|
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
For The From 1943 to 1970, much of the uranium ore mined in the United States was processed by private companies under procurement contracts with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. This ore was used in national defense research, weapons development, and the developing nuclear industry. After fulfilling their contracts, many of the uranium mills closed and left large quantities of waste, such as uranium mill tailings and abandoned mill buildings, at the mill sites. Beginning in the late 1960s and 1970s, direct gamma radiation, radon gas, and uranium decay products at the abandoned mill sites were determined to be potential health hazards. In 1972 concern for the potential long-term adverse health affects from uranium mill tailings used as fill material in construction projects in Grand Junction, Colorado, led Congress to pass Title II of Public Law 92-314, which authorized the Atomic Energy Commission to pay for 75 percent of the cost of remediating such contaminated buildings. Public concern about other abandoned uranium mill sites led to engineering and radiological studies to identify other mill sites in need of cleanup. As a result of these studies Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) on November 8, 1978 (42 USC §7901 et seq.). The UMTRCA directed the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to stabilize, dispose of, and control, in a safe and environmentally sound manner, uranium mill tailings at the designated inactive uranium mill sites. To comply with the law, DOE established the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project. Under the UMTRA Project, DOE has been performing remedial action of the surface contamination (including uranium mill tailings and abandoned mill buildings) since 1983; this effort is called the UMTRA Surface Project. The first site to be cleaned up is in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; surface remediation has now been completed at 18 sites and is under way at 4 sites. The designated uranium mill sites at Belfield and Bowman, North Dakota, will not be remediated by DOE because the state of North Dakota has declined to provide their statutorily required cost-sharing to remediate the sites. Although it is unlikely that these two sites will be part of the UMTRA Ground Water Project, discussion of the sites is still included in the programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS). The Surface Project is responsible for controlling the exposure and dispersion of uranium mill tailings and other contaminated materials by stabilizing this material in disposal cells. However, the Surface Project does not address the remediation of contaminated ground water at the UMTRA Project sites. Information about the Surface Project is summarized in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this PEIS. The UMTRA Ground Water Project addresses residual ground water contamination, if any, from the UMTRA Project processing sites. The Ground Water Project would take measures to protect human health and the environment by complying with EPA standards in a cost-effective and publicly acceptable manner. The UMTRA Ground Water Project also would address potential ground water contamination associated with vicinity properties (properties outside the processing site boundary contaminated with tailings) on a case-by-case basis. The volume of tailings at a vicinity property site is just one of the criteria for determining if the vicinity property would be a source for ground water contamination and would fall within the Ground Water Project. Another difference between contamination from a processing site and a vicinity property site is that processing sites had the potential to impact ground water due to the use of chemicals, water discharge, and exposed saturated tailings. In most cases, the tailings were exposed to the environment for many years before remediation. Vicinity properties did not have similar operating and exposure conditions which would minimize or eliminate the potential for vicinity properties to be a source of ground water contamination. Other factors include depth to ground water, magnitude of source, soil and bedrock geochemistry, ground water recharge and discharge, background water geochemistry, climate, and condition of the vicinity property. 1.1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR DOE ACTION In the UMTRCA, Congress acknowledged the potentially harmful health effects associated with uranium mill tailings. As required by the UMTRCA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed standards to protect the public and the environment from potential radiological and nonradiological hazards from the abandoned mill processing sites; these standards include exposure limits for surface contamination and concentration limits for ground water protection. DOE is responsible for performing remedial action to bring the surface and ground water contaminant levels at the abandoned mill processing sites into compliance with EPA standards. DOE accomplishes this function through the UMTRA Project. Remedial action is conducted with the concurrence of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the full participation of affected states and in consultation with Indian tribes. In addition, the NRC, Hopi Tribe, and Navajo Nation are cooperating agencies in the preparation of this PEIS. Uranium processing activities at most of the designated processing mill sites designated for remediation under the UMTRCA resulted in the formation of contaminated ground water beneath and, in some cases, downgradient