7
BOGR
3890
3903
13
BOGR
3948
3963
15
BOGR
3976
4011
35
BOGR
4120
4131
11
BOGR
4176
4203
27
BOGR
4340
4349
9
-------
BOGR
4399
4425
26
BOGR
4430
4491
61
BOGR
4531
4578
47
BOGR
4889
4943
54
BOGR
4981
5000
19
MUTO
385
421
36
MUTO
485
510
25
MUTO
4589
4675
86
PLJA
4066
4081
15
2178
35.56 Bouteloua gracilis
2.94 Muhlenbergia torreyi
0.3 Pleuraphis jamesii
-------
Species
Begin End
Total
AGSM
2780
2790
10
AGSM
3035
3040
5
AGSM
4280
4310
30
AGSM
4320
4346
26
ATCA
229
265
36
ATCA
468
481
13
ATCA
1030
1135
105
ATCA
3130
3160
30
ATCA
3521
3541
20
ATCA
3550
3580
30
ATCA
3730
3805
75
BASC
295
301
6
BASC
742
751
9
BASC
3710
3726
16
BASC
3850
3896
46
BASC
4570
4580
10
BASC
4815
4821
6
GUSP
1735
1755
20
GUSP
1815
1851
36
GUSP
1855
1886
31
GUSP
2020
2025
5
GUSP
2065
2085
20
MACA
562
571
9
MACA
810
831
21
MACA
901
911
10
MACA
951
1022
71
MACA
1135
1221
86
MACA
1270
1305
35
Transect 5
71 1.42 Pascopyrum smithii
309 6.18 Atriplex canescens
93 1.86 Bassia scoparia
112 2.24 Gutierrezia sarothrae
419
8.38
308
6.18
208
4.16
112
2.24
93
1.86
-------
MACA
1320
1365
45
MACA
1481
1505
24
MACA
2580
2600
20
MACA
2755
2775
20
MACA
2815
2858
43
MACA
2870
2905
35
SATR
51
72
21
SATR
201
222
21
SATR
2325
2381
56
SATR
2410
2441
31
SATR
2675
2710
35
SATR
2980
3009
29
SATR
3490
3495
5
SATR
4900
4905
5
SATR
4948
4950
2
SATR
4970
4973
3
SPCO
1405
1445
40
SPCO
1660
1705
45
1297
71
1.42
85
1.7
1296 25.94
8.38 Machaeranthera canescens
4.16 Salsola tragus
1.7 Sporobolus contractus
25.9
-------
Species
Begin End
Total
ACHY
2825
2840
15
ARPU
2575
2587
12
ARPU
2615
2648
33
ATCA
3915
3980
65
ATCA
4079
4125
46
ATCA
4600
4615
15
BOGR
2210
2255
45
BOGR
2260
2275
15
GUSA
2170
2190
20
GUSA
3760
3790
30
GUSA
4125
4143
18
JUMO
1290
1460
170
JUMO
0
10
10
KRLA
1830
1855
25
KRLA
3018
3028
10
KRLA
3426
3430
4
KRLA
4570
4581
11
KRLA
4950
4981
31
PLJA
155
223
68
PLJA
750
760
10
PLJA
785
810
25
PLJA
830
845
15
PLJA
850
870
20
PLJA
928
930
2
PLJA
976
993
17
PLJA
1028
1040
12
PLJA
1126
1135
9
PLJA
1148
1170
22
Transect 6
15 0.3 Acnatherum hymenoides
45 0.9 Aristida purpurea
126 2.52 Atriplex canescens
60 1.2 Bouteloua gracilis
68 1.36 Gutierrezia sarothrae
180 3.6 Juniperus monosperma
81
1.62 Krascheninnikovia lanata
-------
PLJA
2970
2985
15
PLJA
3160
3180
20
PLJA
3190
3211
21
PLJA
3291
3311
20
PLJA
3340
3360
20
PLJA
3381
3410
29
PLJA
3510
3515
5
PLJA
4348
4365
17
347
SPAI
2277
2380
103
SPAI
2430
2461
31
SPAI
3850
3915
65
199
1121
22.42%
6.94 Pleruaphis jamesii
3.98 Sporobolus airoides
22.42
-------
Species
Begin End
ARBI
145
165
ARBI
675
715
ARBI
981
1002
ARBI
1490
1500
ARBI
1555
1570
ARBI
1860
1872
ARBI
2285
2296
ARBI
3285
3301
ARBI
3330
3351
ARBI
3495
3518
ARBI
3558
3562
ARBI
4365
4401
BOGR
20
38
BOGR
68
87
BOGR
265
279
BOGR
581
595
BOGR
805
845
BOGR
875
903
BOGR
1221
1243
BOGR
1389
1408
BOGR
1436
1489
BOGR
1930
1981
BOGR
1990
2011
BOGR
2246
2262
BOGR
2745
2791
BOGR
2802
2868
BOGR
2888
2972
BOGR
3149
3165
Transect 7
20
40
21
10
15
12
11
16
21
23
4
36 229 4.58 Artemisia bigelovii
18
19
14
14
40
28
22
19
53
51
21
16
46
66
84
16
-------
BOGR
4090
4096
6
BOGR
4288
4301
13
BOGR
4495
4508
13
BOGR
4538
4575
37
BOGR
4637
4667
30
BOGR
4775
4780
5
BOGR
4790
4810
20
BOGR
4840
4851
11
BOGR
4920
4926
6
BOGR
4979
5006
27
ERSP
3927
3941
14
JUMO
1605
1798
193
JUMO
2490
2641
151
KRLA
3210
3228
18
KRLA
4718
4748
30
PLJA
3691
3708
17
PLJA
3858
3867
9
1356
27.12%
695 13.9 Bouteloua gracilis
14 0.28 Erigeron species
344 6.88 Juniprus monosperma
48 0.96
Krascheninnikovia lanata
26 0.52 Pleuraphis jamesii
27.12
-------
Transect 8
Species
Begin
AMAC
1825
ATCA
25
BOGR
1980
BOGR
2051
BOGR
2265
BOGR
3430
BOGR
4590
BOHI
4246
ERNA
2018
ERNA
2330
ERNA
3280
ERNA
4080
ERNA
4640
ERNA
4730
ERNA
4889
ERNA
2140
ERNA
4460
GUSA
3890
PDA
141
PDA
1630
PDA
1751
PDA
4051
PDA
4331
GRNU
595
GRNU
920
GRNU
1058
GRNU
1179
SPAR
261
SPAR
458
Total
1831 6 6
111 86 86
2011 31
2114 63
2305 40
3450 20
4612 22 176
4258 12 12
2051 33
2501 171
3330 50
4240 160
4660 20
4841 111
5068 179
2240 100
4580 120 944
3901 11 11
238 97
1672 42
1814 63
4076 25
4368 37 264
831 236
951 31
1080 22
1182 3 292
331 70
532 74 144
1935 38.70%
0.12 Ambrosia acanthicarpa
1.72 Atriplex canescens
3.52 Bouteloua gracilis
0.24 Bouteloua hirsuta
18.88 Ericameria nauseousa
0.22 Gutierrezia sarothrae
5.28 Pleuraphis jamesii
5.84 Grindelia nuda
2.88 Sporobolus airoides
38.70%
-------
Species
Begin End
ATCA
183
210
ATCA
401
450
ATCA
1361
1558
ATCA
1610
1628
ATCA
1718
1737
ATCA
1888
2118
ATCA
2408
2438
ATCA
2567
2670
ATCA
3351
3441
ATCA
3678
3708
ATCA
3629
3691
ATCA
4378
4451
ATCA
4475
4482
ATCA
4951
5000
BASC
10
18
BASC
21
28
BASC
102
116
BASC
178
183
BASC
630
634
BASC
691
693
BASC
819
861
BASC
862
893
BASC
948
961
BASC
968
983
BASC
1032
1041
BASC
1053
1064
BASC
1096
1116
BASC
1131
1154
Transect 9
27
49
197
18
19
230
30
103
90
30
62
73
7
49 984 19.68 Atriplex canescens
8
7
14
5
4
2
42
31
13
15
9
11
20
23
-------
BASC
1171
1186
BASC
1202
1210
BASC
1230
1268
BASC
1294
1302
BASC
1660
1664
BASC
1668
1672
BASC
2148
2172
BASC
2185
2195
BASC
2538
2567
BASC
2828
2835
BASC
3160
3198
BASC
3221
3236
BASC
3245
3250
BASC
3268
3280
BASC
3468
3490
BASC
3930
3968
BOGR
2891
2895
BOGR
3761
3782
BOGR
4207
4291
BOGR
4305
4329
BOGR
4351
4376
BOGR
4608
4640
BOGR
4748
4781
BOGR
4918
4942
PLJA
456
468
PLJA
471
491
PLJA
502
515
PLJA
526
541
PLJA
718
730
PLJA
2951
2988
15
8
38
8
4
4
24
10
29
7
38
15
5
12
22
38 481 9.62 Bassia scoparia
4
21
84
24
25
32
33
24 247 4.94 Bouteloua gracil
12
20
13
15
12
37
-------
PLJA
3011
3046
35
PLJA
3548
3571
23
PLJA
3601
3634
33
PLJA
4025
4031
6
PLJA
4110
4160
50
PLJA
4188
4192
4
PLJA
4501
4533
32
PLJA
4856
4889
33
2037
6.5 Pleuraphis jamesii
40.74
-------
Species
Begin End
ATCA
270
310
ATCA
368
465
ATCA
670
740
ATCA
830
861
ATCA
2990
3068
ATCA
3660
3741
ATCA
3840
3905
BASC
501
512
BASC
541
548
BASC
563
572
BASC
898
914
BASC
941
952
BASC
1041
1058
BASC
1220
1225
BASC
1271
1288
BASC
1298
1321
BASC
1350
1385
BASC
1520
1551
BASC
1578
1592
BASC
1918
1928
BASC
1976
1981
BASC
2038
2051
BASC
2156
2172
BASC
2268
2302
BASC
2328
2339
BASC
2371
2378
BASC
2401
2408
BASC
2628
2639
Transect 10
40
97
70
31
78
81
65 462 9.24 Atriplex canescens
11
7
9
16
11
17
5
17
23
35
31
14
10
5
13
16
34
11
7
7
11
-------
BASC
2691
2699
8
BASC
2748
2759
11
BASC
2789
2792
3
BASC
2819
2830
11
BASC
2912
2918
6
BASC
3141
3162
21
BASC
3210
3258
48
BASC
3278
3291
13
BASC
3411
3418
7
BASC
3480
3519
39
BASC
3919
3941
22
BASC
4021
4041
20
BASC
4098
4105
7
BASC
4226
4251
25
BASC
4382
4414
32
BASC
4491
4503
12
BASC
4540
4603
63
BASC
4605
4631
26
BASC
4715
4748
33
BASC
4795
4835
40
BASC
4930
4940
10
BASC
4955
4960
5
BASC
4968
4999
31
ELEL
971
1026
55
ELEL
1060
1071
11
ELEL
1090
1218
128
ELEL
1658
1676
18
ELEL
2940
2948
8
ELEL
3445
3471
26
GRNU
740
781
41
1
16.06 Bassia scoparia
4.92 Elymus elymoides
0.82 Grindelia nuda
-------
PAOB
0
270
270
PAOB
321
342
21
291
5.82 Panicum obtusum
SCBR
865
881
16
16
0.32 Scleropogon brevifolius
SPAR
1769
1781
12
12
0.24 Sporobolus airoides
1871
37.42%
37.42
-------
Species
Begin End
ATCA
151
201
ATCA
929
962
ATCA
1048
1118
ATCA
1170
1291
ATCA
1331
1482
ATCA
1518
1621
ATCA
1735
1821
ATCA
1859
1898
ATCA
1972
2138
ATCA
2370
2460
ATCA
2630
2671
ATCA
2920
2975
ATCA
3080
3170
ATCA
3340
3480
ATCA
3810
3981
ATCA
4338
4480
ATCA
4725
4780
ATCA
4928
4940
BOGR
0
15
BOGR
41
130
BOGR
216
230
BOGR
270
318
BOGR
340
351
BOGR
392
411
BOGR
431
478
BOGR
501
545
BOGR
620
678
BOGR
715
775
Transect 11
50
33
70
121
151
103
86
39
166
90
41
55
90
140
171
142
55
12 1615 32.3 Atriplex canescens
15
89
14
48
11
19
47
44
58
60
-------
BOGR
778
792
14
BOGR
1291
1331
40
BOGR
1482
1518
36
BOGR
1621
1659
38
BOGR
1659
1735
76
BOGR
1821
1859
38
BOGR
1945
1972
27
BOGR
2151
2182
31
BOGR
2461
2485
24
BOGR
2505
2530
25
BOGR
2560
2601
41
BOGR
2690
2720
11
BOGR
2810
2830
3
BOGR
2871
2920
11
BOGR
3560
3581
21
BOGR
3659
3701
42
BOGR
3738
3770
32
BOGR
4021
4061
40
BOGR
4190
4210
20
BOGR
4301
4325
24
PASM
830
841
11
PASM
876
899
23
PASM
4890
4896
6
GUSA
2219
2251
32
2686
19.98 Bouteloua gracilis
0.8 Pascopyrum smith
0.64
53.72
-------
Transect 12
Species
Begin End
Total
BOGR
39
60
21
BOGR
100
111
11
BOGR
155
171
16
BOGR
211
230
19
BOGR
258
281
23
BOGR
299
315
16
BOGR
326
345
19
BOGR
371
392
21
BOGR
418
441
23
BOGR
531
548
17
BOGR
560
611
51
BOGR
650
669
19
BOGR
678
693
15
BOGR
736
791
55
BOGR
828
838
10
BOGR
847
891
44
BOGR
905
935
30
BOGR
971
1021
50
BOGR
1040
1071
31
BOGR
1028
1038
10
BOGR
1180
1248
68
BOGR
1271
1332
61
BOGR
1358
1378
20
BOGR
1399
1422
23
BOGR
1458
1471
13
BOGR
1525
1568
43
BOGR
1578
1602
24
BOGR
1661
1681
20
BOGR
1692
1740
48
BOGR
1745
1769
24
-------
BOGR
1791
1808
17
BOGR
1825
1838
13
BOGR
1848
1858
10
BOGR
1872
1893
21
BOGR
1935
1951
16
BOGR
1991
2018
27
BOGR
2056
2091
35
BOGR
2160
2181
21
BOGR
2221
2246
25
BOGR
2251
2281
30
BOGR
2360
2391
31
BOGR
2401
2408
7
BOGR
2470
2481
11
BOGR
2678
2681
3
BOGR
2665
2685
20
BOGR
3081
3102
21
BOGR
3189
3220
31
BOGR
3230
3241
11
BOGR
3360
3381
21
BOGR
3661
3692
31
BOGR
3775
3821
46
BOGR
3891
3950
59
BOGR
3950
3981
31
BOGR
3976
3981
5
BOGR
4010
4030
20
BOGR
4065
4071
6
BOGR
4108
4112
4
BOGR
4121
4131
10
BOGR
4193
4205
12
BOGR
4250
4271
21
BOGR
4302
4368
66
BOGR
4389
4415
26
-------
BOGR
4426
BOGR
4508
BOGR
4548
BOGR
4590
BOGR
4618
BOGR
4675
BOGR
4788
BOGR
4852
BOGR
4918
BOGR
4990
PDA
2515
PLJA
2770
PLJA
2825
PLJA
3134
PLJA
3408
PLJA
3528
PLJA
3585
PLJA
3701
PLJA
3860
PLJA
4718
PLJA
4958
35
10
8
12
13
16
33
21
17
10 1728
25
11
10
18
72
23
36
40
18
23
14 290
2018 40.36%
4461
4518
4556
4602
4631
4691
4821
4873
4935
5000
2540
2781
2835
3152
3480
3551
3621
3741
3878
4741
4972
34.56 Bouteloua gracilis
5.8 Pleuraphis jamesii
40.36
-------
Species
Begin End
ATCA
4780
4785
BOGR
0
20
BOGR
51
108
BOGR
190
210
BOGR
440
461
BOGR
480
491
BOGR
605
635
BOGR
870
901
BOGR
1360
1381
BOGR
1408
1426
BOGR
1610
1620
BOGR
1665
1671
BOGR
1730
1791
BOGR
1928
1938
BOGR
2015
2041
BOGR
2011
2022
BOGR
2151
2231
BOGR
2301
2348
BOGR
2410
2428
BOGR
2485
2496
BOGR
2520
2531
BOGR
2595
2631
BOGR
2670
2701
BOGR
2735
2761
BOGR
2880
2901
BOGR
3035
3065
BOGR
3108
3140
BOGR
3190
3231
Transect 13
5 5 0.1 Atriplex canescens
20
57
20
21
11
30
31
21
18
10
6
61
10
26
11
80
47
18
11
11
36
31
26
21
30
32
41
-------
BOGR
3310
3330
20
BOGR
3348
3361
13
BOGR
3395
3401
6
BOGR
3431
3442
11
BOGR
3520
3541
21
BOGR
3670
3691
21
BOGR
3765
3801
36
BOGR
3838
3851
13
BOGR
3920
3945
25
BOGR
3961
3988
27
BOGR
4008
4032
24
BOGR
4061
4082
21
BOGR
4102
4108
6
BOGR
4132
4199
67
BOGR
4266
4293
27
BOGR
4340
4362
22
BOGR
4398
4418
20
BOGR
4495
4472
-23
BOGR
4540
4561
21
BOGR
4620
4640
20
BOGR
4730
4742
12
BOGR
4960
5000
40
KRLA
21
33
12
KRLA
158
170
12
KRLA
308
336
28
KRLA
635
662
27
KRLA
1305
1308
3
KRLA
2578
2583
5
KRLA
3280
3288
8
MUWR
930
1105
175
1187 23.74 Bouteloua gracilis
95
1.9 Krascheninnikovia lanata
-------
MUWR
1180
1261
81
256
PLJA
780
791
11
PLJA
1958
2005
47
PLJA
2239
2301
62
PLJA
4502
4528
26
PLJA
535
541
6
152
SPCO
810
821
11
SPCO
2062
2070
8
19
1714
34.28%
1714
5.12 Muhlenbergia wrightii
3.04 Pleuraphis jamesii
0.38 Sporobolus contractus
34.28
-------
Species
Begin End
Total
ATCA
1080
1150
70
ATCA
1282
1341
59
ATCA
1405
1518
113
ATCA
1558
1618
60
BASC
1876
1948
72
BASC
3590
3641
51
BASC
3761
3782
21
BASC
4430
4438
8
BASC
4620
4671
51
BASC
4905
4910
5
BASC
4986
4991
5
ERNA
760
940
180
ERNA
1948
2230
282
GRNU
1806
1813
7
GRNU
2306
2331
25
GRNU
2458
2470
12
GRNU
2994
3011
17
GRNU
3036
3065
29
GRNU
3995
4205
210
GRNU
4365
4385
20
GRNU
4715
4761
46
MACA
1840
1861
21
MACA
3920
3931
11
MACA
3978
3983
5
MACA
4010
4033
23
MACA
4445
4495
50
MACA
4548
4565
17
MACA
4755
4822
67
Transect 14
302 6.04 Atriplex canescens
213 4.26 Bassia scoparia
462 9.24 Ericameria nauseosa
366 7.32 Grindelia nuda
194 3.88 Machaeranthera canescens
-------
PASM
940
1012
72
PASM
0
365
365
PASM
405
437
32
PASM
495
585
90
PASM
608
651
43
PASM
1672
1706
34
PASM
2245
2253
8
PASM
3328
3545
217
PASM
3685
3726
41
PASM
3735
3891
156
PASM
4033
4166
133
PASM
4221
4258
37
2765
2765
24.56 Pascopyrum smith
55.3
-------
Transect 15
Species
Begin End
Total
BOGR
2272
2291
19
BOGR
488
621
133
BOGR
641
689
48
BOGR
910
935
25
BOGR
1039
1278
239
BOGR
1589
1621
32
BOGR
1640
1841
201
BOGR
2031
2178
147
BOGR
4620
4641
21
865
ERNA
0
130
130
ERNA
196
357
161
ERNA
442
461
19
ERNA
935
1039
104
ERNA
1968
2031
63
ERNA
2667
2714
47
ERNA
3421
3538
117
ERNA
4105
4143
38
ERNA
4641
4735
94
ERNA
4871
5000
129
902
GRNU
3710
3831
121
GRNU
3865
3895
30
GRNU
3910
3981
71
222
GUSA
2935
2941
6
GUSA
3048
3062
14
20
MUWR
3640
3710
70
MUWR
4802
4871
69
139
PLJA
1480
1501
21
PLJA
2798
2942
144
PLJA
3038
3058
20
PLJA
3062
3261
199
384
2532
50.64%
17.3 Bouteloua gracilis
18.04 Ericameria nauseosa
4.44 Grindelia nuda
0.4 Gutierrezia sarothrae
2.78 Muhlenbergia wrightii
7.68 Pleuraphis jamesii
50.64
-------
APPENDIX C
USFWS County List
NMDGF County List
New Mexico Forestry State Endangered Plants List
New Mexico Noxious Weed List
New Mexico Heritage SI Species
BLM Sensitive Species
UTM Locations of Burrows Occupied by Western Burrowing Owl
Plant and Animals Observed or Likely to Occur within the Study Area
-------
Of f
"^Ch J. ^
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office
2105 OSUNA ROAD NE
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87113
PHONE: (505)346-2525 FAX: (505)346-2542
URL: www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/;
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ES_Lists_Main2.html
f U.S.
FISH A WILDLIFE
SERVICE
Consultation Code: 02ENNM00-2017-SLI-0053
Event Code: 02ENNM00-2017-E-00059
Project Name: USEPA Tronox Mines
October 27, 2016
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for your recent request for information on federally listed species and important
wildlife habitats that may occur in your project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has responsibility for certain species of New Mexico wildlife under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) as amended (16 USC 701-715), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(BGEPA) as amended (16 USC 668-668c). We are providing the following guidance to assist
you in determining which federally imperiled species may or may not occur within your project
area and to recommend some conservation measures that can be included in your project design.
FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
Attached is a list of endangered, threatened, and proposed species that may occur in your project
area. Your project area may not necessarily include all or any of these species. Under the ESA,
it is the responsibility of the Federal action agency or its designated representative to determine
if a proposed action "may affect" endangered, threatened, or proposed species, or designated
critical habitat, and if so, to consult with the Service further. Similarly, it is the responsibility of
the Federal action agency or project proponent, not the Service, to make "no effect"
determinations. If you determine that your proposed action will have "no effect" on threatened
or endangered species or their respective critical habitat, you do not need to seek concurrence
with the Service. Nevertheless, it is a violation of Federal law to harm or harass any
federally-listed threatened or endangered fish or wildlife species without the appropriate permit.
If you determine that your proposed action may affect federally-listed species, consultation with
the Service will be necessary. Through the consultation process, we will analyze information
-------
contained in a biological assessment that you provide. If your proposed action is associated with
Federal funding or permitting, consultation will occur with the Federal agency under section
7(a)(2) of the ESA. Otherwise, an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
ESA (also known as a habitat conservation plan) is necessary to harm or harass federally listed
threatened or endangered fish or wildlife species. In either case, there is no mechanism for
authorizing incidental take "after-the-fact." For more information regarding formal consultation
and HCPs, please see the Service's Consultation Handbook and Habitat Conservation Plans at
www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/index. html#consultations.
The scope of federally listed species compliance not only includes direct effects, but also any
interrelated or interdependent project activities (e.g., equipment staging areas, offsite borrow
material areas, or utility relocations) and any indirect or cumulative effects that may occur in the
action area. The action area includes all areas to be affected, not merely the immediate area
involved in the action. Large projects may have effects outside the immediate area to species
not listed here that should be addressed. If your action area has suitable habitat for any of the
attached species, we recommend that species-specific surveys be conducted during the
flowering season for plants and at the appropriate time for wildlife to evaluate any possible
project-related impacts.
Candidate Species and Other Sensitive Species
A list of candidate and other sensitive species in your area is also attached. Candidate species
and other sensitive species are species that have no legal protection under the ESA, although we
recommend that candidate and other sensitive species be included in your surveys and
considered for planning purposes. The Service monitors the status of these species. If significant
declines occur, these species could potentially be listed. Therefore, actions that may contribute
to their decline should be avoided.
Lists of sensitive species including State-listed endangered and threatened species are compiled
by New Mexico state agencies. These lists, along with species information, can be found at the
following websites:
Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M): www.bison-m.org
New Mexico State Forestry. The New Mexico Endangered Plant Program:
www. emnrd. state. nm .us/SFD/F ore stMgt/Endangered. html
New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council, New Mexico Rare Plants: nmrareplants.unm.edu
Natural Heritage New Mexico, online species database: nhnm.unm.edu
WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS
Under Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, Federal agencies are required to minimize the
destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and floodplains, and preserve and enhance their
natural and beneficial values. These habitats should be conserved through avoidance, or
mitigated to ensure that there would be no net loss of wetlands function and value.
2
-------
We encourage you to use the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps in conjunction with
ground-truthing to identify wetlands occurring in your project area. The Service's NWI program
website, www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html integrates digital map data with other
resource information. We also recommend you contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
permitting requirements under section 404 of the Clean Water Act if your proposed action could
impact floodplains or wetlands.
MIGRATORY BIRDS
The MBTA prohibits the taking of migratory birds, nests, and eggs, except as permitted by the
Service's Migratory Bird Office. To minimize the likelihood of adverse impacts to migratory
birds, we recommend construction activities occur outside the general bird nesting season from
March through August, or that areas proposed for construction during the nesting season be
surveyed, and when occupied, avoided until the young have fledged.
We recommend review of Birds of Conservation Concern at website
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BCC.html to fully evaluate the
effects to the birds at your site. This list identifies birds that are potentially threatened by
disturbance and construction.
BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLES
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted under the ESA on August 9, 2007. Both
the bald eagle and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) are still protected under the MBTA and
BGEPA. The BGEPA affords both eagles protection in addition to that provided by the MBTA,
in particular, by making it unlawful to "disturb" eagles. Under the BGEPA, the Service may
issue limited permits to incidentally "take" eagles (e.g., injury, interfering with normal breeding,
feeding, or sheltering behavior nest abandonment). For information on bald and golden eagle
management guidelines, we recommend you review information provided at
www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/guidelines/bgepa.html.
On our web site www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/SBC_intro.cfm, we have included
conservation measures that can minimize impacts to federally listed and other sensitive species.
These include measures for communication towers, power line safety for raptors, road and
highway improvements, spring developments and livestock watering facilities, wastewater
facilities, and trenching operations.
We also suggest you contact the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, and the New
Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, Forestry Division for
information regarding State fish, wildlife, and plants.
Thank you for your concern for endangered and threatened species and New Mexico's wildlife
habitats. We appreciate your efforts to identify and avoid impacts to listed and sensitive species
in your project area. For further consultation on your proposed activity, please call
505-346-2525 or email nmesfo@fws.gov and reference your Service Consultation Tracking
Number.
Attachment
3
-------
4
-------
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: USEPA Tronox Mines
Official Species List
Provided by:
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office
2105 OSUNA ROAD NE
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87113
(505) 346-2525
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ES_Lists_Main2.html
Consultation Code: 02ENNM00-2017-SLI-0053
Event Code: 02ENNM00-2017-E-00059
Project Type: LAND - RESTORATION / ENHANCEMENT
Project Name: USEPA Tronox Mines
Project Description: Mine cleanup and vegetation recovery
Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it
may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code
matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'
section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/27/2016 01:21PM
1
-------
xr.s.
FISH A WILDLIFE
SERVICE
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: USEPA Tronox Mines
Project Location Map:
€
Project Coordinates: The coordinates are too numerous to display here.
Project Counties: McKinley, NM
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac. 10/27/2016 01:21 PM
2
-------
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: USEPA Tronox Mines
Endangered Species Act Species List
There are a total of 5 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in
an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain
fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the
Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your
project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS
office if you have questions.
Birds
Status
Has Critical Habitat
Condition(s)
Mexican Spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis lucida)
Population: Wherever found
Threatened
Final designated
Southwestern Willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Final designated
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus)
Population: Western U.S. DPS
Threatened
Proposed
Fishes
Zuni Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus
discobolus yarrowi)
Population: Wherever found
Endangered
Final designated
Flowering Plants
Zuni fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus)
Population: Wherever found
Threatened
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/27/2016 01:21PM
3
-------
4*35
Critical habitats that lie within your project area
There are no critical habitats within your project area.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 10/27/2016 01:21PM
4
-------
10/27/2016
BISON-M
Maintained by:
Biota Information System
(/New Mexico
NATURAL HERIIAGE
NW MtXICO
Disclai mei Policy
Database Query
Close Window
Print Page
County Name
McKinley
Your search terms were as follows:
Status
State NM: Endangered
State NM: Threatened
Taxonomic Group
Fish
8 species returned.
# Species Taxonomic Group
1 Birds
# Species
7
Export to Excel
Species
ID
Common Name
Scientific Name
Photo
USGS
Distribution Map
County
Status
040370
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
P
McKinley
State NM:
Threatened
040384
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
no map
McKinley
State NM:
Threatened
040385
Arctic Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus tundrius
no photo
no map
McKinley
State NM:
Threatened
042070
Least Tern
Sternula antillarum
~
McKinley
State NM:
Endangered
040925
Costa's Hummingbird
Calypte costae
P
McKinley
State NM:
Threatened
040521
Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
no map
McKinley
State NM:
Endangered
042200
Gray Vireo
Vireo vicinior
P
McKinley
State NM:
Threatened
010496
Zuni Bluehead Sucker
Catostomus discobolus
yarrowi
no map
McKinley
State NM:
Endangered
http://bison-m.org/reports.aspx7rty pe=13&county=%27031 %27,&status=%27201 %27,%27202%27,
-------
10/27/2016 BISON-M
Close Window
http://bison-m.org/repo lis.aspx?rtype=13&county=%27031 %27,&status=%27201 %27,%27202%27,
-------
NEW MEXICO STATE ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES (19.21.2.8 NMAC)
Detailed information and images of many of these and other rare plants can be found at the New
Mexico Rare Plants website (http//nmrareplants.unm.edu/index.html) (plants marked with an * are not
listed on the NMRPTC website)
Botanical Name
Common Name
New Mexico Counties
Aliciella formosa
Aztec gilia
San Juan
Allium gooddingii *
Goodding's onion
San Juan, McKinley, Catron,
Lincoln, Santa Fe
Amsonia tharpii
Tharp's bluestar
Eddy
Argemone pleiacantha subsp. pinnatisecta
(A. pinnatisecta)
Sacramento prickly poppy
Otero
Astragalus humillimus
Mancos milkvetch
San Juan
Cirsium vinaceum
Sacramento Mountains thistle
Otero
Cirsium wrightii
Wright's marsh thistle
Chaves, Grant, Guadalupe,
Otero, Sierra, Socorro
Cleome multicaulis (Peritoma multicaulis)
slender spiderflower
Grant, Hidalgo
Coryphantha scheeri var. scheeri
Scheer's pincushion cactus
Chavez, Eddy
Cylindropuntia viridiflora
Santa Fe cholla
Santa Fe
Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens *
golden lady's slipper
San Juan, Grant, San Miguel
Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri
Kuenzler's hedgehog cactus
Chavez, Eddy, Lincoln, Otero
Erigeron hessii
Hess' fleabane
Catron
Erigeron rhizomatus
Zuni fleabane
Catron, McKinley, San Juan
Eriogonum gypsophilum
gypsum wild buckwheat
Eddy
Escobaria duncanii
Duncan's pincushion cactus
Sierra
Escobaria organensis
Organ Mountain pincushion
cactus
Dona Ana
Escobaria sneedii var. leei
Lee's pincushion cactus
Eddy
-------
Escobaria sneedii var. sneedii
Sneed's pincushion cactus
Dona Ana
Escobaria villardii
Villard's pincushion cactus
Dona Ana, Otero
Hedeoma todsenii
Todsen's pennyroyal
Otero, Sierra
Helianthus paradoxus
Pecos sunflower
Cibola, Valencia, Socorro,
Guadalupe, Chavez
Hexalectris nitida
shining coralroot
Eddy, Otero
Hexalectris spicata *
crested coralroot
Sierra, Otero, Hidalgo
Ipomopsis sancti-spiritus
Holy Ghost ipomopsis
San Miguel
Lepidospartum burgessii
gypsum scalebroom
Otero
Lilium philadelphicum *
wood lily
Otero, Los Alamos, Sandoval,
San Miguel, Santa Fe
Mammillaria wrightii var. wilcoxii *
Wilcox pincushion cactus
Hidalgo, Grant, Dona Ana, Luna
Opuntia arenaria
sand prickly pear
Dona Ana, Luna, Socorro
Pediocactus knowltonii
Knowlton's cactus
San Juan
Pediomelum pentaphyllum
Chihuahua scurfpea
Hidalgo
Peniocereus greggii
night-blooming cereus
Dona Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, Luna
Polygala rimulicola var. mescalerorum
San Andres milkwort
Dona Ana
Puccinellia parishii
Parish's alkali grass
Catron, Cibola, Grant, Hidalgo,
McKinley, Sandoval, San Juan
Sclerocactus cloveriae subsp. brackii
Brack's cactus
San Juan, Rio Arriba, Sandoval
Sclerocactus mesae-verdae
Mesa Verde cactus
San Juan
Spiranthes magnicamporum *
lady tresses orchid
Bernalillo, Santa Fe, Guadalupe,
Rio Arriba
-------
NM - BLM SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES LIST
UPDATED WITH ESA STATUS SPECIES 1/4/12 FIELD OFFICE OCCURRENCE - VERIFIED, HYPOTHETICAL, PERIPERAL (WITHIN OFFICE BDRY BUT NOT ON BLM) STATUS
FAMILY
SPECIES
COMMON NAME
RIO PUERCO -
NM110
SOCORRO -
NM120
FARMINGTON -
NM210
TAOS - NM220
LAS
CRUCES-
NM030
ROSWELL -
NM510
CARLSBAD -
NM520
NATURES
ERVE
GLOBAL
RANK
NATURES
ERVE
STATE
RANK
FWS STATUS
STATE STATUS
USFS
STATUS
BLM SPECIAL STATUS
LIST
NYCTAGINACEAE
ABRONIA BIGELOVII
SAND VERBENA, GALISTEO
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
G3
S3
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
ACAROSPORACEAE
ACAROSPORA CLAUZADEANA
LICHEN, ACAROSPORA
CLAUZADEANA
VERIFIED
G1G2
PETITIONED / NEGATIVE 90 DAY FINDING
BLM SENSITIVE
POLEMONIACEAE
ALICIELLA FORMOSA
G1 LI A, AZTEC
VERIFIED
G2
S2
PETITIONED / NEGATIVE 90 DAY FINDIIS
ENDANGERED
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
APOCYNACEAE
AMSONIA FUGATEI
AMSONIA, FUGATE'S
VERIFIED
G2
S2
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
APOCYNACEAE
AMSONIA THARPII
BLUESTAR, THARP'S
VERIFIED
G1
SI
SPECIES OF CONCERN + PETITIONED -
POSITIVE 90 DAY FINDING
ENDANGERED
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
NYCTAGINACEAE
ANULOCAUUS LEIOSOLENUS VAR. HOWARDII
RINGSTEM, HOWARD'S GYP
VERIFIED
G2T2
SNR
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
RANUNCULACEAE
AOUILEGIA CHRYSANTHA VAR. CHAPLINEI
COLUMBINE, CHAPLINE'S
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
G4T2
S2
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
ASCLEPIADACEAE
ASCLEPIAS SANJUANENSIS
MILKWEED, SAN JUAN
VERIFIED
GUQ
S3
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
FABACEAE
ASTRAGALUS COBRENSIS VAR. MAGUIREI
MILKVETCH, COPPERMINE
VERIFIED
G4T2
S2,S1?
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
FABACEAE
ASTRAGALUS GYPSODES
MILKVETCH, GYPSUM
VERIFIED
G3
S3
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
FABACEAE
ASTRAGALUS KNIGHTII
MILKVETCH, KNIGHT'S
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
FABACEAE
ASTRAGALUS RIPLEYI
MILKVETCH, RIPLEY
HYPOTHETICAL
VERIFIED
G3
S3?
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
FABACEAE
DERMATOPHYLLUM GUADALUPENSE
MESCALBEAN, GUADALUPE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
G1
PETITIONED / NEGATIVE 90 FINDING
SPECIES OF CONCERN
BLM SENSITIVE
CACTACEAE
ECHINOCEREUS X ROETTERI VAR. ROETTERI
CACTUS, ROETTER'S
HEDGEHOG
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
ASTERACEAE
ERIGERON ACOMANUS
FLEABANE, ACOMA
VERIFIED
HYPOTHETICAL
GNR
SNR
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
CACTACEAE
ESCOBARIA DUNCANII
CACTUS, DUNCAN'S
PINCUSHION
VERIFIED
G1G2
SI
SPECIES OF CONCERN
ENDANGERED
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
CACTACEAE
ESCOBARIA VILLARDII
CACTUS, VILLARD'S
PINCUSHION
VERIFIED
G2
S2
SPECIES OF CONCERN
ENDANGERED
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
ASTERACEAE
LEPIDOSPARTUM BURGESSII
SCALEBROOM, GYPSUM
VERIFIED
G2
SI
SPECIES OF CONCERN
ENDANGERED
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
LIN ACE AE
LINUM ALLREDII
FLAX, ALLRED'S
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
LOASACEAE
MENTZELIA HUMILUS VAR. GUADALUPENSIS
STICKLEAF, GUADALUPE
VERIFIED
G4T2
SNR
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
CACTACEAE
OPUNTIA ARENARIA
PRICKLYPEAR, SAND
VERIFIED
G2
S2
SPECIES OF CONCERN
ENDANGERED
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
CACTACEAE
OPUNTIA X VIRIDIFLORA
CHOLLA, SANTA FE
VERIFIED
G1G2
SI
SPECIES OF CONCERN
ENDANGERED
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
FABACEAE
PEDIOMELUM PENTAPHYLLUM
SCURFPEA, CHIHUAHUA
VERIFIED
G1
SH,S1
SPECIES OF CONCERN + PETITIONED -
POSITIVE 90 DAY FINDING
ENDANGERED
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
CACTACEAE
PENIOCEREUS GREGGII VAR GREGGII
CEREUS, NIGHT-BLOOMING
VERIFIED
G3G4T2
SI
SPECIES OF CONCERN
ENDANGERED
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
PENSTEMON ALAMOSENSIS
BEARDTONGUE, ALAMO
VERIFIED
G3
S3
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
PENSTEMON CARDINALIS SSP. REGALIS
PENSTEMON, GUADALUPE
VERIFIED
G3T2
S2
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
ASTERACEAE
PERITYLE CERNUA
CLIFF DAISY, NODDING
VERIFIED
G2
S2
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
CHENOPODIACEAE
PROA TRIPLEX PLEIANTHA
SALTBUSH, MANCOS
VERIFIED
G3
S3?
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
POACEAE
PUCCINELLIA PARISHII
ALKALIGRASS, PARISH'S
VERIFIED
HYPOTHETICAL
HYPOTHETICAL
VERIFIED
G2
S2,S1
SPECIES OF CONCERN
ENDANGERED
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
CACTACEAE
SCLEROCACTUS CLOVERAESSP. BRACKII
CACTUS, BRACK'S HARDWALL
VERIFIED
G3T1
SI
SPECIES OF CONCERN
ENDANGERED
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
CACTACEAE
SCLEROCACTUS PAPYRACANTHUS
CACTUS, GRAMA GRASS
VERIFIED
HYPOTHETICAL
HYPOTHETICAL
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
HYPOTHETICAL
G4
S2S3,S4
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
SCROPHULARIACEAE
SCROPHULARIA MACRANTHA
FIGWORT, MIMBRES
VERIFIED
G2
S2
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SENSITIVE
BLM SENSITIVE
BRASSICACEAE
SIBARA GRISEA
THELYPODY, TEXAS; SIBARA,
GRAY
VERIFIED
G3
S3?
NONE
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
BRASSICACEAE
STREPTANTHUS PLATYCARPUS
JEWELFLOWER, BROADPOD
VERIFIED
G1?Q
SI?
PETITIONED / NEGATIVE 90 DAY FINDIIS
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
ASTERACEAE
TOWNSENDIA GYPSOPHILA
TOWNSEND DAISY, GYPSUM
VERIFIED
G2
S2
SPECIES OF CONCERN
SPECIES OF CONCERN
NONE
BLM SENSITIVE
-------
New Mexico BLM Sensitive Animal Species List (Final) - August 2011
SPECIES
COMMON NAME
FARMINGTON -
LLNMF01000
TAOS - LLNMF02000
RIO PUERCO -
LLNMA01000
SOCORRO -
LLNMA02000
LAS CRUCES -
LLNML00000
ROSWELL -
LLNMP01000
CARLSBAD -
LLNMP02000
AMPHIBIANS (3)
Anaxyrus (Bufo) microscaphus
Southwestern Toad
NONE
NONE
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Lithobates (Rana) yavapaiensis
Lowland Leopard Frog
NONE
NONE
NONE
HYPOTHETICAL
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Lithobates (Rana) pipiens
Northern Leopard Frog
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
NONE
NONE
NONE
ARTHROPODS (2)
Lytta mirifica
Anthony Blister Beetle
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Ochlodes yuma anasazi
Yuma Skipper
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
BIRDS (12)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Tympanuchus pallidicinctus
Lesser Prairie-chicken
NONE
PERIPHERAL
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Athene cunicularia hypugaea
Western Burrowing Owl
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus
Pinon Jay
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
Toxostoma bendirei
Bendire's Thrasher
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
NONE
Vireo bellii arizonae
Bell's Vireo
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
Anthus spragueii
Sprague's Pipit
NONE
NONE
NONE
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Ammodramus savannarum ammolegus
Arizona Grasshopper Sparrow
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Ammodramus bairdii
Baird's Sparrow
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Passerina ciris
Painted Bunting
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
Calcarius ornatus
Chestnut-collared Longspur
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
CRUSTACEANS (5)
Streptocephalus thomasbowmani
Thomas Bowman's Fairy
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
Streptocephalus moorei
Moore's Fairy Shrimp
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Phallocryptus (Branchinella) sublettei
Sublette's Fairy Shrimp
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Eulimnadia follisimilis
Clam Shrimp
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
Lepidurus lemmoni
Lynch's Tadpole Shrimp
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
FISH (17)
Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis
Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout
NONE
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
NONE
Agosia chrysogaster
Longfin Dace
NONE
NONE
NONE
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
-------
Astyanax mexicanus
Mexican Tetra
NONE
NONE
NONE
EXTIRPATED
EXTIRPATED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Catostomus discobolus discobolus
Bluehead Sucker
VERIFIED
HYPOTH ETHICAL
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
NONE
NONE
NONE
Catostomus latipinnis
Flannelmouth Sucker
VERIFIED
HYPOTH ETHICAL
NONE
NONE
HYPOTH ETHICAL
NONE
NONE
Catostomus plebeius
Rio Grande Sucker
NONE
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
Gila pandora
Rio Grande Chub
NONE
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Ictiobus bubalus
Smallmouth Buffalo
NONE
HYPOTH ETHICAL
HISTORICAL
HISTORICAL
VERIFIED
HISTORICAL
VERIFIED
Macrhybopsis aestivalis aestivalis
Speckled Chub
NONE
PERIPHERAL
EXTIRPATED
EXTIRPATED
EXTIRPATED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Percina macrolepida
Bigscale Logperch
NONE
INTRODUCED
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Phenacobius mirabilis
Suckermouth Minnow
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
Catostomus clarki
Desert Sucker
NONE
NONE
NONE
PERIPHERAL
NONE
NONE
NONE
Catostomus insignis
Sonora Sucker
NONE
NONE
NONE
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Cycleptus elongatus
Blue Sucker
NONE
EXTIRPATED
EXTIRPATED
EXTIRPATED
EXTIRPATED
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
Cyprinodon pecosensis
Pecos Pupfish
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Etheostoma lepidum
Greenthroat Darter
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Gila robusta
Roundtail Chub
HYPOTH ETHICAL
HYPOTH ETHICAL
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Ictalurus lupus
Headwater Catfish
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Macrhybopsis tetranema
Peppered Chub
NONE
PERIPHERAL
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
Moxostoma congestum
Gray Redhorse
NONE
HISTORICAL
HISTORICAL
HISTORICAL
PERIPHERAL
HISTORICAL
VERIFIED
Notropis jemezanus
Rio Grande Shiner
NONE
EXTIRPATED
PERIPHERAL
EXTIRPATED
EXTIRPATED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
MAMMALS (12)
Choeronycteris mexicana
Mexican Long-tongued Bat
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
PERIPHERAL
Lasiurus xanthinus
Western Yellow Bat
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Lasiurus blossevillii
Western Red Bat
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
NONE
Euderma maculatum
Spotted Bat
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
Idionycteris phyllotis
Allen's Lappet-browed Bat
NONE
NONE
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's Big-eared Bat
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Lepus callotis
White-sided Jack Rabbit
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Cynomys ludovicianus
Black-tailed Prairie Dog
NONE
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Cynomys gunnisoni
Gunnison's Prairie Dog
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
NONE
Thomomys bottae (umbrinus) paguatae
Cebolleta Pocket Gopher
PERIPHERAL
NONE
VERIFIED
PERIPHERAL
NONE
NONE
NONE
Zapus hudsonius luteus
Meadow (New Mexico)
PERIPHERAL
HYPOTH ETHICAL
HYPOTH ETHICAL
HYPOTH ETHICAL
HYPOTH ETHICAL
NONE
NONE
Nasua narica
White-nosed Coati
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
MOLLUSCS (1)
-------
Popenaias popeii
Texas Hornshell
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
REPTILES (7)
Heloderma suspectum suspectum
Reticulate Gila Monster
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Sceloporus arenicolus
Sand Dune Lizard
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
Aspidoscelis dixoni
Gray-checkered Whiptail
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Thamnophis eques megalops
Mexican Garter Snake
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Thamnophis rufipunctatus
Narrow-headed Garter Snake
NONE
NONE
NONE
PERIPHERAL
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Trachemys gaigeae gaigeae
Big Bend Slider
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
NONE
NONE
Pseudemys gorzugi
Western River Cooter
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
VERIFIED
VERIFIED
-------
New Mexico Department of Agriculture
Office of the Director/Secretary
MSC 3189
New Mexico State University
P.O. Box 30005
Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005
575-646-3007
October 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM
TO: General Public
FROM: Director/Secretary Jeff Witte
SUBJECT: New Mexico Noxious Weed List Update
The Director of the New Mexico Department of Agriculture has selected the following plant
species (see attached New Mexico Noxious Weed List) to be targeted as noxious weeds for
control or eradication pursuant to the Noxious Weed Management Act of 1998.
Petitions to add new plant species to the state noxious weed list were solicited and received by
the New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) from Cooperative Weed Management
Areas, individuals, agencies, and organizations. The petitions were reviewed by the New Mexico
Weed List Advisory Committee using ecological, distribution, impact, and legal status criteria
within the State of New Mexico and adjoining states and countries. Based on their extensive
knowledge and experience, experts from the New Mexico State University Plant Sciences
Department added several species as well.
This list does not include every plant species with the potential to negatively impact the state's
environment or economy. Landowners and land managers are encouraged to recognize plant
species listed on the federal noxious weed list and other western states' noxious weed lists as
potentially having negative impacts and to manage them accordingly.
NM
STATE
UNIVERSITY
-------
New Mexico Noxious Weed List
Updated September 2016
Class A Species
Class A species are currently not present in New Mexico, or have limited distribution. Preventing new
infestations of these species and eradicating existing infestations is the highest priority.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Alfombrilla
Black henbane
Brazillian egeria
Camelthorn
Canada thistle
Dalmation toadflax
Diffuse knapweed
Dyer's woad
Giant salvinia
Hoary cress
Leafy spurge
Oxeye daisy
Purple loosestrife
Purple starthistle
Ravenna grass
Scentless chamomile
Scotch thistle
Spotted knapweed
Yellow starthistle
Yellow toadflax
Drymaria arenariodes
Hyoscyamus niger
Egeria densa
Alhagi psuedalhagi
Cirsium arvense
Linaria dalmatica
Centaurea diffusa
Isatis tinctoria
Salvinia molesta
Cardaria spp.
Euphorbia esula
Leucanthemum vulgare
Lythrum salicaria
Centaurea calcitrapa
Saccharum ravennae
Matricaria perforata
Onopordum acanthium
Centaurea biebersteinii
Centaurea solstitialis
Linaria vulgaris
Class B Species
Class B Species are limited to portions of the state. In areas with severe infestations, management
should be designed to contain the infestation and stop any further spread.
Common Name
Scientific Name
African rue
Bull thistle
Chicory
Halogeton
Malta starthistle
Perennial pepperweed
Poison hemlock
Peganum harmala
Cirsium vulgare
Cichorium intybus
Halogeton glomeratus
Centaurea melitensis
Lepidium latifolium
Conium maculatum
-------
Quackgrass
Russian knapweed
Spiny cocklebur
Teasel
Elytrigia repens
Acroptilon repens
Xanthium spinosum
Dipsacus full on um
Class C Species
Class C species are wide-spread in the state. Management decisions for these species should be
determined at the local level, based on feasibility of control and level of infestation.
Common Name Scientific Name
Cheatgrass
Curlyleaf pondweed
Eurasian watermilfoil
Giant cane
Hyd ri lla
Jointed goatgrass
Musk thistle
Parrotfeather
Russian olive
Salt cedar
Siberian elm
Tree of heaven
Bromus tectorum
Potamogeton crispus
Myriophyllum spicatum
Arundo donax
Hydrilla verticllata
Aegilops cylindrica
Carduus nutans
Myriophyllum aquaticum
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Tamarix spp.
Ulmus pumila
Ailanthus altissima
Watch List Species
Watch List species are species of concern in the state. These species have the potential to become problematic.
More data is needed to determine if these species should be listed. When these species are encountered
please document their location and contact appropriate authorities.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Crimson fountaingrass
Meadow knapweed
Myrtle spurge
Pampas grass
Sahara mustard
Syrian beancaper
Wall rocket
Pennisetum setaceum
Centaurea pratensis
Euphorbia myrsinites
Cortaderia sellonana
Brassica tournefortii
Zygophyllum fabago L
Diplotaxis tenuifolia
-------
Locations of Western Burrowing Owl Burrows within the Survey Area
BURROW #
UTM EAST ZONE 13 NAD 83
UTM NORTH ZONE 13 NAD 83
1
241505.7297
3922980.38
2
241472.6848
3923157.886
3
241487.4199
3923139.379
4
241513.5852
3923151.711
5
241623.2205
3923441.085
6
241633.8896
3923442.272
7
241665.5226
3923447.213
8
241692.4228
3923426.135
9
241841.9656
3923108.906
10
241838.1861
3923103.704
11
241826.4991
3923102.94
12
237973.95
3924292.401
13
237974.4592
3924350.441
14
239533.3621
3923386.432
15
239521.6627
3923361.00
16
239515.1164
3923356.98
-------
Animals Observed or Expected to Occur at the Study Area
BIRDS
Family Anatidae: Ducks, Geese, Swans
Gadwall (Anas strepera)
Mallard (Anasplatyrhynchos)
Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata)
Northern pintail (Anas acuta)
Family Odontophoridae: New World Quail
Scaled quail (Callipepla squamata)
Family Columbidae: Pigeons, Doves
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
Family Cuculidae: Cuckoos, Roadrunners, Anis
Greater roadrunner (Geococcyz californianus)
Family Charadriidae: Plovers
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous)
Family Ardeidae: Bitterns, Herons
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
Family Cathartidae: American Vultures
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Family Accipitridae: Kites, Eagles, Hawks
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Family Strigidae: Typical Owls
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
Family Picidae: Woodpeckers
Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus)
Family Falconidae: Caracaras, Falcons
American kestrel (Falco sparverius)
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)
Family Tyrannidae: Tyrant Flycatchers
Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya)
Ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens)
Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)
Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans)
-------
Family Laniidae: Shrikes
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Family Corvidae: Jays, Magpies, Crows
Common raven (Corvus corax)
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Family Alaudidae: Larks
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)
Family Hirundinidae: Swallows
Cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Family Mimidae: Mockingbirds, Thrashers
Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
Family Fringillidae: Finches
House finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)
Family Emberizidae: Sparrows
Abert's towhee (Melozone aberti)
Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine)
Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus)
Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus)
Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri)
Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli)
White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis)
Family Icteridae: Blackbirds, Orioles
Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
REPTILES
Crotaphytidae
Aspidoscelis velox (Plateau striped whiptail)
Phrynosomatidae
Scleoporus cowlesi (Southwestern lizard)
Phrynosoma hernandesi (Greater Short-horned lizard)
Colubridae
Thamnophis elegans vagrans (Wandering Garter Snake)
Pituophis catenifer (Bull snake)
Viperidae
Crotalus viridis (Prairie rattlesnake)
-------
MAMMALS
CAN I DAE
Canis latrans (Coyote) Tracks Scat
FELIDAE
Puma concolor (Mountain lion) (Tracks)
CRICETIDAE
*Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) N. albigula or N. Stephensi
GEOMYIDAE
*Thomomys bottae (Botta's pocket gopher)
HETEROMYIDAE
*Dipodomys ordii (Ord's kangaroo rat)
*Dipodomys spetabilis (Banner-tailed kangaroo rat)
LEPORIDAE
*Sylvilagus auduboni (desert cottontail)
*Lepus californicus (Black-tailed jackrabbit)
SCIURIDAE
*Cynomys gunnisoni (Gunnison's prairie dog)
CERVIDAE
*Cervus elaphus (Elk)
*Odocoileus hemionus (Mule deer)
-------
Animals Observed or Expected to Occur at the Study Area
BIRDS
Family Anatidae: Ducks, Geese, Swans
Gadwall (Anas strepera)
Mallard (Anasplatyrhynchos)
Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata)
Northern pintail (Anas acuta)
Family Odontophoridae: New World Quail
Scaled quail (Callipepla squamata)
Family Columbidae: Pigeons, Doves
Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
Family Cuculidae: Cuckoos, Roadrunners, Anis
Greater roadrunner (Geococcyz californianus)
Family Charadriidae: Plovers
Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous)
Family Ardeidae: Bitterns, Herons
Great blue heron (Ardea herodias)
Family Cathartidae: American Vultures
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Family Accipitridae: Kites, Eagles, Hawks
Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus)
Family Strigidae: Typical Owls
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)
Family Picidae: Woodpeckers
Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus)
Family Falconidae: Caracaras, Falcons
American kestrel (Falco sparverius)
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)
Family Tyrannidae: Tyrant Flycatchers
Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya)
Ash-throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens)
Western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis)
Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans)
-------
Family Laniidae: Shrikes
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)
Family Corvidae: Jays, Magpies, Crows
Common raven (Corvus corax)
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)
Family Alaudidae: Larks
Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris)
Family Hirundinidae: Swallows
Cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota)
Family Mimidae: Mockingbirds, Thrashers
Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos)
Family Fringillidae: Finches
House finch (Haemorhous mexicanus)
Family Emberizidae: Sparrows
Abert's towhee (Melozone aberti)
Chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine)
Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus)
Vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus)
Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri)
Sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli)
White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys)
Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis)
Family Icteridae: Blackbirds, Orioles
Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
REPTILES
Crotaphytidae
Aspidoscelis velox (Plateau striped whiptail)
Phrynosomatidae
Scleoporus cowlesi (Southwestern lizard)
Phrynosoma hernandesi (Greater Short-horned lizard)
Colubridae
Thamnophis elegans vagrans (Wandering Garter Snake)
Pituophis catenifer (Bull snake)
Viperidae
Crotalus viridis (Prairie rattlesnake)
-------
MAMMALS
CAN I DAE
Canis latrans (Coyote) Tracks Scat
FELIDAE
Puma concolor (Mountain lion) (Tracks)
CRICETIDAE
*Neotoma sp. (Woodrat) N. albigula or N. Stephensi
GEOMYIDAE
*Thomomys bottae (Botta's pocket gopher)
HETEROMYIDAE
*Dipodomys ordii (Ord's kangaroo rat)
*Dipodomys spetabilis (Banner-tailed kangaroo rat)
LEPORIDAE
*Sylvilagus auduboni (desert cottontail)
*Lepus californicus (Black-tailed jackrabbit)
SCIURIDAE
*Cynomys gunnisoni (Gunnison's prairie dog)
CERVIDAE
*Cervus elaphus (Elk)
*Odocoileus hemionus (Mule deer)
-------
APPENDIX B
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT
-------
Redacted due to sensitive cultural concerns by the Navajo Nation Tribal
Historical Preservation Officer and the New Mexico State Historical
Preservation Officer.
-------
APPENDIX C
EBERLINE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC. ANALYTICAL DATA PACKAGES
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
BACKGROUND REFERENCE AREA SOIL SAMPLES
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 1 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
k W1
llll%
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 2 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 3 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 4 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 5 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 6 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 7 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 8 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 9 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 10 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 11 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 12 of 13
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 13 of 13
Eberline Analytical
Final Report of Analysis
Report To:
Work Order Details:
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08019
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
13702 Coursey Blvd, #7A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
ID
Sample
Type
Client
ID
Sample
Date
Receipt
Date
Analysis
Date
Batch
ID
Analyte
Method
Result
cu
csu
MDA
Report
Units
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.93E+00
2.69E-01
2.86E-01
4.11 E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.69E+00
1.74E-01
1.95E-01
5.34E-02
pCi/g
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.52E+01
2.74E+00
3.03E+00
1.16E+00
pCi/g
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.87E+00
6.68E+00
6.68E+00
1.11 E+01
pCi/g
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.32E+00
2.36E-01
2.64E-01
2.73E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.92E+00
1.74E-01
2.00E-01
2.39E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.69E+00
1.74E-01
1.95E-01
5.34E-02
pCi/g
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.29E+00
1.45E+00
1.45E+00
2.42E+00
pCi/g
16-08019-19
TRG
10-16-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.54E+00
2.05E-01
2.19E-01
1.46 E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.75E+00
2.70E-01
2.84E-01
3.70E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.58E+00
2.09E-01
2.25E-01
2.21 E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.41 E+01
2.79E+00
3.05E+00
1.06E+00
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
4.73E+00
6.29E+00
6.30E+00
1.05E+01
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.31 E-01
1.53E-01
1.53E-01
2.34E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.62E+00
2.33E-01
2.48E-01
2.59E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.58E+00
2.09E-01
2.25E-01
2.21 E-01
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.53E+00
1.77E+00
1.77E+00
2.96E+00
pCi/g
16-08019-20
TRG
10-17-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/29/2016
16-08019
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.46E+00
2.03E-01
2.17E-01
2.05E-01
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA= Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 1 of 4
Eberline Analytical
Final Report of Analysis
Report To:
Work Order Details:
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08020
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
13702 Coursey Blvd, #7A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
ID
Sample
Type
Client
ID
Sample
Date
Receipt
Date
Analysis
Date
Batch
ID
Analyte
Method
Result
cu
csu
MDA
Report
Units
Gamma Run 1
16-08020-01
LCS
KNOWN
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Cobalt-60
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.37E+02
5.48E+00
pCi/g
16-08020-01
LCS
KNOWN
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
8.69E+01
3.48E+00
pCi/g
16-08020-01
LCS
SPIKE
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Cobalt-60
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.43E+02
8.34E+00
1.11E+01
7.61 E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-01
LCS
SPIKE
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
9.08E+01
8.15E+00
9.39E+00
8.64E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
8.83E-02
1.30E-01
1.30E-01
2.67E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.38E-02
7.79E-02
7.80E-02
1.46E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
-2.21 E-02
4.50E-02
4.50E-02
6.90E-02
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
-2.37E-02
4.50E-01
4.50E-01
7.52E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
3.28E-01
3.75E+00
3.75E+00
6.93E+00
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.40E-02
5.64E-02
5.65E-02
9.93E-02
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
7.08E-02
8.09E-02
8.10E-02
1.45E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.38E-02
7.79E-02
7.80E-02
1.46E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.69E-01
3.89E-01
3.89E-01
6.43E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-02
MBL
BLANK
08/04/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
-7.46E-03
1.31E-01
1.31E-01
2.14E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.00E+00
2.99E-01
3.16E-01
5.27E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.68E+00
2.20E-01
2.36E-01
2.89E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
4.45E-01
1.27E-01
1.29E-01
1.76E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.32E+01
2.79E+00
3.03E+00
1.28E+00
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.08E+01
8.88E+00
8.90E+00
1.43E+01
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.91E+00
2.14E-01
2.35E-01
3.24E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.65E+00
1.95E-01
2.12E-01
3.15E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.68E+00
2.20E-01
2.36E-01
2.89E-01
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.66E+00
1.87E+00
1.87E+00
3.12E+00
pCi/g
16-08020-03
DUP
10-18-61-160714
07/14/16 00:00
8/4/2016
8/15/2016
16-08020
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.79E+00
2.56E-01
2.72E-01
1.55 E-01
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA= Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 2 of 4
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08020
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 3 of 4
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08020
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
Printed: 9/27/2019 9:08 PM
Page 4 of 4
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinf
1 Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-08020
M ^ 1
^ 1 1 W
-------
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
-------
Printed: 2/7/2020 9:48 AM
Page 1 of 2
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
line
» Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-07036
Weston Solutions
, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
Final Report ot Analysis
13702 Coursey Blvd, #7A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
Sample
Client
Sample
j Receipt j
Analysis 1
Batch
Analyte
Method
Result
I CO I
csu
MDA |
Report
ID
Type
ID
Date
| Date |
Date |
ID
Units
16-07036-01
LCS
KNOWN
07/12/16 00:00
j 7/12/2016 j
8/3/2016 j
16-07036
Cobalt-60
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.37E+02
j 5.48E+00 j
|
pCi/g
16-07036-01
LCS
KNOWN
07/12/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/3/2016
16-07036
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
8 69E+01
3.48E+00 |
pCi/g
16-07036-01
LCS
SPIKE
07/12/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/3/2016
16-07036
Cobalt-60
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 35E+02
7 83E+00
1 05E+01
1 09E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-01
LCS
SPIKE
07/12/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/3/2016
16-07036
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
8 93E+01
1 7.91 E+00
914E+00
1.29E+00 !
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANH
07/12/16 00:00
f 7/12/2016 |
s
8/3/2016 I
16-07036
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.06E-01
f 1.44E-01 T
1.44E-01
2.90E-01 1
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANK
07/12/16 00:00
1 7/12/2016 1
8/3/2016 I
16-07036
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
9.61 E-03
E-02 1
8.99E-02
1.51 E-01 1
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANK
07/12/16 00:00
1 7/12/2016 1
8/3/2016 1
16-07036
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.56E-01
E-01 !
2.45E-01
6.41 E-01 1
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANK
07/12/16 00:00
1 7/12/2016 1
8/3/2016 1
16-07036
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
4.58E-01
I 5.87E+00 !
5.87E+00
8.79E+00 1
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANK
07/12/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/3/2016
16-07036
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 51E-02
5 81 E-02
5 81 E-02
9 63E-02
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANK
07/12/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/3/2016 j
16-07036
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.21E-01
1 1.01 E-01 j
1 01 E-01
1 62E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANK
07/12/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/3/2016
16-07036
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
9 61 E-03
8 99E-02
8 99E-02
1 51 E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANK
07/12/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/3/2016
16-07036
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
3 35E-01
1 3.84E-01 J
3 85E-01
6 41 E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-02
MBL
BLANK
07/12/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/3/2016
16-07036
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 84E-01
E-01
1 77E-01
2 32E-01 1
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 62E+00
2 50E-01
2 63E-01
4.44E-01 J
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 62E+00
2 03E-01
2 19E-01
2 15E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 20E+01
2 51E+00
2 75E+00
9 02E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
-2 09E-01
f 5.78E+00 |
5 78E+00
8 85E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 02E+00
2 93E-01
3 11 E-01
2 18E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 57E+00
2 21 E-01
2 35E-01
2 01 E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 62E+00
1 2.03E-01
2 19E-01
2 15E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016 j
16-07036
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 22E+00
j 1.30E+00 j
1 31E+00
213E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-03
DUP
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 44E+00
I 2.02E-01 T
2 16E-01
1.41 E-01 I
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
j 7/12/2016 f
8/4/2016
16-07036
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 84E+00
I Z63E"01 I
2 80E-01
3 27E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 46E+00
E-01 i
2 29E-01
2 36E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 28E+01
2 57E+00
2 82E+00
7 21 E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 74E+00
5 47E+00
5 48E+00
8.99E+00 j
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 91E+00
2 81 E-01
2 98E-01
2 45E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 67E+00
2 34E-01
2 49E-01
2 34E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 46E+00
I 2.17E-01 T
2 29E-01
2 36E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 26E+00
1 1.47E+00
1 47E+00
2 46E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-04
DO
10-01-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
| 7/12/2016 |
8/4/2016 |
16-07036
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.39E+00
| 2.02E-01 |
2.14E-01
8.54E-02 |
pCi/g
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
I 7/12/2016 |
8/4/2016 J
16-07036
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.04E+00
I 5.10E-01 I
5.13E-01
8.87E-01 J
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 2/7/2020 9:48 AM
Page 2 of 2
Eberline Analytical
Final Report of Analysis
Report To:
Work Order Details:
David Bordelon
SDG:
16-07036
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
13702 Coursey Blvd, #7A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
ID
Sample
Type
Client
ID
Sample
Date
Receipt
Date
Analysis
Date
Batch
ID
Analyte
Method
Result
cu
csu
MDA
Report
Units
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.47E+01
1.17E+00
1.39E+00
8.08E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.86E+01
3.54E+00
3.67E+00
3.55E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.69E+01
2.36E+01
2.37E+01
3.90E+01
pCi/g
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.06E+00
4.06E-01
4.20E-01
5.88E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.53E+01
1.37E+00
1.58E+00
9.01 E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.47E+01
1.17E+00
1.39E+00
8.08E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
8.24E+00
3.52E+00
3.54E+00
5.75E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-05
TRG
10-02-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
4.70E-01
2.24E-01
2.25E-01
2.15E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.04E+00
2.48E-01
2.54E-01
4.05E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
9.24E-01
1.64E-01
1.70E-01
2.12E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.32E+01
1.84E+00
1.96E+00
1.07E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.32E+00
5.87E+00
5.87E+00
9.48E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.22E+00
1.50E-01
1.63E-01
2.55E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.10E+00
1.75E-01
1.84E-01
2.69E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
9.24E-01
1.64E-01
1.70E-01
2.12E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.47E+00
1.35E+00
1.35E+00
1.83E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-06
TRG
10-03-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
8.41 E-01
1.60E-01
1.66E-01
2.34E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.83E+00
4.33E-01
4.43E-01
7.41 E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.37E+00
3.14E-01
3.21 E-01
5.01 E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.95E+01
3.29E+00
3.44E+00
1.62E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.65E+01
1.06E+01
1.06E+01
2.10E+01
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.23E+00
4.05E-01
4.21 E-01
4.99E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.57E+00
3.40E-01
3.49E-01
5.52E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.37E+00
3.14E-01
3.21 E-01
5.01 E-01
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.35E+00
1.43E+00
1.44E+00
2.25E+00
pCi/g
16-07036-07
TRG
10-04-31-160628
06/28/16 00:00
7/12/2016
8/4/2016
16-07036
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.29E+00
3.74E-01
3.80E-01
6.40E-01
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 2/7/2020 12:57 PM
Page 1 of 3
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
line
» Analvtical
Jeff Wright
SDG:
17-03072
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
Final Report ot Analysis
13702 Coursey Blvd, Bldg 7, Suite A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
Sample
Client
Sample
j Receipt j
Analysis
Batch
Analyte
Method
Result
I CO I
csu
MDA |
Report
ID
Type
ID
Date
| Date |
Date
ID
Units
17-03072-01
LCS
KNOWN
03/20/17 00:00
j 3/17/2017 j
3/20/2017
17-03072
Co bait-60
LANL ER-130 Modified
6.21 E+01
j 2.48E+00 j
j
pCi/g
17-03072-01
LCS
KNOWN
03/20/17 00:00
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
3 94E+01
1 58E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-01
LCS
SPIKE
03/20/17 00:00
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cobalt-60
LANL ER-130 Modified
618E+01
I 3.71 E+00 f
4.88E+00
4 41E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-01
LCS
SPIKE
03/20/17 00:00
3/17/2017
I
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
3 89E+01
| 3.31 E+00 I
3.86E+00
4 87E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANH
03/20/17 00:00
f 3/17/2017 f
3/20/2017
17-03072
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
6.23E-02
1 5.21 E-02 !
5.22E-02
-01 i
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
1 3/17/2017 1
3/20/2017
17-03072
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.31 E-02
! 4.71 E-02 1
4.71 E-02
7.93E-02 !
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
j 3/17/2017 I
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.67E-02
! 2.13E-02 !
