NUREG-2243, - Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste at the United Nuclear Corporation Mill Site in Mckinley County, New Mexico - Draft for Comment: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[NUREG-2243, Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste at the United Nuclear Corporation Mill Site in Mckinley County, New Mexico]]
| number = ML20289A621
| issue date = 10/31/2020
| title = NUREG-2243 - Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste at the United Nuclear Corporation Mill Site in Mckinley County, New Mexico - Draft for Comment
| author name = Waldron A
| author affiliation = NRC/NMSS
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation =
| docket =
| license number =
| contact person = Dickey K
| document report number = NUREG-2243
| document type = NUREG
| page count = 380
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:NUREG-2243
~U.S.NRC United State . udcar Regulatory Commlss ion Protectinv- PeoDk and the Environment Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste at the United Nuclear Corporation Mill Site in McKinley County, New Mexico Draft Report for Comment Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
 
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS IN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material                                      Non-NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access          Documents available from public and s pecial technical NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at          libraries include all open literatu re items, such as books, the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at                  journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released      Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports.
records include, to name a few, NUREG-series                Such documents as theses, dissertations, fore ign reports publications; Federal Register notices; applicant,          and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence;          may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.
NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins Copies of industry codes and standards used in a and information notices; inspection and investigative        substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers      maintained at-and their attachments.
The NRC Technical Library NRC publications in the NU REG series, NRC                            Two White Flint North regulations, and Title 10, "Energy," in the Code of                    11545 Rockville Pike Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one                    Rockville, MD 20852-2738 of these two sources.
These standards are available in the library for reference
: 1. The Superintendent of Documents                          use by the public Codes and standards are usually US. Government Publishing Office                        copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, Washington, DC 20402-0001 from-Internet http://bookstore.gpo .gov American National Standards Institute Telephone: 1-866-512-1800 11 West 42nd Street Fax: (202) 512-2104                                              New York, NY 10036-8002 http://www.ansi.org
: 2. The National Technical Information Service                          (212) 642-4900 5301 Shawnee Road Alexandria, VA 22161-0002 http://www.ntis.gov                                        Legally binding regulatory requi rements are stated only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000 specifications; or orders, not in NU REG-series publications. The views expressed in contractor-A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is prepared publications in this series are not necessarily available free, to the extent of supply, upon written          those of the NRC.
request as follows The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                        administrative reports and books prepared by the staff Office of Administration                                  (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors Multimedia, Graphics and Storage & Distribution Branch    (NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences Washington, DC 20555-0001                                  (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports resulting from E-mail: distribution.reso urce@nrc.gov                    inte rnational agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX), (4)
Facsimile: (301) 415-2289                                  brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards a nd of Directors' Some publications in the NUREG series that are                  decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations posted at the NRC's Web site address                            (NUREG-0750).
http://www.nrc.gov/read inq-rm/doc-col lections/nuregs are updated periodically and may differ from the last          DISCLAIMER: This report was prepa red as an account of printed version. Although references to material              work sponsored by an agen cy of the U.S. Government.
found on a Web site bear the date the material was              Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor accessed, the material available on the date cited              any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or may subsequently be removed from the site.                      implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for a ny third party's use, or the resu lts of such use, of an y information , apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use by such third party \/1,0Uld not infringe privately owned rig hts.
SR-C R 101201 7
 
NUREG-2243
~U.S.NRC Protecting Peopk and the nviromnent Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste at the United Nuclear Corporation Mill Site in McKinley County, New Mexico Draft Report for Comment Manuscript Completed: October 2020 Date Published: October 2020 Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
 
1                                            ABSTRACT 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this environmental impact statement 3 (EIS) as part of its environmental review of the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) request to 4 amend its Source Material License No. SUA-1475 for the former UNC Church Rock uranium 5 mill site located northeast of Gallup, New Mexico. UNC is requesting that the NRC grant a 6 license amendment to UNC that would allow disposal of Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine 7 waste on top of the tailings impoundment at the UNC Church Rock Mill Site (UNC Mill Site).
8 This EIS includes the NRC staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed 9 action, two secondary alternatives, and the no-action alternative.
10 The proposed action is to amend UNCs Source Material License SUA-1475 to allow UNC to 11 transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 cubic meters [1,000,000 cubic yards] of NECR 12 mine waste on top of the North and Central Cells of the tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill 13 Site. The amendment also would revise the NRC-approved reclamation plan. The proposed 14 UNC schedule to complete the disposal of the NECR mine waste is approximately 4 years. As 15 part of the proposed action, this EIS analysis includes activities that would occur outside the 16 NRC-regulated UNC Mill Site boundary but that are necessary to conduct the proposed disposal 17 activities at the UNC Mill Site. These activities include NECR mine waste excavation and 18 transfer and related supporting activities.
19 Based on its environmental review, the preliminary NRC staff recommendation is to grant the 20 license amendment to UNC authorizing UNC to transfer and dispose NECR mine waste on top 21 of the UNC tailings impoundment. The adverse environmental impacts of the proposed action 22 and secondary alternatives are such that preserving for decisionmakers the option of issuing 23 such a license amendment is reasonable. This recommendation is based on (i) the license 24 application request, which includes the ER and supplemental documents and the licensees 25 responses to the NRC staffs requests for additional information; (ii) consultation with Federal, 26 State, Tribal, and local agencies and input from other stakeholders; and (iii) independent NRC 27 staff review as documented in the assessments summarized in this EIS.
iii
 
1                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii 3 LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... xi 4 LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xv 5 EXECUTIVE
 
==SUMMARY==
............................................................................................ xvii 6 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................... xxvii 7 1    INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 8            Background.......................................................................................................1-1 9                      UNC Mill Site .........................................................................................1-1 10                      NECR Mine Site ....................................................................................1-3 11                      Navajo Nation and Red Water Pond Road Community..........................1-4 12            Proposed Action ...............................................................................................1-5 13            Purpose and Need ............................................................................................1-6 14            Scope of the EIS ...............................................................................................1-6 15                      Public Participation Activities .................................................................1-7 16                      Issues Studied in Detail .........................................................................1-9 17                      Issues Outside the Scope of the EIS .....................................................1-9 18                      Statement on COVID-19 Public Health Emergency .............................1-10 19            Applicable Regulatory Requirements ..............................................................1-10 20            Licensing and Permitting .................................................................................1-10 21                      NRC Licensing Process.......................................................................1-10 22                      Status of Permitting With Other Federal, Tribal, and State 23                      Agencies .............................................................................................1-11 24            Consultation ....................................................................................................1-12 25                      Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation ....................................1-12 26                      National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation ......................1-13 27                      Coordination with Other Federal, State, Local, and Tribal 28                      Agencies .............................................................................................1-14 29            References .....................................................................................................1-16 30 2    PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................................. 2-1 31            Introduction .......................................................................................................2-1 32            Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis ...................................................2-1 33                      The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ......................................................2-2 34                      No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................2-22 35            Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ...............................................2-23 36                      Alternatives to the EPA Response Actions that Were Previously 37                      Evaluated as Part of the EPA CERCLA Process .................................2-23 38            Comparison of Predicted Environmental Impacts ............................................2-24 39            Preliminary Recommendation .........................................................................2-27 40            References .....................................................................................................2-27 41 3    DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................... 3-1 42            Introduction .......................................................................................................3-1 v
 
1  3.2  Land Use ..........................................................................................................3-1 2        3.2.1 Land Ownership and Ongoing Activities at the Proposed 3                Disposal Site .........................................................................................3-4 4        3.2.2 Land Use Activities at the NECR Mine Site ...........................................3-4 5        3.2.3 Tribal Land ............................................................................................3-5 6  3.3  Transportation...................................................................................................3-6 7        3.3.1 Regional and Local Transportation Characteristics ................................3-6 8  3.4  Geology and Soils .............................................................................................3-7 9        3.4.1 Regional Geology ..................................................................................3-7 10        3.4.2 Site Geology........................................................................................3-12 11        3.4.3 Soils ....................................................................................................3-14 12        3.4.4 Seismicity ............................................................................................3-17 13  3.5  Water Resources ............................................................................................3-22 14        3.5.1 Surface Water Resources ...................................................................3-22 15        3.5.2 Groundwater Resources......................................................................3-28 16        3.5.3 Groundwater Use ................................................................................3-33 17        3.5.4 Groundwater Quality ...........................................................................3-34 18  3.6  Ecological Resources .....................................................................................3-35 19        3.6.1 Description of Ecoregions Found at the UNC Mine and Mill Sites ........3-36 20        3.6.2 Local Vegetation..................................................................................3-36 21        3.6.3 Local Wildlife .......................................................................................3-40 22        3.6.4 Protected Species and Species of Concern.........................................3-42 23  3.7  Meteorology and Air Quality ............................................................................3-44 24        3.7.1 Meteorology ........................................................................................3-44 25        3.7.2 Air Quality............................................................................................3-45 26  3.8  Noise ..............................................................................................................3-48 27        3.8.1 Sound Sources and Potential Receptors .............................................3-49 28        3.8.2 Noise Regulatory Controls ...................................................................3-50 29  3.9  Historical and Cultural Resources ...................................................................3-50 30        3.9.1 Cultural History ....................................................................................3-51 31        3.9.2 Area of Potential Effect ........................................................................3-54 32        3.9.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Investigations ....................................3-55 33  3.10 Visual and Scenic ...........................................................................................3-63 34  3.11 Socioeconomics ..............................................................................................3-64 35        3.11.1 Demography........................................................................................3-66 36        3.11.2 Employment and Income .....................................................................3-73 37        3.11.3 Housing ...............................................................................................3-74 38        3.11.4 Local Finance ......................................................................................3-75 39        3.11.5 Community Services ...........................................................................3-76 40  3.12 Public and Occupational Health ......................................................................3-77 41        3.12.1 Radiation Protection Standards ...........................................................3-77 42        3.12.2 Sources of Radiation Exposure ...........................................................3-77 43        3.12.3 Pathways and Receptors.....................................................................3-82 44        3.12.4 Sources of Chemical Exposure ...........................................................3-82 45        3.12.5 Health Studies .....................................................................................3-82 46  3.13 Waste Management ........................................................................................3-84 47  3.14 References .....................................................................................................3-85 48 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AND 49  CLOSURE, AND MITIGATIVE ACTIONS ......................................................... 4-1 50  4.1  Introduction .......................................................................................................4-1 vi
 
1 4.2  Land Use Impacts .............................................................................................4-4 2      4.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .............................................................4-4 3      4.2.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 4              Action) ...................................................................................................4-6 5      4.2.3 No Action (Alternative 2)........................................................................4-7 6 4.3  Transportation Impacts .....................................................................................4-7 7      4.3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .............................................................4-8 8      4.3.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 9              Action) ...................................................................................................4-9 10      4.3.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-10 11 4.4  Geology and Soils Impacts .............................................................................4-10 12      4.4.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-10 13      4.4.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 14              Action) .................................................................................................4-15 15      4.4.3 No Action (Alternative 2)......................................................................4-16 16 4.5  Water Resources Impacts ...............................................................................4-17 17      4.5.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) - Surface Water Impacts ...................4-17 18      4.5.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 19              Action) .................................................................................................4-22 20      4.5.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-23 21      4.5.4 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) - Groundwater Impacts .....................4-23 22      4.5.5 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 23              Action) .................................................................................................4-27 24      4.5.6 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-28 25 4.6  Ecological Resources Impacts ........................................................................4-29 26      4.6.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-30 27      4.6.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 28              Action) .................................................................................................4-34 29      4.6.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-35 30 4.7  Air Quality Impacts ..........................................................................................4-35 31      4.7.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) - Nongreenhouse Gases ...................4-36 32      4.7.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 33              Action) - Nongreenhouse Gases .........................................................4-40 34      4.7.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) - Nongreenhouse Gases .............................4-42 35      4.7.4 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) - Greenhouse Gases.........................4-43 36      4.7.5 No-Action (Alternative 2) - Greenhouse Gases ...................................4-43 37 4.8  Noise Impacts .................................................................................................4-43 38      4.8.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-44 39      4.8.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 40              Action) .................................................................................................4-46 41      4.8.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-47 42 4.9  Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts ........................................................4-48 43      4.9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-48 44      4.9.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 45              Action) .................................................................................................4-53 46      4.9.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-54 47 4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources Impacts ............................................................4-55 48      4.10.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-55 49      4.10.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 50              Action) .................................................................................................4-56 51      4.10.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-57 vii
 
1  4.11  Socioeconomic Impacts ..................................................................................4-57 2        4.11.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-58 3        4.11.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 4                Action) .................................................................................................4-61 5        4.11 .3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-62 6  4.12  Environmental Justice Impacts........................................................................4-62 7        4.12.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-63 8        4.12.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 9                Action) .................................................................................................4-66 10        4.12.3 No-Action Alternative ...........................................................................4-66 11  4.13  Public and Occupational Health Impacts .........................................................4-67 12        4.13.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-67 13        4.1 3.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed 14                Action) .................................................................................................4-72 15        4.13.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-73 16  4.14  Waste Management Impacts ..........................................................................4-74 17        4.14.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ...........................................................4-74 18        4.14.2 Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to Proposed 19                Action) .................................................................................................4-76 20        4.14.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) .....................................................................4-77 21  4.15  References .....................................................................................................4-77 22 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................................................................. 5-1 23  5.1  Introduction .......................................................................................................5-1 24        5 .1.1 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future 25                Actions ..................................................................................................5-3 26        5.1.2 Methodology........................................................................................5-11 27  5.2  Land Use ........................................................................................................5-14 28  5.3  Transportation.................................................................................................5-16 29  5.4  Geology and Soils ...........................................................................................5-19 30  5.5  Water Resources ............................................................................................5-22 31        5 .5.1 Surface Water .....................................................................................5-22 32        5.5.2 Groundwater .......................................................................................5-26 33  5.6  Ecology ...........................................................................................................5-30 34  5.7  Air Quality .......................................................................................................5-32 35        5.7.1 Non-Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................5-32 36        5.7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ...............................5-35 37  5.8  Noise ..............................................................................................................5-37 38  5.9  Historic and Cultural........................................................................................5-39 39  5.10  Visual and Scenic ...........................................................................................5-40 40  5 .11 Socioeconomics ..............................................................................................5-42 41  5 .12 Environmental Justice .....................................................................................5-45 42  5.13  Public and Occupational Health ......................................................................5-48 43  5.14  Waste Management ........................................................................................5-51 44  5.15  References .....................................................................................................5-52 45 6 MITIGATION ..................................................................................................... 6-1 46  6.1  Introduction .......................................................................................................6-1 47  6.2  Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC ............................................................6-2 48  6.3  Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC .........................................6-2 49  6.4  Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the Navajo Nation ........................6-10 viii
 