of the sites. This contaminated ground water often has elevated levels of hazardous constituents such as uranium and nitrate. The purpose of the DOE UMTRA Ground Water Project is to protect human health and the environment by meeting EPA standards in areas where ground water has been contaminated with hazardous constituents from former processing sites. A major first step in the UMTRA Ground Water Project is the preparation of this PEIS. This document analyzes potential impacts of the alternatives, including the proposed action, which is DOE's preferred alternative. These alternatives are programmatic in that they are plans for conducting the UMTRA Ground Water Project. The alternatives, which are described in Section 2.0, do not address site-specific ground water compliance. This PEIS is a planning document for conducting the Ground Water Project, assessing the potential programmatic impacts of conducting the UMTRA Ground Water Project. It provides a method for determining the site-specific ground water compliance strategies and identifies data and information that are needed to prepare site-specific environmental impacts analyses more efficiently. The PEIS satisfies the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC §4321 et seq.) requirement by describing the proposed action and the alternatives and the existing conditions at the UMTRA site, assessing potential impacts of the Ground Water Project as defined by the proposed action and the alternatives, and comparing the potential impacts of the proposed action and the alternatives. 1.2 URANIUM MILL TAILINGS RADIATION CONTROL ACT Congress passed the UMTRCA in 1978 in response to concerns raised about potential radiation health hazards to the public from long-term exposure to uranium mill tailings (Figure 1.1). The purposes of the UMTRCA are to stabilize and control uranium mill tailings at designated inactive mill sites and to regulate uranium mill tailings at active processing sites. The UMTRCA has three parts, or "titles." Title I directs DOE to complete remedial action at 22 inactive uranium mill sites at which all or a substantial portion of uranium was processed for sale to a federal agency, and which no longer had a license to process uranium ore as of January 1, 1978. The Secretary of Energy was given the authority to add sites to the list. Designated uranium processing sites will be or have been remediated under Title I (Figure 1.2). Title II directs NRC to regulate uranium mill tailings at those processing sites having an active license on January 1, 1978. Title II sites are in various stages of surface remediation by private mill site operations. Title II sites are being remediated independently of one another and of the Title I sites. Title III directs NRC to study whether two New Mexico uranium mill sites should be designated by the Secretary of Energy as processing sites under Title I; the mill sites were not so designated. In an amendment to the UMTRCA, DOE was authorized to perform ground water remediation at the designated processing sites without a time limitation (42 USC §7922(a)). Congress also directed DOE to comply with EPA's proposed ground water regulations until such time as EPA promulgates final regulations (42 USC §7918(a)(3)). EPA issued its proposed ground water protection standards on September 24, 1987 (52 FR 36000). Planning for the Ground Water Project occurred while the proposed rules were in effect. On January 11, 1995, the EPA published the final rule (60 FR 2854). The responsibility for fulfilling the legislative mandate under
the UMTRCA is divided between DOE, NRC, EPA, Indian tribes and
states. Their roles are described in the following subsections.
1.2.1 U.S. Department of Energy As the lead agency in the execution of the UMTRCA, DOE is responsible for the overall management of the UMTRA Project. This includes responsibility for all programmatic decisions and the review and supervision of all work completed by DOE contractors Within DOE, the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management at DOE Headquarters oversees the administration of the UMTRA Project. The DOE Albuquerque Operations Office is the responsible field office, and daily operation of the UMTRA Ground Water Project is conducted by DOE's UMTRA Project Office in Grand Junction, Colorado. DOE is committed to conducting the UMTRA Project in an environmentally sound manner that is protective of human health and the environment consistent with DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program, and in accordance with all applicable environmental laws. 1.2.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission The UMTRCA designated NRC as the federal regulatory oversight agency for the UMTRA Project. As part of this oversight responsibility, NRC published the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling in 1980 (NRC, 1980). This document assessed the nature and extent of the impacts of uranium milling and provided information on what the regulatory requirements for management and disposal of mill tailings and mill decommissioning should be. This generic environmental impact statement is the programmatic environmental impact statement for the UMTRA Surface Project. Remedial actions are selected and performed with the concurrence of the NRC. The NRC also licenses the completed disposal sites for long-term care. (Refer to Section 1.4, Regulatory Compliance, for a discussion of licensing.) NRC provides technical and regulatory review of certain UMTRA
Project documents, including remedial action plans, completion
reports, long-term surveillance plans, and certification reports.
