[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46042-46054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18186]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 40-8903; License No. SUA-1471]


Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 
Related to the Issuance of a License Amendment for Construction of a 
Third Evaporation Pond, Homestake Mining Company of California Grants, 
New Mexico Project

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Summary of environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Buckley, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State 
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop: T8F5, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 
Telephone: (301) 415-6607; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1.0 Introduction

    Below is a summary of the Environmental Assessment (EA). The 
complete EA is available in Agency-wide Documents Access Management 
System (ADAMS), at Accession No.: ML080920594.

1.1 Background

    Homestake Mining Corporation (HMC), through a variety of 
partnerships and joint venture associations, operated a uranium milling 
operation in Cibola County, New Mexico, beginning in 1958, and 
continuing through 1990. The site is north of the City of Grants in 
Section 26, Township 12 North, Range 10 West. Since 1990, the site has 
been in reclamation. Site reclamation includes facility 
decommissioning, tailings impoundment area restoration, groundwater 
restoration and monitoring, and post-closure care and monitoring. The 
site is licensed under NRC License SUA-1471. During operations, 
approximately 22 million tons of ore were milled at the site, using a 
conventional alkaline leach process (NRC, 1993). From 1993 to 1995, the 
mill was decommissioned and demolished. After the mill was demolished, 
final surface reclamation commenced in accordance with the amended U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements (NRC, 2006). Surface 
reclamation is nearly complete, with final reclamation and 
stabilization to be completed after groundwater restoration is 
completed. Groundwater contamination from past mill activities remains, 
and groundwater restoration is the primary activity occurring at the 
site. Once groundwater quality restoration is complete and approved, 
the site will be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 
which will have the responsibility for long-term site care and 
maintenance.
    HMC currently manages a groundwater restoration program, as defined 
by NRC License SUA-1471, and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) 
Discharge Plan (DP), DP-200 and DP-725 (HMC, 2007b). The current 
groundwater restoration program is also under the oversight of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region VI Superfund Program. The 
restoration program is a dynamic ongoing strategy based on a 
groundwater reclamation plan, which began in 1977. Additional 
evaluation of the groundwater restoration program recently has 
identified the need to extend the program, by approximately four years, 
to 2017 to finish cleanup objectives. HMC's long-term goal is to 
restore the groundwater aquifer system in the area, as close as 
practicable, to the up-gradient groundwater quality background levels. 
The restoration program is designed to remove target contaminants from 
the groundwater through use of injection and collection systems, 
utilizing deep-well supplied fresh water or water produced from the 
reverse osmosis (RO) plant. A groundwater collection area has been 
established and is hydraulically bounded by a down-gradient perimeter 
of injection and infiltration systems comprising groundwater wells and 
infiltration lines (NRC, 2007b). The RO plant has operated at the site 
since late 1999 to augment groundwater clean-up activities. A series of 
collection wells is used to collect the contaminated water, which is 
pumped to the RO plant for treatment or, alternatively, pumped to a 
series of evaporation ponds.
    HMC seeks NRC approval to increase its evaporation and storage 
capacity to increase the rate of groundwater restoration by 
constructing a third evaporation pond (EP3). To construct EP3, an 
amendment to the NRC License SUA-1471 is required. The amendment 
request addresses the construction of EP3 and site boundary expansion 
associated with locating EP3 north of the mill tailings impoundment and 
north of County Road 63. The site is regulated by the NRC pursuant to 
the requirements of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 40 
(10 CFR part 40), ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material.'' The EA was 
prepared in accordance with NRC requirements in 10 CFR 51 and with the 
associated guidance in NRC report NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review 
Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.'' The EA 
assesses the likely impacts to the environment from HMC's proposal to 
expand the current licensed boundary and to construct EP3 for 
groundwater reclamation.

1.2 The Proposed Action (Alternative B) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Alternatives are analyzed in the EA in the order that they 
are addressed in the HMC Environmental Report (Bridges and Meyer, 
2007) for consistency. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, 
Alternative B is the Proposed Action, and Alternatives C and D are 
alternate evaporative pond locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed action is to amend Source Material License SUA-1471 to 
permit the expansion of the permitted operations boundary and to permit 
construction of EP3 for groundwater reclamation activities. The NRC-
licensed boundary would be expanded by approximately 185 acres (HMC, 
2006b).
    The proposed amendment to SUA-1471 would allow HMC to construct EP3 
on HMC property north of the large tailings impoundment at a location 
in sections 22 and 23, approximately 1,800 feet north of County Road 
63. A 50-foot wide access corridor would be constructed to access the 
proposed pond and to locate piping and associated infrastructures to 
the proposed pond area. The proposed area of impact for EP3 is 
approximately 33 acres, including the service corridor and earthen 
containment dike. The evaporative surface area of the proposed pond is 
approximately 26.5 acres. The pond would be constructed as an at-grade 
facility, with cut and fill designed to be in rough balance. Therefore, 
no significant quantities of soil would be imported or exported from 
the site. The pond would have a double High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) 
liner with a leak detection/collection system. After groundwater 
remediation is complete, the pond would be removed and the area 
reclaimed (HMC, 2006b).

[[Page 46043]]

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action

    Additional evaporation pond capacity is needed to enhance 
groundwater restoration and complete the approved groundwater 
restoration program (HMC, 1991; NRC, 1993). Additional evaporation pond 
capacity would allow HMC to pump approximately 33 percent more 
contaminated groundwater than can be currently pumped under existing 
conditions. Further, additional evaporative capacity would allow the 
groundwater restoration to be completed by 2017, although this date may 
change based on the performance of the restoration program (HMC, 
2006b). Construction of an additional evaporation pond would result in 
increased initial costs for HMC, but would shorten the time required to 
implement the groundwater corrective action plan (CAP). Additional 
benefits would include increased hydraulic control of the contaminant 
plume and faster restoration of contaminated groundwater. Faster 
completion of the groundwater CAP would result in earlier completion of 
surface reclamation and the placement of a final cover on the large 
tailings impoundment. Many of the groundwater reclamation wells are on 
the large tailings impoundment which will not have a final cover until 
the groundwater restoration is complete.
    As discussed in section 2, HMC has analyzed the impacts of placing 
EP3 at two additional locations on HMC property. The Alternative B 
location is preferred because it minimizes the dust and noise impacts 
to the local residents during construction and the evaporative odors 
during operation of EP3.

2.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    HMC's objective is to increase its evaporation and storage 
capacities to aid in groundwater restoration. To meet this objective, 
HMC would like to add an additional evaporation pond. HMC has three 
available location alternatives for EP3. HMC is the property owner of 
lands associated with each of the three siting alternatives. 
Construction details and evaporation pond designs are the same for each 
of the siting alternatives. The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) 
and Alternatives C and D are described below.

2.1 No Action Alternative (Alternative A)

    The no action alternative would be continued groundwater 
reclamation at the HMC facility under current capacities. No changes to 
the NRC license or site boundary expansion would occur. All current 
operations and maintenance programs would continue as planned according 
to the general provisions of the HMC Closure Plan approved May 12, 1993 
(NRC, 1993).

2.2 Alternative Evaporative Pond Location (Alternative C)

    Alternative C: This alternative involves constructing EP3 within 
the SE quarter of section 23 along County Road 63 and within 1,800 feet 
of NM 605. The NRC-licensed boundary would be expanded by approximately 
68 acres. The pond is proposed to be square in shape and disturb 
approximately 33 acres of land, including the access corridor and 
earthen containment dike. The pond is anticipated to provide 26.5 acres 
of surface area for the evaporation and water storage purposes. The 
pond would be constructed as an at-grade facility, with cut and fill 
designed to be in rough balance. Therefore, no significant quantities 
of soil would be imported or exported from the site. The pond would 
have a double HDPE liner with a leak detection/collection system.

2.3 Alterative Evaporative Pond Location (Alternative D)

    Alternative D: This alternative involves constructing EP3 on the 
southwest side of Evaporation Pond  2 (EP2) located south of 
the large tailings pile impoundment in the SW quarter of section 26. 
Under this alternative, EP3 would share the southwest dike wall of EP2 
within the existing licensed boundary. The pond would be sized and 
constructed as described in Alternative C. This alternative would not 
require an NRC-licensed boundary expansion, as EP3 would be within the 
boundary of the present NRC-licensed area.

3.0 Affected Environment

    The affected environment is very similar for Alternatives B, C, and 
D. Alternatives B, C, and D are relatively close to one another, each 
separated by approximately two miles or less.