1    6.5  References .....................................................................................................6-11 2 7  ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ..... 7-1 3    7.1  Introduction .......................................................................................................7-1 4    7.2  Radiological Monitoring and Reporting..............................................................7-1 5    7.3  Physiochemical Monitoring ...............................................................................7-4 6    7.4  Other Monitoring ...............................................................................................7-4 7    7.5  References .......................................................................................................7-5 8 8  COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 8-1 9    8.1  Introduction .......................................................................................................8-1 10    8.2  Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and Secondary Alternatives 1A and 1B ...........8-1 11          8.2.1 Economic Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Action (Alternative 12                    1) and Secondary Alternatives 1A and 1B .............................................8-1 13          8.2.2 Environmental Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Action 14                    (Alternative 1) and Secondary Alternatives 1A and 1B ..........................8-2 15    8.3  No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................................8-3 16          8.3.1 Economic Benefits and Costs of the No-Action Alternative ....................8-4 17          8.3.2 Environmental Benefits and Costs of the No-Action Alternative .............8-4 18    8.4  References .......................................................................................................8-4 19 9 
 
==SUMMARY==
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................. 9-1 20    9.1  Proposed Action (Alternative 1).........................................................................9-2 21    9.2  References .....................................................................................................9-15 22 10  LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................... 10-1 23    10.1  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors .........................................10-1 24    10.2  Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) Contributors ........10-1 25    10.3  CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors .......................................................10-2 26 11  DISTRIBUTION LIST ...................................................................................... 11-1 27    11.1  Federal Agencies ............................................................................................11-1 28    11.2  Tribal Governments ........................................................................................11-1 29    11.3  State Agencies ................................................................................................11-2 30    11.4  Local Agency Officials .....................................................................................11-2 31    11.5  Other Organizations and Individuals ...............................................................11-2 32 12  INDEX ............................................................................................................. 12-1 33 APPENDIX A CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE .......................................... A-1 ix
 
1                                              LIST OF FIGURES 2 Figure 1.1-1 Location of the Proposed Project Area ..............................................................1-2 3 Figure 2.2-1 UNC Mill Site Layout (Modified from NRC, 2019a) ............................................2-3 4 Figure 2.2-2 Proposed Project Area Layout ..........................................................................2-4 5 Figure 2.2-3 General Evapotranspirative Cover System Profile (Modified from 6              Stantec, 2019b and Dwyer Engineering, 2019) ...............................................2-14 7 Figure 3.2-1 Locations of Nearest Residents and Homesites Near the Proposed 8              Project Area ......................................................................................................3-2 9 Figure 3.2-2 Land Ownership Near the Proposed Project Area (Source: Modified 10              from INTERA, 2018) .........................................................................................3-3 11 Figure 3.2-3 Navajo Nation Chapters Located within 3.2-Kilometers [2 Miles] of the 12              Center of the Proposed Project Area.................................................................3-5 13 Figure 3.3-1 Proposed Project Area Access and Haul Roads ...............................................3-6 14 Figure 3.4-1 Location of Proposed Disposal Site in the San Juan Basin (Modified 15              from Craigg, 2001) ............................................................................................3-8 16 Figure 3.4-2 Major Structural Features of the San Juan Basin (Modified from Craigg, 17              2001) ................................................................................................................3-9 18 Figure 3.4-3 Diagrammatic east-west-trending and north-south-trending Geologic 19              Sections Showing Principal Structural Features of the San Juan Basin 20              (Modified from Craigg, 2001)...........................................................................3-11 21 Figure 3.4-4 Stratigraphic Column Typical of the San Juan Basin (Modified from 22              DAppolonia, 1981) .........................................................................................3-12 23 Figure 3.4-5 Soil Map Units at the NECR Mine Site and UNC Mill Site (Modified from 24              INTERA, 2018) ...............................................................................................3-15 25 Figure 3.4-6 Soil Reclamation Rating for Soil Units at the NECR Mine Site and UNC 26              Mill Site (Modified from INTERA, 2018)..........................................................3-18 27 Figure 3.4-7 Historical Earthquakes Recorded in the Colorado Plateau Between 1887 28              and 2016 (Stantec, 2019f)...............................................................................3-20 29 Figure 3.4-8 Quaternary Faults within a 320 km [200 mi] Radius of the Proposed 30              Disposal Site [Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS),
31              2020a].............................................................................................................3-21 32 Figure 3.5-1 Upper Puerco and Hard Ground Canyon-Upper Puerco Watersheds..............3-23 33 Figure 3.5-2 FEMA Floodplains and Pipeline Arroyo at the Proposed Project Area.............3-24 xi
 
1 Figure 3.5-3  Flow of Groundwater in the Quaternary Alluvium Near the Proposed 2              Project Area (Modified from INTERA, 2018)....................................................3-30 3 Figure 3.5-4  Flow of Groundwater in Zone 3 Near the Proposed Project Area 4              (Modified from INTERA, 2018) ........................................................................3-31 5 Figure 3.5-5  Flow of Groundwater in Zone 1 Near the Proposed Project Area 6              (Modified from INTERA, 2018) ........................................................................3-32 7 Figure 3.6-1  Vegetative Communities at the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site 8              (Modified from INTERA, 2018) ........................................................................3-37 9 Figure 3.6-2  Looking East Across the NRC-Licensed Mill Tailings Impoundment (i.e.,
10              the Central Portion of the Proposed Disposal Site) Covered by the 11              Reclaimed Vegetative Community (Source: A. Minor) ....................................3-38 12 Figure 3.7-1  New Mexico Portion of the Four Corners Air Quality Control Region ...............3-47 13 Figure 3.9-1  Geographic Limits of Previous Cultural and Archaeological 14              Investigations at Portions of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site 15              (Modified from INTERA, 2018) ........................................................................3-56 16 Figure 3.11-1 Viewability and Key Viewpoints Analyzed by INTERA to Support UNCs 17              Proposed Action (Modified from INTERA, 2018) .............................................3-65 18 Figure 3.11-2 Communities in McKinley County (Source: NNMCG, 2012) ...........................3-67 19 Figure 3.11-3 Navajo Nation Chapters and Zuni Indian Reservation in 20              McKinley County (Source: ESRI ArcGIS) ....................................................3-68 21 Figure 3.11-4 Block Groups with Potentially Affected Minority Populations in McKinley 22              County ............................................................................................................3-71 23 Figure 3.11-5 Block Groups with Potentially Affected Low-Income Populations in 24              McKinley County .............................................................................................3-73 25 Figure 3.11-6 Percent of Housing Vacant in Gallup, McKinley County, and 26              New Mexico (Source: Modified from Economic Profile System, 2020) ...........3-74 27 Figure 3.11-7 Percent of Housing Costs for Households in Gallup, McKinley County, 28              and New Mexico (Source: Modified from Economic Profile System, 29              2020) ..............................................................................................................3-75 30 Figure 3.12-1 Locations of Areas at the NECR Mine Site that are Included in the EPA 31              Removal Action (Source: Modified from INTERA, 2018) ................................3-81 32 Figure 4.5-1  Extents of the 100-year and Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) 33              Floodplains Pre- and Post-Proposed Action ....................................................4-21 34 Figure 4.8-1  Worst-Case Noise Scenario for the Construction Stage ..................................4-45 35 Figure 4.8-2  Worst-Case Noise Scenario for Alternative 1B ................................................4-48 xii
 
1 Figure 5.1-1 Geographic Locations of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable 2              Future Actions...................................................................................................5-2 3 Figure 5.1-2 Locations of Crownpoint Uranium Project (Modified from Hydro 4              Resources Inc., 2013) .......................................................................................5-8 5
xiii
 
1                                            LIST OF TABLES 2 Table ES-1  Summary of Potential Impacts for the Proposed Action and Alternatives 3              of the Church Rock License Amendment ........................................................... xx 4 Table 2.2-1  Estimated Emission Levels of Various Pollutants for the 5              Proposed Action .............................................................................................2-18 6 Table 2.4-1  Summary of Potential Impacts for the Proposed Action and Action 7              Alternatives of the Proposed Church Rock License Amendment.....................2-25 8 Table 3.4-1  Summary of Lithostratigraphic Units at the Proposed Disposal Site 9              (Modified from INTERA, 2018). .......................................................................3-14 10 Table 3.6-1  Animal Species Observed in the Proposed Project Area and within a 11              1-Kilometer [0.62-Mile] Buffer..........................................................................3-40 12 Table 3.7-1  Temperature and Precipitation Data Collected at the Gallup Municipal 13              Airport Meteorological Station from 1981 to 2010............................................3-44 14 Table 3.7-2  Estimated Background Pollutant Concentrations for the Proposed 15              Project Area and National (NAAQS) and Applicable New Mexico 16              Ambient Air Quality Standards (NMAAQS)......................................................3-46 17 Table 3.7-3  Annual Air Pollutant Emissions in Metric Tons* from the 18              U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys 2014 National Emission 19              Inventory for McKinley County, New Mexico ...................................................3-47 20 Table 3.8-1  Common Noises and Associated Decibel Levels in dBA .................................3-49 21 Table 3.9-1  Evaluation of Cultural Resources Documented During Previous 22              Investigations at Portions of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site ...............3-57 23 Table 3.9-2  Archaeological Resources Documented During Investigations at 24              Portions of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site .........................................3-59 25 Table 3.11-1 Population of Incorporated Areas in McKinley County where the USCB 26              Collects Population Data .................................................................................3-67 27 Table 3.11-2 Minority Populations in the Environmental Justice Region of Influence ...........3-70 28 Table 3.11-3 Low-Income Populations in the Environmental Justice Region 29              of Influence .....................................................................................................3-72 30 Table 3.11-4 Largest Employers in McKinley County ...........................................................3-74 31 Table 4.6-1  Amount of Vegetation to be Disturbed Under the Proposed Action .................4-30 32 Table 4.7-1  Mitigation Incorporated into the Proposed Actions Estimated Air 33              Emission Levels ..............................................................................................4-37 xv
 
1 Table 4.7-2 Comparison of Proposed Action Peak Emission Level AERMOD 2            Modeling Results to Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of 3            Significant Deterioration (PSD) Thresholds .....................................................4-37 4 Table 4.7-3 Percentage of the Proposed Action Phase Emission Levels Relative to 5            the Peak Year Emission Levels.......................................................................4-39 6 Table 4.7-4 Comparison of Alternative 1A Peak Emission Level AERMOD Modeling 7            Results to Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of Significant 8            Deterioration (PSD) Thresholds ......................................................................4-40 9 Table 4.7-5 Comparison of Alternative 1B Peak Emission Level AERMOD Modeling 10            Results to Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of Significant 11            Deterioration (PSD) Thresholds ......................................................................4-42 12 Table 4.9-1 Cultural Resources Documented within the Direct Area of Potential 13            Effect (APE) and Indirect APE with Potential Impacts From the 14            Proposed Action .............................................................................................4-50 15 Table 5.1-1 Summary of Cumulative Impacts From the Proposed Action ..........................5-13 16 Table 5.7-1 The Contribution (i.e., Percentage) of the Proposed Actions Estimated 17            Peak Year Annual Emissions Compared to McKinley Countys 18            Estimated Annual Emission Levels .................................................................5-33 19 Table 6.3-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC ........................................6-3 20 Table 6.3-2 Summary of Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC ...................6-9 21 Table 6.4-1 Summary of Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by the 22            Navajo Nation .................................................................................................6-11 23 Table 9.1-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and 24            Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action).........................9-4 xvi
 
1                                        EXECUTIVE
 
==SUMMARY==
 
2 By {{letter dated|date=September 24, 2018|text=letter dated September 24, 2018}}, as amended on October 14, 2019, United Nuclear 3 Corporation (UNC) submitted a request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 4 amend Source Material License No. SUA-1475 for the former UNC Church Rock uranium mill 5 site (Stantec, 2018a) under the requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 6 Regulations (10 CFR), Part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material. By its application, which 7 included a license amendment request and an environmental report (ER), as revised in several 8 subsequent submittals, UNC is requesting that the NRC grant a license amendment to UNC that 9 would allow disposal of Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine waste on top of the tailings 10 impoundment at the UNC Church Rock Mill Site (UNC Mill Site) (Stantec, 2019a; INTERA, 11 2018). The UNC request satisfies an NRC criterion for licensing actions requiring an 12 environmental impact statement in 10 CFR 51.20(a)(1)  it is a major Federal action 13 significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In fulfilling that requirement, the 14 NRC prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) consistent with NRCs National 15 Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-implementing regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 51, 16 Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 17 Functions, and the NRC staff guidance in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for 18 Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs (NRC, 2003).
19 UNC operated the Church Rock uranium milling facility from 1977 to 1982 under a license 20 issued by the State of New Mexico. On July 16, 1979, an incident occurred at the UNC Mill Site 21 when the tailings impoundment dam failed and released approximately 350 million liters (L) 22 [93 million gallons (gal)] of tailings into the Pipeline Arroyo and Puerco River drainages and into 23 the underlying alluvium. Following the tailings spill and related corrective actions, UNC 24 resumed uranium milling operations, and eventually an estimated 3.2 million metric tons 25 [3.5 million tons] of tailings were placed in the tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. On 26 June 1, 1986, the NRC reassumed regulatory authority for uranium and thorium milling activities 27 and mill tailings from the State of New Mexico (51 FR 19432; May 29, 1986) and subsequently 28 issued Source Material License SUA-1475 for the UNC Mill Site (NRC, 2019). In June 1987, 29 UNC submitted a proposed reclamation plan for the UNC Mill Site to the NRC, which NRC 30 approved on March 1, 1991 and revised on August 30, 1991 (Canonie Environmental, 1991).
31 The present status of the UNC Mill Site is that surface decommissioning and reclamation of the 32 former mill facilities and three tailings cells (South, Central, and North) and two borrow pits is 33 complete, except for the area on the South Cell covered by two evaporation ponds. These 34 ponds are part of ongoing UNC Mill Site reclamation activities, including the continuing 35 implementation of an NRC-approved groundwater corrective action plan (NRC, 1987).
36 The NECR Mine Site is a former uranium mine operated by UNC. As described by the 37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA, 2011), after extensive uranium mineral 38 exploration in the 1950s and 1960s, mining development began at the NECR Mine Site in 1967 39 and ended in 1982. While the mine operated, it served as the principal mineral source for the 40 UNC uranium mill. The NECR Mine Site is located less than 1.6 kilometers (km) [1 mile (mi)]
41 northwest of the UNC Mill Site. The NECR Mine Site is located on Navajo Nation land and land 42 held by the United States in trust for the Navajo Nation. After the mine was shut down, residual 43 materials, including low grade uranium ore, waste rock, and overburden wastes remained at the 44 site. UNC undertook various closure activities at the NECR Mine Site between 1986 and 1994 45 pursuant to their mining lease.
46 In 2005, following a request by the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA),
47 the EPA agreed to assume jurisdiction for the mine cleanup and act as the lead regulatory xvii
 