NRC concurrence with these documents is required to obtain a
license for the disposal sites. 1.2.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency As specified in the UMTRCA, EPA was required to establish standards for remediating and disposing of contaminated material from inactive uranium processing sites. Section 1.4, Regulatory Compliance, describes the EPA standards. 1.2.4 Indian tribes and states Under the plan established by the UMTRCA, states participate fully in the selection and performance of remedial action for which states pay part of the cost (10 percent). Remedial action on Indian lands is to be selected and performed in consultation with the affected Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian tribes are not required to pay any of the costs of remedial action. The DOE has entered into cooperative agreements with the states and Indian tribes for the performance of the surface remedial action. New cooperative agreements for the UMTRA Ground Water Project, which would outline the new roles and responsibilities of the parties, would be negotiated between the DOE and the states and Indian tribes. The participation of the states and Indian tribes in the UMTRA Ground Water Project would include review of major technical documents and activities related to site-specific ground water compliance. The states (including local governments) and Indian tribes also would play a key role in the implementation of institutional controls during ground water remediation, as appropriate. The states and Indian tribes participated in the initial ground water PEIS activities, including the scoping meetings and hearings, and provided comments on the draft PEIS. In addition, the Hopi Tribe and Navajo Nation are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the PEIS. The DOE recognizes that as a federal agency, it has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the affected Indian tribes under the United States' trust responsibility with Indian nations. The DOE's policy with respect to its relationships with Indian tribes is more fully described in DOE Order 1230.2, American Indian Tribal Government Policy. 1.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 USC §4321 et seq.) declared a national policy for promoting efforts to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment. NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement that identifies and analyzes the environmental impacts of a proposed action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment (42 USC §4321(c)). The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations that implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) provide requirements for carrying out the substantive and procedural elements of NEPA. The regulations also require that each federal agency develop its own implementing procedures (40 CFR §1507.3). DOE implementing requirements for compliance with NEPA are contained in 10 CFR Part 1021. As discussed in Section 1.2, UMTRCA directed DOE to perform remedial action that would stabilize and control the uranium mill tailings and associated contamination at inactive uranium processing sites in 10 states and on tribal lands. Implementation of UMTRCA represents a major federal action subject to NEPA requirements. In 1982, EPA prepared an environmental impact statement that analyzed the impacts of implementing the compliance standards (40 CFR Part 192) for the UMTRA Project (EPA, 1982). DOE NEPA documents (environmental impact statements and environmental assessments) analyzing site-specific impacts of surface remediation have been completed for the sites. These documents are referenced in Section 3.2, Site Descriptions. Site-specific NEPA documents would be prepared for ground water activities. One approach considered was to assess the programmatic impacts of the UMTRA Ground Water Project in DOE's waste management PEIS. Site-specific UMTRA Ground Water Project NEPA documents would tier off the Environmental Management Program PEIS (the concept of tiering is described in Section 1.3.1). Although the UMTRA Project is part of DOE's Environmental Restoration Program, DOE is evaluating UMTRA Ground Water Project activities in a separate PEIS for four reasons. First, the UMTRA Project is an autonomous project with a clearly defined legislative, regulatory, and technical scope that is distinct from other DOE programs. Second, the NEPA process is complete for surface disposal of tailings at most UMTRA Project sites, and the Surface Project is expected to be near completion before a Record of Decision is issued for the Environmental Management Program PEIS. Third, the Environmental Management Program PEIS will not provide the level of detail necessary so that the site-specific NEPA documents can tier off the PEIS. Fourth, the UMTRA Project is regulated by NRC, while the Environmental Management Program sites are regulated primarily by EPA and the states. DOE decided the best approach for assessing the potential programmatic impacts of the Ground Water Project was to prepare the UMTRA Ground Water Project PEIS and tier site-specific NEPA documents from that PEIS. This PEIS would be a comprehensive planning and decision-making document that would 1) provide the basis for determining the appropriate ground water compliance strategy at each UMTRA Project processing site; 2) assess the potential programmatic impacts of the UMTRA Ground Water Project; and 3) provide a tiering document for the site-specific NEPA documents. The regulations for implementing NEPA provide for the preparation of program-wide environmental impact statements (40 CFR §1502.4(b)) for broad federal actions such as implementation of a new program or regulation. Programmatic NEPA documents are subject to the same preparation, issuance, and circulation requirements as other NEPA documents (10 CFR §1021.330).