2.13E-02
3 80E-02
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
f 3/17/2017 |
3/20/2017
17-03072
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.00E-01
1 2.15E-01 1
2.15E-01
4 98E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.14E-01
2 97E+00
2.97E+00
4 57E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.19E-02
| 2.34E-02 J
2.34E-02
3 97E-02
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 90E-02
I 3.53E-02 J
3.53E-02
1 00E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 31 E-02
4 71 E-02
4.71 E-02
7 93E-02
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
j 3/17/2017 I
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 03E-01
1 70E-01
1.70E-01
2 82E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-02
MBL
BLANK
03/20/17 00:00
f 3/17/2017 |
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
-2 91 E-02
E-02
6.18E-02
8 26E-02
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
5 16E-01
2 57E-01
2 58E-01
5 82E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-17C
02/02/17 12:30
f 3/17/2017 T
3/20/2017
17-03072
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 32E+01
1 33E+00
1.78E+00
3 36E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
F 3/17/2017 j
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
-02
3 91 E-02
3.92E-02
1 15E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 08E+01
| 2.34E+00 I
2.58E+00
2 05E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
4 09E+01
1 22E+01
1.24E+01
1 87E+01
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
3 82E-01
1 45E-01
1.46E-01
4 42E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 36E+01
j 5.91 E+00 J
6.03E+00
4 51E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 32E+01
! 1.33E+00 !
1.78E+00
3 36E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
417E+01
4 39E+00
4.88E+00
4 93E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-03
DUP
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
| 3/17/2017 |
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
8.06E-01
I 6.68E-01 |
6.69E-01
2.23E-01 |
pCi/g
17-03072-04
O
Q
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
I 3/17/2017 |
3/20/2017
17-03072
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
6.01E-01
! 3.55E-01 |
3.57E-01
6.64E-01 |
pCi/g
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.32E+01
1 35E+00
1.80E+00
4 06E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
-3 22E-01
I 9.73E-02 1
9.87E-02
1 15E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 97E+01
| 2.15E+00 1
2.38E+00
1 69E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
4 81E+01
I 1.16E+01 j
1.18E+01
3 05E+01
pCi/g
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
4 84E-01
J 1.72E-01 j
1.74E-01
4 34E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 41E+01
j 6.04E+00 |
6.17E+00
4 74E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
j 3/17/2017 I
3/20/2017
17-03072
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 32E+01
1 1.35E+00 [
1.80E+00
4 06E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
f 3/17/2017 |
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
4 25E+01
4 23E+00
4.76E+00
4 39E+00
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 2/7/2020 12:57 PM
Page 2 of 3
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinc
» Analvtical
Jeff Wright
SDG:
17-03072
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
Final Report ot Analysis
13702 Coursey Blvd, Bldg 7, Suite A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
Sample
Client
Sample
J Receipt
Analysis
Batch
Analyte
Method
Result
CU
CSU
MDA
Report
ID
Type
ID
Date
| Date
Date
ID
Units
17-03072-04
DO
10-05-31-170202
02/02/17 12:30
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
4 07E-01
9 15E-02
9 38E-02
1.35E-02
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
7.26E-01
2.82E-01
2 85E-01
6.59E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-17C
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.60E+01
3 48E+00
4 51E+00
3.62E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
6 15E-03
3.85E-02
3 85E-02
1.18E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 00E+01
2 38E+00
2 59E+00
2.13E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
5 96E+01
1.47E+01
1 50E+01
2.07E+01
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-210
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 97E+01
2 55E+00
2 55E+00
4.00E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
-1 84E+01
2.32E+00
2 51E+00
2.59E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
5 45E+01
6.52E+00
7 09E+00
3.98E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
5 60E+01
3 48E+00
4 51E+00
3.62E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
614E+01
5.80E+00
6 60E+00
5.73E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-05
TRG
10-06-31-170202
02/02/17 12:35
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
6 45E-01
1 48E-01
1 52E-01
8.45E-02
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 89E-01
2 03E-01
2 03E-01
3.27E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-17C
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 86E+01
1 86E+00
2 09E+00
2.53E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 07E-02
2.57E-02
2 57E-02
7.88E-02
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 93E+01
2 38E+00
2 58E+00
1.40E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 35E+01
1 12E+01
1 13E+01
1.30E+01
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
8 74E-01
3 43E-01
3 46E-01
3.39E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 82E+01
5 85E+00
5 92E+00
5.12E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 86E+01
1 86E+00
2 09E+00
2.53E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 73E+01
2.19E+00
2 37E+00
2.90E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-06
TRG
10-07-31-170202
02/02/17 12:40
] 3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
3.97E-01
1.07E-01
1.09E-01
7.27E-02
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
I 3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.96E-01
4.72E-01
4.72E-01
6.46E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
219E+01
1 58E+00
1 94E+00
4.56E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
-1 41E-02
4 70E-02
4 70E-02
1.67E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
215E+01
312E+00
3 31E+00
2.66E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 08E+01
1.38E+01
1 38E+01
2.25E+01
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
9 57E-01
2.60E-01
2 64E-01
4.42E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
1 3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.15E+01
1.34E+00
1.73E+00
4.11E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
1 3/17/2017
3/20/2017 1
17-03072
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.19E+01
1.58E+00
1.94E+00
4.56E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
1 3/17/2017
3/20/2017 1
17-03072
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.12E+01
1.74E+00
1.83E+00
2.47E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-07
TRG
10-08-31-170202
02/02/17 12:45
1 3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.65E-01
3.49E-01
3.50E-01
3.37E-01
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 2/7/2020 12:57 PM
Page 3 of 3
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
rlinc
» Analvtical
Jeff Wright
SDG:
17-03072
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
Final Keport ot Analysis
13702 Coursey Blvd, Bldg 7, Suite A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
Sample
Client
Sample
Receipt
Analysis
Batch
Analyte
Method
Result
CU
csu
MDA
Report
ID
Type
ID
Date
Date
Date
ID
Units
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
6.75E-01
4.85E-01
4.86E-01
9.16E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.40E+02
8.54E+00
1.12E+01
5.59E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
6.53E-02
5.97E-02
5.98E-02
1.80E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.31E+01
2.95E+00
3.18E+00
3.11 E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.27E+02
2.61 E+01
2.69E+01
3.50E+01
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
-4.40E+01
5.46E+00
5.91 E+00
4.06E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.35E+02
1.61 E+01
1.76E+01
6.34E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.40E+02
8.54E+00
1.12E+01
5.59E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.24E+02
1.02E+01
1.20E+01
6.70E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-08
TRG
10-09-31-170202
02/02/17 12:50
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
7.47E-01
1.82E-01
1.86E-01
1.72E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
6.42E-01
3.86E-01
3.88E-01
6.17E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
7.90E+01
7.81 E+00
8.80E+00
6.70E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.18E-03
5.05E-02
5.05E-02
1.56E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.19E+01
2.84E+00
3.06E+00
2.24E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.65E+01
2.33E+01
2.35E+01
2.23E+01
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-210
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.79E+01
5.90E+00
5.90E+00
4.37E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
-1.54E+01
5.15E+00
5.21 E+00
3.04E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
7.88E+01
2.52E+01
2.56E+01
8.06E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
7.90E+01
7.81 E+00
8.80E+00
6.70E-01
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.99E+01
5.35E+00
6.17E+00
5.06E+00
pCi/g
17-03072-09
TRG
10-10-31-170202
02/02/17 12:55
3/17/2017
3/20/2017
17-03072
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
4.51 E-01
1.29E-01
1.31 E-01
7.31 E-02
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
-------
Printed: 7/12/2019 11:10 AM
Page 1 of 4
Eberline Analytical
Final Report of Analysis
Report To:
Work Order Details:
David Bordelon
SDG:
17-01139
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
13702 Coursey Blvd, #7A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
ID
Sample
Type
Client
ID
Sample
Date
Receipt
Date
Analysis
Date
Batch
ID
Analyte
Method
Result
cu
csu
MDA
Report
Units
17-01139-01
LCS
KNOWN
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/31/2017
17-01139
Cobalt-60
LANL ER-130 Modified
6.21 E+01
2.48E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-01
LCS
KNOWN
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/31/2017
17-01139
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
3.94E+01
1.58E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-01
LCS
SPIKE
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/31/2017
17-01139
Cobalt-60
LANL ER-130 Modified
6.14E+01
3.48E+00
4.69E+00
3.82E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-01
LCS
SPIKE
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/31/2017
17-01139
Cesium-137
LANL ER-130 Modified
3.80E+01
3.31 E+00
3.84E+00
4.18E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
8.14E-02
6.81 E-02
6.82E-02
1.45E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
-1.81E-02
3.89E-02
3.89E-02
5.52E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
0.00E+00
1.55E-01
1.55E-01
3.08E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.17E+00
2.36E+00
2.36E+00
4.28E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
-6.39E-03
2.53E-02
2.53E-02
3.67E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.83E-02
2.80E-02
2.80E-02
4.94E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
-1.81E-02
3.89E-02
3.89E-02
5.52E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.61E-01
1.72E-01
1.72E-01
2.80E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-02
MBL
BLANK
01/27/17 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.28E-02
5.39E-02
5.40E-02
1.03E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.49E+00
2.20E-01
2.33E-01
4.39E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.09E+00
1.49E-01
1.59E-01
1.93E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.93E+01
2.52E+00
2.71 E+00
8.06E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.12E+00
5.89E+00
5.89E+00
8.43E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.29E+00
1.42E-01
1.57E-01
1.54E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.06E+00
1.21E-01
1.32E-01
1.70E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.09E+00
1.49E-01
1.59E-01
1.93E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.74E-01
5.80E-01
5.80E-01
8.50E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-03
DUP
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.30E+00
2.33E-01
2.42E-01
2.71 E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.52E+00
1.98E-01
2.13E-01
3.42E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.10E+00
1.69E-01
1.78E-01
2.02E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.81 E+01
2.42E+00
2.59E+00
1.01 E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
7.83E-01
6.58E+00
6.58E+00
9.19E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.31E+00
1.47E-01
1.62E-01
1.66 E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.09E+00
1.12E-01
1.25E-01
1.61 E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.10E+00
1.69E-01
1.78E-01
2.02E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.83E+00
8.59E-01
8.64E-01
1.41 E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-04
DO
10-01-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.41E+00
2.59E-01
2.69E-01
3.17E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.62E+00
4.15E-01
4.23E-01
2.06E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.31E+00
1.94E-01
2.05E-01
1.13E-01
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 7/12/2019 11:10 AM
Page 2 of 4
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
"line
» Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
17-01139
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
Final Report of Analysis
13702 Coursey Blvd, #7A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
ID
Sample
Type
Client
ID
Sample
Date
Receipt
Date
Analysis
Date
Batch
ID
Analyte
Method
Result
cu |
CSU
MDA
Report
Units
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.34E+01
2.74E+00 !
3.00E+00
9.07E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.47E+00
4.21 E+00 I
4.22E+00
6.21 E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 91E+00
5 43E-01
5.52E-01
1.72E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 36E+00
4 42E-01
4.47E-01
1 39E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 31E+00
1 94E-01
2.05E-01
1 13E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
5.92E+00
1.37E+00 I
1.40E+00
2.12E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-05
TRG
10-02-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.59E+00
3.23E-01 [
3.33E-01
1.11E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.59E+00
1.86E-01 J
2.03E-01
2.74E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
3 86E+00
3 15E-01 *
3.72E-01
1 66E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 99E+01
2 05E+00
2.29E+00
6 46E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
4 28E+00
3.59E+00 I
3.60E+00
5 85E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 44E+00
1.79E-01 [
1.93E-01
1 30E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
3 52E+00
4 36E-01
4.72E-01
1 35E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
3 86E+00
3 15E-01
3.72E-01
1 66E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
5 00E+00
1 08E+00
1.11 E+00
1 63E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-06
TRG
10-03-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 50E+00
2 30E-01
2.42E-01
5 49E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 42E+00
3.66E-01 [
3.73E-01
3 45E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 32E+00
1 85E-01
1.97E-01
1 50E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 68E+01
2 03E+00
2.20E+00
7 34E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 35E+01
5 46E+00
5.51 E+00
1 05E+01
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 27E+00
3 80E-01
3.86E-01
1 45E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 31E+00
4.28E-01 I
4.33E-01
1 35E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 32E+00
1.85E-01 [
1.97E-01
1 50E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 33E+01
1 69E+00
1.82E+00
219E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-07
TRG
10-04-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 20E+00
2 44E-01
2.52E-01
1 02E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 85E+00
1 93E-01
2.15E-01
1 74E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 31E+00
1 56E-01
1.70E-01
1 45E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 28E+01
2 33E+00
2.61 E+00
6 45E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 69E+01
5 30E+00
5.37E+00
7 39E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 53E+00
1.86E-01 f
2.02E-01
8 00E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 35E+00
1.80E-01 [
1.93E-01
1 20E-01
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 7/12/2019 11:10 AM
Page 3 of 4
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
"line
* Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
17-01139
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
Final Report of Analysis
13702 Coursey Blvd, #7A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
ID
Sample
Type
Client
ID
Sample
Date
Receipt
Date
Analysis
Date
Batch
ID
Analyte
Method
Result
cu |
csu
MDA
Report
Units
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.31E+00
1.56E-01 !
1.70E-01
1.45E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.08E+01
1.44E+00 I
1.54E+00
2.24E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-08
TRG
10-04-2-32-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.70E+00
2.35E-01 ,
2.50E-01
9.17E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.86E+00
4.76E-01 I
4.85E-01
2.35E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 40E+00
1 95E-01
2.08E-01
1 67E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 23E+01
2 63E+00
2.86E+00
8 85E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
3 05E+00
3 06E+00
3.07E+00
4 79E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 98E+00
5 59E-01
5.68E-01
1 52E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 40E+00
4 57E-01
4.63E-01
1 56E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 40E+00
1 95E-01
2.08E-01
1 67E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 60E+00
1.06E+00 I
1.07E+00
1 72E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-09
TRG
10-05-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 63E+00
3.07E-01 [
3.18E-01
8 09E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.47E+00
1.69E-01 J
1.85E-01
2 44E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 10E+00
1 38E-01 *
1.49E-01
1 10E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 97E+01
2 02E+00
2.26E+00
5 66E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 37E+00
2.16E+00 I
2.16E+00
3 50E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 20E+00
1.52E-01 [
1.64E-01
6 61E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 09E+00
1 46E-01
1.56E-01
8 72E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 10E+00
1 38E-01
1.49E-01
1 10E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 40E+00
8 05E-01
8.08E-01
1 32E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-10
TRG
10-06-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.33E+00
1.88E-01 I
2.00E-01
9.20E-02
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.53E+00
2.69E-01 I
2.80E-01
3.44E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 45E+00
2 31E-01
2.43E-01
1.72E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 23E+01
217E+00
2.45E+00
7 71E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactimum-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 28E+00
3 04E+00
3.04E+00
614E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 67E+00
1 54E-01
1.76E-01
1 58E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 20E+00
3.48E-01 [
3.53E-01
1.64E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 45E+00
2 31E-01
2.43E-01
1 72E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.68E+00
1.02E+00 !
1.02E+00
1.68E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-11
TRG
10-07-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.70E+00
7.83E-01 I
7.88E-01
2.26E-01
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
Printed: 7/12/2019 11:10 AM
Page 4 of 4
Report To:
Work Order Details:
Ebei
"line
» Analvtical
David Bordelon
SDG:
17-01139
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Purchase Order:
0090911
Final Report of Analysis
13702 Coursey Blvd, #7A
Analysis Category:
ENVIRONMENTAL
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
Sample Matrix:
SO
Lab
ID
Sample
Type
Client
ID
Sample
Date
Receipt
Date
Analysis
Date
Batch
ID
Analyte
Method
Result
cu |
CSU
MDA
Report
Units
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.34E+00
1.95E-01 !
2.07E-01
3.68E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
9.77E-01
1.74E-01 I
1.81E-01
2.28E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 45E+01
3 06E+00
3.31 E+00
6.84E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
0 00E+00
6 48E+00
6.48E+00
8 99E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 30E+00
1 46E-01
1.60E-01
1 55E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
8.87E-01
1.18E-01 I
1.27E-01
1.94E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
9.77E-01
1.74E-01 !
1.81E-01
2.28E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.27E+00
9.76E-01 !
9.83E-01
1.59E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-12
TRG
10-08-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.14E+00
2.26E-01 !
2.34E-01
2.72E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.43E+00
3.69E-01 I
3.76E-01
2.67E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1.07E+00
1.93E-01 I
2.00E-01
1.12E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2.19E+01
2.53E+00 !
2.77E+00
7.17E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
6 85E+00
4 24E+00
4.26E+00
571E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 48E+00
4 26E-01
4.33E-01
1.19E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 14E+00
3 73E-01
3.78E-01
1 41E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 07E+00
1 93E-01
2.00E-01
1 12E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
5 84E+00
1 13E+00
1.17E+00
1 68E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-13
TRG
10-09-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 17E+00
2 35E-01
2.43E-01
1 34E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Actinium-228
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 46E+00
1 68E-01
1.84E-01
2 53E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Bismuth-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 69E+00
1 86E-01
2.06E-01
1 16E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Potassium-40
LANL ER-130 Modified
2 22E+01
2 25E+00
2.52E+00
4 95E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Protactinium-234m
LANL ER-130 Modified
216E+01
5 52E+00
5.63E+00
717E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-212
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 36E+00
1 66E-01
1.80E-01
1 23E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Lead-214
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 69E+00
2 17E-01
2.34E-01
1 15E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Radium-226
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 69E+00
1 86E-01
2.06E-01
1 16E-01
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thorium-234
LANL ER-130 Modified
8 70E+00
1 35E+00
1.42E+00
2 23E+00
pCi/g
17-01139-14
TRG
10-10-2-31-161112
11/12/16 00:00
1/27/2017
1/30/2017
17-01139
Thallium-208
LANL ER-130 Modified
1 50E+00
2 10E-01
2.23E-01
1 20E-01
pCi/g
CU=Counting Uncertainty;CSU=Combined Standard Uncertainty (2-sigma);MDA=Minimal Detected Activity;LCS=Laboratory Control Sample; MBL=Blank; DUP=Duplicate; TRG=Normal Sample; DO=Duplicate Original
-------
APPENDIX D
BACKGROUND PROUCL STATISTICAL RESULTS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Section 10
Background Ra-226 BTV_UTL95-95
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Coverage
New or Future K Observations
Number of Bootstrap Operations
Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
ProllCL 5.15/16/2019 8:19:18 AM
WorkSheet.xls
OFF
95%
95%
1
2000
CO
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations
20
Number of Distinct Observations
Minimum
1.22
First Quartile
Second Largest
1.73
Median
Maximum
1.73
Third Quartile
Mean
1.52
SD
Coefficient of Variation
0.0963
Skewness
Mean of logged Data
0.414
SD of logged Data
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL)
2.396
d2max (for USL)
Normal GOF Test
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
0.954
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
0.905
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.129
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.192
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
16
1.43
1.545
1.595
0.146
-0.32
0.0985
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.87
95% UPL (t) 1.779
95% USL 1.894
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
1.707
1.76
1.86
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
0.358 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.74 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.141 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test
0.193 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
khat(MLE) 110.3
Theta hat (MLE) 0.0138
nuhat(MLE) 4412
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 1.52
k star (bias corrected MLE) 93.8
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.0162
nu star (bias corrected) 3752
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.157
-------
Section 10
Background Ra-226 BTV_UTL95-95 (continued)
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 1.793
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 1.795
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.898
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 1.902
95% WH USL 1.926
90% Percentile
95% Percentile
99% Percentile
1.724
1.786
1.908
95% HW USL 1.931
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Lognormal GOF Test
0.946
0.905
0.146
0.192
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.915
95% UPL (t) 1.801
95% USL 1.946
90% Percentile (z)
95% Percentile (z)
99% Percentile (z)
1.716
1.779
1.902
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 20
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.053
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 1.73
95% UPL 1.73
90% Chebyshev UPL 1.969
95% Chebyshev UPL 2.173
95% USL 1.73
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 1.73
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.642
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 59
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 1.73
90% Percentile 1.712
95% Percentile 1.73
99% Percentile 1.73
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
-------
Section 10
Background Gamma Count BTV_UTL95-95
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation
From File
Full Precision
Confidence Coefficient
Coverage
New or Future K Observations
Number of Bootstrap Operations
Background Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
ProllCL 5.15/16/2019 8:30:02 AM
WorkSheet.xls
OFF
95%
95%
1
2000
CO
General Statistics
Total Number of Observations 20
Minimum 15497
Second Largest 16680
Maximum 16739
Mean 16258
Coefficient of Variation 0.0193
Mean of logged Data 9.696
Number of Distinct Observations 20
First Quartile 16109
Median 16335
Third Quartile 16425
SD 313.4
Skewness -0.794
SD of logged Data 0.0194
Critical Values for Background Threshold Values (BTVs)
Tolerance Factor K (For UTL) 2.396
d2max (for USL) 2.557
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Normal GOF Test
0.946
0.905
0.167
0.192
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics Assuming Normal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 17009
95% UPL (t) 16813
95% USL 17059
90% Percentile (z) 16659
95% Percentile (z) 16773
99% Percentile (z) 16987
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
0.441 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.74 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.16 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Gamma GOF Test
0.193 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Gamma Statistics
khat(MLE) 2806
Theta hat (MLE) 5.795
nu hat (MLE) 112220
MLE Mean (bias corrected) 16258
k star (bias corrected MLE) 2385
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 6.817
nu star (bias corrected) 95389
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 332.9
-------
Section 10
Background Gamma Count BTV_UTL95-95 (cont'd)
Background Statistics Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Wilson Hilferty (WH) Approx. Gamma UPL 16820
95% Hawkins Wixley (HW) Approx. Gamma UPL 16821
95% WH Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 17022
95% HW Approx. Gamma UTL with 95% Coverage 17024
95% WH USL 17074
90% Percentile 16686
95% Percentile 16809
99% Percentile 17042
95% HW USL 17076
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Lognormal GOF Test
0.942
0.905
0.171
0.192
Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Background Statistics assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 17029
95% UPL (t) 16824
95% USL 17082
90% Percentile (z) 16664
95% Percentile (z) 16782
99% Percentile (z) 17006
Nonparametric Distribution Free Background Statistics
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Upper Limits for Background Threshold Values
Order of Statistic, r 20
Approx, f used to compute achieved CC 1.053
95% Percentile Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 16739
95% UPL 16736
90% Chebyshev UPL 17221
95% Chebyshev UPL 17658
95% USL 16739
95% UTL with 95% Coverage 16739
Approximate Actual Confidence Coefficient achieved by UTL 0.642
Approximate Sample Size needed to achieve specified CC 59
95% BCA Bootstrap UTL with 95% Coverage 16739
90% Percentile 16591
95% Percentile 16683
99% Percentile 16728
Note: The use of USL tends to yield a conservative estimate of BTV, especially when the sample size starts exceeding 20.
Therefore, one may use USL to estimate a BTV only when the data set represents a background data set free of outliers
and consists of observations collected from clean unimpacted locations.
The use of USL tends to provide a balance between false positives and false negatives provided the data
represents a background data set and when many onsite observations need to be compared with the BTV.
-------
APPENDIX E
HALL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS LABORATORY
ANALYTICAL RESULTS DATA PACKAGE
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc. Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 10-02-31-181031 -M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 10/31/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-001 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst: rde
Mercury
ND
0.032
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 4:45:44 PM 41736
EPA METHOD 6010B: SOIL METALS
Analyst: ELS
Aluminum
11000
300
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:20:27 PM 41542
Antimony
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11
00:24 AM 41542
Arsenic
ND
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11
00:24 AM 41542
Barium
190
0.20
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11
00:24 AM 41542
Beryllium
0.55
0.30
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11
00:24 AM 41542
Cadmium
ND
0.20
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11
00:24 AM 41542
Calcium
12000
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:28:04 AM 41542
Chromium
5.2
0.59
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:00:24 AM 41542
Cobalt
3.2
0.59
mg/Kg
2
11/30/2018 3:05:09 PM 41542
Copper
3.0
0.59
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:00:24 AM 41542
Iron
12000
250
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:20:27 PM 41542
Lead
5.7
0.49
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:00:24 AM 41542
Magnesium
3200
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:28:04 AM 41542
Manganese
200
0.20
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:00:24 AM 41542
Nickel
5.7
0.99
mg/Kg
2
11/30/2018 3:05:09 PM 41542
Potassium
2300
250
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:28:04 AM 41542
Selenium
ND
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:00:24 AM41542
Silver
-wtrvJSL.
0.49
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:00:24 AM41542
Sodium
150
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:28:04 AM 41542
Thallium
-ND UTL-
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11
00:24 AM 41542
Uranium
-N6 9.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11
00:24 AM 41542
Vanadium
14
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11
00:24 AM 41542
Zinc
25
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/30/2018 3:05:09 PM 41542
4^
Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
Qualifiers:
*
Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
B
Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D
Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
E
Value above quantitation range
H
Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
J
Analyte detected below quantitation limits pagg J 0f 14
Sample pH Not In Range
ND
Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
P
PQL
Practical Quanitative Limit
RL
Reporting Detection Limit
S
% Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
W
Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
-------
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 10-03-31-181031-M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 10/31/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-002 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed
Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst: rde
Mercury
ND
0.032
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 4:50:53 PM
41736
EPA METHOD 6010B: SOIL METALS
Analyst:
ELS
Aluminum
12000
U
300
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:22:24 PM
41542
Antimony
-WD
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Arsenic
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Barium
77
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Beryllium
ND
0.74
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Cadmium
ND
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Calcium
3300
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Chromium
7.0
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Cobalt
4.7
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Copper
6.2
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Iron
13000
250
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:22:24 PM
41542
Lead
14
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Magnesium
2900
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Manganese
210
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Nickel
7.1
2.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Potassium
3900
250
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Selenium
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Silver
-NB- U3L
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Sodium
180
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Thallium
-NO UH— 12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Uranium
MB
VXTt—' 25
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Vanadium
38
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Zinc
38
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:42:04 AM
41542
Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
Qualifiers:
*
Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
B
Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D
Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
E
Value above quantitation range
H
Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
J
Analyte detected below quantitation limits pagg 2 0f 14
Sample pH Not In Range
ND
Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
P
PQL
Practical Quanitative Limit
RL
Reporting Detection Limit
S
% Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
W
Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
-------
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 10-04-31-181031-M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 10/31/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-003 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst: rde
Mercury
ND
0.032
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 4:52:36 PM 41736
EPA METHOD 6010B: SOIL METALS
Analyst: ELS
Aluminum
10000
300
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:24:21 PM 41542
Antimony
-Ntf VJ3L-,
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Arsenic
ND
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Barium
73
0.20
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Beryllium
0.61
0.30
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Cadmium
ND
0.20
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Calcium
9500
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:43:54 AM 41542
Chromium
5.3
0.59
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Cobalt
2.7
0.59
mg/Kg
2
11/30/2018 3:11:21 PM 41542
Copper
3.2
0.59
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Iron
10000
250
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:24:21 PM 41542
Lead
8.2
0.49
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM41542
Magnesium
4100
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:43:54 AM 41542
Manganese
140
0.20
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Nickel
4.8
0.98
mg/Kg
2
11/30/2018 3:11:21 PM 41542
Potassium
2700
250
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:43:54 AM 41542
Selenium
15
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/30/2018 3:11:21 PM 41542
Silver
-NB UtjU
0.49
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Sodium
150
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:43:54 AM 41542
Thallium
-NET OT<~
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Uranium
we
9.8
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Vanadium
77
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/16/2018 11:09:53 AM 41542
Zinc
24
4.9
mg/Kg
2
11/30/2018 3:11:21 PM 41542
Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
Qualifiers:
*
Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
B
Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D
Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
E
Value above quantitation range
H
Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
J
Analyte detected below quantitation limits pagg 3 0f 14
Sample pH Not In Range
ND
Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
P
PQL
Practical Qualitative Limit
RL
Reporting Detection Limit
S
% Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
W
Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
-------
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 10-05-31-181031-M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 10/31/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-004 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed
Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst:
rde
Mercury
ND
0.033
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 4:54:20 PM
41736
EPA METHOD 6010B: SOIL METALS
Analyst:
ELS
Aluminum
14000
290
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:26:18 PM
41542
Antimony
-N0
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Arsenic
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Barium
110
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Beryllium
0.91
0.73
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Cadmium
ND
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Calcium
10000
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Chromium
2.2
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Cobalt
3.0
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Copper
6.3
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Iron
12000
240
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:26:18 PM
41542
Lead
6.8
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Magnesium
3300
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Manganese
240
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Nickel
3.9
2.4
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Potassium
3400
240
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Selenium
87
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Silver
-NB 03" t-
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Sodium
490
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Thallium
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Uranium
70 „TL-
24
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Vanadium
110
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Zinc
26
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:45:45 AM
41542
Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
Qualifiers: *
D
H
ND
PQL
S
Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
Practical Quanitative Limit
% Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
E Value above quantitation range
J Analyte detected below quantitation limits pag£ 4 0f 14
P Sample pH Not In Range
RL Reporting Detection Limit
W Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
-------
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 10-05-32-181031-M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 10/31/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-005 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed
Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst:
rde
Mercury
ND
0.033
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 4:56:04 PM
41736
EPA METHOD 601 OB: SOIL METALS
Analyst:
ELS
Aluminum
15000
300
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:34:53 PM
41542
Antimony
J4B vAL~
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Arsenic
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Barium
100
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Beryllium
0.97
0.74
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Cadmium
ND
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47.36 AM
41542
Calcium
10000
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Chromium
2.5
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Cobalt
3.1
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Copper
6.4
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Iron
12000
250
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:34:53 PM
41542
Lead
6.5
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Magnesium
3700
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Manganese
260
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Nickel
4.1
2.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Potassium
3700
250
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Selenium
77
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Silver
-N© —•
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Sodium
560
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Thallium
-NB \Jdi_
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Uranium
67 OHL.
25
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Vanadium
120
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Zinc
29
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:47:36 AM
41542
Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
Qualifiers:
*
Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
B
Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D
Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
E
Value above quantitation range
H
Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
J
Analyte detected below quantitation limits pagg 5 0f ]4
Sample pH Not In Range
ND
Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
P
PQL
Practical Quanitative Limit
RL
Reporting Detection Limit
S
% Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
W
Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
-------
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 10-06-31-181031-M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 10/31/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-006 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed
Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst:
rde
Mercury
0.12
0.033
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 5:01:23 PM
41736
EPA METHOD 6010B: SOIL METALS
Analyst:
ELS
Aluminum
6000
290
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:36:52 PM
41542
Antimony
JMS-US*—
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Arsenic
20
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Barium
210
0.48
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Beryllium
ND
0.73
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Cadmium
ND
0.48
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Calcium
4100
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Chromium
ND
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Cobalt
1.8
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Copper
ND
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Iron
10000
240
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:36:52 PM
41542
Lead
8.7
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Magnesium
1700
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Manganese
140
0.48
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Nickel
ND
2.4
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Potassium
880
240
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Selenium
86
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Silver
-NTJ U3—
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Sodium
150
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Thallium
-NB O-T*—
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Uranium
310 3L
24
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Vanadium
250
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
Zinc
17
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:49:28 AM
41542
\°\
^u>V
Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
Qualifiers:
*
Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
B
Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D
Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
E
Value above quantitation range
H
Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
J
Analyte detected below quantitation limits pagg g 0f 14
Sample pH Not In Range
ND
Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
P
PQL
Practical Quanitative Limit
RL
Reporting Detection Limit
S
% Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
W
Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
-------
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 10-07-31-181031-M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 10/31/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-007 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed
Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst:
rde
Mercury
ND
0.033
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 5:03:09 PM
41736
EPA METHOD 6010B: SOIL METALS
Analyst:
ELS
Aluminum
17000
290
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:38:50 PM
41542
Antimony
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Arsenic
juer
SJ5S-* 12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Barium
75
0.48
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Beryllium
0.80
0.73
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Cadmium
ND
0.48
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Calcium
5300
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Chromium
9.7
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Cobalt
5.3
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Copper
7.8
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Iron
16000
240
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:38:50 PM
41542
Lead
5.4
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Magnesium
4200
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Manganese
190
0.48
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Nickel
9.2
2.4
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Potassium
4700
240
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Selenium
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Silver
-N6~
liQi— 1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Sodium
190
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Thallium
-Ntr
UTL, 12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Uranium
WB-
OCT l—¦ 24
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Vanadium
26
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
Zinc
44
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:51:13 AM
41542
V
Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
Qualifiers: * Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
D Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
ND Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
PQL Practical Quanitative Limit
S % Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
E Value above quantitation range
J Analyte detected below quantitation limits,
P Sample pH Not In Range
RL Reporting Detection Limit
W Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
'Page 7 of 14
-------
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 10-08-31-181031-M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 10/31/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-008 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed
Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst:
rde
Mercury
ND
0.032
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 5:04:56 PM
41736
EPA METHOD 6010B: SOIL METALS
Analyst:
ELS
Aluminum
22000
300
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:40:47 PM
41542
Antimony
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Arsenic
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Barium
88
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Beryllium
1.0
0.74
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Cadmium
ND
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Calcium
6800
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Chromium
13
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Cobalt
6.1
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Copper
9.5
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Iron
19000
250
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:40:47 PM
41542
Lead
5.5
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Magnesium
5300
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Manganese
240
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Nickel
11
2.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Potassium
5800
250
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Selenium
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Silver
-NB vJCSl—
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Sodium
210
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Thallium
-ND VHTl—
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Uranium
•ND \XSi—
—' 25
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Vanadium
34
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Zinc
53
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 9:53:04 AM
41542
Refer to the QC Summary report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
*
Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
B
Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D
Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
E
Value above quantitation range
H
Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
J
Analyte detected below quantitation limits pagg 8 0f 14
Sample pH Not In Range
ND
Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
P
PQL
Practical Quanitative Limit
RL
Reporting Detection Limit
S
% Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
W
Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
-------
Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc.
Analytical Report
Lab Order 1811683
Date Reported: 12/17/2018
CLIENT: Weston Solutions, Inc. Client Sample ID: 23-02-31-181101-M
Project: 1 Weston 04217013 181108 002 Collection Date: 11/1/2018
Lab ID: 1811683-009 Matrix: SOIL Received Date: 11/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Analyses
Result
PQL
Qual Units
DF Date Analyzed Batch
EPA METHOD 7471: MERCURY
Analyst: rde
Mercury
ND
0.032
mg/Kg
1
11/27/2018 5:06:42 PM 41736
EPA METHOD 6010B: SOIL METALS
Analyst: ELS
Aluminum
15000
290
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:42:44 PM 41542
Antimony
ND -VV
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Arsenic
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Barium
81
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Beryllium
0.78
0.74
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Cadmium
ND
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Calcium
12000
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Chromium
8.7
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Cobalt
5.2
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Copper
6.6
1.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Iron
17000
250
mg/Kg
100
11/15/2018 2:42:44 PM 41542
Lead
5.7
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Magnesium
3500
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Manganese
170
0.49
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM41542
Nickel
9.6
2.5
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Potassium
3500
250
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Selenium
ND
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Silver
-NIT UJ5—
1.2
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Sodium
200
120
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Thallium
DTI—
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Uranium
nb~ ugrc.
25
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Vanadium
42
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
Zinc
41
12
mg/Kg
5
11/16/2018 10:01:22 AM 41542
\&\
Refer to the QC Summaty report and sample login checklist for flagged QC data and preservation information.
Qualifiers:
*
Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level.
B
Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank
D
Sample Diluted Due to Matrix
E
Value above quantitation range
H
Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded
J
Analyte detected below quantitation limits pagg 9 0f ]4
Sample pH Not In Range
ND
Not Detected at the Reporting Limit
P
PQL
Practical Quanitative Limit
RL
Reporting Detection Limit
S
% Recovery outside of range due to dilution or matrix
W
Sample container temperature is out of limit as specified
-------
DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW
SITE NAME Tronox Section 10 Mine
WORK ORDER NUMBER 20600.012.001.1044.06 TDD NUMBER 0001/17-044
PROJECT NUMBER SDG NUMBER 1811683
Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON®) has completed a QA review for Work Order Number
20600.012.001.1044.06, SDG No. 1811683, Tronox Section 10 Mine. Nine samples were analyzed for Target
Analyte List (TAL) metals plus uranium by Hall Environmental Analysis Laboratory, Inc. Sample numbers are
listed below.
SAMPLE NUMBERS
10-02-31-181031-M 10-03-31-181031-M 10-04-31-181031-M
10-05-31-181031-M 10-05-32-181031-M 10-06-31-181031-M
10-07-31-181031-M 10-08-31-181031-M 23-02-31-181101-M
This data package was validated to determine if Quality Control (QC) specifications were achieved, following
USEPA National Functional Guidelines for Organic Superfund Methods Data Review (January, 2017), USEPA
National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Superfund Data Review (January, 2017), USEPA Contract
Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for High Resolution Superfund Methods Data Review
(April, 2016), Quality Assurance/Quality Control Guidance for Removal Activities (September, 2011), and/or
the Regional Protocol for Holding Times, Blanks, and VOA Preservation (April 13, 1989). Specific data
qualifications are listed in the following discussion.
REVIEWER Gloria J. Switalski
DATE June 20, 2019
-------
Data Qualifiers
Data Qualifier Definitions were supplied by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(September 1989) and are included in the Functional Guidelines. Data qualifiers may be combined (UJ,
QJ) with the corresponding combination of meanings. Additional qualifiers may be added to provide
additional, more specific information (JL, UB, QJK), modifying the meaning of the primary qualifier.
Additional qualifiers utilized by WESTON are H, L, K, B, and Q.
U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected. The associated numerical value is the
sample quantitation or detection limit, which has been adjusted for sample weight/sample volume,
extraction volume, percent solids, sample dilution or other analysis specific parameters.
An additional qualifier, "B", may be appended to indicate that while the analyte was detected in the
sample, the presence of the analyte may be attributable to blank contamination and the analyte is
therefore considered undetected with the sample detection or quantitation limit for the analyte being
elevated.
J - The analyte was analyzed for, but the associated numerical value may not be consistent with the
amount actually present in the environmental sample or may not be consistent with the sample
detection or quantitation limit. The value is an estimated quantity. The data should be seriously
considered for decision-making and are usable for many purposes.
An additional qualifier will be appended to the "J" qualifier that indicates the bias in the reported
results:
L Low bias
H High bias
K Unknown bias
Q The reported concentration is less than the sample quantitation limit for the specific analyte
in the sample.
The L and H qualifier will only be employed when a single qualification is required. When more
than one quality control parameter affects the analytical result and a conflict results in assigning a
bias, the result will be flagged JK.
R - Quality Control indicates that data are unusable for all purposes. The analyte was analyzed for,
but the presence or absence of the analyte has not been verified. Resampling and reanalysis are
necessary for verification to confirm or deny the presence of an analyte.
N - The analysis indicates the presence of an analyte for which there is presumptive evidence to
make a "tentative identification."
-------
METALS DATA EVALUATION
1. Analytical Method:
Samples were prepared and analyzed for metals and mercury using the procedures specified in SW-846
Methods 6010B and 7471.
2. Holding Times:
All samples met established holding time criteria of 180 days for ICP metals and 28 days for mercury.
No qualifications are placed on the data.
3. Initial Calibration:
Level 4 data validation is not being performed on this data set at this time. In the event that level 4
validation is performed, this validation report will be revised to include the level 4 findings. No
qualifications are placed on the data.
4. Continuing Calibration:
Level 4 data validation is not being performed on this data set at this time. In the event that level 4
validation is performed, this validation report will be revised to include the level 4 findings. No
qualifications are placed on the data.
5. CRDL Standard:
Level 4 data validation is not being performed on this data set at this time. In the event that level 4
validation is performed, this validation report will be revised to include the level 4 findings. No
qualifications are placed on the data.
6. Blanks:
A. Laboratory Blanks:
Target analytes were not detected in the method blanks at concentrations that warrant blank action. No
qualifications are placed on the data.
B. Field Blanks:
No field blank samples were submitted with this analytical package. No qualifications are placed on the
data.
7. ICP Interference Check:
Level 4 data validation is not being performed on this data set at this time. In the event that level 4
validation is performed, this validation report will be revised to include the level 4 findings. No
qualifications are placed on the data.
-------
8. Laboratory Control Sample (LCS):
The laboratory analyzed LCS and recoveries for these analyses were within the control limits provided.
No qualifications are placed on the data.
9. Duplicate Sample Analysis:
A. Laboratory Duplicate Analysis:
Sample 10-02-31-181031-M underwent matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate analysis for the soil matrix
for ICP metals and mercury. QC criteria are that the relative percent difference (RPD) values for the
duplicate sample analysis be less than 20% for aqueous samples and less than 35% for soil samples for
concentrations greater than five times the practical quantitation limit (PQL). For sample concentrations
less than five times the PQL, the QC criteria are that the absolute difference between the samples is less
than the PQL for the aqueous matrix or less than two times the PQL for the soil matrix. All QC criteria
were met with the following exception:
SAMPLE ID
ANALYTE
RPD
CONTROL LIMITS
QUALIFIER FLAG
10-02-31-181031-M
Thallium
37.3
35
None, samples ND
B. Field Duplicate Analysis:
The following sample pair was submitted as field duplicates for the soil matrix for ICP metals and
mercury: 10-05-31-181031-M/10-05-32-181031-M. The RPD values for the field duplicate sample
analysis were within the QC criteria of less than 30% for aqueous samples and less than 50% for soil
samples for concentrations greater than five times the PQL. For sample concentrations less than five times
the PQL, the absolute difference between the samples is less than two times the PQL for aqueous samples
or less than 3.5 times the PQL for the soil samples. All QC criteria were met. No qualifications are placed
on the data.
10. Matrix Spikes/Matrix Spike Duplicates (MS/MSD):
Sample 10-02-31-181031-M underwent MS/MSD analysis for the soil matrix for ICP metals and
mercury. Recoveries of the following spiked analytes were outside of the control limits provided:
SAMPLE ID
ANALYTE
%R/%R
CONTROL LIMITS
QUALIFIER FLAG
10-02-31-181031-M
Calcium
-65.6/-8.11
75-125%
None, sample cone >4X
Antimony
14.1/13.2
UJL
Barium
43.4/OK
None, sample cone >4X
Manganese
-76.9/-20.0
None, sample cone >4X
Silver
73.5/OK
UJL
Thallium
29.2/42.6
UJL
Uranium
42.3/38.2
JL/UJL
11. ICP Serial Dilution:
Level 4 data validation is not being performed on this data set at this time. In the event that level 4
validation is performed, this validation report will be revised to include the level 4 findings. No
qualifications are placed on the data.
-------
12. Sample Quantitation and Reporting Limits:
Level 4 data validation is not being performed on this data set at this time. In the event that level 4
validation is performed, this validation report will be revised to include the level 4 findings. No
qualifications are placed on the data.
All ICP metals analytes in all samples were analyzed at a 2, 5, or 100-fold dilution. PQL for these
analytes in these samples were elevated as a result of the dilutions performed.
13. Laboratory Contact
No laboratory contact was required.
14. Overall Assessment:
Antimony, silver, thallium, and uranium results in all soil samples were estimated due to low MS and/or
MSD recoveries.
The analytical data is acceptable for use with the qualifications listed above.
-------
APPENDIX F
ACCUSTAR ANALYTICAL RESULTS DATA PACKAGE
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
AccuStar
Laboraloire Proiospkumol D'analyae du Radon Depum 1BS4
Radon in Air
NELAC NY 11769
NRPP 101193 AL
NRSB ARL0017
Laboratory Report for:
EPA Method #402-R-92-004
Charcoal Canister
NRPP Device Code 2014, 1165
NRSB Device Code 10313, 10335
Property Tested: Project# 1-WESTON-0642-1707
Weston Solutions Inc.-K. Warr
5599 San Felipe Suite 700
Houston TX 77056
Site #T00005100801
Log
Number
Device
Number
Test Exposure Duration:
Area Tested
Result (pCi/L)
2132878
589850
06/29/2017 10:55 am
07/05/2017
1:45 pm
SEC10-C
11.1
2132879
589851
06/29/2017 1
1:00 am
07/05/2017
1:45 pm
SEC10-D
0.7
2132880
589852
06/29/2017 1
1:15 am
07/05/2017
1:45 pm
SEC10-E
0.9
2132881
589853
06/29/2017 1
1:20 am
07/05/2017
1:50 pm
SEC10-F
1247.9
2132882
589854
06/29/2017 1
1:21 am
07/05/2017
1:50 pm
SEC10-G
2.1
Comment: Weston Solutions Inc.-K. Warr was e-mailed a copy of this report.
Distributed by: Weston Solutions Inc.-K. Warr
Date Received: 07/07/2017 Date Logged: 07/07/2017 Date Analyzed: 07/07/2017 Date Reported: 07/07/2017
Report Reviewed By: tY^'ol.O. Report Approved By:
Disclaimer: Shawn Price, Director oVTaboraWry Operations, AccuStar Labs
The uncertainty of this radon measurement is -+/-10 %. Factors contributing to uncertainty include statistical variations, daily and seasonal variations in radon
concentrations, sample collection techniques and operation of the dwelling. Interference with test conditions may influence the test results.
This report may only be transferred to a third party in its entirety. Analytical results relate to the samples AS RECEIVED BY THE LABORATORY. Results
shown on this report represent levels of radon gas measured between the dates shown in the room or area of the site identified above as "Property Tested".
Incorrect information will affect results. The results may not be construed as either predictive or supportive of measurements conducted in any area of this
structure at any other time. AccuStar Labs, its employees and agents are not responsible for the consequences of any action taken or not taken based upon the
results reported or any verbal or written interpretation of the results.
Rev 1703
11 Awl Street Medway MA 02053 888-480-8812 FAX 508-533-8831
Page 1 of 1
-------
AccuStar
Profv**>arM ffotiufr Lttcintnry Semeal Sfrx* JP&4
Radon in Air
NELAC NY 11769
NRPP 101193 AL
NRSB ARL0017
Laboratory Report for:
EPA Method #402-R-92-004
Charcoal Canister
NRPP Device Code 2014
NRSB Device Code 10313
Property Tested: Project# 0642-161104-0001
Weston Solutions Inc.-K. Warr
5599 San Felipe Suite 700
Houston TX 77056
Site #T00005100801
Not Indicated 539424 539425
Log Device _
Number Number Test Exposure Duration: Area Tested Result (pCi/L)
2007334 539424 10/28/2016 12:15 pm 11/03/2016 12:00 pm SEC10-A 6304.9
2007335 539441 10/28/2016 12:15 pm 11/03/2016 12:00 pm SEC10-B 8170.5
2007336 539425 10/28/2016 11:15 am 11/03/2016 11:15am SEC23-A 44.0
Comment: Weston Solutions Inc.-K. Warr was e-mailed a copy of this report.
Distributed by: Weston Solutions Inc.-K. Warr
Date Received: 11/07/2016 Date Logged: 11/07/2016 Date Analyzed: 11/07/2016 Date Reported: 11/07/2016
Report Reviewed By: Report Approved By: __
Disclaimer: Carolyn D. Koke, President, AccuStar Labs
The uncertainty of this radon measurement is -+/-10 %. Factors contributing to uncertainty include statistical variations, daily and seasonal variations in radon
concentrations, sample collection techniques and operation of the dwelling. Interference with test conditions may influence the test results.
This report may only be transferred to a third party in its entirety. Analytical results relate to the samples AS RECEIVED BY THE LABORATORY. Results
shown on this report represent levels of radon gas measured between the dates shown in the room or area of the site identified above as "Property Tested".
Incorrect information will affect results. The results may not be construed as either predictive or supportive of measurements conducted in any area of this
structure at any other time. AccuStar Labs, its employees and agents are not responsible for the consequences of any action taken or not taken based upon the
results reported or any verbal or written interpretation of the results.
Rev 1512
11 Awl Street Medway MA 02053 888-480-8812 FAX 508-533-8831
Page 1 of 1
-------
APPENDIX G
MINE SHAFT AND VENTILATION HOLE VIDEO
SURVEILLANCE LOGGING DATA
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Southwest Exploration Southwest Exploration Services, LLC
So ryiCgSj LLC 25811 S.Ariz, Avenue Chandler, AZ. 85248
borehole geophysics & video services Phone: (480) 926-4558 Fax: (480) 926-4579 Web: www.swexp.com
Client:
Weston Solutons
Address: 13702 Cours©¥ Blvd. Bide? 7
City: Baton Rouge State: LA Zip: 70817
Survey Date July 18, 2017
Invoice: 3018 Run
Well Name: Section 10 well
Requested By: Weston Solutions
Copy To Weston Solutions
P.O.:
Well Owner:
Camera: Mine Camera
Reason For Survey: General Inspection
Location: Ambrosia Lake I Graants New Mexico
Zero Datum: Ground Level
Depth: 600 Ft Vehicle: 7S0
Field: Ambrosia Lake
Csg. I.D.@ Surface 120 In.
Operator: Don Eekman
I.D. Reference: Well Records Casing Buildup: None
Lat.: Long.: Sec:
Twp:
Rge
Wellbore Snapshots
True Depths:
(SideScan-Feet)
WELLBORE I CASING INFORMATION
12.8 Ft (Ssa Oiher Suits) 0024 8' R (Sea Other Sitto)
Due to a lack of centralization, camera swung side to side all through
I
survey
Metal pipe against corner of shaft, starts at surface. Appears to be attached at surface only.
Surface vault appears to be stable and intact
24.8'
Open hole begins. Several large undercut sections visible.
Stability of formation unknown.
120'
Formation appears to be competent
130.1'
Bottom of metal pipe.
176'
Inspected one of several distinctive foramtion layers. Several low to
291.4'
high angle fractures were observed below 120 ft.
Bottom fill PVC pipe seen in corner of shaft. appx. 1 ft. exposed
Recorded from bottom to surface.
0028.6' Ft (See Olhef Skto) 0084.3' Ft t'Soc- Other Suio)
0124.3' Ft (See Olh-;
0291.2* Ft tSae Oiher Stele]
Notes:
Page Number: 1
-------
12 WELLBORE SHAPSHOTS
12,8 Ft (Enlargement
0028.6'Ft (Enlargement)
Section 10 well
Page No. 2
-------
it
Southwest Exploration Southwest Exploration Services, LLC
-' u' - 25811 S. Arizs. Avenue Chandler, AZ. 85248
borehole geophysics & video sendees phone; (48()) 926^558 Fax: (480) 92M579 Web: ^.swexpxom
Client: Weston Solutions Survey Date: July 18, 2017
Address: 13702 Coursey Blvd, Bldg. 7 Invoice 8019 Run
City: Banton Rouge State: LA Zip: 70817 Well Name: Section 10 Survey
Requested By: Weston Solutions P.O.: Well Owner:
Copy To Weston Solutions Camera: Mine Camera
Reason For Survey: General Inspection Zero Datum: Ground Level'
Location: Ambroisa Lake / Grants New Mexico Depth: 800 Ft Vehicle: 750
Field: Ambrosia Lake
Csg. I.D.@ Surface 36 In. I.D. Reference: Well Records Casing Buildup: Light, Increasing W/ Depth
Operator: Don Eckman Lai: Long. Sec: Twp: Rge:
Wellbore Snapshots
True Depths:
(SideScan-Fest)
WELLBORE / CASING INFORMATION
OOSrBTIiSiBOiiiwSijia)
0080.1* Ft (S&fc OlfT-Bi Sidy)
Zeroed side view at ground level. 4.7 ft. of casing is above
ground level.
Due to casing size could not centralize camera in hole.
21.8'
Casing joint. During survey all seen joints look to be in goog condition.
01192' Ft (Sen Olher Side)
At this point casing seems to reduce to undetermined size.
54'
Start of minor scaling.
61.6'
Well appears to become deviated causing camera to trail down low
side of hole This was an issue in getting camera to rotate
m
approiately
79,4'
Possible hole in casing. Water seems to be seeping from hole.
Scaling increases, and continues to increase with depth.
198'
Casing may be deformed due to side loading
206'
Again casing appears to be deformed.
243'
Issue with camera rotating aginst casing.
351.6'
Bottom fill. Casing seems to continue into fill
020*1 7' Ft Qlhof Stdo)
r
Recored back up to 78.4 ft
mm
§
OW^RtSBj^jho^A)
[t! _j3
Notes:
Page Number: 1
-------
0061.6' Ft [Enlargement
0243.5' Ft (Enlargement)
12 WELLBORE SHAPSHOTS
0080.1'Ft (Enlargement
0198.6' Ft (Enlargement
0345.8' Ft (Enlargement
0084.5' Ft (Enlargement)
0204.7' Ft (Enlargement)
Section 10 Survey
Page No. 2
-------
APPENDIX H
RE VEGETATION PLAN
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Draft Revegetation Plan
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines
Western Geographic Sub Area
McKinley County, New Mexico
r*; . ^t*V*if t— »- ./ -
, ¦ f-. --
' ¥¦ ip% r IS r * 'M
^f|" f;*v * ' / ' "
Prepared for
US Evironmerital Protection Agency Region 6
Weston Solutions
cf
Qr
or
<
^6P6SoC/^
February 2017
-------
CONTENTS
1- INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................1
Geographical Description of Removal Area 1
Summary of Site Conditions 2
2 - RECLAMATION GOALS /PERFORMANCE 4
Reclamation Units 4
Unit Performance Goals and Standards 4
3 - RECLAMATION/REVESTA.TION WORK PLAN 7
Revegetation Schedule 8
Soil Preparation 9
Seed Mix Specifications 17
4- PERFORMANCE MONITORING........................................................................................................... 21
Monitoring Plan 21
5 - ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN.......................................................................................................24
Parties Responsible for Adaptive Management 24
Potential Challenges 24
Procedures for Modifying Performance Standards and Timeframe 27
6- REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................28
APPENDIX A......................................................................................................................................... 31
APPENDIX B .........................................................................................................................................32
-------
1 - INTRODUCTION
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) proposes to initiate a mine waste removal on
approximately 1,860 acres consisting of several former uranium mine sites and associated lands to
reestablish pre-mine arid grassland and scrub habitats. The removal areas are located within the Ambrosia
Lake Sub-District (ALSD) area of the Grants Mining District of the Western Geographic Sub Area within
McKinley County, New Mexico (Figure la in Appendix D). The reclamation study area consists of former
underground uranium mines (Kermac #10, #23, Mine #24, Homestake Sapin #25) and associated lands. For
the purposes of this report, the study area totals approximately 2,300 acres and the current removal area
of approximately 1,860 acres occurs within its boundaries. However, the final removal area will be
determined once ongoing analyses are evaluated.
The area is eligible for abatement activities subject to the Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mine (NAUM)
settlement, and has been identified as the West Geographic Sub Area.
The USEPA proposes to excavate at least 12 inches of top soils throughout the removal area and dispose of
them at a nearby previously disturbed location, then revegetate and re-contour the site to restore, to the
extent feasible, pre-mining conditions.
Reveaetation Objectives
The USEPA identified the following re-vegetation objectives:
• Restore Grazing/Forage to Pre-mine Condition
• Restore Suitability for Wildlife Use
• Sustainability
Reveaetation Standards
This plan has been developed to comply with the following standards:
• New Mexico Environment Department and New Mexico Energy, Minerals,
and Natural Resources Department Mining and Minerals Division Joint
Guidance for the cleanup and reclamation of existing uranium mines in
New Mexico, March 2016 (Attachments 1 and 2).
• New Mexico State Land Office Reclamation Plan for State Mineral Lease
Rule 5 Template (7-14-15).
Geographical Description of Removal Area
The removal area is located within the ALSD in McKinley County, New Mexico. The ALSD is located within an
area of uranium mineralization that extends approximately 100 miles long and 25 miles wide encompassing
portions of McKinley, Cibola, Sandoval, and Bernalillo counties of New Mexico. The study area occurs from
approximately 6,920 to 7,200 feet in elevation above mean sea level. It is located east of Little Haystack
Mountain and southwest of San Mateo Mesa (Figure la).
Removal Area Location
The WGSA removal area consists of approximately 1,860-acres of former underground uranium mines and
associated lands selected for remediation within a larger study area of 2,300 acres (Figures la-lc in
Appendix A). The site is located in the ALSD, McKinley County, New Mexico approximately 17 miles
northwest of Grants, New Mexico and 5.0 miles northwest of the intersection of New Mexico State
Highways 509 and 605 (Figure lb).
1
-------
In relation to regional population centers, the site is located approximately 70 air miles and 100 road miles
west/northwest of Albuquerque, New Mexico; 340 air miles and 540 road miles from Denver Colorado; and
approximately 280 air miles and 360 road miles northeast of Phoenix, Arizona.
The removal are is located in Township 14 North, Range 10 West Sections 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and
Range 9 West; Section 30. It appears on the Ambrosia Lake and Goat Mountain, New Mexico US Geological
Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle maps (Figure la). The geographic center of the site is located at
approximately Universal Trans Mercator (UTM) Z13S, North American Datum (NAD) 83 240566 3923265
(Latitude 35.419035 degrees north/Longitude 107.85731366044111 degrees west).
Site Access/Constraints
The total distance from Interstate 40 (1-40) to the site is approximately 19 miles. The site is accessed
directly from the New Mexico 509 roadway (NM 509). This is a secondary two-lane (11-foot wide lanes)
with unpaved shoulders and 3-foot wide paved taper. NM 509 is accessed via the New Mexico 605 roadway
(NM 605) approximately 5 miles south of the entrance to the site.
NM 605 has a similar typical section. NM 605 extends approximately 13.5 miles southward to its junction
with historic U.S. 66, in Milan, New Mexico. It is a four-lane divided roadway with a median, 12-foot wide
lanes, and 8-foot wide exterior paved shoulders. It is located 0.2 mile from Interstate 40 (1-40). No
constraining bridges or underpasses occur between 1-40 and the entrance to the site.
Access to the site from the north is available via NM 509 approximately 30 miles to its junction with the
Navajo 9 roadway, another secondary roadway with 11-foot wide lanes, but with 6 foot paved shoulders.
The Navajo 9 junction with NM 371 (also a 2 lane roadway with 6-shoulder facility) occurs approximately 20
Miles to the west. NM 371 meets 1-40 approximately 28.5 miles south. There are no constraining bridges or
underpasses. The total distance from the site access road to 1-25 via the north route is approximately 83
miles.
East of the junction with NM 509, Navajo 9 becomes NM 197. It terminates at US Highway 550 near Cuba,
New Mexico, approximately 64.5 miles from the junction of NM 509. The total distance from the turnoff to
the site to Cuba, New Mexico is approximately 95 miles. No low bridges or underpasses appear to be
present.
Land Ownership
Land ownership is private and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Land ownership is depicted on figure 1
(Appendix A).
Summary of Site Conditions
The removal area occurs within theSemiarid Tablelands ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2006). This ecoregion is
characterized by dry plains, mesas, valleys, and canyons formed from sedimentary rocks. It supports
grasslands, savannas, woodlands, and desert scrub communities (Dick-Peddie 1993).
Vegetation
The study area supports Plains-Mesa Grassland, Great Basin Desert Scrub, Arroyo Riparian vegetation
communities, as well as a small area of Juniper Savanna. Plains-Mesa Grassland vegetation occurs in in the
center of Section 24; the northeast and southeast corners of Section 25; the northwest corner of Section
26, and Section 10, and within Section 30.
2
-------
It is dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and galleta (Pleurapis jamesii) grass, which account for
most vegetative cover. Associate grasses such as ring muhly (Muhlenbergia torreyi), spike muhly
(Muhlenbergia wrightii), spike dropseed (Sporobolus contractus) and several shrubs such as winterfat
(Krascheninnikovia lanata), four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and horsebush (Tetradymia canescens)
are also present.
Two scrub communities are present. The largest is a four-wing saltbush community dominated by four-wing
saltbush (Atriplex canescens), blue grama, galleta, alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), and snakeweed
(Gutierrezia sarothrae). This community is located within the southwest corner of Section 24; the southern
portion of Section 23; the northern portion of Section 26; and the northwest corner of Section 25. A
rabbitbrush scrub community dominated by rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), blue grama and
galleta is located within Section 22, the east side of Section 24; the center of Section 25, the east side of
Section 10. A small area also occurs within the northwest corner of Section 30.
The Arroyo Riparian community is confined to a few ephemeral waterways dominated by rabbitbrush,
western wheat grass, galleta, gumweed (Graindelia nuda), and hoary purple aster (Machaeranthera
canescens). With the exception of small segments of waterways in the Section 30, Arroyo Riparian habitat is
confined to sections 22, 23, 25, and 26.
Juniper Savanna is dominated by one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) and at one location in section
22.
Existing Soils
Soils at the study area consists of the following US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS 2015) map units listed by highest percent occurrence in the study area:
Penistaja-Tintero complex, 1 to 10 percent slopes (soil unit: 205); Marianolake-Skyvillage complex, 1 to 8
percent slopes (soil unit: 210); Hagerwest-Bond fine sandy loams, 1 to 8 percent slopes (soil unit: 220);
Sparank-San Mateo-Zia complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes (soil unit: 230); and Uranium Mined Lands (Soil unit
265).
Area soils are generally well drained; not hydric or slightly hydric; moderately susceptible to wind and water
erosion; and occur more than 200 centimeters from ground water depth. Soil chemistry and fertility
parameters were obtained via laboratory analysis of samples collected from the site (Weston 2016).
Detailed results are provided in Appendix A. In general, analyses indicate that area soils have low fertility;
are low in boron, zinc, and phosphorus; high in calcium, magnesium, and sodium; and have a low
carbon/nitrogen ratio. The pH of soil sampled throughout the area range from 7.9 to 9.0.
Special Features
One special feature is present at the site:
¦ Pond wetland (augmented with planting)
Restricted Areas
The following areas must be avoided (Figure lc):
¦ Eagle perch trees (sections 24 and 30)
¦ Groups of juniper trees/juniper savanna area (north section 22)
¦ Coniferous woodland area (south section 22, not within the current removal area)
3
-------
Ecological Function
Grassland and grassland/shrub communities provide habitat for keystone species such as prairie dogs and
associated animals, such as burrowing owl. They also provide browse and forage for elk, deer, and graze
for cattle; cover for a variety of small mammals and reptiles; and nest sites for small songbirds. The savanna
area provides some small mammal habitat and potential nest sites for birds, including raptors. Trees
provide perch sites for raptors, and vertical structure for songbirds.
A pond feature retains stormwater flows near the western edge of the removal area, which supports tree
canopy, food crop, and wetland vegetation growth and provides water for wildlife, including waterfowl and
important predators.
All vegetation provides erosion control. Grasses provide a food source for mammals and insects. Insects
provide a food source for reptiles, mammals and birds. An arroyo conveys stormwater flows through the
site.
2 - RECLAMATION GOALS /PERFORMANCE
Reclamation Units
The removal area has been divided into four reclamation units for planting purposes. Each unit is associated
with specific soil preparation and seeding methodology. Unit boundaries were defined based on existing
vegetation, soils characteristics, 2016 soil sampling data and historic aerial photography. Some portions of
the study area are not included in the removal area. As a result, disjunct parcels occur within units. All units
with the exception of Unit 4 are associated with one soil treatment and planting schedule. The two
components of Unit 4 (4a and 4b) are treated differently both in preparation and planting.
Reclamation Unit Boundaries
Reclamation units are identified in Figure 2. The reclamation units are:
• Unit 1 - Plains Mesa Grassland (loam soils)
• Unit 2 - Great Basin Scrub/Rabbitbrush (clay loam soils)
• Unit 3 - Great Basin Scrub/Four-wing saltbush Scrub (clay soils)
• Units 4a/b - Arroyo /Pond Wetland (clay soils)
Defining points along the boundaries of reclamation units (or center point for disconnected units/unit
portions) are provided in Figure 2 and associated with UTM coordinates provided in Table A1 (Appendix A).
Unit Performance Goals and Standards
The general objective for reclamation units is to meet or exceed the percent cover observed during field
evaluations. The minimum percent cover is based on observations of existing conditions, which were
evaluated by community type. Some areas will be avoided for removal and some communities are
combined for revegetation purposes to reduce the number of units and complexity of reclamation.
Unit 1-Plains Mesa Grassland
This is a large grassland community with low shrub cover. The objective for this unit is to meet a minimum
total 37 percent cover comprised of mostly of grasses, equal or greater than the current percent cover, and
reflect the general species composition of the area (Table 2.1).
4
-------
Table 2.1 - Target Range for Percent Cover by Species: Unit 1
Species
Range Percent Cover
Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
Galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii)
Spike muhly (Muhlenbergia wrightii)
Western wheat grass (Pascopyrum smithii)
Spike dropseed (Sporobolus contractus)
Subtotal
35-40%
Winterfat (Krascheninnkovia lanata)
Subtotal
2-5%
Total
37 -45%
Unit 2-Great Basin Scrub/Rabbitbrush
This is principally a shrub community that provides at least 25 percent ground cover of grasses. The
objective for this unit is to meet a minimum total of 50 percent overall cover; nearly half of shrubs with a
ground cover of grasses equal to or greater than the current percent cover, and reflect the general species
composition of the area (Table 2.2).
Table 2.2 - Target Range for Percent Cover by Species: Unit 2
Species
Percent Cover Range
Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis)
Galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii)
Western wheat grass (Pascopyrum smithii)
Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides)
Spike muhly (Muhlenbergia wrightii)
Subtotal - Grasses
25-30%
Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa)
Subtotal - Shrubs
25-30%
Total
50-60%
Unit 3- Great Basin Scrub-Saltbush
This is a shrub community dominated by four-wing saltbush with a limited ground cover of grasses. The
objective for this unit is to meet a minimum total 30 percent cover comprised of grasses and shrubs, equal
to or greater than the current percent cover, and reflect the general species composition of the area (Table
2.3).
Table 2.3 - Target Range for Percent Cover by Species: Unit 3
Species
Range Percent Cover
Galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii)
Western wheat grass (Pascopyrum smithii)
Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis)
Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides)
Vine mesquite (Panicum obtusum)
Spike dropseed (Sporobolus contractus)
Hoary tansyaster (Macheranthera canescens)
Subtotal - Grasses and Forbes
15-20%
Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens)
Subtotal - Shrubs
15-20%
Total
30-40%
5
-------
Unit 4a- Arroyo
This unit is confined to an arroyo system located along the southern site boundary. Vegetation is comprised
of forbs, shrubs and grasses. The objective for this unit is to meet a minimum total 40 percent cover, equal
to or greater than the current percent cover, and reflect the general species composition of the area (Table
2.4).
Table 2.4 - Target Range for Percent Cover by Species: Unit 4a
Species
Range Percent Cover
Galleta (Pleuraphisjamesii)
Western wheat grass (Pascopyrum smithii)
Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis)
Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides)
Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus)
Hoary tansy aster (Machaeranthera canescens)
Subtotal - Grasses and Forbes
25-30%
Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens)
Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa)
Subtotal - Shrubs
15-20%
Total
40-50%
Unit 4b- Pond Wetland
This unit consists of an existing stock tank and immediately surrounding area located along the western
edge of the site within Section 22. Stormwater runoff from surrounding slopes and arroyos collects in the
pond with sufficient frequency to sustain wetland vegetation. The objective for this unit is to increase
shrub, tree and ground cover. No existing wetland vegetation would be removed. Trees and shrubs would
be planted, and the 4a seed mix would be raked into surrounding soils (Table 2.5).
Table 2.5 - Target Range for Percent Cover by Species: Unit 4b
Species
Range Percent Cover
Coyote willow (Salix exigua)
Torrey wolfberry (Lycium torreyi)
Subtotal - Shrubs
15-20%
Rio Grande cottonwood [Populus deltoides)
Subtotal - Trees
5-10%
Total
20-30%
Ecological Function
Unit 1 - Grassland communities are to provide burrow systems and nesting habitat for keystone species
such as Gunnison's prairie dogs and nesting habitat for burrowing owl; as well as some browse/forage for
elk, deer, and graze for cattle; cover for a variety of small mammals and reptiles; and nest sites for small
songbirds. Grasses provide a food source for mammals and insects. Insects provide a food source for
reptiles, mammals and birds.
Unit 2- Grassy shrublands dominated by rabbitbrush are to provide structure for nesting birds and small
wildlife. The grassy groundcover provides habitat for small colonial mammals and forage for elk as well as
graze for cattle. The larger open areas along the edges of this unit may also provide habitat for prairie
dogs.
6
-------
Unit 3 - The four-wing saltbush and limited grassland community is to provide cover and habitat for small
mammals and nesting habitat for small songbirds and predatory birds, particularly species such as the
loggerhead shrike and sparrows; as well as and provide forage for elk, livestock and cover to small
mammals.
Unit 4a - Arroyo riparian communities are to provide shade, food and cover to wildlife and livestock as well
as nest sites to birds. Arroyos will direct and slow stormwater flows as well as prevent seedbed loss and
sedimentation due to sheetflow during large storm events.
Unit 4b- pond wetland is to be planted to add vertical structure, increase shade and cover; provide a wider
range of water and food resources to birds, reptiles, insects, mammals, and amphibians. If a permanent
water source feature (windmill) is successfully added, a constant water source, perennial wetland function
(such as sediment catchment and surface water quality improvement), and aquatic habitat once present in
the vicinity, but not currently available, would be restored.
3 - RECLAMATION/REVEGTATION WORK PLAN
Due to the size of the reclamation area, it may be necessary to complete revegetation by reclamation unit
over a period of several years. Reclamation tasks shall be completed for each reclamation unit in the order
provided in Table 3.1. Seasonal limitations associated with each task, if any, are identified by color coding
(green-suitable, red- unsuitable) in the schedule below.