1 agency for the NECR Mine Site. In 2011, after evaluating available disposal options, the EPA 2 approved a removal action for the NECR Mine Site under Comprehensive Environmental 3 Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authority that called for the excavation of 4 waste material from the NECR Mine Site and placement of this waste at the UNC Mill Site. In 5 2013, the EPA selected and approved a CERCLA remedial action for the UNC Mill Site (EPA, 6 2013) to implement the removal action and dispose the NECR mine waste on top of the tailings 7 impoundment at the UNC Mill Site, contingent upon modification of the license issued by the 8 NRC for the UNC Mill Site. To address the EPA remedial action, UNC developed design and 9 other related technical information for EPA review under CERCLA, including the disposal site 10 that would be located on top of the NRC-licensed tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site.
11 The UNC design and other technical information was provided to NRC in the current UNC 12 amendment request that is the subject of the current NRC review and associated EIS.
13 Navajo Nation lands also surround the proposed project area. Beyond the northeastern 14 boundary of the proposed project area, the Red Water Pond Road Community is situated 15 between the NECR Mine and the Kerr-McGee Quivira Mines (hereafter referred to as the 16 Quivira Mine Site) and is within 0.22 km [0.14 mi] of the UNC Mill Site. Uranium mining in the 17 vicinity of the proposed project area has impacted the Red Water Pond Road Community and 18 areas beyond.
19 PROPOSED ACTION 20 The proposed action is to amend UNCs Source Material License SUA-1475 to allow UNC to 21 transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 cubic meters (m3) [1,000,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of 22 NECR mine waste on top of the tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site (hereafter, the 23 proposed disposal site). The amendment also would revise the NRC-approved tailings 24 reclamation plan and revise the reclamation schedule at the NRC-licensed UNC Mill Site. The 25 proposed UNC schedule to complete the disposal of the NECR mine waste would be 26 approximately 4 years if NRC grants the license amendment (Stantec, 2018b). As part of the 27 proposed action, this EIS includes activities that would occur outside the NRC-regulated UNC 28 Mill Site boundary, but that are necessary to conduct the proposed disposal activities at the 29 UNC Mill Site. Thus, this EIS includes NECR mine waste excavation and transfer and related 30 supporting activities in its evaluation.
31 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 32 The proposed license amendment of Source Material License SUA-1475 for the UNC Mill Site 33 would allow UNC to transfer and dispose mine waste from the NECR Mine Site. Specifically, 34 the mine impacted soil and debris currently located at the NECR Mine Site would be removed 35 and disposed at the UNC mill tailings disposal site. The proposed action would also facilitate an 36 EPA CERCLA action to protect human health and the environment from actual or threatened 37 releases of residual mining materials from the NECR Mine Site, as documented in a 2013 EPA 38 Record of Decision (ROD) (EPA, 2013) and referenced in UNCs ER (INTERA, 2018). The 39 NECR Mine Site is located on Navajo Nation land. The EPA remedial action ROD describes all 40 activities necessary to remove and dispose the NECR mine waste under CERCLA, including 41 NRC approval of the proposed amendment to UNCs license that would allow disposal at the 42 UNC Mill Site, which would also amend UNCs NRC-approved reclamation plan. The purpose 43 of and need for the proposed action, therefore, is to facilitate the expeditious and safe disposal 44 of the NECR mine waste from Navajo Nation land to protect human health and the environment 45 from actual or threatened releases of this material.
xviii
 
1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2 This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. The 3 environmental impacts from the proposed action are designated as SMALL, MODERATE, or 4 LARGE. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with 5 NMSS Programs (NRC, 2003) categorizes the significance of potential environmental impacts 6 as follows:
7 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither 8 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource considered.
9 MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 10 important attributes of the resource considered.
11 LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 12 important attributes of the resource considered.
13 Table ES-1 summarizes the NRC staffs conclusions on the level of impacts on environmental 14 resources from two primary alternatives including the proposed action (Alternative 1) and the 15 no-action alternative (Alternative 2), and two secondary alternatives (Alternatives 1A and 1B),
16 each of which is substantively the same as the proposed action, but with specific modifications 17 to activities. Alternative 1A is the proposed action, except that UNC would convey the mine 18 waste from the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system instead of by 19 truck. Alternative 1B is the proposed action, except that the cover material for the proposed 20 disposal area would be sourced from the Jetty Area rather than borrow areas. These 21 alternatives were evaluated with regard to the activities conducted in three phases of the 22 proposed action: (i) construction of the proposed disposal site, (ii) transfer of NECR mine waste 23 to the UNC Mill Site, and (iii) disposal site closure. Although there is substantial temporal 24 overlap between these phases, especially construction and transfer, the temporal overlap and 25 many of the construction and transfer impacts would be temporary (approximately 3.5 years).
26 Table ES-1 also summarizes the cumulative impacts determinations by resource area.
27 The NRC staff determines that the potential impacts from the proposed action and two 28 secondary alternatives would be SMALL for resource areas with the exception of impacts on 29 transportation, surface water, vegetation, air quality for nongreenhouse gases, noise, historic 30 and cultural, and visual and scenic resources. The NRC staff also concludes that there are 31 disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts (but not human health impacts) to 32 minority and low-income populations that would likely result from the action alternatives. Navajo 33 Nation communities are closer than any other community to the proposed project area and 34 would be disproportionately affected due to the transportation-related effects, impacts to air 35 quality, increased noise levels, and visual disturbances as discussed in EIS Section 4.12.
xix
 
Table ES-1          Summary of Potential Impacts for the Proposed Action and Alternatives of the Church Rock License Amendment Proposed Action                                                                    No-Action Alternative 1            Alternative 1A            Alternative 1B              Alternative 2        Cumulative Impacts Land Use                      SMALL                    SMALL                    SMALL                LARGE until Navajo          MODERATE Trust land is returned to the Navajo Nation Transportation*        SMALL to MODERATE        SMALL to MODERATE        SMALL to MODERATE                SMALL                    MODERATE Geology and Soils              SMALL                    SMALL                    SMALL              LARGE for soil, pending          MODERATE removal of NECR mine waste Surface Water*          SMALL to MODERATE        SMALL to MODERATE        SMALL to MODERATE          MODERATE pending              MODERATE removal of NECR mine waste Groundwater                    SMALL                    SMALL                    SMALL                      SMALL                      LARGE Ecology*                SMALL for wildlife and    SMALL for wildlife and    SMALL for wildlife and            SMALL                    MODERATE MODERATE for              MODERATE for              MODERATE for vegetation                vegetation                vegetation Air Quality            SMALL to MODERATE        SMALL to MODERATE        SMALL to MODERATE                SMALL                    MODERATE Nongreenhouse xx Gases*
Air Quality                    SMALL                    SMALL                    SMALL                      SMALL                    MODERATE Greenhouse Gases Noise*                      MODERATE                  MODERATE                  MODERATE                    SMALL                    MODERATE Historic and Cultural    SMALL to LARGE            SMALL to LARGE            SMALL to LARGE                  SMALL                      LARGE Resources*
Visual and Scenic            MODERATE                  MODERATE                  MODERATE                    SMALL                    MODERATE Resources*
Socioeconomics                SMALL                    SMALL                    SMALL              MODERATE until Navajo            MODERATE Trust land is returned to the Navajo Nation Environmental          Disproportionately high  Disproportionately high  Disproportionately high    Disproportionately high    Disproportionately high Justice*                    and adverse              and adverse              and adverse                and adverse                and adverse environmental impacts    environmental impacts    environmental impacts        environmental and        environmental impacts (but not human health    (but not human health    (but not human health      human health impacts      (but not human health impacts)                  impacts)                  impacts)                                              impacts)
 
Table ES-1          Summary of Potential Impacts for the Proposed Action and Alternatives of the Church Rock License Amendment (cont.)
Proposed Action                                                                    No-Action Alternative 1            Alternative 1A            Alternative 1B            Alternative 2          Cumulative Impacts Public and                        SMALL                    SMALL                      SMALL            LARGE, pending removal        LARGE until EPA Occupational Health                                                                                        of NECR mine waste          completes CERCLA actions, then SMALL.
Waste Management                  SMALL                    SMALL                      SMALL                      SMALL                      SMALL
* The bases for greater than SMALL impacts or for disproportionately high and adverse for the proposed action or Alternative 1A or Alternative 1B environmental impacts (but not human health impacts) are explained in the Executive Summary following this table and the full analyses are contained in EIS Chapter 4.
For the no-action alternative, impacts that are greater than SMALL, as explained in the table, would be reduced after removing contaminated soil from the NECR Mine Site and returning Navajo Trust land to the Navajo Nation.
xxi
 
1 Because of the proposed change in traffic on 2 New Mexico Highway 566 during disposal site                  Summary of Impacts:
3 construction and NECR mine waste transfer, the NRC While impacts on transportation, 4 staff determines that the potential impacts to              surface water, vegetation, air quality 5 transportation during disposal site construction and        for non-greenhouse gases, noise, 6 NECR mine waste transfer under the proposed action          historic and cultural resources, and 7 and secondary alternatives would be noticeable, and          visual and scenic resources, and on 8 therefore would be MODERATE.                                potential environmental justice populations would be greater than 9 The potential surface water quality impacts caused by        SMALL (i.e., the impacts would be 10 erosion, sedimentation, and spills and leaks of fuels        noticeable and potentially alter 11 and lubricants would be mitigated to control                important attributes of the resource),
12 stormwater and prevent the increase of stormwater            many of these construction and transfer impacts would occur 13 flows downstream. However, during the drainage concurrently for the approximate 14 improvement work proposed in the Jetty Area of the          3.5-year construction and transfer 15 UNC Mill Site but prior to the completion of the            period, and would cease thereafter.
16 proposed stabilization work, it is possible that, in the 17 event of a heavy storm, the mitigation measures 18 implemented within Pipeline Arroyo could be overwhelmed, potentially allowing for the 19 transportation of sediment and other non-radiological contaminants. Therefore, the NRC staff 20 determines that potential impacts to surface water during proposed disposal site construction 21 and NECR mine waste transfer would be SMALL but could temporarily become MODERATE 22 under the proposed action and secondary alternatives in the event of a heavy storm after work 23 begins in the Jetty Area, but prior to completing stabilization work. The extent of Pipeline 24 Arroyos floodplain would be permanently altered by the proposed project. Therefore, the NRC 25 staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts to the surface waters from the closure 26 phase under the proposed action and secondary alternatives would be MODERATE.
27 The potential impacts to air quality under the proposed action and secondary alternatives would 28 occur from fugitive dust emissions generated from vehicle travel on unpaved roads as well as 29 wind erosion of disturbed land and combustion emissions from mobile sources and construction 30 equipment. UNCs Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan would help mitigate potential impacts 31 through nonradiological monitoring for particulate matter and taking corrective actions if 32 emission levels exceed action levels (Stantec, 2019b). The NRC staff considers the air 33 emissions from the proposed disposal site construction and NECR mine waste transfer phases, 34 as well as the peak year for the proposed action and secondary alternatives, to be noticeable 35 but not destabilizing when compared to ambient air standards, Prevention of Significant 36 Deterioration thresholds, and screening tests for potential impacts to Class I areas. Peak year 37 emissions for a pollutant represent the highest emission levels associated with the proposed 38 action or secondary alternative in any one year and therefore also represent the greatest 39 potential impact to air quality. The modeling results indicated that the pollutant of greatest 40 concern is short-term (24-hour) particulate matter PM10. Reduced emission-generating activities 41 during the closure phase of the proposed action and secondary alternatives would reduce the 42 impacts to air quality to SMALL. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 43 environmental impacts to air quality during the proposed disposal site construction and NECR 44 mine waste transfer phases, as well as during the peak year, would be MODERATE.
45 Noise impacts, primarily from construction and transfer activities and additional traffic on 46 NM 566, are unlikely to exceed the threshold for outside noise during construction that the EPA 47 considers a potential nuisance to the nearest residents; however, the NRC staff estimates that 48 noise levels would exceed the noise experienced in a typical quiet rural area where the xxii
 
1 proposed project is located. The closest noise receptors to the proposed project area are the 2 residents of the Red Water Pond Road Community, and due to their proximity, they are 3 considered sensitive noise receptors. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 4 noise impacts during the construction, waste transfer, and disposal site closure phases of the 5 proposed action would be MODERATE.
6 The potential impacts to historic and cultural resources primarily result from the construction 7 phase of the proposed action and secondary alternatives and ground disturbance required to 8 remove and relocate waste and fill materials, construction and modification of access and haul 9 roads, and construction of the proposed disposal site and support facilities. Because historic 10 properties are located within the direct and indirect area of potential effect, the NRC staff 11 concludes that, while the NRC staff anticipates that completion of consultation under 12 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would ensure that mitigation measures are 13 followed to reduce the potential impacts to historic sites to SMALL, pending the completion of 14 consultation efforts, the potential impacts from the proposed action and secondary alternatives 15 would be SMALL (with mitigations) and MODERATE to LARGE (without mitigations).
16 The NRC staff determines that the environmental impacts to visual and scenic resources would 17 be due to (i) heavy equipment use, (ii) construction of infrastructure, (iii) additional vehicle traffic, 18 (iv) noticeable fugitive dust generated during the proposed construction and mine waste 19 transfer, and (v) noticeable land disturbances. Therefore, the impacts to visual and scenic 20 resources during disposal site construction, NECR mine waste transfer, and disposal site 21 closure under the proposed action and secondary alternatives would be MODERATE. Impacts 22 would primarily affect those in closest proximity to the site (e.g., the Navajo Nation and Red 23 Water Pond Road Community).
24 The NRC staff concludes that cumulative impacts for most resource areas would be 25 MODERATE from the proposed action and two secondary alternatives (as summarized in the 26 preceding paragraphs) combined with the impacts from other past, present, or reasonably 27 foreseeable future actions. Temporarily LARGE cumulative impacts are assessed for 28 groundwater and public and occupational health. Past impacts to these resources were from 29 historical releases or residual contamination that resulted from past actions (currently being 30 addressed by ongoing EPA and NRC actions and oversight) and not the incremental impacts 31 associated with the proposed action or secondary alternatives. The NRC staff also finds 32 LARGE cumulative impacts to historical and cultural resources based on the significant effects 33 of past actions. The NRC staff concludes that further adverse impacts to historic and cultural 34 resources from the proposed action and two secondary alternatives could be mitigated by 35 finalizing and implementing a Programmatic Agreement for the management of these resources 36 with the EPA, New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, and the Navajo Nation Tribal 37 Historic Preservation Office. The NRC staff also concludes that there are disproportionately 38 high and adverse environmental impacts (but not human health impacts) to minority and 39 low-income populations from past, present, and foreseeably future actions.
40 The NRC staff recognizes that, while the NRC staff has attempted to accurately capture and 41 describe the perspectives of the Navajo Nation in this EIS, members of the Navajo Nation may 42 hold views that differ from the conclusions presented in this EIS. Chapter 4 of the EIS provides 43 further details regarding the effects on selected resource areas (e.g., land use, visual and 44 scenic resources, historical and cultural resources, and environmental justice) that may 45 particularly impact the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community. The NRC 46 staff also recognizes that there may be intangible impacts felt by the Navajo Nation and the Red 47 Water Pond Road Community that may not be fully captured in this EIS. The impact xxiii
 