Preparation of the UMTRA Ground Water Project PEIS is consistent with the concept of tiering (40 CFR §1508.28), in which broad-scope environmental impact statements analyze general policy or program issues to facilitate subsequent site-specific decision-making. NEPA implementing regulations encourage this tiering approach. These regulations indicate that the issues discussed in the broad, policy-level environmental impact statement need only be summarized or incorporated by reference into the site-specific NEPA documents that are published after the policy-level environmental impact statement. These site-specific documents focus on issues specific to action that followed publication of the PEIS (40 CFR §1502.20). Programmatic issues that are analyzed in this ground water PEIS and would be summarized or incorporated by reference in the site-specific NEPA documents include the following: The site-specific NEPA documents would focus on issues relevant to ground water compliance decisions for a particular site. This approach would minimize the length of each site-specific NEPA document but would allow the assessment to address all pertinent environmental issues. This would include enough ground water data and analyses so the public and agencies can determine if the proposed ground water compliance strategy is appropriate. Pollution prevention Pollution prevention was addressed in the CEQ memorandum of January 12, 1993, "Pollution Prevention and the National Environmental Policy Act." Pollution prevention includes ". . . reducing or eliminating hazardous or other pollution inputs which can contribute to both point and non-point source pollution, . . ." and ". . . preventing the disposal and transfer of pollution from one media to another . . . ." Overall, the UMTRA Project can be considered a pollution prevention project because the Surface Project stabilizes the uranium mill tailings and other contaminated material into disposal cells, which prevents or inhibits the spread of contamination onto the land surface or into the ground water, and the Ground Water Project remediates contaminated ground water. The Ground Water Project would address the prevention and potential spread of pollution, including contaminated ground water that has the potential to create human and ecological health risks; the discharge of contaminated sludge and water generated from ground water cleanup; the prevention of fugitive dust emissions from remedial action; and the prevention of the use of contaminated ground water through institutional controls. The site-specific environmental documents would assess specific avenues for pollution and measures to prevent this pollution at each of the UMTRA Project sites. NEPA mandates that all federal agencies seek comments from governmental agencies that have jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed action or alternative (42 USC §4321(c)). The extent of participation by a cooperating agency varies from active participation in developing information and analyses for the environmental impact statement to the roles of consultation and review. The Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, and NRC are cooperating agencies for the PEIS. Participation by affected states, other agencies, and local governments also is encouraged in the preparation of the PEIS. Representatives of the tribes, states, other agencies, local governments, and the public participated in scoping meetings, and hearings, and provided comments on the draft PEIS (refer to Section 1.6). Information obtained from these sources was used to identify issues addressed in the draft PEIS and to revise it, where necessary. The PEIS implementation plan (DOE, 1994a) discusses the comments received during scoping and how those comments were addressed in the draft PEIS. Volume II of this final PEIS contains all comments received during the hearings and comment period, and DOE's responses. The affected tribes, states, and public, along with local and federal government agencies, would continue to be actively involved in the PEIS process and the site-specific environmental documents that would tier off the PEIS. The UMTRA Project is regulated by both EPA and NRC regulations (40 CFR Part 192 and 10 CFR Part 40, respectively). DOE must comply with EPA and NRC regulations for remediation of uranium mill tailings and associated ground water contamination and for long-term care. This section provides an overview of the regulations pertaining to ground water protection standards and describes the general requirements for long-term surveillance and monitoring at processing sites. Decisions regarding consistency with tribal and state laws and regulations would be made by DOE, in consultation with the tribes and states. These decisions would consider cases where an approved wellhead protection area, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, is associated with the site. DOE would comply with the provisions of that legislation unless the President of the United States grants an exemption.
The UMTRCA requires that EPA promulgate standards for protecting public health, safety, and the environment from radiological hazardous constituents associated with the processing, possession, transfer, and disposal of residual radioactive materials. The UMTRCA and EPA define residual radioactive materials as tailings and other wastes that DOE determines to be radioactive that have resulted from uranium ores processing. These wastes may be in the form of tailings or other materials such as demolition debris and nonradiological hazards associated with residual radioactive materials. EPA has interpreted this definition to include sludges and captured contaminated water from the processing sites (60 FR 2854). On January 5, 1983, EPA published standards (40 CFR Part 192) for the disposal and cleanup of residual radioactive materials. On September 3, 1985, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside and remanded to EPA the ground water provisions of the standards. EPA proposed new standards to replace remanded sections and changed other sections of 40 CFR Part 192. These proposed standards were published in the Federal Register on September 24, 1987 (52 FR 36000). Section 108 of the UMTRCA requires that DOE comply with EPA's proposed standards in the absence of final standards. The Ground Water Project was planned under the proposed standards. On January 11, 1995, EPA published the final rule, with which the DOE must now comply. The PEIS and the Ground Water Project are in accordance with the final standards. The EPA reserves the right to modify the ground water standards, if necessary, based on changes in EPA drinking water standards. Appendix A contains a copy of the 1983 EPA ground water compliance standards, the 1987 proposed changes to the standards, and the 1995 final rule. The EPA standards have three subparts that apply to the UMTRA Project: Subpart A, Subpart B, and Subpart C. Subpart A-Standards for residual radioactive materials Subpart A, "Standards for the Control of Residual Radioactive Materials From Inactive Uranium Processing Sites," addresses control or disposal of the residual radioactive materials at