Work Schedule: Task Order by Monthly Task Suitability
Task Order
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
Install BMPs
Clear/Grub*
Remove Soil
Grade
Constructed Features
Soil Preparation
Stabilizing Cover Crop
Seeding/Planting
Irrigation
Vegetation Monitoring
Unsuitable - Suitable
*Avoid nesting season or provide preconstruction surveys
Staging Areas /Limitations
Materials used in Reclamation Unit 4b will include live plants. The staging area for this unit is be located
close enough to a water source to allow for watering the material awaiting planting, but not within a
potential flood area.
¦ No staging area will be placed within a restricted location.
¦ The contractor will site staging areas more than 200 feet from the arroyo/pond banks.
¦ All staging areas will be graded/vegetated according to their assigned reclamation unit
specifications prior to completion of work.
7
-------
Availability of Water and Limitations of Use
Water piped through the site is expected to be available for use in watering the site to establish vegetation.
This water is expected to be available for 5 growing seasons of reclamation effort. Water needed for dust
control during excavation and grading, as well as irrigation, is also expected to be available from this
source.
Revegetation Schedule
The revegetation schedule is dependent upon the seeding and planting schedule, which will occur in the
fall. Soil preparation and soil amendment predate the planting and must be completed sequentially prior to
fall seeding and planting.
Clearing and Grubbing
Once restricted areas have been identified, the removal of shrubs and other vegetation may proceed.
Because of sensitivity of nesting birds, this operation should be completed outside the nesting season
(March to September). If it cannot be completed outside the nesting season, a detailed survey of every the
clearing zone for active bird nests must be completed prior to the onset of clearing and grubbing.
Constructed Features
Constructed features will include installation of protective fencing and planting protections at the Unit 4b
pond wetland, as well as the construction of a windmill to provide a small but continuous source of water
at the wetland, if this option is feasible (depending upon depth to water). In addition, artificial burrows
may be installed in several locations within Unit 1 (Figure 3c) to temporarily replace lost nest sites for
western burrowing owls.
Soil Preparation—Fertilizers. Micronutrients and Soil Amendments
Soil preparation would occur upon completion of clearing, grubbing, and soil removal within the
reclamation area. Since it appears that the soil removal will consist of a protracted series of events, the soil
preparation may occur sequentially as tracts of land are cleared and excavated. The pace of soil preparation
will be dependent upon the rate of soil removal. However, within each calendar year applications of
fertilizers, micronutrients, and amendments must be completed by the middle of September.
Seeding. Planting. Cover Crop and Mulching
Seeding and planting is recommended for the fall when seeds/plants are dormant. The cover crop would be
planted at the same time, as it is included in the seed mix. Mulching would occur immediately after
seeding. However, clearing and excavation processes will be ongoing year round leaving open areas that
could be vulnerable to erosion. A sterile interim-cover crop is recommended to stabilize these areas until
the site is ready for fall planting. Water would be broadcast to establish cover crops. The cover crop would
be mowed in the fall and disked into the soil prior to seeding.
Watering
If an interim cover crop is used, then watering would likely be required to establish and maintain it. Since
the primary reclamation plants will be seeded in the fall, they should germinate from winter and early
spring moisture. Precipitation events should be monitored during the growing season and, if a drought
develops, watering should be implemented as described in the revegetation section.
Grading Plan and Constructed Features
There are no specific grading requirements or constructed features within Units 2 or 3.
8
-------
Re-contouring of the Unit 4a arroyo channel after excavating to reflect pre-removal ratios is recommended.
The purpose is to maintain the flow along the channel once removal is complete to avoid overbank sheet
flows that could result in scouring or sedimentation in seeded areas, as well as restore original function.
Unit 1 constructed features would consist of installing artificial burrows in created soil berms to provide
suitable nest sites for western burrowing owls while pre-reclamation conditions re-develop (Figure 3c).
Unit 4b constructed features are to provide protection to plantings to allow vegetation to establish, and a
permanent source of water to a localized area (If windmill is installed). No grading of this area is
recommended. Once removal is complete, small drainages on slopes surrounding this unit are expected to
reestablish without grading.
Soil Preparation
Upon completion of excavation, soil should be graded and smoothed to remove high or low spots created
by excavation that might impede soil preparation or the seeding process. Access to the soil preparation
areas will be available via temporary roads created during the excavation. Staging areas will be those used
during the excavation process.
Once the surface soil is removed the entire site should be evaluated to determine whether special
equipment may be necessary to prepare the soil for planting. Large portions of the study area have clay or
clay loam soils at the 12-inch deep soil removal level. The tilling process to incorporate soil amendments
may be difficult in clay soil, particularly if the soil is wet.
Soil analysis from the study area indicated carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratios ranged from as low as 1:1 to a
high as 809:1. Even in areas where the ratio was close to a desirable 30:1, the actual carbon and nitrogen
levels were low. A ratio of 30:1 promotes rapid composting. Researchers report optimum values ranging
from 20 to 31:1 (Whatcom 2016). Because nitrogen levels are low throughout most of the removal area,
these levels must first be adjusted; then soil amendments added to balance the C/N ratio to a desirable
level of 30:1.
Discussion of Soil Amendment Sources
Traditional organic soil amendments include sawdust, bark, and manure. Other potential sources of
amendments are compost and humate, both of which are available locally. The following is a discussion of
each of these products and their potential application rates at the site (Potential sources are provided in
Appendix B).
Humate
Humate is a naturally occurring material composed of highly weathered organic compounds including salts
of humic, ulmic, and fulvic acids. It is used principally as a soil amendment in agriculture. Humate, when
used as a soil amendment or conditioner, has many useful properties which include: an increase in root
density, an increase in soil depth, retention of soil moisture, increase in soil aeration, and a decrease in soil
density.
By whole rock analysis, humate contains 80 percent organic material (most of which is carbon) and 20
percent inorganic material. Humate contains 2 to 5 percent nitrogen. New Mexico humate also contains
gypsum (CaS04), pyrite (FeS2), and siderite (FeC03), sources of calcium, sulfur, and iron (Sandia National
Laboratories 2012, 2013).
9
-------
The application of humate can raise the C/N ratio, increase the available nitrogen, and increase the
available micronutrients. One of these micronutrients is Boron, which was low within most samples in the
removal area.
Recent studies (Lodhi et. al. 2013) indicate that the C/N ratio within humates generally ranges from 30.92
to 44.16. New Mexico material near Cuba was found to have a C/N ratio of 30 to 40:1. Nitrogen content
within state humates ranges from 1 to 5 percent (Peace 2016).
Based on a desired C/N ratio of 30:1, and that the soil amendment is to be applied to the top 6 inches of
soil, the recommended application of humate was calculated. To calculate the proper amount of humate to
add to the soil to reach a C/N ratio of 30:1, the existing level of nitrogen was used as the starting point. The
existing levels of nitrogen vary widely across the site. Four of the 22 samples had medium levels of
nitrogen present. The higher the levels of existing nitrogen, the more humate will need to be added to
reach the C/N ratio of 30:1.
When humate is used, specific standards should be applied to the material. Accepted industry standards set
a minimum of 70 percent humic substances (i.e. humic, fulvic and ulmic acids). Humate comes out of the
ground at approximately 22 percent moisture content. Exposed to the dry southwest atmosphere is loses
moisture rapidly. When used as a soil amendment no specific moisture content is needed, but from the
economic standpoint as far as weight it should not me more than 22 percent moisture.
Run of mine material excavated from the mine varies in particle size from ablation (almost powder) to 90
millimeters (mm) in size. As the material dries it breaks down into smaller particle sizes. Smaller particles
are released into the soil quicker than larger particles. Particles 1-2 millimeters in size fast-release in a few
weeks to a month or two. Particles can be screened to calibrate the size. However, using runoff mine
material provides a wider range of particle sizes from the powder that would release into the soil very
quickly to pieces over in inch in size that would be much slower release. The run of mine material may be
most suitable for the reclamation process as it provides a slow release of material over time.
Table 3.1 presents the existing nitrogen in ppm for 22 samples collected, as well as the volume of humate in
pounds that would need to be added to elevate the C/N ratio to 30:1. Fifty percent of samples indicated
medium, high or very high nitrogen levels. Nearly all of these were samples taken within Unit 3. Conversely,
most of the samples taken from Units 1 and 2 indicate low levels of nitrogen. These account for the higher
levels of humate recommended for Samples S019-S022. The soil samples are taken at point locations and
as they represent a localized area they can as a single point be high or low.
To adjust for individual variation in points the soil sample data for the points within each of the planting
units were averaged. There are currently at least three humate mines in New Mexico that are providing
commercial sources of humate and are located approximately 2 to 2.5 hours driving time from the study
area (Appendix B).
Table 3.1 - Application Rates of Humate to Adjust C/N at Sample Sites
Soil Sample
Nitrate Nitrogen PPM
Pounds/Humate to achieve 30:1 C/N
S01-1609
9.1
764
S02-1609
8.4
705
S03-1609
12
1008
S04-1609
11
924
S05-1609
10
840
S06-1609
12
1008
10
-------
Soil Sample
Nitrate Nitrogen PPM
Pounds/Humate to achieve 30:1 C/N
S07-1609
8.6
722
S08-1609
11
924
S09-1609
10
840
SO 10-1609
8.9
747
SOU-1611
9.1
764
S012-1611
7.9
663
S013-1611
8.3
697
SO 14-1611
12
1008
S015-1611
17
1428
S016-1611
10
840
S017-1611
8.7
730
SO 18-1611
12
1008
S019-1611
44
3696
S020-1611
74
6216
S021-1611
45
3780
S022-1611
30
2520
Sawdust
Sawdust is a common amendment used to improve C/N ratio, which varies depending upon weathering.
Nearly all the sawdust available in New Mexico is from pine trees. Fresh pine sawdust (2 months) can have
a C/N ratio of 625:1) (Whatcom 2016). Applications of amendments with such a high C/N ratio would
probably require the application of additional nitrogen at a rate of 5 to 10 pounds per ton of fresh sawdust.
However the C/N ratio in sawdust weather for 3 years declines to about 142:1. Uncomposted sawdust is
slow to break down and can tie up nitrogen (CSU Extension 2016). If uncomposted sawdust is used, the C/N
ratio must be determined prior to application to determine whether additional nitrogen is needed.
US Forest Service studies (Koll et. al 2010) found applications rates of 7.6 tons of pine sawdust per acre
provided amendment properties similar to peat and hardwood sawdust. On average, dry sawdust weighs
approximately 353 pounds per cubic yard. Recommended application rates of dry, weathered sawdust are
7 to 10 tons or 40 to 55 cubic yards per acre. Although there are numerous lumberyards in New Mexico,
state directories currently only list four active sawmill operations (Appendix B).
Manure
Manure is a byproduct of diary operations and feed yards. Composted dairy manure C/N ratios vary. If
manure is a selected soil amendment, the use of dry composted dairy manure and testing of sources is
recommended to allow accurate calculation of application rates. Application rates vary from 30 to 100 cubic
yards per acre, with 50 cubic yards per acre being typical. Dry manure contains about 2.5 cubic yards per
ton. Studies in Vermont (Magdoff and Van Es 2009) found that within heavy clay soils, organic matter levels
were only maintained at rates equal to 20 tons or more of manure per acre, which would be approximately
50 cubic yards per acre. There are many dairy manure sources in New Mexico (Appendix B).
Compost
Composted material is available at a variety of locations in New Mexico. Most offer municipal yard waste,
which includes leaves, brush, and grass clippings. Fresh yard trimmings can contain 1.2 to 2.3 percent
nitrogen, 0.2 to 0.3 percent phosphorus, 0.5-1.0 percent potassium, 50-60 percent organic matter. Because
of the uncertainty of the origin of the source material for the compost, rates of application can vary from 40
to 270 cubic yards per acre with a typical rate of application of 50 cubic yards per acre.
11
-------
Many municipal compost sources are vegetative-product based, but incorporate bio-solids, feed, and stable
beddings, which can increase levels of nitrogen and may have lower the C/N ratio. If compost is derived
principally from wood and brush cuttings, it may have a substantially higher C/N ratio and may require the
application of nitrogen.
Typically, composted material is applied at a rate of 40 to 50 cubic yards per acre, but this may vary
depending upon the material. Particle size of the compost material can also vary. Active compost facilities
nearest to the site are listed in Appendix B.
Recommended Amendment Procedure
The recommended source of carbon for amending removal area soils is humate sourced from New Mexico.
Based on soil sample analysis, nitrogen is low at about half of sampling locations. Boron, Zinc, Sulfur and
Phosphate were low at nearly all locations. The pH is high in all of the reclamation units, and more than half
of samples ranged from 8.5-9.0. The removal area average pH is 8.4. Sulfur will be added to the soil to
adjust the pH.
The rate of application of nitrogen, micronutrients, and amendments will vary slightly between the
reclamation units. The application rates of nitrogen and micronutrients were adjusted to account for the
use of humate as the primary carbon soil amendment (If humate is not the selected carbon source, these
rates must be adjusted). Table 3.2 provides the application rates per unit. Unit 4b is excluded as it will be
planted but not cleared or graded. Humate contains nitrogen and many micronutrients needed in the
removal area soils. However, the addition of sulfur, zinc, boron, nitrogen and phosphorus is recommended.
The soils should be amended according to the following order to ensure efficacy:
1. Add humate, run of mine (minimum 70 percent humic substances/ 22 percent moisture) plus
Sulfur in the form of S-granules at 90 percent purity and approximately 0.3 centimeters (cm)
particle size.
2. Zinc and Boron can be mixed in water then sprayed onto prepared soils and allowed to dry
prior to application of next in sequence.
3. Nitrogen in ammonium and nitrate form (UN 32 16 percent Urea, 8 percent nitrate) plus
Phosphorus in the form of rock phosphate applied together and tilled to six inches.
Carbon
Humate should be acquired from New Mexico sources for which the micronutrient composition is known. If
other sources are used, then a chemical analysis should be completed on micronutrient content, and
adjustments to the application rate of fertilizers and micronutrients may be required (minimum 70 percent
humic substances [humic, fulvic and ulmic acids], with no more than 22 percent moisture content).
Screened or run of mine material would be acceptable, but run of mine material provides a slow release of
material over time most suitable for reclamation.
Humate is to be broadcast and tilled/disked into soil to a depth of 6 inches. If humate is unavailable, use of
dry, composted dairy manure is recommended. Final application rates to be determined after testing.
Spread with a manure spreader and disk/till into the soil to a depth of 6 inches.
12
-------
Table 3.2 - Pounds per Acre Application of Soil Amendments within Reclamation Units
Reclamation Unit
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Zinc
Boron
Sulfur
Humate
1
70
100
8
1
500
800-1000
2
70
100
8
1
550
1000-1300
3
10
100
8
1
350
1800-2200
4a
50
100
8
1
500
800-1000
Nitrogen and Micronutrients
Sulfur in the form of S-granules at 90 percent purity and approximately 0.3 centimeters (cm) particle size
should be used.
Zinc sulfate should be mixed into water and the subsequent zinc solution should be sprayed onto the soil
and tilled in.
Boron fertilizer should be dissolved in water and sprayed onto the soil. If boron fertilizer cannot be found
than 20 Mule Team Borax can be utilized by mixing ltbsp into 5 gallons of water and applying spray
applying 85 gallons per acre.
Nitrogen will all be added in solid form and should be broadcast across the reclamation units and
subsequently tilled into the soil to a depth of 6 inches. After the application of nitrogen, the site should be
watered to prevent the formation of hot spots in the soil.
Rock Phosphorus and elemental sulfur should be broadcast and tilled into the soil.
Seeding and Planting
It is recommended that seeding and planting not occur less than 4 weeks after the application of
humate/sulfur to ensure a stable soil pH. Seventeen vascular plant species were selected for revegetation,
including warm and cold season grasses, riparian and upland shrubs, and a riparian tree. Table 3.3 provides
a list of plant species recommended for the revegetation of the removal area, and summary of specific soil
needs and seasonal attributes for each species.
13
-------
Table 3.3 - Revegetation Species
Species
Season
Soil Type
Sodium/pH
Tolerance
Precip.
Needs
(inches)
Flowering
Rhizomes
GRASSES
Galleta
(Pleuraphis jamesii)
Warm
All
Tolerant
5-16
Summer
Yes
Blue Grama
(Bouteloua gracilis)
Warm
Clay
Moderate
pH 6.5 to 8.3
12-14
Summer
Short
Spike dropseed
Sporobolus contractus)
Warm
Sandy
Fairly Tolerant
8-10
Summer
No
Alkali sacaton
(Sporobolus airoides)
Warm
Clay
Tolerant of
Saline
pH 6.5 to 8.6
6-10
Summer
No
Vine mesquite
Panicum obtusum)
Warm
Clay
pH 4.8-7.0
8
Summer
Stolon-
iferous
Western Wheatgrass
(Pascopyrum smithii)
Cool
Fine/heavy
well drained
Tolerant
10 to 12
best @12-
20 seeded
Seeds in
June
Yes
Bottlebrush squirreltail
(Elymus elymoides)
Cool
Fine texture to
coarse/ gravelly
Tolerant
Moderately
saline
8-10
Spring-
Summer
No
Spike muhly
(Muhlenbergia wrightii)
Warm
Fine to coarse
Moderate
12-16 or
lower
Summer
No
SHRUBS
Winterfat
(Krascheninnikovia lanata)
NA
All Soils
Fairly Tolerant
5-20
Spring - Fall
No
Four-wing saltbush
(Atriplex canescens)
NA
Calcareous soils
Very Tolerant
8-15
Summer
No
Rubber rabbitbrush
(Ericameria nauseosa)
NA
Medium to
coarse
Moderate
pH 5.4 to 8.2
6-18
Fall-winter
No
Coyote willow
(Salix exigua)
NA
Sand, loam or
clay
Moderate
pH 7.0-7.6 or
ranging
persistent
Spring
A root
sprouts
Torrey wolfberry
(Lycium torreyi)
NA
Alkali soils
Tolerant
Alkaline
8-15
April-
October
No
TREES
Cottonwood
(Populus deltoides ssp.
wisiizeni)
NA
Most soils
Tolerant
6-15
Spring
No
FORBS
Hoary tansyaster
(Macheranthera
canescens)
NA
Wide range
pH6.0-8.4
Alkaline/saline
8-15
Summer
No
Common sunflower
(Helianthus annuus)
NA
Wide range
5.5-8.0
8-15
Summer
No
COVER CROP
Quickguard (Sterile
Triticate)
Cool
Wide range
Tolerant
1-10
Sterile
No
14
-------
Seed Application Methods and Times
Due to the types and sizes of seeds being used, seeding will require both drilling and broadcast methods.
There are no restrictions as to the sourcing of the seeds, but all seeds should be certified weed-free and
should be from regional southwestern or Great Basin area suppliers. Specific varieties have been
recommended for several grass species. The seeding specifications apply to all reclamation units. Unless
otherwise noted in the contract, the prescribed mix and rate will be uniformly applied over each
reclamation unit. Prior to shipping, the seed mix should be divided by the seed supplier into those that are
to be drilled, and those to be broadcast.
The seedbed will be prepared to a depth of 6 inches by tilling with a disc, harrow, or chiseling tool. All
competitive vegetation will be uprooted during seedbed preparation, and the soil will be uniformly worked
to a surface free of clods, large stones, or other foreign material that would interfere with seeding
equipment. The extent of seedbed preparation will not exceed the area detailed in the plans. On slopes of
3:1 or less, a combination of drill seeding and broadcast seeding will be used.
Drill seeders must be capable of handling a variety of different seed textures. Drill rows will be no greater
than 12 inches on center. All drilling will be completed parallel to the contour of the land where practical.
Seed will be drilled to a depth of 0.25 to 0.50 inches.
Steeper slopes (greater than 3:1) will be broadcast seeded. Broadcast seeding will also be used for certain
tiny seeds that need to be planted at shallow depths or those with fluffy seed coats. Broadcast seeding can
be accomplished with hand held spreader, all-terrain-vehicle mounted, tractor-mounted, or other methods
acceptable to the USEPA and capable of spreading seed uniformly may be used. The volume of seeds
should be doubled for those species that are specified for drilling but need to be broadcast on steep slopes.
Vehicles and other equipment unrelated to the seeding process will not travel over seeded areas. If rain or
some other event prevents seeding to the proper depth, the contractor will again prepare the seedbed. The
contractor will protect and care for seeded areas until final acceptance of the work and will repair all
damage to seeded areas caused by pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
Each bag of seed will be sealed and labeled by the seed provider in accordance with federal and New
Mexico Department of Agriculture labeling laws. The seed analysis will be no older than live (5 months) for
seed shipped interstate and no older than 9 months for seed shipped intrastate. Additionally, the
contractor will furnish documentation as to origin and pure live-seed content as determined by a certified
testing laboratory. Pure, live seed shall be defined as percent purity times percent germination including
dormant seed, divided by 100.
Areas will be seeded at the onset of the dormant period in the fall, from the middle of September until the
beginning of summer. The recommended cover crop (Quickguard Sterile Triticate) will be incorporated into
the seed mix. Fall planting is recommended in order to minimize the failure of seeding due to sporadic or
insufficient precipitation. Planting into the dormant season allows the seeds to take advantage of the
winter moisture. However, if sufficient irrigation water is available to establish and maintain seeded
material, seeding may be completed throughout the growing season into the fall.
Mulching
Barley straw mulch will be applied at a rate of 2,000 to 3,000 pounds of air-dry straw per acre and crimped.
Rotted or moldy straw will not be used. Mulching will not be permitted when wind velocity exceeds 15
miles per hour. The mulch shall be spread uniformly over the area either by hand or with a mechanical
mulch spreader. When spread by hand, the bales of mulch shall be torn apart and fluffed before spreading.
15
-------
Planted Material
All planted material must be acquired from local or regional sources so material is naturalized to the area
climate. It is recommended that acquired plant material be in 1 gallon stem pots 4x4x14 inches deep, or
some similar container. Care must be taken when transporting material to ensure that the root balls are not
desiccated in the process. Once the material arrives at the site, it should be inspected to ensure it is healthy
and meets the pot specification requirements. If the material must be stored prior to planting, it should be
placed in a shaded area and should be inspected on a daily basis and watered as needed.
Fall planting is recommended, and the material should be going into fall dormancy at the time of planting.
The leaves on the planted material should be falling or already have fallen at the time of planting.
Potted material should be planted to the top of the surface layer in the pot and immediately watered after
installation. A log will be kept identifying the height of shrubs, and both height and stem diameter at the
base of the planted trees will be recorded when they are planted. This information will serve as a baseline
for future monitoring.
During the first month after installation in the planted areas, it should be inspected on a weekly basis by the
revegetation manager to make sure there is no damage from wildlife.
Some potted material (cottonwood) will be eaten by elk and mule deer if not protected. Protection cages
will be installed around each planted cottonwood tree (Figure 3b). Cages will be constructed by placing
three T-posts (each 8-feet long) in a triangular position around each tree, approximately 18 inches from the
trunk. Chicken wire will be wrapped around the T-posts from the ground to the top of the 8-foot T-posts.
This wire will be left in place until the trees are 4 to 8 inches in diameter at which time the bark should be
thick enough that wildlife or livestock would not affect their growth.
Watering
If seeding occurs in the fall (including the cover crop), the seeded material is not to be watered. The seeds
will be planted while dormant, and under normal winter conditions, will receive sufficient moisture to
germinate the following spring. Water may be necessary during the following growing season if drought
conditions develop. The seeded areas should be inspected at least twice weekly in the spring and early
summer.
If drought occurs when seedlings are establishing, intense watering may be necessary until the root systems
develop. This may require watering lightly several times a week (soaking down to at least 1 inch). If drought
persists through the summer, water should be applied to the maturing vegetation weekly at the rate of the
expected monthly annual precipitation for the area (based on climate history data).
The establishment of a cover crop as an erosion control measure during the spring or summer will require
intensive water. If the area is not mulched, water would need to be applied every day for the first 15 days
such that the soil at a depth of 1 inch will hold water consistently. If the site is mulched and crimped, then
water can be applied every 2 to 3 days for 15 days when the seeds should have germinated, and the
seedlings develop root systems.
Since piped water is expected to be available, it is recommended that the contractor develop a rotation
watering system using trucks or install a temporary sprinkler system at seeded areas to increase the
likelihood of successful vegetation establishment.
16
-------
Rooted material should be watered when planted, and for weekly for several weeks after planting.
However, since this material will be planted during the dormant season, it should require only periodic
watering in the winter during dry periods (once bi-weekly) to prevent the root balls from drying out. Water
should be applied on a weekly basis during the following spring until the plants are established. If drought
conditions occur during the growing season, then watering may be needed every few days.
Seed Mix Specifications
Unit 1
Unit 1 covers approximately 644 acres. The seed mix for this unit is designed to produce a grassland
community with scattered low growing shrubs such as winterfat. This grassland community would
intergrade into surrounding shrub communities around the periphery forming an ecotone shrub/grassland
mixture. The seed mixture was adjusted to account for the clay and clay loam soils found in the 12 inch
deep soils samples found within Unit 1. The surface soils on which the existing grassland communities occur
within Unit 1 are a mixture of sandy loams and loams. Species such as blue grama favor these coarser well
drained soils and may not thrive as well on the clay soils located at 12 inches below the surface. However,
galleta can thrive in both loamy and clay soils. Because of its wider range of soil texture tolerance a higher
percentage of galleta was included in the seed mix than would normally be applied to reestablish the blue
grama/galleta community. Although western wheatgrass was sporadic in the existing grasslands it was
added to the mixture because it adds a cool season grass component.
Unit 1 components will require 9.41 pounds of native seed and 10 pounds of cover crop seed per acre
(Table 3.4). Approximately 0.51 pounds of this seed mix consists of either tiny seeds or fluffy seeds for
which general broadcast seeding is recommended either by equipment or by hand. The remaining 8.9
pounds of native seed and the 10 pounds of cover crop seed will be installed via drilling. The Unit 1 areas
are generally flat to slightly rolling, but none have grades likely to exceed 3:1 slopes.
Table 3.4- Unit 1 Seed Mix
Species
Lbs/acre (pis)
Seeds /lb
Pls/sq foot
Depth (inches)
Variety
DRILLED SEED
Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
2.0
711,000
32.6
% to %
-
Galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii)
4.0
160,000
14.6
% to %
Viva
Spike muhly (Muhlenbergia wrightii)
0.4
1,635,000
15.0
1/4 to 1/2
El Vado
Western wheat grass (Pascopyrum
smithii)
2.5
110,000
6.3
1/4 to 1/2
Arriba
Total Natives
8.9
68.5
Cover Crop
10.0
13,000
3.0
% to %
Quickquard
Total Drilled
18.9
71.5
BROADCAST SEED
Spike dropseed (Sporobolus
contractus)
0.01
2,885,000
0.6
Surface to %
-
Winterfat (Krascheninnkovia lanata)
0.50
111,000
1.2
Surface to %
-
Total Broadcast
0.51
1.8
17
-------
Unit 2
Units 2 covers approximately 384 acres. The seed mix for this unit is designed to produce a shrub/grassland
community dominated by rabbitbrush intermixed with grasses. Blue grama is the most common extant
grass within all of the Unit 2 areas and is associated with galleta which is generally only about a / of the
cover of blue grama. Because some of the soil samples collected in Unit 2 were clay the percentage of
galleta in the seed mixed was upped in the same manner described for Unit 1. Western wheatgrass is
uncommon within all of the Unit 2 areas, but was noted in the shade of the rabbitbrush shrubs and within
low areas where stormwater would briefly accumulate. It is anticipated that it will develop around the
rabbitbrush. The Unit 2 planting areas will require 10.35 pounds of native seed and 10.0 pounds of cover
crop seed per acre (Table 3.5). Approximately 0.6 pounds of this seed mix consists of either tiny seeds or
fluffy seeds for which general broadcast seeding is recommended either by equipment or by hand. The
remaining 9.75 pounds of native seed and the 10 pounds of cover crop seed will be installed via drilling.
Most the Unit 2 areas are flat and slopes greater than 3:1 are not expected.
Table 3.5 - Unit 2 Seed Mix
Species
Lbs/Acre (PLS)
Seeds/ Lb
PLS/Sq Foot
Depth (inches)
Variety
DRILLED SEED
Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
2.0
711,000
32.6
% to %
-
Galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii)
4
160,000
14.6
% to %
Viva
Western wheat grass (Pascopyrum
3
110,000
7.5
% to %
Arriba
smithii)
Spike muhly (Muhlenbergia wrightii)
0.25
1,635,000
9.3
% to %
El Vado
Bottlebrush Squirreltail (Elymus
0.5
192,000
2.2
% to %
-
elymoides)
Total Natives
9.75
66.2
Cover Crop
10
13,000
3.0
!
-------
Approximately 0.36 pounds of this seed mix consists of either tiny seeds or fluffy seeds for which general
broadcast seeding is recommended either by equipment or by hand. The remaining 9.25 pounds of native
seed and the 10 pounds of cover crop seed will be installed via drilling. Unit 3 is flat; there should be no
slopes steeper than 3:1.
Table 3.6 -Unit 3 Seed Mix
Species
Lbs/Acre (PLS)
Seeds/Lb
PLS/Sq Foot
Depth (inches)
Variety
DRILLED SEED
Galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii)
4
160,000
14.6
% to %
Viva
Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
2.0
711,000
32.6
% to %
-
Western wheat grass (Pascopyrum
smithii)
1.5
110,000
3.8
% to %
Arriba
Vine mesquite (Panicum obtusum)
0.25
145,000
0.8
% to %
-
Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex
canescens)
1.5
70,000
2.4
% to %
De-winged
Total Natives
9.25
54.2
Cover Crop
10
13,000
3.0
% to %
Quickquard
Total Drilled
19.25
57.2
BROADCAST SEED
Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides)
0.25
1,750,000
10.0
Surface to %
-
Spike dropseed (Sporobolus
contractus)
0.01
2,885,000
0.6
Surface to %
-
Hoary tansyaster (Macheranthera
canescens)
0.1
1,066,900
2.0
Surface to %
-
Total Broadcast
0.36
12.6
Unit 4a
Units 4a consists of arroyo riparian habitat within the study area and covers about 28 acres in long thin
segments. Within these areas rabbitbrush and western wheat grass often dominate, many times associated
with four-wing saltbush, galleta and to a lesser degree alkali sacaton, blue grama and hoary tansyaster. A
seed mix has been developed to mimic the current vegetation within these ephemeral waterways.
Segments of Unit 4 that require revegetation will require 9.05 pounds of native seed and 10 pounds of
cover crop seed per acre (Table 3.7). Approximately 0.7 pounds of the native seed mix consists of either
tiny seeds or fluffy seeds for which general broadcast seeding is recommended either by equipment or by
hand. The remaining 8.35 pounds of native seed and the 10 pounds of cover crop seed will be installed via
drilling. By definition these waterways have bed and bank structure, often with steep slopes that may
require broadcast seeding. Most of the channel bottoms are flat enough to use equipment for seeding.
Table 3.7 -Unit 4a Seed Mix
Species
Lbs/Acre (PLS)
Seeds/ Lb
PLS/ Sq Foot
Depth (inches)
Variety
DRILLED SEED
Four-wing saltbush (Atriplex
0.25
70,000
0.4
% to %
De-winged
canescens)
Galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii)
2
160,000
7.3
% to %
Viva
Western wheat grass (Pascopyrum
4
110,000
10.1
% to %
Arriba
smithii)
Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
2.0
711,000
32.6
% to %
-
Common sunflower (Helianthus
0.1
60,000
0.1
% to %
Wild Seed
annuus)
19
-------
Species
Lbs/ Acre (PLS)
Seeds/ Lb
PLS/ Sq Foot
Depth (inches)
Variety
Total Natives
8.35
50.5
Cover Crop
10
13,000
3.0
% to %
Quickquard
Total Drilled
18.25
53.5
BROADCAST SEED
Rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria
0.35
330000
2.6
Surface to %
-
nauseosa)
Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides)
0.25
1,750,000
10.0
Surface to %
-
Hoary tansyaster (Macheranthera
0.1
1,066,900
2.4
Surface to %
-
canescens)
Total Broadcast
0.7
15.0
Unit 4b
Unit 4b consists of a stock pond wetland area nearly 2 acres in area. It was the only pond in the study area
that provided pooled surface water during 2016. Water collects from ephemeral runoff from nearby slopes.
The presence of wetland vegetation indicates that water is fairly persistent at the site. The proposed
revegetation of this area would consist of augmenting existing conditions to provide a permanent to semi-
permanent watering hole such as those historically present in the area.
Seeded Material would consist only of common sunflower. This would provide a food source for insects
during spring and summer, and birds in the fall. Seeds would be raked into bare ground around the pond to
a depth of 025-0.5 inches. Planted material would consist of rooted shrubs and trees to augment the
herbaceous wetland vegetation that is already present. Cottonwood, coyote willow and Torrey wolfberry
are recommended.
Each species should be placed in designated bank locations (Figures 3a and 3b). The cottonwood trees will
be planted with the root crown set at the edge of the maximum pool size. Coyote willow will be planted in
two bands along much of the pond edge. One band being set just below the maximum pool line within the
edge of the water, and the other just above the edge of the water; and spaced approximately 5 feet apart
within these bands A cluster of coyote willows with 3-4 rows present will be planted in a grid along the
west-central edge of the pond as indicated on. Torrey wolf berry will be planted along the upland slopes
just above the southern edge of the ponded area, just above the maximum pool size. It can be planted
anywhere from one row to three rows wide depending upon the slope. They should be planted
approximately 5 feet apart along this slope. The exact placement of the planted shrubby material will be
determined when more topographic data is available for the site.
Planted material is vulnerable to damage from livestock. Once planted, Unit 4b will be fenced for 5-years to
allow for the establishment of woody vegetation. The fence should consist of three-strand class 1, 12 Vz
gauge, 2-point barbed wire strung on 5 foot tall studded T-posts. The wire should be strung around the
periphery of Unit 4b except to provide an invagination in the wire perimeter has been left to allow wildlife
and cattle to the deepest part of the stock pond.
Table 3.8a -Unit 4b Seed
Species
Lbs/Acre (PLS)
Seeds/Lb
PLS/Sq Foot
Depth (inches)
Variety
Raked Seed
Common sunflower (Helianthus
annuus)
0.5
60,000
0.3
% to %
Wild Seed
20
-------
Table 3.8b -Unit 4b Planted Material
Species
Quantity
Type
Specification
Plantings
Cottonwood
(Populus deltoides ssp. wislizeni)
26
Tree
1 gallon stem pots 4x4x14 inches deep
Coyote willow
(Salix exigua)
270
Tall shrub
1 gallon stem pots 4x4x14 inches deep
Torrey wolfberry
(Lycium torreyi)
70
Low shrub
1 gallon stem pots 4x4x14 inches deep
Retain Existing Vegetation
Areas meeting the following criteria are to retain existing vegetation. No earthwork is to be completed in
these areas.
¦ Avoidance areas Identified on Figure 2
¦ Slopes steeper than 2:1
¦ Arroyo bottom when slopes steeper than 3:1
4- PERFORMANCE MONITORING
Monitoring Plan
Monitoring Period
The USEPA proposes to provide annual monitoring during the growing season beginning at 2 years post
seeding/planting for a period of 12 years from seeding - per reclamation unit. Performance standards are
based on achieving or surpassing existing conditions with regard to percent cover and species composition.
Conditions have naturalized since the mine ceased operations. No formal reference plots were available
outside the site, but nearby areas were observed to estimate cover and species composition for informal
comparison.
Assessment Methods
The following assessment methods are proposed in order to evaluate revegetation success prior to final
abandonment/closeout:
¦ Percent foliar cover (line transect)
Twenty-five permanent 100 meter transects would be established on the reclamation site to be distributed
over the reclamation units relative to unit size and complexity. For each of the reclamation units, the
proposed number of transects and performance goals are provided below (Tables 4.1- 4.4):
Unit 1: 8 Transects
The objective for this unit is to meet a minimum total 37 percent cover comprised of grasses and shrubs
equal or increase the current percent cover, and reflect the general species composition of the area.
Table 4.1
Vegetative Type
Percent Cover
Subtotal - Grasses
35-40%
Subtotal - Shrubs
2-5%
Total
37 -45%
21
-------
Unit 2: 6 Transects
The objective for this unit is to meet a minimum total 50 percent cover comprised of grasses/forbs and
shrubs equal or increase the current percent cover, and reflect the general species composition of the area.
Table 4.2
Vegetative type
Percent Cover
Subtotal - Grasses
25-35%
Subtotal - Shrubs
25-30%
Total
50 -60%
Unit 3: 7 Transects
The objective for this unit is to meet a minimum total 30 percent cover comprised of grasses and shrubs
equal or increase the current percent cover, and reflect the general species composition of the area.
Table 4.3
Vegetative type
Percent Cover
Subtotal - Grasses/Forbs
15-20%
Subtotal - Shrubs
15-20%
Total
30-40%
Unit 4a: 3 Transects
The objective for this unit is to meet a minimum total 45 percent cover comprised of grasses and shrubs eto
qual or increase the current percent cover, and reflect the general species composition of the area.
Table 4.4
Vegetative Type
Percent Cover
Subtotal - Grasses
25-30%
Subtotal - Shrubs
15 -20%
Total
40 -50%
Unit 4b: 1 Transect
The objective for this unit is to meet a minimum total 40 percent cover comprised of grasses and
shrubs/trees equal or increase the current percent cover, and reflect the general species composition of the
area.
Table 4.5
Vegetative Type
Percent Cover
Subtotal - Shrubs
15-20%
Subtotal - Trees
5 -10%
Total
20 -30%
22
-------
¦ Photo point monitoring
At least 25 permanent photo points, each located at an endpoint of a line transect (at least one per
reclamation unit/subunit) will be established to provide qualitative documentation of revegetation success.
¦ Species List
A complete species list for plants observed within the line transects and within a 25-foot area on either side
(50 foot swath) will be provided for each transect. New species or species absent relative to previous
monitoring years will be identified and total number of plant species observed provided.
Timeline
The target timeline for meeting performance standards is at or before the end of the of the 12 year
monitoring period.
Ecological Function Indicators
During the monitoring period, field visits to the site will include documentation of the presence or absence
of qualitative indicators that the site is providing the desired ecological function.
Unit 1
¦ Presence of Prairie dog colonies and burrowing owls
¦ Evidence of small mammal use (burrows, trails, scat)
¦ Presence of Insects
Units 2 and 3
¦ Growth of shrubs (stem diameter, height)
¦ Browse/forage activity by elk, deer
¦ Bird nests
¦ Presence of insects
Unit 4a
¦ Growth of grass and shrubs (stem diameter, height)
¦ Hydrology indicators such as sediment lines and debris
Unit 4b
¦ Survival of at least 50 percent trees and shrubs
¦ Growth of shrubs/trees (stem diameter, height)
¦ Evidence of wildlife use (tracks, observations, photo-documentation)
¦ Presence of persistent water (if windmill installed)
Sustainability
The following indicators of site sustainability will be provided in the monitoring report.
¦ Presence of prairie dogs and owls for 5 or more repeated years
¦ Growth of shrubs/trees (stem diameter, height)
¦ Size/vigor/condition of planted material
23
-------
5 - ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Parties Responsible for Adaptive Management
The USEPA is the responsible party for implementing revegetation and subsequent monitoring. Long-term
maintenance requirements will be identified by USEPA in coordination with landowners and management
agencies.
Potential Challenges
At least five types of events that could reduce either the short-term or long-term success of revegetation
have been identified. These are: (1) site flooding leading to sedimentation; (2) site scouring leading to loss
of vegetation and soil; (3) protracted drought resulting in a loss of surface hydrology and loss of vegetation;
(4) infestation of invasive species supplanting desired species; and (5) over use by wildlife or livestock.
These events are described in more detail in the paragraphs that follow.
Flooding or Siltation of Planted Area
Flooding of the unit could lead to the deposition of fine silts and clays that bury emergent vegetation or the
deposition of sediment over seeded areas such that germinating seeds are not able to reach the surface.
The impacts of siltation are most damaging during the first season when seeds are germinating or seedlings
are growing (sediment deposits of 1-inch deep or more could affect seed germination or bury seedlings).
¦ Units 1, 2 and 3 have few drainages and a low potential for flooding.
¦ Unit 4 is historically an area that carries much of the area surface flow. During large flow
events, water could overtop the channel sheet flow.
¦ Unit 4 includes the arroyo and pond wetland. Large flow events could potentially bury the
constructed features at the wetland or cover planted and seeded material.
Action for Flooding, Siltation, and Sedimentation
Following large storm events, these actions are advised:
1. The reclamation unit (in particular Units 4a and 4b) should be inspected immediately, and an
evaluation of the level of siltation should be completed. In Unit 4b, an examination of the
constructed features and planted material in should be completed.
2. If siltation of at least 1 inch on seeded areas, or other damage is detected, the USEPA should be
contacted.
3. If substantial amounts of sediment have been deposited on un-germinated seeds, or if seedlings
are buried, an evaluation of the extent of the damage should be completed. Small areas of damage
can be reseeded by hand. Large areas may require the use of equipment. Watering may be
necessary to re-establish the vegetation.
4. If substantial sediment buildup occurs within the wetland pond Unit 4b, removal of material may be
necessary. Any planted material buried by silt may need to be replanted.
24
-------
Flood Scouring of Seeded areas. Planted Areas and Constructed Features
In the event of a large flow event within arroyos, scour could remove displace seeds, plants, or soil
amendments, fertilizers and micronutrients, and damage constructed features.
¦ Unit 4a is vulnerable to scour along its length during large flow events.
¦ Unit 4b is vulnerable to scour from storm events that could undermine constructed structures
or cut away the banks.
Action for Scouring from Flooding
1. The reclamation units should be inspected immediately, and an evaluation extent of scouring and
cutting should be completed. These three observations should be documented:
a) Determine whether the scouring was deeper than 1 inch of the surface, which would have
removed seeds or established vegetation.
b) Determine whether the scouring was deeper than 6-inches, which would remove the soil
treated with amendments, fertilizers, or micronutrients.
c) Determine whether the scouring was deeper than 6 inches below the surface, which would
alter the contours of the landscape. Within Unit 4a, a determination should be made as to
whether the constructed features are damaged.
2. If substantial scour has occurred to planted areas or if constructed features have been damaged,
then the USEPA should be contacted.
3. Shallow scours less than 1 inch that remove vegetation but do no impact the subsoil can be
mitigated by spreading a thin layer of soil over the area (approximately 1-inch) and reseeding and
mulching.
Scours to a depth of 6 inches will likely need localized recontouring followed by reapplication of
amendments, fertilizers, micronutrients, seeding, and mulching. Cuts deeper than 6 inches may
require regrading of a broader area to return the contours to the pre-flood conditions with the
ultimate response developed in coordination with the designing engineer and USEPA.
4. Damage to the constructed features may require repair or design modifications. A certified
engineer in cooperation with the USEPA should complete any modification of the designs.
Drought
The proposed revegetation plan is designed to accommodate local average rainfall patterns, in particular
the summer monsoon season. The current drought status of the removal area is currently classified as not
in drought (National Drought Mitigation Center). An evaluation of area temperature averages and drought
status should be conducted prior to seeding or planting. Regular monitoring should occur during the
revegetation process along with inspection of seeded sites to determine whether supplemental watering is
required. The fall planting schedule was identified in anticipation of dry conditions. However, changing
short or long term climate patterns should be considered.
In all units drought could result in the failure of seeded material to germinate, the death of seedlings, or the
death/weakening of planted or established vegetation.
25
-------
Action for Drought
1. Supplemental water is expected to be available. However, if not available, and weather monitoring
indicates that precipitation levels are below 50 percent of normal and are likely to continue, then
consideration should be given to postponing planting.
2. If drought conditions develop after planting, weekly monitoring of the seeded and planted areas
should be implemented to look for signs of stress (withered leaves, brown leaves, yellowing).
3. If supplemental water is available, it should be provided to the planted and seeded material.
Watering should reflect natural events of a good monsoon season (minimum of 0.5 inches per week
from July 1 through September 30). The reclamation area is so large that regular watering of the
entire area may be impractical. If full watering of the site is not possible, then a triage approach is
recommended.
a) The planted wetland vegetation in Unit 4b is most vulnerable and should be watered first.
b) Areas where seeded vegetation has rooted and is growing should be watered next, (replacing
established vegetation is more difficult than reseeding).
c) Seeded areas that have germinated would be third in the list.
d) Seeded areas that have not germinated should be watered last.
Invasive Species
Three New Mexico noxious weed species are currently present (Siberian elm, salt cedar, and Russian olive).
• Siberian elm trees are scattered along the main paved access route into the site within Unit 2
(Section 30, T14N, R9W). One very large tree occurs in Unit 3 (S24, T14N, R10W), A few others
saplings were scattered across Unit 3, but are not expected to spread. Since these trees are known
perch sites for golden eagles they have been excluded from clearing.
• One large salt cedar and some seedlings occur within Unit 4b (Section 22, T14N, R10W). Aside from
portions of Unit 4a the remainder of the site does not provide suitable conditions for this species to
spread.
• Russian olive is very restricted to a few trees in the study area, occurring in a few low spots portions
of Unit 4a and Unit 2 in Section 30.
No specific removal plan is needed for the few scattered Class C species. With the exception of a single salt
cedar at the pond in Unit 4b, salt cedar and Russian olives will be removed by the clearing and grubbing.
Action for Invasive Species
1. If the salt cedars present do sprout, they will be spot treated with spray on herbicide (Arsenal), or if
there is concern about killing desirable seeded vegetation, the top of each individual stem can be
cut off during the early spring and concentrated herbicide applied directly to the fresh cut with a
small paintbrush.
2. Mechanical clearing of the few Russian olives present will occur during the grubbing process. No
other treatment is necessary.
26
-------
3. If patches of other species of weeds invade the site after the clearing, then grubbing and excavation
is recommended followed immediately by herbicide.
Overuse by Wildlife and Livestock
Livestock will be excluded from the site during the revegetation process and should not damage vegetation.
However, deer and elk occur in the area. Elk will graze on grasses once they sprout and it would be difficult
to exclude them from the seeded areas. Elk and deer will eat saplings of riparian woody species,
cottonwoods in particular.
¦ Unit 1 supports graze, some browse and limited cover for elk or deer, but supports prairie dogs and
associated burrowing owl nests.
¦ Unit 2 and 3 support browse, forage and some cover for elk and deer.
¦ Unit 4b provides water for wildlife.
Action for Overuse by Wildlife and Livestock
1. Livestock should be excluded from the area until the native vegetation has become fully established
(5 years recommended).
2. If deer or elk are damaging seeded areas, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF)
should be contacted. NMDGF maintains a Wildlife Depredation and Nuisance Abatement Program
designed to reduce wildlife damage to property.
3. Damage from browsing may occur to the planted vegetation in Unit 4a. Wire cages have been
recommended to avoid or reduce browsing. However, these cages can be damaged. Therefore,
they must be periodically inspected and repaired or replaced, as needed.
Procedures for Modifying Performance Standards and Timeframe
As reclamation proceeds, altering the work plan and performance standards may be required. Deviations
from expected performance will become evident during the annual monitoring of the site. The reclamation
management contractor and USEPA will be notified of a need to modify any of the following due to
availability of materials, natural events that alter the landscape/potential for success, or other events:
• Soil amendments
• Seed Mix
• Planting Material
• Constructed features
• Performance goals
• Performance standards
In coordination with state agency stakeholders, the USEPA will determine whether modifications are
acceptable and develop new standards if needed, which will be provided to the contractor as soon as
feasible for implementation.
27
-------
6- REFERENCES
AGGRAND Products
2010 Soil Fertility Guide. Website: https://www.aggrand.com/articles/g2792.pdf
Aqua-Flo Supply
2013 Improving Soil Fertility with Humate. Website: http://www.aquaflo.com/improving-soil-fertility-
with-humate/
2010 Cornell cover crop guide for oats. Cornell University. 2pp. Ver. 1.100716
Website: http://covercrops.cals.cornell.edu/pdf/oats.pdf
Bollen, W. B., and K. C. Lu.
1957 Effect of Douglas fir sawdust mulches and incorporations on soil microbial activities and plant
growth. Soil Sci. SOC.Am. Proc. 21(1):35-41.
Canadian Land Reclamation Association
2013 Proceedings of the 2013 Northern Latitudes Mining Reclamation Workshop and 38th Annual
Meeting of the Canadian Land Reclamation Association.
Cooperband, Leslie
2002 Building Soil Organic Matter with Organic Amendments. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center
for Integrated Agricultural Systems.
Davis J.G. and D Whiting
2013 Choosing a Soil Amendment - 7.235. Colorado State University Extension
Website: http://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/yard-garden/choosing-a-soil-amendment/
Gano, K.A. and J. B. States
1982 Habitat requirements and burrowing depths of rodents in relation to shallow waste burial sites.
PNL-4140, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Gray, James R.
1973 Uses of sawdust and bark in New Mexico. New Mexico State University Library.
Website: http://contentdm.nmsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/AgCircs/id/22367
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, M.M. McGraw, G.Z. Jacobi, C.M. Canavan, T.S. Schrader, D. Mercer, R. Hill, and
B.C. Moran.
2006 Ecoregions of New Mexico (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and
photographs): Reston Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (Map scale 1:1,400,000). Website:
www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm.
Koll, Paul, and Martin F. Jurgensen, R. Kasten Dumroese.
2010 Effects of Pine Sawdust, Hardwood Sawdust, and Peat on Bareroot Soil Properties. US Department
of Agriculture Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-62 Website
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs p062/rmrs p062 071 075.pd
28
-------
Johnson, David H. D.C. Gillis M. A. Gregg, J. L Rebholz, J.L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff
2010 Users Guide to the Installation of Artificial Burrows for Burrowing Owl. Global Owl Project.
Wdfw.wa.gove/publications/01100/wdfw01199.pdf.
Jordon, L.
2010 Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow Installation. Thebirdersreport.com/conservation/burrowing-owl-
artificial-burrow-installation.
Menzel, S.
2014 An Assessment of Artificial Burrows for Burrowing Owls in Northern California. Master's Thesis
http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd theses.
Larney, F. J. and Angers, D. A.
2012 The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation: A review. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Alberta, Canada. Website: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271516678
The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation A review
Lidhi, A., Shermeen Tahir, et al.
2013 Characterization of Commercial Humic Acid Samples and Their Impact on Growth of Fungi and
Plants. Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad.
Magdoff, F., and H. Van Es
2009 Building soils for better crops. 3rd ed. Sustainable Agriculture Network Handbook Series Book 10.
National Agricultural Laboratory, Beltsville, MD.
Website:: http://www.sare.org/publications/bsbc/bsbc.pdf
Mahdy, Ahmed Mohamed
2011 Soil & Water Res., 6, 2011 (4): 205-216. Comparative Effects of Different Soil Amendments on
Amelioration of Saline-Sodic Soils.
Website: http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/51684.pdf
McGeehan, Steven L.
2012 Impact of Waste Materials and Organic Amendments on Soil Properties and Vegetative
Performance. Applied and Environmental Soil Science.
Website: http://www.hindawi.com/iournals/aess/2012/907831/
National Drought Mitigation Center.
2017 Website: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Home/StateDroughtMonitor
National Resources Conservation Service
2016 Soil Mapper. Website http://websoilsurvev.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
New Mexico Administrative Code
2014 Guidance for Meeting Radiation Criteria Levels and Reclamation at New Uranium Mining
Operations. Title 19, Chapter 10, Part3, and Part 6 (Draft). Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources
Department Mining and Minerals Division.
29
-------
Norton, Jay
2009 BLRS Soils Workshop. Soil Fertility and Amendments for Rangeland Reclamation. Website:
http://www.uwvo.edu/soilfert/pubs/soil%20fertilitv%20and%20amendments%20for%20rangeland%20recl
amation.pdf
Olatuyl, S. O., L. A. Leskiw
2015 Evaluation of soil reclamation techniques at the Key Lake uranium mine. Canadian Journal for Soil
Science. Edmonton Alberta, Canada.
Olayinka, Akinyemi and Adewale Adebayo
1985 The effect of methods of application of sawdust on plant growth, plant nutrient uptake and soil
chemical properties. Plant and Soil. 86:1 pp47-56. Website: http://link.springer.com/article
Olenick, B.
1987 Reproductive success of Burrowing Owls using artificial nest burrows in southwestern
Idaho. Eyass 10:38.
Partners in Flight.
2016 Burrowing Owl Artificial Nest Box Project. Mirror-pole.com/burr_owl/bur_owll.htm.
Peace, Jerry. 2016. Personal communication.
Poulin, R. G.
2000 Burrowing Owl nest box: construction and installation procedures.Saskatchewan Environment and
Resource Management, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Sandia National Laboratories
2012 Discussion and Evaluation of Humate. SAND Number: 2012-10401P.US Department of Energy. 8pp.
2013 Soil Remediation using Humate as a Prime Soil Conditioner. SAND Number: 2013-9397. US.
Department of Energy. 8pp.
Shomaker, John W., and William L Hiss
1974 Humate Mining in Northwestern New Mexico. New Mexico Geol. Soc. Guidebook, 25th Field Conf.,
Ghost Ranch (Central-Northern N.M.). Website:
https://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/downloads/25/25 p0333 p0336.pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers.
2008 A field guide to the identification of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in the arid west region
of the western United States. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Laboratory.
Wallace, Victoria
2016 Temporary grasses stabilize soil. Penton Media, Inc. Website: http://grounds-
mag.com/mag/grounds maintenance temporary grasses stabilize/
Washington State University Whatcom County Extension.
Compost Fundamentals Compost Needs (Materials & methods to ensure quality compost) Carbon-nitrogen
relationships. Website: http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/compost/fundamentals/needs carbon nitrogen.htm
30
-------
APPENDIX A
Figures
Exhibits
-------
San Juan
Rio Arriba
Colfax
Mora
McKinl
Bernalillo-
Cibola
Guadalupe
Vaknck Toirance
DeBaca
Roosevelt
Socorro
Catron
Lincoln
Chaves
Grant
Otero
Dona
Ana
Hidalgo
MrtC MS
Figure 1a
Project Location Map
Study Area
Removal Area
Land Ownership
BLM
Private
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles
0.5
T 14N, R 10W& 9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
McKinley County, New Mexico
N
I Kilometers
0.425
0.85
1.7
A
I Miles 1:40,000
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico - Re-Vegetation
-------
-------
"Ambrosial
mkkim
6; T14N.R10W
23; T14N.R10W
24; T14N.R10W
19; T14N.R09W
26; T14N.R10W
34; T14N.R10VV
15: T14N.R10W
; T14N.R10W
10; T14N.R10W
36; T14N.R10W
31; T14N.R09W
22; T14N.R1QW
27; T14N4R10W0W
14; T14N.R10W
25; T14N.R10W
11: T14N.R10W
13; T14N.R10W
35; T14N.R10W
18; T14N.R09W
Figure 1c
Restricted Areas
Study Area
Avoidance Area
Perch Trees
0.5
0.375
T 14N, R 10W&9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
Bernalillo County, New Mexico
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7,5' Quadrangles ^
0.75
I Kilometers
1.5
Miles
A
USEPA Tronox 4 Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico - Re-Vegetation
-------
23; T14N.R10W
25; T14N.R10W
Rio Arriba
Colfax
Alp*not .
Project Area
Mora \ Harding
McKinl
Bernalill(
Cibola
Guadalupe
Valenci
Torranc*
DeBac;
Catron
Grant
Otero
Figure 2
Reclamation Units
Study Area Unit 3 T14N, R 10W& 9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
Removal Area Unit 4a McKinley County, New Mexico
Goat Mountain, NM &
Unit 1 Unit 4b
Ambrosia Lake, NM
ynjj 2 USGS 7.5' Quadrangles N
0.5 1 2
Kilometers
0.35 0.7 1.4
Miles 1:33,000
A
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico - Re-Vegetation
-------
Reclamation Unit ID Sites
Point ID
UTM
Id
Unit
Xcoord
Ycoord
1
1
240957.9511
3924853.883
2
2
241998.2174
3924908.09
3
1/2
241767.8827
3924373.994
4
2/3
240785.6605
3924408.067
5
1/2
242053.1848
3923414.875
6
2
242940.2208
3923391.416
7
1/2
243095.0539
3922161.973
8
1/2
242130.8447
3922479.85
9
1
241806.0655
3922723.421
10
1/3
241309.9847
3922967.686
11
1
241916.0932
3923286.668
12
3
240544.1856
3923524.701
13
3/4
240591.089
3922502.266
14
1/3
239652.3917
3923329.548
15
4
238948.8093
3923121.238
16
1/3
239271.2251
3923182.641
17
1
239394.4024
3923653.111
18
4
238612.9929
3923524.598
19
2
238473.5245
3923622.966
20
1/3
238609.294
3923990.372
21
1/3
238797.2529
3924102.122
22
4
237896.1325
3923840.168
23
2
237972.9668
3924053.499
24
2
237957.7633
3924244.364
25
2/3
238313.1746
3924319.88
26
4
238284.4983
3924489.196
27
3
238970.1908
3925112.158
28
3
239031.2442
3924534.651
29
3
237774.6162
3925087.572
30
1/4
241698.9222
3921853.037
31
1
242964.4419
3921774.241
32
1
239087.876
3927704.409
33
1
239060.8616
3927293.924
34
2
238942.932
3927486.505
35
4b
238252.5715
3924595.943
-------
*s8£>iSfe.
Or /
or
<
I
N
A
1:1,000
TUN, R 10W&9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
McKinley County, New Mexico
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles
~ T
/
Potential Windmill Location
¦
§ 1 _ , _
IS* 9
Dirt Access Road
Figure 3a
Unit 4b Conceptual Planting Overview
Removal Area
Unit 4b
O
Salix exigua (Coyote Willow)
Lycium torreyi (Wolfberry)
Populus deltoides (Cottonwood)
Access Route to Water
for Cattle
3 Strand Barbed Wire Fence
Set on 5' Tall Studded T-Posts
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico - Re-Vegetation
-------
8'TallT-Posts
Wfcwen Wlire
or Chicken Wire-
Wrapped Arour»d
Posts
-—-
—
¦—A
--—-
[— —-
L
' Cottonwood
Tree
Cottonwood Protection Cage
Cottonwood
(Populus deltoides ssp.wisJizeni)
Coyote willow
(Salix exigua)N
T-post W[re Cage
36 inches rj
V Stem of J
T-post y»T-post
Plan View of Cottonwood Protection Cage
Torrey wolfberry
(Lycium torreyi)
o^:
Or
cc
<
Figure 3b
Conceptual Planting Plan View
Unit 4b
T14N, R 10W&9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
McKinley County, New Mexico
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles Scale:
"Fig not to scale
N
A
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico - Re-Vegetation
-------
in'
Ground Level
ik
Artificial Burrow
CO
V
Artificial Burrow 11
26'
PROFILE
60'
Artificial Burrow
~46r~
Artificial Buitcw
2 ff
Scale .Approximate
PLAN VIEW
o^:
Or
or
<
Figure 3c
Burrow Placement
Conceptual Plan
T 14N, R 10W&9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
McKinley County, New Mexico
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles
N
A
Scale:
'Fig not to scale
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico - Re-Vegetation
-------
Figure 3d
Berm Locations
Study Area Unit 3
Removal Area Unit 4
Unit 1 ~ Berm
Unit 2
o
0
T 14N, R 10W& 9W;
Sec. 10, 11. 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
McKinley County, New Mexico
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles
N
0.225
0.15
0.45
0.9
¦I Kilometers
0.3
0.6
A
I Miles 1:14,000
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico - Re-Vegetation
-------
nfi- T14NI R09W
11; T14N.R10W
12; T14N.R10W
14; T14N.R10W
13; T14N.R10W
28; T14N.R10W
27; T14N4R10W0W
25; T14N.R10W
34; T14N.R10W
35; T 14N.R10W
10; T14N.R10W
36; T14N.R10W
19; T14N.R09W
26; T14N.R10W
30; T14N.R09W
22; T14N.R10W
23; T14N.R10W
24; T14N.R10W
31: T14N.R09W
15; T14N.R10W
Bjtfc-l ¦ -
02; T 14N.R10W
18; T14N.R09W
Figure 4
Project Area
1954 Aerial Photo
Study Area
Removal Area
Goat Mountain, NM &
Ambrosia Lake, NM
USGS 7.5' Quadrangles
T 14N, R 10W& 9W;
Sec. 10, 11, 15, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30
McKinley County, New Mexico
N
0.5
Kilometers
0.4
0.8
1.6
A
I Miles 1:35,000
USEPA Tronox Western GSA Mines, McKinley County, New Mexico
-------
APPENDIX B
Soil Amendment Sources **
(**Marron is not affiliated with any listed source. Inclusion of sources is for information
purposes and not
intended to provide an endorsement.)
32
-------
Appendix B
-------
Humate Sources
Menefee Mining Corporation
36 Duke City Rd,
Cuba, NM 87103
575-289-0259
Mesa Verde Resources
P.O. box 1368
Placitas, NM 87043
Contact: Bruce Reid
505-362-3777
Horizon Ag Products
23 Cubita Road, Cuba,
NM 87013. Sandoval County
Contact: Steve Brady
575-289-2565
Sawdust Sources
Olguin Sawmill
Taos, New Meixco-
Sawdust available 575-758-1506
El Molino Sawmill
Alto, NM
575-336-1237-
Boards, firewood, uncertain about sawdust
Spotted Owl Timber,
Santa Fe, NM 505-474-5326
Sawdust, mulch and landscaping material
Mt. Taylor Manufacturing LLC.
Milan, NM.
505-877-0890 Albuquerque,
Milan 505 287-9469
Possibly sawdust and compost from wood products
Dairy Manure Sources
De Smet Dairy and Creamery
2405 McNew Rd
Bosque Farms, NM 87068
(505) 916-0475
Old Windmill Dairy
52 Paso Ranch Rd
Estancia, NM 87016
(505) 384-0033
O
-------
asband Dairy
7116 Isleta Blvd SW
Albuquerque, NM 87105
(505) 873-2171
Mickey's Cash & Carry Dairy
5102 Coors Blvd SW
Albuquerque, NM 87105
(505) 873-0542
Edeal Dairy
147 Edeal Rd
Los Lunas, NM 87031
(505) 865-9517
Creamland Dairies
1201W Apache St
Farmington, NM, 87401
(505) 325-0281
Willard Dairy
190 Dairy Rd
Willard, NM 87063
(505) 384-0573
Pareo Farm Inc
PO Box 489,
Veguita, NM 87062
(505) 864-8103
Caballo Dairy
1 Caballo Alto Rd
Arrey, NM 87930
(575) 267-3061
Gonzalez Dairy Inc
14310 Stern Dr
Mesquite, NM 88048
(575) 233-4801
F&A Dairy Products, Inc.
355 Crawford Blvd
Las Cruces, NM 88007
(575) 647-1696
Las Uvas Valley Dairy
Las Uvas Diary Rd
Hatch, NM 87937
(575) 267-3037
o
I 3
-------
Compost Sources
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, Soils Amendment Facility 7401 Access Road NW
Albuquerque, NM 87102
4201 2nd St. SW (waste water treatment plant)
Albuquerque, NM 87105
Contact: Joe Bailey, Supervisor
E-mail: jbailey@abcwua.org
Phone: 505-205-5721 or 505-873-6989
Feedstocks: 20% solids (municipal biosolids), waste horse stable bedding, pulverized green waste, bark fines and
chips
Quantity produced: 45,000 cu. yds. per year capacity.
Barela Landscaping
7713 Bates Rd. SE
Albuquerque, NM 87105
Contact: Eddie Barela, owner
E-mail: cb0513@myway.com
Phone: 505-877-8522
Feedstocks: yard trimmings, steer manure, dairy manure, chili peelings Quantity produced: 40,000 cu. yds. per year
Barela Timber management Co
Contact: Ralph Barela
viga@newmexico.com
699 Harlan Dr.
Las Vegas, NM 87701
Phone: 505-617-1966, 505-425-9479, 505-454-4311 60,000 cu. yds. Capacity
Compost, Colored Mulches, Aged Mulch, Vigas
Midwest Bio-Systems
3333 Majestic Ridge -207B
Las Cruces, NM 88011
Contact: Greg Berry
Phone: 575-521-3692 Fax 521-3699
E-mail: gberry@totacc.com
Applications: Composting systems, microbe applications and Aeromaster turning equipment, Compost and
balanced soil fertility consulting.
Mountain Rich Soils
HCR 74, Box 22612
El Prado, NM 87529
Contact: Dave West
Phone: 505-758-4150
Email: growfoodnow@tierralucero.org
Feedstocks: alfalfa, forest waste, manure, straw, humates, Production: approx. 10,000 cu. yds. per year
Sandoval County Landfill
Contact: Buster Roseberry
Phone: 505-269-6120
-------
E-mail: rmsanchez@sandovalcounty.com
Feedstocks: Green waste, cow manure, horse manure
Future feedstocks to include biosolids and municipal solid waste
Quantity Produced: to be determined
Application: county projects, general public
Santa Fe, City of
73 Paseo Real
Santa Fe, NM 87507
General Information 505-955-4650
Contact: Sherman Bilbo, Compost
Phone: 505-955-4681
E-mail: swbilbo@santafenm.gov
Website: www.santafenm.gov/compost
Feedstocks: wood chips, biosolids, horse stable bedding
Quantity produced: 30,000-35,000 Cubic Yards per year will eventually be produced .
The composting operation processes all biosolids with appropriate high-carbon feedstocks to produce a
marketable soil conditioner product. (Screened Compost $11.50/cubic yard; Unscreened Compost $9.00/cubic
yard; Compost Overs $6.00/cubic yard)
Santa Fe Solid Waste Management Agency Caja del Rio Landfill
149 Wildlife Way
Santa Fe, NM 87507 Contact: Randall Kippenbrock, Executive Director
E-mail: rkippenbrock@sfswma.org
Phone: 505-424-1850 ext. 100 or 505-820-0208 (Transfer Station)
Feedstocks: ground green waste and horse manure / stable bedding
Qty Produced: Actual 2004 = 10,000 Tons
Application: DOT Erosion Control Compost, currently some sales sold as mulch. If loaded, charge for compost is $6
/ cu. yd.; screened compost is $10 / cu. yd. Mulch $2 / cu. yd.
Soilutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 1479
Tijeras, NM 87059
9008 Bates Road, SE (no zip - Delivery address)
Albuquerque, NM
Contact: Jim Brooks, Misch Lehrer, Walter Dods
Phone: 505-877-0220 or 505-281-8425
E-mail: walter@soilutions.net
Feedstocks: Yard trimmings, selected animal manures, stall bedding, agricultural and food processing residuals
Quantity Produced: 5,000-10,000 cu. yds. annually
Products Available: Premium Compost, soil blends, mulches, NMDOT erosion control products, composting worms,
green waste, food waste and C&D recycling services
Comments: Company is actively pursuing nitrogen sources as well as distributorships in New Mexico.
Quantity Produced: 300,000+ cu. Yds. Per year
Types of equipment: extensive
Application: Wholesale, retail, golf courses and other turf grass applications, etc.
-------
APPENDIX I
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK EVALUATION
-------
This page intentionally left blank
-------
Appendix I
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOLOGICAL RISK EVALUATION
Uranium mine wastes are known to contain elevated levels of radium-226 (Ra-226) and associated
progeny. Radium-226, a daughter product in the uranium-238 (U-238) decay chain, has been
found to be the predominant contributor of radiological risk to human health and is the
radionuclide for which historical cleanup limits have been specified at uranium mines.
Radium-226 has been identified as a human health contaminant of potential concern (COPC) at
the Section 10 Mine Site to be addressed as part of cleanup actions. Radium is formed when
uranium and thorium undergo natural decay in the environment. During the decay processes,
alpha, beta, and gamma radiation are released. Results of Site investigations have indicated the
need for a response action to control releases and prevent human exposure to radiation at the Site.
Table 1-1 summarizes the radionuclide analytical results and the human health risks associated
with Ra-226 and other isotopes of the Uranium-235 (U-235) and U-238 decay chains at the
Section 10 Mine Site, assuming no action is taken. EPA considered contributions to human health
and ecological risks from all of the isotopes in the U-238 and U-235 decay chains. Note that the
risk estimates presented in Table 1-1 also include contribution of the background level of Ra-226
(1.3 pCi/g). The estimated cancer risk associated with some of the waste soil currently present at
the Section 10 Mines Site exceeds the EPA 10"4 overall cancer risk threshold, and therefore it is
anticipated that action will be taken to reduce the human health risk.
Several other non-radionuclide metals were also identified as exceeding human health screening
levels and background (Table 1-2). Table 1-3 summarizes the human health risks associated with
non-radionuclide metals. Tables 1-4, 1-5 and 1-6 present the results of an ecological risk
assessment for the Section 10 Mines Site. Table 1-7 presents an evaluation of the grazing of forage
by domesticated animals and wildlife.
The following sections describe the risk assessment process. Based on this evaluation it is
concluded that Site actions are required to address radiological human health risks at the Section
10 Mines Site, and that actions taken to address radionuclides will be protective for
non-radionuclide chemical exposure and for exposure of ecological receptors.