1 determination that there would be disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts 2 (but not human health impacts) is based in part on this recognition. Because the Red Water 3 Pond Road Community is closer than any other community to the proposed project area, that 4 community could be disproportionately affected due to the transportation-related effects, 5 impacts to air quality, increased noise levels, and visual disturbances.
6
 
==SUMMARY==
OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 7 The cost-benefit analysis in the EIS summarizes benefits and costs associated with the 8 proposed action, including secondary alternatives, and the no-action alternative. The proposed 9 project would generate primarily regional and local benefits, including potential additional tax 10 revenue in the local economy if new workers move to the area, purchase goods and services, 11 and contribute to county and State tax revenues. For the environmental costs and benefits, the 12 key distinction between the proposed action, including secondary alternatives, and the no-action 13 alternative, is the timing when the impacts occur. Under the proposed action and secondary 14 alternatives, the environmental and economic impacts would occur during all phases of the 15 proposed project. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC staff assumes that the NECR mine 16 waste would remain in place at the NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years before 17 implementation of another remedy. Environmental and economic impacts would result from the 18 delay of remediating the NECR Mine Site and other potential productive uses of the land, the 19 continuation of impacts to water resources, and the threat of public radiological impacts posed 20 by NECR mine waste, resulting in disproportionately high and adverse impacts on the minority 21 or low-income populations (i.e., the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community) 22 until a remedy is selected and implemented. Once another CERCLA remedy is selected and 23 implemented by the EPA, many of the work activities under the no-action alternative (e.g., site 24 preparation, excavation, waste transportation and disposal, and post-excavation/site restoration 25 activities) and costs needed to complete the selected remedy may be similar in scale to those 26 under the proposed action and secondary alternatives.
27 PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION 28 After evaluating the impacts of the proposed action and two secondary alternatives, and 29 comparing them to the no-action alternative, the NRC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, 30 sets forth its preliminary NEPA recommendation. The adverse environmental impacts of the 31 proposed action, Alternative 1A and Alternative 1B, which each involve the issuance of a license 32 amendment to transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 m3 [1,000,000 yd3] of NECR mine 33 waste on top of the tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site, are such that preserving the 34 option for decisionmakers of issuing such a license amendment is reasonable, and that the 35 project should proceed. This recommendation is based on (i) the license application request, 36 which includes the ER and supplemental documents and the licensees responses to the NRC 37 staffs requests for additional information; (ii) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local 38 agencies and input from other stakeholders; and (iii) independent NRC staff review as set forth 39 in this EIS.
40 REFERENCES 41 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 42 Appendix A. Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 43 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 44 Processed Primarily from their Source Material Content. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 45 Printing Office.
xxiv
 
1 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. Environmental 2 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.
3 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
4 10 CFR 51.20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, § 51.20. Criteria for and 5 identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements.
6 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
7 51 FR 19432. Federal Register. Vol. 51, No. 103, p. 19,432. Reassertion of Certain 8 Regulatory Authority in the State of New Mexico. May 29, 1986.
9 Canonie Environmental. Tailings Reclamation Plan as Approved by NRC March 1, 1991 10 License No. SUA-1475, Volume 1 - Text. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103230255, 11 ML103230287, and ML103230306. Project 86-060-27. August 1991.
12 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, 13 USEPA ID NMD030443303; Operable Unit: OU 02, Surface Soil Operable Unit.
14 Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. March 2013.
15 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/681353.pdf> (Accessed 21 January 2019).
16 EPA. Action Memorandum: Request for a Non-Time Critical Removal Action at the Northeast 17 Church Rock Mine Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation.
18 ADAMS Accession No. ML12003A095. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Region 6 and San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
20 September 29, 2011.
21 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 22 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 23 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 24 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
25 NRC. Materials License SUA-1475, Amendment No. 54. ADAMS Accession 26 No. ML19143A149. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 2019.
27 NRC. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 28 NMSS Programs. ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 29 Regulatory Commission. August 2003.
30 NRC. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 31 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Ground-Water Cleanup at the UNC-Churchrock 32 Uranium Mill in McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML060950415.
33 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1987 34 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475. ADAMS 35 Accession No. ML19287A009. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
36 October 2019a.
37 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 38 Appendix Q: Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan. ADAMS Accession No. ML19305D532.
39 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 2019b.
xxv
 
1 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475. ADAMS 2 Accession No. ML18267A237. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
3 September 2018a.
4 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 5 Appendix K: Removal Action Schedule. ADAMS Accession No. ML18267A276.
6 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. September 2018b.
xxvi
 
1              ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 2 AADT  average annual daily traffic 3 ac    acre 4 ACS    American Community Survey 5 AEA    Atomic Energy Act 6 AIRFA  American Indian Religious Freedom Act 7 ALARA  as low as reasonably achievable 8 amsl  above mean sea level 9 ANSI  American National Standards Institute 10 APE    area of potential effect 11 AQCR  Air Quality Control Region 12 ARAR  Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 13 ARPA  Archaeological Resources Protection Act 14 ATSDR  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 15 AUM    Abandoned Uranium Mine 16 BCE    before current era 17 BGEPA  Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 18 BIA    Bureau of Indian Affairs 19 BLM    U.S. Bureau of Land Management 20 BMP    best management practice 21 C      Celsius 22 CAP    corrective action plan 23 CCA    Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
24 CDC    Centers for Disease Control 25 ce    current era 26 CEQ    Council on Environmental Quality 27 CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 28 CESQG  Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator 29 CFR    Code of Federal Regulations 30 cfs    cubic feet per second 31 cm    centimeter 32 CNWRA Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 33 CSWPPP Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 34 CWA    Clean Water Act 35 CO2e  carbon dioxide equivalent 36 dBA    decibel 37 DCRM  Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources Management 38 DOE    U.S. Department of Energy 39 DOT    U.S Department of Transportation 40 EECA  engineering evaluation/cost analysis 41 EIS    environmental impact statement 42 EMS    emergency medical services 43 EMNRD  (New Mexico) Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department 44 EPA    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 45 ER    Environmental Report xxvii
 
1 ESA      Endangered Species Act 2 ET      evapotranspiration 3 FEMA    Federal Emergency Management Agency 4 FR      Federal Register 5 FSL      field screening level 6 ft      feet 7 FTE      full-time equivalent 8 FWS      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 9 gal      gallon 10 g        gram 11 GCRP    U.S. Global Climate Research Program 12 GMCS    Gallup McKinley County Schools 13 GIMC    Gallup Indian Medical Center 14 gpm      gallons per minute 15 ha      hectare 16 HRI      Hydro Resources, Inc.
17 HUD      U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 18 IAEA    International Atomic Energy Agency 19 ICRP    International Commission on Radiological Protection 20 in      inches 21 IPaC    Information Planning and Conservation 22 kg      kilogram 23 km      kilometer 24 kph      kilometers per hour 25 L        liter 26 L/min    liters per minute 27 LAR      license application report 28 Laramide Laramide Resources, LTD 29 LLNL    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 30 m        meter 31 M        million 32 m2      square meter 33 m3      cubic meter 34 mBq/g    millibecquerels per gram 35 mi      mile 36 mg      milligrams 37 mg/kg    milligrams per kilogram 38 mg/L    milligrams per liter 39 mph      miles per hour 40 mrem    millirem 41 mS      millisiemen 42 mSv      millisievert 43 MBTA    Migratory Bird Treaty Act 44 Mw      moment magnitude scale xxviii
 
1 MW    megawatt 2 MWh    megawatt hour 3 MWH    MWH Global 4 NAAQS  National Ambient Air Quality Standards 5 NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 6 NCEI  National Centers for Environmental Information 7 NECR  Northeast Church Rock 8 NEI    National Emissions Inventory 9 NEMSA  Non-Economic Material Storage Area 10 NEPA  National Environmental Policy Act 11 NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 12 NHNM  Natural Heritage New Mexico 13 NHPA  National Historic Preservation Act 14 NIST  National Institute of Standards and Technology 15 NM 566 New Mexico Highway 566 16 NMAAQS New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standards 17 NMAC  New Mexico Administrative Code 18 NMCHAT New Mexico Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool 19 NMDGF  New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 20 NMED  New Mexico Environment Department 21 NMEID  New Mexico Environmental Improvement Department 22 NMDOH  New Mexico State Department of Health 23 NMDOT  New Mexico Department of Transportation 24 NMOSE  New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 25 NMSHPO New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office 26 NMSS  Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards 27 NNDFW  Navajo National Department of Fish and Wildlife 28 NNEPA  Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency 29 NNHA  Navajo Nation Housing Authority 30 NNHPD  Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department 31 NNTHPO Navajo National Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 32 NOI    Notice of Intent 33 NPDES  National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 34 NRC    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 35 NRCS  National Resource Conservation Service 36 NRHP  National Register of Historic Places 37 OSHA  U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration 38 PA    Programmatic Agreement 39 pCi    picocuries 40 pCi/g  picocuries per gram 41 PGA    peak ground acceleration 42 PHE    public health emergency 43 PM    particulate matter 44 PMF    probable maximum flood 45 PMP    probable maximum precipitation 46 ppm    parts per million 47 PSD    Prevention of Significant Deterioration 48 PTW    Principal Threat Waste xxix
 
1 Quivira Mine Site Kerr-McGee Quivira Mines 2 Ra                radium 3 RAI              request for additional information 4 RCPP              Release Contingency and Prevention Plan 5 RCRA              Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 6 RMCH              Rehoboth McKinley Christian Hospital 7 RMP              Resource Management Plan 8 ROD              Record of Decision 9 ROI              region of influence 10 RSO              Radiation Safety Officer 11 s                second 12 SER              Safety Evaluation Report 13 SGCN              species of greatest conversation need 14 SHPO              State Historic Preservation Office 15 SMCRA            Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 16 SPCCP            Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan 17 TCP              traditional cultural property 18 TDS              total dissolved solids 19 TEDE              total effective dose equivalent 20 TLD              thermoluminescent dosimeter 21 &#xb5;mhos            micromhos 22 U                Uranium 23 UMTRCA            Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 24 UNC              United Nuclear Corporation 25 U.S.              United States 26 USACE            U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 27 USBR              U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 28 USC              United States Code 29 USCB              U.S. Census Bureau 30 USDA              U.S. Department of Agriculture 31 USGS              U.S. Geological Survey 32 URI              Uranium Resources, Inc.
33 VRM              Visual Resource Management 34 WOTUS            Waters of the United States 35 yd                yard 36 yd3              cubic yard 37 ZPSD              Zuni Public School District xxx
 
1                                        1 INTRODUCTION 2 1.1    Background 3 By {{letter dated|date=September 24, 2018|text=letter dated September 24, 2018}}, as amended on October 14, 2019, United Nuclear 4 Corporation (UNC) submitted a request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 5 amend Source Material License No. SUA-1475 for the former UNC Church Rock uranium mill 6 site (Stantec, 2019) under the requirements specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 7 Regulations (10 CFR), Part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material. By its application, which 8 included a license amendment request and an environmental report (ER), as revised in several 9 subsequent submittals, UNC is requesting that the NRC grant a license amendment to UNC that 10 would allow disposal of Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine waste on top of the tailings 11 impoundment at the UNC Church Rock Mill Site (hereafter, UNC Mill Site) (Stantec, 2019; 12 INTERA, 2018). The UNC request satisfies an NRC criterion for licensing actions requiring an 13 environmental impact statement (EIS) in 10 CFR 51.20 (a)(1)  it is a major Federal action 14 significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. In fulfilling that requirement, NRC 15 prepared this EIS consistent with NRCs National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-
16 implementing regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations 17 for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions and the NRC staff guidance in 18 NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 19 Programs (NRC, 2003).
20 The proposed project area is defined as the UNC Mill Site and the NECR uranium mine site 21 (hereafter, NECR Mine Site). The locations of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site are shown 22 in EIS Figure 1.1-1 as the proposed project area. The proposed action would address the need 23 for disposal capacity to support the cleanup of the abandoned NECR Mine Site under the 24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund Program. The NRC is reviewing UNCs 25 license application in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria 26 Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by 27 the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their 28 Source Material Content. The following sections of this EIS summarize the operational and 29 regulatory histories at the UNC Mill Site (which the NRC regulates) and NECR Mine Site (which 30 the NRC does not regulate).
31 1.1.1    UNC Mill Site 32 UNC operated the Church Rock uranium milling facility from 1977 to 1982 under a license issued 33 by the State of New Mexico. Uranium from the NECR Mine Site (EIS Figure 1.1-1) and other 34 local mines was processed at the mill facility, and residual materials (tailings) were placed in an 35 impoundment. The local and regional environments were impacted by the July 16, 1979 incident 36 at the UNC Mill Site when the tailings impoundment dam failed and released approximately 37 350 million liters (L) [93 million gallons (gal)] of tailings into the Pipeline Arroyo and Puerco River 38 drainages and into the underlying alluvium (EIS Section 3.12.1.2). Following the tailings spill and 39 related corrective actions, UNC resumed uranium milling operations, and eventually an 40 estimated 3.2 million metric tons [3.5 million tons] of tailings were placed in the tailings 41 impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. The mill facility and tailings impoundment occupied 42 approximately 50.6 hectares (ha) [125 acres (ac)] (Canonie Environmental, 1991). On 43 June 1, 1986, the NRC reassumed regulatory authority for uranium and thorium milling activities 44 and mill tailings from the State of New Mexico (51 FR 19432; May 29, 1986) and subsequently 45 issued Source Material License SUA-1475 for the UNC Mill Site (NRC, 2019a).
1-1
 
l
{~
Proposed ProjectArea Cities Gall up Solar Coad Mine 0
6.
Humate Mine Uranium Mill Uranium Mine c::::J Parks t22Z] Cibola National Forest D
D Other Navajo Nation Chapters Navajo Nation Church -
Rock Chapter Navajo Nation Coyote Canyon Cha pter Navajo Nation Pin edale Chapter
                                                                                - - Puerco River
                                                                                                          =
Interstate USHwy
                                                                                                          - - State Hwy  --
0 2
0 2 4 4
8 8
Miles Kilometers Figure 1.1-1              Location of the Proposed Project Area 1 When operations at conventional uranium mill sites have ended, the NRC typically refers to 2 surface facility and soils removal and decontamination as decommissioning and the 3 management of tailings and wastes as reclamation. In June 1987, UNC submitted a proposed 4 reclamation plan for the UNC Mill Site to the NRC, which NRC approved on March 1, 1991 and 5 revised on August 30, 1991 (Canonie Environmental, 1991). The licensee later modified the 6 reclamation plan in several subsequent submittals in 1996 (NRC, 2019a). Since the reclamation 7 plan was approved by NRC in 1991, reclamation activities have been ongoing, as detailed further 8 in EIS Section 2.2.1.2. On April 13, 1993, UNC submitted a report to NRC that documented the 9 completion of mill facility decommissioning in accordance with an NRC-approved 10 decommissioning plan.
11 The UNC Mill Site is privately owned and is surrounded by Navajo Nation land (on the Navajo 12 Nation reservation) and Navajo Nation Trust land (EIS Figure 3.2-2). The present status of the 13 UNC Mill Site is that surface decommissioning and reclamation of the former mill facilities and 14 three tailings cells (South, Central, and North) and two borrow pits is complete, except for the 15 area on the South Cell covered by two evaporation ponds. These ponds are part of ongoing 16 UNC Mill Site reclamation activities, including the continuing implementation of an NRC-17 approved groundwater corrective action plan (CAP) (NRC, 1987). Groundwater cleanup actions 18 include a pump-and-treat groundwater extraction system and evaporation ponds for disposal of 1-2
 