3.1 Land Use

3.1.1 Site Location

    The HMC Mill is located in Cibola County, about five and one-half 
miles (8.8 kilometers, km) north of the City of Grants and the Village 
of Milan, New Mexico. The site is situated in the San Mateo drainage at 
an elevation of 6,600 feet (1980 meters) above Mean Sea Level (MSL). 
The project area is surrounded by mesas ranging in elevation from 7,000 
to 8,600 feet (2100 to 2580 meters) above MSL. The mesas define a 
roughly circular valley about 10 miles (16 km) in diameter. The San 
Mateo drainage is an ephemeral arroyo, which drains an area of 
approximately 291 square miles (75,369 hectares) and connects with the 
Rio San Jose near the Village of Milan.
    The U.S. Census estimated the total population of Cibola County for 
2000 at 25,595, and the Northwest New Mexico Council of Governments 
estimated the County population to increase to 26,509 by 2010. The 
adjacent incorporated areas of Grants and Milan contain the largest 
population in the area. The 2000 U.S. Census estimated the population 
of the Grants-Milan community to be about 11,000, with about 2000 of 
these people located near the site in Milan. There are several 
subdivisions located approximately one-half-mile (0.8 km) south and 
southwest of the site. There are currently nearby residences located to 
the south and west of the facility. The majority of the land in the 
vicinity of the current mill site is undeveloped rangeland. The ARCO 
Bluewater uranium mill site is located approximately five miles (8.05 
km) west of the HMC site (Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
    Residential areas are estimated to account for approximately three 
percent of the area. The only surface water bodies in the vicinity of 
the site are several stock ponds and some small ephemeral ponds. 
Drinking water for the Grants-Milan area is obtained from deep wells 
drilled into the San Andres aquifer. Domestic water for the 
subdivisions south and west of the site is also obtained primarily, but 
not exclusively, from the Grants-Milan public water system.

3.1.2 On-Site Land Use--HMC Properties

    Uranium milling operations at the Grants site began in 1958, and 
was terminated in February 1990. Two separate mills were originally 
located at the site. The smaller mill operated until January 1962, 
after which all milling activities were conducted in the larger 
facility. Both mills utilized alkaline leach circuits, with a nominal 
capacity for the two mills of 3,400 tons of ore per day. The alkaline 
leach circuit employed at the Grants Mill required a finer grind of the 
material to be leached than does an acid leach circuit. As a result, up 
to 60 percent of the tailings solids are finer than a No. 200 sieve 
size (NRC, 1993). Finer materials are more susceptible to migration or 
transport through natural mechanisms such as wind and water erosion 
(Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
    Following extraction of the uranium, the tailings were discharged 
to either the small or the large tailings impoundment. Both 
impoundments were constructed using an earth fill

[[Page 46044]]

containment dike into which the tailings were discharged. The small 
impoundment contains approximately 1.8 million tons of tailings, while 
the large impoundment contains approximately 21 million tons. HMC owns 
and controls a sizeable land area in and around the Grants Reclamation 
Project. Over the years, additional lands have been acquired as 
opportunity has arisen and acquisition of such lands is deemed 
appropriate in relation to ongoing groundwater remediation, restoration 
activities and final reclamation of the site.
    The windblown tailings clean-up project began in 1995 and involved 
mechanical disturbance and the removal of tailings imported by wind for 
placement within the sites tailings pile area. During the 35 years of 
milling and processing operations at the site, windblown tailings were 
deposited over approximately 1200 acres immediately surrounding the 
tailings pile. Deposition of windblown tailings over the HMC property 
occurred during high wind conditions.
    Heavy machinery was used in removing the contaminated deposits, 
which sometimes reached a depth of more than three feet (one meter). 
After removal of the contaminated deposits, seed and mulch were spread 
on the remaining soils to assist in revegetation efforts (Byszewski, 
2006). HMC lands owned in the area that are not within the immediate 
proximity of the tailings pile complex have been, and are continuing to 
be, utilized for livestock grazing on a lessor/lessee tenant 
arrangement. Most of the current land area within the present site 
boundary has been excluded from livestock grazing and other land use, 
except those areas that are not directly related to the ongoing 
groundwater restoration activities. As such, livestock grazing is not 
currently allowed in the immediate tailings pile areas, evaporation 
pond areas, or the office/maintenance shop locations. However, certain 
small areas in the southern and western portions of land within the 
site boundary are utilized for livestock grazing.
    Several residential lots held by HMC in the surrounding 
subdivisions and in the general area of the reclamation site are idle 
and are essentially not in use, except in certain instances where fresh 
water injection and water collection are underway as part of the 
ongoing groundwater restoration program.

3.1.3 Off-Site Land Use--Pleasant Valley Estates, Murray Acres, 
Broadview Acres, Felice Acres and Valle Verde Residential Subdivisions

    A large portion of land around the HMC-owned properties is used for 
grazing. The other major land use immediately proximal to the site 
consists of residential development located in the Pleasant Valley 
Estates, Murray Acres, Broadview Acres, Valle Verde, and Felice Acres 
residential subdivisions. Into the mid-1970s, monitoring wells showed 
no increase in the levels of radioactive materials, but did show 
elevated levels of selenium in the domestic water supply. As a result 
of the elevated selenium levels, HMC provided subdivision residents 
with potable water and eventually entered into an agreement with the 
EPA to extend the Village of Milan water system to the four residential 
subdivisions near the mill. The Village of Milan water supply extension 
was completed in the mid-1980s and HMC agreed to pay the basic water 
service charges for the residents of the Pleasant Valley Estates, 
Murray Acres, Broadview Acres, and Felice Acres subdivisions, for a 
period of 10 years. The Village of Milan water supply was extended out 
to the Valle Verde subdivision and immediately adjacent area at a later 
date. However, current information indicates that some residents in the 
area are using water wells for drinking water supplies.
    An assessment of current land use in these residential subdivision 
areas was completed by Hydro-Engineering, LLC of Casper, Wyoming, in 
late 2005 and early 2006, to provide an annual review of the present 
uses, occupancy, and status for the various lots within these 
subdivisions (HMC, 2006b). A review of land use for HMC properties and 
the residential subdivision areas to the immediate south and west of 
the Grants Reclamation Project site indicates that present land uses in 
the area have not changed significantly over the past five years. Over 
the years, permanent residential homes, modular homes and mobile homes 
have been established in the subdivision areas, and immediate adjacent 
areas, as would typify a rural residential neighborhood. A number of 
lots remain vacant, or are utilized for horse barns, corrals, and/or 
equipment storage. In some cases, dwellings are present on several lots 
throughout the subdivisions, but are currently vacant or have been 
permanently abandoned.
    Field review of the five subdivision areas, along with follow-up 
inquiries as required to confirm the status of water use at each 
property, indicates that, at present, all occupied residential sites 
in, or immediately adjacent to the Felice Acres, Broadview Acres, 
Murray Acres, and Pleasant Valley subdivisions are on metered water 
service with the Village of Milan. In the Valle Verde residential area 
and immediately adjacent to the subdivision, 12 residences were 
identified that are not on the Village of Milan water supply system and 
therefore are obtaining domestic-use water from private well supplies. 
One of these 12 is a residence on a private well supply about one-
quarter mile west of the Valle Verde subdivision. Current information 
indicates that all other occupied residential lots in the Valle Verde 
area are on the Village of Milan water supply system (Bridges and 
Meyer, 2007).

3.2 Transportation

    Interstate-40 and State Highway 605 are the principal highway 
access routes near the project area. Public highways or railroads do 
not cross the NRC-licensed area of the HMC property. County Road 63 
bisects the proposed boundary expansion of Alternatives B and C to the 
north. Normal access to the HMC site is from the south via State 
Highway 605 then traveling west on County Road 63. The NRC-licensed 
area is fenced and posted by HMC. Currently, County Road 63 is not 
within the NRC-licensed site boundary.