US EPA REGION 8
1 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
1. Analytical Data Used in Risk Assessment Calculations
Analytical results of soil samples collected during the Removal Site Evaluation at the Section 10
Mine Site (WESTON, 2019) served as input data for the human health and ecological risk
assessments. These samples were analyzed for radioisotopes (i.e., Ra-226) via gamma
spectroscopy in the field using an on-site Multi-Channel Analyzer (MCA). Four of the surface
samples were also analyzed in an off-site laboratory as verification of the on-site MCA results.
Surface soil (0-6 inch below ground surface [bgs]) samples were collected to verify that
radioactive contamination existed in areas of elevated gamma. Ten surface soil samples were
collected from the Section 10 Mines Site. To determine vertical extent of contamination,
subsurface soil samples (12-18 inch bgs) were collected from "mine impact" (direct impact from
surface related mining operations) and "sheet flow" (mining operation surface water discharge)
areas throughout the surface-contaminated areas. The samples were collected in "mine areas" at
a density of one sample for each 2 acres. A total of 10 subsurface samples plus one field duplicate
were collected from the Section 10 Mine Site.
In October 2018, eight surface soil samples plus one duplicate were collected from the Section 10
Mine Site for analysis of TAL (EPA Method 6010B) metals. The metals analysis was performed
to evaluate if common mining-related heavy metals present a potential risk to human health or the
environment. A minimal number of samples were analyzed for TAL metals and uranium metals
due to consistent geochemistry and limited historical processing for metals other than uranium as
product. There is no history of non-uranium metals mining in the ALSD. The analytical results
used in the evaluations are summarized in Table 1-1 and Table 1-2.
Additionally, EPA collected two vegetative metals uptake samples in order to determine the
current vegetative nutrient values and uptake of potential hazardous constituents available to
grazing animals (domesticated animals and wildlife). The analytical results are presented in
Table 1-7. Native plant tissue samples were analyzed for nutrients (iron, zinc, copper, and
manganese) and for toxicity metals (molybdenum, uranium, vanadium, and selenium).
USEPA REGION 8
2 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
2. Screening to Identify Contaminants of Potential Concern
The non-radionuclide sampling results were screened against the November 2019 EPA [2019a]
residential Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) (https://semspub.epa.gov/work/03/2229055.pdf).
the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED, 2019) generic soil screening levels (SSLs)
for residential land use and the local background concentrations to identify human health non-
radionuclide COPCs. Table 1-2 summarizes this screening process, showing contaminants that
were considered, the minimum and maximum concentrations, associated RSLs and SSLs, and
background concentrations, and either identifies each contaminant as a COPC or explains why it
was screened from consideration. Screening levels were adjusted to a target cancer risk of 10"6
and a target hazard quotient of 0.1 to account for additive risk. Aluminum, arsenic, cobalt, iron,
manganese, selenium, uranium, and vanadium concentrations exceeded the most stringent of their
respective RSLs.
Site-specific background levels were not available. Background levels for the metals were
obtained from literature values for New Mexico (EPA, 2007) and the Western United States
(Shacklette and Boernren, 1984). These background levels are also considered in the risk
evaluation. Background information is important to risk managers because the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) program, generally, does
not clean up to concentrations below natural or anthropogenic background levels (EPA, 2002).
Aluminum, cobalt, iron and manganese concentrations do not exceed background levels. However
the following four metals exceed their background levels:
• The maximum arsenic concentration (20 mg/kg) exceeds the mean concentration (5.9
mg/kg).
• The maximum selenium concentration (87 mg/kg) exceeds the mean concentration (0.29
mg/kg)
• The maximum uranium concentration (310 mg/kg) exceeds the mean concentration (2.5
mg/kg)
• The maximum vanadium concentration (250 mg/kg) exceeds the mean concentration (71.4
mg/kg)
USEPA REGION 8
3 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
As shown in Table 1-2, arsenic, selenium, uranium and vanadium were identified as non-
radionuclide human health COPCs in soil. A streamlined risk assessment for these metals is
presented below.
3. Streamlined Human Health Risk Assessment
The results of the streamlined human health risk assessment are summarized in Table 1-1 for
radionuclides. Cancer is the major effect of concern from radionuclides. Radium is known to cause
bone, head, and nasal passage tumors in humans; and radon, via inhalation exposure, causes lung
cancer in humans. The potential excess lifetime cancer risk on human receptors from exposure to
Ra-226 and other isotopes of the U-235 and U-238 decay chains in soil was assessed for the
Section 10 Mine Site. Radionuclides in the soil may be absorbed by plants and consumed by
livestock and humans. Persons working at the Site may be exposed to contaminated dust by
inhalation of particulate matter. Whole body (external) radiation may be experienced by people
on or near the Site itself. Key assumptions used in the human health risk evaluation are described
below.
Many sections of the Ambrosia Lake valley are used for grazing cattle, although some sections
are not currently grazed due to the radioactive contamination in the surface soil. There are
currently no residences in the former mining area of the Section 10 Mine Site and it is unlikely
that the property would be used for residential development due to the remoteness of the area.
Cattle ranching is considered to remain as the future use of the site. A rancher may be exposed to
radiological contaminants through incidental ingestion of soil, external radiation from
contaminants, inhalation of fugitive dusts, and meat consumption taking into account the potential
future land use of grazing and associated ranching activities.
The indoor and outdoor radon inhalation pathway was not included in this assessment. The indoor
inhalation pathway was not considered because there are no occupied buildings on the site and no
future plans for site development. An EPA review of outdoor radon data collected at uranium
mine and mill sites (WESTON, 2012; Rio Algom Mining, 2016) in the vicinity of the Section 10
Mine site verified that clean-air dilution of radon emissions from those sites rapidly reduces the
airborne concentrations to inconsequential levels (i.e., less than the EPA recommended limit for
indoor concentrations of 4 pCi/L).
US EPA REGION 8
4 of 17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
The risk to a rancher from potential exposure to isotopes of the U-235 and U-238 decay chains
was evaluated at the Section 10 Mines area. The EPA Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG)
calculator (https://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/radionuclides/rprg search) was used to calculate site-
specific risk estimates for exposure from soil incidental ingestion, external exposure, inhalation of
particulates (details are included in Attachment 1), and consumption of meat (i.e., beef). The risk
estimates considered the isotopes of the U-235 decay chain (i.e., Th-231, Pa-231, Ac-227, Th-
227, Fr-223, Ra-223, At-219, Rn-219, Bi-215, Po-215, Pb-211, Bi-211, Tl-207, Po-211, and stable
Pb-207) and the U-238 decay chain (i.e., Th-234, Pa-234m, U-234, Pa-234, Th-230, Ra-226, Rn-
222, Po-218, Pb-214, At-218, Bi-214, Rn-218, Po-214, Tl-210, Pb-210, Pb-210, Bi-210, Hg-206,
Po-210, Tl-206 and stable Pb-206) as being in secular equilibrium. The assumption of secular
equilibrium is that the parent is continually being renewed. The single isotopes of U-235 and U-
238 were selected, and the calculator identified all the daughters in the chain. The risk estimates
for each daughter are combined with the parent on a fractional basis. The fractional basis is
determined by branching fractions where a progeny may decay into more than one isotope. The
resulting risk estimate is now based on secular equilibrium of the full chain (EPA [2019] PRG
Calculator User's Guide (https://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/prg_guide.html).
A combination of three land-use scenario templates in the PRG Calculator were used to develop
the risk estimates: the "Composite Worker" to model outdoor ranching activities; the "Indoor
Worker" to model ranching activities inside a truck; and "Farmer" to model the consumption of
site-raised beef. A number of conservative default assumptions presented in the PRG and
calculators and literature sources were reviewed to develop conservative assumptions for
calculating risk estimates for the rancher. EPA derived PRG Calculator default values to represent
reasonable maximum exposure to broad-based populations, typically 90-95 percentile values,
which are well above the mean. These assumptions are described below.
¦ Ranching was assumed to occur on the site 5 days per week for 50 weeks per year for 25
years, which is the default exposure frequency and duration of an indoor worker and
composite worker (EPA, 2019b).
¦ Two cattle ranchers who operate on lands near the Site were interviewed to determine a
reasonable amount of time a cattle rancher might spend on this activity. Consequently,
EPA used a value of 400 hours per year (1.6 hours/day [interviews] for 250 days/year
[PRG Calculator default value for Composite and Indoor Worker]) for annual exposure
US EPA REGION 8
5 of 17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
frequency. Half of this time was determined to be spent outdoors (0.8 hours; see
discussion below).
¦ Traveling in a vehicle will limit external exposure to radionuclides; a rancher was
assumed half of their exposure time (0.8 hours per day) in a truck (EPA, 2011,
Table 16-24: Time Spent in Truck, Doers. Western Census Region, 95 percentile;
235 minutes/day = 3.9 hours = approximately 50% of an 8-hour workday). A vehicle was
estimated to provide a gamma shielding factor of 0.7 by a Certified Health Physicist
conducting a reproducible field experiment (Attachment 2). No cover layer was assumed
for exposure outside a vehicle.
¦ A default composite worker soil intake rate of 100 milligrams per day (mg/day) (EPA,
2019b) was applied for a rancher.
¦ Inhalation rate of a rancher was assumed to be 60 cubic meters/day based on the PRG
Calculator default value for an outdoor worker (EPA, 2019b).
¦ Average body weights of 80 kilograms for an adult was assumed over the exposure
period (EPA, 2019b).
¦ Inhalation of chemicals adsorbed to respirable particles (particles less than or equal to 10
micrometers in diameter) was assessed using a default particulate emission factor (PEF)
equal to 2.57E+09 cubic meters per kilogram. The default PEF was derived using default
values adjusted to apply to the climate zone for Albuquerque, New Mexico and a
250-acre source size (approximately equivalent to one million square meters, the largest
Area Correction Factor choice in the PRG Calculator [the site equals approximately
5 million square meters]). The PEF equation relates the contaminant concentration in soil
with the concentration of respirable particles in the air due to fugitive dust emissions
from contaminated soils. The relationship is derived by Cowherd, et al. (Cowherd, 1985;
as cited by EPA, 2019b) for a rapid assessment procedure applicable to a typical
hazardous waste site, where the surface contamination provides a relatively continuous
and constant potential for emission over an extended period of time (i.e., years). This
represents an annual average emission rate based on wind erosion that should be
compared with chronic health criteria; it is not appropriate for evaluating the potential for
more acute exposures (EPA, 2019b).
¦ It is assumed that 48% of meat consumed by a rancher was home-produced (i.e., from on-
Site animals), which is based on the 50th percentile value for "percent of home-raised
meat consumed by Western households who farm" presented in Table 13-19 of EPA's
2011 Exposure Factors Handbook. Default home produced meat consumption rate of
165.3 grams/day for 350 days/year was assumed based on the default PRG Calculator
value for beef (EPA, 2019b). These values are an annual consumption rates so an
exposure frequency (EF) of 350 days/year was applied.
¦ Cattle were considered to graze on Site 33 percent of the time annually, based on research
citing that rangeland experts suggest only 25 to 50 percent of arid rangeland in fair to
USEPA REGION 8
6 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
good condition should be consumed or utilized by livestock in order to leave sufficient
vegetation for re-generation (Hurd et al, 2007).
¦ Concentrations in beef were estimated from soil concentrations using radionuclide-
specific transfer factors incorporated in the PRG Calculator. The PRG Calculator default
mass loading factor of 0.25 was applied for all forage (EPA, 2019b). A forage intake rate
of 11.77 kg/day and a soil intake rate of 0.5 kg/day were applied (EPA, 2019b; PRG
Calculator default for beef) for cattle.
EPA manages risk to achieve 10"6 to 10"4 (1E-06 to 1E-04) overall excess cancer risks. EPA risk
assessment guidance suggests that the average of the concentration is regarded as a reasonable
estimate of the concentration likely to be contacted over time (EPA, 1989). Because of the
uncertainty associated with any estimate of the representative average, the 95th percentile upper
confidence limit (95UCL) on the arithmetic mean is generally used as the reasonable maximum
exposure concentration (EPA, 1989) [Attachment 3], Risk estimates were calculated using the
reasonable maximum exposure point concentration (EPC). The EPC is based on the lower of the
maximum detected and the 95% UCL on the mean. As shown in Table 1-1, total cancer risks for
the isotopes of the U-235 and U-238 decay chains (expressed as Ra-226 concentrations) for the
Section 10 Mine Site equaled or exceeded the 10"4 (1E-04) overall cancer risk threshold. The total
cancer risks in surface and subsurface soils were 6E-03 and 2E-04, respectively. These results
indicate the need for a response action to control releases and prevent radionuclide exposure. Note
that these risk estimates also include contribution of the background level of Ra-226 (1.9 pCi/g).
For the non-radionuclide COPCs (i.e., arsenic, selenium, uranium and vanadium), the USEPA RSL
calculator (https://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/chemicals/csl_search) was used to develop site-
specific risk-based screening levels and to calculate cancer risk estimates, and non-cancer hazard
quotients (HQs) for exposure from soil incidental ingestion, dermal absorption and inhalation of
particulates. Of the non-radionuclide COPCs, only arsenic is considered to have carcinogenic
effects. Systemic, non-cancer effects are of concern for all the non-radionuclide COPCs. Dermal
contact with selenium, vanadium and uranium is not quantified because these metals are not
considered to be dermally absorbed through the skin and do not have EPA-recommended dermal
absorption factors. The "Composite Worker" land-use scenario template in the RSL Calculator
was used to develop the risk estimates for the outdoor ranching activities (details are included in
Attachment 1). External exposure is not an exposure route for non-radionuclides, so ranching
activities inside a truck are not evaluated for the non-radionuclides. In addition, risk-based
USEPA REGION 8
7 of 17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
screening levels were developed for the home-grown meat exposure pathway for metals following
methods used for radionuclides in the PRG Calculator (details are included in Attachment 1). The
sum of ratios approach was used to estimate human health risk from beef consumption. For cancer
effects, the site-specific concentration is divided by its cancer-based screening level for residential
soil to meat consumption and this ratio is multiplied by 10"6 (1E-06) to calculate a cancer risk
estimate. Individual cancer risk estimates are summed to represent a total cancer risk. The site-
specific concentration is divided by its non-cancer-based screening level for residential soil to meat
consumption to calculate a HQ. The individual HQs for each scenario (ranching - inside a truck,
ranching-outdoors, and beef consumption) and for each COPC are summed to represent a total
non-cancer hazard index (HI). A HI of one or less is generally considered "safe." A ratio greater
than one suggests that, at a minimum, further evaluation (EPA, 2017a) is necessary.
As shown in Table 1-3, using maximum non-radionuclide chemical concentrations in soil, the total
non-radionuclide HI was 4. Uranium was the only individual non-radionuclide COPC to have an
HI greater than 1 (HI, 1.4). Arsenic, selenium, and vanadium had an HI less than one. For non-
cancer hazard estimates, dose additivity is most properly applied to compounds that induce the
same non-cancer effect. Segregation of HI by the major target tissue/organ effects should be
performed if the total HI for multiple contaminants exceeds one. The target system for uranium
(urinary) differs from the remaining COPCs - arsenic (cardiovascular, dermal), selenium (nervous,
hematologic, dermal), and vanadium (dermal). As the non-cancer hazard index for non-
radionuclide COPC exposure slightly exceeded the threshold of one, adverse non-cancer health
effects from exposure to uranium in soil at the Section 10 Mine Site are possible. The only non-
radionuclide carcinogenic COPC was arsenic. Cumulative cancer risks from arsenic using the
maximum detected concentration yielded a carcinogenic risk of 1E-05 (See Table 1-3). The
elevated arsenic concentration in surface soil (20 mg/kg at 10-06-31-181031-M) was located in
close proximity to the elevated radionuclides in surface soil. It is anticipated that site actions to
address radionuclide exposure by human receptors will be protective for exposure of human
receptors to both radionuclides and non-radionuclide chemicals.
USEPA REGION 8
8 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
4. Ecological Risk Evaluation
The Section 10 Mines Site is located in a remote area with the revegetated, previously disturbed
mine area potentially providing habitat for ecological receptors. Wildlife inhabiting the Site may
directly ingest radionuclides and chemicals, which may then be transported to organs or other
sites within the wildlife receptors. Radionuclides and chemicals in the soil may be absorbed by
plants consumed by wildlife. Radionuclides such as radium, radon, and daughter progeny may
be inhaled, creating alpha-particle-emitting sources in the lungs of wildlife receptors. A
screening level ecological risk assessment (i.e., Steps 1 and 2 of EPA's 8-step ecological risk
assessment process [EPA, 1997]) was performed to assess potential risk to ecological receptors
from both radionuclide and non-radionuclide chemical contaminants. The results of the
screening level ecological risk characterization are included in Table 1-3. A refinement of
conservative screening level assumptions (i.e., Step 3a of EPA's 8-step ecological risk
assessment process [EPA, 2001]) was also performed to consider how the risk estimates would
change if more realistic assumptions were used. The results of the refined ecological risk
characterization are included in Table 1-4.
4.1 Ecological Risk-Based Screening Values
Literature-based ecological screening benchmark values for direct contact and food-chain
evaluations are used to characterize potential ecological effects. The following sources were
used to identify proposed ecological screening benchmark values for radionuclides and
chemicals:
¦ EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) (http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl)
¦ Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ECORISK database, Release 4.1
(LANL, 2017).
¦ New Mexico Environment Department (NMED, 2017) Tier 1 ecological screening levels
The Eco-SSLs include values for plant, soil invertebrate, bird, and mammal exposure to metals
through direct contact and the food chain. Eco-SSLs are also available for protection of birds
and mammals from the three primary feeding groups (herbivores, insectivores, and carnivores).
The Eco-SSLs are based on no-effect toxicity values 1) to ensure risks are not underestimated,
(ESLs)
US EPA REGION 8
9 of 17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
and 2) to provide a defensible conclusion that negligible ecological risk exist or that certain
contaminants and exposure pathways can be eliminated from consideration (EPA, 1997). The
Eco-SSLs are intended to be conservative screening values that can be used to eliminate
contaminants clearly not associated with unacceptable risks (EPA, 2005a - 2005h, 2006, and
2007b - 2007e).
The LANL EcoRisk database includes ecological screening levels (ESLs) for avian,
mammalian, earthworm, and plant exposure models for radionuclides and chemicals in soil. The
ESLs for soil-dwelling invertebrates and terrestrial plants are based on direct contact with soil
by plants and soil-dwelling organisms living in impacted soil. The ESLs for upper level wildlife
are based on incidental ingestion of soil while feeding, preening, or nesting on the ground, and
ingestion of food sources that have bio-accumulated contaminants. The wildlife functional
feeding guilds for birds and mammals used to develop ESLs include herbivores, insectivores,
and carnivores. The LANL EcoRisk database provides both no-effect and low-effect ESLs. The
no-effect ESL is based on a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)-based toxicity reference
value (TRV) that is protective of wildlife populations and sensitive individuals because it
represents an exposure that is not associated with adverse impacts of low-level, long-term
chemical effects (i.e., adverse effects on ability of individuals to develop into viable organisms,
search for mates, breed successfully, and produce live and equally viable offspring). The
NOAEL values are often extremely conservative and protective, and are designed to be an
indication of no impacts if not exceeded (LANL, 2017). The low-effect ESL applies a lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level- based TRV that is the lowest chronic effect level and is generally
considered to be protective of wildlife populations.
The NMED has developed Tier 1 ESLs protective of plant community, deer mouse, horned lark,
Kit fox (evaluated at sites greater than 267 acres), Pronghorn (evaluated at sites greater than 342
acres), and Red-tailed hawk (evaluated at sites greater than 177 acres). The key receptors
selected as the representative species represent the primary producers as well as the three levels
of consumer (primary, secondary, and tertiary) for the most common receptors found at
hazardous waste sites in New Mexico. For plants, the Tier 1 screening level is based on an
effect concentration for plant communities. For wildlife receptors, the Tier 1 screening level is
based on NOAEL-based toxicity reference values (NMED, 2017).
US EPA REGION 8
10 of 17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
4.2 Ecological Risk Estimates
Screening level risk characterization was performed using the hazard quotient (HQ) method to
compare maximum surface (0-6 in bgs) soil concentrations to Eco-SSLs and no-effect ESLs. An
HQ of less than 1 indicates that the concentration is unlikely to cause adverse ecological effects.
An HQ greater than 1 indicates that the potential for ecological risk is present and therefore the
risk assessment process should continue. An HQ of 1 is the condition where the exposure and
the dose associated with no adverse chronic effects are equal, indicating adverse effects at or
below this soil concentration are unlikely (EPA, 2005a). The screening process considered the
isotopes of the U-235 and U-238 decay chains, though ESLs were not available for all isotopes.
The screening-level ecological risk assessment indicates potential for risk to ecological receptors
from exposure to Ra-226, Th-230, aluminum, arsenic, barium, lead, mercury, selenium,
uranium and vanadium (Table 1-4 for radionuclides; Table 1-5 for metals). Concentrations of
aluminum, barium, and lead were below background levels (Table 1-6); these three metals are
not considered to be chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPEC).
A screening-level ecological risk assessment uses conservative screening-level assumptions such
as 100% site use, 100% bioavailability, 100% diet consists of the most contaminated dietary, and
no-effect toxicity data to evaluate risk to populations of upper level organisms. Under more
realistic site use conditions, the potential risk to individual organisms would be reduced. The
average soil concentration and low effect ecological screening values were used to refine these
risk estimates. In the refined ecological risk characterization (Table 1-6), risks were calculated
using a representative average exposure point concentration (i.e., 95% UCL on the mean). The
average surface soil concentration of Ra-226 exceeds the low effect ESL for soil invertebrates
(i.e., HQ>1), indicating potential risk to this receptor group. Maximum concentrations of
arsenic, lead and mercury do not exceed low-effect ESLs (i.e., HQ <1) for any receptor group,
indicating these metals are not considered to pose risk to populations of higher level organisms.
The maximum concentration of selenium exceeds low-effect ESLs for plants, soil invertebrates,
avian herbivores, insectivores and carnivores, and mammalian herbivores and insectivores (i.e.,
HQ>1). The maximum concentration of vanadium exceeds low-effect ESLs for plants, and avian
herbivores, insectivores and carnivores (i.e., HQ>1). Note that vanadium was not detected in
native plant tissue samples collected from the Section 10 Mine Site (Table 1-7), suggesting
US EPA REGION 8
11 of 17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
limited bioavailability of vanadium. The refined ecological risk assessment indicates potential
for risk to ecological receptors from exposure to Ra-226 (soil invertebrates only), selenium, and
vanadium (Table 1-6). Locations where elevated levels of selenium and vanadium were measured
are co-located with locations of elevated Ra-226. ESLs for radionuclides are higher (less
stringent) than the proposed action level for protection of human health. Thus, it is anticipated
that site actions to address radionuclide exposure by human receptors will be protective for
exposure of ecological receptors to radionuclides. Selenium, molybdenum, and vanadium are
common metals in association with uranium in the Grants Mineral Belt deposits (Brookins,
1982). As an impurity, they may have been a waste metal in the uranium mine waste. Actions to
address uranium are also expected to be protective of ecological receptors.
5. Evaluation of Grazing of Forage by Domesticated Animals and
The results of the evaluation of the vegetative metals uptake samples are included in Table 1-7.
Twenty-two surface vegetation samples were collected to determine the current vegetative
nutrient values and uptake of potential hazardous constituents available to grazing animals
(domesticated animals and wildlife) within the entire West GSA (which included the Section 10
Mine at the time of collection) (WESTON, 2019). Two of the native plant vegetation samples
(P-l 1 and P-12) were collected from the Section 10 mine. Tissue concentrations were compared
to maximum tolerable limits (MTLs) developed by the National Research Council's Committee
on Minerals and Toxic Substances in Diets and Water for Animals (NRC, 2005), which are
defined as dietary level, that, when fed for a defined period of time, will not impair animal health
or performance. Tissue concentrations are also compared to concentrations of trace elements in
mature leaf tissue that are considered sufficient or normal and excessive or toxic (Kabata-
Pendias and Pendias, 1992). As shown in Table 1-6, nutrient concentrations are less than MTLs
for animals and within or less than sufficient/normal concentrations for plants while the P12
tissue sample for the toxic metal selenium exceeds thresholds for animals and plants. An
elevated selenium concentration (81 mg/kg) was measured in soil collected from an area
approximately northwest of the Kermac Mine where the P12 tissue sample was collected. While
selenium is a common micronutrient supplement for cattle and sheep, it can be toxic at elevated
concentrations. Native selenium has been found in the sandstone formations the Grants Mineral
Wildlife
US EPA REGION 8
12 of 17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
belt area (Brookins, 1982) and as an impurity, it may have been a waste metal in the uranium
mine waste.
USEPA REGION 8
13 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
6. Appendix I References
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). March 2007. Radiological and Chemical Fact Sheets to
Support Health Risk Analyses for Contaminated Areas.
https://www.remm.nlm.gov/ANL ContaminantFactSheets All 070418.pdf
Beyer, W. Nelson, Erin E. Connor, Sarah Gerould. 1994. Estimates of Soil Ingestion by
Wildlife. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(2):375-382.
Cowherd, C.C., et al. 1985. Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from Surface
Contamination. EPA/600/8-85/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC. February.
Hurd, Brian H., Torell, Allen L. and McDaniel, Kirk C. 2007. Perspectives on Rangeland
Management: Stocking Rates, Seasonal Forecasts, and the Value of Weather Information
to New Mexico Ranchers. New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment
Station. Research Report 759. December 2007.
Kabata-Pendias, Alina and Henryk Pendias. 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. 2nd
Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
Los Alamos National Laboratory. September 2017. ECORISK Database (Release 4.1), LA-UR-
17-26376, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.
Nagy KA (2001) Food requirements of wild animals: predictive equations for free-living
mammals, reptiles, and birds. Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews, Series B 71, 21R-31R.
National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Mineral Tolerance of Animal. 2nd Revised Edition.
The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 2019. Risk Assessment Guidance for Site
Investigations and Remediation. Volume I - Soil Screening Guidance for Human Health
Risk Assessment (March 2017 Revised). February 2019. (Revision 2, 6/19/19).
NMED. 2017. Risk Assessment Guidance for Site Investigations and Remediation. Volume II -
Soil Screening Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessments. March 2017.
Rio Algom Mining LLC (RAML). 2016. Semi-annual Effluent Report-1st Half 2016. License
SUA-1473, Docket No. 40-8905. Submitted to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Materials Decommissioning Branch.
August 29.
Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boernren. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surface
Materials of the Conterminous United States. USGS Professional Paper 1270)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A (RAGS). EPA/540/1-89/002.
US EPA REGION 8
14 of 17
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
EPA. 1997. ERA Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting ERAs. Interim
Final. Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-97/006. June.
EPA. 2001. "The Role of Screening-Level Risk Assessments and Refining Contaminants of
Concern in Baseline Ecological Risk Assessments." Office of Waste and Emergency
Response. Washington D.C. EPA 540/F-01/014. June.
EPA. 2002. Role of Background in the CERCLA Cleanup Program. Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, DC. OSWER 9285.6-07P. April.
EPA. 2005a. Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9285.7-55. November 2003, Revised
February 2005. http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/index.htmL; Last updated October 20,
2010.
EPA. 2005b. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Antimony, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-61. February 2005.
EPA. 2005c. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Arsenic, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-62 March 2005.
EPA. 2005d. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Barium, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-63 February 2005.
EPA. 2005e. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Beryllium, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-64. February 2005.
EPA. 2005f. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Cobalt, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-67. March 2005.
EPA. 2005g. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Lead, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-70 March 2005.
EPA. 2005h. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Vanadium, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-75 April 2005.
EPA. 2006. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Silver, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-77 September 2006.
EPA. 2007a. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Copper, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-68. February 2007.
EPA. 2007b. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Manganese, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-71 April 2007.
EPA. 2007c. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Nickel, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-76. March 2007.
USEPA REGION 8
15 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
EPA. 2007d. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Selenium, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-72 July 2007.
EPA. 2007e. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Zinc, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-73. June 2007.
EPA, 2007f. Background Soil Concentration Database, EcoSSL Attachment 1-4, Guidance for
Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs), Review of Background
Concentrations for Metals, OSWER Directive 92857-55, Revised July 2007.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/ecossl attachment 1-
4.pdf.
EPA. 2008a. Technical Report on Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials from Uranium Mining Volume 1: Mining and Reclamation Background, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Radiation and Indoor Air Radiation
Protection Division. Previously published on-line and printed as Vol. 1 of EPA 402-R-
05-007, January 2006; Updated June 2007 and printed April 2008 as EPA 402-R-08-005
April.
EPA. 2008b. Ecological Soil Screening Level For Chromium, Interim Final. OSWER Directive
9285.7-66 April 2008.
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-09/052F. September 2011.
EPA, 2016. ProUCL, Version 5.1.00. Statistical Software for Environmental Applications for
Data Sets with and without Nondetect Observations. EPA/600/R-07/041. May 2016.
Available on line at: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/proucl-software
EPA. 2019a. Regional Screening Level Table and User's Guide (November 2019). Final. Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-
generic-tables
EPA. 2019b. Preliminary Remediation Goals for Radionuclides, PRG Calculator and User's
Guide, https://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/. Accessed November 2019.
Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON). 2012. Removal Assessment Report for Homestake Mining
Company, Grants, Cibola County, New Mexico. Prepared for USEPA. May 2012.
WESTON. 2019. Removal Site Evaluation Report for Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines,
Section 10 Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico. Prepared for EPA. September 2019.
USEPA REGION 8
16 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Appendix I List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summary of Radionuclide Risk Estimates for Section 10 Mine Soil
Table 1-2 Summary of Non-Radionuclide Analytical Results for Section 10 Mine Soil
Table 1-3 Summary of Non-Radionuclide Noncancer Hazard Index and Risks for Section 10
Mine Soil
Table 1-4 Screening Level Ecological Risk Characterization For Section 10 Mine Surface
Soil - Radionuclides
Table 1-5 Screening Level Ecological Risk Characterization For Section 10 Mine Surface
Soil - Metals
Table 1-6 Refined Ecological Risk Characterization For Section 10 Mine Soil
Table 1-7 Comparison of Plant Tissue Concentrations to Maximum Tolerable Limits for
Animals and Normal/Toxic Limits for Plants
USEPA REGION 8
17 of 17 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I Table I-1
Summary of Radionuclide Risk Estimates for Section 10 Mine Site Soils
Streamlined HHRA
Surface Soil
Subsurface Soil
95UCL Radium-226 EPC
95UCL Radium-226 EPC
Secular
Secular
Cancer Risk3
Secular
Secular
Equilibrium
Equilibrium
Equilibrium Risk
Equilibrium
Uranium
Risk for U-
Risk for U-
Uranium
for U-235*
Risk for U-238*
TOTAL
235"
238*
TOTAL
Section 10 (pCi/g)
4.55
101.1
105.6
0.156
3.46
3.61
Rancher - Soil Outdoors
Ingestion
1.56E-06
1.59E-04
1.61E-04
5.50E-08
5.45E-06
5.51E-06
Inhalation
6.95E-09
7.11E-08
7.81E-08
2.44E-10
2.43E-09
2.67E-09
External Exposure
6.06E-06
4.90E-04
4.96E-04
2.13E-07
1.68E-05
1.70E-05
Subtotal
7.63E-06
6.49E-04
6.57E-04
2.68E-07
2.23E-05
2.25E-05
Rancher - Soil Inside Truck
External Exposure
2.42E-06
1.96E-04
1.98E-04
8.52E-08
6.71E-06
6.80E-06
Subtotal
2.42E-06
1.96E-04
1.98E-04
8.52E-08
6.71E-06
6.80E-06
Rancher - Beef Consumption
Beef Consumption
2.09E-04
4.65E-03
4.86E-03
7.35E-06
1.59E-04
1.66E-04
TOTAL
2.19E-04
5.50E-03
6E-03
7.70E-06
1.88E-04
2E-04
Notes:
aCancer risk calculated using the U.S. EPA's on-line PRG Calculator (https://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/cgi-
bin/radionuclides/rprg_search). Output provided in Attachment 1. Concentrations also include
background contribution (1.3 pCi/g Ra-226).
* assumes in secular equilibrium with radium-226 (no decay)
# istope in U-235 decay chain; assume all isotopes in secular equilibrium (no decay); concentration
based 0.008163 times radium-226 concentration, where U-235 activity is approximately 2% of natural
uranium ((Human Health Fact Sheet, August 2005; Argonne Nat'l Laboratory; U-238, U-234, U-235)
and assuming secular equilibrium and solving for U-235 (i.e., 0.02 x [U-238 + U-234 + U-235]= U-235).
U total is simply referring to the concentrations of just U-235 in secular equilibrium plus U-238 in
secular equilibrium (which includes U-234 in decay chain, whose concentration is typically included
under the 'ordinary' definition of U total).
HHRA human health risk assessment
pCi/g picocuries per gram
PRG preliminary remediation goal
UCL upper confidence limit
Section 10 Mine EECA Report - Appendix I 1 Of 1 TDD No. 0001 /17-044
-------
Appendix I Table 1-2
Summary of Non-Radionuclide Analytical Results for Section 10 Mine Site Soils
Streamlined HHRA
Chemical name
Number
detected A
Number
analyzedA
Minimum
concentration
Maximum
concentration
Sample ID for maximum
EPA Residential
November 2019
Residential Regional
Screening Level3
NMED June 2019
Residential Soil
Screening Levelb
Mean
Backgroundc
COPC?
Non-Radionuclides
Aluminum
8
8
6,000
22,000
10-08-31 -181031 -M
7,700
7,800
54,423
No; ASL; BBC#
Antimony
0
8
ND
ND
—
3.1
3.1
1.0
ND
Arsenic
2
8
5.5
20
10-06-31 -181031 -M
0.68
0.71
5.9
Yes; ASL; ABC
Barium
8
8
73
210
10-06-31 -181031 -M
1,500
1,556
727
No
BSL
Beryllium
8
8
0.38
1
10-08-31 -181031 -M
16
16
1.0
No
BSL
Cadmium
1
8
0.18
0.18
10-01-31-161101-M
7.1
7.1
NA
No
BSL
Calcium
8
8
3,300
17,000
10-01-31-161101-M
-
1.30E+07 (NUT)
35,809
No
BSL
Chromium
7
8
2.5
13
10-08-31 -181031 -M
12,000
9.7
55.5
No
BSL
Cobalt
8
8
1.8
6.1
10-08-31 -181031 -M
2.3
2.3
8.8
No; ASL; BBC#
Copper
7
8
3
19
10-01-31-161101-M
310
313
21
No; BSL
Iron
8
8
10,000
19,000
10-08-31-181031-M
5,500
5,475
20,898
No; ASL; BBC#
Lead
8
8
5.40
14
10-03-31 -181031 -M
400
400
18.1
No; BSL
Magnesium
8
8
1,700
5,300
10-08-31-181031-M
-
3.39E+05 (NUT)
7400 d
No; BSL
Manganese
8
8
140
260
10-05-31-181031 -M*
180
1055
366.8
No; ASL; BBC#
Mercury$
7
8
0.014
0.12
10-06-31 -181031 -M
11
2.3
0.046 d
No
BSL
Nickel
8
8
1.6
11
10-08-31 -181031 -M
150
156
27.9
No
BSL
Potassium
8
8
880
5,800
10-08-31 -181031 -M
--
1.56E+07 (NUT)
18000 d
No
BSL
Silver
0
8
ND
ND
—
39
39
NA
ND
Sodium
8
8
47
560
10-05-31 -181031 -M*
--
7.82E+06 (NUT)
9700 d
No; BSL
Thallium
0
8
ND
ND
...
0.078
0.078
9.1 d
ND
Selenium
4
8
15
87
10-05-31-181031 -M*
39
39
0.29
Yes
ASL
ABC
Uranium
4
8
6.2
310
10-06-31 -181031 -M
16
23
2.5 d
Yes
ASL
ABC
Vanadium
8
8
14
250
10-06-31 -181031 -M
39
39
71.4
Yes
ASL
ABC
Zinc
8
8
17
53
10-08-31 -181031 -M
2,300
2346
44.3
No; BSL
All concentrations in mg/kg (ppm)
ASL - Above screening level
ABC - Above background concentration
BSL - Below screening level
BBC - Below background concentration
CO PC - chemical of potential concern
NUT - essential nutrient; resident value from NMED, 2019
a EPA Rresidential Regional Screening Level based on target risk of 10"6 and target hazard quotient of 0.1.
b NMED residential generic soil screening level based on target risk of 10"5 and target hazard quotient of 1, adjusted by a factor of 10 to account for additive risk.
c Average concentration, New Mexico, Background Soil Concentration Database, EcoSSL Attachment 1-4, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs), Review of Background Concentrations for Metals,
OSWER Directive 92857-55, Revised July 2007. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/ecossl_attachment_1-4.pdf. Average for cadmium is value for "not specified".
d Mean for Western US (Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boemren. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surface Materials of the Counterminous United States. USGS Professional Paper 1270)
$ lowest value for elemental mercury and mercury salts
# maximum concentration is less than 2 times the mean background
A includes field duplicates, maximum value taken from duplicate and normal sample
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
1 of 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I Table 1-3
Summary of Non-Radionuclide Noncancer Hazard Index and Risks for Section 10 Mine Soils
Streamlined HHRA
Non-radionuclide COPC
EPC*
(mg/kg)
Ranching - Outside
HQ
Site-
Raised
Beef HQ
Hazard Index
Arsenic
20
0.04
0.041
0.08
Selenium
87
0.01
0.065
0.08
Uranium
310
1.3
0.058
1.4
Vanadium
250
0.04
0.022
0.06
Hazard Index
1.4
0.2
1.6
Non-radionuclide COPC
EPC*
(mg/kg)
Ranching - Outside
Cancer Risk
Site-
Raised
Beef Risk
Carcinogenic Risk
Arsenic
20
6.7E-06
6.5E-06
1E-05
*EPC = Exposure point concentration set at maximum because arsenic, selenium, and uranium had 50% or less detections; vanadium had a
small sample size (n=8)
COPC chemical of potential concern
HHRA human health risk assessment
HQ hazard quotient
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
1 of 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I Table 1-4
Screening Level Ecological Risk Characterization For Section 10 Mine Surface Soil - Radionuclides
COPEC
Range of Detected
Concentrations*
Location of
Maximum
Concentration
Background*'15
Plant
Soil invertebrates
Avian herbivore
Avian ground
insectivore
Avian carnivore
Mammalian herbivore
Mammalian ground
insectivore
Mammalian
carnivore
Frequency
of
Detection"
Minimum
(mg/kg)
Maximum
(mg/kg)
EcoSSLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSLd
HQ (max)
Surface Soil (0-6 in bgs)
Uranium 238 Decay Chain Isotopes
U-238**
125.2
400
0.3
1100
0.1
3300
0.0
4000
0.0
4200
0.0
2000
0.1
2100
0.1
2100
0.1
Th-234**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pa-234m**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pa-234**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
U-234**
125.2
440
0.3
2200
0.1
14000
0.0
69000
0.0
260000
0.0
36000
0.0
140000
0.0
110000
0.0
Th-230**
125.2
200
0.6
52
2
1200
0.1
2200
0.0
17000
0.0
9900
0.0
81000
0.0
68000
0.0
Radium 226 (pCi/g)*
10/10
0.924
125.2
10-09-31-170202
1.9
54
2
1.5
100
34
4
8.2
20
61
2
340
0.4
510
0.2
370
0.3
Rn-222**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-218**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pb-214**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
At-218**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Bi-214**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Rn-218**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-214**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
TI-210**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pb-210**
125.2
3400
0.0
1200
0.1
6000
0.0
6200
0.0
8500
0.0
4400
0.0
4500
0.0
4400
0.0
Bi-210**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-210**
125.2
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Uranium 235 Decay Chain Isotopes
Uranium-23581
5.6
0.086
440
0.0
1600
0.0
6300
0.0
9500
0.0
10000
0.0
4700
0.0
5200
0.0
5200
0.0
Th-231
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pa-231
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Ac-227
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Th-227
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Fr-223
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Ra-223
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
At-219
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Rn-219
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Bi-215
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-215
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pb-211
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Bi-211
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
TI-207
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-211
5.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Subsurface Soil (12-18 in bgs)
Uranium 238 Decay Chain Isotopes
U-238**
4.6
400
0.0
1100
0.0
3300
0.0
4000
0.0
4200
0.0
2000
0.0
2100
0.0
2100
0.0
Th-234**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pa-234m**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pa-234**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
U-234**
4.6
440
0.0
2200
0.0
14000
0.0
69000
0.0
260000
0.0
36000
0.0
140000
0.0
110000
0.0
Th-230**
4.6
200
0.0
52
0.1
1200
0.0
2200
0.0
17000
0.0
9900
0.0
81000
0.0
68000
0.0
Radium 226 (pCi/g)*
11/11
1.9
4.6
10-03-2-31-161112
1.9
54
0.1
1.5
0.0
34
0.1
8.2
0.0
61
0.1
340
0.0
510
0.0
370
0.0
Rn-222**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-218**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pb-214**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
At-218**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Bi-214**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Rn-218**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-214**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
TI-210**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pb-210**
4.6
3400
0.0
1200
0.0
6000
0.0
6200
0.0
8500
0.0
4400
0.0
4500
0.0
4400
0.0
Bi-210**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-210**
4.6
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Uranium 235 Decay Chain Isotopes
Uranium-23581
0.21
0.086
440
0.0
1600
0.0
6300
0.0
9500
0.0
10000
0.0
4700
0.0
5200
0.0
5200
0.0
Th-231
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pa-231
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Ac-227
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Th-227
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Fr-223
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Ra-223
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
At-219
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Rn-219
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Bi-215
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-215
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Pb-211
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Bi-211
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
TI-207
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Po-211
0.21
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Bold values indicate concentrations that exceed ecological screening level or background; bold and shading indicates HQ exceeds unity (based on one significant figure).
# includes duplicate sample
* dataset includes minimum/maximimum of MCA and offsite laboratory results
COPEC = chemical of potential environmental concern
HQ = Hazard quotient = maximum concentration / screening level
max= maximum concentration
NSL - no screening level
a Background threshold value for radium-226 as reported in the East GSA Removal Site Evaluation Report (Weston, September 2019).
d LANL ESL Version 4.1; values for avian herbivore (American robin), avian insectivore (American robin), and avian intermediate carnivore (Amercian kestrel); mammalian herbivore (desert cottontail); mammalian insectivore (montane shrew) and mammalian top carnivore (red fox).
** isotope in U-238 decay chain; assumes in secular equilibrium with radium-226
& isotope in U-235 decay chain; assume all isotopes in secular equilibrium; concentration based 0.045 times radium-226 concentration, where U-235 activity is approximately 2.2% of natural uranium (U-238, U-234, U-235) and assuming secular equilibrium and solving for U-235 (i.e., 0.022 x [U-238 + U-234
+ U-235]= U-235) U total is simply referring to the concentrations of just U-235 in secular equilibrium plus U-238 in secular equilibrium (which includes U-234 in decay chain, whose concentration is typically included under the 'ordinary' definition of U total).
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I 1 Of 1 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I Table 1-5
Screening Level Ecological Risk Characterization For West Geographic Sub Area (GSA) Section 10 Mine Surface Soil - Metals
COPEC
Frequency
of
Detection*1
Range of Detected
Concentrations*
Location of Maximum
Concentration
Background3
Plant
Soil invertebrates
Avian herbivore
Avian ground
insectivore
Omnivore (Horned
Lark)
Avian carnivore
Top Carnivore (Red-tailed
hawk; 177 acres)
Mammalian herbivore
Mammalian ground
insectivore
Omniovore (Deer
mouse)
Mammalian
carnivore
Carnivore (Kit fox;
267 acres)
Herbivore (Longhorn
antelope; 342 acres)
Minimum
(mg/kg)
Maximum
(mg/kg)
EcoSSL0
HQ (max)
Tier 1
ESLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSL0
HQ (max)
EcoSSL0
HQ (max)
EcoSSL0
HQ (max)
Tier 1
ESLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSL0
HQ (max)
NMED Tier 1
ESLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSL0
HQ (max)
EcoSSL0
HQ (max)
Tier 1
ESLd
HQ (max)
EcoSSL0
HQ (max)
Tier 1
ESLd
HQ (max)
NMED Tier 1
ESLd
HQ (max)
Non-Radionuclides
Aluminum*
8/8
6,000
22,000
10-08-31-181031-M
54,423
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
520
42
NSL
-
4000
5.5
NSL
-
NSL
-
564
39
NSL
-
2500
8.8
NSL
-
Antimony®
0/8
ND
ND
—
1.0
11
-
11.4
-
78
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
10
-
0.27
-
0.536
-
4.9
-
2.380
-
NSL
-
Arsenic
2/8
5.5
20.0
10-06-31-181031-M
5.9
18
1.1
18
1.1
NSL
-
67
0.3
43
0.5
10.6
1.9
1100
0.02
81.5
0.2
170
0.1
46
0.4
9.5
2.1
170
0.1
42.0
0.5
36.1
0.6
Barium
8/8
73
210
10-06-31-181031-M
727
NSL
-
118
1.8
330
0.6
NSL
-
NSL
-
348
0.6
NSL
-
2680
0.1
3200
0.1
200
1.1
471
0.4
9100
0.02
2090
0.1
NSL
-
Beryllium
8/8
0.38
1.00
10-08-31-181031-M
1.0
NSL
-
2.5
0.4
40
0.03
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
21
0.05
34
0.03
4.8
0.2
90
0.01
21.5
0.05
NSL
-
Cadmium
1/8
0.18
0.18
10-01-31-161101-M
NA
32
0.006
32
0.006
140
0.001
28
0.006
0.77
0.2
7.0
0.03
630
0.0003
53.5
0.003
73
0.002
0.36
0.5
7.0
0.03
84
0.002
31.1
0.006
NSL
-
Calcium
8/8
3,300
17,000
10-01-31-161101-M
35,809
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
Chromium
7/8
2.5
13
10-08-31-181031-M
55.5
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
78
0.2
26
0.5
12.6
1.0
780
0.02
96.8
0.1
380
0.03
34
0.4
21.8
0.6
180
0.07
97.0
0.1
NSL
-
Cobalt
8/8
1.8
6.1
10-08-31-181031-M
8.8
13
0.5
13
0.5
NSL
-
270
0.02
120
0.05
36.0
0.2
1300
0.005
277
0.02
2100
0.003
230
0.03
66.6
0.09
470
0.01
296
0.02
58
0.1
Copper
7/8
3
19
10-01-31-161101-M
21
70
0.3
70
0.3
80
0.2
76
0.3
28
0.7
19.2
1.0
1600
0.01
147
0.1
1100
0.02
49
0.4
50.9
0.4
560
0.03
226
0.08
NSL
-
Iron
8/8
10,000
19,000
10-08-31-181031-M
20,898
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
NSL
-
Lead
8/8
5.4
14
10-03-31-181031-M
18.1
120
0.1
120
0.1
1700
0.01
46
0.3
11
1.3
7.7
1.8
510
0.03
59.3
0.2
1200
0.01
56
0.3
42.7
0.3
460
0.03
190
0.07
173
0.08
Magnesium
8/8
1,700
5,300
10-08-31-181031-M
7,400 b
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
Manganese
8/8
140
260
10-05-31-181031-M*
367
220
1.2
220
1.2
450
0.6
4300
0.1
4300
0.1
847
0.3
65000
0.004
6520
0.04
5300
0.05
4000
0.07
468
0.6
6200
0.04
2080
0.1
5770
0.05
Mercury
7/8
0.014
0.12
10-06-31-181031-M
0.046 b
34
0.004
34.9
0.003
0.05
2.4
0.067
1.8
0.013
9.2
0.1
1.3
0.058
2.1
0.692
0.2
23
0.005
1.7
0.07
12.8
0.009
76
0.002
57.0
0.002
NSL
-
Nickel
8/8
1.6
11
10-08-31-181031-M
27.9
38
0.3
38
0.3
280
0.04
210
0.05
NSL
-
31.7
0.3
2800
0.004
244
0.05
340
0.03
NSL
-
15.5
0.7
130
0.08
68.7
0.2
289
0.04
Potassium
8/8
880
5,800
10-08-31-181031-M
18,000 b
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
Silver
0/8
ND
ND
—
NA
560
-
560
-
NSL
-
69
-
4.2
-
10.4
-
930
-
73.5
-
1500
-
14
-
54.7
-
990
-
243
-
2.9
-
Sodium
8/8
47
560
10-05-31-181031-M*
9,700 b
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
NUT
-
Thallium®
0/8
ND
ND
...
9.1 b
0.05
-
0.05
-
NSL
-
6.9
-
4.5
-
1.66
-
48
-
12.7
-
1.2
-
0.42
-
0.065
-
5
-
0.29
-
NSL
-
Selenium
4/8
15
87
10-05-31-181031-M*
0.29
0.52
167
0.52
167
4.1
21
2.2
40
1.2
73
1.37
64
83
1.0
10.6
8.2
2.7
32
0.63
138
1.3
67
2.8
31
5.78
15
NSL
-
Uranium
4/8
6.2
310
10-06-31-181031-M
2.5 b
76
4
NSL
-
NSL
-
1500
0.2
1100
0.3
NSL
-
14000
0.02
NSL
-
1000
0.3
480
0.6
NSL
-
4800
0.1
NSL
-
NSL
-
Vanadium
8/8
14
250
10-06-31-181031-M
71.4
NSL
-
60
4.2
NSL
-
13
19
7.8
32
1.6
153
140
1.8
12.5
20
1300
0.2
280
0.9
37.8
6.6
580
0.4
168.0
1.5
289
0.9
Zinc
8/8
17
53
10-08-31-181031-M
44.3
160
0.3
160
0.3
120
0.4
950
0.06
46
1.2
313
0.2
30000
0.002
2410
0.02
6800
0.008
79
0.7
685
0.08
10000
0.005
3050
0.02
2890
0.02
Bold values indicate concentrations that exceed ecological screening level; bold and shading indicates HQ exceeds unity (based on one significant figure). Thick border around HQ>1 indicates maximum concentration also exceeds background.
CO PEC = chemical of potential environmental concern
HQ = Hazard quotient = maximum concentration / screening level
max= maximum concentration
NSL - no screening level
a Average concentration, New Mexico, Background Soil Concentration Database, EcoSSL Attachment 1-4, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs), Review of Background Concentrations for Metals, OSWER Directive 92857-55, Revised July 2007. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/ecossl_attachment_1-4.pdf. Average for cadmium is value for
"not specified".
b mean for Western US (Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boernren. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surface Materials of the Counterminous United States. USGS Professional Paper 1270)
c EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (EcoSSL) http://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/interim-ecological-soil-screening-level-documents Last updated September 29, 2016. $ LANL (2017) ESL Version 4.1; values for avian herbivore (American robin), avian insectivore (American robin), and avian intermediate carnivore (Amercian kestrel); mammalian herbivore (desert cottontail); mammalian
insectivore (montane shrew) and mammalian top carnivore (red fox); ESL for plant for antimony
d NMED (2017). Risk Assessment Guidance for Site Investigations and Remediation. Volume II -Soil Screening Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessments. March 2017. Tier 1 ecological screening level (ESL).
A only analyzed in 2015 samples
# includes duplicate sample
* NMED ESLs are pH dependent; aluminum is identified as a COPC only at sites where the soil pH is less than 5.5 (U.S. EPA. Ecological Soil Screening Level for Aluminum, Interim Final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-6. November 2003).
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
1 of 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I Table 1-6
Refined Ecological Risk Characterization For Section 10 Mine Surface Soil
COPEC
Maximum of
Detected
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
Background8'15
Plant
Soil invertebrates
Avian herbivore
Avian ground
insectivore
Avian carnivore
Mammalian
herbivore
Mammalian ground
insectivore
Mammalian
carnivore
Low
Effect
ESLd
Low
Effect HQ
Low Effect
ESLd
Low
Effect HQ
Low
Effect
ESLd
Low
Effect HQ
Low
Effect
ESLd
Low
Effect HQ
Low
Effect
ESLd
Low
Effect HQ
Low
Effect
ESLd
Low
Effect HQ
Low
Effect
ESLd
Low
Effect HQ
Low
Effect
ESLd
Low
Effect HQ
Aluminum
22000
54,423
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
NSL
Arsenic
20.0
5.9
91
0.2
68
0.3
340
0.1
150
0.1
7400
0.003
27
0.7
31
0.6
1300
0.02
Barium
210.0
727
260
0.8
3200
0.07
1200
0.2
1400
0.2
44000
0.005
14000
0.02
10,000
0.02
190,000
0.001
Lead
14.0
18.1
570
0.02
8400
0.002
36
0.4
23
0.6
160
0.09
600
0.02
170
0.08
7000
0.002
Mercury
0.12
0.046
64
0.002
1
0.2
0.67
0.2
0.13
0.9
0.58
0.2
230
0.001
17
0.01
760
0.0002
Selenium
87
0.29
3
29
41
2.1
1.9
46
1.4
62
7.5
12
3.4
26
1
87
130
0.7
Uranium
310
2.5
250
1.2
NSL
15000
0.02
11000
0.03
140,000
0.002
2600
0.1
1200
0.3
12000
0.03
Vanadium
250
71.4
80
3.1
NSL
13
19
9.5
26
110
2.3
1500
0.2
610
0.4
6900
0.04
Surface Soil
Radium 226 (pCi/g)*
101.1
1.9
540
0.2
15
6.7
340
0.3
82
1.2
610
0.2
3400
0.0
5100
0.0
3700
0.0
Th-230 (pCi/g)**
101.1
1.9
2000
0.1
520
0.0
12000
0.0
22000
0.0
170000
0.0
210000
0.0
1100000
0.0
680000
0.0
Bold values indicate concentrations that exceed ecological screening level; bold and shading indicates HQ exceeds unity (based on one significant figure). Thick border around HQ>1 indicates maximum concentration also exceeds background.
COPEC = chemical of potential environmental concern
HQ = Hazard quotient = maximum concentration / screening level
NSL - no screening level
a Background threshold value for radium-226 as reported in the Section 10 Mine Removal Site Evaluation Report (Weston, September 2019).
b Average concentration, New Mexico, Background Soil Concentration Database, EcoSSL Attachment 1-4, Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-
SSLs), Review of Background Concentrations for Metals, OSWER Directive 92857-55, Revised July 2007. https:/Mww.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/ecossl_attachment_1-4.pdf.
c mean for Western US (Shacklette, H.T. and J.G. Boernren. 1984. Element Concentrations in Soil and Other Surface Materials of the Counterminous United States. USGS Professional Paper 1270)
d LANL low effect ESL Version 4.1; values for avian herbivore (American robin), avian insectivore (American robin), and avian intermediate carnivore (Amercian kestrel); mammalian herbivore
(desert cottontail); mammalian insectivore (montane shrew) and mammalian top carnivore (red fox)
* 95% upper confidence limit (95UCL) concentration of radium-226
** istope in U-238 decay chain; assumes in secular equilibrium with radium-226
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
1 of 1
TDD No 0001/17-044
-------
Table 1-7
Comparison of Plant Tissue Concentrations to Maximum Tolerable Limits for Animals and Normal/Toxic Limits for Plants
Section 10 Mine
Plant Analysis
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Manganese
Molybdenum
Uranium
Vanadium
Selenium
Sample I.D.
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
ppm
WGSA-P11-161101
275.1
23.9
3.5
22.6
1.47
<0.50
<0.04
<0.65
WGSA-P12-161101
157.8
40.4
6.4
8.2
1.98
4.63
<0.04
205.24
Maximum Tolerable Limits (MTL) of Minerals in the Feed (mg/kg dry matter) d
Rodents
500
500
500
2000
7
100 - 400**
NA
5
Poultry
500
500
250
2000
100
NA
25 (<5 laying hens)
3
Swine
3000
1000
250
1000
150
NA
10
4
Horse
500
500
250
400
5*
NA
10
5
Cattle
500
500
40
2000
5*
NA
50
5
Sheep
500
300
15
2000
5*
NA
50
5
Trace Elements in Mature Leaf Tissue*** (ppm dry weight) b
Sufficient/Normal
NA
27-150
5-30
30 - 300
0.2-5
NA
0.2-1.5
0.01 -2
Toxic/Excessive
NA
100-400
20 -100
400- 1000
10-50
NA
5-10
5-30
Bold and shading indicates concentration exceeds lowest MTL for animals and/or is in toxic range for plants.
* toxicosis caused by <25 mg/kg is often associated with inadequate available copper; cattle show overt toxicosis when dietary molybdenum level is at 100 mg/kg or higher
regardless of dietary copper or sulfur levels.
**Maximum tolerable intake for domestic animals is probably between 100 and 400 mg/kg diet.
*** Values are not given for very sensitive or highly tolerant plant species.
a defined as dietary level, that, when fed for a defined period of time, will not impair animal health or performance.
ppm = parts per million = millgrams per kilogram (mg/kg)
References:
a National Research Council (NRC). 2005. Mineral Tolerance of Animal. 2nd Revised Edition. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
b Kabata-Pendias, Alina and Henryk Pendias. 1992. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants. 2nd Edition. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
Section 10 Mine EE/C A Report - Appendix I
1 Of 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Attachment 1
PRG Calculator Input and Output
-------
Appendix I Attachment 1, Table A.1-1
Site-specific Equation Inputs for Soil Chemicals - Meat Consumption
Section 10 Mine
Intake Equation/Exposure Parameter
Rancher - Adult
Target Hazard Quotient (THQ, unitless)
Target Risk (TR, unitless)
Body Weight (BW, kg)
Exposure Frequency (EF, days/yr) - home grown meat
Exposure Duration (ED, yrs)
Averaging Time (ATnc)- noncarcinogens (yrs)
Averaging Time (ATc)- carcinogens (yrs)
Ingestion Rate (IRC, mg/day) - homegrown meat
Fraction ingested (Fl) - home grown meat
1
1E-06
80 a
350 a
25 a
ED a
70 a
165300 b
0.48 c
Fraction onsite
0.33 d
Meat Intake Factor - noncancer (MIF nc)
5.0E+02
Meat Intake Factor - cancer (MIF c)
1.41E-03
EXPOSURE ALGORITHMS for
SL meat-nc = THQ x AT nc x BW/ (EF x ED x 1/RfD x IR meat x Fl x 10"° kg/mg) = MIF nc
x 1 /RfD
SL meat-c = TR x AT c x BW / (EF x ED x SF x IR meat x Fl x 10"D kg/mg) = (MIF c /(Fl *
SF)
a - Default value (USEPA, 2014)
b - default value for beef (USEPA, 2019)
c- USEPA, 2011.
c- Hurd et al, 2007
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
1 of 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix I Attachment 1, Table A.1-2
Site-specific Screening Levels and Hazard Index for Soil-to-Meat Consumption
Section 10 Mine
Beef
Screening
Reference
Screening
Transfer
Level Soil to
Soil
Dose (mg/kg-
Level-Meat -
Coefficient
Soil-to-Dry
Meat -
Concentration
Noncancer Hazard
Chemical
day)
noncancer
(d ay/kg )a
Plant Uptake3
noncancer
(mg/kg)
Quotient
Arsenic
3.0E-04
0.31
2.0E-03
4.0E-02
488
20
0.041
Selenium
5.0E-03
5.21
1.5E-02
2.5E-02
1325
87
0.066
Uranium (Soluble Salts)
2.0E-04
0.21
2.0E-04
8.5E-03
5261
310
0.059
Vanadium
5.0E-03
5.21
2.5E-03
5.5E-03
11179
250
0.022
0.2
Beef
Screening
Transfer
Screening
Soil
Slope Factor
Level-Meat -
Coefficient
Soil-to-Dry
Level Soil to
Concentration
Chemical
(mg/kg-day)"1
cancer
(d ay/kg )a
Plant Uptake3
Meat - cancer
(mg/kg)
Cancer Risk
Arsenic
1.5E+00
0.00196
2.0E-03
4.0E-02
3.1
20
7E-06
a ORNL RAIS
SL meat-nc = THQ x AT nc x BW/ (EF x ED x 1/RfD x IR meat x Fl x 10"
6 kg/mg) = (MIFnc / Fl *1/RfD) * 1/ (1/RfD) = 500 / (0.48 x (1/RfD)
SL meat-c =TR x AT c x BW / (EF x ED x SF x IR meat x Fl x 10"6
kg/mg) = MIFc /SFxFI= 1.41E-3 / SF *0.48
SL-res-meat-nc-ing (mg/kg) = SL-meat-nc / {BTF x ([Forage Intake * PUFdry] + Soil intake)}
Hazard quotient (HQ) = Concentration/SL-nc
SL-res-meat-c-ing (mg/kg) = SL-meat-c/ {BTF x ([Forage Intake * PUFdry] + Soil intake)}
Risk = (Concentration/SL-c)*1 E-6
Forage intake = 11.77 kg/day *.33 (fraction onsite) = 3.8841 kg/day
Soil intake = 0.5 kg/day *.33 (fraction onsite) = 0.165 kg/day
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I 1 Of 1 TDD No. 0001 /17-044
-------
Appendix I Attachment 1, TableA.1-3
Chemical-Specific Parameters
Section 10 Mine
Beef Transfer
Soil-to-
Soil-to-
Coefficient
Dry Plant
Wet Plant
ANALYSIS
(day/kg)
Uptake
Uptake
BTF, BV Dry and BV Wet Reference
Arsenic, Inorganic
0.002
0.04
0.01
Baes, C. F., Ill, Sharp, R. D., Sjoreen, A.