1 treated water. Additional information about the groundwater corrective actions is provided in EIS 2 Section 2.2.1.2. Because UNC Mill Site decommissioning activities have been completed and 3 the remaining activities to prepare the site for closure are addressed in the reclamation plan, this 4 EIS refers to the remaining activities as UNC Mill Site reclamation.
5 Remaining final site reclamation activities, as detailed in License Condition 35 of the NRC 6 license SUA-1475 (NRC, 2019a), are specific to the area of the existing evaporation ponds 7 located within the South Cell of the tailings impoundment. These activities include placement of 8 a final radon barrier and erosion protection and the completion of groundwater corrective actions 9 in accordance with the groundwater corrective action plan approved by NRC and EPA.
10 1.1.2      NECR Mine Site 11 The NECR Mine Site is a former uranium mine operated by UNC. As described by EPA 12 (EPA, 2011), after extensive uranium mineral exploration in the 1950s and 1960s, mining 13 development began at the NECR Mine Site in 1967 and ended in 1982. While the mine 14 operated, it served as the principal mineral source for the UNC uranium mill. The NECR Mine 15 Site is located less than 1.6 kilometers (km) [1 mile (mi)] northwest of the UNC Mill Site. The 16 NECR Mine Site is located within an area of approximately 83.8 ha [207 ac], the majority of 17 which {78.3 ha [193 ac]} is located on Navajo Nation land (on the Navajo Nation reservation) and 18 the remaining area is located on Navajo Nation Trust land (EIS Figure 3.2-2). The NECR Mine 19 Site consists of two shafts, two uranium ore waste piles, several mine vent holes and a 20 production well that is approximately 550 meters (m) [1,800 feet (ft)] deep that was used to 21 dewater the mine workings during operations. After the mine was shut down, residual materials, 22 including low grade uranium ore, waste rock, and overburden wastes remained at the site. UNC 23 undertook various closure activities at the NECR Mine Site between 1986 and 1994 pursuant to 24 their mining lease, including the removal of equipment and some buildings; backfilling and 25 sealing two mine shafts and associated vent holes with reinforced concrete caps; and regrading, 26 covering, and revegetation of the non-economic materials storage area (MWH, 2007).
27 Additionally, because tailings material from the UNC Mill Site had been previously authorized by 28 the State of New Mexico for backfilling mine workings at the NECR Mine Site, residual tailings 29 materials had remained in stockpile areas at the mine site that also required remediation. After 30 the NRC assumed licensing authority over the UNC mill tailings, the residual tailings material at 31 the NECR Mine Site was removed and transferred back to the UNC Mill Site tailings 32 impoundment, and related facilities at the mine site were decommissioned in accordance with 33 the NRC license (SUA-1475). UNC submitted a closeout plan to the New Mexico Mining and 34 Mineral Division in 2004. In 2005, following a request by the Navajo Nation Environmental 35 Protection Agency (NNEPA), the EPA agreed to assume jurisdiction for the mine cleanup and act 36 as the lead regulatory agency for the NECR Mine Site.
37 In 2011, the EPA approved a non-time-critical removal action under Comprehensive 38 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authority that called for the 39 excavation of waste material from the NECR Mine Site and placement of this waste at the UNC 40 Mill Site, subject to decision documents from USEPA for the UNC Mill Site and an NRC license 41 amendment (EPA, 2011). The text box explains how the EPA assigns a level of urgency to a 42 removal action using time sensitivity. The EPA non-time-critical removal action was based on an 43 endangerment determination. An endangerment determination is the EPAs determination of 44 imminent and substantial endangerment based on evidence supporting the factors set forth in 45 40 CFR 300.415(b)(2) for the appropriateness of a removal action. For the NECR Mine Site, 46 EPA determined, based on the removal site evaluation (MWH, 2007) and the engineering 47 evaluation / cost analysis (EPA, 2009), that if actual or threatened releases from the NECR Mine 1-3
 
1 Site were not addressed by implementing the response action outlined in the 2011 Non-Time-2 Critical Removal Action Memorandum (EPA, 2011), conditions may continue to present an 3 imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and the environment. The EPA made 4 its endangerment determination considering the high levels of radioactivity in soils at the site, the 5 potential for migration to residential areas and absorption into the food chain, natural conditions 6 that may exacerbate migration, and the unavailability of other mechanisms to mitigate the harm.
7 In 2013, the EPA selected and approved a CERCLA remedial action (EPA, 2013) to implement 8 the removal action and dispose the NECR mine waste on top of the tailings impoundment at the 9 UNC Mill Site, contingent upon modification of the license issued by the NRC for the UNC 10 Mill Site.
CERCLA Terms Response Actions There are two basic ways that the EPA responds to the release or threats of release of hazardous substances: (i) by a removal action or (ii) by a remedial action (defined next).
Under CERCLA 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(25), the terms respond or response mean remove, removal, remedy, and remedial action; all such terms include related enforcement activities.
Removal Action Under CERCLA 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(23), the terms remove or removal mean the cleanup or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment. This includes such actions as may be necessary in the event of the threat of release of hazardous substances into the environment; such actions as may be necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances, the disposal of removed material; or other actions as may be necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare or to the environment that may otherwise result from a release or threat of release. Three levels of urgency that are applied to EPA removal actions include emergency (action required within hours), time-critical (removal action must be initiated within 6 months), and non-time-critical (planning period of more than 6 months occurs before removal actions begin).
Remedial Action Under CERCLA 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(24), the terms remedy or remedial action mean those actions consistent with a permanent remedy taken instead of, or in addition to, removal actions in the event of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance into the environment, to prevent or minimize the release of hazardous substances so that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public health or welfare or the environment.
11 1.1.3      Navajo Nation and Red Water Pond Road Community 12 Navajo Nation lands surround the proposed project area (EIS Figure 2.2-2). Beyond the 13 northeastern boundary of the proposed project area, the Red Water Pond Road Community is 14 situated between the NECR Mine and the Kerr-McGee Quivira Mine (hereafter referred to as the 15 Quivira Mine Site) and is within 0.22 km [0.14 mi] of the UNC Mill Site. The community is within 1-4
 
1 the Coyote Canyon Chapter of the Navajo Nation. Generations in the community have farmed, 2 raised livestock, and have used native plants for food, medicinal and ceremonial use, and 3 livestock grazing. Many community members worked in the nearby mines when they were 4 operating (Bell et al., 2019).
5 Uranium mining in the vicinity of the proposed project area has impacted the Red Water Pond 6 Road Community and areas beyond. EPA made determinations that some areas of onsite and 7 offsite contamination from historic mining operations were an immediate threat to public health 8 and safety under CERCLA, requiring time-critical (prompt) removal of contamination (EPA, 2011; 9 EPA, 2018). Other sources of contamination, including those being addressed by the proposed 10 action, have been determined by EPA to present a threat to public health over a longer period of 11 time and are being addressed on a longer schedule (EPA, 2013).
12 During the scoping period for this EIS (described in EIS Section 1.4.1), the NRC received several 13 comments from members of the community that expressed concerns about the legacy of 14 uranium mining and the importance of Navajo cultural values (NRC, 2019b). Some people 15 referred to the native plants, animals, and water resources that are no longer present because of 16 disturbance to the land. One person stated that sacred sites have been uncovered. Others 17 expressed interest in restoring the land and reestablishing cultural values tied to the land. Some 18 suggested specific actions or practices to mitigate further impacts to Navajo culture, including 19 holding culturally important or sacred ceremonies (e.g., blessings by medicine men) prior to land 20 disturbance. Local residents have called on the EPA to include in its CERCLA remedy the 21 relocation of nearby residents to a location acceptable to the residents to ensure that their culture 22 is not lost. In 2008, the Navajo Nation Department of Justice provided comments on the EPA 23 analysis of alternatives for implementing the removal action at the NECR Mine Site that 24 emphasized the legacy of uranium mining on Navajo lands and the disproportionate share of the 25 cost that has been borne by the Navajo Nation and the Navajo people (EPA, 2009). These 26 comments described the agrarian nature of the Navajo people and the cultural and spiritual value 27 to the Navajo that comes from living on land that is free from harmful levels of radioactive 28 contaminants.
29 This EIS considers the potential environmental effects from the proposed action and considers 30 the impacts on the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community. While the NRC 31 staff has attempted to accurately capture and describe the perspectives of the Navajo Nation in 32 this EIS, the NRC staff recognizes that members of the Navajo Nation may hold views that differ 33 from the conclusions presented in this EIS.
34 1.2      Proposed Action 35 The proposed action is to amend UNCs Source Material License SUA-1475 to allow UNC to 36 transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 cubic meters (m3) [1,000,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of 37 NECR mine waste on top of a portion of the existing tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site 38 (hereafter, the proposed disposal site). The amendment also would revise the NRC-approved 39 tailings reclamation plan and revise the reclamation schedule at the NRC-licensed UNC Mill Site.
40 The proposed UNC schedule to complete the disposal of the NECR mine waste would be 41 approximately 4 years if NRC grants the license amendment (Stantec, 2018). As part of the 42 proposed action, this EIS includes activities that would occur outside the NRC-regulated UNC 43 Mill Site boundary but that are necessary to conduct the proposed disposal activities at the UNC 44 Mill Site. These activities include NECR mine waste excavation and transfer and related 45 supporting activities.
1-5
 
1 1.3        Purpose and Need 2 The proposed license amendment of Source Material License SUA-1475 for the UNC Mill Site 3 would allow UNC to transfer and dispose mine waste from the NECR Mine Site. Specifically, the 4 mine-impacted soil and debris currently located at the NECR Mine Site would be removed and 5 disposed at the UNC mill tailings disposal site. The proposed action would also facilitate an EPA 6 CERCLA action to protect human health and the environment from actual or threatened releases 7 of residual mining materials from the NECR Mine Site, as documented in a 2013 EPA Record of 8 Decision (ROD) (EPA, 2013) and referenced in UNCs ER (INTERA, 2018). The NECR Mine 9 Site is located on Navajo Nation land. The EPA remedial action ROD describes all activities 10 necessary to remove and dispose the NECR mine waste under CERCLA, including NRC 11 approval of the proposed amendment to UNCs license that would allow disposal at the UNC Mill 12 Site, which would also amend UNCs NRC-approved reclamation plan. The purpose of and need 13 for the proposed action, therefore, is to facilitate the expeditious and safe disposal of the NECR 14 mine waste from Navajo Nation land to protect human health and the environment from actual or 15 threatened releases of this material.
16 1.4        Scope of the EIS 17 This EIS presents an evaluation of the environmental impacts that could result from the proposed 18 action and reasonable alternatives, including the no-action alternative. Without approval for 19 disposal of the NECR mine waste, the waste would remain at the NECR Mine Site until the EPA 20 selects a different remedy under CERCLA that involves a different final disposal alternative for 21 the NECR mine waste. The structure of the EIS is as follows:
22 This chapter (Chapter 1) (i) provides an introduction to the proposed action, purpose of and need 23 for the proposed action, and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action; (ii) outlines the 24 specific assumptions that informed the analyses contained in later chapters of the EIS; and 25 (iii) lists applicable regulations and related environmental documents used in the environmental 26 review.
27 Chapter 2 describes the proposed action to dispose NECR mine waste on top of the existing 28 NRC-licensed mill tailings impoundment at the former UNC Mill Site and activities that are 29 associated with excavating and transferring NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site.
30 Chapter 3 contains a discussion of the affected environment (or current conditions) at and 31 around the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area). The affected 32 environment includes the following resource areas: land use, transportation, geology and soils, 33 water resources (surface water and groundwater), ecological resources, air quality, noise, visual 34 and scenic resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, environmental justice, 35 public and occupational health, and waste management. Chapters 2 and 3 form the basis for 36 assessing the potential impacts to the environment in Chapter 4.
37 Chapter 4 contains the NRC staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts associated with the 38 proposed action, which includes construction of the proposed disposal site, transfer of NECR 39 mine waste to the proposed disposal site, project closure activities (e.g., revegetation of the 40 proposed disposal site), and any longer-term impacts. This chapter also includes a discussion of 41 potential mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts.
42 Chapter 5 considers and evaluates the cumulative impacts that could occur when the 43 incremental impacts of the proposed action are added to other past, present, and reasonably 1-6
 
1 foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 2 undertakes these other actions. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 3 considered in the cumulative impact assessment include activities at other uranium mines in the 4 area, previous NECR mining and UNC milling activities, reclamation of the NECR Mine Site, and 5 long-term surveillance of the UNC Mill Site after the proposed action is completed, as well as 6 other projects and activities in the vicinity.
7 Chapter 6 includes evaluation of specific mitigation measures that UNC proposes or that the 8 NRC recommends, and applicable requirements that are within the EPAs authority under 9 CERCLA, such as programs, procedures, and controls for monitoring, measuring, and 10 documenting specific goals or targets that substantially follow local, State, and Federal agencies 11 requirements.
12 Chapter 7 includes UNCs proposed environmental measurements and monitoring programs that 13 were designed to address NRC safety regulations, including radiological effluent release limits, 14 public and occupational dose limits, and reporting under 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 40.
15 Information regarding program-specific or discretionary monitoring also is included as 16 appropriate if the monitoring would help to limit potential environmental impacts at the UNC Mill 17 Site. Monitoring programs provide data on operational and environmental conditions that enable 18 implementation of prompt corrective actions if adverse conditions are detected. Thus, these 19 programs help to limit potential environmental impacts and therefore are relevant to the NRC 20 staffs environmental impact analyses.
21 Chapter 8 describes the societal costs and benefits associated with the proposed action and 22 reasonable alternatives. The purpose of the cost-benefit analysis is not to exhaustively identify 23 and quantify all potential costs and benefits, but to disclose major quantitative and qualitative 24 costs and benefits to evaluate the relative merits of various alternatives. The evaluation, in 25 general, considers major costs associated with construction of the proposed disposal site, 26 transfer of mine waste, and closure activities during the estimated 4-year proposed action.
27 Chapter 9 includes a summary of environmental consequences, including a comparison of 28 environmental impacts, unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, irreversible and 29 irretrievable commitments of resources, the relationship between local short-term uses of the 30 environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and the NRCs 31 conclusions and recommendations.
32 Chapters 10 and 11 list preparers of the EIS and the distribution list of agencies and 33 organizations that received a copy of the EIS, respectively. Chapter 12 is a document index.
34 The appendix includes information about correspondence with other agencies and Tribal 35 governments associated with the preparation of the EIS.
36          Public Participation Activities 1.4.1 37 On February 8, 2019, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the NRC published a Notice of Intent 38 (NOI) in the Federal Register (FR) to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping: United Nuclear 39 Corporation (UNC) Church Rock Project (84 FR 2935). The NOI described the NRCs plan to 40 prepare an EIS and conduct public scoping and requested comments on the scope of the NRC 41 EIS. Through the NOI, the NRC invited potentially affected Federal, Tribal, State, and local 42 governments; organizations; and members of the public to provide comments on the scope of 43 the UNC Church Rock EIS. The scoping period ended on April 19, 2019. Comments were 44 accepted at the Federal rulemaking website (www.Regulations.gov; Docket ID NRC-2019-0026);
1-7
 