processing or disposal sites. Compliance with Subpart A is being met under the UMTRA Surface Project. This subpart is not discussed further. Subpart B-Background levels, maximum concentration limits, alternate concentration limits, monitoring, natural flushing Subpart B, "Standards for Cleanup of Land and Buildings Contaminated With Residual Radioactive Materials From Inactive Uranium Processing Sites," requires conducting remedial action at processing sites to ensure that the amounts of residual radioactive materials and associated hazardous constituents in ground water do not exceed any one of the following three standards in 60 FR 2854: Subpart B also defines limited use ground water. Ground water may be classified as limited use if the total dissolved solids exceed 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L); there is widespread surrounding contamination that cannot be cleaned up using treatment methods reasonably employed in public water supply systems; or the quantity of ground water available is less than 150 gallons (gal) (570 liters [L]) per day. Subpart B also has provisions that allow natural flushing as a way to meet the EPA ground water standards. Natural flushing means letting natural ground water processes reduce the contamination in ground water to background levels, below the maximum concentration limits, or to alternate concentration limits. The following conditions must be met before natural flushing can be implemented: Subpart B also requires that DOE monitor the ground water contamination for compliance with Subpart B standards and define the extent of ground water contamination so that measures can be taken, if necessary, to protect human health and the environment. The EPA standards specify a point of compliance for disposal of the surface contamination but indicate that this does not suffice for the cleanup of contaminated ground water. For the Ground Water Project, "compliance must be achieved anywhere contamination above the levels established by these standards is found or projected to be found in ground water outside the disposal area and its cover" (60 FR 2854). Subpart C-Implementation Subpart C, "Implementation," provides guidance for implementing methods and procedures that will reasonably assure the public that the provisions of Subparts A and B are satisfied. The conditions of Subpart B should be met on a site-specific basis, using information gathered from site characterization and monitoring. The plan to meet the conditions of Subpart B should be stated in the compliance strategy document or remedial action plan. This plan should also consider future ground water plume movement. If natural flushing is the selected compliance strategy, Subpart C requires compliance monitoring to verify anticipated plume movement and the associated reduction in plume contamination. Finally, the plan should specify details of the method to be used to meet the standards and, if necessary, the remedial action. Supplemental standards Subpart C specifies eight conditions for which DOE may apply supplemental standards to contaminated ground water. These standards are supplemental to background levels, maximum concentration limits, or alternate concentration limits. Supplemental standards as cited below in 40 CFR §192.21 may be applied if any one of the following conditions is met: a) Remedial actions required to satisfy Subpart A or B of the standards would pose a clear and present risk of injury to workers or to members of the public, notwithstanding reasonable measures to avoid or reduce risk. b) Remedial actions to satisfy the cleanup standards for land and ground water, notwithstanding reasonable measures to limit damage, would directly produce health and environmental harm that is clearly excessive compared to the health and environmental benefits, now or in the future. A clear excess of health and environmental harm is harm that is long-term, manifest, and grossly disproportionate to health and environmental benefits that may reasonably be anticipated. c) The estimated cost of remedial action to meet the standards at a "vicinity" site is unreasonably high relative to the long-term benefits, and the residual radioactive materials do not pose a clear present or future hazard. The likelihood that buildings will be erected or that people will spend long periods of time at such a vicinity site should be considered in evaluating this hazard. Remedial action will generally not be necessary where residual radioactive materials have been placed semi-permanently in a location where minor quantities of residual radioactive materials are involved. Examples are residual radioactive materials under hard surface public roads and sidewalks, around public sewer lines, or in fence post foundations. Supplemental standards should not be applied at such sites, however, if individuals are likely to be exposed for long periods of time to radiation from such materials at levels above those that would prevail under the standards. d) The cost of a remedial action for cleanup of a building under the standards is clearly unreasonably high relative to the benefits. Factors that should be included in this judgment are the anticipated period of occupancy, the incremental radiation level that would be affected by the remedial action, the residual useful lifetime of the building, the potential for future construction at the site, and the applicability of less costly remedial methods than removal of residual radioactive materials. e) There is no known remedial action. f) The restoration of ground water quality at any designated processing site is technically impracticable from an engineering perspective. g) The ground water is not a current or potential source of drinking water, in the absence of contamination from residual radioactive materials, due to the following: h) Radionuclides other than radium-226 and its decay products are present in sufficient quantity and concentration to constitute a significant radiation hazard from residual radioactive materials. The standards that most likely would apply to the Ground Water Project are b, e, f, and g above. The EPA final rule states that if supplemental standards are applied, DOE must select and perform remedial action that comes as close to meeting the otherwise applicable standard as reasonably achievable. Supplemental standards must also ensure that current and projected uses of the affected ground water are preserved. Institutional controls Institutional controls are controls that effectively protect public health and the environment. They typically depend on some social order to ensure that protection is effective. On the UMTRA Ground Water Project, institutional controls would reduce exposure to or mitigate health risks by 1) preventing intrusion into contaminated ground water, or 2) restricting access to or use of contaminated ground water for unacceptable purposes. As a last resort, institutional controls could limit human access to the land above the contaminated ground water. The EPA standards allow the use of institutional controls in place of remediation only if their effectiveness can be verified and maintained. The EPA standards permit the use of