L., and Shor, R. W. 1984. A Review and
Analysis of Parameters for Assessing
Transport
Selenium
0.015
0.025
0.00625
Uranium (Soluble Salts)
0.0002
0.0085
0.002125
Vanadium and Compounds
0.0025
0.0055
0.001375
Source: ORNL RAIS
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
1 of 1
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
1
Variable
Default
Value
Form-input
Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
16.2302
14.9421
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
18.7762
17.9869
City (Climate Zone)
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
216.108
205.1782
Section 10 Surface Soil
Cover thickness for GSF „ (gamma shielding factor) cm
0 cm
0 cm
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
0.194
0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
2573243853.79163
Q/C„_h (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
31.86507598808449
A (acres)
0.5
250
Site area for ACF (area correction factor) m 2
1000029 m2
1000029 m2
ED„ (exposure duration - composite worker) yr
25
25
EF„ (exposure frequency - composite worker) dayfyr
250
250
ET (exposure time - composite worker) hr/day
8
0.8
IRA, (inhalation rate - composite worker) m 3/day
60
60
IRS, (soil intake rate - composite worker) mg/day
100
100
t„ (time - composite worker) yr
25
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
U (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:28:52
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Total
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
5.97E+01
1.56E+01
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:28:52
Isotope
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
(pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
2.91E+02 6.55E+04 7.51E+01
6.35E+01 1.42E+05 2.06E+01
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker Risk for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Isotope
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Risk Risk Risk
Total
Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
1.56E-06 6.95E-09 6.06E-06
7.63E-06
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
1.59E-04 7.11E-08 4.90E-04
6.49E-04
*Total Risk
1.61E-04 7.80E-08 4.96E-04
6.57E-04
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:28:52
-------
Site-specific
Indoor Worker Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
1
Variable
Default
Value
Form-input
Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
16.2302
14.9421
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
18.7762
17.9869
City (Climate Zone)
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
216.108
205.1782
Cover thickness for GSF h (gamma shielding factor) cm
0 cm
0 cm
Section 10 Surface Soil
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
0.194
0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
6609630249.811598
Q/C„_h (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
81.84858572694108
A„ (acres)
0.5
0.5
Site area for ACF (area correction factor) m 2
1000029 m2
1000029 m2
ED,,, (exposure duration - indoor worker) yr
25
25
EF.„ (exposure frequency - indoor worker) dayfyr
250
250
ET„ (exposure time - indoor worker) hr/day
8
0.8
GSF; (indoor gamma shielding factor) unitless
0.4
0.7
IRA,, (inhalation rate - indoor worker) m 3/day
60
0
IRS (soil intake rate - indoor worker) mg/day
50
0
t„ (time - indoor worker) yr
25
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
U (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:18:45
-------
Site-specific
Indoor Worker PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Total
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
1.07E+02
2.95E+01
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:18:45
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
Isotope (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235 - - 1.07E+02
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238 - - 2.95E+01
2
-------
Site-specific
Indoor Worker Risk for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Isotope
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Risk Risk Risk
Total
Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.24E-06
4.24E-06
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.43E-04
3.43E-04
*Total Risk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.47E-04
3.47E-04
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:18:45
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
1
Variable
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
City (Climate Zone)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
Cover thickness for GSF „ (gamma shielding factor) cm
Cover thickness for GSF h (gamma shielding factor) cm
CFfo (contaminated plant fraction) unitless
CF,ok ^ (contaminated apple fraction) unitless
CFfc„m,„_ (contaminated asparagus fraction) unitless
CFfoKhMf (beef contaminated fraction) unitless
CF^_ (contaminated berry fraction) unitless
CF,,, (contaminated broccoli fraction) unitless
CFfoK hM, (contaminated beet fraction) unitless
CFfomhh_ (contaminated cabbage fraction) unitless
CFf_raolmi„ (contaminated cereal grain fraction) unitless
CFfo_i(Kiic (contaminated citrus fraction) unitless
CFf_ (contaminated corn fraction) unitless
CF,__, (contaminated carrot fraction) unitless
CFfoK „,„imh=K (contaminated cucumber fraction) unitless
CFfoKHoi„, (dairy contaminated fraction) unitless
CFf_ (egg contaminated fraction) unitless
CF^ (fish contaminated fraction) unitless
CFfoK„m(milk (goat milk contaminated fraction) unitless
CF,_m(i_( (goat meat contaminated fraction) unitless
CFfcrJilli„ (contaminated lettuce fraction) unitless
CFfc,Jim,_ (contaminated lima bean fraction) unitless
CFfoK„kra (contaminated okra fraction) unitless
CFfoK„ni„„ (contaminated onion fraction) unitless
CF,__lw (poultry contaminated fraction unitless)
CFt (contaminated peach fraction) unitless
CFfc,„M (contaminated pea fraction) unitless
CFfc,„M, (contaminated pear fraction) unitless
CF (contaminated potato fraction) unitless
CF, (contaminated pumpkin fraction) unitless
far-pumpkin v r r /
Default
Form-input
Value
Value
16.2302
14.9421
18.7762
17.9869
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
216.108
205.1782
0 cm
0 cm
0 cm
0 cm
Section 10 Surface Soil
i.48
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
2
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
CFfc„.„ (contaminated rice fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfc„_ (sheep contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfc„_mill, (sheep milk contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CF^,(contaminated snap bean fraction) unitless
1
1
CF^,(contaminated strawberry fraction) unitless
1
1
CFf_iin= (swine contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CF,okJ_,„ (contaminated tomato fraction) unitless
1
1
ED,ok (exposure duration - farmer) yr
40
25
ED,ok o (exposure duration - farmer adult) yr
34
25
EDfo_ (exposure duration - farmer child) yr
6
0
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer adult) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer child) day/yr
350
0
IFAP,ok oHi (age-adjusted apple ingestion factor) g
1182020
741125
IFASfoK oHi (age-adjusted asparagus ingestion factor) g
492870
343874.99999999994
IFB,ok oHi (age-adjusted beef ingestion factor) g
2098950
1446375
IFBEfoK oHi (age-adjusted berry ingestion factor) g
471450
309750
IFBR,ok oHi (age-adjusted broccoli ingestion factor) g
450310
308874.99999999994
IFBT,ok oHi (age-adjusted beet ingestion factor) g
411600
296625
IFCB,ok oHi (age-adjusted cabbage ingestion factor) g
1043980
749875
IFCG,ok oHi (age-adjusted cereal grain ingestion factor) g
1190210
1190210
IFCIfoK oHi (age-adjusted citrus ingestion factor) g
4090100
2707249.9999999995
IFCO,ok oHi (age-adjusted corn ingestion factor) g
1044470
717500
IFCR,ok oHi (age-adjusted carrot ingestion factor) g
318290
213500
IFCUfoK oHi (age-adjusted cucumber ingestion factor) g
688800
480375
IFD,ok oHi (age-adjusted dairy ingestion factor) g
10138030
5918500
IFEfoK oHi (age-adjusted egg ingestion factor) g
775810
521500
IFFIfoK oHi (age-adjusted fish ingestion factor) g
10018960
7278250
IFLEfoKoHi (age-adjusted lettuce ingestion factor) g
455070
328125
IFLIfoK oHi (age-adjusted lima bean ingestion factor) g
415870
295749.99999999994
IFOK,ok oHi (age-adjusted okra ingestion factor) g
370510
264250
IFONfoK oHi (age-adjusted onion ingestion factor) g
338800
238000
IFP,ok oHi (age-adjusted poultry ingestion factor) g
1376550
939750
IFPC,ok oHi (age-adjusted peach ingestion factor) g
1435420
902125
IFPEfar adj (age-adjusted pea ingestion factor) g
437500
277375
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
3
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
IFPR„K ,Hi (age-adjusted pear ingestion factor) g
874300
524125
IFPT,_Hi (age-adjusted potato ingestion factor) g
1807750
1240750.0000000002
IFPUfoK oHi (age-adjusted pumpkin ingestion factor) g
866040
567000
IFRIfoK oHi (age-adjusted rice ingestion factor) g
1126230
774375
IFSNfoK oHi (age-adjusted snap bean ingestion factor) g
702730
474250
IFST,ok oHi (age-adjusted strawberry ingestion factor) g
535080
354375
IFSWfoK oHi (age-adjusted swine ingestion factor) g
1171520
809375
IFTOfoK oHi (age-adjusted tomato ingestion factor) g
1194270
824250
IRAP,_ (apple ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
84.7
84.7
IRAPfo_ (apple ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
82.9
82.9
IRAS,ok o (asparagus ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
39.3
39.3
IRASfo_ (asparagus ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
12.0
12.0
IRB,ok o (beef ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
165.3
165.3
IRBfo_ (beef ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
62.8
0
IRBE,ok o (berry ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
35.4
35.4
IRBEfo_ (berry ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
23.9
23.9
IRBR,ok o (broccoli ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
35.3
35.3
IRBRfo_ (broccoli ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
14.4
14.4
IRBT,ok o (beet ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
33.9
33.9
IRBT,_ (beet ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
3.9
3.9
IRCB,ok o (cabbage ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
85.7
85.7
IRCBfo_ (cabbage ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
11.5
11.5
IRCG,ok o (cereal grain ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
91.9
91.9
IRCGfo_ (cereal grain ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
46.0
46.0
IRCI,ok o (citrus ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
309.4
309.4
IRCIfo_ (citrus ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
194.4
194.4
IRCO,ok o (corn ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
82.0
82.0
IRCOfo_ (corn ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
32.7
32.7
IRCR,_ (carrot ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
24.4
24.4
IRCRfo_ (carrot ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
13.3
13.3
IRCU,ok o (cucumber ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
54.9
54.9
IRCUfo_ (cucumber ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
16.9
16.9
IRDfoK, (dairy ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
676.4
676.4
IRDfar c (dairy ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
994.7
994.7
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
4
Default Form-input
Variable Value Value
IRE,ok o (egg ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 59.6 59.6
IREfo_ (egg ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 31.7 31.7
IRFIfc„ (fish ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 831.8 831.8
IRFIfc„ (fish ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 57.4 57.4
IRLE,ok o (lettuce ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 37.5 37.5
IRLEfo_ (lettuce ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 4.2 4.2
IRLIf„, (lima bean ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 33.8 33.8
IRLIf,_ (lima bean ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 6.5 6.5
IROK,ok o (okra ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 30.2 30.2
IROKfo_ (okra ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 5.3 5.3
IRON,oko (onion ingestion rate-farmer adult) g/day 27.2 27.2
IRONfo_ (onion ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 7.2 7.2
IRPfc„ (poultry ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 107.4 107.4
IRPfc„ (poultry ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 46.9 46.9
IRPCfc„ (peach ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 103.1 103.1
IRPCfc„ (peach ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 99.3 99.3
IRPEfc„ (pea ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 31.7 31.7
IRPEfc„ (pea ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 28.7 28.7
IRPRfc„ (pear ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 59.9 59.9
IRPRfc„ (pear ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 76.9 76.9
IRPTfc„ (potato ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 141.8 141.8
IRPTfc„ (potato ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 57.3 57.3
IRPUfc„ (pumpkin ingestion rate -farmer adult) g/day 64.8 64.8
IRPUfc„ (pumpkin ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 45.2 45.2
IRRL, (rice ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 88.5 88.5
IRRIfc„ (rice ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 34.8 34.8
IRSNfc„ (snap bean ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 54.2 54.2
IRSNfc„ (snap bean ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 27.5 27.5
IRSTfc„ (strawberry ingestion rate -farmer adult) g/day 40.5 40.5
IRSTfc„ (strawberry ingestion rate -farmer child) g/day 25.3 25.3
IRSWfc„ (swine ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 92.5 92.5
IRSWfc„ (swine ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 33.7 33.7
IRTOfc„ (tomato ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 94.2 94.2
IRTOfarc (tomato ingestion rate-farmer child) g/day 34.9 34.9
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
5
Variable
MLFoml= (apple mass loading factor) unitless
MLF (asparagus mass loading factor) unitless
MLFh=m, (berry mass loading factor) unitless
MLFhK_N (broccoli mass loading factor) unitless
MLFhM, (beet mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„hh_ (cabbage mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„„,,„in (cereal grain mass loading factor) unitless
MLF^kiic (citrus mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_ (corn mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_, (carrot mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„,„imh=K (cucumber mass loading factor) unitless
MLF,_ (lettuce mass loading factor) unitless
MLFlimoh_ (lima bean mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„,ko (okra mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„ni„„ (onion mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_„ (peach mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_ (pea mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_ (pear mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„„,o,„ (potato mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„iim„ki„ (pumpkin mass loading factor) unitless
MLFKi„ (rice mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_h_ (snap bean mass loading factor) unitless
MLFc(Koi,ih=m, (strawberry mass loading factor) unitless
MLF,_ (tomato mass loading factor) unitless
pm (density of milk) kg/L
tfc, (time - farmer) yr
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
Q/C „inH (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
A„ (acres)
Slab size for ACF (area correction factor) m 2
ED,ok (exposure duration - farmer) yr
EDfar a (exposure duration - farmer adult) yr
Default
Form-input
Value
Value
0.000160
0.000160
0.0000790
0.0000790
0.000166
0.000166
0.00101
0.00101
0.000138
0.000138
0.000105
0.000105
0.250
0.250
0.000157
0.000157
0.000145
0.000145
0.0000970
0.0000970
0.0000400
0.0000400
0.0135
0.0135
0.00383
0.00383
0.0000800
0.0000800
0.0000970
0.0000970
0.000150
0.000150
0.000178
0.000178
0.000160
0.000160
0.000210
0.000210
0.0000580
0.0000580
0.250
0.250
0.00500
0.00500
0.0000800
0.0000800
0.00159
0.00159
1.03
1.03
40
25
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
0.194
0.0553
1359344438
6609630249.811598
93.77
81.84858572694108
0.5
0.5
1000029 m2
1000029 m2
40
25
34
25
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
6
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
EDfo_ (exposure duration - farmer child) yr
6
0
EF,ok (exposure frequency) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer adult) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer child) day/yr
350
o
ET,ok (exposure time - farmer) hr/day
24
o
ETfc„ (exposure time - farmer adult) hr/day
24
o
ETfc„ (exposure time - farmer child) hr/day
24
o
ETfoKi (indoor exposure time fraction) hr/day
10.008
o
ETfc,_„ (outdoor exposure time fraction) hr/day
12.168
o
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
0.33
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f (animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f (animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f Hoi„, (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
(fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
GSF; (gamma shielding factor - indoor)
0.4
o
IFAfoK oHi (age-adjusted soil inhalation factor) m 3
259000
o
IFS,ok oHi (age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg
1610000
o
IRAfc„ (inhalation rate - farmer adult) m 3/day
20
o
IRAfc„ (inhalation rate - farmer child) m 3/day
10
o
IRSfc„ (soil ingestion rate - farmer adult) mg/day
100
o
IRSfc„ (soil ingestion rate - farmer child) mg/day
200
o
MLF_„ira (pasture plant mass loading factor) unitless
0.25
0.25
Qp-beef (beef fodder intake rate) kg/day
11.77
11.77
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
7
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
Q„ Hoi„, (dairy fodder intake rate) kg/day
20.3
20.3
Q o(milk (goat milk fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.59
1.59
Q (goat fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.27
1.27
Q (poultry fodder intake rate) kg/day
0.2
0.2
(sheep fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.75
1.75
(sheep milk fodder intake rate) kg/day
3.15
3.15
Q„ (swine fodder intake rate) kg/day
4.7
4.7
(beef soil intake rate) kg/day
0.5
0.5
Q, Hoi„, (dairy soil intake rate) kg/day
0.4
0.4
(goat milk soil intake rate) kg/day
0.29
0.29
Q_ (goat soil intake rate) kg/day
0.23
0.23
(poultry soil intake rate) kg/day
0.022
0.022
Q„_ (sheep soil intake rate) kg/day
0.32
0.32
(sheep milk soil intake rate) kg/day
0.57
0.57
(swine soil intake rate) kg/day
0.37
0.37
tfc, (time - farmer) yr
40
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
Farmer PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
8
External Produce Beef
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption Total
PRG PRG PRG PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
Isotope (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235 . . . . 1.86E+02 1.86E+02
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238 ... . 9.57E+00 9.57E+00
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Risk for Soil
- Secular Equilibrium
Isotope
External Produce
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption
Risk Risk Risk Risk
Beef
Risk
Total
Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
2.45E-06
2.45E-06
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
1.06E-03
1.06E-03
*Total Risk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
1.06E-03
1.06E-03
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:13:00
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
1
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
16.2302
14.9421
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
18.7762
17.9869
City (Climate Zone)
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
216.108
205.1782
Cover thickness for GSF „ (gamma shielding factor) cm
0 cm
0 cm
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
0.194
0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
2573243853.79163
Q/C„_h (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
31.86507598808449
A (acres)
0.5
250
Site area for ACF (area correction factor) m 2
1000029 m2
1000029 m2
ED„ (exposure duration - composite worker) yr
25
25
EF„ (exposure frequency - composite worker) dayfyr
250
250
ET (exposure time - composite worker) hr/day
8
0.8
IRA, (inhalation rate - composite worker) m 3/day
60
60
IRS, (soil intake rate - composite worker) mg/day
100
100
t„ (time - composite worker) yr
25
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
Section 10 Subsurface Soil
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:31:08
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Total
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
5.97E+01
1.56E+01
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:31:08
Isotope
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
(pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
2.91E+02 6.55E+04 7.51E+01
6.35E+01 1.42E+05 2.06E+01
-------
Site-specific 3
Composite Worker Risk for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Isotope
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Risk Risk Risk
Total
Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
5.36E-08 2.38E-10 2.08E-07
2.61E-07
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
5.45E-06 2.43E-09 1.68E-05
2.22E-05
*Total Risk
5.50E-06 2.67E-09 1.70E-05
2.25E-05
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:31:08
-------
Site-specific
Indoor Worker Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
Default Form-input
Variable Value Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant) 16.2302 14.9421
B (PEF Dispersion Constant) 18.7762 17.9869
City (Climate Zone) Default Albuquerque, NM (3)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant) 216.108 205.1782
Cover thickness for GSF h (gamma shielding factor) cm 0 cm 0 cm
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless 0.194 0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg 1359344438 6609630249.811598
Q/C,.linH (g/m2-s per kg/m3) 93.77 81.84858572694108
A„ (acres) 0.5 0.5
Site area for ACF (area correction factor) m 2 1000029 m 2 1000029 m 2
ED,,, (exposure duration - indoor worker) yr 25 25
EF.„ (exposure frequency - indoor worker) dayfyr 250 250
ET„ (exposure time - indoor worker) hr/day 8 0.8
GSF; (indoor gamma shielding factor) unitless 0.4 0.7
IRA,, (inhalation rate - indoor worker) m 3/day 60 0
IRS,,, (soil intake rate - indoor worker) mg/day 50 0
t„ (time - indoor worker) yr 25 25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless 1.0E-06 1.0E-04
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s 4.69 4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value) 11.32 11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless 0.5 0.5
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:23:11
Section 10 Subsurface Soil
-------
Site-specific
Indoor Worker PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Total
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
1.07E+02
2.95E+01
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:23:11
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
Isotope (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235 - - 1.07E+02
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238 - - 2.95E+01
2
-------
Site-specific
Indoor Worker Risk for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Isotope
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Risk Risk Risk
Total
Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.45E-07
1.45E-07
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.17E-05
1.17E-05
*Total Risk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.19E-05
1.19E-05
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:23:11
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
1
Variable
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
City (Climate Zone)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
Cover thickness for GSF „ (gamma shielding factor) cm
Cover thickness for GSF h (gamma shielding factor) cm
CFfo (contaminated plant fraction) unitless
CF,ok ^ (contaminated apple fraction) unitless
CFfc„m,„_ (contaminated asparagus fraction) unitless
CFfoKhMf (beef contaminated fraction) unitless
CF^_ (contaminated berry fraction) unitless
CF,,, (contaminated broccoli fraction) unitless
CFfoK hM, (contaminated beet fraction) unitless
CFfomhh_ (contaminated cabbage fraction) unitless
CFf_raolmi„ (contaminated cereal grain fraction) unitless
CFfo_i(Kiic (contaminated citrus fraction) unitless
CFf_ (contaminated corn fraction) unitless
CF,__, (contaminated carrot fraction) unitless
CFfoK „,„imh=K (contaminated cucumber fraction) unitless
CFfoKHoi„, (dairy contaminated fraction) unitless
CFf_ (egg contaminated fraction) unitless
CF^ (fish contaminated fraction) unitless
CFfoK„m(milk (goat milk contaminated fraction) unitless
CF,_m(i_( (goat meat contaminated fraction) unitless
CFfcrJilli„ (contaminated lettuce fraction) unitless
CFfc,Jim,_ (contaminated lima bean fraction) unitless
CFfoK„kra (contaminated okra fraction) unitless
CFfoK„ni„„ (contaminated onion fraction) unitless
CF,__lw (poultry contaminated fraction unitless)
CFt (contaminated peach fraction) unitless
CFfc,„M (contaminated pea fraction) unitless
CFfc,„M, (contaminated pear fraction) unitless
CF (contaminated potato fraction) unitless
CF, (contaminated pumpkin fraction) unitless
far-pumpkin v r r /
Default
Form-input
Value
Value
16.2302
14.9421
18.7762
17.9869
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
216.108
205.1782
0 cm
0 cm
0 cm
0 cm
Section 10 Subsurface Soil
i.48
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
2
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
CFfc„.„ (contaminated rice fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfc„_ (sheep contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfc„_mill, (sheep milk contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CFf_o„h_ (contaminated snap bean fraction) unitless
1
1
CF^,(contaminated strawberry fraction) unitless
1
1
CFf_iin= (swine contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CF,okJ_,„ (contaminated tomato fraction) unitless
1
1
ED,ok (exposure duration - farmer) yr
40
25
ED,ok o (exposure duration - farmer adult) yr
34
25
EDfo_ (exposure duration - farmer child) yr
6
0
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer adult) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer child) day/yr
350
0
IFAP,ok oHi (age-adjusted apple ingestion factor) g
1182020
741125
IFASfoK oHi (age-adjusted asparagus ingestion factor) g
492870
343874.99999999994
IFB,ok oHi (age-adjusted beef ingestion factor) g
2098950
1446375
IFBEfoK oHi (age-adjusted berry ingestion factor) g
471450
309750
IFBR,ok oHi (age-adjusted broccoli ingestion factor) g
450310
308874.99999999994
IFBT,ok oHi (age-adjusted beet ingestion factor) g
411600
296625
IFCB,ok oHi (age-adjusted cabbage ingestion factor) g
1043980
749875
IFCG,ok oHi (age-adjusted cereal grain ingestion factor) g
1190210
1190210
IFCIfoK oHi (age-adjusted citrus ingestion factor) g
4090100
2707249.9999999995
IFCO,ok oHi (age-adjusted corn ingestion factor) g
1044470
717500
IFCR,ok oHi (age-adjusted carrot ingestion factor) g
318290
213500
IFCUfoK oHi (age-adjusted cucumber ingestion factor) g
688800
480375
IFD,ok oHi (age-adjusted dairy ingestion factor) g
10138030
5918500
IFEfoK oHi (age-adjusted egg ingestion factor) g
775810
521500
IFFIfoK oHi (age-adjusted fish ingestion factor) g
10018960
7278250
IFLEfoKoHi (age-adjusted lettuce ingestion factor) g
455070
328125
IFLIfoK oHi (age-adjusted lima bean ingestion factor) g
415870
295749.99999999994
IFOK,ok oHi (age-adjusted okra ingestion factor) g
370510
264250
IFONfoK oHi (age-adjusted onion ingestion factor) g
338800
238000
IFP,ok oHi (age-adjusted poultry ingestion factor) g
1376550
939750
IFPC,ok oHi (age-adjusted peach ingestion factor) g
1435420
902125
IFPEfar adj (age-adjusted pea ingestion factor) g
437500
277375
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
3
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
IFPR„K ,Hi (age-adjusted pear ingestion factor) g
874300
524125
IFPT,_Hi (age-adjusted potato ingestion factor) g
1807750
1240750.0000000002
IFPUfoK oHi (age-adjusted pumpkin ingestion factor) g
866040
567000
IFRIfoK oHi (age-adjusted rice ingestion factor) g
1126230
774375
IFSNfoK oHi (age-adjusted snap bean ingestion factor) g
702730
474250
IFST,ok oHi (age-adjusted strawberry ingestion factor) g
535080
354375
IFSWfoK oHi (age-adjusted swine ingestion factor) g
1171520
809375
IFTOfoK oHi (age-adjusted tomato ingestion factor) g
1194270
824250
IRAP,_ (apple ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
84.7
84.7
IRAPfo_ (apple ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
82.9
82.9
IRAS,ok o (asparagus ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
39.3
39.3
IRASfo_ (asparagus ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
12.0
12.0
IRB,ok o (beef ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
165.3
165.3
IRBfo_ (beef ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
62.8
0
IRBE,ok o (berry ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
35.4
35.4
IRBEfo_ (berry ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
23.9
23.9
IRBR,ok o (broccoli ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
35.3
35.3
IRBRfo_ (broccoli ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
14.4
14.4
IRBT,ok o (beet ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
33.9
33.9
IRBT,_ (beet ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
3.9
3.9
IRCB,ok o (cabbage ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
85.7
85.7
IRCBfo_ (cabbage ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
11.5
11.5
IRCG,ok o (cereal grain ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
91.9
91.9
IRCGfo_ (cereal grain ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
46.0
46.0
IRCI,ok o (citrus ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
309.4
309.4
IRCIfo_ (citrus ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
194.4
194.4
IRCO,ok o (corn ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
82.0
82.0
IRCOfo_ (corn ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
32.7
32.7
IRCR,_ (carrot ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
24.4
24.4
IRCRfo_ (carrot ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
13.3
13.3
IRCU,ok o (cucumber ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
54.9
54.9
IRCUfo_ (cucumber ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
16.9
16.9
IRDfoK, (dairy ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
676.4
676.4
IRDfar c (dairy ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
994.7
994.7
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
4
Default Form-input
Variable Value Value
IRE,ok o (egg ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 59.6 59.6
IREfo_ (egg ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 31.7 31.7
IRFIfc„ (fish ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 831.8 831.8
IRFIfc„ (fish ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 57.4 57.4
IRLE,ok o (lettuce ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 37.5 37.5
IRLEfo_ (lettuce ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 4.2 4.2
IRLIf„, (lima bean ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 33.8 33.8
IRLIf,_ (lima bean ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 6.5 6.5
IROK,ok o (okra ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 30.2 30.2
IROKfo_ (okra ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 5.3 5.3
IRON,oko (onion ingestion rate-farmer adult) g/day 27.2 27.2
IRONfo_ (onion ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 7.2 7.2
IRPfc„ (poultry ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 107.4 107.4
IRPfc„ (poultry ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 46.9 46.9
IRPCfc„ (peach ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 103.1 103.1
IRPCfc„ (peach ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 99.3 99.3
IRPEfc„ (pea ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 31.7 31.7
IRPEfc„ (pea ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 28.7 28.7
IRPRfc„ (pear ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 59.9 59.9
IRPRfc„ (pear ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 76.9 76.9
IRPTfc„ (potato ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 141.8 141.8
IRPTfc„ (potato ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 57.3 57.3
IRPUfc„ (pumpkin ingestion rate -farmer adult) g/day 64.8 64.8
IRPUfc„ (pumpkin ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 45.2 45.2
IRRL, (rice ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 88.5 88.5
IRRIfc„ (rice ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 34.8 34.8
IRSNfc„ (snap bean ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 54.2 54.2
IRSNfc„ (snap bean ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 27.5 27.5
IRSTfc„ (strawberry ingestion rate -farmer adult) g/day 40.5 40.5
IRSTfc„ (strawberry ingestion rate -farmer child) g/day 25.3 25.3
IRSWfc„ (swine ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 92.5 92.5
IRSWfc„ (swine ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day 33.7 33.7
IRTOfc„ (tomato ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day 94.2 94.2
IRTOfarc (tomato ingestion rate-farmer child) g/day 34.9 34.9
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
5
Variable
MLFoml= (apple mass loading factor) unitless
MLF (asparagus mass loading factor) unitless
MLFh=m, (berry mass loading factor) unitless
MLFhK_N (broccoli mass loading factor) unitless
MLFhM, (beet mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„hh_ (cabbage mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„„,,„in (cereal grain mass loading factor) unitless
MLF^kiic (citrus mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_ (corn mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_, (carrot mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„,„imh=K (cucumber mass loading factor) unitless
MLF,_ (lettuce mass loading factor) unitless
MLFlimoh_ (lima bean mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„,ko (okra mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„ni„„ (onion mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_„ (peach mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_ (pea mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_ (pear mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„„,o,„ (potato mass loading factor) unitless
MLF„iim„ki„ (pumpkin mass loading factor) unitless
MLFKi„ (rice mass loading factor) unitless
MLF_h_ (snap bean mass loading factor) unitless
MLFc(Koi,ih=m, (strawberry mass loading factor) unitless
MLF,_ (tomato mass loading factor) unitless
pm (density of milk) kg/L
tfc, (time - farmer) yr
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
Q/C „inH (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
A„ (acres)
Slab size for ACF (area correction factor) m 2
ED,ok (exposure duration - farmer) yr
EDfar a (exposure duration - farmer adult) yr
Default
Form-input
Value
Value
0.000160
0.000160
0.0000790
0.0000790
0.000166
0.000166
0.00101
0.00101
0.000138
0.000138
0.000105
0.000105
0.250
0.250
0.000157
0.000157
0.000145
0.000145
0.0000970
0.0000970
0.0000400
0.0000400
0.0135
0.0135
0.00383
0.00383
0.0000800
0.0000800
0.0000970
0.0000970
0.000150
0.000150
0.000178
0.000178
0.000160
0.000160
0.000210
0.000210
0.0000580
0.0000580
0.250
0.250
0.00500
0.00500
0.0000800
0.0000800
0.00159
0.00159
1.03
1.03
40
25
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
0.194
0.0553
1359344438
6609630249.811598
93.77
81.84858572694108
0.5
0.5
1000029 m2
1000029 m2
40
25
34
25
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
6
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
EDfo_ (exposure duration - farmer child) yr
6
0
EF,ok (exposure frequency) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer adult) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer child) day/yr
350
o
ET,ok (exposure time - farmer) hr/day
24
o
ETfc„ (exposure time - farmer adult) hr/day
24
o
ETfc„ (exposure time - farmer child) hr/day
24
o
ETfoKi (indoor exposure time fraction) hr/day
10.008
o
ETfc,_„ (outdoor exposure time fraction) hr/day
12.168
o
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
0.33
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f (animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f (animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f Hoi„, (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
(fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
GSF; (gamma shielding factor - indoor)
0.4
o
IFAfoK oHi (age-adjusted soil inhalation factor) m 3
259000
o
IFS,ok oHi (age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg
1610000
o
IRAfc„ (inhalation rate - farmer adult) m 3/day
20
o
IRAfc„ (inhalation rate - farmer child) m 3/day
10
o
IRSfc„ (soil ingestion rate - farmer adult) mg/day
100
o
IRSfc„ (soil ingestion rate - farmer child) mg/day
200
o
MLF_„ira (pasture plant mass loading factor) unitless
0.25
0.25
Qp-beef (beef fodder intake rate) kg/day
11.77
11.77
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
7
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
Q„ Hoi„, (dairy fodder intake rate) kg/day
20.3
20.3
Q o(milk (goat milk fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.59
1.59
Q (goat fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.27
1.27
Q (poultry fodder intake rate) kg/day
0.2
0.2
(sheep fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.75
1.75
(sheep milk fodder intake rate) kg/day
3.15
3.15
Q„ (swine fodder intake rate) kg/day
4.7
4.7
(beef soil intake rate) kg/day
0.5
0.5
Q, Hoi„, (dairy soil intake rate) kg/day
0.4
0.4
(goat milk soil intake rate) kg/day
0.29
0.29
Q_ (goat soil intake rate) kg/day
0.23
0.23
(poultry soil intake rate) kg/day
0.022
0.022
Q„_ (sheep soil intake rate) kg/day
0.32
0.32
(sheep milk soil intake rate) kg/day
0.57
0.57
(swine soil intake rate) kg/day
0.37
0.37
tfc, (time - farmer) yr
40
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
Farmer PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
8
External Produce Beef
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption Total
PRG PRG PRG PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
Isotope (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235 . . . . 1.86E+02 1.86E+02
Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238 ... . 9.57E+00 9.57E+00
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Risk for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Isotope
External Produce
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption
Risk Risk Risk Risk
Beef Total
Risk Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
8.40E-08 8.40E-08
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
3.62E-05 3.62E-05
*Total Risk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
3.62E-05 3.62E-05
Output generated 15DEC2019:16:16:14
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker Equation Inputs for Soil
* Inputted values different from Composite Worker defaults are highlighted.
Composite
Worker
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
16.2302
14.9421
A (VF Dispersion Constant)
11.911
14.9421
A (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit)
11.911
11.911
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
18.7762
17.9869
B (VF Dispersion Constant)
18.4385
17.9869
B (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit)
18.4385
18.4385
CityDCC (Climate Zone) Selection
Default
Albuquerque, NM
Citywc (Climate Zone) Selection
Default
Albuquerque, NM
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
216.108
205.1782
C (VF Dispersion Constant)
209.7845
205.1782
C (VF Dispersion Constant - Mass Limit)
209.7845
209.7845
foe (fraction organic carbon in soil) g/g
0.006
0.006
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
0.194
0.0553
n (total soil porosity) L _/L_a
0.43396
0.43396
ph (dry soil bulk density) g/cm 3
1.5
1.5
ph (dry soil bulk density - mass limit) g/cm 3
1.5
1.5
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
2573243853.7916
pc (soil particle density) g/cm 3
2.65
2.65
Q/C„_h (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
31.865075988084
Q/C (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
68.18
31.865075988084
Q/C (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
68.18
68.18
A„ (PEF acres)
0.5
250
A„ (VF acres)
0.5
250
A„ (VF mass-limit acres)
0.5
0.5
AF„ (skin adherence factor - composite worker) mg/cm
2 0.12
0.12
AT, (averaging time - composite worker)
365
365
BW„ (body weight - composite worker)
80
80
ED„ (exposure duration - composite worker) yr
25
25
EFw (exposure frequency - composite worker) dayfyr
250
250
Output generated 16DEC2019:15:54:11
Section 10 Soil Metals
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker Equation Inputs for Soil
2
* Inputted values different from Composite Worker defaults are highlighted.
Composite
Worker
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
ET„ (exposure time - composite worker) hr
8
1.6
THQ (target hazard quotient) unitless
0.1
1
IR„ (soil ingestion rate - composite worker) mg/day
100
100
LT (lifetime) yr
70
70
SA„ (surface area - composite worker) cm 2/day
3527
3527
TR (target risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-06
T„ (groundwater temperature) Celsius
25
25
Theta, (air-filled soil porosity) L
0.28396
0.28396
Theta , (water-filled soil porosity) L
0.15
0.15
T (exposure interval) s
819936000
819936000
T (exposure interval) yr
26
26
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
VFm| (volitization factor - mass limit) m 3/kg
Output generated 16DEC2019:15:54:11
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for Soil
Key: I = IRIS; P = PPRTV; O = OPP; A = ATSDR; C = Cal EPA; X = PPRTV Screening Level; H = HEAST; D = DWSHA; W = TEF applied; E = RPF applied; G = see
user's guide; U = user provided; ca = cancer; nc = noncancer; * = where: nc SL < 100X ca SL; ** = where nc SL < 10X ca SL; SSL values are based on
DAF=1; max = ceiling limit exceeded; sat = Csat exceeded.
CAS Chemical SFo SFo IUR IUR RfD RfD RfC RfC
Chemical Number Mutagen? Volatile? Type (mg/kg-day) 1 Ref (ug/m3)1 Ref (mg/kg-day) Ref (mg/m3) Ref GIABS ABS RBA
Arsenic, Inorganic 7440-38-2 No No Inorganics 1.50E+00 U 4.30E-03 U 3.00E-04 U 1.50E-05 U 1 0.03 0.6
Selenium 7782-49-2 No No Inorganics - - 5.00E-03 U 2.00E-02 U 1 - 1
Uranium NA No No Inorganics - - 2.00E-04 U 4.00E-05 U 1 - 1
Vanadium and Compounds 7440-62-2 No No Inorganics - - 5.04E-03 U 1.00E-04 U 0.026 - 1
Soil
Saturation
Concentration
(mg/kg)
S K \
oc
(mg/L) (cm3/g)
Kd\
(cm3/g)
2.90E+01
5.00E+00
4.50E+02
1.00E+03
Henry's
Law
Constant l-T
Used in and
HLC Calcs HLC
(atm-m 7mole) (unitless) Ref
Normal
Boiling
Point
BP
(K)
888.15
958.15
4093.15
3683.15
BP
Ref
U
U
u
u
Critical
Temperature
TC
(K)
1670
1770
13700
11300
TC Chemical D. \ D. \
ia iw
Ref Type (cm2/s) (cm2/s)
U INORGANIC
U INORGANIC
U INORGANIC 7.49E-02 3.34E-05
U INORGANIC
Particulate
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation Carcinogenic
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation Noncarcinogenic
Emission
Volatilization
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
Screening
D„\
Factor
Factor
TR=1E-06
TR=1E-06
TR=1E-06
TR=1E-06
THQ=1
THQ=1
THQ=1
THI=1
Level
(cm 2/s)
(m3/kg)
(m3/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
(mg/kg)
-
2.57E+09
-
3.63E+00
1.72E+01
3.67E+04
3.00E+00
5.84E+02
2.76E+03
8.45E+05
4.82E+02
3.00E+00 ca
-
2.57E+09
-
-
-
-
-
5.84E+03
-
1.13E+09
5.84E+03
5.84E+03 nc
-
2.57E+09
-
-
-
-
-
2.34E+02
-
2.25E+06
2.34E+02
2.34E+02 nc
-
2.57E+09
-
-
-
-
-
5.89E+03
-
5.64E+06
5.88E+03
5.88E+03 nc
Output generated 16DEC2019:15:54:11
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker Risk for Soil
4
Chemical
SF SF IUR IUR RfD
0 0
(mg/kg-day) 1 Ref (ug/m3)1 Ref (mg/kg-day)
RfD
Ref
RfC
(mg/m3)
RfC
Ref GIABS ABS RBA
Soil
Saturation
Concentration
(mg/kg)
S K \
oc
(mg/L) (cm3/g)
Kd\
(cm3/g)
Arsenic, Inorganic
1.50E+00 U 4.30E-03 U
3.00E-04
U
1.50E-05
U
1 0.03
0.6
-
-
-
2.90E+01
Selenium
-
5.00E-03
U
2.00E-02
U
1
1
-
-
-
5.00E+00
Uranium
-
2.00E-04
u
4.00E-05
u
1
1
-
-
-
4.50E+02
Vanadium and Compounds
-
5.04E-03
u
1.00E-04
u
0.026
1
-
-
-
1.00E+03
*Total Risk/Hi
¦
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Henry's
Law Normal
Constant l-T Boiling Critical Particulate
Used in and Point Temperature Emission
HLC Calcs HLC BP BP TC TC Chemical D \ D \ DA Factor
ia iw A
Chemical (atm-m 3/mole) (unitless) Ref (K) Ref (K) Ref Type (cm2/s) (cm2/s) (cm2/s) (m3/kg)
Arsenic, Inorganic
888.15
u
1670
U
INORGANIC
- 2.57E+09
Selenium
958.15
u
1770
u
INORGANIC
- 2.57E+09
Uranium
4093.15
u
13700
u
INORGANIC 7.49E-02 3.34E-05
- 2.57E+09
Vanadium and Compounds
3683.15
u
11300
u
INORGANIC
- 2.57E+09
*Total Risk/Hi
-H
-
-
-H
Chemical
Volatilization
Factor
(m3/kg)
Concentration
(mg/kg)
Ingestion
Risk
Dermal
Risk
Inhalation Carcinogenic
Risk Risk
Ingestion
HQ
Dermal
HQ
Inhalation Noncarcinogenic
HQ HI
Arsenic, Inorganic
-
2.00E+01
5.50E-06
1.16E-06
5.45E-10
6.67E-06
3.42E-02
7.25E-03
2.37E-05
4.15E-02
Selenium
-
8.70E+01
-
-
-
-
1.49E-02
-
7.72E-08
1.49E-02
Uranium
-
3.10E+02
-
-
-
-
1.33E+00
-
1.38E-04
1.33E+00
Vanadium and Compounds
-
2.50E+02
-
-
-
-
4.25E-02
-
4.44E-05
4.25E-02
*Total Risk/Hi
-
-
5.50E-06
1.16E-06
5.45E-10
6.67E-06
1.42E+00
7.25E-03
2.06E-04
1.43E+00
Output generated 16DEC2019:15:54:11
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Attachment 2
Recommended Shielding Factor for a Pick-up Truck
-------
MEMO
DATE: September 26, 2016
TO: Keith Delhomme
FROM: Rick Haaker
^ f- M -*
SUBJECT: Recommended shielding factor for a pick-up truck
Mr. Delhomme directed me to provide a gamma radiation transmission factor for a pick-up truck. A
transmission factor in this case may be thought of as the proportion of gamma radiation level measured
inside of the cab compared to the level at the same location in the absence of the truck, Equation 1.
Gamma radiation level inside of cab
Eq. 1: Transmission Factor = - - -— -
Gamma radiation level if no truck is present
A 2010 extended cab Honda Ridgeline was chosen for the gamma radiation measurements. The Honda
extended cab Ridgeline is considered a comparatively small pickup, having a curb weight of
approximately 4,500 pounds. Radiation levels inside and outside a 2014 Toyota Corolla 4-door sedan
were also measured to give an estimate of the transmission factor for a rather light vehicle by modern
standards. The weights of some selected vehicles are provided in Table 1.
Table 1.
Vehicle
Weight, lbs1
2016 Ford F-250 Super Cab
6,200 to 7,460
2016 Ford F-350 Super Cab
6,298 to 7,508
2016 Ford F-450 Crew Cab
8,611
1983 Mazda B-2000 Pickup
2,5902
2014 Toyota Corolla 4-door sedan
~2,900 3
Measurement Method
Two gamma radiation intensities were measured in the front seats of each vehicle, one in the driver seat
and the other in the front passenger seat. The measurements were taken with a Ludlum 44-10 2-inch by
2-inch gamma scintillation detector coupled with a Ludlum 2221 ratemeter/scaler. In each case the
detector was held about 15 inches above the seat and about 12 inches toward the dashboard from the
seat back, as shown in Figure 1. Once the indoor measurements were made the vehicles were moved
and then the gamma radiation intensities were re-measured. The results are summarized in Table 2.
1 https://www.fleet.ford.com/truckbbas/topics/2016/16_SD_Pickups_SB_Updates.pdf
2 http://articles.mcall.com/1984-09-01/news/2429550_l_pickup-bed-small-pickup-mazda
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corolla_(E170)
-------
Table 2. Gamma Transmission Factor
Vehicle
Transmission Factor
2010 Honda Ridgeline extended cab
0.71 (95% CI: 0.69-0.73)
2014 Toyota Corolla
0.74 (95% CI: 0.72-0.77)
The 95% confidence intervals overlap, thus the gamma radiation transmission results for a Honda
Ridgeline and a Toyota Corolla should not be considered significantly different. Most modern pickups
are heavier than a 2010 Honda Ridgeline and most likely allow less gamma radiation transmission into
the vehicle. Few ranchers are expected to work out of very small sedans or very old small foreign
pickups. A gamma radiation transmission value of 0.7 is recommended. Based on the measurements
taken, it is not likely to greatly overestimate or underestimate the true gamma transmission factor for
pickups.
The specific measurement data is provided in Table 3.
Vehicle
Inside the vehicle
Background after vehicle moved
(gross counts in 1 minute)
(gross counts in 1 minute)
Driver side
Passenger side
Driver side
Passenger side
Honda Ridgeline
10,541
10,732
14,861
15,089
Toyota Corolla
10,732
11,140
14,452
15,058
Ludlum 2221 # 183990 with Ludlum 44-10 #RN 19764, cal date June 9, 2016
-------
Appendix I (Continued)
Human Health and Ecological Risk Evaluation
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Attachment 3
ProUCL Output
-------
Appendix I, Attachment 3
Section 10 Mine
ProUCL Output
UCL Statistics for Uncensored Full Data Sets
User Selected Options
Date/Time of Computation ProUCL 5.111/14/2019 3:53:54 PM
From File SectionIO summary tv.xls
Full Precision OFF
Confidence Coefficient 95%
Number of Bootstrap Operations 2000
Ra-226 SS
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Coefficient of Variation
General Statistics
10
0.924
125.2
41.08
1.215
Number of Distinct Observations 10
Number of Missing Observations 0
Mean 33.81
Median 19.1
Std. Error of Mean 12.99
Skewness 1.538
Shapiro WilkTest Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
LillieforsTest Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Normal GOF Test
0.794
0.842
0.315
0.262
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data Not Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
95% Student's-t UCL 57.62
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 61.92
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 58.67
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
0.369 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.767 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.186 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test
0.278 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
khat(MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Gamma Statistics
0.63
53.65
12.6
33.81
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0267
k star (bias corrected MLE)
Theta star (bias corrected MLE)
nu star (bias corrected)
MLE Sd (bias corrected)
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05)
Adjusted Chi Square Value
0.508
66.58
10.16
47.44
4.039
3.396
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50) 85 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50) 101.1
Lognormal GOF Test
Shapiro WilkTest Statistic 0.891 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value 0.842 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors Test Statistic 0.232 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
5% Lilliefors Critical Value 0.262 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Minimum of Logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data
Lognormal Statistics
-0.079
4.83
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 1015
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 158.3
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 304
Mean of logged Data 2.547
SD of logged Data 1.76
90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 122.9
97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 207.5
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
1 of 3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
55.17
95% Jackknife
UCL
57.62
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
54.4
95% Bootstrap-t
UCL
83.2
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
94.46
95% Percentile Bootstrap
UCL
53.97
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
60.44
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
72.78
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd)
UCL
90.43
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
114.9
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd)
UCL
163.1
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Adjusted Gamma UCL 101.1
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Ra-226 SB
Total Number of Observations
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Coefficient of Variation
General Statistics
10
1.95
4.643
0.79
0.264
Number of Distinct Observations 10
Number of Missing Observations 0
Mean 2.999
Median 3.129
Std. Error of Mean 0.25
Skewness 0.668
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
LillieforsTest Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Normal GOF Test
0.918
0.842
0.219
0.262
Shapiro Wilk GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Lilliefors GOF Test
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Normal at 5% Significance Level
Assuming Normal Distribution
95% Normal UCL
95% Student's-t UCL 3.457
95% UCLs (Adjusted for Skewness)
95% Adjusted-CLT UCL (Chen-1995) 3.467
95% Modified-t UCL (Johnson-1978) 3.466
A-D Test Statistic
5% A-D Critical Value
K-S Test Statistic
5% K-S Critical Value
Gamma GOF Test
0.376 Anderson-Darling Gamma GOF Test
0.725 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
0.194 Kolmogorov-Smimov Gamma GOF Test
0.266 Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
Detected data appear Gamma Distributed at 5% Significance Level
khat (MLE)
Theta hat (MLE)
nu hat (MLE)
MLE Mean (bias corrected)
Gamma Statistics
16.39
0.183
327.8
2.999
Adjusted Level of Significance 0.0267
k star (bias corrected M LE) 11.54
Theta star (bias corrected MLE) 0.26
nu star (bias corrected) 230.8
MLE Sd (bias corrected) 0.883
Approximate Chi Square Value (0.05) 196.7
Adjusted Chi Square Value 191.2
Assuming Gamma Distribution
95% Approximate Gamma UCL (use when n>=50)) 3.52 95% Adjusted Gamma UCL (use when n<50)
3.621
Shapiro Wilk Test Statistic
5% Shapiro Wilk Critical Value
Lilliefors Test Statistic
5% Lilliefors Critical Value
Lognormal GOF Test
0.94 Shapiro Wilk Lognormal GOF Test
0.842 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
0.196 Lilliefors Lognormal GOF Test
0.262 Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Data appear Lognormal at 5% Significance Level
Lognormal Statistics
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
2 of 3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Minimum of Logged Data 0.668 Mean of logged Data
Maximum of Logged Data 1.535 SD of logged Data
1.067
0.262
Assuming Lognormal Distribution
95% H-UCL 3.565 90% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 3.748
95% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.088 97.5% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 4.559
99% Chebyshev (MVUE) UCL 5.485
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCL Statistics
Data appear to follow a Discernible Distribution at 5% Significance Level
Nonparametric Distribution Free UCLs
95% CLT UCL
3.41
95% Jackknife
UCL
3.457
95% Standard Bootstrap UCL
3.38
95% Bootstrap-t
UCL
3.516
95% Hall's Bootstrap UCL
3.576
95% Percentile Bootstrap
UCL
3.42
95% BCA Bootstrap UCL
3.432
90% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
3.749
95% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd)
UCL
4.089
97.5% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd) UCL
4.56
99% Chebyshev(Mean, Sd)
UCL
5.486
Suggested UCL to Use
95% Student's-t UCL 3.457
Note: Suggestions regarding the selection of a 95% UCL are provided to help the user to select the most appropriate 95% UCL.
Recommendations are based upon data size, data distribution, and skewness.
These recommendations are based upon the results of the simulation studies summarized in Singh, Maichle, and Lee (2006).
However, simulations results will not cover all Real World data sets; for additional insight the user may want to consult a statistician.
Section 10 Mine EE/CA Report - Appendix I
3 of 3
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
APPENDIX J
PRG CALCULATOR OUT, DCGL AND RA-226 CONTRIBUTION CALCULATIONS,
AND RESRAD OUTPUT
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
PRG Calculator Output
-------
Site-Specific 1
Composite Worker Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
* Inputted values different from Composite Worker defaults are highlighted.
Composite
Worker
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
16.2302
14.9421
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
18.7762
17.9869
City (Climate Zone)
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
216.108
205.1782
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
0.194
0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
2370938158.760359
Q/C„_h (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
29.359877603759233
A (acres)
0.5
500
ED„ (exposure duration - composite worker) yr
25
25
EF„ (exposure frequency - composite worker) dayfyr
250
250
ET (exposure time - composite worker) hr/day
8
0.8
IRA, (inhalation rate - composite worker) m 3/day
60
60
IRS, (soil intake rate - composite worker) mg/day
100
100
t„ (time - composite worker) yr
25
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
2
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Total
PRG PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
Isotope (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235 2.91E+02 6.03E+04 7.51E+01 5.97E+01
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238 6.35E+01 1.31E+05 2.06E+01 1.56E+01
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
3
External
Exposure
Adult
Slope
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Particulate
Fractional
Lung
Slope
(risktyr
Slope
Emission
Contribution Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Isotope
Parent
of Progeny
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235
U-235
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ac-227
U-235
1.00E+00
S
1.49E-07
1.98E-10
2.01E-10
2.37E+09
3.18E-02
2.18E+01
At-219
U-235
8.28E-07
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
3.90E+05
1.78E-06
Bi-211
U-235
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
1.90E-07
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
1.70E+05
4.07E-06
Bi-215
U-235
8.03E-07
-
0.00E+00
1.08E-06
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
4.79E+04
1.45E-05
Fr-223
U-235
1.38E-02
s
4.07E-11
1.35E-07
4.88E-12
2.37E+09
1.66E+04
4.19E-05
Pa-231
U-235
1.00E+00
F
7.62E-08
1.27E-07
1.54E-10
2.37E+09
2.12E-05
3.28E+04
Pb-211
U-235
1.00E+00
S
4.03E-11
2.91 E-07
2.63E-13
2.37E+09
1.01E+04
6.87E-05
Po-211
U-235
2.76E-03
-
0.00E+00
3.76E-08
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
4.24E+07
1.64E-08
Po-215
U-235
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
7.48E-10
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
1.23E+10
5.65E-11
Ra-223
U-235
1.00E+00
s
2.92E-08
4.55E-07
1.23E-10
2.37E+09
2.21E+01
3.13E-02
Rn-219
U-235
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
2.35E-07
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
5.52E+06
1.26E-07
Th-227
U-235
9.86E-01
s
3.50E-08
4.45E-07
2.06E-11
2.37E+09
1.35E+01
5.12E-02
Th-231
U-235
1.00E+00
s
1.50E-12
2.49E-08
9.07E-13
2.37E+09
2.38E+02
2.91 E-03
TI-207
U-235
9.97E-01
-
0.00E+00
1.59E-08
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
7.64E+04
9.08E-06
U-235
U-235
1.00E+00
s
2.50E-08
5.51 E-07
4.92E-11
2.37E+09
9.84E-10
7.04E+08
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238
U-238
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
At-218
U-238
2.00E-04
-
0.00E+00
2.74E-11
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
1.46E+07
4.76E-08
Bi-210
U-238
1.00E+00
s
4.55E-10
2.77E-09
3.74E-12
2.37E+09
5.05E+01
1.37E-02
Bi-214
U-238
1.00E+00
s
6.18E-11
7.34E-06
1.47E-13
2.37E+09
1.83E+04
3.79E-05
Hg-206
U-238
1.90E-08
-
0.00E+00
4.83E-07
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
4.47E+04
1.55E-05
Pa-234
U-238
1.60E-03
s
1.20E-12
6.62E-06
9.66E-13
2.37E+09
9.06E+02
7.65E-04
Pa-234m
U-238
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
9.06E-08
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
3.11E+05
2.23E-06
Pb-210
U-238
1.00E+00
s
1.59E-08
1.48E-09
5.99E-10
2.37E+09
3.12E-02
2.22E+01
Pb-214
U-238
1.00E+00
s
7.77E-11
9.94E-07
2.21E-13
2.37E+09
1.36E+04
5.10E-05
Po-210
U-238
1.00E+00
s
1.45E-08
4.51 E-11
1.44E-09
2.37E+09
1.83E+00
3.79E-01
Po-214
U-238
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
3.85E-10
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
1.33E+11
5.21E-12
Po-218
U-238
1.00E+00
-
1.39E-11
6.84E-15
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
1.17E+05
5.90E-06
Ra-226
U-238
1.00E+00
s
2.82E-08
2.50E-08
2.95E-10
2.37E+09
4.33E-04
1.60E+03
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
4
1000029
m2
0 cm
Soil
Soil
External
Volume
Volume
Ingestion
Inhalation
Exposure
Total
Total
Area
Gamma
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
Correction Shielding
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
Isotope
Factor
Factor
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(mg/kg)
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235
-
-
2.91E+02
6.03E+04
7.51 E+01
5.97E+01
-
Ac-227
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.95E+02
1.27E+05
8.83E+05
7.89E+02
1.75E-11
At-219
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
-
-
-
-
-
Bi-211
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
9.21 E+02
9.21 E+02
2.61E-18
Bi-215
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
2.01 E+08
2.01 E+08
4.32E-23
Fr-223
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.37E+06
3.38E+10
9.37E+04
9.02E+04
2.90E-19
Pa-231
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.04E+03
2.49E+05
1.38E+03
5.90E+02
3.59E-08
Pb-211
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.09E+05
4.70E+08
6.03E+02
6.02E+02
6.74E-17
Po-211
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
1.69E+06
1.69E+06
5.73E-24
Po-215
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
2.34E+05
2.34E+05
1.45E-25
Ra-223
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.30E+03
6.50E+05
3.85E+02
2.97E+02
6.59E-14
Rn-219
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
7.47E+02
7.47E+02
1.03E-19
Th-227
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.87E+03
5.49E+05
3.99E+02
3.80E+02
8.56E-14
Th-231
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.77E+05
1.26E+10
7.04E+03
6.77E+03
2.78E-16
TI-207
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
1.11E+04
1.11E+04
4.75E-19
U-235
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
3.25E+03
7.58E+05
3.18E+02
2.89E+02
1.60E-03
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238
-
-
6.35E+01
1.31E+05
2.06E+01
1.56E+01
-
At-218
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
-
-
3.55E+10
3.55E+10
8.18E-28
Bi-210
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
4.28E+04
4.17E+07
6.33E+04
2.55E+04
3.16E-16
Bi-214
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.09E+06
3.07E+08
2.39E+01
2.39E+01
9.51 E-16
Hg-206
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
1.91E+10
1.91E+10
4.69E-25
Pa-234
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.04E+08
9.89E+12
1.65E+04
1.65E+04
3.03E-17
Pa-234m
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
1.93E+03
1.93E+03
7.54E-19
Pb-210
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.67E+02
1.19E+06
1.18E+05
2.66E+02
4.90E-11
Pb-214
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.26E+05
2.44E+08
1.76E+02
1.76E+02
1.73E-16
Po-210
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.11E+02
1.31E+06
3.89E+06
1.11E+02
2.00E-12
Po-214
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
4.55E+05
4.55E+05
6.86E-27
Po-218
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
-
1.36E+09
2.85E+10
1.30E+09
2.76E-24
Ra-226
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
5.43E+02
6.74E+05
7.01 E+03
5.04E+02
2.01 E-09
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibriu
External
Exposure Adult
Slope
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Particulate
Fractional
Lung
Slope
(riskfyr
Slope
Emission
Contribution Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Isotope
Parent
of Progeny
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
Rn-218
U-238
2.00E-07
-
0.00E+00
3.39E-09
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
6.24E+08
1.11E-09
Rn-222
U-238
1.00E+00
-
2.28E-12
1.69E-09
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
6.62E+01
1.05E-02
Th-230
U-238
1.00E+00
F
3.41 E-08
8.45E-10
7.73E-11
2.37E+09
9.19E-06
7.54E+04
Th-234
U-238
1.00E+00
S
3.08E-11
1.77E-08
9.51 E-12
2.37E+09
1.05E+01
6.60E-02
TI-206
U-238
1.34E-06
-
0.00E+00
6.11E-09
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
8.67E+04
7.99E-06
TI-210
U-238
2.10E-04
-
0.00E+00
1.34E-05
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
2.80E+05
2.47E-06
U-234
U-238
1.00E+00
s
2.78E-08
2.53E-10
5.11 E-11
2.37E+09
2.82E-06
2.46E+05
U-238
U-238
1.00E+00
s
2.36E-08
1.24E-10
4.66E-11
2.37E+09
1.55E-10
4.47E+09
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
6
1000029
m2
0 cm
Soil
Soil
External
Volume
Volume
Ingestion
Inhalation
Exposure
Total
Total
Area
Gamma
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
Correction
Shielding
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
Isotope
Factor
Factor
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(mg/kg)
Rn-218
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
2.59E+11
2.59E+11
2.62E-30
Rn-222
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
8.32E+09
1.03E+05
1.03E+05
6.29E-17
Th-230
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.07E+03
5.57E+05
2.07E+05
2.04E+03
2.38E-08
Th-234
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.68E+04
6.16E+08
9.87E+03
6.22E+03
6.95E-15
TI-206
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
2.14E+10
2.14E+10
2.15E-25
TI-210
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
-
-
6.21 E+04
6.21 E+04
2.34E-20
U-234
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
3.13E+03
6.82E+05
6.91 E+05
3.11E+03
5.18E-08
U-238
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
3.43E+03
8.02E+05
1.42E+06
3.41 E+03
8.73E-04
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific 1
Composite Worker Risk for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Isotope
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Risk Risk Risk
Total
Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
1.37E-08 6.63E-11 5.32E-08
6.70E-08
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
1.57E-06 7.63E-10 4.85E-06
6.42E-06
*Total Risk
1.59E-06 8.29E-10 4.90E-06
6.49E-06
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
External
Exposure
Adult
Slope
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Particulate
Lung
Slope
(risktyr
Slope
Emission
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Concentration
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Isotope
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(pCi/g)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235 ... ....
Ac-227
S
1.49E-07
1.98E-10
2.01E-10
0.04
2.37E+09
3.18E-02
2.18E+01
At-219
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.04
2.37E+09
3.90E+05
1.78E-06
Bi-211
-
0.00E+00
1.90E-07
0.00E+00
0.04
2.37E+09
1.70E+05
4.07E-06
Bi-215
-
0.00E+00
1.08E-06
0.00E+00
0.04
2.37E+09
4.79E+04
1.45E-05
Fr-223
s
4.07E-11
1.35E-07
4.88E-12
0.04
2.37E+09
1.66E+04
4.19E-05
Pa-231
F
7.62E-08
1.27E-07
1.54E-10
0.04
2.37E+09
2.12E-05
3.28E+04
Pb-211
S
4.03E-11
2.91 E-07
2.63E-13
0.04
2.37E+09
1.01E+04
6.87E-05
Po-211
-
0.00E+00
3.76E-08
0.00E+00
0.04
2.37E+09
4.24E+07
1.64E-08
Po-215
-
0.00E+00
7.48E-10
0.00E+00
0.04
2.37E+09
1.23E+10
5.65E-11
Ra-223
s
2.92E-08
4.55E-07
1.23E-10
0.04
2.37E+09
2.21E+01
3.13E-02
Rn-219
-
0.00E+00
2.35E-07
0.00E+00
0.04
2.37E+09
5.52E+06
1.26E-07
Th-227
s
3.50E-08
4.45E-07
2.06E-11
0.04
2.37E+09
1.35E+01
5.12E-02
Th-231
s
1.50E-12
2.49E-08
9.07E-13
0.04
2.37E+09
2.38E+02
2.91 E-03
TI-207
-
0.00E+00
1.59E-08
0.00E+00
0.04
2.37E+09
7.64E+04
9.08E-06
U-235
s
2.50E-08
5.51 E-07
4.92E-11
0.04
2.37E+09
9.84E-10
7.04E+08
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238 ... ....
At-218
-
0.00E+00
2.74E-11
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
1.46E+07
4.76E-08
Bi-210
s
4.55E-10
2.77E-09
3.74E-12
1
2.37E+09
5.05E+01
1.37E-02
Bi-214
s
6.18E-11
7.34E-06
1.47E-13
1
2.37E+09
1.83E+04
3.79E-05
Hg-206
-
0.00E+00
4.83E-07
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
4.47E+04
1.55E-05
Pa-234
s
1.20E-12
6.62E-06
9.66E-13
1
2.37E+09
9.06E+02
7.65E-04
Pa-234m
-
0.00E+00
9.06E-08
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
3.11E+05
2.23E-06
Pb-210
s
1.59E-08
1.48E-09
5.99E-10
1
2.37E+09
3.12E-02
2.22E+01
Pb-214
s
7.77E-11
9.94E-07
2.21E-13
1
2.37E+09
1.36E+04
5.10E-05
Po-210
s
1.45E-08
4.51 E-11
1.44E-09
1
2.37E+09
1.83E+00
3.79E-01
Po-214
-
0.00E+00
3.85E-10
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
1.33E+11
5.21E-12
Po-218
-
1.39E-11
6.84E-15
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
1.17E+05
5.90E-06
Ra-226
s
2.82E-08
2.50E-08
2.95E-10
1
2.37E+09
4.33E-04
1.60E+03
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
9
1000029
m2 0 cm
Soil Soil
Volume Volume External
Area Gamma Ingestion Inhalation Exposure External
Correction Shielding CDI CDI CDI Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Total
Factor Factor (pCi) (pCi) (pCi) Risk Risk Risk Risk
- 1.37E-08 6.63E-11 5.32E-08
6.70E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 5.03E-09 3.15E-11 4.53E-12
5.07E-09
9.00E-01 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.05E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.35E-09
4.35E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.99E-14
1.99E-14
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 1.68E-12 1.18E-16 4.27E-11
4.44E-11
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 3.86E-09 1.61E-11 2.91 E-09
6.78E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 6.57E-12 8.51E-15 6.64E-09
6.64E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.37E-12
2.37E-12
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.71E-11
1.71 E-11
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 3.08E-09 6.16E-12 1.04E-08
1.35E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.36E-09
5.36E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 5.08E-10 7.28E-12 1.00E-08
1.05E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 2.27E-11 3.17E-16 5.68E-10
5.90E-10
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.62E-10
3.62E-10
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 1.23E-09 5.27E-12 1.26E-08
1.38E-08
- 1.57E-06 7.63E-10 4.85E-06
6.42E-06
9.00E-01 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.14E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.82E-15
2.82E-15
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 2.34E-09 2.40E-12 1.58E-09
3.92E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71E-01 9.20E-11 3.26E-13 4.19E-06
4.19E-06
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.24E-15
5.24E-15
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 9.66E-13 1.01E-17 6.05E-09
6.05E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.17E-08
5.17E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 3.75E-07 8.37E-11 8.46E-10
3.76E-07
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71E-01 1.38E-10 4.10E-13 5.67E-07
5.67E-07
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 8.97E-07 7.65E-11 2.57E-11
8.97E-07
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.20E-10
2.20E-10
9.00E-01 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.14E-01 0.00E+00 7.33E-14 3.51 E-15
7.68E-14
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 1.84E-07 1.48E-10 1.43E-08
1.98E-07
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
External
Exposure Adult
Slope
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Particulate
Lung
Slope
(riskfyr
Slope
Emission
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Concentration
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Isotope
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(pCi/g)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
Rn-218
-
0.00E+00
3.39E-09
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
6.24E+08
1.11E-09
Rn-222
-
2.28E-12
1.69E-09
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
6.62E+01
1.05E-02
Th-230
F
3.41 E-08
8.45E-10
7.73E-11
1
2.37E+09
9.19E-06
7.54E+04
Th-234
S
3.08E-11
1.77E-08
9.51 E-12
1
2.37E+09
1.05E+01
6.60E-02
TI-206
-
0.00E+00
6.11E-09
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
8.67E+04
7.99E-06
TI-210
-
0.00E+00
1.34E-05
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
2.80E+05
2.47E-06
U-234
s
2.78E-08
2.53E-10
5.11 E-11
1
2.37E+09
2.82E-06
2.46E+05
U-230
s
2.36E-08
1.24E-10
4.66E-11
1
2.37E+09
1.55E-10
4.47E+09
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Composite Worker Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
1000029
m2 0 cm
Soil Soil
Volume Volume External
Area Gamma Ingestion Inhalation Exposure External
Correction Shielding
CDI
CDI
CDI
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Total
Factor
Factor
(pCi)
(pCi)
(pCi)
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.25E+02
5.27E-03
5.71 E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.87E-16
3.87E-16
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.25E+02
5.27E-03
5.71 E-01
0.00E+00
1.20E-14
9.66E-10
9.66E-10
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.25E+02
5.27E-03
5.71 E-01
4.83E-08
1.80E-10
4.83E-10
4.90E-08
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.25E+02
5.27E-03
5.71 E-01
5.94E-09
1.62E-13
1.01 E-08
1.61 E-08
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.25E+02
5.27E-03
5.71 E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.67E-15
4.67E-15
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.25E+02
5.27E-03
5.71 E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.61E-09
1.61 E-09
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.25E+02
5.27E-03
5.71 E-01
3.19E-08
1.47E-10
1.45E-10
3.22E-08
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.25E+02
5.27E-03
5.71 E-01
2.91 E-08
1.25E-10
7.06E-11
2.93E-08
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:31:51
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
* Inputted values different from Indoor Worker defaults are highlighted.
Indoor
Worker
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
16.2302
14.9421
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
18.7762
17.9869
City (Climate Zone)
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
216.108
205.1782
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
0.194
0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
6609630249.811598
Q/C„_h (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
81.84858572694108
A„ (acres)
0.5
0.5
ED,,, (exposure duration - indoor worker) yr
25
25
EF.„ (exposure frequency - indoor worker) dayfyr
250
250
ET„ (exposure time - indoor worker) hr/day
8
0.8
GSF; (indoor gamma shielding factor) unitless
0.4
0.7
IRA,, (inhalation rate - indoor worker) m 3/day
60
0
IRS (soil intake rate - indoor worker) mg/day
50
0
t„ (time - indoor worker) yr
25
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
1
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
2
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Total
PRG PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
Isotope (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235 - - 1.07E+02 1.07E+02
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238 - - 2.95E+01 2.95E+01
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
3
External
Exposure
Adult
Slope
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Particulate
Fractional
Lung
Slope
(risktyr
Slope
Emission
Contribution Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Isotope
Parent
of Progeny
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235
U-235
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ac-227
U-235
1.00E+00
S
1.49E-07
1.98E-10
2.01E-10
6.61 E+09
3.18E-02
2.18E+01
At-219
U-235
8.28E-07
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
3.90E+05
1.78E-06
Bi-211
U-235
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
1.90E-07
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
1.70E+05
4.07E-06
Bi-215
U-235
8.03E-07
-
0.00E+00
1.08E-06
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
4.79E+04
1.45E-05
Fr-223
U-235
1.38E-02
s
4.07E-11
1.35E-07
4.88E-12
6.61 E+09
1.66E+04
4.19E-05
Pa-231
U-235
1.00E+00
F
7.62E-08
1.27E-07
1.54E-10
6.61 E+09
2.12E-05
3.28E+04
Pb-211
U-235
1.00E+00
S
4.03E-11
2.91 E-07
2.63E-13
6.61 E+09
1.01E+04
6.87E-05
Po-211
U-235
2.76E-03
-
0.00E+00
3.76E-08
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
4.24E+07
1.64E-08
Po-215
U-235
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
7.48E-10
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
1.23E+10
5.65E-11
Ra-223
U-235
1.00E+00
s
2.92E-08
4.55E-07
1.23E-10
6.61 E+09
2.21E+01
3.13E-02
Rn-219
U-235
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
2.35E-07
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
5.52E+06
1.26E-07
Th-227
U-235
9.86E-01
s
3.50E-08
4.45E-07
2.06E-11
6.61 E+09
1.35E+01
5.12E-02
Th-231
U-235
1.00E+00
s
1.50E-12
2.49E-08
9.07E-13
6.61 E+09
2.38E+02
2.91 E-03
TI-207
U-235
9.97E-01
-
0.00E+00
1.59E-08
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
7.64E+04
9.08E-06
U-235
U-235
1.00E+00
s
2.50E-08
5.51 E-07
4.92E-11
6.61 E+09
9.84E-10
7.04E+08
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238
U-238
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
At-218
U-238
2.00E-04
-
0.00E+00
2.74E-11
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
1.46E+07
4.76E-08
Bi-210
U-238
1.00E+00
s
4.55E-10
2.77E-09
3.74E-12
6.61 E+09
5.05E+01
1.37E-02
Bi-214
U-238
1.00E+00
s
6.18E-11
7.34E-06
1.47E-13
6.61 E+09
1.83E+04
3.79E-05
Hg-206
U-238
1.90E-08
-
0.00E+00
4.83E-07
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
4.47E+04
1.55E-05
Pa-234
U-238
1.60E-03
s
1.20E-12
6.62E-06
9.66E-13
6.61 E+09
9.06E+02
7.65E-04
Pa-234m
U-238
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
9.06E-08
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
3.11E+05
2.23E-06
Pb-210
U-238
1.00E+00
s
1.59E-08
1.48E-09
5.99E-10
6.61 E+09
3.12E-02
2.22E+01
Pb-214
U-238
1.00E+00
s
7.77E-11
9.94E-07
2.21E-13
6.61 E+09
1.36E+04
5.10E-05
Po-210
U-238
1.00E+00
s
1.45E-08
4.51 E-11
1.44E-09
6.61 E+09
1.83E+00
3.79E-01
Po-214
U-238
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
3.85E-10
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
1.33E+11
5.21E-12
Po-218
U-238
1.00E+00
-
1.39E-11
6.84E-15
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
1.17E+05
5.90E-06
Ra-226
U-238
1.00E+00
s
2.82E-08
2.50E-08
2.95E-10
6.61 E+09
4.33E-04
1.60E+03
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
1000029
m2 0 cm
Soil Soil Total External
Volume Volume Indoor Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Total Total
Area Gamma GSF PRG PRG PRG PRG PRG
Correction Shielding Soil TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
Isotope
Factor
Factor
Volume (pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(mg/kg)
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235
-
-
-
-
1.07E+02
1.07E+02
-
Ac-227
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.26E+06
1.26E+06
1.10E-14
At-219
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
-
-
Bi-211
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.32E+03
1.32E+03
1.83E-18
Bi-215
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
2.88E+08
2.88E+08
3.03E-23
Fr-223
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.34E+05
1.34E+05
1.95E-19
Pa-231
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.97E+03
1.97E+03
1.08E-08
Pb-211
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
8.61 E+02
8.61 E+02
4.71 E-17
Po-211
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
2.41 E+06
2.41 E+06
4.01 E-24
Po-215
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
3.34E+05
3.34E+05
1.02E-25
Ra-223
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
5.50E+02
5.50E+02
3.56E-14
Rn-219
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.07E+03
1.07E+03
7.22E-20
Th-227
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
5.70E+02
5.70E+02
5.70E-14
Th-231
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.01E+04
1.01 E+04
1.87E-16
TI-207
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.58E+04
1.58E+04
3.33E-19
U-235
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
4.54E+02
4.54E+02
1.02E-03
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238
-
-
-
-
2.95E+01
2.95E+01
-
At-218
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
5.07E+10
5.07E+10
5.73E-28
Bi-210
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
9.04E+04
9.04E+04
8.93E-17
Bi-214
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
3.41 E+01
3.41 E+01
6.66E-16
Hg-206
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
2.73E+10
2.73E+10
3.28E-25
Pa-234
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
2.36E+04
2.36E+04
2.12E-17
Pa-234m
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
2.76E+03
2.76E+03
5.28E-19
Pb-210
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.69E+05
1.69E+05
7.73E-14
Pb-214
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
2.52E+02
2.52E+02
1.21 E-16
Po-210
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
5.55E+06
5.55E+06
4.01 E-17
Po-214
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
6.50E+05
6.50E+05
4.81 E-27
Po-218
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
4.06E+10
4.06E+10
8.86E-26
Ra-226
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
1.00E+04
1.00E+04
1.01 E-10
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
External
Exposure Adult
Slope
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Particulate
Fractional
Lung
Slope
(riskfyr
Slope
Emission
Contribution Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Isotope
Parent
of Progeny
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
Rn-218
U-238
2.00E-07
-
0.00E+00
3.39E-09
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
6.24E+08
1.11E-09
Rn-222
U-238
1.00E+00
-
2.28E-12
1.69E-09
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
6.62E+01
1.05E-02
Th-230
U-238
1.00E+00
F
3.41 E-08
8.45E-10
7.73E-11
6.61 E+09
9.19E-06
7.54E+04
Th-234
U-238
1.00E+00
S
3.08E-11
1.77E-08
9.51 E-12
6.61 E+09
1.05E+01
6.60E-02
TI-206
U-238
1.34E-06
-
0.00E+00
6.11E-09
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
8.67E+04
7.99E-06
TI-210
U-238
2.10E-04
-
0.00E+00
1.34E-05
0.00E+00
6.61 E+09
2.80E+05
2.47E-06
U-234
U-238
1.00E+00
s
2.78E-08
2.53E-10
5.11 E-11
6.61 E+09
2.82E-06
2.46E+05
U-238
U-238
1.00E+00
s
2.36E-08
1.24E-10
4.66E-11
6.61 E+09
1.55E-10
4.47E+09
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
6
1000029
m2
0 cm
Soil
Soil
Total
External
Volume
Volume
Indoor
Ingestion
Inhalation
Exposure
Total
Total
Area
Gamma
GSF
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
Correction
Shielding
Soil
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
Isotope
Factor
Factor
Volume
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(mg/kg)
Rn-218
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
3.70E+11
3.70E+11
1.83E-30
Rn-222
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
1.48E+05
1.48E+05
4.40E-17
Th-230
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
2.96E+05
2.96E+05
1.64E-10
Th-234
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
1.41E+04
1.41 E+04
3.07E-15
TI-206
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
3.06E+10
3.06E+10
1.51E-25
TI-210
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
8.88E+04
8.88E+04
1.64E-20
U-234
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
9.88E+05
9.88E+05
1.63E-10
U-238
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
-
-
2.02E+06
2.02E+06
1.47E-06
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Risk for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
7
Isotope
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Total
Risk Risk Risk Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.73E-08 3.73E-08
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.39E-06 3.39E-06
*Total Risk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.43E-06 3.43E-06
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
External
Exposure
Adult
Slope
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Particulate
Lung
Slope
(risktyr
Slope
Emission
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Concentration
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Isotope
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(pCi/g)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235 ... ....