3.3 Geology and Seismology

    The HMC Site is located on the northeast flank of the Zuni Uplift, 
a tectonic feature, which is characterized by Precambrian crystalline 
basement rocks overlain by Permian and Triassic sedimentary rocks 
(D'Appolonia,1982). Major faults occur along the southwest flank of the 
Zuni Uplift, with only minor faults mapped in the region surrounding 
the site. Faults associated with the Zuni Uplift are generally 
northwest trending, steeply dipping reverse faults. However, the minor, 
steeply dipping normal and reverse faults in the vicinity of the site 
generally trend northeast. A number of geologic faults pass near the 
site; however, they are considered to be inactive since they do not 
displace nearby lava flows of Quaternary age (less than 1.8 million 
years) or express youthful geomorphic features indicative of active 
faults (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). None of the local faults are 
considered to be active (D'Appolonia, 1982).
    Earthquakes, which have occurred within 60 miles (96 km) of the 
site, have typically been of low intensity (D'Appolonia, 1982). Based 
on an analysis conducted in 1981 of the number of earthquakes and their

[[Page 46045]]

magnitudes, the maximum earthquake in the area is estimated to be a 
magnitude 4.9 (Richter Scale) during a 100-year period. By comparison, 
the largest historical earthquake recorded in the region is a magnitude 
4.1 (Richter Scale) (D'Appolonia, 1982; Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
    Slope gradients in the area generally range from zero to five 
percent in valleys and mesa tops, and from five-to-over 100 percent on 
the flanks of the mesas and on the nearby volcanic peaks. Where the 
gradient is steep in the northern San Mateo drainage, intersecting 
arroyos are commonly incised from 10 to 30 feet (three to nine meters). 
Where the gradient decreases, such as in the Site vicinity, incision is 
minimal and flow occurs in wide, shallow, poorly defined, or 
practically nonexistent channels.
    The majority of the project area contains soils of the Sparank-San 
Mateo complex. Sparank and San Mateo soils are well drained and 
moderately alkaline. Sparank soils are comprised of clay loam overlying 
silty clay loam; San Mateo soils are loams. Both soils are conducive to 
agriculture (Bridges and Meyer, 2007; Byszewski, 2006).
    In general, the nature of the flat valley exposes it to high winds 
and shifting aeolian sands. Documentation of mechanical disturbance of 
one meter of accumulated Aeolian sediments, and the presence of sand 
sage (deep sand indicator species) suggests the presence of deep 
Aeolian overburden in the area, especially areas that have not been 
subjected to mechanical disturbance (Byszewski, 2006).

3.4 Water Resources and Hydrology

    The HMC Site is located east of the continental divide in the Rio 
Grande drainage system of west-central New Mexico. The surface water 
regime surrounding the HMC Site is influenced by the arid-to-semiarid 
climate of the region, the relatively medium-to-high permeability of 
the soils, and the exposed bedrocks of the watersheds. The HMC Site is 
in the San Mateo drainage. Down gradient from the site the Lobo Canyon 
drainage flows into the San Mateo drainage from the southeast, and the 
San Mateo drainage flows westward into the Rio San Jose drainage, which 
flows to the southeast. The San Mateo drainage basin above the site has 
a drainage area of approximately 291 square miles. Its shape is roughly 
circular and it contains a dendritic drainage pattern (D'Appolonia 
1982). Maximum relief is 4,724 feet with elevations ranging from 6,576 
feet above MSL at the outlet to 11,300 feet above MSL at Mount Taylor. 
North of the site, the San Mateo is an ephemeral arroyo and flows in 
direct response to precipitation or snow melt events. There is no 
distinct channel near the site. A very large precipitation event could 
result in flow from the San Mateo drainage entering the Rio San Jose 
drainage. The Rio San Jose is itself ephemeral and flows only in direct 
response to local rainstorms or snow melt. The Rio San Jose discharges 
to the Rio Puerco drainage, which is a tributary of the Rio Grande 
River. San Mateo Creek reaches from the northeast to the southwest 
through the HMC property. Other surface water bodies in the general 
vicinity of the HMC Site include several stock ponds, some small 
ephemeral ponds, and an undetermined number of springs on the flanks of 
Mount Taylor.
    At and nearby the HMC site, the saturated drainages are the 
saturated alluviums or shallow water-bearing units. In the immediate 
vicinity of the site, the saturated thickness of the San Mateo alluvium 
varies from 10-to-60 feet (3-to-20 meters). The Chinle formation, 
comprised mainly of massive shale interspersed with some sandstone 
(approximately 800 feet thick), exists below the alluvium. The Chinle 
formation acts as an effective barrier between the aquifer bearing 
portion of the alluvium and the underlying San Andres formation, which 
is the principal water-bearing formation in the vicinity of the mill 
(Bridges and Meyer, 2007) and the primary groundwater source for the 
municipalities in the area. Milling activities at the site have 
resulted in impacts to the San Mateo alluvial aquifer and Chinle 
aquifers, which underlie the Grants Mill. A groundwater corrective 
action program has been implemented at the site since 1977. The 
corrective action includes the injection of fresh water from the San 
Andres aquifer into the alluvial aquifer near an HMC property boundary 
to form a hydraulic barrier to the seepage and reverse the local 
groundwater gradient so contaminated water can be retrieved by a series 
of collection wells located near the tailings impoundment. The captured 
water is treated currently through the RO plant or sent directly to 
synthetically-lined evaporation ponds. The corrective action program 
appears to be successful in mitigating the negative impacts of seepage 
from the tailings ponds (Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
    Under the HMC groundwater restoration plan, water collected from 
the alluvial and Chinle aquifers underlying the site would continue to 
be collected where there are relatively low levels of selenium and 
uranium and be used for re-injection in the initial phase of 
restoration of some areas. Re-injection would occur in the alluvium 
where concentrations are greater than those of the injected water until 
such time as injection with San Andres fresh water or RO product water 
would better complete the restoration.

3.5 Ecology

3.5.1 Vegetation

    Vegetation in the vicinity of the site consists primarily of desert 
grassland of the Colorado Plateau (NRC, 1993). The project area is 
semi-arid grassland characterized by shrubs and mixed grama-gelleta 
steppe grasses. A large area in west-central New Mexico is classified 
as Desert Grassland and is thought to be a new succession-disturbance 
desert grassland, characterized by galleta and blue grama grasses 
consisting of high shrub and forb densities, with low grass densities 
(Byszewski, 2006).
    Common plants found include four-wing saltbrush, greasewood, sand 
sage, and broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia Sarothrae). Grasses include blue 
grama (Bouteloua gracilis), sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), 
Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and bunch grass species. 
Some narrowleaf yucca (Yucca angustissima) was also observed. Salt 
cedar (Tamarix spp.), an invasive species, is beginning to establish 
itself in isolated areas along the shallow San Mateo Creek.
    Earthen stock tanks within the project area are supporting wetland 
plants such as Cattail (Typha lantifolia). The establishment of wet 
areas provides water and food for a variety of wildlife, including red-
winged black birds and coyotes.
    Most of the area located around the site was bladed in 1995 and re-
seeded with shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Groundcover varies from 79 
percent to 99 percent. No plant species currently listed as rare, 
endangered, or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 
or the State of New Mexico, were observed within the project area 
(Byszewski, 2006).

3.5.2 Wildlife

    Wildlife in the area is generally limited to small mammals and bird 
species. Characteristic species include mule deer, coyote, 
rattlesnakes, and many species of birds, small rodents, and lizards. 
During the Cultural Resource inventory survey in June 2006, cottontail 
rabbits and black tailed jackrabbits, ravens, rattlesnakes, horned 
lizards, blackbirds, and prairie dogs were observed (Byszewski, 2006).

[[Page 46046]]

3.5.3 Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species

    Table 1 identifies the Federal threatened and endangered species 
and species of concern known to occur in Cibola County, New Mexico, 
according to the New Mexico Game and Fish (NMGF) (Bridges and Meyer, 
2007; NMGF, 2007).
    The occurrence of endangered or threatened plant species is 
unlikely to occur within the project area due to the surface being 
significantly altered by mechanical disturbance that had occurred as 
part of HMC's windblown contamination clean-up project.

        Table 1--Federal Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Common name             Scientific name           Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zuni Bluehead Sucker........  Catostomus            Candidate.
                               discobolus yarrowi.
Bald Eagle..................  Haliaeetus            Threatened.
                               leucocephalus.
Northern Goshawk............  Accipiter gentilis..  Species of Concern.
American Peregrine Falcon...  Falco peregrinus      Species of Concern.
                               anatum.
Mountain Plover.............  Charadrius montanus.  Species of Concern.
Yellow-billed Cuckoo........  Coccyzus americanus.  Candidate.
Mexican Spotted Owl.........  Strix occidentalis    Threatened.
                               lucida.
Burrowing Owl...............  Athene cunicularia..  Species of Concern.
Southwest Willow Flycatcher.  Empidonax trailii     Endangered.
                               extimus.
Cebolleta Pocket Gopher.....  Thomomys bottae       Species of Concern.
                               paguatae.
Mtn Silverspot Butterfly....  Speyeria nokomis      Species of Concern.
                               nitocris.
Pecos sunflower.............  Helianthus paradoxus  Threatened.
Zuni fleabane...............  Erigeron rhizomatus.  Threatened.
Acoma fleabane..............  Erigeron acomanus...  Species of Concern.
Cinder phacelia.............  Phacelia serrata....  Species of Concern.
Gypsum phacelia.............  Phacelia sp. nov....  Species of Concern.
Black Footed Ferret.........  Mustela nigripes....  Endangered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