1 through email, fax, and regular U.S. mail; or through comments at two public meetings. The 2 scoping process provided an opportunity for members of the public to identify issues and 3 highlight concerns related to the proposed UNC Church Rock Mill Site license amendment. The 4 purpose of the scoping process, as described in NRC and Council on Environmental Quality 5 (CEQ) guidance (NRC, 2003; 48 FR 34263), is to:
6
* Ensure that important issues and concerns are identified early and are properly studied 7
* Identify alternatives to be examined 8
* Identify significant topics to be analyzed in depth 9
* Eliminate unimportant topics from detailed consideration 10
* Identify public concerns 11 Public Scoping Meetings 12 During the 70-day scoping comment period, the NRC staff hosted two public scoping meetings in 13 Gallup, New Mexico on March 19 and 21, 2019. All oral comments provided in English during 14 these meetings were transcribed. Any comments provided in another language, such as Din&#xe9;,
15 were recorded on the transcript as Native Language Spoken. In many cases, speakers using 16 other than English languages also provided comments in English. All transcribed comments 17 from the scoping meetings, as well as any written comments submitted in person during the 18 scoping meetings, were considered by NRC staff and are included in the comment summaries in 19 the scoping report (NRC, 2019b). A transcript of the meetings is available in ADAMS under 20 Accession Nos. ML19092A102 and ML19091A160. Preceding each public scoping meeting, the 21 NRC staff conducted an open house at the meeting facility. The open house provided an 22 opportunity for members of the public to interact with the NRC staff members, to receive 23 handouts and pamphlets, and to view informational posters that contained details of the 24 proposed project and the NRC licensing process. Transcripts from the webinar and from each 25 meeting along with digital versions of the handouts, posters, and the NRC presentations can be 26 found on the NRC website (https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/united-27 nuclear-corporation-unc-public-mtgs.html).
28 To accommodate members of the public with limited English proficiency, the NRC staff provided 29 presentation slides about the project, including information about how to comment on the 30 project, in Din&#xe9; as well as English. These materials are also available on the NRC website 31 (https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/uranium/united-nuclear-corporation-unc-public-32 mtgs.html).
33 The NRC public meeting notices were issued in the Navajo Times, the Gallup Independent, and 34 the Gallup Sun newspapers in English. In advance of each of these meetings, meeting 35 announcements were posted on the NRC public meeting notification system website. In addition 36 to the NOI, the NRC staff issued public meeting announcements once per day in English on AM 37 station KTTN 660 between March 15 and March 21, 2019. In addition, the NRCs Office of 38 Public Affairs issued a press release on February 14, 2019 and posted notice of the meetings on 39 the NRCs Facebook and Twitter accounts to notify the public of the meetings.
40 In total, through each of the avenues for submitting comments [e.g., transcripts from the public 41 meetings, mail, the Church Rock site on www.regulations.gov (NRC-2019-0026), and fax], the 42 NRC received approximately 432 unique comments contained in 11 pieces of comment 43 correspondence and two transcripts.
1-8
 
1 After reviewing the comments received during scoping, the NRC staff prepared a scoping 2 summary report (NRC, 2019b). The scoping summary report provided the NRC staff responses 3 to comments regarding the scope of the EIS, described which topics were considered within 4 scope, and explained why particular topics or concerns are within or outside the scope of the 5 EIS. Also, as described in the report, the NRC staff identified and eliminated peripheral issues 6 that are not addressed in this EIS, consistent with 10 CFR 51.29(a)(3). A summary of the issues 7 is provided next.
8 1.4.2    Issues Studied in Detail 9 To meet its NEPA obligations related to its review of the proposed action, the NRC staff 10 conducted an independent and comprehensive evaluation of the potential environmental impacts 11 of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. Based on the issues determined to be within 12 the scope, this UNC Church Rock Uranium Mill Site EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of 13 construction of the proposed disposal site (including excavation activities at the NECR Mine Site 14 and supporting activities), transfer of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site, and 15 project closure activities (including regrading and revegetation of the disturbed areas associated 16 with the proposed action (EIS Section 2.2.1). This EIS provides a detailed analysis of the 17 following resource areas:
18
* Land Use 19
* Transportation 20
* Geology and Soils 21
* Water Resources 22        o Surface Water 23        o Groundwater 24
* Ecology 25        o Vegetation 26        o Wildlife 27        o Protected Species and Species of Concern 28
* Air Quality 29
* Noise 30
* Visual and Scenic Resources 31
* Historic and Cultural Resources 32
* Socioeconomics 33
* Environmental Justice 34
* Public and Occupational Health and Safety 35
* Waste Management 36 1.4.3    Issues Outside the Scope of the EIS 37 Certain topics will not be addressed in the EIS because they have been determined to be outside 38 the scope of the environmental review. Where practicable, responses to comments on these 39 topics in the scoping summary report (NRC, 2019b) discuss why these topics are outside the 40 scope of the UNC Church Rock Mill Site EIS. These topics include (but are not limited to):
41
* the economic relationship between the U.S. government and Indian Tribes 42
* relocation of residents of the Red Water Pond Road Community 1-9
 
1 1.4.4    Statement on COVID-19 Public Health Emergency 2 On February 8, 2019, the NRC published an NOI in the FR to prepare an EIS and conduct 3 scoping for the proposed project (84 FR 2935), and the NRC staff initiated the environmental 4 review process. On March 13, 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States was declared 5 a public health emergency (PHE) (White House, 2020). The NRC staff has made efforts to 6 maintain contact with the public and the involved Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies 7 during the development of this EIS. The NRC staff acknowledges that the PHE is an evolving 8 and uncertain situation with widespread effects that may not be fully realized, understood, or 9 captured in the analyses in this EIS. As the situation evolves, the NRC staff will continue to 10 monitor associated developments with respect to the potential effects of the PHE on this 11 licensing action and associated EIS and take necessary and appropriate steps to continue to 12 execute the NRCs statutory and regulatory functions during this challenging time.
13 1.5    Applicable Regulatory Requirements 14 NEPA established national environmental policy and goals to protect, maintain, and enhance the 15 environment and provided a process for implementing these specific goals for those Federal 16 agencies responsible for an action. This EIS was prepared in accordance with the NRCs 17 NEPA-implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and the NRC staff guidance in 18 NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 19 Programs (NRC, 2003). Federal agencies are also required to comply with consultation 20 requirements in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, and 21 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, which are 22 discussed further in EIS Section 1.7.
23 1.6    Licensing and Permitting 24 1.6.1    NRC Licensing Process 25 By {{letter dated|date=September 24, 2018|text=letter dated September 24, 2018}}, UNC submitted a request to the NRC to amend its Source 26 Material License No. SUA-1475 for the former UNC Church Rock uranium mill and tailings site 27 under the requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material.
28 The NRC initially conducted an acceptance review of the amendment request to determine 29 whether the application was complete enough to support a detailed technical review. The NRC 30 staff accepted the proposed license amendment application for detailed technical review on 31 January 2, 2019, and a formal acceptance letter for docketing was issued by NRC on 32 March 7, 2019 (NRC, 2019c,d).
33 The NRC staffs detailed review of UNCs license amendment request consists of both a safety 34 review and an environmental review that are conducted in parallel. The focus of the safety 35 review is to assess compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements at 10 CFR Part 40, 36 Appendix A, and 10 CFR Part 20. The environmental review is conducted in accordance with 37 the regulations at 10 CFR Part 51.
38 In addition to its robust public engagement processes, the NRCs hearing process 39 (10 CFR Part 2) applies to licensing actions and offers stakeholders a separate opportunity to 40 raise concerns associated with proposed licensing actions. Regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 specify 41 that a petition for review and request for hearing must include a showing that the petitioner has 42 standing. The regulations also specify that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel would 43 rule on a petitioners standing by considering (i) the nature of the petitioners right under the 1-10
 
1 Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or NEPA to be made a party to the proceeding; (ii) the nature and 2 extent of the petitioners property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (iii) the 3 possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the petitioners 4 interest. In accordance with the regulation, the NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for 5 Hearing to announce an opportunity for the public to request an adjudicatory hearing on UNCs 6 license amendment request on March 13, 2019, closing on May 13, 2019 (84 FR 2935). No 7 requests for a hearing were received.
8 1.6.2      Status of Permitting With Other Federal, Tribal, and State Agencies 9 In addition to obtaining approval of the license amendment request prior to commencing the 10 proposed project activities, the licensee is required to obtain all necessary and relevant permits 11 or approvals from other Federal and State agencies.
12 In general, typical permitting approvals are not required under the permit exemption set forth in 13 CERCLA Section 121(e)(1). In addition, the EPA has invoked authority under CERCLA 14 Section 104(d)(4), 42 United States Code (USC) 9604(d)(4), to temporarily treat these related 15 facilities (the NECR Mine Site Consolidation Areas and the UNC tailings impoundment) as one 16 site for the purposes of Section 104 of CERCLA, 42 USC 9604. Treatment of the tailings 17 impoundment at the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site Consolidation Areas as one site is 18 temporary and would end once disposal of the NECR Mine Site waste at the tailings 19 impoundment at the UNC Mill Site is complete (EPA, 2013).
20 A result of this determination is that the selected EPA remedy (which includes the proposed 21 action) has been designed and would be implemented in accordance with Applicable or Relevant 22 and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) as defined at 40 CFR 300.5. EPA provides oversight of 23 onsite activities associated with a CERCLA action, including all onsite activities. As part of 24 selecting an appropriate response action, EPA determines what Federal, State, and Tribal 25 requirements are ARARs for the action. EPA, after consultation as appropriate with the 26 implementing authority for non-EPA ARARs, implements only the substantive, not the 27 procedural, requirements of those ARARs, pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(e)(1). EPA has 28 identified applicable NRC requirements in 10 CFR Part 40 as ARARs and has considered these 29 requirements in their CERCLA process but also recognizes the NRCs authority under the 30 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) to conduct independent evaluations of 31 compliance with these NRC requirements as part of the NRC licensing process. NRC also 32 continues its oversight role of licensed activities at the UNC Mill Site and both agencies regularly 33 communicate and coordinate their activities. The complete list of ARARs is provided in Table 1 34 of the ROD for the EPAs CERCLA remedial action (EPA, 2013).
35 Among the ARARs, EPA has identified National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 36 Pollutants [40 CFR 61.92, 61.192, 61.222(a) and (b)] and the New Mexico Administrative Code 37 (NMAC) regulation of non-coal mining, which establishes requirements for mine reclamation and 38 close-out plans at Sections 19.10.5.507A, 19.10.6.603.A and B, 19.10.6.603.C1 through 9, and 39 19.10.6.603.D through H.
40 The EPA also has stated that construction and materials management must meet the following 41 ARARs: the New Mexico Water Quality Act, the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402, National 42 Pollution Discharge Elimination System stormwater discharge [40 CFR 122.26(c)(1)(i), 122.41, 43 122.42(a), 122.44(a)(1) and 40 CFR 125.3(c)(3)] and UMTRCA [40 CFR 192.02(b)(1),
44 192.02(b)(2), 192.32(b)(1), 192.32(b)(1)(i), and 192.32(b)(1)(ii)].
1-11
 
1 In addition to ARARs, the EPA (2013) stated that the remedial action would meet the substantive 2 aspects of the following laws: the CWA Section 404, the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; the Native 3 American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq; the NHPA, 16 U.S.C.
4 470 et seq; Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 47000-47011; and 5 American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996 et seq.
6 CERCLA Section 104 allows EPA to enter into cooperative agreements with eligible Tribes to 7 perform or participate in Superfund-eligible site response activities. In 2005, following a request 8 by the NNEPA, the EPA agreed to assume jurisdiction for the mine cleanup and act as the lead 9 regulatory agency for the NECR Mine Site (EIS Section 1.1.2).
10 1.7      Consultation 11 Federal agencies are required to comply with consultation requirements in Section 7 of the ESA 12 of 1973, as amended, and Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended. Section 7 (ESA) and 13 Section 106 (NHPA) consultations conducted for the proposed UNC Church Rock Mill Site 14 project are summarized in EIS Sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2. A list of the consultation 15 correspondence is provided in EIS Appendix A. EIS Section 1.7.3 describes the NRC 16 coordination with other agency and government entities conducted during the development of 17 this EIS. EPA also conducted their related CERCLA actions in close coordination with applicable 18 Federal, Tribal, and State agencies, government entities, and the local community, as described 19 in the EPA ROD for the remedial action (EPA, 2013).
20 1.7.1    Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation 21 The ESA was enacted to prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and 22 to restore those species and their critical habitats. ESA Section 7 provides for consultation with 23 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that actions an agency authorizes, permits, or 24 otherwise carries out would not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 25 adversely modify designated critical habitats. The FWS has responsibility for certain species of 26 New Mexico wildlife under the ESA of 1973 as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), the Migratory 27 Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) as amended (16 USC 701-715), and the Bald and Golden Eagle 28 Protection Act (BGEPA) as amended (16 USC 668-668c).
29 On June 4, 2020, the NRC staff obtained an official species list from the FWS Information 30 Planning and Conservation (IPaC) website (FWS, 2020). This list is provided pursuant to 31 Section 7 of the ESA and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to request of the 32 Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed 33 may be present in the area of a proposed action. Formal consultation with the FWS is not 34 required for this project because the NRC staff determined that the proposed project would have 35 no effect on Federally listed species under the ESA, and no effect on any existing or proposed 36 critical habitats (EIS Section 4.6).
37 The NRC staff met with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) on 38 March 20, 2019 to discuss the potential impacts on ecological resources associated with the 39 proposed UNC Church Rock Mill Site project. By {{letter dated|date=April 12, 2019|text=letter dated April 12, 2019}}, the NMDGF 40 (M. Wunder) submitted scoping comments on the proposed Church Rock Mill Site project 41 (NMDGF, 2019a, ADAMS Accession No. ML19133A316). The NRC staff used the interactive 42 New Mexico Environmental Review Tool to generate a site-specific report of NMDGF 43 recommendations regarding potential impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitats from the proposed 44 project (NMDGF, 2019b). The NMDGF and NRC staffs then discussed the recommendations in 1-12
 