institutional controls at sites where remediation can occur through natural flushing of the aquifer within 100 years. However, the standards do not limit the use of institutional controls to the sites that can meet the standards through natural flushing. Institutional controls may also be used to protect public health or the environment when DOE finds them necessary and appropriate prior to commencing active remedial action, during active remedial action, or during implementation of other compliance strategies. The EPA standards require that institutional controls An example of acceptable institutional controls cited in the EPA standards is deed restriction that can be enforced by a unit of government (either administratively or through judicial processes). Another example is federal or state ownership of land containing contaminated ground water. EPA recognizes that a combination of controls may be needed to adequately protect public health and safety. Measures such as signs, health advisories, or other measures that require voluntary cooperation of private parties can be used to complement other enforceable institutional controls but cannot be considered as primary protective measures. In addition, the use of an alternate water supply in conjunction with institutional controls that would prevent human contact with contaminated ground water would be a viable institutional control. Key to identifying, implementing, and enforcing institutional controls is participation by tribal, state, and local governments. While DOE is responsible for compliance with the EPA standards at UMTRA sites, its authority to implement and enforce institutional controls may be limited, particularly where tailings are disposed of off the processing site and land is privately owned or is owned or controlled by other public agencies. Similarly, ground water contamination from uranium processing may have moved beyond the processing site to areas that are not within the DOE jurisdiction. The need for and duration of institutional controls depends on the compliance strategy selected for a site, the type and level of risk, and existing site conditions. As risks decrease over time, so should the restrictiveness of institutional controls. Contaminated plume movement might require applying the restrictions to an extended area over time. Therefore, to ensure extended protection of public health, the environment, and beneficial uses the water could have satisfied, it is important that the effectiveness of institutional controls can be verified and modified as necessary. Institutional controls, if any, will be selected in cooperation with the participating private and public landowners, Indian tribes, states, and local governments. DOE will verify that the institutional controls are effective. Site-specific institutional controls will not be selected and implemented without DOE and NRC concurrence. 1.4.2 NRC licensing regulations and program The UMTRCA authorized DOE to care for the uranium mill tailings disposal sites under a license issued by NRC. The UMTRCA stipulates the NRC will promulgate regulations to ensure the permanent disposal sites are monitored and maintained in accordance with the general license. Regulations in 10 CFR §40.27, General License for Custody and Long-Term Care of Residual Radioactive Material Disposal Sites, describe the licensing mechanism for the long-term care of each UMTRA Project disposal site, when NRC accepts the site-specific long-term surveillance plan. Long-term care includes surveillance and maintenance needed to protect public health and safety. On-site stabilization At former processing sites where tailings are stabilized in on-site disposal cells, contaminated ground water may require remediation. This could occur if ground water moves from below the disposal cell. NRC may license these disposal sites in two steps. The first step is NRC's acceptance of the long-term care program for all surface remedial action that includes compliance with the EPA standards that protect the ground water from further contamination from the tailings. In the second step, the DOE must verify, and NRC must concur that ground water compliance has been met in accordance with 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart B; then the long-term surveillance plan will be appropriately amended, signifying that the second step of the licensing process is complete. Off-site stabilization For the disposal cells where the residual radioactive materials were relocated off the processing site, NRC will license the disposal site in one step. The processing sites themselves will not be licensed by NRC. Compliance with EPA ground water standards will require NRC concurrence. DOE Order 5400.1, General Environmental Protection Program, established environmental protection program requirements for DOE operations, including the UMTRA Project, for ensuring compliance with executive orders and applicable federal, tribal, state, and local environmental protection laws and regulations. DOE also established requirements for the protection of the public and workers from radiological hazards in DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment; DOE Order 5480.11, Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers; and 10 CFR Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection. These and all other applicable requirements are routinely incorporated into UMTRA Project activities. 1.4.4 DOE Office of Environmental Justice requirements Executive Order 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Executive Order 12898 also directs the EPA administrator to convene an interagency Federal Working Group on Environmental Justice. The Working Group is directed to provide guidance to federal agencies on criteria for identifying disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. The Working Group has not yet issued the guidance directed by Executive Order 12898. In coordination with the Working Group, the DOE is in the process of developing internal guidance on implementing the Executive Order. Because both the Working Group and the DOE are still in the process of developing guidance, the approach taken in this analysis may depart somewhat from the guidance that is eventually issued, but will comply with the intent of the Executive Order. 1.4.5 Other Presidential Executive Order requirements Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires all federal agencies to issue or amend existing procedures to ensure wetlands protection is considered in decision-making. This requirement is routinely incorporated into UMTRA Project activities. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires each federal agency to issue or amend existing regulations and procedures to ensure that the potential effects of any action it may take in a floodplain are evaluated and that its planning programs and budget requirements reflect consideration of flood hazards and floodplain management. UMTRA Project activity planning routinely identifies and considers the impacts of Project actions on floodplains. DOE shall follow all applicable tribal laws and regulations
in performing ground water compliance activities on Indian lands.