3.6.1 Meteorology and Climatology

    Climatology and meteorology data are based on data summaries 
acquired from the National Climatology Data Center (NCDC) and the New 
Mexico Climate Center (NMCC) within the proximity of the project 
location and include National Weather Service data from the City of 
Grants (approximately 5.5 miles southeast of the project area (Bridges 
and Meyer, 2007).
    Monthly average temperatures in Grants, New Mexico, range from the 
low-thirties (degrees Fahrenheit) during the winter, to the low 
seventies in the summer. Maximum summer temperatures reach into the low 
nineties, while minimum winter temperatures fall in the low-teens.
    Precipitation received in the area averages approximately 12 inches 
per year with the maximum monthly totals received during the summer 
months accounting for nearly half of the annual total. Summer 
precipitation is usually associated with thunderstorms, which form with 
the arrival of warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico. Winter 
precipitation is derived mainly from storms from the Pacific Ocean, 
although the amounts received are much less than during summer months.
    Relative humidity in the area averages near 60 percent with the 
highest monthly average in December and the lowest in May. Annual 
evaporation for the area, estimated using equations outlined by NRC 
(1993), is approximately 78-to-94 percent of the annual precipitation, 
or 9-to-11 inches per year.
    HMC (2007d) reports the predominant wind direction is from the 
southwest. Average wind speed is estimated to be five miles per hour 
with a prevailing wind speed of five miles per hour. However, surface 
winds in the project area are reported by Bridges and Meyer (2007) as 
predominantly from the north-northwest. The Bridges and Meyer wind data 
is from the Grants/Milan airport. Wind direction at the local airport 
is thought to be influenced by local landforms that are absent at the 
site. Data showing the predominant wind direction from the southwest is 
reported from HMC's onsite weather station and is consistent with older 
weather information from the nearby Arco/Bluewater site. While the 
prevailing wind direction is from the southwest, the Arco/Bluewater 
data wind rose shows a very significant westerly and northwesterly 
component (Cox, 2007).

3.6.2 Air Quality

    Air quality status of the project area is considered to be 
unclassifiable or in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for the regulated criteria air pollutants, including 
particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10), Nitrogen 
Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Carbon 
Monoxide (CO) and Ozone. No known monitoring data for the HMC site area 
were found through a review of New Mexico ambient air monitoring data 
within the past five years (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). The nearest 
monitoring sites are located in Albuquerque.
    Total suspended particulate matter (TSP) is an additional regulated 
air pollutant in New Mexico. TSP refers to small, solid particles or 
liquid droplets suspended in the air and having diameters of 25-to-45 
microns. The major industrial point source of TSP is the coal-fired 
Coronado Generating Station, approximately 60 miles southwest of the 
project site.
    Peabody Energy's Mustang project is a proposed 300-megawatt project 
to be located north of Grants, New Mexico, using coal from the existing 
Lee Ranch Mine operated by Peabody. An air quality permit application 
has already been filed and accepted as complete. Peabody recently 
received approval for a DOE grant (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). The permit 
application will likely be revised to reflect changes proposed in the 
grant application.
    Local area TSP sources are wind-blown dust, vehicular traffic on 
unpaved roads, and wind-blown liquid droplets from the aeration 
activities in the HMC evaporation ponds Evaporation Pond 1 
(EP1) and EP2.

3.7 Noise

    The HMC Site is located approximately one-half to three-quarters of 
a mile from the nearest subdivision. The operational noises generated 
at the HMC site are related to reclamation

[[Page 46047]]

activities. Reclamation activities include vehicle traffic, heavy 
equipment operation, pump operation, and monitoring well drilling 
activities.

3.8 Cultural Resources

    Taschek Environmental Consulting personnel conducted an intensive 
(100-percent) cultural resource survey on approximately 350 acres in 
Sections 22 and 23 of Township 12 North, Range 10 West, for the 
proposed project. The field survey was conducted from June 5 to June 
15, 2006. The New Mexico Cultural Resource Inventory System (NMCRIS) 
Project Activity Number for the survey is 100406.
    Eleven new sites, one previously recorded site, and 53 isolated 
occurrences (IOs) were identified during the survey. Of the twelve 
documented archaeological sites, three sites are recommended eligible 
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under 
Criterion D for their information potential, based on the high 
probability of intact buried cultural deposits at these sites. An 
undetermined eligibility status is recommended for three sites pending 
a testing program that would determine the presence or absence of 
intact subsurface cultural deposits. The remaining six sites are 
recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP due to their lack of 
integrity (Byszewski, 2006).

3.9 Visual Resources

    Visual resources and recreational areas found within Cibola County 
include: San Mateo Mountains (including Mt. Taylor), Cibola National 
Forest, Acoma Village, San Estaban Del Ray Mission, El Malpais National 
Monument, El Morro National Monument, El Morro National Monument 
Inscription Rock Historical Marker, Old Fort Wingate-Zuni Wagon Road 
Historic Site, Pueblo Revolt Tricentennial Historical Marker, Petaca 
Plata Wilderness Study Area, Long Park, San Rafael Historical Marker, 
and Pueblo of Acoma Historical Marker.
    Facility buildings and mill tailings impoundments associated with 
the HMC site are visible from State Highway NM 605 and surrounding 
residential areas to the south and west of the property boundary. The 
HMC site can be seen from the following residential areas: Pleasant 
Valley Estates, Murray Acres, Broadview Acres, Felice Acres, and Valle 
Verde, Subdivisions.

3.10 Socioeconomic

3.10.1 Cibola County

    Cibola County was created by a division of Valencia County in 1981 
therefore, population data for the new county before 1981 are 
estimated. In 1970, the county's population was 20,125, rising to 
30,109 in 1980 and falling to 23,794 in 1990. These population changes 
were mainly related to uranium mining activity in the area. In 2000 the 
Cibola County population was estimated to be 25,595. The county 
encompasses a land area of 4,539 square miles. Industries providing 
employment include: Educational, health and social services (27.4 
percent), Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food 
services (12.8 percent), public administration (12.3 percent), and 
retail trade (10.5 percent). Types of workers within Cibola County 
include, private wage or salary--58 percent, government--35 percent, 
self-employed, not incorporated 6 percent, and unpaid family work--1 
percent. Cibola County population, by ethnic background, includes: 
American Indian--41.8 percent, Hispanic--33.4 percent, White Non-
Hispanic--24.7 percent, Other race--15.4 percent, two or more races--
3.2 percent, and African American--1 percent. The total can be greater 
than 100 percent because some Hispanics could be counted as other 
races. A mix of rural and industrial activities has characterized the 
Cibola County economy with uranium mining as the biggest factor in both 
the ``boom'' cycles of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and the ``bust'' cycle of 
the 1980s. The location of federal and state prisons in the county has 
helped buffer some of the consequences of the economic downturn, and 
the County is currently on an economic upturn, as evidenced by the 
recent location of a major retail center and the construction of an 
inter-agency ``gateway to the region'' Visitor Center (Bridges and 
Meyer, 2007).

3.10.2 City of Grants

    The City of Grants is the largest incorporated area near the 
proposed project site. The population of Grants, in November of 2005, 
was estimated at 15,232. Between 2000 and 2005, the population of 
Grants has increased 2.7 percent. The City of Grants encompasses 
approximately 13.7 square miles. The next nearest city is Rio Rancho, 
located approximately 80 miles east of the HMC site, with a population 
of 51,765. The City of Albuquerque is located approximately 85 miles 
east, with a population of 448,607 (Bridges and Meyer, 2007).

3.11 Public and Occupational Health

3.11.1 Air Particulate Monitoring

    HMC continuously samples suspended particulates at six locations 
around the reclamation site (HMC, 2007b, HMC, 2007d). Three of the six 
locations are downwind from the reclamation activities. Two of the six 
locations are located close to the nearest residence, and the remaining 
location is located upwind from the reclamation site. The upwind 
location is used for background sampling. Energy Laboratories, Inc., 
analyzes the collected samples quarterly for Natural Uranium (Unat), 
Radium-226, and Thorium-230.

3.11.2 Radon Gas Monitoring

    Radon gas is monitored on a continuous basis at eight locations, 
with one location located northwest of the site to record background 
levels (HMC, 2007b, HMC, 2007d). Semiannually HMC personnel place new 
track-etch passive radon monitors (PRMs) at the monitoring locations, 
and the exposed detectors are retrieved and returned to Landauer 
Corporation for analysis (HMC, 2007d).

3.11.3 Direct Radiation

    Gamma exposure rates are continuously monitored through the use of 
optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeter badges at each of 
seven locations (HMC, 2007b, HMC, 2007d). One location northwest of the 
site is considered the background location for direct radiation. The 
OSLs are exchanged semiannually and analyzed by an approved independent 
laboratory (currently Landauer). The levels of direct environmental 
radiation are recorded for each of the seven locations (HMC, 2007d).