1 the report. To date, NMDGF staff has not provided additional recommendations. The NRC staff 2 has been in communication with the NMDGF during the EIS review process.
3 1.7.2    National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation 4 Section 106 of the NHPA requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects of their 5 undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an 6 opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Section 106 process seeks the views of 7 consulting parties, including the Federal agency, the State Historic Preservation Officer, Indian 8 Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, local government 9 leaders, the applicant, cooperating agencies, and the public. The NRC staff is complying with 10 NHPA requirements by performing the Section 106 evaluation in coordination with its NEPA 11 environmental review in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8. By conducting the NHPA Section 106 12 evaluation through the NEPA process, the NRC staff would be able to meet the goals of 13 consultation, which are to assess if there are historic properties adversely affected by the 14 proposed project and determine potential ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on 15 such properties, while identifying alternatives and preparing associated NEPA evaluations.
16 As detailed in 36 CFR 800.2(c)(1)(i), the role of the State Historic Preservation Office [in this 17 case, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (NMSHPO)] in the Section 106 process 18 is to advise and assist Federal agencies in carrying out their Section 106 responsibilities. As part 19 of the Section 106 consultation process for the proposed Church Rock Mill Site project, the NRC 20 continues consultation with potentially affected Indian Tribes and other consulting parties, such 21 as the Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (NNTHPO) and the NMSHPO.
22 The NRC initiated consultation with the NMSHPO by a {{letter dated|date=November 26, 2019|text=letter dated November 26, 2019}}, 23 requesting information from the NMSHPO to facilitate the identification of historic and cultural 24 resources that could be affected by the proposed action, and proposing the area of potential 25 effect (APE) for both direct and indirect effects (NRC, 2019e). The NRC staff invited eight 26 Federally recognized Indian Tribes located in northern and northwestern New Mexico to 27 participate in the Section 106 process, which is further detailed in EIS Section 1.7.3.1. The 28 Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe agreed to consult on the proposed project. The NRC staff 29 conducted a site visit on December 12, 2019 as part of its ongoing consultation with Indian 30 Tribes pursuant to NHPA Section 106. Other site visit attendees included staff from the 31 NNTHPO and NRC subcontractor staff assisting with the NRC staffs NHPA Section 106 32 activities during the development of this EIS. Observations and mitigation recommendations 33 made during the December 12, 2019, site visit are provided in EIS Section 4.9.1.1. Based on 34 information collected prior to and during the site visit, the NRC staff provided the NMSHPO 35 and the NNTHPO with recommendations of eligibility for cultural and historical sites. On 36 April 15, 2020, the NMSHPO concurred with NRCs determinations of eligibility (NMSHPO, 37 2020), and on May 26, 2020, the NNTHPO provided concurrence on determinations of eligibility 38 (NNTHPO, 2020). The NRC staff, EPA, NMSHPO, and NNTHPO are currently developing a 39 programmatic agreement (PA) that will describe the mitigation measures that the licensee would 40 follow during the implementation of the proposed action, if approved (EIS Sections 3.9 and 4.9).
41 A draft PA will be issued for comment in Fall 2020. The NRC staff will continue to consult with 42 the NNTHPO, the NMSHPO, and other consulting parties throughout the environmental review 43 process to evaluate the effects of the proposed project on cultural and historical resources.
1-13
 
1 1.7.3      Coordination with Other Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Agencies 2 The NRC staff interacted with other Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies during preparation 3 of this EIS to gather information on potential issues, concerns, and environmental impacts 4 related to the proposed action. In addition to the consultations described in EIS Sections 1.7.1 5 and 1.7.2, the consultation and coordination process has also included discussions with 6 New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), FWS, NMDGF, EPA, NNEPA, U.S. Department 7 of Energy (DOE), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and local organizations (e.g., county 8 commissioners), as well as Tribal governments. Certain Federal, State, and Navajo agencies 9 were provided an opportunity to review the draft EIS before publication: EPA, DOE, BIA, 10 NNEPA, and NMED. The NRC reviewed the comments provided by these agencies and 11 addressed them, as appropriate, in this EIS.
12 1.7.3.1      Interactions with Tribal Governments 13 The NRC recognizes that there are specific government-to-government consultation 14 responsibilities regarding interactions with Federally recognized Tribal governments because of 15 their status as sovereign nations. As such, the NRC offers Federally recognized Tribes the 16 opportunity for government-to-government consultation consistent with the principles in its Tribal 17 Policy Statement, which was issued on January 9, 2017 (82 FR 2402). The Tribal Policy 18 Statement promotes effective government-to-government interactions with Indian and Alaska 19 Native Tribes and encourages and facilitates Tribal involvement in the areas over which the NRC 20 has jurisdiction. At the request of Tribal governments, the NRC is willing to participate in 21 government-to-government meetings to discuss the UNC Church Rock Mill Site EIS 22 development effort. The NRC staff has invited eight Federally recognized Indian Tribes located 23 in northern and northwestern New Mexico to participate in the Section 106 process. The Tribes 24 that were contacted included the Laguna Pueblo, Isleta Pueblo, Acoma Pueblo, Zuni Pueblo, 25 Tesuque Pueblo, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Hopi Tribe, and the Navajo Nation. Members of 26 the Red Water Pond Road Community and Navajo Nation invited the NRC staff to visit the 27 community frequently during the environmental review process and to visit each of the Navajo 28 chapters. On March 21, 2019, the NRC staff met with NNEPA at their office in Window Rock, 29 Arizona. The NRC staff met with the Red Water Pond Road Community in December 2018 and 30 March 2019. In September 2019, members of the NRC staff met with the Pinedale Chapter of 31 the Navajo Nation. In December 2019, the NRC staff also met with representatives of Church 32 Rock Chapter, Coyote Canyon Chapter, and Standing Rock Chapter of the Navajo Nation.
33 During the development of this EIS, the NRC staff coordinated teleconferences with the NNEPA, 34 participated in monthly teleconferences with the EPA, NNEPA, and the Red Water Pond Road 35 Community, and provided informational emails to the NNEPA and the Red Water Pond Road 36 Community on the status of the NRC staffs review process.
37 In consultation with the NRC, NNEPA recommended that NRC develop and implement an 38 outreach plan to help community members understand NRC regulations and explain the role the 39 NRC plays in the remediation process, and that the EIS be presented in a manner that is 40 consistent with NRC Tribal Policy. The NRC staff has developed a plan specifically to 41 communicate with the Red Water Pond Road Community during the development of this EIS and 42 after its publication. As part of that plan and in response to the NNEPAs request, the NRC staff 43 will continue to facilitate conference calls or online meetings with the NNEPA and local 44 community regarding the role the NRC plays in the remediation process, the purpose and 45 organization of the EIS, and how the EIS relates to the NRCs role. In addition, this EIS and a 46 separate summary (or readers guide) to the EIS are made available in hard copy and electronic 1-14
 
1 formats to the NNEPA and the Red Water Pond Road Community and any additional persons 2 who request copies of the documents. The NRC staff will explain to the NNEPA, the Red Water 3 Pond Road Community, and other Navajo Nation Chapter Houses how to provide public 4 comments on the EIS and participate in public meetings during the comment period. The NRC 5 staff will also hold a separate meeting or meetings with Navajo Nation people and agencies to 6 receive questions or comments on the EIS or explain the NRCs process. The NRC staff will 7 ensure that a Navajo language interpreter is available during meetings to assist in 8 communicating with the Navajo people. Due to the PHE, the NRC staff plans to hold the 9 meetings with the Navajo people by phone and online and will ensure that paper copies of 10 materials are delivered to meeting participants well before the meeting dates. The NRC staff will 11 continue to participate in monthly teleconferences with the NNEPA and the Red Water Pond 12 Road Community and further assist in their review of the EIS, if requested.
13 EIS Appendix A contains correspondence related to NRCs outreach with Indian Tribes. The 14 NRC encourages interested Indian Tribes to participate throughout the NRCs environmental 15 review process. The NRC will continue outreach efforts with Indian Tribes throughout the course 16 of its review.
17                Coordination with Federal and State Agencies 1.7.3.2 18 Coordination with EPA 19 The EPA administers CERCLA actions applicable to the NECR Mine Site and UNC Mill Site and 20 is the lead agency over the NECR Mine Site cleanup (NECR removal action and UNC remedial 21 actions) to protect human health and the environment from actual or threatened releases of 22 residual mining materials from the NECR Mine Site, as documented in a 2013 EPA ROD (EPA, 23 2013) that is cited in the UNC license amendment request. During preparation of this EIS, the 24 NRC consulted regularly with the EPA to understand the relationship between EPAs CERCLA 25 actions and the NRCs review of the requested amendment to the NRC-issued UNC license at 26 the Mill Site under the licensing authority granted to each agency by UMTRCA. This EIS serves 27 to fulfill the NRCs NEPA responsibilities as they apply to the NRCs licensing decision for the 28 disposal of the NECR mine waste at the UNC Mill Site.
29 Coordination with the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) 30 The NMED oversees the EPAs enforcement of State regulations and laws during the CERCLA 31 cleanup process. The NRC staff corresponded with NMED staff during the preparation of this 32 EIS to collect information to describe and evaluate the affected environment potential impacts 33 from the proposed project, cumulative impacts, and any additional mitigation measures. NMED 34 staff had an early opportunity to provide comments and will have another opportunity during the 35 public comment period for this EIS. The NRC staff will continue to coordinate as necessary with 36 NMED throughout this environmental review process.
37 Coordination with the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) 38 The NRC staff received a letter from NMDOT dated June 3, 2019 that provides NMDOT staffs 39 concerns and recommendations for the proposed project. The NRC staff have addressed, where 40 applicable, NMDOTs statements in the EIS.
1-15
 
1  1.7.3.3    Coordination with Localities 2 The NRC staff met with county council members for McKinley County on March 21, 2019 to 3 (i) provide a brief overview of the NRC environmental review process, (ii) gather information 4 about the local community relevant to the EIS, and (iii) address questions or concerns raised by 5 members of the council during the meeting. Attendees and summaries of these discussions can 6 be found in the NRC Site Trip Report (NRC, 2019f). NRC staff also visited the proposed project 7 site in June 2019 and December 2019. The NRC staff also conducted meetings and 8 consultation with local communities.
9 1.8      References 10 10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 2. Agency Rules for 11 Practice and Procedures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
12 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. Standards for 13 Protection Against Radiation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
14 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. Domestic Licensing of 15 Source Material. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
16 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 17 Appendix A. Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 18 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 19 Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 20 Printing Office.
21 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. Environmental 22 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.
23 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
24 10 CFR 51.20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, &sect; 51.20. Criteria for and 25 identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements.
26 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
27 10 CFR 51.26. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, &sect; 51.26. Requirement to publish 28 notice of intent and conduct scoping process. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing 29 Office.
30 10 CFR 51.29. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, &sect; 51.29. Scoping-environmental 31 impact statement and supplement to environmental impact statement. Washington, DC:
32 U.S. Government Publishing Office.
33 36 CFR 800.8. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 34 &sect; 800.8. Coordination With the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC:
35 U.S. Government Publishing Office.
36 36 CFR 800.2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 37 &sect; 800.2. Participants in the Section 106 process. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 38 Publishing Office.
1-16
 
1 40 CFR 61.92. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 61.92.
2 Standard. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
3 40 CFR 61.192. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 61.192.
4 Standard. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
5 40 CFR 61.222. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 61.222.
6 Standard. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
7 40 CFR 122.26. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 122.26.
8 Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see &sect; 123.25).
9 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
10 40 CFR 122.41. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 122.41.
11 Conditions applicable to all permits (applicable to State programs, see &sect; 123.25).
12 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
13 40 CFR 122.42. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 122.42.
14 Additional conditions applicable to specified categories of NPDES permits (applicable to State 15 NPDES programs, see &sect; 123.25). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
16 40 CFR 122.44. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 122.44.
17 Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions (applicable to State NPDES 18 programs, see &sect; 123.25). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
19 40 CFR 125.3. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 125.3.
20 Technology-based treatment requirements in permits. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 21 Publishing Office.
22 40 CFR 192.02. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 192.02.
23 Standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
24 40 CFR 192.32. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 192.32.
25 Standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
26 40 CFR 300.5. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 300.5.
27 Definitions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
28 40 CFR 300.415. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 300.415.
29 Removal action. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
30 48 FR 34263. Federal Register. Vol. 48, No. 146, 34,263-34,268. Guidance Regarding NEPA 31 Regulations. July 28, 1983.
32 51 FR 19432. Federal Register. Vol. 51, No. 103, p. 19,432. Reassertion of Certain 33 Regulatory Authority in the State of New Mexico. May 29, 1986.
34 82 FR 2402. Federal Register. Vol. 82, No. 5, p. 2,402-2,417. Tribal Policy Statement.
35 January 9, 2017.
1-17
 
1 84 FR 2935. Federal Register. Vol. 84, No. 27, p. 2,935-2,937. United Nuclear Corporation 2 (UNC) Church Rock Project. February 8, 2019.
3 Bell, P., B. Bell, and E. Hood. Living with Uranium Wastes for 50 Years and Four Generations 4  A Navajo Communitys Perspective. Church Rock, New Mexico: Red Water Pond Road 5 Community Association. 2019.
6 Canonie Environmental. Tailings Reclamation Plan As Approved by NRC March 1, 1991 7 License No. SUA-1475, Volume 1 - Text. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103230255, 8 ML103230287, and ML103230306. Project 86-060-27. August 1991.
9 EPA. Kerr - McGee Quivira Mines Site Update. SEMS-RM DOCID #100014599.
10 San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. December 2018.
11 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100014599.pdf> (Accessed 5 March 2020).
12 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, McKinley County, New Mexico.
13 USEPA ID NMD030443303; Operable Unit: OU 02, Surface Soil Operable Unit. March 2013.
14 Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.
15 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/681353.pdf> (Accessed 21 January 2019) 16 EPA. Action Memorandum: Request for a Non-Time Critical Removal Action at the Northeast 17 Church Rock Mine Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation.
18 ADAMS Accession No. ML12003A095. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 19 Region 6 and San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
20 September 29, 2011.
21 EPA. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Northeast Church Rock (NECR) Mine Site, Gallup, 22 New Mexico. SDMS DOCID# 2183626. San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental 23 Protection Agency, Region 9. May 30, 2009.
24 FWS.
 