In the event of conflicting applications of federal, state,
and tribal law, the subject activity will be carried out pursuant
to the following order of priority in application: 1) federal,
2) tribal, and 3) state. This PEIS considers four approaches (also called "alternatives") for implementing the UMTRA Ground Water Project. These alternatives are described in Section 2.0. The proposed action (preferred alternative) is summarized below. The proposed action provides a consistent approach, based on a health- and environmental risk-based framework, for implementing the UMTRA Ground Water Project and determining appropriate ground water compliance strategies at the UMTRA Project processing sites. The success of the proposed action in determining these strategies would depend on the analysis of site-specific data to characterize the hydrogeological conditions and determine the potential human health and environmental risks. The following site-specific ground water compliance strategies could be used under the proposed action: These strategies could be used individually or in combination to meet the standards. For example, active ground water remediation methods could be used in conjunction with natural flushing. The proposed action is flexible because it provides a framework
for the Ground Water Project decision-making process if new
ground water cleanup methods become available. The proposed
action considers ground water compliance in a step-by-step approach,
beginning with the no remediation strategy and ending with more
complex, active ground water cleanup strategies. When a site
baseline risk assessment for ground water contamination and
a site observational work plan indicate the no remediation strategy
would be protective of human health and the environment, a more
expensive strategy involving active cleanup methods would not
be necessary. The proposed action would tailor ground water
compliance strategies for each site, based on the likelihood
that they would result in conditions that are protective of
human health and the environment. A more detailed description
of the proposed action appears in Section
2.1. An important component of the PEIS is the participation by government agencies, organizations, the public, and other interested parties in determining the scope and content of this PEIS and reviewing and commenting on the draft and final PEIS. Throughout the UMTRA Ground Water Project, the DOE will provide opportunities for productive, ongoing discussions with the public and local, state, tribal, and federal officials as part of DOE's daily activities. Regulations that implement NEPA (in 40 CFR §1501.7) stipulate there must be an early, open, and continuing public participation process for determining the scope of the issues that will be addressed and for identifying significant issues related to the proposed action. This process is called scoping. The UMTRA Ground Water Project PEIS scoping process began with the preparation of a Notice of Intent, published in the Federal Register on November 18, 1992 (57 FR 54374). Dates, locations, and times for public scoping meetings were published in the Federal Register on February 8, 1993 (58 FR 7551). Nineteen public scoping meetings in 16 communities were held between November 18, 1992 and April 15, 1993 to solicit public input regarding the scope and content of the PEIS (Figure 1.3). The UMTRA Ground Water Project PEIS implementation plan summarizes the comments received during scoping and provides DOE's response to how the comments were addressed in the PEIS (DOE, 1994a). A complete list of all comments received is archived in the UMTRA Project Document Control Center. NEPA and DOE implementing regulations also require that at least one public hearing be for the public to comment on the draft PEIS (10 CFR §1021.313). A notice of availability (NOA) of the draft PEIS was published in the Federal Register on May 17, 1995 (60 FR 26417). The NOA summarized the proposed action, provided background information on the UMTRA Ground Water Project, described the public comment process, and announced the dates, times, and locations of the public hearings. Nine public hearings were conducted in nearby site communities between June 7 and 28, 1995 to solicit public input on the draft PEIS (Figure 1.3). The PEIS public affairs program provides continued opportunities
for public involvement throughout the UMTRA Ground Water Project.
This section provides an overview of the participation process
for the PEIS and the planned course of action for future public
participation in the Ground Water Project.