3.11.4 Surface Contamination

3.11.4.1 Personnel Skin and Clothing
    The monitoring of personnel for alpha contamination is required as 
part of all radiation work permits using standard operating procedures. 
No releases of personnel or clothing above administrative limits were 
reported during the January-June 2007 period (HMC 2007d). Previous 
project Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports, filed with NRC 
pursuant to requirements of the project Radioactive Materials License, 
also document non-release of contaminated materials.
3.11.4.2 Survey of Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted Use
    Equipment surveys are required for all equipment that is to be 
removed from contaminated areas as specified in radiation work permits. 
Standard operating procedures are used for these surveys. No releases 
of contaminated material above NRC release criteria were reported 
during the January-June 2007 period (HMC, 2007d). Previous project

[[Page 46048]]

Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports, filed with NRC pursuant 
to requirements of the project radioactive materials license, also 
document non-release of contaminated materials.

3.12 Waste Management

    Upon completion of reclamation and groundwater cleanup activities, 
EP3 would be decommissioned and the area reclaimed to allow return of 
the land to present unrestricted use. At present, the proposed EP3 pond 
site area is utilized for livestock grazing.
    All evaporation concentrates remaining within the EP3 pond liner at 
the end of the EP3 use period, would be removed and relocated to EP1 
for incorporation with final reclamation of EP1 and the small tailings 
pile. The pond liner, piping, and other related infrastructure 
associated with EP3 would also be relocated to EP1, incorporated with 
other project demolition and decommissioning waste, and reclaimed with 
the small tailings pile that presently underlies EP1.
    The area occupied by EP3, along with the access corridor, piping 
and utility corridors would be seeded and revegetated. The security 
fencing would be removed to allow agricultural grazing land use. Upon 
completion of the reclamation and decommissioning, the permitted 
license boundary associated with the EP3 pond location would be 
adjusted back to the present project site boundary.

4.0 Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Monitoring

4.1 Environmental Impacts

    The environmental impacts associated with the possible locations 
for EP3 are discussed below.

4.1.1 Land Use

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
changes to the affected environment as described in Section 3. However, 
there are short-term positive impacts associated with the no action 
alternative because land use changes resulting from construction and 
operation of EP3 would be avoided. The short-term positive land use 
impacts are offset by the benefits associated with operation of EP3. 
Operation of EP3 is expected to shorten the reclamation time at the HMC 
site by 10 years, at which time the large tailings impoundment would 
receive its final cover, and the HMC site would be returned to its 
original land use.
    For Alternatives B and C, land use would be changed in the area, as 
the existing mill boundary would need to be increased to accommodate 
new construction of an evaporation pond. Alternative B would require a 
license boundary expansion of 185 acres. Alternative C would require a 
license boundary expansion of 68 acres. Under Alternatives B and C, 
land that is currently used for cattle grazing would be used as an 
evaporation pond for groundwater remedial activities and therefore 
unavailable for cattle grazing. The EP3 area will be reclaimed and 
returned to the desert grassland land use that exists today after 
completion of remediation activities in 2017.
    Approximately the top three feet of natural soil was removed or 
disturbed during the past removal of surface radioactive contamination 
over the entire Alternative C proposed licensed boundary location 
(Byszewski, 2006). Approximately the top three feet of natural soil was 
removed or disturbed during the past removal of surface radioactive 
contamination over approximately two thirds of the Alternative B 
proposed licensed boundary location. Only natural soil remains in the 
northern third of the Alternative B proposed boundary expansion 
location. However, the footprint of the proposed location of EP3 would 
disturb approximately 90 percent of the remaining natural soil area.
    For Alternative D, land use would be little changed under this 
alternative. This location is within the existing licensed boundary 
that is currently an industrial site undergoing reclamation. This 
alternative site is immediately adjacent to EP1 and EP2.
    Under Alternatives B and C, adverse environmental impacts to land 
use would be present in the short term, for approximately the next 10 
years, until EP3 is reclaimed and the land is returned to its prior 
use. Under Alternative D, adverse environmental impacts would be 
minimal.

4.1.2 Transportation

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
changes to the current transportation system. However, there are short-
term positive impacts associated with the no action alternative because 
transportation impacts resulting from construction and operation of EP3 
would be avoided.
    For Alternatives B and C, the site-licensed boundary would be 
expanded and be located across County Road 63. County Road 63 would not 
be within the licensed boundary, and access to County Road 63 would not 
be restricted. However, during construction of the evaporation pond at 
either location B or C, the road would have to be crossed occasionally 
by equipment or workers accessing the site. The road may also be 
disturbed by construction during the installation of pipes to carry 
reclamation water to the ponds for evaporation. Any construction may 
involve a temporary closure of the road. Any lane or road closure would 
need to be coordinated with Cibola County. During construction, the 
other County or State roads in the vicinity may be used by workers or 
equipment accessing the site. This would only be for the period of EP3 
construction and reclamation. County Road 63 is very lightly traveled, 
so the impact would be very small.
    For Alternative D, this location is within the existing licensed 
boundary. During construction, County or State roads in the vicinity 
may be used by workers or equipment accessing the site. This would only 
be for the period of construction.
    Under Alternatives B, C and D, adverse environmental impacts to 
transportation would be small.

4.1.3 Geology and Soils

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
changes to the affected environment as described in Section 3. However, 
there are short-term positive impacts associated with the no action 
alternative because impacts to geology and soils resulting from 
construction and operation of EP3 would be avoided.
    For Alternatives B, C, and D, soils would be disturbed during 
construction of EP3 and the associated roads and underground utilities 
leading to EP3. Disturbed soil would be more vulnerable to wind and 
water erosion. Soil disturbance would be greater for Alternative B, 
less for C, and even less for D. Alternative B is located furthest away 
from the groundwater remedial system and would require a longer access 
road and more distance to run utilities to reach the pond and, 
therefore, more soil disturbance. Alternative D is located closest to 
groundwater remedial system and would require the least amount of 
disturbance for the same reasons. Much of the area around the HMC site, 
including Alternatives C and D, has had several feet of soil removed 
when windblown tailings were identified and removed for placement in 
the large tailings impoundment. Windblown tailings over approximately 
40 percent of Alternative B have been removed. More native soil would 
be disturbed under Alternative B than Alternative C or D. Under 
Alternatives C and D, very little native soil would be disturbed since 
the entire area had been previously disturbed when windblown tailings 
were removed. Disturbance of the native soil would have a short-term

[[Page 46049]]

negative impact on the natural vegetation. However, after remediation 
is finished, the EP3 area would be restored.
    EP3 would be constructed as at grade facilities, with cut and fill 
designed to be in rough balance. No significant quantities of soil 
would be imported or exported from the site. Soil impacts would be 
limited to the site.
    Under all three alternatives, there would be minimal changes in 
geology, since construction would be limited to the near surface.
    Under Alternatives B, C and D, adverse environmental impacts to 
geology and soils would be small.

4.1.4 Water Resources

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
changes to the current water resources. However, there are short-term 
positive impacts associated with the no action alternative because 
there would be no loss of precipitation infiltration or the possibility 
of additional groundwater and/or soil contamination that would result 
from construction of EP3. Since operation of EP3 would significantly 
speed up reclamation of the HMC site, the short-term positive impacts 
would be outweighed by the negative impacts associated with a longer 
reclamation period.
    For Alternatives B, C, and D, the construction of each pond would 
cover approximately 33 acres. The pond would be designed to evaporate 
water and be double lined with a synthetic liner to prevent water 
infiltration. This would result in the loss of a minor amount of 
precipitation that would not be available for infiltration. 
Additionally, construction of the access road would likely lead to 
increased compaction and loss of the ability for precipitation to 
infiltrate. These losses are considered to be minor. Additional runoff 
from the pond area would be minor as a majority of the water would 
drain into the pond and eventually evaporate. Additional runoff from 
the access road would be minor.
    The only surface water bodies in the vicinity of the site are 
several stock ponds and some small ephemeral ponds, which would not be 
affected by site activities or the proposed EP3 construction.
    Construction of EP3 has positive impacts under all three 
alternatives. Operation of EP3 would allow HMC to pump 33% more 
contaminated groundwater which would increase the rate of groundwater 
remediation and ultimately speed up the reclamation of the entire site. 
In addition, the increase in groundwater pumping would allow HMC to 
more effectively control the contaminant plume at the site. These 
benefits outweigh the negative impact of increased water usage during 
operation of EP3. HMC is currently permitted to use the additional 
groundwater needed for operation of EP3, and would not be required to 
obtain additional permit(s) for increased water consumption for this 
action from the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE). The OSE 
is the permitting authority for groundwater consumption and groundwater 
diversions. HMC has been granted permit 1605 and B-28 to consume and 
divert approximately 1175 acre-feet of water per year and to 
temporarily divert 4500 acre-feet of water per year by the OSE (OSE, 
2005). HMC's temporary diversion permit will expire on December 31, 
2008, and HMC may be required to seek an extension of their temporary 
diversion at that time (OSE, 2002). The OSE determined the approval of 
the permit for consumption and diversion of water is not detrimental to 
the public welfare of the state (OSE, 2005).
    There is a risk that the EP3 impoundment could fail, or the pond 
liner could fail, which could lead to contamination of San Mateo Creek. 
EP3 is engineered to withstand the maximum probable flood which should 
ensure failure of the EP3 is an unlikely event. The perimeter berm of 
EP3 is above grade and storm water runoff does not drain into the pond. 
EP3 has been designed to maintain enough freeboard above the probable 
maximum precipitation that overtopping of the berm by precipitation 
events should not occur. EP3 construction specifications have been 
approved by the State of New Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, Dam 
Safety Section, and reviewed by the NRC. The NRC review would be 
documented in a Technical Evaluation Report. Engineering controls and 
frequent inspections would be employed to ensure the pond does not fail 
or leak.
    Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to 
water resources would be moderate as additional groundwater may be used 
by HMC. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, beneficial environmental 
impacts to water resources would be moderate, since the site may be 
cleaned up at a faster rate.