Ac-227
S
1.49E-07
1.98E-10
2.01E-10
0.04
6.61 E+09
3.18E-02
2.18E+01
At-219
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.04
6.61 E+09
3.90E+05
1.78E-06
Bi-211
-
0.00E+00
1.90E-07
0.00E+00
0.04
6.61 E+09
1.70E+05
4.07E-06
Bi-215
-
0.00E+00
1.08E-06
0.00E+00
0.04
6.61 E+09
4.79E+04
1.45E-05
Fr-223
s
4.07E-11
1.35E-07
4.88E-12
0.04
6.61 E+09
1.66E+04
4.19E-05
Pa-231
F
7.62E-08
1.27E-07
1.54E-10
0.04
6.61 E+09
2.12E-05
3.28E+04
Pb-211
S
4.03E-11
2.91 E-07
2.63E-13
0.04
6.61 E+09
1.01E+04
6.87E-05
Po-211
-
0.00E+00
3.76E-08
0.00E+00
0.04
6.61 E+09
4.24E+07
1.64E-08
Po-215
-
0.00E+00
7.48E-10
0.00E+00
0.04
6.61 E+09
1.23E+10
5.65E-11
Ra-223
s
2.92E-08
4.55E-07
1.23E-10
0.04
6.61 E+09
2.21E+01
3.13E-02
Rn-219
-
0.00E+00
2.35E-07
0.00E+00
0.04
6.61 E+09
5.52E+06
1.26E-07
Th-227
s
3.50E-08
4.45E-07
2.06E-11
0.04
6.61 E+09
1.35E+01
5.12E-02
Th-231
s
1.50E-12
2.49E-08
9.07E-13
0.04
6.61 E+09
2.38E+02
2.91 E-03
TI-207
-
0.00E+00
1.59E-08
0.00E+00
0.04
6.61 E+09
7.64E+04
9.08E-06
U-235
s
2.50E-08
5.51 E-07
4.92E-11
0.04
6.61 E+09
9.84E-10
7.04E+08
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238 ... ....
At-218
-
0.00E+00
2.74E-11
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
1.46E+07
4.76E-08
Bi-210
s
4.55E-10
2.77E-09
3.74E-12
1
6.61 E+09
5.05E+01
1.37E-02
Bi-214
s
6.18E-11
7.34E-06
1.47E-13
1
6.61 E+09
1.83E+04
3.79E-05
Hg-206
-
0.00E+00
4.83E-07
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
4.47E+04
1.55E-05
Pa-234
s
1.20E-12
6.62E-06
9.66E-13
1
6.61 E+09
9.06E+02
7.65E-04
Pa-234m
-
0.00E+00
9.06E-08
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
3.11E+05
2.23E-06
Pb-210
s
1.59E-08
1.48E-09
5.99E-10
1
6.61 E+09
3.12E-02
2.22E+01
Pb-214
s
7.77E-11
9.94E-07
2.21E-13
1
6.61 E+09
1.36E+04
5.10E-05
Po-210
s
1.45E-08
4.51 E-11
1.44E-09
1
6.61 E+09
1.83E+00
3.79E-01
Po-214
-
0.00E+00
3.85E-10
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
1.33E+11
5.21E-12
Po-218
-
1.39E-11
6.84E-15
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
1.17E+05
5.90E-06
Ra-226
s
2.82E-08
2.50E-08
2.95E-10
1
6.61 E+09
4.33E-04
1.60E+03
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
9
1000029
m2 0 cm
Soil Soil Total
Volume Volume Indoor External
Area Gamma GSF Ingestion Inhalation Exposure External
Correction Shielding Soil CDI CDI CDI Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Total
Factor Factor Volume (pCi) (pCi) (pCi) Risk Risk Risk Risk
- 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.73E-08
3.73E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.17E-12
3.17E-12
9.00E-01 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.44E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.04E-09
3.04E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.39E-14
1.39E-14
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.99E-11
2.99E-11
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.03E-09
2.03E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.65E-09
4.65E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.66E-12
1.66E-12
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.20E-11
1.20E-11
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.28E-09
7.28E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.75E-09
3.75E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.01 E-09
7.01 E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.97E-10
3.97E-10
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.53E-10
2.53E-10
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.60E-02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 8.81 E-09
8.81 E-09
- 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.39E-06
3.39E-06
9.00E-01 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.60E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.97E-15
1.97E-15
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.11 E-09
1.11 E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.93E-06
2.93E-06
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.67E-15
3.67E-15
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.23E-09
4.23E-09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.62E-08
3.62E-08
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 5.92E-10
5.92E-10
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.97E-07
3.97E-07
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.80E-11
1.80E-11
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.54E-10
1.54E-10
9.00E-01 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.60E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.46E-15
2.46E-15
1.00E+00 1.00E+00 7.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.00E-01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 9.98E-09
9.98E-09
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
10
External
Exposure
Adult
Slope
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Particulate
Lung
Slope
(risktyr
Slope
Emission
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Concentration
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Isotope
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(pCi/g)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
Rn-218
-
0.00E+00
3.39E-09
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
6.24E+08
1.11E-09
Rn-222
-
2.28E-12
1.69E-09
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
6.62E+01
1.05E-02
Th-230
F
3.41 E-08
8.45E-10
7.73E-11
1
6.61 E+09
9.19E-06
7.54E+04
Th-234
S
3.08E-11
1.77E-08
9.51 E-12
1
6.61 E+09
1.05E+01
6.60E-02
TI-206
-
0.00E+00
6.11E-09
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
8.67E+04
7.99E-06
TI-210
-
0.00E+00
1.34E-05
0.00E+00
1
6.61 E+09
2.80E+05
2.47E-06
U-234
s
2.78E-08
2.53E-10
5.11 E-11
1
6.61 E+09
2.82E-06
2.46E+05
U-238
s
2.36E-08
1.24E-10
4.66E-11
1
6.61 E+09
1.55E-10
4.47E+09
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Indoor Worker Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
1000029
m2
0 cm
Soil
Soil
Total
Volume
Volume
Indoor
External
Area
Gamma
GSF
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
External
Correction Shielding
Soil
CDI
CDI
CDI
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Total
Factor
Factor
Volume
(pCi)
(pCi)
(pCi)
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.71E-16
2.71E-16
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
6.76E-10
6.76E-10
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.38E-10
3.38E-10
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.09E-09
7.09E-09
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.27E-15
3.27E-15
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.13E-09
1.13E-09
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.01E-10
1.01E-10
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
7.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.95E-11
4.95E-11
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:38:56
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
' Inputted values different from Farmer defaults are highlighted.
Variable
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
City (Climate Zone)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
CF„
CF„
CF„
CF„
CF,
Farmer
Soil
Default
Value
16.2302
18.7762
Default
216.108
Form-input
Value
Albuquerque, NM (3)
205.1782
(contaminated plant fraction) unitless
s (contaminated apple fraction) unitless
(contaminated asparagus fraction) unitless
(beef contaminated fraction) unitless
(contaminated berry fraction) unitless
CF,,, (contaminated broccoli fraction) unitless
CF,oK hM, (contaminated beet fraction) unitless
CF,omhh_ (contaminated cabbage fraction) unitless
CF(__lmi„ (contaminated cereal grain fraction) unitless
CF,o_i(Kiic (contaminated citrus fraction) unitless
CF,_ (contaminated corn fraction) unitless
CF_ (contaminated carrot fraction) unitless
CF,oK „ „imh=K (contaminated cucumber fraction) unitless
CF,oKHoi„, (dairy contaminated fraction) unitless
CF,_ (egg contaminated fraction) unitless
CF^,frh (fish contaminated fraction) unitless
CF,oK„m(milk (goat milk contaminated fraction) unitless
CF,_m(i_( (goat meat contaminated fraction) unitless
CF_ (contaminated lettuce fraction) unitless
CF,__ (contaminated lima bean fraction) unitless
CF,oK„kra (contaminated okra fraction) unitless
CF^, _ (contaminated onion fraction) unitless
CF_ (poultry contaminated fraction unitless)
CF,_h (contaminated peach fraction) unitless
CF_ (contaminated pea fraction) unitless
CFfar_pear (contaminated pear fraction) unitless
48
4.9421
7.9869
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
1
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
2
* Inputted values different from Farmer defaults are highlighted.
Farmer
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
CF (contaminated potato fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfo _ (contaminated pumpkin fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfc„.„ (contaminated rice fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfc„_ (sheep contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfc„_mill, (sheep milk contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CF^,(contaminated snap bean fraction) unitless
1
1
CF,„k(contaminated strawberry fraction) unitless
1
1
CFf_,„= (swine contaminated fraction) unitless
1
1
CF,okJ_,„ (contaminated tomato fraction) unitless
1
1
ED,ok (exposure duration - farmer) yr
40
25
ED,ok o (exposure duration - farmer adult) yr
34
25
EDfo_ (exposure duration - farmer child) yr
6
0
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer adult) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer child) day/yr
350
350
IFAP,ok oHi (age-adjusted apple ingestion factor) g
1182020
741125
IFASfoK oHi (age-adjusted asparagus ingestion factor) g
492870
343874.99999999994
IFB,ok oHi (age-adjusted beef ingestion factor) g
2098950
1446375
IFBEfoK oHi (age-adjusted berry ingestion factor) g
471450
309750
IFBR,ok oHi (age-adjusted broccoli ingestion factor) g
450310
308874.99999999994
IFBT,ok oHi (age-adjusted beet ingestion factor) g
411600
296625
IFCB,ok oHi (age-adjusted cabbage ingestion factor) g
1043980
749875
IFCG,ok oHi (age-adjusted cereal grain ingestion factor) g
1190210
1190210
IFCIfoK oHi (age-adjusted citrus ingestion factor) g
4090100
2707249.9999999995
IFCO,ok oHi (age-adjusted corn ingestion factor) g
1044470
717500
IFCR,ok oHi (age-adjusted carrot ingestion factor) g
318290
213500
IFCUfoK oHi (age-adjusted cucumber ingestion factor) g
688800
480375
IFD,ok oHi (age-adjusted dairy ingestion factor) g
10138030
5918500
IFEfoK oHi (age-adjusted egg ingestion factor) g
775810
521500
IFFIfoK oHi (age-adjusted fish ingestion factor) g
10018960
7278250
IFLEfaradj (age-adjusted lettuce ingestion factor) g
455070
328125
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
3
* Inputted values different from Farmer defaults are highlighted.
Variable
IFLIfoK oHi (age-adjusted lima bean ingestion factor) g
IFOK,ok oHi (age-adjusted okra ingestion factor) g
IFONfoK oHi (age-adjusted onion ingestion factor) g
IFP,ok oHi (age-adjusted poultry ingestion factor) g
IFPC,ok oHi (age-adjusted peach ingestion factor) g
IFPEfoK oHi (age-adjusted pea ingestion factor) g
IFPR„K ,Hi (age-adjusted pear ingestion factor) g
IFPT,_Hi (age-adjusted potato ingestion factor) g
IFPUfoK oHi (age-adjusted pumpkin ingestion factor) g
IFRIfoK oHi (age-adjusted rice ingestion factor) g
IFSNfoK oHi (age-adjusted snap bean ingestion factor) g
IFST,ok oHi (age-adjusted strawberry ingestion factor) g
IFSWfoK oHi (age-adjusted swine ingestion factor) g
IFTOfoK oHi (age-adjusted tomato ingestion factor) g
IRAP,_ (apple ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRAPfo_ (apple ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRAS,ok o (asparagus ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRASfo_ (asparagus ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRB,ok o (beef ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRBfo_ (beef ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRBE,ok o (berry ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRBEfo_ (berry ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRBR,ok o (broccoli ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRBRfo_ (broccoli ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRBT,ok o (beet ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRBT,_ (beet ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRCB,ok o (cabbage ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRCBfo_ (cabbage ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRCG,ok o (cereal grain ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRCGfar c (cereal grain ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
Farmer
Soil
Default
Form-input
Value
Value
415870
295749.99999999994
370510
264250
338800
238000
1376550
939750
1435420
902125
437500
277375
874300
524125
1807750
1240750.0000000002
866040
567000
1126230
774375
702730
474250
535080
354375
1171520
809375
1194270
824250
84.7
84.7
82.9
82.9
39.3
39.3
12.0
12.0
165.3
165.3
62.8
0
35.4
35.4
23.9
23.9
35.3
35.3
14.4
14.4
33.9
33.9
3.9
3.9
85.7
85.7
11.5
11.5
91.9
91.9
46.0
46.0
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
4
* Inputted values different from Farmer defaults are highlighted.
Variable
IRCI,ok o (citrus ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRCIfo_ (citrus ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRCO,ok o (corn ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRCOfo_ (corn ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRCR,_ (carrot ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRCRfo_ (carrot ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRCU,ok o (cucumber ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRCUfo_ (cucumber ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRDfoK, (dairy ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRDfoK, (dairy ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRE,ok o (egg ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IREfo_ (egg ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRFIfc„ (fish ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRFIfc„ (fish ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRLE,ok o (lettuce ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRLEfo_ (lettuce ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRLI„k, (lima bean ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRLIf,_ (lima bean ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IROK,ok o (okra ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IROKfo_ (okra ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRON,ok o (onion ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRONfo_ (onion ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRPfc„ (poultry ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRPfc„ (poultry ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRPCfc„ (peach ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRPCfc„ (peach ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRPEfc„ (pea ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRPEfc„ (pea ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
IRPRfc„ (pear ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
IRPRf^ c (pear ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
Farmer
Soil
Default Form-input
Value Value
309.4
309.4
194.4
194.4
82.0
82.0
32.7
32.7
24.4
24.4
13.3
13.3
54.9
54.9
16.9
16.9
676.4
676.4
994.7
994.7
59.6
59.6
31.7
31.7
831.8
831.8
57.4
57.4
37.5
37.5
4.2
4.2
33.8
33.8
6.5
6.5
30.2
30.2
5.3
5.3
27.2
27.2
7.2
7.2
107.4
107.4
46.9
46.9
103.1
103.1
99.3
99.3
31.7
31.7
28.7
28.7
59.9
59.9
76.9
76.9
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
* Inputted values different from Farmer defaults are highlighted.
Farmer
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
IRPTfc„ (potato ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
141.8
141.8
IRPTf„, (potato ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
57.3
57.3
IRPUfc„ (pumpkin ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
64.8
64.8
IRPUfc„ (pumpkin ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
45.2
45.2
IRRL, (rice ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
88.5
88.5
IRRL, (rice ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
34.8
34.8
IRSN,ok o (snap bean ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
54.2
54.2
IRSNfo_ (snap bean ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
27.5
27.5
IRSTfc„ (strawberry ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
40.5
40.5
IRSTfc„ (strawberry ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
25.3
25.3
IRSWfc„ (swine ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
92.5
92.5
IRSWfc„ (swine ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
33.7
33.7
IRTOfc„ (tomato ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
94.2
94.2
IRTOfc„ (tomato ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
34.9
34.9
MLFoml= (apple mass loading factor) unitless
0.000160
0.000160
MLF (asparagus mass loading factor) unitless
0.0000790
0.0000790
MLFh=m, (berry mass loading factor) unitless
0.000166
0.000166
MLFhK_N (broccoli mass loading factor) unitless
0.00101
0.00101
MLFhM, (beet mass loading factor) unitless
0.000138
0.000138
MLF„hh_ (cabbage mass loading factor) unitless
0.000105
0.000105
MLF„„,,„in (cereal grain mass loading factor) unitless
0.250
0.250
MLF^kiic (citrus mass loading factor) unitless
0.000157
0.000157
MLF_ (corn mass loading factor) unitless
0.000145
0.000145
MLF_, (carrot mass loading factor) unitless
0.0000970
0.0000970
MLF„,„imh=K (cucumber mass loading factor) unitless
0.0000400
0.0000400
MLF,_ (lettuce mass loading factor) unitless
0.0135
0.0135
MLFlimoh_ (lima bean mass loading factor) unitless
0.00383
0.00383
MLF„,ko (okra mass loading factor) unitless
0.0000800
0.0000800
MLF„ni„„ (onion mass loading factor) unitless
0.0000970
0.0000970
MLFpeach (peach mass loading factor) unitless
0.000150
0.000150
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
5
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
6
* Inputted values different from Farmer defaults are highlighted.
Farmer
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
MLF_ (pea mass loading factor) unitless
0.000178
0.000178
MLF_ (pear mass loading factor) unitless
0.000160
0.000160
MLF„„,o,„ (potato mass loading factor) unitless
0.000210
0.000210
MLF„iim„ki„ (pumpkin mass loading factor) unitless
0.0000580
0.0000580
MLFKi„ (rice mass loading factor) unitless
0.250
0.250
MLF_h_ (snap bean mass loading factor) unitless
0.00500
0.00500
MLFc(Koi,ih=m, (strawberry mass loading factor) unitless
0.0000800
0.0000800
MLF,_ (tomato mass loading factor) unitless
0.00159
0.00159
pm (density of milk) kg/L
1.03
1.03
tfc, (time - farmer) yr
40
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
F(x) (function dependent on U m/U,) unitless
0.194
0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
2370938158.760359
Q/C„_h (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
29.359877603759233
A„ (acres)
0.5
500
ED,ok (exposure duration - farmer) yr
40
25
ED,oko (exposure duration - farmer adult) yr
34
25
ED, (exposure duration - farmer child) yr
6
EF,ok (exposure frequency) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer adult) day/yr
350
350
EFfc„ (exposure frequency - farmer child) day/yr
350
350
ET,ok (exposure time - farmer) hr/day
24
24
ETfc„ (exposure time - farmer adult) hr/day
24
24
ETfc„ (exposure time - farmer child) hr/day
24
24
ETfoKi (indoor exposure time fraction) hr/day
10.008
0
ET,_ (outdoor exposure time fraction) hr/day
12.168
0
f h f (animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
.33
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f , (animal on-site fraction) unitless
p-goat N '
1
1
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
7
* Inputted values different from Farmer defaults are highlighted.
Farmer
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f (animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f Hoi„, (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
(fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
f (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
1
GSF; (gamma shielding factor - indoor)
0.4
0
IFAfoK oHi (age-adjusted soil inhalation factor) m 3
259000
0
IFS,ok oHi (age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg
1610000
0
IRA,ok o (inhalation rate - farmer adult) m 3/day
20
0
IRA,_ (inhalation rate - farmer child) m 3/day
10
0
IRS,ok o (soil ingestion rate - farmer adult) mg/day
100
0
IRSfo_ (soil ingestion rate - farmer child) mg/day
200
0
MLF„„,iira (pasture plant mass loading factor) unitless
0.25
0.25
(beef fodder intake rate) kg/day
11.77
11.77
Q„ Hoi„, (dairy fodder intake rate) kg/day
20.3
20.3
Q o(milk (goat milk fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.59
1.59
Q (goat fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.27
1.27
Q (poultry fodder intake rate) kg/day
0.2
0.2
(sheep fodder intake rate) kg/day
1.75
1.75
(sheep milk fodder intake rate) kg/day
3.15
3.15
Q„ (swine fodder intake rate) kg/day
4.7
4.7
(beef soil intake rate) kg/day
0.5
0.5
Q (dairy soil intake rate) kg/day
0.4
0.4
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Soil Inputs - Secular Equilibrium
8
* Inputted values different from Farmer defaults are highlighted.
Farmer
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
(goat milk soil intake rate) kg/day
0.29
0.29
Q_ (goat soil intake rate) kg/day
0.23
0.23
(poultry soil intake rate) kg/day
0.022
0.022
Q„_ (sheep soil intake rate) kg/day
0.32
0.32
(sheep milk soil intake rate) kg/day
0.57
0.57
Q™,™ (swine soil intake rate) kg/day
0.37
0.37
tfc, (time - farmer) yr
40
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
Um (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
External Produce Beef
Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption
Isotope
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-235
*Secular Equilibrium PRG for U-238
Ingestion
PRG PRG PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
(pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
1.86E+02
9.57E+00
Total
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
1.86E+02
9.57E+00
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
10
ICRP
Fractional Lung
Contribution Absorption
Isotope
*Secular Equilibrium
PRG for U-235
Ac-227
At-219
Bi-211
Bi-215
Fr-223
Pa-231
Pb-211
Po-211
Po-215
Ra-223
Rn-219
Th-227
Th-231
TI-207
U-235
*Secular Equilibrium
PRG for U-238
At-218
Bi-210
Bi-214
Hg-206
Pa-234
Pa-234m
Pb-210
Pb-214
Po-210
Parent of Progeny
U-235
Type
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-235
U-238
U-238
U-238
U-238
U-238
U-238
U-238
U-238
U-238
U-238
1.00E+00
8.28E-07
1.00E+00
8.03E-07
1.38E-02
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
2.76E-03
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
9.86E-01
1.00E+00
9.97E-01
1.00E+00
2.00E-04
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.90E-08
1.60E-03
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
S
F
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
Inhalation
Slope
Factor
(risk/pCi)
1.49E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.07E-11
7.62E-08
4.03E-11
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.92E-08
0.00E+00
3.50E-08
1.50E-12
0.00E+00
2.50E-08
0.00E+00
4.55E-10
6.18E-11
0.00E+00
1.20E-12
0.00E+00
1.59E-08
7.77E-11
1.45E-08
External
Exposure
Slope
Factor
(riskfyr
per
pCi/g)
1.98E-10
0.00E+00
1.90E-07
1.08E-06
1.35E-07
1.27E-07
2.91 E-07
3.76E-08
7.48E-10
4.55E-07
2.35E-07
4.45E-07
2.49E-08
1.59E-08
5.51 E-07
2.74E-11
2.77E-09
7.34E-06
4.83E-07
6.62E-06
9.06E-08
1.48E-09
9.94E-07
4.51 E-11
Food
Soil
Ingestion Ingestion
Slope
Factor
Slope
Factor
(risk/pCi) (risk/pCi)
2.45E-10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.01 E-11
2.26E-10
5.81 E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.39E-10
0.00E+00
7.03E-11
3.22E-12
0.00E+00
9.44E-11
0.00E+00
1.30E-11
2.65E-13
0.00E+00
3.00E-12
0.00E+00
1.18E-09
4.85E-13
2.25E-09
2.90E-10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.69E-11
2.98E-10
9.55E-13
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.99E-10
0.00E+00
1.29E-10
5.96E-12
0.00E+00
1.48E-10
0.00E+00
2.40E-11
4.03E-13
0.00E+00
5.37E-12
0.00E+00
1.72E-09
7.92E-13
3.27E-09
Plant to
Beef
Transfer
Factor
(pCi/kg
per
pCi/d)
2.00E-05
1.00E-02
2.00E-03
2.00E-03
3.00E-02
5.00E-06
7.00E-04
5.00E-03
5.00E-03
1.70E-03
0.00E+00
2.30E-04
2.30E-04
2.00E-02
3.90E-04
1.00E-02
2.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-02
5.00E-06
5.00E-06
7.00E-04
7.00E-04
5.00E-03
Particulate
Emission
Factor
(m3/kg)
1000029
m2
Soil
Volume
Area
0 cm
Soil
Volume
Gamma
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
2.37E+09
Lambda
(1/yr)
Halflife Correction Shielding
(yr) Factor Factor
3.18E-02
3.90E+05
1.70E+05
4.79E+04
1.66E+04
2.12E-05
1.01E+04
4.24E+07
1.23E+10
2.21E+01
5.52E+06
1.35E+01
2.38E+02
7.64E+04
9.84E-10
1.46E+07
5.05E+01
1.83E+04
4.47E+04
9.06E+02
3.11E+05
3.12E-02
1.36E+04
1.83E+00
2.18E+01
1.78E-06
4.07E-06
1.45E-05
4.19E-05
3.28E+04
6.87E-05
1.64E-08
5.65E-11
3.13E-02
1.26E-07
5.12E-02
2.91 E-03
9.08E-06
7.04E+08
4.76E-08
1.37E-02
3.79E-05
1.55E-05
7.65E-04
2.23E-06
2.22E+01
5.10E-05
3.79E-01
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
11
Dry
Soil-to-plant
transfer
factor
Total
(pCi/g-fresh
External
Produce
Beef
Indoor
plant
Kd
Ingestion
Inhalation
Exposure
Consumption
Consumption
Total
Total
GSF
per
Distribution
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
PRG
Soil
pCi/g-dry
coefficient
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
TR=0.0001
Isotope
Volume
soil)
(L/kg)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(mg/kg)
*Secular Equilibrium
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.86E+02
1.86E+02
-
PRG for U-235
Ac-227
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
1.70E+03
-
-
-
-
1.93E+04
1.93E+04
7.19E-13
At-219
0.00E+00
9.00E-01
1.00E+01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bi-211
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
4.80E+02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bi-215
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
4.80E+02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fr-223
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
2.50E+02
-
-
-
-
2.26E+04
2.26E+04
1.16E-18
Pa-231
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
2.00E+03
-
-
-
-
8.37E+04
8.37E+04
2.53E-10
Pb-211
0.00E+00
1.26E-02
1.50E+02
-
-
-
-
2.99E+05
2.99E+05
1.36E-19
Po-211
0.00E+00
2.76E-04
2.10E+02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Po-215
0.00E+00
2.76E-04
2.10E+02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ra-223
0.00E+00
1.95E-02
1.00E+00
-
-
-
-
2.07E+02
2.07E+02
9.47E-14
Rn-219
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Th-227
0.00E+00
2.41 E-03
2.00E+01
-
-
-
-
7.89E+03
7.89E+03
4.12E-15
Th-231
0.00E+00
2.41 E-03
2.00E+01
-
-
-
-
1.70E+05
1.70E+05
1.11E-17
TI-207
0.00E+00
6.00E-01
1.50E+03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
U-235
0.00E+00
7.13E-03
4.00E-01
-
-
-
-
3.36E+03
3.36E+03
1.38E-04
*Secular Equilibrium
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.57E+00
9.57E+00
-
PRG for U-238
At-218
0.00E+00
9.00E-01
1.00E+01
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bi-210
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
4.80E+02
-
-
-
-
1.80E+03
1.80E+03
4.50E-15
Bi-214
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
4.80E+02
-
-
-
-
8.82E+04
8.82E+04
2.57E-19
Hg-206
0.00E+00
1.00E+00
6.30E+03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pa-234
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
2.00E+03
-
-
-
-
3.94E+09
3.94E+09
1.27E-22
Pa-234m
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
2.00E+03
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pb-210
0.00E+00
1.26E-02
1.50E+02
-
-
-
-
1.48E+02
1.48E+02
8.85E-11
Pb-214
0.00E+00
1.26E-02
1.50E+02
-
-
-
-
3.58E+05
3.58E+05
8.53E-20
Po-210
0.00E+00
2.76E-04
2.10E+02
-
-
-
-
1.12E+01
1.12E+01
1.98E-11
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
12
External
Plant to
1000029
Exposure
Beef
m2
0 cm
Slope
Food
Soil
Transfer
Soil
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Ingestion
Factor
Particulate
Volume
Volume
Fractional
Lung
Slope
(risktyr
Slope
Slope
(pCi/kg
Emission
Area
Gamma
Contribution Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Factor
per
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Correction
Shielding
Isotope
Parent
of Progeny
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(risk/pCi)
pCi/d)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
Factor
Factor
Po-214
U-238
1.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
3.85E-10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.37E+09
1.33E+11
5.21E-12
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
Po-218
U-238
1.00E+00
-
1.39E-11
6.84E-15
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-03
2.37E+09
1.17E+05
5.90E-06
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
Ra-226
U-238
1.00E+00
S
2.82E-08
2.50E-08
5.14E-10
6.77E-10
1.70E-03
2.37E+09
4.33E-04
1.60E+03
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
Rn-218
U-238
2.00E-07
-
0.00E+00
3.39E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
6.24E+08
1.11E-09
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
Rn-222
U-238
1.00E+00
-
2.28E-12
1.69E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.37E+09
6.62E+01
1.05E-02
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
Th-230
U-238
1.00E+00
F
3.41 E-08
8.45E-10
1.19E-10
1.66E-10
2.30E-04
2.37E+09
9.19E-06
7.54E+04
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
Th-234
U-238
1.00E+00
S
3.08E-11
1.77E-08
3.39E-11
6.25E-11
2.30E-04
2.37E+09
1.05E+01
6.60E-02
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
TI-206
U-238
1.34E-06
-
0.00E+00
6.11E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E-02
2.37E+09
8.67E+04
7.99E-06
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
TI-210
U-238
2.10E-04
-
0.00E+00
1.34E-05
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E-02
2.37E+09
2.80E+05
2.47E-06
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
U-234
U-238
1.00E+00
s
2.78E-08
2.53E-10
9.55E-11
1.48E-10
3.90E-04
2.37E+09
2.82E-06
2.46E+05
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
U-238
U-238
1.00E+00
s
2.36E-08
1.24E-10
8.66E-11
1.34E-10
3.90E-04
2.37E+09
1.55E-10
4.47E+09
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Individual Contribution PRGs for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Dry
Soil-to-plant
transfer
factor
Total
(pCi/g-fresh
Indoor
plant
Kd
GSF
per
Distribution
Soil
pCi/g-dry
coefficient
Isotope
Volume
soil)
(L/kg)
Po-214
0.00E+00
2.76E-04
2.10E+02
Po-218
0.00E+00
2.76E-04
2.10E+02
Ra-226
0.00E+00
1.95E-02
1.00E+00
Rn-218
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Rn-222
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Th-230
0.00E+00
2.41 E-03
2.00E+01
Th-234
0.00E+00
2.41 E-03
2.00E+01
TI-206
0.00E+00
6.00E-01
1.50E+03
TI-210
0.00E+00
6.00E-01
1.50E+03
U-234
0.00E+00
7.13E-03
4.00E-01
U-238
0.00E+00
7.13E-03
4.00E-01
Ingestion Inhalation
PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
(pCi/g) (pCi/g)
External Produce Beef
Exposure Consumption Consumption
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
PRG
TR=0.0001
(pCi/g)
1.36E+02
4.59E+03
1.61E+04
3.32E+03
3.67E+03
Total Total
PRG PRG
TR=0.0001 TR=0.0001
(pCi/g) (mg/kg)
1.36E+02
4.59E+03
1.61 E+04
3.32E+03
3.67E+03
7.45E-09
1.06E-08
2.68E-15
4.84E-08
8.12E-04
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Risk for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Isotope
External Produce
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Beef
Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk
Total
Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 2.15E-08
2.15E-08
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-238
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 1.04E-05
1.04E-05
*Total Risk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 1.05E-05
1.05E-05
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
15
External
Plant to
1000029
Exposure
Beef
m2
0 cm
Slope
Food
Soil
Transfer
Soil
Soil
Total
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Ingestion
Factor
Particulate
Volume
Volume
Indoor
Lung
Slope
(risktyr
Slope
Slope
(pCi/kg
Emission
Area
Gamma
GSF
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Factor
per
Concentration
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Correction
Shielding
Soil
Isotope
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(risk/pCi)
pCi/d)
(pCi/g)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
Factor
Factor
Volume
*Secular
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Equilibrium Risk
for U-235
Ac-227
S
1.49E-07
1.98E-10
2.45E-10
2.90E-10
2.00E-05
0.04
2.37E+09
3.18E-02
2.18E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
At-219
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
0.04
2.37E+09
3.90E+05
1.78E-06
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Bi-211
-
0.00E+00
1.90E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E-03
0.04
2.37E+09
1.70E+05
4.07E-06
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Bi-215
-
0.00E+00
1.08E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E-03
0.04
2.37E+09
4.79E+04
1.45E-05
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Fr-223
s
4.07E-11
1.35E-07
1.01E-11
1.69E-11
3.00E-02
0.04
2.37E+09
1.66E+04
4.19E-05
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Pa-231
F
7.62E-08
1.27E-07
2.26E-10
2.98E-10
5.00E-06
0.04
2.37E+09
2.12E-05
3.28E+04
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Pb-211
S
4.03E-11
2.91 E-07
5.81 E-13
9.55E-13
7.00E-04
0.04
2.37E+09
1.01E+04
6.87E-05
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Po-211
-
0.00E+00
3.76E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-03
0.04
2.37E+09
4.24E+07
1.64E-08
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Po-215
-
0.00E+00
7.48E-10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-03
0.04
2.37E+09
1.23E+10
5.65E-11
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Ra-223
s
2.92E-08
4.55E-07
3.39E-10
5.99E-10
1.70E-03
0.04
2.37E+09
2.21E+01
3.13E-02
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Rn-219
-
0.00E+00
2.35E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.04
2.37E+09
5.52E+06
1.26E-07
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Th-227
s
3.50E-08
4.45E-07
7.03E-11
1.29E-10
2.30E-04
0.04
2.37E+09
1.35E+01
5.12E-02
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Th-231
s
1.50E-12
2.49E-08
3.22E-12
5.96E-12
2.30E-04
0.04
2.37E+09
2.38E+02
2.91 E-03
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
TI-207
-
0.00E+00
1.59E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E-02
0.04
2.37E+09
7.64E+04
9.08E-06
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
U-235
s
2.50E-08
5.51 E-07
9.44E-11
1.48E-10
3.90E-04
0.04
2.37E+09
9.84E-10
7.04E+08
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
*Secular
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Equilibrium Risk
for U-238
At-218
-
0.00E+00
2.74E-11
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
1
2.37E+09
1.46E+07
4.76E-08
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Bi-210
s
4.55E-10
2.77E-09
1.30E-11
2.40E-11
2.00E-03
1
2.37E+09
5.05E+01
1.37E-02
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Bi-214
s
6.18E-11
7.34E-06
2.65E-13
4.03E-13
2.00E-03
1
2.37E+09
1.83E+04
3.79E-05
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Hg-206
-
0.00E+00
4.83E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E-02
1
2.37E+09
4.47E+04
1.55E-05
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Pa-234
s
1.20E-12
6.62E-06
3.00E-12
5.37E-12
5.00E-06
1
2.37E+09
9.06E+02
7.65E-04
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Pa-234m
-
0.00E+00
9.06E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-06
1
2.37E+09
3.11E+05
2.23E-06
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Pb-210
s
1.59E-08
1.48E-09
1.18E-09
1.72E-09
7.00E-04
1
2.37E+09
3.12E-02
2.22E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Output generated
22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
16
Dry
Soil-to-plant
transfer
factor
(pCi/g-fresh
plant Kd External Produce
per Distribution Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption
pCi/g-dry coefficient CDI CDI CDI CDI
soil) (L/kg) (pCi) (pCi) (pCi) (pCi)
Beef External Produce
CDI Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Beef Total
(pCi) Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.15E-08
2.15E-08
1.00E-01
1.70E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
8.47E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
2.08E-10
2.08E-10
9.00E-01
1.00E+01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.29E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
4.80E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.71E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
4.80E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.71E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
2.50E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.27E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.77E-10
1.77E-10
1.00E-01
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
2.12E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
4.78E-11
4.78E-11
1.26E-02
1.50E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
2.30E+01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.34E-11
1.34E-11
2.76E-04
2.10E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.58E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.76E-04
2.10E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.58E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.95E-02
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
5.72E+01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.94E-08
1.94E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.41 E-03
2.00E+01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
7.32E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
5.07E-10
5.07E-10
2.41 E-03
2.00E+01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
7.32E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
2.35E-11
2.35E-11
6.00E-01
1.50E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.93E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.13E-03
4.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.26E+01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.19E-09
1.19E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.04E-05
1.04E-05
9.00E-01
1.00E+01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
3.22E+04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-01
4.80E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
4.27E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
5.57E-08
5.57E-08
5.00E-01
4.80E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
4.27E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
1.13E-09
1.13E-09
1.00E+00
6.30E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
3.49E+04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.00E-01
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
5.29E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
2.54E-14
2.54E-14
1.00E-01
2.00E+03
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
5.29E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.26E-02
1.50E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
5.76E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
-
6.78E-07
6.78E-07
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
17
External
Plant to
1000029
Exposure
Beef
m2
0 cm
Slope
Food
Soil
Transfer
Soil
Soil
Total
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion Ingestion
Factor
Particulate
Volume
Volume
Indoor
Lung
Slope
(risktyr
Slope
Slope
(pCi/kg
Emission
Area
Gamma
GSF
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Factor
per
Concentration
Factor
Lambda
Halflife
Correction Shielding
Soil
Isotope
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(risk/pCi)
pCi/d)
(pCi/g)
(m3/kg)
(1/yr)
(yr)
Factor
Factor
Volume
Pb-214
S
7.77E-11
9.94E-07
4.85E-13
7.92E-13
7.00E-04
1
2.37E+09
1.36E+04
5.10E-05
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Po-210
S
1.45E-08
4.51 E-11
2.25E-09
3.27E-09
5.00E-03
1
2.37E+09
1.83E+00
3.79E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Po-214
-
0.00E+00
3.85E-10
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-03
1
2.37E+09
1.33E+11
5.21E-12
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Po-218
-
1.39E-11
6.84E-15
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.00E-03
1
2.37E+09
1.17E+05
5.90E-06
9.00E-01
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Ra-226
s
2.82E-08
2.50E-08
5.14E-10
6.77E-10
1.70E-03
1
2.37E+09
4.33E-04
1.60E+03
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Rn-218
-
0.00E+00
3.39E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
6.24E+08
1.11E-09
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Rn-222
-
2.28E-12
1.69E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1
2.37E+09
6.62E+01
1.05E-02
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Th-230
F
3.41 E-08
8.45E-10
1.19E-10
1.66E-10
2.30E-04
1
2.37E+09
9.19E-06
7.54E+04
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Th-234
S
3.08E-11
1.77E-08
3.39E-11
6.25E-11
2.30E-04
1
2.37E+09
1.05E+01
6.60E-02
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
TI-206
-
0.00E+00
6.11E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E-02
1
2.37E+09
8.67E+04
7.99E-06
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
TI-210
-
0.00E+00
1.34E-05
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E-02
1
2.37E+09
2.80E+05
2.47E-06
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
U-234
s
2.78E-08
2.53E-10
9.55E-11
1.48E-10
3.90E-04
1
2.37E+09
2.82E-06
2.46E+05
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
U-238
s
2.36E-08
1.24E-10
8.66E-11
1.34E-10
3.90E-04
1
2.37E+09
1.55E-10
4.47E+09
1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
-------
Site-Specific
Farmer Individual Risk Contributions for Soil - Secular Equilibrium
Total
Risk
2.79E-10
8.89E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
7.36E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.18E-08
6.21 E-09
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.01 E-08
2.73E-08
Output generated 22MAY2019:10:50:12
Dry
Soil-to-plant
transfer
factor
(pCi/g-fresh
plant
per
pCi/g-dry
soil)
1.26E-02
2.76E-04
2.76E-04
2.76E-04
1.95E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.41 E-03
2.41 E-03
6.00E-01
6.00E-01
7.13E-03
7.13E-03
Kd
Distribution
coefficient
(L/kg)
1.50E+02
2.10E+02
2.10E+02
2.10E+02
1.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.00E+01
2.00E+01
1.50E+03
1.50E+03
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
Ingestion
CDI
(pCi)
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Inhalation
CDI
(pCi)
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
External Produce
Exposure Consumption
CDI
(pCi)
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
CDI
(pCi)
Beef External Produce
CDI Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Beef
(pCi) Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk
5.76E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 2.79E-10
3.95E+03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 8.89E-06
3.95E+03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 0.00E+00
3.95E+03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 0.00E+00
1.43E+03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 7.36E-07
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 0.00E+00
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 0.00E+00
1.83E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 2.18E-08
1.83E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 6.21 E-09
4.81E+04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 0.00E+00
4.81E+04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 0.00E+00
3.15E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 3.01 E-08
3.15E+02 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 - 2.73E-08
-------
DCGL and Ra-226 Risk Contribution Calculations
-------
Derived Concentration Guideline Level (DCGL)and
Percentage Ra-226 Risk Contribution Calculations
Using PRG Calculator Output
Indoor Worker
(Inside Truck)
Risk
Composite Worker
(Outdoor)
Risk
Farmer
(Beef Ingestion)
Risk
Total Risk
*Secular Equilibrium Risk for U-235
and U-238
3.43E-06
6.49 E-06
1.05 E-05
2.04E-05
Indoor Worker
(Inside Truck)
Risk
Composite Worker
(Outdoor)
Risk
Farmer
(Beef Ingestion)
Risk
Total Risk
Risk of Ra-226 through Po-214
3.34 E-06
4.96E-06
7.37E-07
9.03E-06
PRG Calculator- Derived DCGL (Derived Concentration Guideline Level) =
Target Cancer Risk (1E-04) -r Total Risk(2.04E-05) = 4.897 pCi/g
% Contribution of Ra-226 through Po-214 Risk to Total Risk = 44%
-------
PRG Calculator (Updated Peak Risk Option) Output
August 2022
-------
Site-specific
Composite Worker Soil Inputs
1
Variable
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
City (Climate Zone)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
Cover thickness for GSF „ (gamma shielding factor) cm
F(x) (function dependent on U „/U.) unitless
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
Q/C,.,^ (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
A, (acres)
Site area for ACF (area correction factor) m 2
ED„, (exposure duration - composite worker) yr
EF,„ (exposure frequency - composite worker) day/yr
ET„ (exposure time - composite worker) hr/day
IRA, (inhalation rate - composite worker) m 3/day
IRS,„ (soil intake rate - composite worker) mg/day
t„ (time - composite worker) yr
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
U„ (mean annual wind speed) m/s
U, (equivalent threshold value)
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
Composite
Worker
Soil
Default
Form-input
Value
Value
16.2302
14.9421
18.7762
17.9869
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
216.108
205.1782
0 cm
0 cm
0.194
0.0553
1359344438
2370938158.760359
93.77
29.359877603759234
0.5
500
1000000 m2
1000000 m2
25
25
250
250
8
0.8
60
60
100
100
25
25
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
4.69
4.02
11.32
11.32
0.5
0.5
-------
Composite Worker Parent Risk and CDI at Time=T 0
Soil (no decay)
External
1000000
Exposure
Adult
m2 0 cm
0 cm
Slope
Soil
Soil Soil
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Volume Volume
Volume
Infinite Soil
Lung
Slope
(risk/yr
Slope
Area Gamma
Gamma
Volume
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor Lambda Halflife
Correction Shielding
Shielding
Concentration
Isotope Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi) (1/yr) (yr)
Factor Factor
Factor
(pCi/g)
U-235 S
2.50E-08
5.51 E-07
4.92E-11 9.84E-10 7.04E+08
1.00E+00 1.00E+00
1.00E+00
0.04
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
External
CDI CDI
CDI
Ingestion
Inhalation Exposure Total
(pCi) (pCi)
(pCi)
Risk
Risk Risk Risk
2.50E+01 2.11E-04 2.28E-02 1.23E-09 5.27E-12 1.26E-08 1.38E-08
-------
Composite Worker Peak Risk Start Times (by route)
Soil
Peak Risk
Peak Risk Peak Risk Start Time
Start Time Start Time External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
(yrs) (yrs) (yrs)
4.482E+05 4.484E+05 4.454E+05
3
-------
Composite Worker Peak Risks
Soil (complete chain decay)
using the peak risk time intervals from PRG calculations (by route)
External
Ingestion
Inhalation
Exposure
External
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Total
Isotope
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
U-235
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
1.23E-09
5.27E-12
1.26E-08
1.38E-08
Th-231
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
2.27E-11
3.17E-16
5.68E-10
5.90E-10
Pa-231
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.86E-09
1.61E-11
2.90E-09
6.78E-09
Ac-227
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
5.03E-09
3.15E-11
4.53E-12
5.07E-09
Th-227
3.94E-02
3.94E-02
3.94E-02
5.08E-10
7.28E-12
1.00E-08
1.05E-08
Fr-223
5.52E-04
5.52E-04
5.52E-04
1.68E-12
1.18E-16
4.27E-11
4.43E-11
Ra-223
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.08E-09
6.15E-12
1.04E-08
1.35E-08
At-219
3.31 E-08
3.31 E-08
3.31 E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Rn-219
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.36E-09
5.36E-09
Bi-215
3.21 E-08
3.21 E-08
3.21 E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.99E-14
1.99E-14
Po-215
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.71E-11
1.71E-11
Pb-211
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
6.56E-12
8.50E-15
6.63E-09
6.64E-09
Bi-211
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.34E-09
4.34E-09
Po-211
1.10E-04
1.10E-04
1.10E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.37E-12
2.37E-12
TI-207
3.99E-02
3.99E-02
3.99E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.61 E-10
3.61 E-10
Total Risk
-
-
-
137E-08
6.63E-11
5.32E-08
6.70E-08
-------
Composite Worker Parent Risk and CDI at Time=T 0
Soil (no decay)
External
1000000
Exposure
Adult
m2 0 cm
0 cm
Slope
Soil
Soil Soil
Soil
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Volume Volume
Volume
Infinite Soil
Lung
Slope
(risk/yr
Slope
Area Gamma
Gamma
Volume
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Lambda Halflife
Correction Shielding
Shielding
Concentration
Isotope Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(1/yr) (yr)
Factor Factor
Factor
(pCi/g)
U-238 S
2.36E-08
1.24E-10
4.66E-11
1.55E-10 4.47E+09
1.00E+00 1.00E+00
1.00E+00
1
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
External
CDI CDI
CDI
Ingestion
Inhalation Exposure Total
(pCi) (pCi)
(pCi)
Risk
Risk
Risk Risk
6.25E+02 5.27E-03 5.71 E-01 2.91 E-08 1.25E-10 7.06E-11 2.93E-08
-------
Composite Worker Peak Risk Start Times (by route)
Soil
Peak Risk
Peak Risk Peak Risk Start Time
Start Time Start Time External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
(yrs) (yrs) (yrs)
3.521 E+06 3.488E+06 3.523E+06
6
-------
Composite Worker Peak Risks
Soil (complete chain decay)
using the peak risk time intervals from PRG calculations (by route)
7
External
Ingestion
Inhalation
Exposure
External
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Total
Isotope
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
U-238
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
2.91 E-08
1.25E-10
7.06E-11
2.93E-08
Th-234
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
5.94E-09
1.62E-13
1.01 E-08
1.61 E-08
Pa-234
1.60E-03
1.60E-03
1.60E-03
9.65E-13
1.01E-17
6.04E-09
6.04E-09
Pa-234m
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.17E-08
5.17E-08
U-234
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
3.19E-08
1.47E-10
1.45E-10
3.22E-08
Th-230
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
4.83E-08
1.80E-10
4.82E-10
4.90E-08
Ra-226
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
1.84E-07
1.48E-10
1.43E-08
1.98E-07
Rn-222
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
0.00E+00
1.20E-14
9.66E-10
9.66E-10
Po-218
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
0.00E+00
7.32E-14
3.51 E-15
7.68E-14
At-218
2.00E-04
2.00E-04
2.00E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.82E-15
2.82E-15
Rn-218
2.00E-07
2.00E-07
2.00E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.86E-16
3.86E-16
Pb-214
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
1.38E-10
4.09E-13
5.67E-07
5.67E-07
Bi-214
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.20E-11
3.26E-13
4.19E-06
4.19E-06
Po-214
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.20E-10
2.20E-10
TI-210
2.10E-04
2.10E-04
2.10E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.61E-09
1.61E-09
Pb-210
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
3.74E-07
8.36E-11
8.46E-10
3.75E-07
Bi-210
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
2.33E-09
2.40E-12
1.58E-09
3.92E-09
Po-210
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
8.97E-07
7.64E-11
2.57E-11
8.97E-07
Hg-206
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
5.24E-15
5.24E-15
TI-206
1.34E-06
1.34E-06
1.34E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.66E-15
4.66E-15
Total Risk
-
-
-
1.57E-06
7.63E-10
4.84E-06
6.42E-06
-------
Site-specific
1
Indoor Worker Soil Inputs
Indoor
Worker
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
16.2302
14.9421
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
18.7762
17.9869
City (Climate Zone)
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
216.108
205.1782
Cover thickness for GSF k (gamma shielding factor) cm
0 cm
0 cm
F(x) (function dependent on U „/U.) unitless
0.194
0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
2370938158.760359
Q/C,.,^ (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
29.359877603759234
A, (acres)
0.5
500
Site area for ACF (area correction factor) m 2
1000000 m2
1000000 m2
ED,„ (exposure duration - indoor worker) yr
25
25
EF.„ (exposure frequency - indoor worker) day/yr
250
250
ET.„ (exposure time - indoor worker) hr/day
8
0.8
GSF. (indoor gamma shielding factor) unitless
0.4
0.7
IRA.., (inhalation rate - indoor worker) m 3/day
60
60
IRS,„ (soil intake rate - indoor worker) mg/day
50
50
t,„ (time - indoor worker) yr
25
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
U„ (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
-------
Indoor Worker Parent Risk and CDI at Time=T 0
Soil (no decay)
2
ICRP Inhalation
Lung Slope
Absorption Factor
Isotope Type (risk/pCi)
U-235 S 2.50E-08
External
Exposure
Slope
Factor
(risk/yr
per
pCi/g)
5.51 E-07
Adult
Soil
Ingestion
Slope
Factor
(risk/pCi)
4.92E-11
Lambda
(1/yr)
9.84E-10
Halflife
(yr)
7.04E+08
1000000
m2
m
Soil
Volume
Area
Correction
Factor
1.00E+00
Default
Soil
Volume
Gamma
0 cm
Soil
Volume
Gamma
Shielding Shielding
Factor Factor
1.00E+00 1.00E+00
Total
Indoor
GSF
Soil
Volume
7.00E-01
Infinite Soil
Volume
Concentration
(pCi/g)
0.04
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure External
CDI CDI CDI Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Total
(pCi) (pCi) (pCi) Risk Risk Risk Risk
1.25E+01 2.11E-04 1.60E-02 6.15E-10 5.27E-12 8.81 E-09 9.43E-09
-------
Indoor Worker Peak Risk Start Times (by route)
Soil
Peak Risk
Peak Risk Peak Risk Start Time
Start Time Start Time External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
(yrs) (yrs) (yrs)
4.482E+05 4.484E+05 4.454E+05
3
-------
Indoor Worker Peak Risks
Soil (complete chain decay)
using the peak risk time intervals from PRG calculations (by route)
External
Ingestion
Inhalation
Exposure
External
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Total
Isotope
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
U-235
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
6.15E-10
5.27E-12
8.80E-09
9.42E-09
Th-231
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
1.13E-11
3.17E-16
3.97E-10
4.09E-10
Pa-231
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
1.93E-09
1.61E-11
2.03E-09
3.98E-09
Ac-227
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
2.51 E-09
3.15E-11
3.17E-12
2.55E-09
Th-227
3.94E-02
3.94E-02
3.94E-02
2.54E-10
7.28E-12
7.01 E-09
7.27E-09
Fr-223
5.52E-04
5.52E-04
5.52E-04
8.42E-13
1.18E-16
2.99E-11
3.07E-11
Ra-223
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
1.54E-09
6.15E-12
7.27E-09
8.82E-09
At-219
3.31 E-08
3.31 E-08
3.31 E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
Rn-219
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.75E-09
3.75E-09
Bi-215
3.21 E-08
3.21 E-08
3.21 E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.39E-14
1.39E-14
Po-215
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.20E-11
1.20E-11
Pb-211
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
3.28E-12
8.50E-15
4.64E-09
4.65E-09
Bi-211
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.04E-09
3.04E-09
Po-211
1.10E-04
1.10E-04
1.10E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.66E-12
1.66E-12
TI-207
3.99E-02
3.99E-02
3.99E-02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.53E-10
2.53E-10
Total Risk
-
-
-
6.87E-09
6.63E-11
3.73E-08
4.42E-08
-------
Indoor Worker Parent Risk and CDI at Time=T 0
Soil (no decay)
External
1000000
Exposure
Adult
m2
Default 0 cm
Slope
Soil
Soil
Soil Soil
Total
ICRP
Inhalation
Factor
Ingestion
Volume
Volume Volume
Indoor
Infinite Soil
Lung
Slope
(risk/yr
Slope
Area
Gamma Gamma
GSF
Volume
Absorption
Factor
per
Factor
Lambda Halflife
Correction Shielding Shielding
Soil
Concentration
Isotope
Type
(risk/pCi)
pCi/g)
(risk/pCi)
(1/yr) (yr)
Factor
Factor Factor
Volume
(pCi/g)
U-238
S
2.36E-08
1.24E-10
4.66E-11
1.55E-10 4.47E+09
1.00E+00
1.00E+00 1.00E+00
7.00E-01
1
External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure External
CDI CDI CDI Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Total
(pCi) (pCi) (pCi) Risk Risk Risk Risk
3.13E+02 5.27E-03 4.00E-01 1.46E-08 1.25E-10 4.95E-11 1.47E-08
-------
Indoor Worker Peak Risk Start Times (by route)
Soil
Peak Risk
Peak Risk Peak Risk Start Time
Start Time Start Time External
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
(yrs) (yrs) (yrs)
3.521 E+06 3.488E+06 3.523E+06
6
-------
Indoor Worker Peak Risks
Soil (complete chain decay)
using the peak risk time intervals from PRG calculations (by route)
7
External
Ingestion
Inhalation
Exposure
External
Concentration
Concentration
Concentration
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure
Total
Isotope
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
(pCi/g)
Risk
Risk
Risk
Risk
U-238
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
1.46E-08
1.25E-10
4.94E-11
1.47E-08
Th-234
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
2.97E-09
1.62E-13
7.09E-09
1.01E-08
Pa-234
1.60E-03
1.60E-03
1.60E-03
4.83E-13
1.01E-17
4.23E-09
4.23E-09
Pa-234m
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.62E-08
3.62E-08
U-234
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
1.59E-08
1.47E-10
1.01E-10
1.62E-08
Th-230
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
2.42E-08
1.80E-10
3.38E-10
2.47E-08
Ra-226
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.20E-08
1.48E-10
9.98E-09
1.02E-07
Rn-222
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
0.00E+00
1.20E-14
6.76E-10
6.76E-10
Po-218
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
0.00E+00
7.32E-14
2.46E-15
7.57E-14
At-218
2.00E-04
2.00E-04
2.00E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.97E-15
1.97E-15
Rn-218
2.00E-07
2.00E-07
2.00E-07
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
2.70E-16
2.70E-16
Pb-214
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
6.89E-11
4.09E-13
3.97E-07
3.97E-07
Bi-214
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
4.60E-11
3.26E-13
2.93E-06
2.93E-06
Po-214
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.54E-10
1.54E-10
TI-210
2.10E-04
2.10E-04
2.10E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.13E-09
1.13E-09
Pb-210
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
1.87E-07
8.36E-11
5.92E-10
1.88E-07
Bi-210
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
1.17E-09
2.40E-12
1.11E-09
2.27E-09
Po-210
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
9.99E-01
4.48E-07
7.64E-11
1.80E-11
4.48E-07
Hg-206
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
1.90E-08
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.67E-15
3.67E-15
TI-206
1.34E-06
1.34E-06
1.34E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.27E-15
3.27E-15
Total Risk
-
-
-
7.86E-07
7.63E-10
3.39E-06 4.18E-06
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs
1
Farmer
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
A (PEF Dispersion Constant)
16.2302
14.9421
B (PEF Dispersion Constant)
18.7762
17.9869
City (Climate Zone)
Default
Albuquerque, NM (3)
C (PEF Dispersion Constant)
216.108
205.1782
Cover thickness for GSF „ (gamma shielding factor) cm
0 cm
0 cm
Cover thickness for GSF k (gamma shielding factor) cm
0 cm
0 cm
CFfarjmli„ (contaminated plant fraction) unitless
1
1
CFfarl_, (beef contaminated fraction) unitless
1
.48
EDfar (exposure duration - farmer) yr
40
25
EDfar, (exposure duration - farmer adult) yr
34
25
EDfa (exposure duration - farmer child) yr
6
EFfar = (exposure frequency - farmer adult) day/yr
350
350
EFfa„ (exposure frequency - farmer child) day/yr
350
350
IFBfar =J. (age-adjusted beef ingestion fraction) g
3349850
2363375.0000000005
IRBfar = (beef ingestion rate - farmer adult) g/day
270.1
270.1
IRBfa„ (beef ingestion rate - farmer child) g/day
64.6
0
tfar (time - farmer) yr
40
25
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
F(x) (function dependent on U „/U.) unitless
0.194
0.0553
PEF (particulate emission factor) m 3/kg
1359344438
2370938158.760359
Q/C,.,^ (g/m2-s per kg/m3)
93.77
29.359877603759234
A, (acres)
0.5
500
Slab size for ACF (area correction factor) m 2
1000000 m2
1000000 m2
EDfar (exposure duration - farmer) yr
40
EDfa„ (exposure duration - farmer adult) yr
34
25
EDfa„ (exposure duration - farmer child) yr
6
EFfar (exposure frequency) day/yr
350
350
EFfar = (exposure frequency - farmer adult) day/yr
350
350
EFfa„ (exposure frequency - farmer child) day/yr
350
350
ETfar (exposure time - farmer) hr/day
24
24
ETfar = (exposure time - farmer adult) hr/day
24
24
ETfa„ (exposure time - farmer child) hr/day
24
24
ETfer. (indoor exposure time fraction) hr/day
10.008
10.008
-------
Site-specific
Farmer Soil Inputs
2
Farmer
Soil
Default
Form-input
Variable
Value
Value
ETfa„ (outdoor exposure time fraction) hr/day
12.168
12.168
(animal on-site fraction) unitless
1
1
f. (fraction of year animal on site) unitless
1
.375
GSF. (gamma shielding factor - indoor)
0.4
0
IFAfar=J. (age-adjusted soil inhalation factor) m 3
259000
0
IFSfar=J. (age-adjusted soil ingestion factor) mg
1610000
0
IRA^, (inhalation rate - farmer adult) m 3/day
20
0
IRA^„ (inhalation rate - farmer child) m 3/day
10
0
IRSfar, (soil ingestion rate - farmer adult) mg/day
100
0
IRSfa (soil ingestion rate - farmer child) mg/day
200
¦
(pasture plant mass loading factor) unitless
0.25
0.25
Q^», (beef fodder intake rate) kg/day
11.77
11.77
Q„ k„, (beef soil intake rate) kg/day
0.5
0.5
tfar (time - farmer) yr
40
TR (target cancer risk) unitless
1.0E-06
1.0E-04
Soil Type
Default
Default
U„ (mean annual wind speed) m/s
4.69
4.02
U, (equivalent threshold value)
11.32
11.32
V (fraction of vegetative cover) unitless
0.5
0.5
-------
Farmer Parent Risk and CDI at Time=T 0
Soil (no decay)
Dry
Soil-to-plant
External 1000000 transfer
Exposure m2 0 cm factor Beef
Slope Food Soil Soil Soil (pCi/g-fresh Transfer
ICRP Inhalation Factor Ingestion Ingestion Volume Volume Kj Particulate plant Factor
Lung Slope (risk/yr Slope Slope Area Gamma Distribution Emission per (pCi/kg
Absorption Factor per Factor Factor Lambda Halflife Correction Shielding coefficient Factor pCi/g-dry per
Isotope Type (risk/pCi) pCi/g) (risk/pCi) (risk/pCi) (1/yr) (yr) Factor Factor (L/kg) (m-^/kg) soil) pCi/d)
U-235 S 2.50E-08 5.51 E-07 9.44E-11 1.48E-10 9.84E-10 7.04E+08 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 4.00E-01 2.37E+09 7.13E-03 3.90E-04
Infinite Soil External Produce Beef
Volume Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption External Produce Beef
Concentration CDI CDI CDI CDI CDI Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption Total
(pCi/g) (pCi) (pCi) (pCi) (pCi) (pCi) Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk
0.04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.86E-01 - 2.89E+01 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.68E-07 - 2.73E-09 2.71 E-07
-------
Farmer Peak Risk Start Times (by route)
Soil
Peak Risk Peak Risk
Start Time Start Time
External Beef
Exposure Ingestion
(yrs) (yrs)
4.454E+05 4.487E+05
4
-------
Farmer Peak Risks
Soil (complete chain decay)
using the peak risk time intervals from PRG calculations (by route)
5
External Produce Finfish
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Ingestion Ingestion
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
Isotope (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
U-235
4.00E-02
Th-231
4.00E-02
Pa-231
4.00E-02
Ac-227
4.00E-02
Th-227
3.94E-02
Fr-223
5.52E-04
Ra-223
4.00E-02
At-219
3.31 E-08
Rn-219
4.00E-02
Bi-215
3.21 E-08
Po-215
4.00E-02
Pb-211
4.00E-02
Bi-211
4.00E-02
Po-211
1.10E-04
TI-207
3.99E-02
Total Risk .....
-------
Farmer Peak Risks
Soil (complete chain decay)
using the peak risk time intervals from PRG calculations (by route)
6
Beef
Ingestion
Concentration
(pCi/g)
External Produce Beef
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption
Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk
Total
Risk
4.00E-02
-
2.68E-07
-
2.73E-09
2.71 E-07
4.00E-02
-
1.21 E-08
-
5.41 E-11
1.21 E-08
4.00E-02
-
6.18E-08
-
1.05E-10
6.20E-08
4.00E-02
-
9.65E-11
-
4.55E-10
5.51 E-10
3.94E-02
-
2.13E-07
-
1.17E-09
2.14E-07
5.52E-04
-
9.08E-10
-
3.88E-10
1.30E-09
4.00E-02
-
2.21 E-07
-
4.41 E-08
2.65E-07
3.31 E-08
-
0.00E+00
-
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.00E-02
-
1.14E-07
-
0.00E+00
1.14E-07
3.21 E-08
-
4.23E-13
-
0.00E+00
4.23E-13
4.00E-02
-
3.64E-10
-
0.00E+00
3.64E-10
4.00E-02
-
1.41 E-07
-
3.06E-11
1.41 E-07
4.00E-02
-
9.25E-08
-
0.00E+00
9.25E-08
1.10E-04
-
5.04E-11
-
0.00E+00
5.04E-11
3.99E-02
-
7.70E-09
-
0.00E+00
7.70E-09
-
.
1.13E-06
-
4.90E-08
1.18E-06
-------
Farmer Parent Risk and CDI at Time=T 0
Soil (no decay)
Dry
Soil-to-plant
External 1000000 transfer
Exposure m2 0 cm factor Beef
Slope Food Soil Soil Soil (pCi/g-fresh Transfer
ICRP Inhalation Factor Ingestion Ingestion Volume Volume Kj Particulate plant Factor
Lung Slope (risk/yr Slope Slope Area Gamma Distribution Emission per (pCi/kg
Absorption Factor per Factor Factor Lambda Halflife Correction Shielding coefficient Factor pCi/g-dry per
Isotope Type (risk/pCi) pCi/g) (risk/pCi) (risk/pCi) (1/yr) (yr) Factor Factor (L/kg) (m-^/kg) soil) pCi/d)
U-238 S 2.36E-08 1.24E-10 8.66E-11 1.34E-10 1.55E-10 4.47E+09 1.00E+00 1.00E+00 4.00E-01 2.37E+09 7.13E-03 3.90E-04
Infinite Soil External Produce Beef
Volume Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption
Concentration CDI CDI CDI CDI CDI
(pCi/g) (pCi) (pCi) (pCi) (pCi) (pCi)
1 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.22E+01 - 7.23E+02
External Produce Beef
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption Total
Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk
0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.50E-09 - 6.26E-08 6.41 E-08
-------
Farmer Peak Risk Start Times (by route)
Soil
Peak Risk Peak Risk
Start Time Start Time
External Beef
Exposure Ingestion
(yrs) (yrs)
3.523E+06 3.524E+06
8
-------
Farmer Peak Risks
Soil (complete chain decay)
using the peak risk time intervals from PRG calculations (by route)
External Produce Finfish
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Ingestion Ingestion
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
Isotope (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
U-238
9.99E-01
Th-234
9.99E-01
Pa-234
1.60E-03
Pa-234m
9.99E-01
U-234
9.99E-01
Th-230
9.99E-01
Ra-226
9.99E-01
Rn-222
9.99E-01
Po-218
9.99E-01
At-218
2.00E-04
Rn-218
2.00E-07
Pb-214
9.99E-01
Bi-214
9.99E-01
Po-214
9.99E-01
TI-210
2.10E-04
Pb-210
9.99E-01
Bi-210
9.99E-01
Po-210
9.99E-01
Hg-206
1.90E-08
TI-206
1.34E-06
Total Risk .....
-------
Farmer Peak Risks
Soil (complete chain decay)
using the peak risk time intervals from PRG calculations (by route)
10
Beef
Ingestion
Concentration
(pCi/g)
External Produce Beef
Ingestion Inhalation Exposure Consumption Consumption
Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk
Total
Risk
9.99E-01
-
1.50E-09
-
6.26E-08
6.41 E-08
9.99E-01
-
2.16E-07
-
1.43E-08
2.30E-07
1.60E-03
-
1.29E-07
-
5.57E-14
1.29E-07
9.99E-01
-
1.10E-06
-
0.00E+00
1.10E-06
9.99E-01
-
3.08E-09
-
6.90E-08
7.21 E-08
9.99E-01
-
1.03E-08
-
5.01 E-08
6.04E-08
9.99E-01
-
3.04E-07
-
1.67E-06
1.98E-06
9.99E-01
-
2.06E-08
-
0.00E+00
2.06E-08
9.99E-01
-
7.48E-14
-
0.00E+00
7.48E-14
2.00E-04
-
6.00E-14
-
0.00E+00
6.00E-14
2.00E-07
-
8.23E-15
-
0.00E+00
8.23E-15
9.99E-01
-
1.21E-05
-
6.38E-10
1.21E-05
9.99E-01
-
8.92E-05
-
2.29E-09
8.92E-05
9.99E-01
-
4.68E-09
-
0.00E+00
4.68E-09
2.10E-04
-
3.43E-08
-
0.00E+00
3.43E-08
9.99E-01
-
1.80E-08
-
1.55E-06
1.57E-06
9.99E-01
-
3.36E-08
-
1.13E-07
1.46E-07
9.99E-01
-
5.47E-10
-
1.23E-05
1.23E-05
1.90E-08
-
1.12E-13
-
0.00E+00
1.12E-13
1.34E-06
-
9.93E-14
-
0.00E+00
9.93E-14
-
-
1.03E-04
-
1.58E-05
1.19E-04
-------
DCGL Calculation (Updated Peak Risk Option)
August 2022
-------
Derived Concentration Guideline Level (DCGL)
Using PRG Calculator (Peak Risk Option) Output
August 2022
Composite Worker
(Outdoor Worker)
Risk
Indoor Worker
(Inside Truck)
Risk
Farmer
(Beef
Consumption)
Risk
Total Risk
Peak Risk for U-235
and U-238
6.49E-06
4.22E-06
1.58E-05
2.66E-05
PRG Calculator-Derived DCGL (Derived Concentration Guideline Level) =
Target Cancer Risk (1E-04) t Total Risk (2.66E-05) =
3.8 picocuries per gram (pCi/g)
-------
RESRAD Output
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 1
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario without Radon Inhalation
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Table of Contents
Part III: Intake Quantities and Health Risk Factors
Cancer Risk Slope Factors 2
Risk Slope and ETFG for the Ground Pathway 4
Amount of Intake Quantities and Excess Cancer Risks
Time= 0.000E+00 5
Time= 1.000E+00 8
Time= 3.000E+00 11
Time= 1.000E+01 14
Time= 3.000E+01 17
Time= 1.000E+02 20
Time= 3.000E+02 23
Time= 1.000E+03 26
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 2
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Cancer Risk Slope Factors Summary Table
Risk Library: DCFPAK3.02 Morbidity
| Current
| Base
| Parameter
Menu
Parameter
| Value
1
| Case*
| Name
Sf-1
Ground external
radiation
slope factors, 1/yr per (pCi/g):
1
1
Sf-1
Ac-227+D
| 1.63E-06
| 1.98E-10
| SLPF(
1,1)
Sf-1
Pa-231
| 1.27E-07
| 1.27E-07
| SLPF(
2,1)
Sf-1
Pb-210+D
| 4.25E-09
| 1.48E-09
| SLPF(
3,1)
Sf-1
Pb-210+Dl
| 1.72E-08
| 1.48E-09
| SLPF(
4,1)
Sf-1
Po-210
| 4.51E-11
| 4.51E-11
| SLPF(
5,1)
Sf-1
Ra-226+D
| 8.37E-06
| 2.50E-08
| SLPF(
6,1)
Sf-1
Th-230
| 8.45E-10
| 8.45E-10
| SLPF(
8,1)
Sf-1
U-234
| 2.53E-10
| 2.53E-10
| SLPF(
10,1)
Sf-1
U-235+D
| 5.76E-07
| 5.51E-07
| SLPF(
12,1)
Sf-1
U-238
| 1.24E-10
| 1.24E-10
| SLPF(
13,1)
Sf-1
U-238+D
| 1.19E-07
I
| 1.24E-10
| SLPF(
14,1)
Sf-2
Inhalation, slope factors
1/(pCi) :
1
1
Sf-2
Ac-227+D
| 2.13E-07
| 1.49E-07
| SLPF(
1,2)
Sf-2
Pa-231
| 7.62E-08
| 7.62E-08
| SLPF(
2,2)
Sf-2
Pb-210+D
| 1.63E-08
| 1.59E-08
| SLPF(
3,2)
Sf-2
Pb-210+Dl
| 1.63E-08
| 1.59E-08
| SLPF(
4,2)
Sf-2
Po-210
| 1.45E-08
| 1.45E-08
| SLPF(
5,2)
Sf-2
Ra-226+D
| 2.82E-08
| 2.81E-08
| SLPF(
6,2)
Sf-2
Th-230
| 3 . 41E-08
| 3 . 41E-08
| SLPF(
8,2)
Sf-2
U-234
| 2.78E-08
| 2.78E-08
| SLPF(
10,2)
Sf-2
U-235+D
| 2.50E-08
| 2.50E-08
| SLPF(
12,2)
Sf-2
U-238
| 2.36E-08
| 2.36E-08
| SLPF(
13,2)
Sf-2
U-238+D
| 2.37E-08
I
| 2.36E-08
| SLPF(
14,2)
Sf-3
Food ingestion,
slope factors, 1/(pCi):
1
1
Sf-3
Ac-227+D
| 6.54E-10
| 2.45E-10
| SLPF(
1,3)
Sf-3
Pa-231
| 2.26E-10
| 2.26E-10
| SLPF(
2,3)
Sf-3
Pb-210+D
| 1.19E-09
| 1.18E-09
| SLPF(
3,3)
Sf-3
Pb-210+Dl
| 1.19E-09
| 1.18E-09
| SLPF(
4,3)
Sf-3
Po-210
| 2.25E-09
| 2.25E-09
| SLPF(
5,3)
Sf-3
Ra-226+D
| 5.15E-10
| 5.14E-10
| SLPF(
6,3)
Sf-3
Th-230
| 1.19E-10
| 1.19E-10
| SLPF(
8,3)
Sf-3
U-234
| 9 .55E-11
| 9 .55E-11
| SLPF(
10,3)
Sf-3
U-235+D
| 9.76E-11
| 9.43E-11
| SLPF(
12,3)
Sf-3
U-238
| 8.66E-11
| 8.66E-11
| SLPF(
13,3)
Sf-3
U-238+D
| 1.21E-10
|
| 8.66E-11
| SLPF(
14,3)
Sf-3
Water ingestion
slope factors, 1/(pCi):
1
1
Sf-3
Ac-227+D
| 4.87E-10
| 2.01E-10
| SLPF(
1,4 )
Sf-3
Pa-231
| 1.72E-10
| 1.72E-10
| SLPF(
2,4 )
Sf-3
Pb-210+D
| 8.93E-10
| 8.84E-10
| SLPF(
3, 4 )
Sf-3
Pb-210+Dl
| 8.93E-10
| 8.84E-10
| SLPF(
4,4)
Sf-3
Po-210
| 1.78E-09
| 1.78E-09
| SLPF(
5, 4 )
Sf-3
Ra-226+D
| 3.85E-10
| 3.85E-10
| SLPF(
6, 4 )
Sf-3
Th-230
| 9.14E-11
| 9.14E-11
| SLPF(
8,4 )
Sf-3
U-234
| 7.07E-11
| 7.07E-11
| SLPF(
10, 4 )
Sf-3
U-235+D
| 7.17E-11
| 6 . 95E-11
| SLPF(
12,4 )
Sf-3
U-238
| 6.40E-11
| 6.40E-11
| SLPF(
13, 4 )
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 3
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Cancer Risk Slope Factors Summary Table (continued)
Risk Library: DCFPAK3.02 Morbidity
| Current
| Base
| Parameter
Menu
Parameter
| Value
1
| Case*
| Name
Sf-3
U-238+D
1
| 8.71E-11
|
| 6.40E-11
| SLPF( 14,4)
Sf-3
Soil ingestion, slope factors, 1/(pCi):
1
1
Sf-3
Ac-227+D
| 6.54E-10
| 2.45E-10
| SLPF( 1,5)
Sf-3
Pa-231
| 2.26E-10
| 2.26E-10
| SLPF( 2,5)
Sf-3
Pb-210+D
| 1.19E-09
| 1.18E-09
| SLPF( 3,5)
Sf-3
Pb-210+Dl
| 1.19E-09
| 1.18E-09
| SLPF( 4,5)
Sf-3
Po-210
| 2.25E-09
| 2.25E-09
| SLPF( 5,5)
Sf-3
Ra-226+D
| 5.15E-10
| 5.14E-10
| SLPF( 6,5)
Sf-3
Th-230
| 1.19E-10
| 1.19E-10
| SLPF( 8,5)
Sf-3
U-234
| 9 .55E-11
| 9 .55E-11
| SLPF( 10,5)
Sf-3
U-235+D
| 9.76E-11
| 9.43E-11
| SLPF( 12,5)
Sf-3
U-238
| 8.66E-11
| 8.66E-11
| SLPF( 13,5)
Sf-3
U-238+D
| 1.21E-10
I
| 8.66E-11
| SLPF( 14,5)
Sf-Rn
Radon Inhalation slope factors, 1/ (pCi) :
1
1
Sf-Rn
Rn-222
| 1.80E-12
| 1.80E-12
| SLPFRN(1,1)
Sf-Rn
Po-218
| 3.70E-12
| 3.70E-12
| SLPFRN(1,2)
Sf-Rn
Pb-214
| 6.20E-12
| 6.20E-12
| SLPFRN(1,3)
Sf-Rn
Bi-214
| 1.50E-11
I
| 1.50E-11
| SLPFRN(1,4)
Sf-Rn
Radon K factors, (mrem/WLM):
1
1
Sf-Rn
Rn-222 Indoor
| 3 .88E + 02
| 3 .88E + 02
| KFACTR(1,1)
Sf-Rn
Rn-222 Outdoor
| 3 .88E + 02
| 3 .88E + 02
| KFACTR(1,2)
*Base Case means Default.Lib w/o Associate Nuclide contributions.