Figure 1.3 1.6.1 Scoping process and results DOE encouraged members of the public, tribal and state representatives, and other agencies to participate in scoping. Notices announcing the start of scoping were placed in the Federal Register and advertisements were placed in local newspapers and on local radio stations. Orientation meetings were held at some sites to explain the scoping process to the public. Congressional representatives and state and local agencies were contacted during prescoping community assessments to determine the scoping activities that would work best in individual communities. Media briefings were held and media briefing kits were available prior to scoping meetings to announce the opportunities for public participation. UMTRA Project spokespersons were available before and after scoping meetings for interviews. Several communication methods facilitated scoping: fact sheets were prepared and distributed that described the PEIS process, the proposed action and alternatives, ground water contamination, ground water remediation technologies, and site-specific conditions. In recognition of non-English speaking community members, DOE offered translation services upon request. At meetings held for the Navajo Nation, a Navajo language interpreter was used during the presentation and group discussions. A Navajo language audio tape of the scoping materials was produced and distributed to Navajo Nation radio stations, chapter houses, and libraries. The scoping meetings included viewgraph presentations and small group discussions with technical staff. More than 500 scoping comments were received. Comments were accepted at the scoping meetings, through the mail, and by telephone via a toll-free number. DOE reviewed all scoping comments. The comments generally indicated four categories of concern: human health and the environment, programmatic issues, ground water monitoring and site characterization, and site-specific Surface Project comments. The PEIS Implementation Plan (DOE, 1994a) summarizes these comments and describes how they were to be addressed in the draft PEIS. 1.6.2 Public hearings and comment period A 120-day public comment period and 9 public hearings were held after the draft PEIS was published. Information on the availability of the draft PEIS, methods for submitting comments, and the date, time, and place of the public hearings were announced in the Federal Register, in local newspapers, and on radio stations. Many of the same communication methods that were used in the scoping meetings were used to encourage participation at the public hearings. Both before and after media briefings, UMTRA Project spokespersons were available for interviews and further discussion. Fact sheets were prepared that described the PEIS and the Ground Water Project, and translation services were provided at hearings held at Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe sites. The public hearings followed an interactive format to facilitate communications between DOE representatives and people who attended the hearings. An independent facilitator conducted the meetings following overview presentations by DOE UMTRA Project site managers and Ground Water Project managers. Oral comments were recorded on flip charts and clarified as necessary to ensure accuracy in recording. Project personnel also responded to comments and discussed issues raised during the meetings. More than 600 comments were received at the public hearings, through the mail, and by telephone via a toll-free number. Comments received during the comment period have been evaluated and were incorporated as applicable in this final PEIS. The comments and response document that accompanies the PEIS identifies all written and oral comments received, DOE's responses, and changes made to the document, as appropriate. 1.6.3 Future public participation activities The final PEIS will be distributed to the public for at least 30 days before the Record of Decision is issued. The Record of Decision will announce the DOE decision regarding how to conduct the Ground Water Project. It also will summarize the mitigation measures that will be taken to avoid or minimize potential human health and environmental impacts (40 CFR §1505.2). DOE's commitment to encouraging public participation through public meetings with UMTRA Project representatives would continue during site-specific ground water compliance activities at many UMTRA Project processing sites. This would include providing information on ground water characterization activities and risk assessment, and seeking input regarding site-specific ground water compliance decisions. DOE would use direct mailings and announcements in the local media to notify the public of opportunities to meet with DOE representatives. Site-specific NEPA documents (for example, environmental impact statements and environmental assessments) would be prepared that identify the proposed ground water compliance strategy and alternatives, analyze impacts of implementing these actions, and specify any mitigation measures that might be necessary to reduce adverse impacts. DOE expects that environmental assessments will be appropriate in most cases. If DOE determined that an environmental assessment is appropriate, DOE would notify the host state and host tribe of the determination to prepare an environmental assessment and would involve the public to the extent practical during its preparation; early public notice of the intent to prepare this document would be provided concurrent with tribal and state notification (10 CFR §1021.301(c); 40 CFR §1501.4(b)). Before approving any site-specific plans, DOE would make the plans available to the host state and tribe for review and comment, in compliance with NEPA and DOE. Under the Secretary of Energy's NEPA policy statement, DOE ordinarily provides enhanced opportunities for interested persons to review and comment on environmental assessments concurrently with tribal and state review. In accordance with DOE policy, the UMTRA Project intends to conduct public meetings on the site-specific plans in the affected site communities. The DOE would solicit input from the public, local organizations, and educational institutions on site-specific issues that should be identified, considered, and analyzed in the effort to meet ground water compliance |