4.1.5 Ecology

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
changes to the current ecology. However, there may be short-term 
positive impacts associated with the no action alternative because the 
loss of land for plants and animals resulting from construction and 
operation of EP3 would be avoided.
    Birds and fowl may use EP3 after it is constructed. The NMGF noted 
that methods may have to be used to keep birds and fowl from using EP3 
(NMGF letter in section 6.0, Bridges and Meyer, 2007). While the 
methods discussed by NMGF were not prescriptive, they may need to be 
employed in the future if adverse effects to birds and fowl are 
observed. HMC currently operates two evaporation ponds, EP1 and EP2, 
and has stated that to its knowledge birds and fowl have not been 
impacted or adversely affected. EP1 began operating in 1990. EP2 began 
operating in 1994. Although migratory birds and waterfowl visit the 
ponds frequently (especially during migration seasons), no mortality 
has been observed in or around either pond. Site operation crews are 
onsite during the day, and pond operations are among their primary 
duties. Water chemistry varies over time as the crews move water around 
between ponds, operate different wells, and run or shut off the reverse 
osmosis plant. The absence of bird mortality in or around the ponds 
over the years indicates that the water in the evaporation ponds does 
not contain contaminants at levels acutely toxic to birds. This is 
based on many years of observation of EP1 and EP2 (Bridges and Meyer, 
2007).
    Construction of EP3 would result in the loss of some land available 
for plant and small animal life. The NMGF also noted that wildlife 
fencing may be appropriate for the pond. The NMGF discussed the 
potential for wildlife trapping hazards of the pond and suggested 
methods that may be used to minimize the risk of trapping. EP3 would be 
fenced to keep humans and wildlife away from the pond and frequent 
inspections would include wildlife observation to ensure impacts are 
minimized. NMGF also suggested that its trenching guidelines be used 
when installing pipe to minimize ground disturbance (Bridges and Meyer, 
2007).
    A list of endangered and threatened plant and animal species was 
obtained from both the USFWS, as well as the NMGF, that may be found in 
the project area. This list of species is published in the HMC ER and 
can be found online as published by the NMGF (NMGF, 2007). Species 
listed by the NMGF are the same as those listed by the USFWS for 
threatened and endangered species. None of these species is known to be 
at the site and HMC has determined that there is a lack of a suitable 
habitat for the 16 plant and animal species listed as threatened or 
endangered (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). A survey by biologist

[[Page 46050]]

Louis Bridges, who has extensive experience with western threatened and 
endangered species evaluations, confirmed the lack of suitable habitat 
for plant and animal species listed (Bridges, 2007a, 2007b).
    There are no anticipated effects on threatened or endangered 
species from the proposed action. The USFWS has indicated that where a 
determination of no effects is concluded, no further consultation is 
required (Hein, 2007).
    For Alternatives B, C and D, environmental impacts would be similar 
for each pond location, and adverse environmental impacts to ecological 
resources would be small.

4.1.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
changes to the current air quality. However, there are short-term 
positive impacts associated with the no action alternative because 
additional dust, TSP, and evaporative odors resulting from construction 
and operation of EP3, respectively, would be avoided.
    For Alternatives B, C, and D, there would be increased impacts to 
air quality during construction and reclamation of the pond which would 
be in the form of fugitive dust. HMC has proposed to use construction 
best management practices (BMPs) (see section 4.2.1) to control 
fugitive dust and emissions from construction equipment (Bridges and 
Meyer, 2007). Increases in radon emissions from EP3 are expected to be 
minimal based on observations from current ponds EP1 and EP2 as shown 
in HMC's Semi-Annual Report (HMC, 2007d). There would be no expected 
changes in meteorology or climatology.
    For Alternatives B and C, a boundary expansion would be required. 
Additional air monitoring for radioactive dust and material may be 
required in the expanded boundary area to ensure radiological impacts 
to adjacent properties do not occur.
    Placement of EP3 at Alternative D, south of the mill tailings 
impoundment, would have the greatest potential to contribute to the 
evaporative odors in the residential areas to the south of the site 
that would be associated with the reclamation activities. Odors from 
EP1 and EP2 have been a source of concern of nearby residences in the 
past. Alternative B and C locations would lessen odors and concern of 
water spray leaving the licensed boundary.
    Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to 
air quality would be small.

4.1.7 Noise

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
changes to the levels of operational noises coming from the HMC 
facility.
    The current HMC site is one-half to three-quarters of a mile from 
the nearest residential community. Operational noises are routinely 
generated from the HMC site, including heavy machinery. For Alternative 
D, construction of the pond would likely result in increased noise from 
heavy machinery during construction and reclamation activities, but 
would last only a few months while construction or reclamation 
activities occurred.
    For Alternatives B and C, noise impacts would be limited, since 
these sites are approximately one-mile from the nearest residential 
community.
    Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts from 
noise would be small.

4.1.8 Historical and Cultural Resources

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
additional impacts to the historical and cultural resources surrounding 
the HMC site. However, there are minor positive impacts associated with 
the no action alternative because the potential for impact to cultural 
sites resulting from construction and operation of EP3 at Alternative B 
and C locations, would be avoided.
    A cultural resources inventory was performed by Taschek 
Environmental and was documented in a July 2006 report (Byszewski, 
2006). The report identified six sites that should be avoided by 
construction activities. There are no historic structures, buildings, 
or museum collections within the HMC project area. No ethnographic and 
traditional cultural properties or landscapes have been formally 
identified within or adjacent to the project area.
    Under Alternative B, there are two cultural sites that were 
identified in the cultural resources survey that should be avoided 
within the area proposed to be added to the site-licensed boundary. The 
two areas would not be impacted by the construction of the pond within 
the adjusted site boundary. The pond footprint is about one-third the 
size of the increased boundary for the pond. All areas that should be 
avoided would be avoided by using simple mitigation measures of putting 
a fence around the sensitive areas. In 1995, mechanical disturbance of 
up to three feet (one meter) of aeolian sediments exposed a number of 
new archaeological sites in the immediate area. The undisturbed 
portions of Alternative B contain older aeolian sediments that appear 
to be stabilized by increased vegetative cover. Given the high density 
of sites in the bladed portion of the survey area, and the lack of 
sites in the non-bladed portion, except for one, it is likely that 
aeolian deposits are covering intact subsurface archaeological remains 
in the undisturbed portions of the survey area (Byszewski, 2006).
    For Alternative C, there are four cultural sites that were 
identified in the cultural resources survey that should be avoided 
within the area proposed to be added to the site-licensed boundary. The 
footprint of the pond would avoid these areas, but would be much closer 
than that of Alternative B.
    Alternative D is located within the footprint of the existing 
facility and is heavily disturbed by prior construction and industrial 
activities at the site. There are no known cultural resources that may 
be impacted from this alternative.
    For Alternatives B, C, and D, the New Mexico Historic Preservation 
Office included a discovery clause in the event bones or prehistoric or 
historic archeological materials are discovered. The discovery clause 
is contained in section 4.2, Mitigation Measures. The office also 
determined that, ``This undertaking will not have an adverse effect on 
registered or eligible properties.'' (Meyer, 2007).
    Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to 
cultural resources would be small.

4.1.9 Visual and Scenic Resources

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
impacts to the current visual and scenic resources.
    The construction of EP3 would require the movement of heavy 
machinery which may cause some additional dust to be observed at the 
site. The design of the pond for each of the alternatives is the same, 
with the pond berm having a maximum height above the natural ground 
surface of approximately 10 feet. This profile is much lower than that 
of existing features at the site such as the large tailings 
impoundment. The HMC site has not been determined to be a cultural 
landscape.
    Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the impact to visual and scenic 
resources would be small.