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 T1^ Limit = 30 days
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
06/06/2019 08:31 Page
Risk Slope and Environmental Transport Factors for the Ground Pathway
Nuclide Slope(i)* ETFG(i,t) At Time in Years (dimensionless)
(i) t= 0.000E+00 1.000E+00 3.000E+00 1.000E+01 3.000E+01 1.000E+02 3.000E+02 1.000E+03
1.990E-10
2 . 7 4 0E-11
0 .000E+00
2 .770E-09
1.900E-07
7.340E-06
1.080E-06
1.350E-07
4.830E-07
1.270E-07
6.620E-06
9.060E-08
1.480E-09
2.910E-07
9.940E-07
4.510E-11
3.7 60E-08
3.850E-10
7.4 80E-10
6.840E-15
4.550E-07
2.500E-08
3.390E-09
2.350E-07
1.690E-09
4.4 50E-07
8.4 50E-10
2.4 90E-08
1.780E-08
6.110E-09
1.590E-08
1.340E-05
2.530E-10
5.510E-07
1.240E-10
3.876E-02
3.872E-02
0.000E+00
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.872E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.874E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 2E-02
0.000E+00
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 2E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.874E-02
3.876E-02
3.872E-02
0.000E+00
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.872E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.874E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 2E-02
0.000E+00
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 2E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.874E-02
3.876E-02
3.872E-02
0.000E+00
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.872E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.874E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 2E-02
0.000E+00
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 2E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3. 874E-02
3 .876E-02
3 .872E-02
0 .000E+00
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3 .872E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3 .874E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 2E-02
0. 000E + 00
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 2E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3.87 6E-02
3. 874E-02
- Units are 1/yr per (pCi/g) at infinite depth and area. Multiplication by ETFG(i,t) converts to site conditions.
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 5
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
As pCi/yr at t= 0.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon)
Water Dependent Pathways
Radio-
Nuclide Inhalation Plant
Ac-227
Pa-231
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
U-234
U-235
U-238
6.976E-03
6.976E-03
6.976E-03
6.976E-03
6.976E-03
6.976E-03
6.976E-03
6.976E-03
6.976E-03
Milk
Soil
Fish
Plant
Milk
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
9.705E-02
2.831E+01
4.529E+00
2.345E+01
8.898E+00
4.691E-01
1.650E+00
1.650E+00
1.650E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
1.14 0E + 00
1.14 0E + 00
1.14 0E + 00
1.14 0E + 00
1.14 0E + 00
1.14 0E + 00
1.14 0E + 00
1.14 0E + 00
1.14 0E + 00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Total
Ingestion*
1. 237E+00
2 . 945E+01
5.669E+00
2 . 459E+01
1. 004E+01
1. 609E+00
2 . 790E+00
2 . 790E+00
2 . 790E+00
Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil
and water-dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products as pCi/yr at t= 0.000E+00 years
Radionuclides
Radon
Pathway Rn-222 Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
und Inhalation Plant Meat Milk
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
risk fract.
Ac-227
1.445E-06
0
1210
3. 405E-08
0
0029
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 .223E-09
0.0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 706E-08
0
0014
Pa-231
1.181E-07
0
0099
1. 275E-08
0
0011
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .533E-07
0.0128
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6.173E-09
0
0005
Pb-210
4.026E-09
0
0003
2 . 783E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .321E-07
0.0111
0.000E+00
0
0000
3.313E-08
0
0028
Po-210
4.240E-11
0
0000
2 . 453E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .233E-06
0.1032
0.000E+00
0
0000
6.22 9E-08
0
0052
Ra-226
7.863E-06
0
6583
4 . 779E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .113E-07
0.0093
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 425E-08
0
0012
Th-230
8.188E-10
0
0001
5. 941E-09
0
0005
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .397E-09
0.0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.394E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.353E-10
0
0000
4 . 656E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3 .779E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.611E-09
0
0002
U-235
5.355E-07
0
0448
4 .186E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3 .8 62E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.668E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.108E-07
0
0093
3. 961E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 .771E-09
0.0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3.296E-09
0
0003
Total
1.008E-05
0
8438
7 . 557E-08
0
0063
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.64 6E-06
0.1378
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.44 9E-07
0
0121
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 6
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E+00 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All Pathways**
risk fract.
Water
Radio-
Nuclide risk f
Fish
Plant
Milk
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 498E-06
0
1255
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 903E-07
0
0243
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 721E-07
0
0144
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 298E-06
0
1086
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
7 . 993E-06
0
6692
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.155E-08
0
0010
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.128E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 4 62E-07
0
0457
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 228E-07
0
0103
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.194E-05
1
0000
Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil
and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products at t= 0.000E+00 years
Radon
Pathway
Radionuclides
Rn-222
Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 TH Limit = 30 days
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
06/06/2019 08:31 Page 7
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
Ground
Inhalation
Radon
Plant
Milk
Soil
Radio-
nuclide
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
Ac-227
9.967E-07
0
0835
2.34 9E-08
0
0020
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
1.002E-09
0
0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.177E-08
0
0010
Pa-231
5.663E-07
0
0474
2.331E-08
0
0020
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
1.54 5E-07
0
0129
0. 000E+00
0
0000
1.14 6E-08
0
0010
Pb-210
2.837E-09
0
0002
3.625E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
9.37 5E-07
0
0785
0.000E+00
0
0000
6.588E-08
0
0055
Po-210
9.471E-13
0
0000
5.480E-11
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
2.865E-08
0
0024
0. 000E+00
0
0000
1. 392E-09
0
0001
Ra-226
7.821E-06
0
6548
6.303E-09
0
0005
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
5.07 9E-07
0
0425
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 . 222E-08
0
0035
Th-230
4.366E-08
0
0037
5.973E-09
0
0005
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
3.503E-09
0
0003
0. 000E+00
0
0000
3.578E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.38 6E-10
0
0000
4.656E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
3.77 9E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
2. 611E-09
0
0002
U-235
5.356E-07
0
0448
4.191E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
3.902E-09
0
0003
0. 000E+00
0
0000
2.671E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.108E-07
0
0093
3.962E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
4 . 771E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 296E-09
0
0003
Total
1.008E-05
0
8438
7.557E-08
0
0063
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
1. 64 6E—0 6
0
1378
0. 000E+00
0
0000
1.44 9E-07
0
0121
Total Risk Across All Pathways = 1.19E-05. DCGL = Target Risk of 0.0001 - Total Risk of 1.19E-05 = 8.4 pCi/g
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)*** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 0.000E+00 years
Water Dependent Pathways
Nuclide risk fract.
risk fract.
risk fract.
risk fract.
risk fract.
risk fract.
All pathways
risk fract.
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 033E-06
0
0865
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E+00
0
0000
7.556E-07
0
0633
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.010E-06
0
0846
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E+00
0
0000
3.010E-08
0
0025
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
8.377E-06
0
7014
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E+00
0
0000
5.671E-08
0
0047
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.128E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E+00
0
0000
5.4 64E-07
0
0458
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 228E-07
0
0103
0.000E+00 0.0000 0.000E+00 0.0000 0.000E+00 0.0000 0.000E+00 0.0000 0.000E+00 0.0000 0.000E+00 0.0000 1.194E-05 1.0000
**CNRSI(i,p,t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 8
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
As pCi/yr at t= 1.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon)
Water Dependent Pathways
Radio-
Nuclide Inhalation Plant
Ac-227
Pa-231
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
U-234
U-235
U-238
6.919E-03
6.953E-03
6.964E-03
6.918E-03
6.959E-03
6.976E-03
6.953E-03
6.953E-03
6.953E-03
Milk
Soil
Fish
Plant
Milk
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
1.454E-01
2.822E+01
4.54 0E + 00
2.237E+01
8.879E+00
4.691E-01
1.645E+00
1.645E+00
1.645E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
1.131E+00
1.136E+00
1.138E+00
1.130E+00
1.137E+00
1.14 0E + 00
1.136E+00
1.136E+00
1.136E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Total
Ingestion*
1. 276E+00
2 . 936E+01
5.678E+00
2 . 350E+01
1. 002E+01
1. 609E+00
2 . 781E+00
2 . 781E+00
2 . 781E+00
Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil
and water-dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products as pCi/yr at t= 1.000E+00 years
Radionuclides
Radon
Pathway Rn-222 Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
und Inhalation Plant Meat Milk
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
risk fract.
Ac-227
1.435E-06
0
1205
3.383E-08
0
0028
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 .213E-09
0.0002
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 695E-08
0
0014
Pa-231
1.177E-07
0
0099
1. 271E-08
0
0011
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .528E-07
0.0128
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6.152E-09
0
0005
Pb-210
4.019E-09
0
0003
2 . 778E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .319E-07
0.0111
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 307E-08
0
0028
Po-210
4.231E-11
0
0000
2 . 448E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .230E-06
0.1033
0.000E+00
0
0000
6. 217E-08
0
0052
Ra-226
7.844E-06
0
6587
4 . 768E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .110E-07
0.0093
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 422E-08
0
0012
Th-230
8.188E-10
0
0001
5. 941E-09
0
0005
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .397E-09
0.0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 394E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.345E-10
0
0000
4 . 640E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3 .7 66E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 602E-09
0
0002
U-235
5.337E-07
0
0448
4 .172E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.84 9E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 659E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.104E-07
0
0093
3. 948E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 .755E-09
0.0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 285E-09
0
0003
Total
1.005E-05
0
8437
7 . 524E-08
0
0063
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 . 642E-06
0.1379
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 445E-07
0
0121
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 9
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+00 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All Pathways**
risk fract.
Water
Radio-
Nuclide risk f
Fish
Plant
Milk
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 488E-06
0
1250
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 894E-07
0
0243
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 718E-07
0
0144
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 295E-06
0
1087
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
7 . 974E-06
0
6696
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.155E-08
0
0010
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.124E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5.44 4E-07
0
0457
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 224E-07
0
0103
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.191E-05
1
0000
Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil
and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E+00 years
Radon
Pathway
Radionuclides
Rn-222
Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 10
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
Ground
Inhalation
Radon
Plant
Milk
Soil
Radio-
nuclide
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
Ac-227
9.57 6E-07
0
0804
2 . 257E-08
0
0019
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
9. 631E-10
0
0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.131E-08
0
0009
Pa-231
5.955E-07
0
0500
2 . 397E-08
0
0020
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1.540E-07
0
0129
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.179E-08
0
0010
Pb-210
2.74 6E-09
0
0002
3.553E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
9. 305E-07
0
0781
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6. 488E-08
0
0054
Po-210
1.495E-13
0
0000
8.652E-12
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
4 . 525E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 .197E-10
0
0000
Ra-226
7.799E-06
0
6549
6. 398E-09
0
0005
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
5.357E-07
0
0450
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 415E-08
0
0037
Th-230
4.704E-08
0
0040
5. 975E-09
0
0005
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3.729E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 597E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.382E-10
0
0000
4 . 641E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3.767E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 602E-09
0
0002
U-235
5.339E-07
0
0448
4 .178E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3. 893E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.662E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.104E-07
0
0093
3. 949E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
4.755E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 285E-09
0
0003
Total
1.005E-05
0
8437
7 . 524E-08
0
0063
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
1. 642E-06
0
1379
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 445E-07
0
0121
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+00 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All pathways
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9. 924E-07
0
0833
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7 . 853E-07
0
0659
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 002E-06
0
0841
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 753E-09
0
0004
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8.385E-06
0
7042
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6. 034E-08
0
0051
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.125E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5.44 6E-07
0
0457
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 224E-07
0
0103
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.191E-05
1
0000
CNRSI (i, p, t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 11
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
As pCi/yr at t= 3.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon)
Water Dependent Pathways
Radio-
Nuclide Inhalation Plant
Ac-227
Pa-231
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
U-234
U-235
U-238
6.810E-03
6.907E-03
6.941E-03
6.88 6E-03
6.926E-03
6.976E-03
6.907E-03
6.907E-03
6.907E-03
Milk
Soil
Fish
Plant
Milk
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
1.435E-01
2.804E+01
4.524E+00
2.227E+01
8.837E+00
4.691E-01
1.634E+00
1.634E+00
1.634E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
1.113E+00
1.129E+00
1.134E+00
1.125E+00
1.132E+00
1.14 0E + 00
1.129E+00
1.129E+00
1.129E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Total
Ingestion*
1.256E+00
2.916E+01
5.658E+00
2.339E+01
9. 969E+00
1. 609E+00
2 . 763E+00
2 . 763E+00
2 . 763E+00
Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil
and water-dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn, i, t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products as pCi/yr at t= 3.000E+00 years
Radionuclides
Radon
Pathway Rn-222 Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
und Inhalation Plant Meat Milk
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
risk fract.
Ac-227
1.417E-06
0
1197
3.339E-08
0
0028
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 .189E-09
0.0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.673E-08
0
0014
Pa-231
1.169E-07
0
0099
1.263E-08
0
0011
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .518E-07
0.0128
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6.112E-09
0
0005
Pb-210
4.003E-09
0
0003
2.768E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .314E-07
0.0111
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 294E-08
0
0028
Po-210
4.215E-11
0
0000
2.439E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .225E-06
0.1035
0.000E+00
0
0000
6.193E-08
0
0052
Ra-226
7.807E-06
0
6594
4.745E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .105E-07
0.0093
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 415E-08
0
0012
Th-230
8.188E-10
0
0001
5.941E-09
0
0005
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .397E-09
0.0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 394E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.329E-10
0
0000
4.610E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3 . 741E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 585E-09
0
0002
U-235
5.302E-07
0
0448
4.144E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3 .824E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.642E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.097E-07
0
0093
3.922E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 . 724E-09
0.0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 263E-09
0
0003
Total
9.98 6E-0 6
0
8435
7.459E-08
0
0063
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 . 635E-06
0.1381
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 438E-07
0
0121
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 12
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+00 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All Pathways**
risk fract.
Water
Radio-
Nuclide risk f
Fish
Plant
Milk
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 4 69E-06
0
1241
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 875E-07
0
0243
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 711E-07
0
0145
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 290E-06
0
1089
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
7 . 936E-06
0
6704
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.155E-08
0
0010
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.117E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 408E-07
0
0457
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 216E-07
0
0103
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.184E-05
1
0000
Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil
and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E+00 years
Radon
Pathway
Radionuclides
Rn-222
Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 13
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+00 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
Ground
Inhalation
Radon
Plant
Milk
Soil
Radio-
nuclide
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
Ac-227
8.838E-07
0
0746
2 . 083E-08
0
0018
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
8.889E-10
0
0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 044E-08
0
0009
Pa-231
6.49 9E-07
0
0549
2 . 519E-08
0
0021
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 531E-07
0
0129
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 240E-08
0
0010
Pb-210
2.571E-09
0
0002
3. 335E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
8 . 754E-07
0
0739
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6. 095E-08
0
0051
Po-210
3.727E-15
0
0000
2 .157E-13
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1.128E-10
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5.47 6E-12
0
0000
Ra-226
7.756E-06
0
6551
6.577E-09
0
0006
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
5.890E-07
0
0497
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4.782E-08
0
0040
Th-230
5.378E-08
0
0045
5.981E-09
0
0005
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
4 . 217E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 637E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.376E-10
0
0000
4 . 610E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3.742E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 585E-09
0
0002
U-235
5.304E-07
0
0448
4 .151E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3.873E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.645E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.097E-07
0
0093
3. 922E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
4 . 724E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 263E-09
0
0003
Total
9.98 6E-0 6
0
8435
7 . 459E-08
0
0063
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
1. 635E-06
0
1381
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 438E-07
0
0121
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+00 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All pathways
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9.160E-07
0
0774
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8 . 406E-07
0
0710
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9. 423E-07
0
0796
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.185E-10
0
0000
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8 . 399E-06
0
7094
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6. 761E-08
0
0057
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.117E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 410E-07
0
0457
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 216E-07
0
0103
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.184E-05
1
0000
CNRSI (i, p, t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 14
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
As pCi/yr at t= 1.000E+01 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon)
Water Dependent Pathways
Radio-
Nuclide Inhalation Plant
Ac-227
Pa-231
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
U-234
U-235
U-238
6.470E-03
6.74 8E-03
6.854E-03
6.800E-03
6.813E-03
6.976E-03
6.74 8E-03
6.74 8E-03
6.74 8E-03
Milk
Soil
Fish
Plant
Milk
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
1.377E-01
2.739E+01
4.4 68E + 00
2.199E+01
8.692E+00
4.691E-01
1.596E+00
1.596E+00
1.596E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
1.057E+00
1.103E+00
1.120E+00
1.111E+00
1.113E+00
1.14 0E + 00
1.103E+00
1.103E+00
1.103E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Total
Ingestion*
1.195E+00
2.84 9E+01
5.588E+00
2.310E+01
9. 805E+00
1. 609E+00
2 . 699E+00
2 . 699E+00
2 . 699E+00
Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil
and water-dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn, i, t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products as pCi/yr at t= 1.000E+01 years
Radionuclides
Radon
Pathway Rn-222 Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+01 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
und Inhalation Plant Meat Milk
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
risk fract.
Ac-227
1.358E-06
0
1170
3. 201E-08
0
0028
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 .113E-09
0.0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 604E-08
0
0014
Pa-231
1.142E-07
0
0098
1. 234E-08
0
0011
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .483E-07
0.0128
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5.971E-09
0
0005
Pb-210
3.949E-09
0
0003
2 . 730E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .296E-07
0.0112
0.000E+00
0
0000
3.24 9E-08
0
0028
Po-210
4.158E-11
0
0000
2 . 406E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .209E-06
0.1041
0.000E+00
0
0000
6.109E-08
0
0053
Ra-226
7.680E-06
0
6616
4 . 668E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .087E-07
0.0094
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 392E-08
0
0012
Th-230
8.187E-10
0
0001
5. 941E-09
0
0005
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .397E-09
0.0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 394E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.276E-10
0
0000
4 . 504E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3 . 656E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 525E-09
0
0002
U-235
5.180E-07
0
0446
4.049E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3 .736E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.581E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.071E-07
0
0092
3. 832E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 . 615E-09
0.0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3.188E-09
0
0003
Total
9.782E-06
0
8428
7 . 247E-08
0
0062
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 . 611E-06
0.1388
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 412E-07
0
0122
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 15
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+01 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All Pathways**
risk fract.
Water
Radio-
Nuclide risk f
Fish
Plant
Milk
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 408E-06
0
1213
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 809E-07
0
0242
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 688E-07
0
0145
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 272E-06
0
1096
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
7 . 807E-06
0
6726
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.155E-08
0
0010
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.091E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 284E-07
0
0455
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.188E-07
0
0102
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.161E-05
1
0000
Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil
and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E+01 years
Radon
Pathway
Radionuclides
Rn-222
Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 16
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+01 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
Ground
Inhalation
Radon
Plant
Milk
Soil
Radio-
nuclide
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
Ac-227
6.676E-07
0
0575
1. 573E-08
0
0014
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
6. 714E-10
0
0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7 . 883E-09
0
0007
Pa-231
8.04 6E-07
0
0693
2 . 860E-08
0
0025
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 497E-07
0
0129
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 412E-08
0
0012
Pb-210
2.042E-09
0
0002
2.649E-09
0
0002
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
6.955E-07
0
0599
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 842E-08
0
0042
Po-210
9.114E-21
0
0000
5.27 4E-19
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
2 . 758E-16
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.339E-17
0
0000
Ra-226
7.605E-06
0
6552
7 . 093E-09
0
0006
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
7 . 467E-07
0
0643
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5. 867E-08
0
0051
Th-230
7.706E-08
0
0066
6. 001E-09
0
0005
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
6. 252E-09
0
0005
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.799E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.363E-10
0
0000
4 . 505E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3.656E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 526E-09
0
0002
U-235
5.183E-07
0
0447
4 . 060E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3. 807E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 586E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.071E-07
0
0092
3. 832E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
4 . 615E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.188E-09
0
0003
Total
9.782E-06
0
8428
7 . 247E-08
0
0062
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
1.611E-06
0
1388
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 412E-07
0
0122
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+01 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All pathways
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6.919E-07
0
0596
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9.970E-07
0
0859
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7 . 486E-07
0
0645
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 897E-16
0
0000
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8 . 418E-06
0
7252
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9. 312E-08
0
0080
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 092E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 287E-07
0
0456
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.188E-07
0
0102
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.161E-05
1
0000
CNRSI (i, p, t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 17
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
As pCi/yr at t= 3.000E+01 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon)
Water Dependent Pathways
Radio-
Nuclide Inhalation Plant
Ac-227
Pa-231
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
U-234
U-235
U-238
5.74 9E-03
6.315E-03
6.588E-03
6.537E-03
6.49 9E-03
6.975E-03
6.315E-03
6.315E-03
6.315E-03
Milk
Soil
Fish
Plant
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
1.24 6E-01
2.563E+01
4.294E+00
2.114E+01
8.292E+00
4.690E-01
1.494E+00
1.494E+00
1.494E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
9.396E-01
1.032E+00
1.077E+00
1.068E+00
1.062E+00
1.14 0E + 00
1.032E+00
1.032E+00
1.032E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Milk
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Total
Ingestion*
1.064E+00
2.666E+01
5.371E+00
2 . 221E+01
9. 354E+00
1. 609E+00
2 . 526E+00
2 . 526E+00
2 . 526E+00
Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil
and water-dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn, i, t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products as pCi/yr at t= 3.000E+01 years
Radionuclides
Radon
Pathway Rn-222 Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+01 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
und Inhalation Plant Meat Milk
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
risk fract.
Ac-227
1.227E-06
0
1116
2 . 892E-08
0
0026
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 . 933E-09
0.0002
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.44 9E-08
0
0013
Pa-231
1.069E-07
0
0097
1.155E-08
0
0011
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .388E-07
0.0126
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5. 588E-09
0
0005
Pb-210
3.787E-09
0
0003
2 . 618E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .243E-07
0.0113
0.000E+00
0
0000
3.116E-08
0
0028
Po-210
3.988E-11
0
0000
2 . 308E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .159E-06
0.1054
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 859E-08
0
0053
Ra-226
7.329E-06
0
6665
4 . 454E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .037E-07
0.0094
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.328E-08
0
0012
Th-230
8.187E-10
0
0001
5. 941E-09
0
0005
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .396E-09
0.0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 394E-09
0
0003
U-234
2.130E-10
0
0000
4 . 215E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
3 .4 21E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.363E-09
0
0002
U-235
4.848E-07
0
0441
3.789E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3 .4 96E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 415E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.003E-07
0
0091
3.586E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 .319E-09
0.0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 983E-09
0
0003
Total
9.253E-06
0
8415
6. 738E-08
0
0061
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .541E-06
0.1401
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 343E-07
0
0122
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 18
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+01 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All Pathways**
risk fract.
Water
Radio-
Nuclide risk f
Fish
Plant
Milk
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 273E-06
0.1158
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2.628E-07
0.0239
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 619E-07
0.0147
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 220E-06
0.1110
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
7 . 450E-06
0.6776
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.155E-08
0.0011
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.021E-08
0.0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 . 945E-07
0.0450
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.112E-07
0.0101
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.100E-05
1. 0000
Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil
and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E+01 years
Radon
Pathway
Radionuclides
Rn-222
Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 19
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+01 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
Ground
Inhalation
Radon
Plant
Milk
Soil
Radio-
nuclide
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
Ac-227
2.995E-07
0
0272
7 . 057E-09
0
0006
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3.012E-10
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.536E-09
0
0003
Pa-231
1.034E-06
0
0941
3. 339E-08
0
0030
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 403E-07
0
0128
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.653E-08
0
0015
Pb-210
1.058E-09
0
0001
1. 372E-09
0
0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3. 603E-07
0
0328
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.509E-08
0
0023
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
Ra-226
7.191E-06
0
6540
7 . 881E-09
0
0007
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 014E-06
0
0923
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7 . 695E-08
0
0070
Th-230
1.411E-07
0
0128
6. 065E-09
0
0006
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 404E-08
0
0013
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 397E-09
0
0004
U-234
2.406E-10
0
0000
4 . 216E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3.423E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 364E-09
0
0002
U-235
4.854E-07
0
0441
3. 812E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3. 621E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 426E-09
0
0002
U-238
1.003E-07
0
0091
3.587E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
4.319E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 984E-09
0
0003
Total
9.253E-06
0
8415
6. 738E-08
0
0061
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
1. 541E-06
0
1401
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.343E-07
0
0122
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+01 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All pathways
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.104E-07
0
0282
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 224E-06
0
1114
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 878E-07
0
0353
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8 . 290E-06
0
7540
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 656E-07
0
0151
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 024E-08
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 . 953E-07
0
0450
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.112E-07
0
0101
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.100E-05
1
0000
CNRSI (i, p, t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 20
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
As pCi/yr at t= 1.000E+02 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon)
Water Dependent Pathways
Radio-
Nuclide Inhalation Plant
Ac-227
Pa-231
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
U-234
U-235
U-238
4.352E-03
5.006E-03
5.641E-03
5.598E-03
5.532E-03
6.973E-03
5.006E-03
5.006E-03
5.006E-03
Milk
Soil
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
9.58 9E-02
2.032E+01
3.677E+00
1.810E+01
7.058E+00
4.689E-01
1.184E+00
1.184E+00
1.184E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
Fish
Plant
Milk
7 .112E-01
8 .180E-01
9. 218E-01
9.14 8E-01
9.041E-01
1.14 0E + 00
8 .180E-01
8 .180E-01
8 .180E-01
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Total
Ingestion*
8 . 071E-01
2 .114E+01
4.599E+00
1. 902E+01
7 . 962E+00
1. 608E+00
2 . 002E+00
2.002E+00
2 . 002E+00
Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil
and water-dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products as pCi/yr at t= 1.000E+02 years
Radionuclides
Radon
Pathway Rn-222 Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+02 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
und Inhalation Plant Meat Milk
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
risk fract.
Ac-227
9.435E-07
0
1024
2 . 223E-08
0
0024
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .503E-09
0.0002
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.114E-08
0
0012
Pa-231
8 . 474E-08
0
0092
9.152E-09
0
0010
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .100E-07
0.0119
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 429E-09
0
0005
Pb-210
3. 238E-09
0
0004
2 . 238E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .063E-07
0.0115
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 664E-08
0
0029
Po-210
3.40 9E-11
0
0000
1. 973E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
9 . 912E-07
0.1076
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 010E-08
0
0054
Ra-226
6.244E-06
0
6775
3. 795E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
8 .835E-08
0.0096
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.132E-08
0
0012
Th-230
8.184E-10
0
0001
5. 939E-09
0
0006
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .396E-09
0.0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 393E-09
0
0004
U-234
1.688E-10
0
0000
3.341E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 .712E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 873E-09
0
0002
U-235
3.84 3E-07
0
0417
3.004E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 .771E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.914E-09
0
0002
U-238
7.948E-08
0
0086
2 . 843E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
3 .4 23E-09
0.0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 365E-09
0
0003
Total
7.740E-06
0
8399
5. 452E-08
0
0059
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .308E-06
0.1419
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.132E-07
0
0123
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 21
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+02 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All Pathways**
risk fract.
Water
Radio-
Nuclide risk f
Fish
Plant
Milk
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9.784E-07
0
1062
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 083E-07
0
0226
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.384E-07
0
0150
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 043E-06
0
1132
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
6.348E-06
0
6888
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.155E-08
0
0013
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8 . 094E-09
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 920E-07
0
0425
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
8 . 811E-08
0
0096
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
9.216E-06
1
0000
Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil
and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E+02 years
Radon
Pathway
Radionuclides
Rn-222
Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 22
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+02 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
Ground
Inhalation
Radon
Plant
Milk
Soil
Radio-
nuclide
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
Ac-227
1.811E-08
0
0020
4 . 267E-10
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 821E-11
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 .138E-10
0
0000
Pa-231
1.008E-06
0
1094
3. 090E-08
0
0034
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1.112E-07
0
0121
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 533E-08
0
0017
Pb-210
1.059E-10
0
0000
1. 373E-10
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3. 605E-08
0
0039
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 510E-09
0
0003
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
Ra-226
5.90 9E-0 6
0
6412
7 . 503E-09
0
0008
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1.103E-06
0
1197
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8 . 201E-08
0
0089
Th-230
3.38 9E-07
0
0368
6.29 9E-0 9
0
0007
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
4 . 781E-08
0
0052
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6.919E-09
0
0008
U-234
3.32 6E-10
0
0000
3.345E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
2 . 731E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 877E-09
0
0002
U-235
3.862E-07
0
0419
3. 065E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3. 035E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 945E-09
0
0002
U-238
7.948E-08
0
0086
2 . 844E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3. 424E-09
0
0004
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 365E-09
0
0003
Total
7.740E-06
0
8399
5. 452E-08
0
0059
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
1. 308E-06
0
1419
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.132E-07
0
0123
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+02 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All pathways
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 877E-08
0
0020
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.166E-06
0
1265
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 880E-08
0
0042
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7 .102E-06
0
7706
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 999E-07
0
0434
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
8 . 285E-09
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 942E-07
0
0428
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8 . 811E-08
0
0096
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9.216E-06
1
0000
CNRSI (i, p, t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 23
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
As pCi/yr at t= 3.000E+02 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon)
Water Dependent Pathways
Radio-
Nuclide Inhalation Plant
Ac-227
Pa-231
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
U-234
U-235
U-238
2.232E-03
2.577E-03
3.660E-03
3.632E-03
3.618E-03
6.963E-03
2.577E-03
2.577E-03
2.577E-03
Milk
Soil
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
4.925E-02
1.04 6E + 01
2.386E+00
1.174E+01
4.615E+00
4.682E-01
6.097E-01
6.097E-01
6.097E-01
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
Fish
Plant
Milk
3. 647E-01
4 . 212E-01
5. 981E-01
5. 935E-01
5. 912E-01
1.138E + 00
4 . 212E-01
4 . 212E-01
4 . 212E-01
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Total
Ingestion*
4.14 0E-01
1.088E+01
2.984E+00
1. 234E+01
5. 206E+00
1.60 6E+ 00
1.031E+00
1.031E+00
1.031E+00
Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil
and water-dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products as pCi/yr at t= 3.000E+02 years
Radionuclides
Radon
Pathway Rn-222 Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+02 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
und Inhalation Plant Meat Milk
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
risk fract.
Ac-227
4.845E-07
0
0834
1.142E-08
0
0020
0.000E+00
0
0000
7 .725E-10
0.0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
5.721E-09
0
0010
Pa-231
4.363E-08
0
0075
4 . 712E-09
0
0008
0.000E+00
0
0000
5 . 664E-08
0.0098
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 281E-09
0
0004
Pb-210
2.107E-09
0
0004
1. 457E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
6 . 916E-08
0.0119
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 734E-08
0
0030
Po-210
2.219E-11
0
0000
1. 284E-09
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
6 .4 51E-07
0.1111
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3. 260E-08
0
0056
Ra-226
4.098E-06
0
7056
2 . 491E-09
0
0004
0.000E+00
0
0000
5 .7 98E-08
0.0100
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7 . 427E-09
0
0013
Th-230
8.172E-10
0
0001
5. 930E-09
0
0010
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .394E-09
0.0002
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.388E-09
0
0006
U-234
8.692E-11
0
0000
1. 720E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .396E-09
0.0002
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9. 645E-10
0
0002
U-235
1.978E-07
0
0341
1.546E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .427E-09
0.0002
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9. 857E-10
0
0002
U-238
4.092E-08
0
0070
1. 464E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .763E-09
0.0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 218E-09
0
0002
Total
4.868E-06
0
8382
3. 202E-08
0
0055
0.000E+00
0
0000
8 .356E-07
0.1439
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7 .192E-08
0
0124
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 24
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+02 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All Pathways**
risk fract.
Water
Radio-
Nuclide risk f
Fish
Plant
Milk
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5.025E-07
0
0865
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.073E-07
0
0185
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
9. 007E-08
0
0155
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6. 790E-07
0
1169
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 .166E-06
0
7173
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.153E-08
0
0020
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 .168E-09
0
0007
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2.018E-07
0
0347
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 . 537E-08
0
0078
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 807E-06
1
0000
Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil
and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products at t= 3.000E+02 years
Radon
Pathway
Radionuclides
Rn-222
Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 25
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+02 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
Ground
Inhalation
Radon
Plant
Milk
Soil
Radio-
nuclide
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
Ac-227
5.976E-12
0
0000
1. 408E-13
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
6.010E-15
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7.056E-14
0
0000
Pa-231
5.250E-07
0
0904
1.603E-08
0
0028
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
5. 704E-08
0
0098
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7.952E-09
0
0014
Pb-210
1.473E-13
0
0000
1.911E-13
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
5.017E-11
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.493E-12
0
0000
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
Ra-226
3.371E-06
0
5804
4 . 361E-09
0
0008
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
6.507E-07
0
1120
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 826E-08
0
0083
Th-230
7.294E-07
0
1256
6.789E-09
0
0012
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 227E-07
0
0211
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 247E-08
0
0021
U-234
9.42 0E-10
0
0002
1. 730E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1.530E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9.79 6E-10
0
0002
U-235
2.011E-07
0
0346
1.64 6E-0 9
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 805E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 035E-09
0
0002
U-238
4.092E-08
0
0070
1.465E-09
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1. 764E-09
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 218E-09
0
0002
Total
4.868E-06
0
8382
3.202E-08
0
0055
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
8 . 356E-07
0
1439
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7 .192E-08
0
0124
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 3.000E+02 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All pathways
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6.193E-12
0
0000
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6. 060E-07
0
1043
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5. 400E-11
0
0000
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 074E-06
0
7015
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
8 . 714E-07
0
1500
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5.182E-09
0
0009
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 055E-07
0
0354
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 537E-08
0
0078
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5. 807E-06
1
0000
CNRSI (i, p, t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 26
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
As pCi/yr at t= 1.000E+03 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation w/o radon)
Water Dependent Pathways
Radio-
Nuclide Inhalation Plant
Ac-227
Pa-231
Pb-210
Po-210
Ra-226
Th-230
U-234
U-235
U-238
2.186E-04
2.524E-04
1.386E-03
1.375E-03
1.427E-03
6.911E-03
2.524E-04
2.524E-04
2.524E-04
Milk
Soil
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
4.824E-03
1.025E+00
9.039E-01
4.445E+00
1.820E+00
4.647E-01
5.971E-02
5.971E-02
5.971E-02
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
Fish
Plant
Milk
3. 572E-02
4 .125E-02
2 . 266E-01
2 . 247E-01
2 . 332E-01
1.129E + 00
4 .125E-02
4 .125E-02
4 .125E-02
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0.000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0. 000E + 00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
0 .000E+00
Total
Ingestion*
4 . 055E-02
1. 066E+00
1.130E+00
4 . 670E+00
2 . 053E+00
1. 594E+00
1. 010E-01
1. 010E-01
1. 010E-01
Sum of all ingestion pathways, i.e. water independent plant, meat, milk, soil
and water-dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Amount of Intake Quantities QINT9(irn,i,t) and QINT9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products as pCi/yr at t= 1.000E+03 years
Radionuclides
Radon
Pathway Rn-222 Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total
0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+03 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
und Inhalation Plant Meat Milk
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
risk fract.
Ac-227
4.74 6E-08
0
0230
1.118E-09
0
0005
0.000E+00
0
0000
7 .566E-11
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
5. 604E-10
0
0003
Pa-231
4.273E-09
0
0021
4 . 615E-10
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
5 .548E-09
0.0027
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 234E-10
0
0001
Pb-210
8.110E-10
0
0004
5. 606E-10
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 662E-08
0.0129
0.000E+00
0
0000
6. 673E-09
0
0032
Po-210
8.533E-12
0
0000
4.938E-10
0
0002
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 .4 81E-07
0.1204
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 254E-08
0
0061
Ra-226
1.642E-06
0
7968
9.979E-10
0
0005
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 .323E-08
0.0113
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 976E-09
0
0014
Th-230
8.111E-10
0
0004
5.88 6E-0 9
0
0029
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .384E-09
0.0007
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 362E-09
0
0016
U-234
8.513E-12
0
0000
1.685E-10
0
0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .367E-10
0.0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
9.44 6E-11
0
0000
U-235
1.938E-08
0
0094
1.515E-10
0
0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1 .398E-10
0.0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
9.654E-11
0
0000
U-238
4.008E-09
0
0019
1.433E-10
0
0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
1 .726E-10
0.0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.193E-10
0
0001
Total
1.719E-06
0
8340
9.981E-09
0
0048
0.000E+00
0
0000
3 .054E-07
0.1482
0.000E+00
0
0000
2.664E-08
0
0129
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 27
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS(i,p,t) for Individual Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+03 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All Pathways**
risk fract.
Water
Radio-
Nuclide risk f
Fish
Plant
Milk
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4 . 921E-08
0
0239
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.051E-08
0
0051
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
3. 4 67E-08
0
0168
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2.611E-07
0
1267
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 669E-06
0
8100
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1.144E-08
0
0056
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4.082E-10
0
0002
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
1. 977E-08
0
0096
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
4 . 443E-09
0
0022
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 . 061E-06
1
0000
Sum of water independent ground, inhalation, plant, meat, milk, soil
and water dependent water, fish, plant, meat, milk pathways
Excess Cancer Risks CNRS9(irn,i,t) and CNRS9W(irn,i,t) for Inhalation of
Radon and its Decay Products at t= 1.000E+03 years
Radon
Pathway
Radionuclides
Rn-222
Po-218
Pb-214
Bi-214
Rn-220
Po-216
Pb-212
Bi-212
Water-ind. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-dep. 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Total 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
Water-ind. == Water-independent Water-dep. == Water-dependent
-------
RESRAD-ONSITE, Version 7.2 Limit = 30 days 06/06/2019 08:31 Page 28
Intrisk : RESRAD Tronox Ranching Scenario
File : C:\RESRAD_FAMILY\ONSITE\7.2\USERFILES\SITE23.RAD
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+03 years
Water Independent Pathways (Inhalation excludes radon)
Ground
Inhalation
Radon
Plant
Milk
Soil
Radio-
nuclide
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
risk
fract.
Ac-227
3.902E-24
0
0000
9.195E-2 6
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
3. 924E-27
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4.607E-26
0
0000
Pa-231
5.066E-08
0
0246
1.547E-09
0
0008
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
5.504E-09
0
0027
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
7.674E-10
0
0004
Pb-210
1.482E-23
0
0000
1.922E-23
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
5.046E-21
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
3.513E-22
0
0000
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
Ra-226
4.725E-07
0
2293
6.114E-10
0
0003
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
9.122E-08
0
0443
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
6 . 7 6 6E-0 9
0
0033
Th-230
1.168E-06
0
5669
7.308E-09
0
0035
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
2 . 076E-07
0
1007
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 874E-08
0
0091
U-234
2.805E-09
0
0014
1.871E-10
0
0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
6. 284E-10
0
0003
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 396E-10
0
0001
U-235
2.045E-08
0
0099
1.843E-10
0
0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
2 . 589E-10
0
0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.128E-10
0
0001
U-238
4.010E-09
0
0019
1.438E-10
0
0001
0.000E+00
0
0000
0 .000E + 00
0.0000
1.733E-10
0
0001
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1.196E-10
0
0001
Total
1.719E-06
0
8340
9.981E-09
0
0048
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0 .000E+00
0.0000
3. 054E-07
0
1482
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 664E-08
0
0129
Total Excess Cancer Risk CNRS(i,p,t)* ** for Initially Existent Radionuclides (i) and Pathways (p)
and Fraction of Total Risk at t= 1.000E+03 years
Water Dependent Pathways
All pathways
Nuclide risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract. risk fract.
Ac-227
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4.044E-24
0
0000
Pa-231
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5.84 8E-08
0
0284
Pb-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5. 431E-21
0
0000
Po-210
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
Ra-226
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
5. 711E-07
0
2772
Th-230
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
1. 402E-06
0
6803
U-234
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
3.760E-09
0
0018
U-235
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
2 .100E-08
0
0102
U-238
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
4.446E-09
0
0022
Total
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0.000E+00
0.0000
0.000E+00
0
0000
0. 000E + 00
0
0000
2 . 061E-06
1
0000
CNRSI (i, p, t) includes contribution from decay daughter radionuclides
-------
APPENDIX K
COST ESTIMATE DETAILS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix K
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-l
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Source: WESTON, 2022
ALTERNATIVE
DESCRIPTION
CAPITAL COST
(2022)
ANNUAL O&M COST
PRESENT WORTH
(2022)
PLANNING
DURATION
CONSTRUCTION
DURATION
TOTAL
DURATION
First 12 Years
All 99 Years
1
No Further Action
$
$ 36,624
$ 18,901
$ 561,000
-
-
-
2
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Soil at
a Licensed Low-Level Radioactive Facility
$ 29,763,726
$ 36,624
$
$ 30,055,000
3 Months
7 Months
0.8 Years
3
Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at an On-
Site Repository
$ 14,426,964
$ 65,518
$ 33,348
$ 15,424,000
3 Months
6 Months
0.7 Years
4
Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place
$ 23,568,735
$ 65,518
$ 33,348
$ 24,565,000
3 Months
9 Months
1 Years
Key Assumptions:
1) Planning duration (3 months) was provided by EPA based on an expectation that much of the planning work will be performed concurrently with initial construction efforts (such as clearing and grubbing).
2) Durations assume construction will continue year-round.
Net present value was calcuated as follows:
NPV = Capital Cost + Annual Cost (Year 0 to 12) * P/A + Annual Cost (Years 12-99). Adjustments for future value at year 12 not included.
Net Present Value (NPV)
Real Discount Rate, i = 7.0%
Life cycle 1 (years), n 12
Uniform Series Present Worth Factor (P/A) = 7.94
Life cycle 2 (years) to year 99, n 87
Uniform Series Present Worth Factor (P/A) = 14.25
l'^l US EPA REGION 6
Page 1 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-2
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 1 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
No Further Action
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
lli'in lh'MTi|iiMni
(.>ii.iiini%
1 nil
1 Mil ( n\l
1- Ml'llsiini
Ill-ill liii.il
PRSC COSTS (O & M):
1 Additional Effort for First 12-years O&M
Quarterly Inspections (2 person crew, 1 day, 10 hrs/day)
80
HR
$95.68
$7,654.08
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (round trip)
848
MI
$0.62
$525.76
Inspection Crew Per Diem
8
DAY
$155.00
$1,240.00
Assumed Annual Maintenance Costs (revegetation, watering, fence repairs)
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Preparation of Semi-annual Reports (Professional Engineer)
40
HR
$180.10
$7,203.84
Subtotal: Additional First 12-years Annual PRSC Costs:
$36,624
Present Value - O&M costs for 12 years (@-7% discount rate)
$290,890
2 99 Years O&M Costs
Annual Inspection (2 person crew, 2 days, lOhrs/day)
40
HR
$95.68
$3,827.04
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (round trip)
212
MI
$0.62
$131.44
Inspection Crew Per Diem
4
DAY
$155.00
$620.00
Assumed Annual Maintenance Costs
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
Preparation of Annual Report (Professional Engineer)
24
HR
$180.10
$4,322.30
Subtotal 99-years Annual PRSC Costs:
$18,901
Present Value - O&M costs for 99 years (@-7% discount rate)
$269,680
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$560,570
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (rounded up to nearest $1,000)
S561,000
Notes:
No Further Action Annual Costs include maintenance of erosion and stormwater controls and fencing.
Abbreviations:
HR = hour MI = mile LS = lump sum
PRSC = post-removal site control
w j US EPA REGION 6
2 of 18 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-3
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 2 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Soil at a Licensed Low-Level Radioactive Facility
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
START CONTRACTOR / EPA
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
Item
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extension
Item Total
Duration
CAPITAL COSTS:
1
1 Engineering Costs (Design Costs)
Project Manager
100
HR
$115.00
$11,500.00
Project Engineer
200
HR
$180.10
$36,019.20
Design Engineer
300
HR
$112.56
$33,768.00
CAD/GIS Operator
400
HR
$95.68
$38,270.40
Admin
100
HR
$100.00
$10,000.00
Expenses
1
LS
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
3.0
Subtotal Engineering Costs
$134,558
Months
2
Planning Documents (Work Plan, Health & Safety Plan, QA Plan, and SWPPP)
Project Manager
50
HR
$115.00
$5,750.00
Project Engineer
300
HR
$180.10
$54,028.80
CAD/GIS Operator
100
HR
$95.68
$9,567.60
Admin
50
HR
$100.00
$5,000.00
Expenses
1
LS
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Planning Documents
$75,346
Item 1
3
Resource Surveys
Geotechnical Testing and Report
2
EA
$28,000.00
$56,000.00
Pre-Project Aerial LIDAR Survey
20
AC
$201.60
$4,032.00
Post-Project Aerial LIDAR Survey
20
AC
$201.60
$4,032.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Resource Surveys
$64,064
Other Work
4
1 Mobilization/Demobilization
1
LS
$853,160.90
$853,160.90
0.5
Subtotal Mob/Demob
$853,161
Months
5
Improve/Blaze Access Roads
Gravel Road Surfacing (8" Depth)
11,734
SY
$4.06
$47,618.49
Dozer, D-9 (2)
2
DAY
$4,458.86
$8,917.72
Grader (1)
1
DAY
$1,884.66
$1,884.66
Backhoe Loader (2)
2
DAY
$1,423.67
$2,847.34
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
1
DAY
$2,361.91
$2,361.91
Laborer (5)
25
HR
$71.19
$1,779.86
0.4
Subtotal Improve Access Road
$65,410
Months
6
Construction Water
Construction Water, including Hauling
1,266,000
GAL
$0.11
$132,930.00
Portable Water Tower Trailer, 10,000 gallons (2)
220
DAY
$1,741
$383,004.16
Concurrent with
Subtotal Construction Water
$515,934
Other Work
7
1 Clearing and Grubbing
Dozer, D-9 (2)
7
DAY
$4,458.86
$31,212.03
Crawler Loader (1)
4
DAY
$2,790.58
$11,162.31
Brush Chipper, 12"
4
DAY
$1,317.51
$5,270.05
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
4
DAY
$2,361.91
$9,447.64
Laborer (5)
167
HR
$71.19
$11,889.43
0.2
Subtotal Clearing and Grubbing
$68,981
Months
8
1 Erosion and Sediment Control
Silt Fence
16,000
LF
$0.54
$8,644.61
Sediment Log, Filter Sock, 9"
4,000
LF
$4.20
$16,808.96
Loader, Skid Steer, 30 H.P. (1)
10
DAY
$1,351.41
$13,514.10
Flatbed Truck (1)
10
DAY
$1,267.94
$12,679.42
Laborer (5)
493
HR
$71.19
$35,098.74
Concurrent with
Subtotal Erosion and Sediment Control
$86,746
Other Work
9
Headworks Removal
Flatbed Truck (1)
2
DAY
$1,267.94
$2,535.88
Structural Steel Foreman (1)
20
HR
$105.30
$2,106.00
Structural Steel Worker (1)
20
HR
$101.81
$2,036.21
Truck Driver (1)
20
HR
$82.56
$1,651.26
Laborer (5)
100
HR
$71.19
$7,119.42
Concurrent with
Subtotal Headworks Removal
$15,449
Other Work
10
Fill Adit and Vent Shaft and Plug with Polyurethane Foam (PUF)
Dump Truck, 34 CY, Off-Road (1)
4
DAY
$2,940.28
$11,761.10
Backhoe Loader (2)
4
DAY
$2,610.55
$10,442.20
Pump, Concrete, Truck Mounted, 4" Line, 80' Boom (1)
1
DAY
$3,207.40
$3,207.40
Polyurethane Foam
32
CY
$390.00
$12,365.66
Laborer (5)
81
HR
$71.19
$5,766.73
0.2
Subtotal Fill Adit and Vent Shaft and Plug with Polyurethane Foam (PUF)
$43,543
Months
w USEPA REGION 6
Page 3 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-3 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 2 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Soil at a Licensed Low-Level Radioactive Facility
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
START CONTRACTOR / EPA
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
11
On-Site Waste Consolidation and Stockpiling for Transport to OfFsite Facility
Backhoe Loader (2)
116
DAY
$2,610.55
$302,823.73
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
58
DAY
$2,361.91
$136,990.82
Laborer (5)
1,445
HR
$71.19
$102,875.62
Concurrent with
Subtotal Waste Consolidation and Stockpiling
$542,690
Item 13
12
Transport and Disposal (Clean Harbors, Deer Trail, CO)
Backhoe Loader (2)
272
DAY
$3,207.40
$872,412.33
Total Number
Grader (1) (road maintenance)
136
DAY
$1,884.66
$256,314.27
of Off-Site
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
136
DAY
$2,361.91
$321,219.85
Truck Loads
Transport Legal Load and Disposal Fee (estimated at 45,000 lbs/load)
60,930
TON
$62.15
$3,786,829.33
2,708
Truck Mobilization Fee (2708 trucks)
2,708
EA
$1,266.73
$3,430,304.84
Truck Tarp (2708 trucks)
2,708
EA
$118.65
$321,304.20
Disposal at Facility
60,930
TON
$84.75
$5,163,858.18
5.3
Subtotal Off-Site Transport and Disposal
$14,152,243
Months
13
Confirmation Sampling - will happen concurrently with field work
Develop Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
Geologist
80
HR
$118.19
$9,455.04
Project Manager
20
HR
$115.00
$2,300.00
Admin
20
HR
$100.00
$2,000.00
Sampling
Sampling Team (two 2-person crews)
750
HR
$95.68
$71,757.00
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Sites (1 round trip per week)
1,325
MI
$0.54
$715.50
Per Diem (2 people)
75
DAY
$142.00
$10,650.00
Gamma Scanning Equipment and Miscellaneous Field Supplies and Expenses
1
LS
$13,125.00
$13,125.00
Lab Analysis (15 samples per 2,000 m2 survey area = 30 samples per acre)
750
EA
$84.75
$63,562.50
Oversight during the Construction Duration
Project Manager
5,400
HR
$115.00
$621,000.00
Site Superintendent
5,400
HR
$100.00
$540,000.00
Radiation T echnician
5,400
HR
$135.00
$729,000.00
Field Technician
5,400
HR
$80.00
$432,000.00
Off-Site Office
7
MO
$700.00
$4,900.00
Reporting
Geologist/Project Scientist
120
HR
$118.19
$14,182.56
Project Manager
30
HR
$115.00
$3,450.00
Project Engineer
30
HR
$180.10
$5,402.88
Health Physicist
30
HR
$180.10
$5,402.88
CAD/GIS Operator
120
HR
$95.68
$11,481.12
Admin
30
HR
$100.00
$3,000.00
Copying
4
LS
$156.25
$625.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Confirmation Sampling
$2,544,009
Other Work
14
Site Restoration (staging areas, general disturbance areas)
Tractor (2)
6
DAY
$1,529.30
$9,175.77
Grader(3)
11
DAY
$1,884.66
$20,731.30
Flat Bed Truck (1)
4
DAY
$1,267.94
$5,071.77
Power Mulcher (1)
2
DAY
$1,500.82
$3,001.65
6000 Gal Water Truck (2)
8
DAY
$2,361.91
$18,895.29
Laborer (5)
182
HR
$71.19
$12,957.34
Seed Mix
20
AC
$12.52
$250.44
Soil Amendments (Humate)
20
AC
$192.39
$3,847.78
Fertilizer
20
AC
$0.68
$13.60
Mulch
20
AC
$6.36
$127.30
0.2
Subtotal Site Restoration
$74,072
Months
15
Per Diem
Construction Crew Per Diem (40 people)
7,200
DAY
$142.00
$1,022,400.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Construction Crew Per Diem
$1,022,400
Other Work
w USEPA REGION 6
Page 4 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-3 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 2 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Excavation and Off-Site Disposal of Contaminated Soil at a Licensed Low-Level Radioactive Facility
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
START CONTRACTOR / EPA
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
16 Contractor Project Management
Project Manager
1,500
HR
$115.00
$172,500.00
Site Superintendent, H&S Officer, and QA/QC Officer
5,400
HR
$100.00
$540,000.00
Site Foreman (3)
5,400
HR
$29.27
$158,034.24
Field Accountant (1)
1,800
HR
$100.00
$180,000.00
Site Vehicles- 4WD Trucks (7)
7
MO
$5,402.88
$37,820.16
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (106 mi/each way)
33,120
MI
$0.54
$17,884.80
Fuel for Vehicles
720
MO
$3,253.33
$2,342,400.00
Port-o-let Rental (4)
7
MO
$499.47
$3,496.26
Job Trailers (2)
7
MO
$294.16
$2,059.10
Storage Boxes (2)
7
MO
$103.26
$722.79
Field Office Lights/HVAC (1)
7
MO
$195.70
$1,369.93
T elephone/internet (1)
7
MO
$104.46
$731.19
Field Office Equipment
7
MO
$276.15
$1,933.03
Field Office Supplies
7
MO
$104.46
$731.19
Trash (2 dumpsters)
7
MO
$490.08
$3,430.54
Air Monitoring Equipment
7
MO
$9,914.21
$69,399.48
Truck Scales
7
MO
$339.00
$2,373.00
Concurrent with
Generator (1)
7
MO
$2,498.30
$17,488.10
Subtotal Contractor Project Management
$3,552,374
Other Work
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COSTS:
$23,810,9S1
Project
17 Contingency - 25% (Items 1-17)
25%
X
$23,810,981
$5,952,745
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS:
$29,763,726
3.0
PRSC COSTS (0 & Mi:
Months
18 Additional Effort for First 12-years O&M
Quarterly Inspections (2 person crew, 1 day, 10 hrs/day)
80
HR
$95.68
$7,654.08
Construction
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (round trip)
848
MI
$0.62
$525.76
180
Inspection Crew Per Diem
8
DAY
$155.00
$1,240.00
Work Days
Preparation of Semi-annual Reports (Professional Engineer)
40
HR
$180.10
$7,203.84
Assumed Annual Maintenance Costs (revegetation, watering, fence repairs)
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
7.0
Subtotal: Additional First 12-years Annual PRSC Costs:
$36,624
Months
Present Value - O&M costs for 12 years (@-7% discount rate)
$290,890
19 99 Years O&M Costs (No O&M beyond first 12-years)
TOTAL
Annual Inspection (2 person crew, 2 days, lOhrs/day)
0
HR
$95.68
$0.00
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (round trip)
0
MI
$0.62
$0.00
252
Inspection Crew Per Diem
0
DAY
$155.00
$0.00
Work Days
Assumed Annual Maintenance Costs
0
LS
$10,000.00
$0.00
Preparation of Annual Report (Professional Engineer)
0
HR
$180.10
$0.00
9.8
Subtotal 99-years Annual PRSC Costs:
$0
Months
Present Value - O&M costs for 99 years (@-7% discount rate)
$0
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$30,054,616
TOTAL ESTIMA TED COST (rounded up to nearest $1,000)
$30,055,000
Key Assumptions:
1) Labor factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Site and Infrastructure, Demolition (RSMeans, page 635).
2) Materials factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Site and Infrastructure, Demolition (RSMeans, page 635).
3) Equipment factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Contractor Equipment (RSMeans, page 635).
4) Costing assumes that the EPA will contract directly with a construction subcontractor/manager working out of the Grants, NM area.
5) Mileage is estimated to be 106 miles one way from Albuquerque, NM to the field site
6) Costs were developed assuming a 10-hour work day and 6 working days per week.
7) Mobilization costs include transportation of needed equipment and personnel (e.g. heavy equipment, office trailers, and additional supplies/equipment).
Equipment rates are based on monthly rental rates from RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 34th Annual Edition, 2020. All unit rates are marked up to include an
operator, labor or s are separate for ground support.
Unit costs and production rates are based on rates obtained fiom RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 34th Annual Edition, 2020. Unit costs include materials,
equipment, and labor.
Per diem rates are based on the maximum Federal 2022 CONUS Per Diem Rates.
Present value of post removal site control (PRSC) costs assume quarterly SWPPP insepctions and an annual general inspection and report for the first 12 years. Costs also
assume minor fencing, revegetation, and water system repairs during each inspection.
Present Value Subtotal for PRSC costs assume a discount rate of 7.0%.
Costs for low level radiological waste transport and disposal were obtained fiom quotes fiom vendors in December 2019.
For detailed information on personnel and equipment rates, quantities, and cost adjustment factors, see Tables K-6 thru K-8.
The average density of all wastes were assumed to be 1.3 tons per cubic yard. A capacity of 45,000 lb/load was assumed, which is 22.5 tons/load. Loose cubic yards
assumed a 20% swell factor.
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
Abbreviations:
CY = Cubic yards
LB = pound
MSF = thousand square feet
MI = Mile
CF = cubic foot
LF = linear feet
SF = square feet
PRSC = post-removal site control
EA = each
LS = Lump sum
SY = square yards
HR = hour
MO = Month
AC = Acre
w USEPA REGION 6
V®/ Page 5 of 18 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-4
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 3 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at an On-Site Repository
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
Mi-Hi D.mi i|iln>n
Oii.mliiv
1 nil
1 ml ( iivl
1 \lrllMMI
Ill-ill 1 "l.il
1 >111:ili«*ll
CAITTAI. COSTS:
ering Costs (Design Costs)
Project Manager
100
HR
$115.00
$11,500.00
Project Engineer
200
HR
$180.10
$36,019.20
Design Engineer
300
HR
$112.56
$33,768.00
CAD/GIS Operator
400
HR
$95.68
$38,270.40
Admin
100
HR
$100.00
$10,000.00
Expenses
1
LS
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
3.0
Subtotal Engineering Costs
$134,558
Months
Planning Documents (Work Plan, Health & Safety Plan, QA Plan, and SWPPP)
Project Manager
50
HR
$115.00
$5,750.00
Project Engineer
300
HR
$180.10
$54,028.80
CAD/GIS Operator
100
HR
$95.68
$9,567.60
Admin
50
HR
$100.00
$5,000.00
Expenses
1
LS
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Planning Documents
$75,346
Item 1
3 Resource Surveys
Geotechnical Testing and Report
2
EA
$28,000.00
$56,000.00
Pre-Project Aerial LIDAR Survey
20
AC
$201.60
$4,032.00
Post-Project Aerial LIDAR Survey
20
AC
$201.60
$4,032.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Resource Surveys
$64,064
Other Work
Mobilization/Demobilization
1
LS
$946,606.54
$946,606.54
0.5
Subtotal Mob/Demob
$946,607
Months
)rove/Blaze Access Roads
Gravel Road Surfacing (8" Depth)
11,734
SY
$4.06
$47,618.49
Dozer, D-9 (2)
2
DAY
$4,458.86
$8,917.72
Grader (1)
1
DAY
$1,884.66
$1,884.66
Backhoe Loader (2)
2
DAY
$1,423.67
$2,847.34
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
1
DAY
$2,361.91
$2,361.91
Laborer (5)
25
HR
$71.19
$1,779.86
0.4
Subtotal Improve Access Road
$65,410
Months
istruction Water
Construction Water, including Hauling
811,000
GAL
$0.11
$85,155.00
Portable Water Tower Trailer, 10,000 gallons (2)
309
DAY
$1,740.93
$537,946.75
Concurrent with
Subtotal Construction Water
$623,102
Other Work
Clearing and Grubbing
Dozer, D-9 (2)
7
DAY
$4,458.86
$31,212.03
Crawler Loader (1)
4
DAY
$2,790.58
$11,162.31
Brush Chipper, 12"
4
DAY
$1,317.51
$5,270.05
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
4
DAY
$2,361.91
$9,447.64
Laborer (5)
167
HR
$71.19
$11,889.43
0.2
Subtotal Clearing and Grubbing
$68,981
Months
Fence Construction / Repair
Fence Materials
2,640
LF
$23.95
$63,235.31
Flatbed Truck (1)
9
DAY
$1,267.94
$11,411.48
Manual Fence Post Auger (1)
9
DAY
$1,158.96
$10,430.62
Laborer (5)
440
HR
$82.56
$36,327.61
Concurrent with
Subtotal Fence Construction/Repair
$121,405
Other Work
'Sion and Sediment Control
Silt Fence
16,000
LF
$0.54
$8,644.61
Sediment Log, Filter Sock, 9"
4,000
LF
$4.20
$16,808.96
Loader, Skid Steer, 30 H.P. (1)
10
DAY
$1,351.41
$13,514.10
FlatbedTruck (1)
10
DAY
$1,267.94
$12,679.42
Laborer(5)
493
HR
$71.19
$35,098.74
Concurrent with
Subtotal Erosion and Sediment Control
$86,746
Other Work
Headworks Removal
FlatbedTruck (1)
2
DAY
$1,267.94
$2,535.88
Structural Steel Foreman (1)
20
HR
$105.30
$2,106.00
Structural Steel Worker (1)
20
HR
$101.81
$2,036.21
Truck Driver (1)
20
HR
$82.56
$1,651.26
Laborer(5)
100
HR
$71.19
$7,119.42
Concurrent with
Subtotal Headworks Removal
$15,449
Other Work
Fill Adit and Vent Shaft and Plug with Polyurethane Foam (PUF)
Dump Truck, 34 CY, Off-Road (1)
4
DAY
$2,940.28
$11,761.10
Backhoe Loader (1)
4
DAY
$2,610.55
$10,442.20
Pump, Concrete, Truck Mounted, 4" Line, 80' Boom (1)
1
DAY
$3,207.40
$3,207.40
Polyurethane Foam
32
CY
$390.00
$12,365.66
Laborer(5)
162
HR
$71.19
$11,533.46
0.2
Subtotal Fill Adit and Vent Shaft and Plug with Polyurethane Foam (PUF)
$49,310
Months
USEPA REGION 6
Page 6 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-4 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 3 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at an On-Site Repository
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
START CONTRACTOR / EPA
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
12
Qn-Site Waste Consolidation and Stockpiling at Onsite Repository
Backhoe Loader (2)
75
DAY
$2,610.55
$195,791.21
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
38
DAY
$2,361.91
$89,752.61
Laborer (5)
1,111
HR
$71.19
$79,096.76
1.5
Subtotal Waste Consolidation and Stockpiling
$364,641
Months
13
Excavation, Transportation, and Stockpile of Clean Cover Material
Excavator (1)
4
DAY
$4,913.37
$19,653.50
Loader (1)
19
DAY
$3,207.40
$60,940.57
Dozer, D-9 (1)
19
DAY
$4,458.86
$84,718.36
Number of Loads
Tractor Truck, 6x4 (450 HP) (6)
62
DAY
$1,796.76
$111,398.96
1,008
Dump Trailer Only (20 CY)
62
DAY
$155.14
$9,618.52
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
19
DAY
$2,361.91
$44,876.30
Laborer (5)
741
HR
$71.19
$52,754.90
2.4
Excavation, Transportation, and Stockpile of Clean Cover Material
$383,961
Months
14
Construction of Waste Cell
Dozer, D-9 (2)
15
DAY
$4,458.86
$66,882.92
Grader (1)
11
DAY
$1,884.66
$20,731.30
Sheepsfoot Roller, Dozer Towed (1)
3
DAY
$1,884.66
$5,653.99
Smooth Drum Roller, Dozer Towed (1)
3
DAY
$1,854.50
$5,563.50
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
8
DAY
$2,361.91
$18,895.29
Laborer (5)
215
HR
$71.19
$15,306.75
Compaction T esting
13
EA
$342.18
$4,281.04
Concurrent with
Subtotal Construction of Waste Cell
$137,315
Item 13
15
Construction of Clean Soil Cover
Dozer, D-9 (2)
17
DAY
$4,458.86
$75,800.64
Loader (1)
7
DAY
$3,207.40
$22,451.79
Grader (1)
11
DAY
$1,884.66
$20,731.30
Sheepsfoot Roller, Dozer Towed (1)
3
DAY
$1,884.66
$5,653.99
Smooth Drum Roller, Dozer Towed (1)
3
DAY
$1,854.50
$5,563.50
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
9
DAY
$2,361.91
$21,257.20
Laborer (5)
327
HR
$71.19
$23,280.50
Compaction Testing
14
EA
$342.18
$4,884.14
0.5
Subtotal Construction of Clean Soil Cover
$179,623
Months
16
Confirmation Sampling - will happen concurrently with field work
Develop Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
Geologist
80
HR
$118.19
$9,455.04
Project Manager
20
HR
$115.00
$2,300.00
Admin
20
HR
$100.00
$2,000.00
Sampling
Sampling Team (two 2-person crews)
300
HR
$95.68
$28,702.80
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Sites (1 round trip per week)
265
MI
$0.54
$143.10
Per Diem (4 people)
30
DAY
$142.00
$4,260.00
Gamma Scanning Equipment and Miscellaneous Field Supplies and Expenses
1
LS
$2,625.00
$2,625.00
Lab Analysis (15 samples per 2,000 m2 survey area = 30 samples per acre)
600
EA
$84.75
$50,850.00
Oversight during the Construction Duration
Project Manager
4,700
HR
$115.00
$540,500.00
Site Superintendent
4,700
HR
$100.00
$470,000.00
Radiation T echnician
4,700
HR
$135.00
$634,500.00
Field Technician
4,700
HR
$80.00
$376,000.00
Off-Site Office
6
MO
$700.00
$4,200.00
Reporting
Geologist/Project Scientist
120
HR
$118.19
$14,182.56
Project Manager
30
HR
$115.00
$3,450.00
Project Engineer
30
HR
$180.10
$5,402.88
Health Physicist
30
HR
$180.10
$5,402.88
CAD/GIS Operator
120
HR
$95.68
$11,481.12
Admin
30
HR
$100.00
$3,000.00
Copying
4
LS
$31.25
$125.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Confirmation Sampling
$2,168,580
Other Work
w USEPA REGION 6
Page 7 of 18 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-4 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 3 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at an On-Site Repository
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
START CONTRACTOR / EPA
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
17 Site Restoration (staging areas, general disturbance areas)
Tractor (2)
6
DAY
$1,529.30
$9,175.77
Grader(3)
11
DAY
$1,884.66
$20,731.30
Flat Bed Truck (1)
4
DAY
$1,267.94
$5,071.77
Power Mulcher (1)
2
DAY
$1,500.82
$3,001.65
6000 Gal Water Truck (2)
8
DAY
$2,361.91
$18,895.29
Laborer (5)
182
HR
$71.19
$12,957.34
Seed Mix
20
AC
$12.52
$250.44
Soil Amendments (Humate)
20
AC
$192.39
$3,847.78
Fertilizer
20
AC
$0.68
$13.60
Mulch
20
AC
$6.36
$127.30
0.2
Subtotal Site Restoration
$74,072
Months
18 Per Diem
Construction Crew Per Diem (40 people)
9,257
DAY
$142
$1,314,514
Concurrent with
Subtotal Construction Crew Per Diem
$1,314,514
Other Work
19 Contractor Project Management
Project Manager
1,500
HR
$115.00
$172,500.00
Site Superintendent, H&S Officer, and QA/QC Officer
5,600
HR
$100.00
$560,000.00
Site Foreman (3)
5,600
HR
$29.27
$163,887.36
Field Accountant (1)
3,700
HR
$100.00
$370,000.00
Site Vehicles- 4WD Trucks (7)
8
MO
$5,402.88
$43,223.04
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (106 mi/each way)
33,782
MI
$0.54
$18,242.50
Fuel for Vehicles
734
MO
$3,253.33
$2,389,248.00
Port-o-let Rental (4)
8
MO
$499.47
$3,995.73
Job Trailers (2)
8
MO
$294.16
$2,353.25
Storage Boxes (2)
8
MO
$103.26
$826.04
Field Office Lights/HVAC (1)
8
MO
$195.70
$1,565.63
T elephone/internet (1)
8
MO
$104.46
$835.65
Field Office Equipment
8
MO
$276.15
$2,209.18
Field Office Supplies
8
MO
$104.46
$835.65
Trash (2 dumpsters)
8
MO
$490.08
$3,920.62
Air Monitoring Equipment
8
MO
$9,914.21
$79,313.70
Generator (1)
8
MO
$2,498.30
$19,986.40
Subtotal Contractor Project Management
$3,812,956
Other Work
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COSTS:
$10,686,640
Project
21 Contingency - 25% (Items 1-19)
25%
X
$10,686,640
$2,671,660
22 Indirect Costs - 8% (Items 1-19, and 21)
8%
X
$13,358,300
$1,068,664
Planning
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS:
$14,426,964
3.0
PRSC COSTS (O & Ml:
Months
23 Additional Effort for First 12-years O&M
Quarterly Inspections (2 person crew, 2 days, 10 hrs/day)
160
HR
$95.68
$15,308.16
Construction
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (round trip)
848
MI
$0.62
$525.76
154
Inspection Crew Per Diem
16
DAY
$155.00
$2,480.00
Work Days
Preparation of Semi-annual Reports (Professional Engineer)
40
HR
$180.10
$7,203.84
Assumed Annual Maintenance Costs (revegetation, watering, fence repairs)
1
LS
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
6.0
Subtotal: Additional First 12-years Annual PRSC Costs:
$65,518
Months
Present Value - O&M costs for 12 years (@-7% discount rate)
$520,390
24 99 Years O&M Costs
TOTAL
Annual Inspection (2 person crew, 4 days, lOhrs/day)
80
HR
$95.68
$7,654.08
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (round trip)
212
MI
$0.62
$131.44
229
Inspection Crew Per Diem
8
DAY
$155.00
$1,240.00
Work Days
Assumed Annual Maintenance Costs
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Preparation of Annual Report (Professional Engineer)
24
HR
$180.10
$4,322.30
8.9
Subtotal 99-years Annual PRSC Costs:
$33,348
Months
Present Value - O&M costs for 99 years (@-7% discount rate)
$475,810
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$15,423,164
0.7
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (rounded up to nearest $1,000)
$15,424,000
Years
w USEPA REGION 6
Page 8 of 18 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-4 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 3 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Effort Legend
Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at an On-Site Repository
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Key Assumptions:
1) Labor factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Site and Infrastructure, Demolition (RSMeans, page 635).