4.1.10 Socioeconomic

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
changes to the current socioeconomics of the

[[Page 46051]]

area. However, there are short-term negative impacts associated with 
the no action alternative because jobs for local residents resulting 
from construction of EP3 would not be available.
    The construction of an additional evaporation pond may add a few 
short term jobs to the area for the contractor constructing the pond 
and the contractor decommissioning the pond at the end of its service 
life. The need for maintenance and inspection of the pond would likely 
add to job duties already performed by on-site personnel.
    For Alternatives B, C, and D, socioeconomic impacts are expected to 
be small.

4.1.11 Public and Occupational Health

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
additional impacts to public or occupational health. However, there may 
be short-term positive impacts associated with the no action 
alternative because potential impacts to the public from dust due to 
construction of EP3 would be avoided.
    HMC conducts an air quality monitoring program at the site for 
particulates, radon, and gamma radiation. Continuous particulate 
monitoring occurs at six locations, continuous radon monitoring occurs 
at eight locations, and continuous gamma radiation occurs at seven 
locations. Construction of EP3 would cause an increase of dust 
particles and fossil fuel emissions during the approximately two month 
construction period.
    HMC currently operates two evaporation ponds at the site, EP1 and 
EP2. Both of these ponds use spray misters to aid in their evaporative 
capacity. HMC's air sampling at various locations around the licensed 
boundary has not identified potential problems with the operation of 
EP1 or EP2. The air sampling test results indicate that airborne 
contaminants are below regulatory levels. Increases in contaminants 
from EP3 would be minimal and not expected to be any different from 
those occurring from EP1 and EP2, and the total contaminants from all 
three ponds would be minimal, cumulatively.
    Local residences have been concerned about odors and contaminants 
from the evaporation ponds and pond misters that are currently on the 
site. HMC currently has been attempting to control odors by using a 
combination of copper sulfate and citric acid to control algal growth 
in the ponds (Cox, 2007). Dying and decaying algae is thought to be the 
primary source of the nuisance odors, although the high total dissolved 
solid may also be a source of odors. The issue of odors and possible 
contamination from the evaporation ponds were studied in 2001. Air 
monitoring for additional constituents in 2001, found that contaminant 
levels were similar to levels found before misters were installed. 
Contaminant levels were below regulatory limits and no health threat 
existed (NMED, 2001).
    No additional air monitoring would be required for Alternative D 
since Alternative D is located within the existing site boundary. No 
additional air monitoring would be required for Alternative C since Hi-
Vol 2 sampling station is located directly to the east of the 
pond location.
    An additional Hi-Vol air monitoring station would be required for 
construction of the pond at Alternative B. Hi-Vol 1 sampler is 
located to the east, southeast of Alternative B and HMC has confirmed 
the predominant and prevailing wind direction is from the southwest. 
There is a lack of sampling coverage for the Alternative B location to 
the northwest of proposed Alternative B pond location.
    Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to 
public and occupational health would be small.

4.1.12 Waste Management

    For Alternative A, the no action alternative, there would be no 
additional waste generated. However, there may be short-term positive 
impacts associated with the no action alternative because there would 
be no EP3 evaporation concentrates, and no dust or noise from the 
removal of the pond liner at the end of decommissioning activities.
    Under each Alternative B, C, or D, the ponds would be 
decommissioned when the corrective action plan is completed and 
approved. Decommissioning involves removing EP3 and returning the land 
to unrestricted use. All evaporation concentrates remaining within the 
evaporation pond liner, the pond liner, piping, and other related 
infrastructure would be removed and relocated to EP1, which would 
eventually be incorporated into the small tailings pile at final 
reclamation. Environmental impacts during decommissioning would include 
increased noise and dust from heavy earth moving machinery, removing 
the pond embankment and liner to the small tailings impoundment. These 
impacts would only be for a short period of time during EP3 removal.
    Additional waste would also be generated from the operation of EP3. 
All evaporation concentrates remaining within the EP3 pond liner at the 
end of the EP3 use period, would be removed and relocated to EP1 for 
incorporation with final reclamation of EP1 and the small tailings 
pile. The pond liner, piping, and other related infrastructure 
associated with EP3 would also be relocated to EP1, incorporated with 
other project demolition and decommissioning waste, and reclaimed with 
the small tailings pile that presently underlies EP1. However, since 
the additional volume of waste from EP3 would be incorporated with 
other project demolition and decommissioning waste, the environmental 
impacts associated with the additional waste would be small.
    Under Alternatives B, C, and D, adverse environmental impacts to 
decommissioning and management of waste would be small.

4.2 Mitigation Measures

    Mitigation measures that could reduce adverse impacts or enhance 
beneficial impacts have been proposed in the HMC ER (Bridges and Meyer, 
2007).
    The mitigation measures identified in the ER and those identified 
by the NRC have been incorporated into this EA as discussed below.

4.2.1 Construction Best Managements Practices

    HMC would use construction BMPs to reduce the associated adverse 
impacts of the construction of EP3.
    BMPs and storm water control practices are to be inspected before 
and after storm events to ensure that each BMP or control is 
functioning properly. Project BMPs would be constructed such that 
sediment and other pollutants are contained within the project site.
    Erosion and sediment control measures, such as silt fences, 
sediment traps, or straw bale dikes would be constructed around all 
areas with disturbed or exposed soil. A silt fence sediment barrier is 
required at a distance of 30 feet around the perimeter of all 
jurisdictional wetlands, in order to create an impact buffer zone. 
Erosion and sediment control measures would be designed and constructed 
in accordance with state and/or local specifications.
    Construction equipment would be stored at the off-site staging 
areas at the end of each work period. Storm water runoff would be 
routed around equipment, vehicles, and materials storage areas. 
Diversion of concentrated runoff would be accomplished through shallow 
earthen swales or similar methods in accordance with state or local 
specifications.
    Areas of the site would be designated for the delivery and removal 
of

[[Page 46052]]

construction materials. Construction materials would not be stored 
beyond the site perimeter silt fence.
    Construction materials, such as concrete, would be used in a manner 
that would not allow discharges into jurisdictional wetlands and 
drainage channels. Equipment used to make and pour concrete would be 
washed at an off-site location. Concrete fine material or aggregate 
would not be washed into the jurisdictional wetlands or other 
associated drainage channels. Concrete application equipment must be 
parked over drip pans or absorbent material at all times. The discharge 
or creation of potential discharge of any soil material, including 
concrete, cement, silts, clay, sand, or any other materials, to the 
Waters of the United States is prohibited.
    Secondary containment areas would be utilized for chemicals, drums, 
or bagged materials. Should material spills occur, materials and/or 
contaminants would be cleaned from the project site and recycled or 
disposed to the satisfaction of NMED.
    Waste dumpsters would be covered with plastic sheeting at the end 
of each workday and during storm events. All sheeting would be 
carefully secured to withstand weather conditions.
    On-site personnel would be trained in spill prevention and 
countermeasure practices. Spill containment materials would be provided 
near all storage areas. HMC contractors would be responsible for 
familiarizing their personnel with the information contained in the 
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
    Non-radiological and radiological wastes would be recycled or 
disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations.
    Water would be sprayed on earth fill and disturbed ground surfaces 
as necessary to minimize wind-blown dust.
    NMGF, in a letter dated August 7, 2006, to Kleinfelder Inc., 
suggested the use of trenching guidelines that should be used when 
installing pipe to minimize disturbance. These guidelines are to be 
transmitted by HMC to the contractor in the plan of work and used 
whenever possible.
    All construction equipment and vehicles would be maintained and 
inspected regularly to prevent oil or fluid leaks, and use drip pans or 
other secondary containment measures as necessary beneath vehicles 
during storage.
    Vehicles and equipment would be fueled and washed at an off-site 
location.

4.2.2 Cultural Resources

    Cultural resources have been identified within the project area and 
documented in the Cultural Resources Inventory completed by TEC for HMC 
in June 2006 (Byszewski, 2006). The sites that were addressed from the 
TEC survey would be monitored to confirm that these sites are not being 
impacted. If these sites are avoided, little impact should occur to on-
site cultural resources. Furthermore, if any additional cultural 
resources are uncovered during excavation activities, the New Mexico 
Historical Society would be notified immediately to evaluate and 
initiate appropriate mitigation measures.
    The New Mexico Historic Preservation Division has requested that 
the following discovery clause be attached to the construction of EP3:

Discovery Clause

    In the event that bones or prehistoric or historic 
archaeological materials are uncovered during construction or earth-
disturbing activities, cease work immediately and protect the 
remains from further disturbance. If bones are found, immediately 
notify local law enforcement and the Office of the Medical 
Investigator pursuant to 18-6-11.2C (Cultural Properties Act NMSA 
1978).
    In accordance with 18-6-11.2C and/or 36 CFR 800.13(b) 
(Protection of Historic Properties), notify the State Historic 
Preservation Officer (SHPO) or the State Archaeologist, immediately.
    In either case, the Agency and the SHPO, in consultation with an 
archaeologist who holds state unmarked human burial excavation and 
survey permits, would determine the necessary steps to evaluate 
significance, document, protect or remove the material or remains, 
in compliance with law. Call the SHPO or State Archaeologist at 
(505) 827-6320.

4.2.3 Wildlife

    The proposed EP3 would be operated like EP1 and EP2 and would 
receive the same water quality. No measures to prevent birds from 
landing on EP3 are anticipated. EP3 would be inspected daily by on site 
personnel and would include observing wildlife in and around the pond. 
Mitigation measures would be implemented if it is determined that 
wildlife or migratory bird mortality is occurring. Mitigation measures 
would be similar to those suggested by the NMGF in an August 7, 2006, 
letter to Klienfelder Inc., (Bridges and Meyer, 2007).
    A fence would be constructed around evaporation pond 3 in order to 
prevent unwanted access. This security fence would also be part of a 
fencing system that would be used to deter wildlife from entering the 
ponds.

4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

    Based upon site observation and information collected from current 
scientific literature, no threatened or endangered species or their 
habitat is present within the project area (Bridges and Meyer, 2007; 
Bridges, 2007). Therefore, no effects on threatened or endangered 
species or their habitat are anticipated and no mitigation measures are 
required at this time in order to prevent impacts to threatened and 
endangered species. However, if threatened or endangered species are 
identified within the project area during on-site activities, the NMGF 
would be notified immediately to initiate and evaluate mitigation 
measures.

4.3 Monitoring

    An archaeological monitoring plan has been developed to be used 
during EP3 construction (HMC, 2007c). If buried cultural deposits are 
encountered at any point during construction activities, work would be 
ceased immediately and the New Mexico SHPO would be contacted. During 
ground disturbing activities, monitoring for archaeological artifacts 
should be completed in the undisturbed portions of Alternative B.
    The Discovery Clause requested by the New Mexico State Historic 
Preservation Office in section 4.2.2 of this EA will be included in the 
Archaeological Monitoring Plan.
    A groundwater-monitoring program for EP3 at Alternatives B or C 
would be implemented. Baseline water quality would be established from 
samples collected prior to completion of EP3. Groundwater monitoring 
wells are currently located down gradient of the EP3 Alternate C 
location and additional monitoring wells would not be required.
    Existing groundwater monitoring well DD is located to the west of 
the EP3 Alternative B location. A second groundwater well is proposed 
by HMC to be located near the middle of the southeast side of 
Alternative B EP3 location (HMC, 2007c). The additional well should 
adequately monitor the alluvial aquifer down gradient of the EP3 
Alternative B location and should provide additional data, along with 
the EP3 liner leak detection system, that pond EP3 is functioning as 
designed. EP3 would be double lined and contain a leak detection system 
that would be monitored on a regular basis.
    The collected samples would be analyzed for the parameters listed 
in HMC's current groundwater protection standards in their License SUA-
1471, License Condition No. 35. The

[[Page 46053]]

monitoring well(s) would provide the capability to help detect pond 
liner failure that could lead to the contamination of local 
groundwater.
    Additional groundwater monitoring would not be required for 
Alternative D, since it is within the current site boundary.
    HMC's monitoring and surveillance program for radioactive effluent 
releases has been designed to ensure the project compliance with 10 CFR 
40, Part 20, U.S. NRC Standards for Protection Against Radiation and 
closely approximates programs as described in NRC's Regulatory Guide 
4.14, Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 
Mills (NRC, 1980; HMC, 2006). Some effluent monitoring activities 
differ from those presented in Regulatory Guide 4.14, as specified and 
required by HMC's Radioactive Material License (SUA-1471). An 
additional particulate, radon, and gamma radiation air monitoring 
station needs to be sited in the primary downwind direction of the 
Alternative B location. The licensee would need to evaluate the need 
for additional monitoring as required by 10 CFR Part 20 and Regulatory 
Guide 4.20 (NRC, 1996).
    Land use survey reviews are completed on an annual basis to meet 
annual reporting requirements under NRC License SUA-1471. This would 
help in assuring that land use activities in the immediate area 
surrounding EP3 are regularly reviewed to determine that those uses do 
not present a new concern for EP3.

5.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted

5.1 National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Consultations

    HMC sent pre-consultation letters to the seven Native American 
Tribes identified by the State of New Mexico, Department of Cultural 
Affairs, Historic Preservation Office on July 6 and July 7, 2006 (HMC, 
2006a). Comments received by HMC can be found in the HMC Environmental 
Report (HMC, 2007a).
    NRC sent consultation letters May 11, 2007, to seven Native 
American Indian Tribes and the New Mexico Historic Preservation Office 
(NRC, 2007b). The Native American Tribes were identified by the State 
of New Mexico, Department of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation 
Division website as requiring consultation in Cibola County, New 
Mexico.
    Reponses by Native American Tribes and Pueblos primarily centered 
on the discovery of remains and cultural artifacts and that the State 
Historic Preservation Office should be notified and work stopped until 
the remains or site can be further assessed. The Hopi Tribe was also 
supporting comments made by the Pueblo of Acoma.

5.1.1 Consultations With the Pueblo of Acoma

    The Pueblo of Acoma outlined several concerns in a letter to the 
NRC dated June 4, 2007 (Pueblo of Acoma, 2007). NRC and the New Mexico 
Office of the State Engineer (OSE) held a teleconference with the 
Pueblo of Acoma on October 22, 2007, and November 5, 2007 (NRC, 2007d). 
In addition, the Pueblo of Acoma submitted comments on the draft EA in 
a letter dated April 25, 2008. The Pueblo of Acoma's concerns as 
expressed in correspondence and in meetings with the NRC, and the NRC 
responses are provided in the EA.

5.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultations

    HMC and NRC consulted with the NMGF and the USFWS to determine 
which, if any, threatened and endangered may be found in Cibola County, 
New Mexico. Threatened and endangered species are not known to be 
located at the site. Mr. Louis Bridges, a biologist with NMGF, who has 
extensive experience in threatened and endangered species in western 
states, has verified that threatened and endangered species are not 
known at the site. Therefore, a determination of no effects to 
threatened and endangered species is reasonable for this proposed 
action.
    The USFWS has indicated that consultations are not required when a 
Federal agency has made a determination of no effects on threatened and 
endangered species (Hein, 2007).

5.3 NMED and EPA Review of Draft EA

    NRC provided the draft EA to NMED and EPA for review and comment. 
Comments from the two agencies were considered in the development of 
the final EA.

5.4 Public Meetings and Comments

    NRC held public meetings in Milan and Grants, New Mexico, to 
discuss the proposed action. The first meeting was on April 24, 2007, 
at the HMC site, and the second was held on September 18, 2007, at the 
Cibola County Center (NRC, 2007a, 2007c). Citizens and representatives 
of the Pueblo of Acoma attended both meetings.
    Local residents have been concerned for many years about the 
timeliness of overall cleanup at the site and the availability of clean 
potable water. These concerns were raised again at both meetings. 
Pertaining to EP3, local residents were concerned that the pond may not 
be big enough to clean up the site in a timely manner. Also, local 
residents were concerned about odors and contaminants that may come 
form EP3 and were generally supportive of the location of EP3 to the 
north of the site versus adjacent to EP1 and EP2. However, local 
residents are skeptical that the proposed size of the evaporation pond 
is adequate to address the volume of contaminants at the site 
(Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance, 2007).

6.0 Conclusion

    The NRC staff has concluded that site boundary expansion and 
construction of EP3, as proposed in the license amendment application 
dated October 25, 2006, and January 30, 2007, complies with NRC 
regulations and will be protective of health, safety and the 
environment. The proposed action will be protective of groundwater 
resources, since EP3 will be double lined and monitored for leakage, 
and will enhance the groundwater reclamation currently ongoing at the 
site. EP3 will be decommissioned after it is no longer needed for 
groundwater reclamation purposes and the area will be returned to its 
current condition.
    The NRC staff has prepared the EA in support of the proposed action 
to amend License SUA-1471 to allow the construction of EP3 at the 
proposed location and allow expansion of the site boundary as outlined 
in the license amendment application. On the basis of the EA, NRC has 
concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the 
license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental 
Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of 
No Significant Impact is appropriate.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Buckley, Decommissioning and 
Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management 
and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and 
Environmental Protection Programs. Telephone: 301-415-6607, e-mail: 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of July 2008.


[[Page 46054]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rebecca Tadesse,
Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery, Licensing 
Directorate, Division of Waste Management, and Environmental 
Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials, and Environmental 
Protection Programs.
 [FR Doc. E8-18186 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P