2) Materials factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Site and Infrastructure, Demolition (RSMeans, page 635).
3) Equipment factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Contractor Equipment (RSMeans, page 635).
4) Costing assumes that the EPA will contract directly with a construction subcontractor/manager working out of the Grants, NM area.
5) Mileage is estimated to be 106 miles one way from Albuquerque, NM to the field site
6) Costs were developed assuming a 10-hour work day and 6 working days per week.
7) Mobilization costs include transportation of needed equipment and personnel (e.g. heavy equipment, office trailers, and additional supplies/equipment).
Equipment rates are based on monthly rental rates from RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 34th Annual Edition, 2020. All unit rates are marked up to include an
operator, laborors are separate for ground support.
Unit costs and production rates are based on rates obtained from RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 34th Annual Edition, 2020. Unit costs include materials,
equipment, and labor.
10) Per diem rates are based on the maximum Federal 2022 CONUS Per Diem Rates.
Present value of post removal site control (PRSC) costs assume quarterly SWPPP inspections and an annual general inspection and report for the first 12 years. Costs ata
assume minor fencing, revegetation, and water system repairs during each inspection.
12) Present Value Subtotal for PRSC costs assume a discount rate of 7.0%.
13) For detailed information on personnel and equipment rates, quantities, and cost adjustment factors, see Tables K-6 thru K-8.
The average density of all wastes were assumed to be 1.3 tons per cubic yard. A capacity of 45,000 lb/load was assumed, which is 22.5 tons/load. Loose cubic yards
assumed a 20% swell factor.
Abbreviations:
CY = Cubic yards
LB = pound
MSF = thousand square feet
MI = Mile
CF = cubic foot
LF = linear feet
SF = square feet
PRSC = post-removal site control
EA = each
LS = Lump sum
SY = square yards
HR = hour
MO = Month
AC = Acre
US EPA REGION 6
Page 9 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-5
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 4 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
START CONTRACTOR/EPA
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
Item
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Extension
Item Total
Duration
CAPITAL COSTS:
1
Engineering Costs (Design Costs)
Project Manager
150
HR
$115.00
$17,250.00
Project Engineer
450
HR
$180.10
$81,043.20
Design Engineer
900
HR
$112.56
$101,304.00
CAD/GIS Operator
600
HR
$95.68
$57,405.60
Admin
150
HR
$100.00
$15,000.00
Expenses
1
LS
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
3.0
Subtotal Engineering Costs
$277,003
Months
2
Planning Documents (Work Plan, Health & Safety Plan, QA Plan, and SWPPP)
Project Manager
50
HR
$115.00
$5,750.00
Project Engineer
300
HR
$180.10
$54,028.80
CAD/GIS Operator
100
HR
$95.68
$9,567.60
Admin
50
HR
$100.00
$5,000.00
Expenses
1
LS
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Planning Documents
$75,346
Item 1
3
Resource Surveys
Geotechnical T esting and Report
2
EA
$28,000.00
$56,000.00
Pre-Project Aerial LIDAR Survey
20
AC
$201.60
$4,032.00
Post-Project Aerial LIDAR Survey
20
AC
$201.60
$4,032.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Resource Surveys
$64,064
Other Work
4
1 Mobilization/Demobilization
1
LS
$1,549,264.48
$1,549,264.48
0.5
Subtotal Mob/Demob
$1,549,264
Months
5
Improve/Blaze Access Roads
Gravel Road Surfacing (8" Depth)
11,734
SY
$4.06
$47,618.49
Dozer, D-9 (2)
2
DAY
$4,458.86
$8,917.72
Grader (1)
1
DAY
$1,884.66
$1,884.66
Backhoe Loader (2)
2
DAY
$1,423.67
$2,847.34
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
1
DAY
$2,361.91
$2,361.91
Laborer (5)
41
HR
$71.19
$2,918.96
0.4
Subtotal Improve Access Road
$66,549
Months
6
Construction Water
Construction Water, including Hauling
914,000
GAL
$0.11
$95,970.00
Portable Water Tower Trailer, 10,000 gallons (2)
463
DAY
$1,740.93
$806,049.66
Concurrent with
Subtotal Construction Water
$902,020
Other Work
7
1 Clearing and Grubbing
Dozer, D-9 (2)
7
DAY
$4,458.86
$31,212.03
Crawler Loader (1)
4
DAY
$2,790.58
$11,162.31
Brush Chipper, 12"
4
DAY
$1,317.51
$5,270.05
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
4
DAY
$2,361.91
$9,447.64
Laborer (5)
167
HR
$71.19
$11,889.43
0.2
Subtotal Clearing and Grubbing
$68,981
Months
8
1 Fence Construction / Repair
Fence Materials
2,640
LF
$23.95
$63,235.31
Flatbed Truck (1)
9
DAY
$1,267.94
$11,411.48
Manual Fence Post Auger (1)
9
DAY
$1,158.96
$10,430.62
Laborer (5)
440
HR
$71.19
$31,325.45
Concurrent with
Subtotal Fence Construction/Repair
$116,403
Other Work
9
Erosion and Sediment Control
Silt Fence
16,000
LF
$0.54
$8,644.61
Sediment Log, Filter Sock, 9"
4,000
LF
$4.20
$16,808.96
Loader, Skid Steer, 30 H.P. (1)
10
DAY
$1,351.41
$13,514.10
Flatbed Truck (1)
10
DAY
$1,267.94
$12,679.42
Laborer (5)
493
HR
$71.19
$35,098.74
Concurrent with
Subtotal Erosion and Sediment Control
$86,746
Other Work
10
Headworks Removal
Flatbed Truck (1)
2
DAY
$1,267.94
$2,535.88
Structural Steel Foreman (1)
20
HR
$105.30
$2,106.00
Structural Steel Worker (1)
20
HR
$101.81
$2,036.21
Truck Driver (1)
20
HR
$82.56
$1,651.26
Laborer (5)
100
HR
$71.19
$7,119.42
Concurrent with
Subtotal Headworks Removal
$15,449
Other Work
w USEPA REGION 6
Page 10 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-5 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 4 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
START CONTRACTOR/EPA
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
11
Fill Adit and Vent Shaft and Plug with Polyurethane Foam (PUF)
Dump Truck, 34 CY, Off-Road (1)
4
DAY
$2,940.28
$11,761.10
Backhoe Loader (1)
4
DAY
$2,610.55
$10,442.20
Pump, Concrete, Truck Mounted, 4" Line, 80' Boom (1)
1
DAY
$3,207.40
$3,207.40
Polyurethane Foam
32
CY
$390.00
$12,365.66
Laborer (5)
162
HR
$71.19
$11,533.46
0.2
Subtotal Fill Adit and Vent Shaft and Plug with Polyurethane Foam (PUF)
$49,310
Months
12
Excavation, Transportation, and Stockpile of Clean Cover Material
Backhoe Loader (2)
316
DAY
$4,913.37
$1,552,626.47
Loader (2)
70
DAY
$3,207.40
$224,517.88
Dozer, D-9 (1)
35
DAY
$4,458.86
$156,060.14
Number of Loads
Tractor Truck, 6x4 (450 HP) (6)
153
DAY
$1,796.76
$274,903.89
3,758
Dump Trailer Only (20 CY)
153
DAY
$155.14
$23,736.02
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
35
DAY
$2,361.91
$82,666.87
Laborer (5)
1,727
HR
$71.19
$122,952.38
Concurrent with
Excavation, Transportation, and Stockpile of Clean Cover Material
$2,437,464
Item 13
13
Construction of Clean Soil Cover
Dozer, D-9 (2)
61
DAY
$4,458.86
$271,990.53
Backhoe Loader (2)
379
DAY
$3,207.40
$1,215,603.94
Grader(2)
11
DAY
$1,884.66
$20,731.30
Sheepsfoot Roller, Dozer Towed (1)
11
DAY
$1,884.66
$20,731.30
Smooth Drum Roller, Dozer Towed (1)
11
DAY
$1,854.50
$20,399.51
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
31
DAY
$2,361.91
$73,219.23
Laborer (5)
1,522
HR
$71.19
$108,357.57
Compaction Testing
53
EA
$342.18
$18,217.79
7.4
Subtotal Construction of Clean Soil Cover
$1,749,251
Months
14
Confirmation Sampling - will happen concurrently with field work
Develop Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
Geologist
80
HR
$118.19
$9,455.04
Project Manager
20
HR
$115.00
$2,300.00
Admin
20
HR
$100.00
$2,000.00
Sampling
Sampling Team (two 2-person crews)
300
HR
$95.68
$28,702.80
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Sites (1 round trip per week)
265
MI
$0.54
$143.10
Per Diem (4 people)
30
DAY
$142.00
$4,260.00
Gamma Scanning Equipment and Miscellaneous Field Supplies and Expenses
1
LS
$2,625.00
$2,625.00
Lab Analysis (15 samples per 2,000 m2 survey area = 30 samples per acre)
600
EA
$84.75
$50,850.00
Oversight during the Construction Duration
Project Manager
7,000
HR
$115.00
$805,000.00
Site Superintendent
7,000
HR
$100.00
$700,000.00
Radiation T echnician
7,000
HR
$135.00
$945,000.00
Field T echnician
7,000
HR
$80.00
$560,000.00
Off-Site Office
9
MO
$700.00
$6,300.00
Reporting
Geologist/Project Scientist
120
HR
$118.19
$14,182.56
Project Manager
30
HR
$115.00
$3,450.00
Project Engineer
30
HR
$180.10
$5,402.88
Health Physicist
30
HR
$180.10
$5,402.88
CAD/GIS Operator
120
HR
$95.68
$11,481.12
Admin
30
HR
$100.00
$3,000.00
Copying
4
LS
$31.25
$125.00
Concurrent with
Subtotal Confirmation Sampling
$3,159,680
Other Work
15
Site Restoration (staging areas, general disturbance areas)
Tractor (2)
6
DAY
$1,529.30
$9,175.77
Grader(3)
11
DAY
$1,884.66
$20,731.30
Flat Bed Truck (1)
4
DAY
$1,267.94
$5,071.77
Power Mulcher (1)
2
DAY
$1,500.82
$3,001.65
6000 Gal Water Truck (1)
4
DAY
$2,361.91
$9,447.64
Laborer (5)
146
HR
$71.19
$10,394.35
Seed Mix
20
AC
$12.52
$250.44
Soil Amendments (Humate)
20
AC
$192.39
$3,847.78
Fertilizer
20
AC
$0.68
$13.60
Mulch
20
AC
$6.36
$127.30
0.2
Subtotal Site Restoration
$62,062
Months
16
Per Diem
Construction Crew Per Diem (40 people)
13,886
DAY
$142
$1,971,771
Concurrent with
Subtotal Construction Crew Per Diem
$1,971,771
Other Work
w USEPA REGION 6
Page 11 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-5 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
ALTERNATIVE 4 - PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Sites Section 10 Mine; McKinley County, New Mexico
Effort Legend
START CONTRACTOR/EPA
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
Contractor Project Management
Project Manager
1,900
HR
$115.00
$218,500.00
Site Superintendent, H&S Officer, and QA/QC Officer
7,000
HR
$100.00
$700,000.00
Site Foreman (3)
7,000
HR
$29.27
$204,859.20
Field Accountant (1)
4,700
HR
$100.00
$470,000.00
Site Vehicles- 4WD Trucks (7)
9
MO
$5,402.88
$48,625.92
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (106 mi/each way)
42,583
MI
$0.54
$22,994.74
Fuel for Vehicles
926
MO
$3,253.33
$3,011,657.14
Port-o-let Rental (4)
9
MO
$499.47
$4,495.20
Job Trailers (2)
9
MO
$294.16
$2,647.41
Storage Boxes (2)
9
MO
$103.26
$929.30
Field Office Lights/HVAC (1)
9
MO
$195.70
$1,761.34
Telephone/internet (1)
9
MO
$104.46
$940.10
Field Office Equipment
9
MO
$276.15
$2,485.32
Field Office Supplies
9
MO
$104.46
$940.10
Trash (2 dumpsters)
9
MO
$490.08
$4,410.70
Air Monitoring Equipment
9
MO
$9,914.21
$89,227.91
Generator (1)
9
MO
$2,498.30
$22,484.70
Subtotal Contractor Project Management
$4,806,959
SUBTOTAL CAPITAL COSTS:
19 Contingency - 25% (Items 1-17)
20 Indirect Costs - 8% (Items 1-17, and 19)
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS:
$17,458,322
$17,458,322 4364580.615
$21,822,903 1745832.246
Project
$23,568,735
Planning
3.0
Months
PRSC COSTS (O & M):
21
Additional Effort for First 12-years O&M
Quarterly Inspections (2 person crew, 2 days, 10 hrs/day)
160
HR
$95.68
$15,308.16
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (round trip)
848
MI
$0.62
$525.76
Inspection Crew Per Diem
16
DAY
$155.00
$2,480.00
Preparation of Semi-annual Reports (Professional Engineer)
40
HR
$180.10
$7,203.84
Assumed Annual Maintenance Costs (revegetation, watering, fence repairs)
1
LS
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
Subtotal: Additional First 12-years Annual PRSC Costs:
$65,518
Present Value - O&M costs for 12 years (@-7% discount rate)
99 Years O&M Costs
Annual Inspection (2 person crew, 4 days, lOhrs/day)
80
HR
$95.68
$7,654.08
Mileage Albuquerque, NM to Site (round trip)
212
MI
$0.62
$131.44
Inspection Crew Per Diem
8
DAY
$155.00
$1,240.00
Assumed Annual Maintenance Costs
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
Preparation of Annual Report (Professional Engineer)
24
HR
$180.10
$4,322.30
Construction
231
Work Days
9.0
Months
$520,390
306
Work Days
Subtotal 99-years Annual PRSC Costs:
Present Value - O&M costs for 99 years (@ -7% discount rate)
$33,348
11.9
Months
$475,810
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$24,564,935
1.0
Years
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST (rounded up to nearest $1,000)
$24,565,000
Key Assumptions:
1) Labor factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Site and Infrastructure, Demolition (RSMeans, page 635).
2) Materials factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Site and Infrastructure, Demolition (RSMeans, page 635).
3) Equipment factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Contractor Equipment (RSMeans, page 635).
4) Costing assumes that the EPA will contract directly with a construction subcontractor/manager working out of the Grants, NM area.
5) Mileage is estimated to be 106 miles one way from Albuquerque, NM to the field site
6) Costs were developed assuming a 10-hour work day and 6 working days per week.
7) Mobilization costs include transportation of needed equipment and personnel (e.g. heavy equipment, office trailers, and additional supplies/equipment).
Equipment rates are based on monthly rental rates from RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 34th Annual Edition, 2020. All unit rates are marked up to include an
operator, laborors are separate for ground support.
Unit costs and production rates are based on rates obtained fiom RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 34th Annual Edition, 2020. Unit costs include materials,
equipment, and labor.
Per diem rates are based on the maximum Federal 2022 CONUS Per Diem Rates.
Present value of post removal site control (PRSC) costs assume quarterly SWPPP inspections and an annual general inspection and report for the first 12 years. Costs also
assume minor fencing, revegetation, and water system repairs during each inspection.
Present Value Subtotal for PRSC costs assume a discount rate of 7.0%.
For detailed information on personnel and equipment rates, quantities, and cost adjustment factors, see Tables K-6 thru K-8.
The average density of all wastes were assumed to be 1.3 tons per cubic yard. A capacity of 45,000 lb/load was assumed, which is 22.5 tons/load. Loose cubic yards assumed
a 20% swell factor.
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
Abbreviations:
CY = Cubic yards
LB = pound
MSF = thousand square feet
MI = Mile
CF = cubic foot
LF = linear feet
SF = square feet
PRSC = post-removal site control
EA = each
LS = Lump sum
SY = square yards
HR= hour
MO = Month
AC = Acre
USEPA REGION 6
Page 12 of 18 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-6
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Equipment and Personnel Rates for the Section 10 Mine Site
Reference: RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2020
Equipment and Operator Unit Prices for the Section 10 Mine Site
Equipment/Personnel
RS Means
Equipment
Hourly Operating
Cost
Equipment
Rental per
Month
Equipment Cost
per Day
EPA Provided
Operator/ Driver
Hourly Rate
Equipment +
Operator
Total per Day,
including O&P
Manual Fence Post Auger
RSM 01 54 33.20 0095
$
0.54
$ 54.00
$
7.52
$
95.51
$
962.59
$
1,158.96
Backhoe Loader(40 hp)
RSM 01 54 33.20 0400
$
14.28
$ 2,175.00
$
227.38
$
95.51
$
1,182.45
$
1,423.67
Excavator(7 CY)
RSM 01 54 33.20 0340
$
210.30
$ 26,300.00
$
3,125.80
$
95.51
$
4,080.88
$
4,913.37
Brush Chipper, 12" (130 hp)
RSM 01 54 33.20 0550
$
28.41
$ 2,525.00
$
382.34
$
71.19
$
1,094.28
$
1,317.51
Grader (30,000 lbs)
RSM 01 54 33.20 1910
$
39.44
$ 5,550.00
$
610.26
$
95.51
$
1,565.34
$
1,884.66
Power Mulcher
RSM 01 54 33.20 2860
$
21.66
$ 1,925.00
$
291.46
$
95.51
$
1,246.53
$
1,500.82
Sheepsfoot Roller, Towed (50 hp)
RSM 01 54 33.20 3150
$
30.77
$ 3,150.00
$
430.24
$
$
430.24
$
518.01
Smooth Drum Vibratory Roller, (125 hp)
RSM 01 54 33.20 3400
$
33.15
$ 6,525.00
$
585.21
$
95.51
$
1,540.28
$
1,854.50
Scraper (21 cy)
RSM 01 54 33.20 3550
$
169.70
$ 19,900.00
$
2,470.93
$
95.51
$
3,426.00
$
4,124.90
Dozer, D-6 (200 hp)
RSM 01 54 33.20 4260
$
75.82
$ 11,700.00
$
1,213.16
$
95.51
$
2,168.23
$
2,610.55
Dozer, D-9 (500 hp)
RSM 01 54 33.20 4370
$
160.11
$ 29,500.00
$
2,748.30
$
95.51
$
3,703.37
$
4,458.86
Crawler Loader (3 CY)
RSM 01 54 33.20 4560
$
85.71
$ 13,000.00
$
1,362.68
$
95.51
$
2,317.75
$
2,790.58
Front End Loader (8 CY)
RSM 01 54 33.20 4810
$
109.44
$ 15,800.00
$
1,708.88
$
95.51
$
2,663.95
$
3,207.40
1 Loader, Skid Steer (30 hp)
RSM 01 54 33.20 4880
$
11.49
$ 1,350.00
$
167.36
$
95.51
$
1,122.43
$
1,351.41
Dump Trail Only (20 CY)
RSM 01 54 33.20 5400
$
7.44
$ 1,400.00
$
128.85
$
$
128.85
$
155.14
Dump Truck, 34 CY, Off-Road (50 ton)
RSM 01 54 33.20 5610
$
100.98
$ 15,600.00
$
1,616.46
$
82.56
$
2,442.09
$
2,940.28
Tractor, with Attachment
RSM 01 54 33.40 6465
$
20.91
$ 2,725.00
$
315.11
$
95.51
$
1,270.18
$
1,529.30
6,000 Gal Water Truck
RSM 01 54 33.40 6950
$
86.39
$ 7,000.00
$
1,136.09
$
82.56
$
1,961.72
$
2,361.91
Flatbed Truck (20,000 lb)
RSM 01 54 33.40 7290
$
18.37
$ 1,125.00
$
227.48
$
82.56
$
1,053.11
$
1,267.94
Truck Tractor, 6x4 (450 hp)
RSM 01 54 33.40 7600
$
53.25
$ 3,450.00
$
666.70
$
82.56
$
1,492.32
$
1,796.76
Portable Water Tower Trailer, 10,000 gallons
RSM 01 54 33.40.6925
$
11.74
$ 1,775.00
$
186.42
$
$
186.42
$
224.45
Pump, Concrete, Truck Mounted, 4" Line, 80' Boom
RSM 01 54 33.10.2120
$
35.87
$ 7,950.00
$
667.84
$
82.56
$
1,493.47
$
1,798.13
Generator
RSM 01 54 33.40.2500
$
9.15
$ 2,075.00
$
172.19
-
-
$
275.72
Off-Site Office
Engineering Estimate
-
$ 700.00
-
-
-
$
700.00
USEPA REGION 6
i2Sz$
Page 13 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-6 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Construction and Engineering Personnel Rates for the Section 10 Mine Site
Personnel
Source
Hourly Rate
Daily Rate
Truck Driver (Heavy)
RS Means Labor Data
$ 82.56
$ 825.63
Laborer
RS Means Labor Data
$ 71.19
$ 711.94
Foreman
RS Means Labor Data
$ 29.27
$ 292.66
Equipment Operator
RS Means Labor Data
$ 95.51
$ 955.07
Site Superintendent
RSM 01 31 13.20
$ 100.00
$ 1,000.00
Field Accountant
Engineering Estimate
$ 100.00
$ 1,000.00
Sampling Team/Scientist
Engineering Estimate
$ 95.68
$ 956.76
CAD/GIS Operator
Engineering Estimate
$ 95.68
$ 956.76
Design Engineer
Engineering Estimate
$ 112.56
$ 1,125.60
Geologist/Project Scientist
Engineering Estimate
$ 118.19
$ 1,181.88
Professional Engineer
Engineering Estimate
$ 135.07
$ 1,350.72
Project Engineer
Engineering Estimate
$ 180.10
$ 1,800.96
Project Manager
Engineering Estimate
$ 115.00
$ 1,150.00
Structural Steel Foreman
RS Means Labor Data
$ 105.30
$ 1,053.00
Structural Steel Worker
RS Means Labor Data
$ 101.81
$ 1,018.11
Radiation Technician
Engineering Estimate
$ 135.00
$ 1,350.00
Field Technician
Engineering Estimate
$ 80.00
$ 800.00
Health Physicist
Engineering Estimate
$ 180.10
$ 1,800.96
Per Diem and Mileage Rates
Allowance
Source
Lodging
M&IE
Total
Per Diem Rate (per Day)
www.gsa.gov
$ 96.00
$ 59.00
$ 155.00
Mileage Rate (per Mile)
www.gsa.gov
--
--
$ 0.62
Key Assumptions:
1) Hourly labor rates were taken from RS Means trade data (RS Means, inside back cover) and escalated from 2020 to 2022 rates.
2) Hourly labor rates calculated using engineering estimates were provided by Weston Solutions' Estimating Department.
2) Daily rates assume a 10-hour work day.
3) Weekly and Monthly rates assume a 6-day work week.
4) RS Means production rates assume 8-hour work days. Equipment production rates were increased by 25% to account for the longer 10-hour work days.
5) Per diem and mileage rates are based on the maximum Federal 2022 CONUS Per Diem Rates.
USEPA REGION 6
i2Sz$
Page 14 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-7
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Material and Work Quantities and Unit Prices for the Section 10 Mine Site
Reference: RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2020 unless otherwise noted.
Waste Material Earthwork Areas and Volumes
Depth
Surface Area
Surface Area
Volume
Volume
Remediation Area - Alternative 2
(ft)
(ft2)
(Acres)
(ft3)
(CY)
Waste Material Volume
1-Foot Depth Area
1
857,700
20
857,700
31,767
Sub-Economic Material Pile
196,869
7,291
Totals of Excavation
857,700
20
857,700
39,058
Transported Volume, CY
Applying a 20% Swell Factor
46,870
Transported Weight, TONS
Assuming 1.3 Tons per CY
60,930
Number of Loads
Assuming 45,000 lb/load
2,708
Depth
Surface Area
Surface Area
Volume
Volume
Remediation Area - Alternative 3
(ft)
(ft2)
(Acres)
(ft3)
(CY)
Waste Material Volume
1-Foot Depth Areas
1
857,700
20
857,700
31,767
Sub-Economic Material Pile
196,869
7,291
1-Foot Depth Areas within Repository Footprint*
1
378,972
8.7
378,972
14,036
Totals of Excavation
478,728
11
478,728
25,022
Transported Volume, CY
Applying a 20% Swell Factor
30,026
* Areas in the cleanup zone that overlap with the footprint of the repository were removed from the total waste volume estimates since that material would remain in place.
Cap Earthwork Areas and Volumes
Section 10 Mine Repository Cap Volume - Alternative 3
Estimated Cap Volume tor 40,000 CY Repository from Preliminary Design, CY
28.547
In-Place Cap Volume - Alternative 4
Estimated Cap Footprint, Acres
20
Estimated Cap Footprint, SY
96,800
Estimated Cap Footprint, Square Feet
871,200
Cap Thickness, ft
3
Estimated Cap Volume for In-Place Preliminary Design, CF
2,613,600
Estimated Cap Volume for In-Place Preliminary Design, CY
96,800
Estimated Cap Volume for In-Place Preliminary Design Applying 10% Factor to Account for Topography, CY
106,480
Revegetation Areas
Revegetation Area - Alternative 2, 3, & 4
(MSF)
(ft2)
(Acres)*
Removal Area / Repository Area / Cap Area
858
857,700
20
? US EPA REGION 6
Page 15 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-7 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Material and Work Quantities and Unit Prices for the Section 10 Mine Site
Reference: RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2020 unless otherwise noted.
Polyurethane Foam (PUF) Plugs for Adit and Vent Shafts
Adit and Vent Shaft Closure Fill Material and PUF Plug
Volumes
Depth
(ft)
Diameter (in)
Diameter (ft)
Volume
(ft3)
Volume
(CY)
Fill Material Volume
Shaft (less 20 feet for PUF plug and surface cover)
271.4
120
10
21,316
790
Vent (less 20 feet for PUF plug and surface cover)
331.6
36
3
2,344
87
Shaft - Polyurethane Foam
10
120
10
785
29
Vent - Polyurethane Foam
10
36
3
71
3
Shaft - Fill Above Polyurethane Foam
10
120
10
785
29
Vent - Fill Above Polyurethane Foam
10
36
3
71
3
Total Fill Material Below Foam, CY
877
Total Fill Material Above Foam, CY
32
Total Polyurethane Foam, CY
32
Study Area Quantities and Unit Prices
Work Item
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Extended Price
Reference
Assumptions
Cultural Resources Mitigation
1
Each
$
200,000.00
$
200,000.00
Priced by NV5
Adjusted to reflect 2022 price
Geotechnical Testing and Report
2
Each
$
28,000.00
$
56,000.00
RSM 02 32 13.10
Assumed two studies for project
Aerial Survey (LIDAR)
20
AC
$
201.60
$
4,032.00
RSM 02 21 13.16 2000
Assumed price x2 due to small area
Construction Quantities and Unit Prices
Road Gravel (Materials) - All Alternatives
Quantity
11,734
Unit
SY
T
Unit Price /
4.06
Extended Price
$ 47,618.49
Reference
RSM 01 55 23.50 0100
Assumptions
1.0 mile of road, 20 feet wide
Fence Repair (Materials)
2,640
LF
$
23.95
$
63,235.31
RSM 32 31 13.20 0200
Assumed 0.5 miles for duration of project
Silt Fence (Materials)
16,000
LF
$
0.54
$
8,644.61
RSM 31 25 14.16 1000
Assumed 800 feet required per acre
Sediment Log, Filter Sock, 9" (Materials)
4,000
LF
$
4.20
$
16,808.96
RSM 31 25 14.16 1250
Assumed 200 feet required per acre
Seeds (Materials) - All Alternatives
20
AC
$
12.52
$
250.44
RSM 32 92 19.14 5300
$12.45/52000sqf * 43560sq/lac
Soil Amendments (Humate) (Materials) - All Alternatives
20
AC
$
192.39
$
3,847.78
RSM 32 91 13.23 4050
$2575.00/700000sqf * 43560sqf/lac
Fertilizer (Materials) - All Alternatives
20
AC
$
0.68
$
13.60
RSM 32 91 13.23 4150
$9.10/700000sqf * 43560sqf/lac
Multch (Materials) - All Alternatives
20
AC
$
6.36
$
127.30
RSM 32 91 13.16 0700
$64.50/530000sqf * 43560sqf/lac
Waste Soil Transportation
60,930
TON
$
62.15
$
3,786,829.33
Facility Quote
Assumed 1.3 tons per CY, and 20% swell
Waste Soil Processing Fee
60,930
TON
$
84.75
$
5,163,858.18
Facility Quote
Assumed 1.3 tons per CY, and 20% swell
Truck Mobilization Fee
2,708
Each
$
1,266.73
$
3,430,304.84
Facility Quote
Assumed 300 trucks, 2-day rotation
Truck Tarp
2,708
Each
$
118.65
$
321,304.20
Facility Quote
Assumed 300 trucks, 2-day rotation
Job Trailers
1
MO
$
294.16
$
294.16
RSM 01 52 13.20 0350
Assumed a 138 kV Transmossion Trai
Storage Boxes
1
MO
$
103.26
$
103.26
RSM 01 52 13.20 1250
Assumed a 138 kV Transmossion Boxe
Field Office Lights/HVAC
1
MO
$
195.70
$
195.70
RSM 01 52 13.40 0160
Assumed a 138 kV Transmossion Ligh
Telephone/internet
1
MO
$
104.46
$
104.46
RSM 01 52 13.40 0140
Assumed a 138 kV Transmossion Tele
Portable Toilet
MO
$
249.73
$
499.47
RSM 01 54 33.40 6410
Field Office Equipment
1
MO
$
276.15
$
276.15
RSM 01 52 13.40 0100
Assumed a 138 kV Transmossion Equi
Field Office Supplies
1
MO
$
104.46
$
104.46
RSM 01 52 13.40 0120
Assumed a 138 kVTransmossion Supp
Trash (2dumpsters)
1
MO
$
490.08
$
490.08
Engineering Estimate
Assumed a 138 kV Transmossion dump
Air Monitoring Equipment
2
MO
$
4,957.11
$
9,914.21
Vendor Quote
Assumed a 138 kVTransmossion Equi
Site Vehicles- 4WD Trucks
3
MO
$
1,800.96
$
5,402.88
RSM 01 54 33.40 7200
Site Vehicles
2
MO
$
563.31
$
1,126.61
Engineering Estimate
Fuel for Vehicles
1
MO
$
3,253.33
$
3,253.33
Engineering Estimate
$4.88/gal, 15 mi/gal, 10,000 miles/month
Truck Scales
1
MO
$
339.00
$
339.00
Engineering Estimate
Assumed a 138 kVTransmossion Seal
Construction Water, including Hauling - Alternative 2
1,266,000
GAL
$
0.11
$
132,930.00
Engineering Estimate
Assumed 2 gal/CY for excavation, 30 gal/CY for hauling dust control
USEPA REGION 6
Page 16 of 18
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-7 (Continued)
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Material and Work Quantities and Unit Prices for the Section 10 Mine Site
Reference: RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2020 unless otherwise noted.
Construction Water, including Hauling - Alternative 3
811,000
GAL
$
0.11
$
85,155.00
Engineering Estimate
Assumed 2 gal/CY for excavation, 30 gal/CY for hauling dust control
Construction Water, including Hauling - Alternative 4
914,000
GAL
$
0.11
$
95,970.00
Engineering Estimate
Assumed 2 gal/CY for excavation, 30 gal/CY for hauling dust control
Portable Water Tower Trailer, 10,000 gallons
2
MO
$
1,740.93
$
3,481.86
RSM 01 54 33 40 7660
Compaction Test (Field) - Alternative 3
27
EA
$
342.18
$
9,165.18
Engineering Estimate
Assumed 1 test per 2,000 CY. Density, proctor, Atterburg, and sieve test
Compaction Test (Field) - Alternative 4
53
EA
$
342.18
$
18,217.79
Engineering Estimate
Assumed 1 test per 2,000 CY. Density, proctor, Atterburg, and sieve test
Radiological Confirmation Sample (Lab) - Alternative 2
600
EA
$
84.75
$
50,850.00
Engineering Estimate
Assumed 30 samples per acre, $60/lab sample, $15/sample for shipping
Radiological Confirmation Sample (Lab) - Alternative 3
339
EA
$
84.75
$
28,730.25
Engineering Estimate
Assumed 30 samples per acre, $60/lab sample, $15/sample for shipping
Radiological Confirmation Sample (Lab) - Alternative 4
600
EA
$
84.75
$
50,850.00
Engineering Estimate
Assumed 30 samples per acre, $60/lab sample, $15/sample for shipping
Polyurethante Foam
32
CY
$
390.00
$
12,365.66
Academic Paper
Price from paper in 1994 adjusted for 2022
Selective Demolition, Radio Towers, Self Supported, 60'
1
EA
$
3,668.00
$
3,668.00
RSM 02 41 13.78 0700
Treat headframe as a radio tower for demo purposes
Generator, Diesel Engine, 20 kW
1
MO
$
2,498.30
$
2,498.30
RSM 01 54 33.40.2500
Notes:
1) Unless noted otherwise, quantity items are applicable to Alternatives, 2, 3, and 4.
USEPA REGION 6
Page 17 of 18 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix K (Continued)
Cost Estimate Details
Table K-8
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Markup Factors for Gallup, New Mexico
Reference: RS Means Heavy Construction Cost Data 2020
Weston Solutions Estimating and Controls, RS Means Historical Cost Indexes, accessed September 2022
The majority of the work will be Excavation (as defined by RSMeans) by Equipment Operators, Laborers, and Foremen
Labor1
Category
Gallup. NM
Installation
Factor
Time Factor
Total Factor
Excavation
1.005
1.12
1.13
Materials2
Profit
Gallup. NM
Materials
Factor
Time Factor
Total Factor
0.1
1.072
1.12
1.20
Equipment3
Profit
Gallup. NM
Equipment
Factor
Time Factor
Total Factor
0.1
1.075
1.12
1.20
Time4
Historical Cost Indexes
January 2022
January 2020
Time Factor
January 2022
January
2016
Time Factor
January 2022
January 2019
Time Factor
261.6
234.6
1.12
261.6
207.3
1.26
261.6
232.2
1.13
1 Labor factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Site and Infrastructure, Demolition (RSMeans, page 635).
Workers Comp % is based on New Mexico rates for Excavation (RSMeans, page 620).
2 Materials factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Site and Infrastructure, Demolition (RSMeans, page 635).
3 Equipment factor is based on the Gallup, New Mexico city cost index for Contractor Equipment (RSMeans, page 635).
4 Time factor is based on adjusting 2020 RS Means cost data to January 2022, using RS Means Historical Cost Indexes
and online data from Weston's Estimating and Controls group, accessed in August 2022 to obtain January 2022 cost index.
e
US EPA REGION 6
Page 18 of 18 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
APPENDIX L
LONG-TERM STORAGE FACILITY (REPOSITORY)
RADON FLUX CALCULATIONS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix L
Long-Term Storage Facility (Repository) Radon Flux Calculations
Alternative 3 (Non-Incised, On-Site Repository)
3Long-term
Average
4Radon
4Radon
Moisture
4Specific
2Porosity of
3Density of
Emanation
Decay
Content (Dry
Gravity of
"'Thickness of
Material
Material
Coefficient
Constant
weight
Soils
Type of
Layer (cm)
(Unitless)
(g/cm3)
(Unitless)
(1/s)
percentage)
(Unitless)
Material
(x)
(n)
(P)
(E)
(w)
(G)
Contaminated Soils
Native soil
500
0.305660377
1.84
0.35
2.10E-06
10
2.65
Cover layer
Native soil
91.44
0.305660377
1.84
0.35
2.10E-06
10
2.65
Equilibrium
distrubution
2Radon Flux
3Specific
2Moisture
2Radon
inverse
Coffecient of
from the bare
2Radon Flux
Activity of
saturation
Diffusion
relaxation
interface
Radon in
contaminated
from the
Ra-226
fractions
Coefficients
length
constants
Water and
soil
Cover
(pCi/g)
(Unitless)
(cm2/s)
(1/cm)
(cm2/s)
Air (pCi/cm3)
(pCi/m2-s)
(pCi/m2-s)
(R)
(m)
(D)
(b)
(a)
(k)
(J,)
(Jc)
Contaminated Soils
150
0.6020
5.75E-03
0.0191
0.0002
0.2600
106
Cover layer
1
0.6020
5.75E-03
0.0191
0.0002
0.2600
18.5
State of New Mexico Guidance Radon Flux Limit:
20
1Thickness of cover layer was determined by trial and error in order to determine the maximum thickness with a Radon Flux result less than
or equal to the state of New Mexico guidance limit of 20 pCi/m2-s. A cover thickness of 91.44 centimeters is equivalent to 3 feet. The
contaminated soil thickness of 500 centimeters = 16.4 feet. The long-term storage facility (repository) design (Non-Incised, Surface, On-Site
[Alternative 3]) features a contaminated-soils thickness greater than 500 centimeters; the radon flux calculated result remains the same
(18.5 pCi/m2-s) beyond a thickness of 500 centimeters.
2Value calculated per NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64 formulas noted below. The NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64 formulas were designed with
uranium mill tailings in mind; therefore, the subscripts't' and 'c' in the formulas below refer to 'tailings' and 'cover', respectively. In this
case, the formulas and terms with the't' subscript are used for 'Contaminated Soils' and the formulas and terms with the 'c' subscript are
used for 'Cover layer'.
Value obtained from Design Engineer or Project Manager.
Value obtained from NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64.
NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64 Radon Flux Formulas:
J, = = 104 * R * p * E * V(A * D) * hyperbolic tangent of (x * V(A/D))
2*j * e"b * x
I _ t c c
Jf-
1 + V(at/ac;
D = 0 07 * e"4 : '¦m"if": n"2'+ 'm"5"
m = 10"2 * p * w
n * pw
¦; pw is the mass density of water = 1 g/cm3
G*PW
"; pw is the mass density of water = 1 g/cm3
b = V(A/D)
a = n2 * D * (l-((l-k) * m))2
©
US EPA REGION 6
1 of 1 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
APPENDIX M
LONG-TERM STORAGE FACILITY (REPOSITORY)
PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWINGS
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
APPENDIX N
GREEN ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Appendix N
Green Alternatives Assessment
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Green Alternatives Assessment
Based on EPA Guidance, there are five core (key) elements in "greener cleanup activities" that
should be considered throughout the remedy selection process (EPA, 2016). These key elements
include: minimizing total energy use and increasing the percentage of renewable energy;
minimizing air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions; minimizing water use and negative
impacts on water resources; protecting ecosystem services; and improving materials management
and waste reduction efforts by reducing, reusing, or recycling whenever feasible (EPA, 2012).
This analysis compares the effects each removal action alternative, described in Section 3.0, has
on the five key "green" elements. Each of the five elements was qualitatively scored for each
alternative (1, 2, 3, and 4) using a numerical ranking system 1-4, with a 1 being best and a 4
being worst (i.e., low scores are greener cleanup alternatives). The alternative's Greener Cleanup
Assessment Score was derived from the sum of the five scores for that alternative. The results of
this assessment are summarized in Table N-l.
Total Energy Use and Percentage of Renewable Energy
Out of the four removal action alternatives, Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative is the only
alternative that requires no energy. For the other alternatives, energy usage can be broken into
two main categories: electrical usage and direct fossil fuel combustion. All of the alternatives
have relatively low electrical requirements. The main electricity demands are expected to be for
power to pump water from the onsite supply well, operation of the water treatment system to be
constructed as part of the removal action, and for the office trailers brought in to support
personnel; particularly for heating and cooling the trailers. Alternative 2 would have higher
electrical demand than Alternatives 3 and 4 since the off-site disposal facility would require
additional office support and water. Since active removal work is expected to be conducted
during daylight hours, lighting requirements are expected to be minimal for all alternatives. The
primary expected lighting needs would be during the darkest winter months, should work occur
during those periods, to illuminate the on-site office trailer and equipment yards. Grid power is
w _ USEPA REGION 6
1 of 7
TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix N (Continued)
Green Alternatives Assessment
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
potentially available at the site which will preclude the need for temporary on-site generators,
eliminating a potential source of fossil fuel consumption.
The greatest fossil fuel consumption will be for heavy equipment and trucks used during the
excavation and transportation. The transportation requirement of each alternative is summarized
in Table 4-2. The use of biodiesel in place of diesel for heavy equipment use or transportation is
recommended. Given that the ability to use biodiesel does not vary between alternatives and it is
unknown if biodiesel fuels will be ultimately used, this analysis assumes heavy equipment will
be operated using traditional petroleum-based fuel sources.
Excluding Alternative 1, which does not require any energy consumption, Alternative 3 will
have the lowest fossil fuel consumption, followed by Alternatives 4 and 2. Alternative 4 requires
significant hauling of clean fill material which will require additional fossil fuel consumption not
required for Alternative 3. Alternative 2 has fossil fuel demands estimated to be more than an
order of magnitude greater than any other alternative due to having the greatest number of loads
transported off-site and farthest distance to the off-site disposal facility. The alternatives rank as
follows in order of least fossil fuel consumption to most: 1, 3, 4, and 2.
Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Relevant air pollutants include greenhouse gases, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx),
particulate matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
Fossil fuel combustion is expected to be the only source of HAPs as well as the major source of
greenhouse gases, NOx, SOx, and PM10. Estimated greenhouse gas emissions due to off-site
trucking are summarized in Table 4-2.
PM10 is generated during excavating and grading activities, including excavating material,
hauling or otherwise handling excavated material, placing and compacting earthen materials, and
driving on unpaved roads. Dust generation can be reduced through dust suppression methods,
such as applying water, covering material in open trucks, using soil tackifiers, covering
stockpiles, limiting on-site vehicle speed, and revegetating excavated areas as quickly as
US EPA REGION 8
2 of 7
No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix N (Continued)
Green Alternatives Assessment
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
possible. Due to the factors discussed above, the air pollution emissions will be highest for
alternatives that transport waste off-site.
As with energy demand, the greatest air pollution generation will be from the operation of heavy
equipment during excavation activities and from trucks used to transport materials and waste.
Thus, the ranking for air pollution is the same as for energy consumption. The alternatives rank
as follows from least air pollution generated to most: 1, 3, 4, and 2. As with energy demand,
Alternative 2 is expected to create air pollution that is an order of magnitude greater than the
other alternatives due to the significant number of loads transported off-site and distance to the
off-site repository.
Water Use and Impacts on Water Resources
Surface waters in the area are ephemeral and are generally only present for a day or two after
rains occur during summer monsoon periods. Because of this, a local water source is
unavailable; water demand will have to be meet with water trucked in from outside or by
installing a well. Water use should also be considered as part of the energy demand
transportation requirements and thus should be minimized both because of the impact on water
resources and because of associated increase in electrical and fossil fuel demands. The main use
of water, regardless of which alternative is selected, will be for dust suppression and soil
moisture conditioning to achieve the required relative density for compacted soil, followed by
equipment decontamination. Thus, the alternatives with the highest excavation, consolidation,
and transportation requirements will also have the highest water use.
Water use will not be the only impact on water resources. The creation of impervious caps
reduces the infiltration of stormwater, resulting in higher peak flows in the receiving stream. The
creation of engineered soil caps will temporarily increase runoff until vegetation is well
established and final stabilization is achieved, which could take as long as 10 years. The higher
peak flows will result in an increased risk of flooding and higher rates of erosion, which would
impact water quality. This effect will increase in direct proportion to the footprint of any
impervious cap. If the waste is disposed of at licensed facility, the size of the cap in relation to
the volume of waste may be reduced due consolidation with waste from other sites. However,
USEPA REGION 8
3 of 7 No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix N (Continued)
Green Alternatives Assessment
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
these facilities are also the most likely to use impervious caps. The risk of increasing peak flows
can be mitigated by diverting the runoff for another use, such as irrigation, or to an area it can
infiltrate into the ground, such as bioswales and stormwater detention basins. In addition to
reducing infiltration, a cap can potentially change drainage patterns. However, this effect can be
reduced by mimicking the slope of existing terrain.
Sediment runoff, particularly during excavation activities, can also degrade water quality during
the project. Sediment runoff will increase nutrient loading and suspended solids in the receiving
water. Since the sediment runoff would largely be from contaminated soil, another potential
impact is the migration of radiation into nearby water resources. The greater the excavation
footprint and duration of excavation, the greater expected impact. Sediment runoff can be
minimized by avoiding excavation activities during the monsoon season, minimizing the amount
of soil disturbed at a given time, and using sediment controls (e.g., reseeding bare soil as quickly
as possible; installing silt fence, straw wattles and fiber rolls; and constructing stormwater
detention basins). Migration of waste off-site through stormwater is a general concern for water
bodies. With the exception of Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, all of the alternatives
provide long term mitigation of waste migration offsite.
Given all the factors outlined above, the alternatives rank as follows for water use and impact on
water resources from best to worst: 3, 4, 2 and 1.
Materials Management and Waste Reduction
Materials management and waste reduction efforts consider the total amount of materials used
on-site and the percentage of those materials that are produced from recycled material, reused
material, or waste material. Excluding fuels, which are evaluated separately, imported materials
include the earth and rock materials in caps, geotextile fabrics, temporary fencing, silt fencing,
culverts, large rock for riprap, and other water management and sediment and erosion control
devices. The alternatives will all generate cleared vegetation in proportion to the amount of land
disturbed. These factors are expected to apply regardless of which alternative is selected (i.e.,
whether on or off-site, all are expected to require varying amounts of the above materials).
US EPA REGION 8
4 of 7
No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix N (Continued)
Green Alternatives Assessment
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Given these factors, the alternatives rank as follows for impact on materials management and
waste reduction from best to worst: 1, 3, 4, and 2.
Ecosystem Services
The negative effect on water resources described above is one of the ecosystem services impacts.
Degrading water quality and quantity will affect the flora and fauna that depend on these sources.
Increased nutrient loading could cause algae blooms in downstream water bodies and increased
suspended solids could inhibit stream life by blocking sunlight that allows photosynthesis. The
more effective alternatives will be more protective of ecosystem services.
Given that none of the alternatives disturb previously undisturbed areas, or areas with hazardous
waste, long term habitat degradation on land is unlikely in all alternatives. However, removal
activities themselves will cause a temporary disruption to wildlife. Noise, ground disturbing
work, and any artificial light can all impact sensitive species. To minimize these impacts, it is
recommended to avoid conducting operations during nesting or breeding seasons whenever
possible.
Given all the factors outlined above, the alternatives rank as follows for impact on ecosystem
services from best to worst: 3, 4, 2, and 1.
Summary
A summary of the rankings for each of the core elements can be found in Table N-l. The table
also presents an overall greenness score for each alternative. The score was calculated by
summing the ranks each alternative received for each of the five core areas. The overall ranking
of alternatives for greenness, from best to worse, are as follows: 3, 1, 4, and 2.
References
USEPA. 2009. Principles for Greener Cleanups. August 27.
USEPA. 2012. Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental
Footprint. February.
USEPA REGION 8
5 of 7 No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix N (Continued)
Green Alternatives Assessment
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
USEPA. 2016. Memorandum: Consideration of Greener Cleanup Activities in the Superfund
Cleanup Process. August 2.
List of Tables
Table N-l Green Alternatives Assessment Summary
USEPA REGION 8
6 of 7 No. 0001/17-044
-------
Appendix N (Continued)
Green Alternatives Assessment
Tronox Navajo Area Uranium Mines, Section 10 Mine
McKinley County, New Mexico
Table N-1 Green Alternatives Assessment Summary
Minimizes Total
Energy Use and
Maximizes Use of
Renewable Energy
Minimizes Air
Pollutants and
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Minimizes Water Use
and Impacts to Water
Resources
Reduce, Reuse, and
Recycle Materials and
Waste
Protect Land and
Ecosystems
TOTAL
Alternative 1, No Further Action
1
1
4
1
4
11
Alternative 2, Excavation and Off-Site Processing and
Disposal of Contaminated Soils at Licensed Low-Level
RadioActive Waste Facility (Clean Harbors, Deer Trail, CO)
4
4
3
4
3
18
Alternative 3, Excavation and Disposal of Contaminated Soil
at the On-Site Repository
2
2
1
2
1
8
Alternative 4, Capping of Contaminated Soil in Place
3
3
2
3
2
13
USEPA REGION 6
7 of 7 TDD No. 0001/17-044
-------
APPENDIX O
TDD NO. 0001/17-044
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 1 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc.
TDD # • 0001/17-044
Amendment # :
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
TDD Title : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Purpose :TDD initiation
Priority :
Overtime Authorized : Yes
Invoice Unit:
Verbal Date :
Start Date : 08/15/2017
Completion Date : 08/15/2018
Effective Date : 08/15/2017
SSID: 0600
Project/Site Name : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Project Address :
County: McKinley
City:
State : nm
Zip Code :
WorkArea : Response / Removal
Work Area Code :
Activity: Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
Activity Code : EE
Operable Unit:
Emergency Code :
FPN :
Performance Based : No
Authorized TDD Ceiling :
Amount
LOE (Hours)
Previous Action(s) :
This Action :
$0. 00
$0. 00
O O
o o
o o
New Total :
$0. 00
o
o
o
Specific Elements :
Description of Work :
See Schedule
Region Specific :
CERCLIS: :
Misc 2 :
Accounting and Appropriation Information:
SFO:
Line
Budget / FY
Approp
Budget
Program
Flpmpnt
Object
Class
Site Project
Cost
DCN Line-ID
Funding
TDD Amount
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 2 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc
Project Officer: Will LaBombard
Branch Mail Code:
Phone Number:
214-665-7199
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer Representative William
Rhotenberry
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-8372
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contract Specialist: Brian Delaney
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-7473
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer: Brian Delaney
Branch Mail Code :
Electronically Signed by Brian Delaney
08/15/2017
Phone Number:
214-665-7473
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Other Agency Official
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Description of Work:The initial funding ceiling for this TDD is set at $100,000. This site has
a Reimbursable Account (TR2, TR2B, etc.) and all TDD costs shall be invoiced against this
SSID-specific TO funding. The contractor shall notify the PO and COR when the TR2B funding is
85% expended. When this special account funding is not available, costs shall be invoiced
against the oldest 6A00E or 6A00S funding on the task order.
The contractor shall use SSID A6PK on all forms, reports, emails, communications, and
deliverables .
The Contractor shall conduct assessments, sampling and
other taskings such as archaeological assessments in
support of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment
(EE/CA). The EE/CA shall be conducted utilizing
established procedures and protocols from previous
Tronox NAUM sites.
Warren Zehner will be the alternate COR on this TDD.
TDD # ¦ 0001/17-044
Amendment # :
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 1 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc.
TDD # • 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 001
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
TDD Title : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Purpose :INCREMENTAL funding, extend pop
Priority : HIGH
Overtime Authorized : Yes
Invoice Unit:
Verbal Date :
Start Date : 03/28/2016
Completion Date : 12/18/201E
Effective Date : 03/28/2016
SSID: 0600
Project/Site Name : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Project Address :
County: McKinley
City:
State : nm
Zip Code :
WorkArea : Response / Removal
Work Area Code :
Activity: Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
Activity Code : EE
Operable Unit:
Emergency Code :
FPN :
Performance Based : No
Authorized TDD Ceiling :
Amount
LOE (Hours)
Previous Action(s) :
This Action :
$0. 00
$0. 00
O O
o o
o o
New Total :
$0. 00
o
o
o
Specific Elements :
Description of Work :
See Schedule
Region Specific :
CERCLIS: :
Misc 2 :
Accounting and Appropriation Information:
SFO:
Line
Budget / FY
Approp
Budget
Program
Flpmpnt
Object
Class
Site Project
Cost
DCN Line-ID
Funding
TDD Amount
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 2 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc
Project Officer: Will LaBombard
Branch Mail Code:
Phone Number:
214-665-7199
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer Representative
William Rhotenberry
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-8372
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contract Specialist: Michael
J. Pheeny
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-2798
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer: Michael
J. Pheeny
Branch Mail Code :
Electronically Signed by Michael J. Pheeny
04/05/2018
Phone Number:
214-665-2798
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Other Agency Official
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Description of Work:
Amendment 001 - Extend the TDD POP to 12/18/2018 and increase the funding ceiling by $100,000
(for a new ceiling of $200,000) so that work can continue.
Base ORIG - The initial funding ceiling for this TDD is set at $100,000. This site has a
Reimbursable Account (TR2, TR2B, etc.) and all TDD costs shall be invoiced against this
SSID-specific TO funding. The contractor shall notify the PO and COR when the TR2B funding is
85% expended. When this special account funding is not available, costs shall be invoiced
against the oldest 6A00E or 6A00S funding on the task order.
The contractor shall use SSID A6PK on all forms, reports, emails, communications, and
deliverables .
The Contractor shall conduct assessments, sampling and
other taskings such as archaeological assessments in
support of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment
(EE/CA). The EE/CA shall be conducted utilizing
established procedures and protocols from previous
Tronox NAUM sites.
Warren Zehner will be the alternate COR on this TDD.
TDD # ¦ 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 001
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 1 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc.
TDD # • 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 002
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
TDD Title : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Purpose : extend pop
Priority : HIGH
Overtime Authorized : Yes
Invoice Unit:
Verbal Date :
Start Date : 03/28/2018
Completion Date : 08/14/2019
Effective Date : 03/28/2018
SSID: 0600
Project/Site Name : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Project Address :
County: McKinley
City:
State : nm
Zip Code :
WorkArea : Response / Removal
Work Area Code :
Activity: Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
Activity Code : EE
Operable Unit:
Emergency Code :
FPN :
Performance Based : No
Authorized TDD Ceiling :
Amount
LOE (Hours)
Previous Action(s) :
This Action :
$0. 00
$0. 00
O O
o o
o o
New Total :
$0. 00
o
o
o
Specific Elements :
Description of Work :
See Schedule
Region Specific :
CERCLIS: :
Misc 2 :
Accounting and Appropriation Information:
SFO:
Line
Budget / FY
Approp
Budget
Program
Flpmpnt
Object
Class
Site Project
Cost
DCN Line-ID
Funding
TDD Amount
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 2 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc
Project Officer: Will LaBombard
Branch Mail Code:
Phone Number:
214-665-7199
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer Representative
William Rhotenberry
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-8372
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contract Specialist: Michael
J. Pheeny
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-2798
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer: Michael
J. Pheeny
Branch Mail Code :
Electronically Signed by Michael J. Pheeny
08/13/2018
Phone Number:
214-665-2798
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Other Agency Official
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Description of Work:
Amendment 002 - Extend the TDD POP to 08/14/2019 so that work can continue. No other changes
needed.
Amendment 001 - Extend the TDD POP to 12/18/2018 and increase the funding ceiling by $100,000
(for a new ceiling of $200,000) so that work can continue.
Base ORIG - The initial funding ceiling for this TDD is set at $100,000. This site has a
Reimbursable Account (TR2, TR2B, etc.) and all TDD costs shall be invoiced against this
SSID-specific TO funding. The contractor shall notify the PO and COR when the TR2B funding is
85% expended. When this special account funding is not available, costs shall be invoiced
against the oldest 6A00E or 6A00S funding on the task order.
The contractor shall use SSID A6PK on all forms, reports, emails, communications, and
deliverables.
The Contractor shall conduct assessments, sampling and
other taskings such as archaeological assessments in
support of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment
(EE/CA). The EE/CA shall be conducted utilizing
established procedures and protocols from previous
Tronox NAUM sites.
Warren Zehner will be the alternate COR on this TDD.
TDD # ¦ 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 002
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 1 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc.
TDD # • 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 003
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
TDD Title : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Purpose : change cor
Priority : HIGH
Overtime Authorized : Yes
Invoice Unit:
Verbal Date :
Start Date : 03/28/2018
Completion Date : 08/14/2019
Effective Date : 03/28/2018
SSID: 0600
Project/Site Name : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Project Address :
County: McKinley
City:
State : nm
Zip Code :
WorkArea : Response / Removal
Work Area Code :
Activity: Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
Activity Code : EE
Operable Unit:
Emergency Code :
FPN :
Performance Based : No
Authorized TDD Ceiling :
Amount
LOE (Hours)
Previous Action(s) :
This Action :
$0. 00
$0. 00
O O
o o
o o
New Total :
$0. 00
o
o
o
Specific Elements :
Description of Work :
See Schedule
Region Specific :
CERCLIS: :
Misc 2 :
Accounting and Appropriation Information:
SFO:
Line
Budget / FY
Approp
Budget
Program
Flpmpnt
Object
Class
Site Project
Cost
DCN Line-ID
Funding
TDD Amount
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 2 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc
Project Officer: Will LaBombard
Branch Mail Code:
Phone Number:
214-665-7199
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer Representative William
Rhotenberry
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-8372
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contract Specialist: Brian Delaney
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-7473
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer: Brian Delaney
Branch Mail Code :
Electronically Signed by Brian Delaney
12/14/2018
Phone Number:
214-665-7473
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Other Agency Official
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Description of Work:
Amendment 003 - Change the primary COR for this TDD to Warren Zehner.
Amendment 002 - Extend the TDD POP to 08/14/2019 so that work can continue. No other changes
needed.
Amendment 001 - Extend the TDD POP to 12/18/2018 and increase the funding ceiling by $100,000
(for a new ceiling of $200,000) so that work can continue.
Base ORIG - The initial funding ceiling for this TDD is set at $100,000. This site has a
Reimbursable Account (TR2, TR2B, etc.) and all TDD costs shall be invoiced against this
SSID-specific TO funding. The contractor shall notify the PO and COR when the TR2B funding is
85% expended. When this special account funding is not available, costs shall be invoiced
against the oldest 6A00E or 6A00S funding on the task order.
The contractor shall use SSID A6PK on all forms, reports, emails, communications, and
deliverables.
The Contractor shall conduct assessments, sampling and
other taskings such as archaeological assessments in
support of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment
(EE/CA). The EE/CA shall be conducted utilizing
established procedures and protocols from previous
Tronox NAUM sites.
Warren Zehner will be the alternate COR on this TDD.
TDD # ¦ 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 003
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 1 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc.
TDD # • 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 004
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
TDD Title : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Purpose : extend pop, incremental funding
Priority : HIGH
Overtime Authorized : Yes
Invoice Unit:
Verbal Date :
Start Date : 03/28/2018
Completion Date : 08/14/2019
Effective Date : 03/28/2018
SSID: 0600
Project/Site Name : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Project Address :
County: McKinley
City:
State : nm
Zip Code :
WorkArea : Response / Removal
Work Area Code :
Activity: Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
Activity Code : EE
Operable Unit:
Emergency Code :
FPN :
Performance Based : No
Authorized TDD Ceiling :
Amount
LOE (Hours)
Previous Action(s) :
This Action :
$0. 00
$0. 00
O O
o o
o o
New Total :
$0. 00
o
o
o
Specific Elements :
Description of Work :
See Schedule
Region Specific :
CERCLIS: :
Misc 2 :
Accounting and Appropriation Information:
SFO:
Line
Budget / FY
Approp
Budget
Program
Flpmpnt
Object
Class
Site Project
Cost
DCN Line-ID
Funding
TDD Amount
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 2 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc
Project Officer: Will LaBombard
Branch Mail Code:
Phone Number:
214-665-7199
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer Representative William
Rhotenberry
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-8372
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contract Specialist: Brian Delaney
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-7473
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer: Brian Delaney
Branch Mail Code :
Electronically Signed by Brian Delaney
04/16/2019
Phone Number:
214-665-7473
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Other Agency Official
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Description of Work:
Amendment 004 - Extend the TDD POP to 08/14/2020 and increase the funding ceiling by $125,000
(from $200,000 to $325,000) for additional LOE within the existing specific elements of this
TDD. Funding for this amendment is from the Tronox NAUM TR2 account A6PK.
Amendment 003 - Change the primary COR for this TDD to Warren Zehner.
Amendment 002 - Extend the TDD POP to 08/14/2019 so that work can continue. No other changes
needed.
Amendment 001 - Extend the TDD POP to 12/18/2018 and increase the funding ceiling by $100,000
(for a new ceiling of $200,000) so that work can continue.
Base ORIG - The initial funding ceiling for this TDD is set at $100,000. This site has a
Reimbursable Account (TR2, TR2B, etc.) and all TDD costs shall be invoiced against this
SSID-specific TO funding. The contractor shall notify the PO and COR when the TR2B funding is
85% expended. When this special account funding is not available, costs shall be invoiced
against the oldest 6A00E or 6A00S funding on the task order.
The contractor shall use SSID A6PK on all forms, reports, emails, communications, and
deliverables.
The Contractor shall conduct assessments, sampling and
other taskings such as archaeological assessments in
support of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment
(EE/CA). The EE/CA shall be conducted utilizing
established procedures and protocols from previous
Tronox NAUM sites.
Warren Zehner will be the alternate COR on this TDD.
TDD # ¦ 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 004
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 1 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc.
TDD # • 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 005
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
TDD Title : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Purpose : C0RRECT completion date field
Priority : HIGH
Overtime Authorized : Yes
Invoice Unit:
Verbal Date :
Start Date : 03/28/2018
Completion Date : 08/14/2020
Effective Date : 03/28/2018
SSID: 0600
Project/Site Name : Tronox NAUM Section 10
Project Address :
County: McKinley
City:
State : nm
Zip Code :
WorkArea : Response / Removal
Work Area Code :
Activity: Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
Activity Code : EE
Operable Unit:
Emergency Code :
FPN :
Performance Based : No
Authorized TDD Ceiling :
Amount
LOE (Hours)
Previous Action(s) :
This Action :
$0. 00
$0. 00
O O
o o
o o
New Total :
$0. 00
o
o
o
Specific Elements :
Description of Work :
See Schedule
Region Specific :
CERCLIS: :
Misc 2 :
Accounting and Appropriation Information:
SFO:
Line
Budget / FY
Approp
Budget
Program
Flpmpnt
Object
Class
Site Project
Cost
DCN Line-ID
Funding
TDD Amount
-------
EPA
Technical Direction Document
Page 2 Of 2
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Vendor- WEST0N solutions, inc
Project Officer: Will LaBombard
Branch Mail Code:
Phone Number:
214-665-7199
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer Representative William
Rhotenberry
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-8372
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contract Specialist: Brian Delaney
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
214-665-7473
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Contracting Officer: Brian Delaney
Branch Mail Code :
Electronically Signed by Brian Delaney
04/29/2019
Phone Number:
214-665-7473
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Other Agency Official
Branch Mail Code :
Phone Number:
(Signature)
(Date)
Fax Number:
Description of Work:
Amendment 005 - Amendment 4 extended the POP to 8/14/2020, but the "Completion Date" field was
not changed from 8/14/2019. This amendment corrects the "Completion Date" field to also reflect
8/14/2020.
Amendment 004 - Extend the TDD POP to 08/14/2020 and increase the funding ceiling by $125,000
(from $200,000 to $325,000) for additional LOE within the existing specific elements of this
TDD. Funding for this amendment is from the Tronox NAUM TR2 account A6PK.
Amendment 003 - Change the primary COR for this TDD to Warren Zehner.
Amendment 002 - Extend the TDD POP to 08/14/2019 so that work can continue. No other changes
needed.
Amendment 001 - Extend the TDD POP to 12/18/2018 and increase the funding ceiling by $100,000
(for a new ceiling of $200,000) so that work can continue.
Base ORIG - The initial funding ceiling for this TDD is set at $100,000. This site has a
Reimbursable Account (TR2, TR2B, etc.) and all TDD costs shall be invoiced against this
SSID-specific TO funding. The contractor shall notify the PO and COR when the TR2B funding is
85% expended. When this special account funding is not available, costs shall be invoiced
against the oldest 6A00E or 6A00S funding on the task order.
The contractor shall use SSID A6PK on all forms, reports, emails, communications, and
deliverables.
The Contractor shall conduct assessments, sampling and
other taskings such as archaeological assessments in
support of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment
(EE/CA). The EE/CA shall be conducted utilizing
established procedures and protocols from previous
Tronox NAUM sites.
Warren Zehner will be the alternate COR on this TDD.
TDD # ¦ 0001/17-044
Amendment#: 005
Contract#: ep-ss-17-02
------- |