==Subject:==
Updated List of Threatened and Endangered Species that May Occur in Your 25 Proposed Project Location, and/or may be Affected by Your Proposed Project. Consultation 26 Code: 02ENNM00-2019-SLI-0620. Project Name: Former Church Rock Uranium Mill Site 27 Proposed License Amendment. ADAMS Accession No. ML20156A413. Albuquerque, 28 New Mexico: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
29 June 2020.
30 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 31 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 32 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 33 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
34 MWH. Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) Report. Northeast Church Rock Mine Site.
35 Steamboat Springs, Colorado: MWH, Inc. October 2007.
36 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/1178256.pdf> (Accessed 11 June 2020).
37 NMDGF. Letter to NRC (April 12, 2019) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, United Nuclear 38 Corporation, Church Rock Project (Docket ID NRC-2019-0026); NMDGF No 18968, from 39 M. Wunder, Chief, Ecological and Environmental Planning Division. ADAMS Accession No.
40 ML19133A316. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2019a.
1-18
 
1 NMDGF. Project ID: NMERT-205. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Department of Game 2 and Fish. April 2019b.
3 NMSHPO. Letter to State Historic Preservation Officer, New Mexico Historic Preservation 4 Division (April 15) Request for Section 106 Consultation for the Proposed Transfer of Mine 5 Waste From the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site to the United Nuclear Corporation Church 6 Rock Mill Site (Docket Number: 40-8907), from C. Roman, NRC. Concur with eligibility 7 determination as proposed. ADAMS Accession No. ML20107F771. Washington, DC:
8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April 2020.
9 NNTHPO. Email to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (May 26) RE: Request for 10 concurrence on eligibility determinations from R. Begay, Navajo Nation Tribal Historic 11 Preservation Office. Concur with recommendations of eligibility. ADAMS Accession 12 No. ML20167A115. May 2020.
13 NRC. Safety Evaluation Report of License Amendment Request. Docket No. 040-08907.
14 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ADAMS Accession No.
15 ML20210M050. 2020.
16 NRC. Materials License SUA-1475, Amendment No. 54. ADAMS Accession 17 No. ML19143A149. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 2019a.
18 NRC. Summary Report for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste 19 at the United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Mill Site in McKinley County, New Mexico.
20 ADAMS Accession No. 19338E254. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
21 December 2019b.
22 NRC. Email to UNC (January 2, 2019) Acceptance Review of License Amendment Request 23 from J. Smith, NRC. ADAMS Accession No. ML19007A126. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 24 Regulatory Commission. January 2, 2019c.
25 NRC. Letter to General Electric (UNC) (March 7, 2019) Acceptance Review of License 26 Amendment Request for Byproduct Materials License SUA-1475, United Nuclear Corporation 27 Church Rock Mill Site, from J. Smith, NRC. ADAMS Accession No. ML19044A592.
28 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. March 7, 2019d.
29 NRC. Letter to State Historic Preservation Officer, New Mexico Historic Preservation Division 30 (November 26) Request for Section 106 Consultation for the Proposed Transfer of Mine Waste 31 From the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site to the United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Mill 32 Site (Docket Number: 40-8907), from C. Roman, NRC. ADAMS Accession No. ML19329A103.
33 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. November 26, 2019e.
34 NRC. Trip Report for NRCs Review of United Nuclear Corporations Proposed License 35 Amendment Request for SUA-1475 in McKinley County, New Mexico, Site Visit and Agency 36 Information Gathering Meetings March 18-22, 2019. ADAMS Accession No. ML19338E254.
37 2019f.
38 NRC. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 39 NMSS Programs. ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 40 Regulatory Commission. August 2003.
1-19
 
1 NRC. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 2 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Ground-Water Cleanup at the UNC-Churchrock 3 Uranium Mill in McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML060950415.
4 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1987.
5 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475. ADAMS 6 Accession No. ML19287A009. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
7 October 2019.
8 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 9 Appendix K: Removal Action Schedule. ADAMS Accession No. ML18267A276.
10 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. September 2018.
11 White House. Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel 12 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak. Washington, DC: White House. March 2020.
13 <https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-national-emergency-14 concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/> (Accessed 20 June 2020) 1-20
 
1                    2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2 2.1    Introduction 3 On September 24, 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a license 4 amendment request for Source Material License SUA-1475 from United Nuclear Corporation 5 (UNC). The license amendment request includes an Environmental Report (ER) (INTERA, 6 2018) and a license application report (LAR) (Stantec, 2019a), as revised in several subsequent 7 submittals. The requested license modifications would allow for revisions to the NRC-approved 8 reclamation plan and associated reclamation schedule for the former Church Rock Uranium Mill 9 Site (UNC Mill Site) in McKinley County, New Mexico. The amendment, if granted, would allow 10 UNC to transfer and dispose Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine waste on top of the tailings 11 impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. The proposed UNC schedule to complete the disposal of 12 the NECR mine waste is approximately 4 years, if NRC grants the license amendment (Stantec, 13 2018a). This proposed action would address the need for disposal capacity to support the 14 cleanup of the abandoned NECR uranium mine site under the U.S. Environmental Protection 15 Agency (EPA) Superfund Program. UNCs license application must meet the requirements in 16 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria Relating to 17 the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the 18 Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source 19 Material Content.
20 2.2    Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis 21 This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts from two primary alternatives and two 22 secondary alternatives. The two secondary alternatives are both substantively the same as the 23 proposed action but include modifications to specific activities as follows.
24 The proposed action (Alternative 1) is to transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 cubic 25 meters (m3) [1,000,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of NECR mine waste on top of the North and Central 26 Cells of the tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site using articulated dump trucks on private 27 and local haul roads on and between the two sites, including a crossing of NM 566 at grade.
28 Additionally, UNC proposes to source cover material for the disposal site from four borrow 29 areas.
30
* Alternative 1A is the proposed action, except that UNC would convey the mine waste 31        from the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC 32        Mill Site instead of by truck.
33
* Alternative 1B is the proposed action, except that the cover material for the proposed 34        disposal area would be sourced from the Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow 35        areas.
36
* The no-action alternative (Alternative 2) would not allow UNC to dispose mine waste 37        on top of the NRC-licensed tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. Under this 38        alternative, the license amendment would not be granted. This is the only reasonable 39        alternative to the proposed action, as defined by the NEPA.
40
* The NRC staff also considered other alternatives but eliminated them from further 41        analysis because they are not reasonable, as described further in EIS Section 2.3.
2-1
 
1 These alternatives were evaluated with regard to three phases of the proposed action:
2 construction of the proposed disposal site, transfer of NECR mine waste to the UNC Mill Site, 3 and disposal site closure. The alternatives have been established based on the purpose and 4 need statement described in EIS Section 1.3.1 and are described in detail in EIS Sections 2.2.1 5 and 2.2.2.
Area Descriptions in This Document Proposed Project Area includes the UNC Mill Site, the NECR Mine Site, and the area between the two sites where proposed NECR mine waste transfer activities would be conducted.
UNC Mill Site is where a former uranium mill, now decommissioned, processed uranium ore from the nearby NECR Mine Site, resulting in tailings that were disposed at the closed NRC-licensed tailings impoundment located at the UNC Mill Site. Finalizing groundwater corrective actions and decommissioning two evaporation ponds are the remaining activities under the currently approved reclamation plan.
NECR Mine Site is where UNC operated a conventional uranium mine that supplied uranium ore for processing at the UNC mill. The NECR Mine Site includes areas where stockpiled mine waste has been targeted for excavation, transfer, and disposal at the proposed disposal site on top of the UNC tailings impoundment. Interim EPA cleanup actions have removed over 200,000 tons (approximately 150,000 cubic yards) of contaminated material from residential areas to address immediate exposure concerns. The mine waste has been graded, covered, and revegetated for stabilization prior to the final Mine Site remediation, which is pending the NRC decision on the UNC Mill Site license amendment request to allow mine waste emplacement on the impoundment. After mine waste removal, UNC would complete NECR Mine Site remediation under EPA oversight.
UNC Tailings Impoundment is an engineered and covered impoundment located on a portion of the UNC Mill Site that was designed and constructed to address NRC criteria to isolate tailings from the environment for at least 1,000 years. Following completion of the remaining reclamation activities and termination of the UNC license, the NRC expects the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance, including periodic inspection and any necessary maintenance.
6 2.2.1    The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 7 The proposed action is to transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 m3 [1,000,000 yd3)] of 8 NECR mine waste on top of the North and Central Cells of the tailings impoundment at the UNC 9 Mill Site (EIS Figure 2.2-1). The associated license amendment also would revise the 10 NRC-approved reclamation plan and schedule for the NRC-licensed UNC Mill Site. The 11 proposed UNC schedule to complete the disposal of the NECR mine waste is approximately 12 4 years (Stantec, 2018a). As part of the proposed action, this EIS analysis includes activities 13 that would occur outside the NRC-regulated UNC Mill Site boundary but that are necessary to 14 conduct the proposed disposal activities at the UNC Mill Site. These activities include NECR 15 mine waste excavation and transfer and supporting activities. In this EIS, the proposed project 16 area is defined as the UNC Mill Site, the NECR Mine Site, and the area in between the two sites 17 where proposed NECR mine waste transfer activities would be conducted (EIS Figure 2.2-2).
2-2
 
Northeast Church Rock Mine Site Mill Facilities Area (Decommissioned)
                                                                        , Zone 1 Remedial
                                                                        , Action Target Area I
Southwest Alluvium Remedial Action Target Area I
1-----------------------------'
17,7,7,1  Proposed        - - Roads                          800 1,600      3,200 l:::Z::.d Disposal Site                                                          Feet UNC Tailings D        lmpoundment                                                            Meters
[=] UNC Mill Site                                            245  490        980 Figure 2.2-1          UNC Mill Site Layout (Modified from NRC, 2019a) 2-3
 
Quivira 7
ine
                                                                                        ~*
                                                                                          ~
      .... Red W ater Pond Road  =  Haul Roads            ~  UNC Tailings          N 0        0.2      0.4        0.8 D
                                                                                    +
Community                                          lmpoundment                                            Miles Proposed Proiect Area
    =
* UNC Offices Access Roads LJ Proposed Disposal Site LJ Evaporation Ponds LJ Limits of Disturbance  0      0.25    0.5    1 Kilometers Figure 2.2-2                Proposed Project Area Layout 1 Additionally, because under the proposed action the NECR mine waste would remain at the 2 UNC Mill Site indefinitely, the potential impacts associated with the long-term performance of 3 the tailings impoundment with the added disposal site (containing NECR mine waste) after the 4 closure of the disposal site are also addressed in EIS Chapters 4 and 5.
5 The mine waste has radiological characteristics comparable to those of Atomic Energy Act of 6 1954, Section 11e.(2) byproduct material that is regulated by the NRC. The NECR mine waste 7 and the tailings at the UNC Mill Site are similar because both are derived from the same 8 uranium ore material, which contains uranium and its radioactive decay products, including 9 radium (Ra)-226, the primary contaminant of concern for the EPA removal action (EPA, 2013a).
10 The concentrations of Ra-226 in the mine waste fall within the same general range as the 11 concentrations of Ra-226 in the uranium tailings material disposed at the UNC Mill Site, but the 12 mine waste has lower average Ra-226 radioactivity (EIS Section 4.13.1.1). The NECR mine 13 waste is not subject to NRC regulation as low-level radioactive waste under Atomic Energy Act 14 (AEA) Section 11e.(2) because it is not waste produced by the extraction or concentration of 15 uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content [i.e., it is not 2-4
 
1 11e.(2) byproduct material], nor is it waste from source or special nuclear material; it is therefore 2 not low-level radioactive waste as defined in the AEA.
Timeframes Considered in the EIS Impact Analyses Short-term Timeframe The short-term timeframe encompasses the duration of the active portion of the proposed project phases (approximately 4 years) involving construction, transfer of NECR mine waste, and closure of the constructed disposal site. These project phases are used to document the direct and indirect impact analyses in Chapter 4 of the EIS. The short-term timeframe also extends beyond these phases, encompassing the completion of other important activities in the project area, including the completion of UNC Mill Site reclamation, the groundwater corrective action program, and NECR Mine Site remediation that are considered in the cumulative impact analyses in EIS Chapter 5.
Completing these other activities is dependent on several uncertain factors, and therefore the NRC staff estimates that another 10 years may be needed (by 2030, as described in EIS Section 5.1.2).
Long-term Timeframe The long-term timeframe pertains to the period beyond the short-term timeframe when the proposed disposal site has been closed, the UNC Mill Site license has been terminated, and the UNC Mill Site is under long-term surveillance (EIS Section 2.2.1.8).
The primary considerations for potential impacts during the long-term (post-closure) timeframe include the long-term isolation of tailings and wastes and the effects of land use restrictions. For resource areas where the potential exists for impacts during the long-term post-closure period (land use, water resources, climate change impacts on the proposed action, and public and occupational health), a long-term timeframe of 1,000 years beyond UNC Mill Site closure is considered, consistent with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1), which requires that a mill tailings disposal facility be designed to provide reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years The associated post-closure impacts of the proposed action are evaluated in the potentially affected resources throughout EIS Chapters 4 (closure phase sections) and 5.
3 To address the varying levels of radioactivity in the NECR mine waste, the EPA has established 4 criteria for segregating excavated waste destined for disposal at the UNC Mill Site that are 5 incorporated into UNCs license amendment request (INTERA, 2018; EPA, 2013a). According 6 to the EPA and UNC, all NECR mine waste that exceeds 200 picocuries (pCi) per gram (g) 7 radium Ra-226 would be considered a Principal Threat Waste (PTW) and would not be 8 disposed at the UNC Mill Site. UNCs proposal is to transport the PTW to the White Mesa 9 uranium mill in Blanding, Utah. However, UNC is not expected to finalize arrangements for 10 disposal of PTW until EPA authorizes UNC to proceed with implementing the remedial action 11 evaluated in this EIS (after NRC completes its review of the current UNC license amendment 12 request). The final disposition of PTW is an activity associated with the broader EPA-authorized 13 remediation of the NECR Mine Site and is discussed in documents pertaining to the EPA 14 removal action that describe the preferred approach for dispositioning that waste (EPA, 2011a; 15 2009). The removal of the PTW from the NECR Mine Site is a separate Federal action that 2-5
 
1 does not address the purpose and need for this proposed action (i.e., it is not necessary for 2 executing the NRC action that, if granted, would allow disposal of the remaining NECR mine 3 waste at the UNC Mill Site). Therefore, the impacts associated with the EPA remediation of the 4 NECR Mine Site, including the disposition of PTW, are addressed in the cumulative impacts 5 chapter of the this EIS, where appropriate, to address potential impacts of the proposed 6 remediation that overlap and accumulate with the potential environmental impacts of the 7 proposed action.
8 The license amendment, if granted, would allow UNC to comply with an EPA remedial action to 9 protect human health and the environment from actual or threatened releases of residual mining 10 materials from the NECR Mine Site as documented in a 2013 EPA Record of Decision (ROD) 11 (EPA, 2013a) that is cited in the UNC license amendment request. The EPA remedial action 12 addressed activities necessary to remove and dispose the NECR mine waste, including 13 identifying the need for the NRC to grant an amendment to the UNC NRC license to allow 14 disposal at the UNC Mill Site. Activities in addition to the NRC proposed action that would be 15 conducted under EPA authority to address the EPA response actions described in the EPA 16 ROD include those related to the reclamation of the NECR Mine Site (EPA, 2011a).
17 The EPAs decision to remove mine waste from the NECR Mine Site was made as a part of its 18 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) process 19 (EPA, 2011a) and is incorporated by reference in its remedial action ROD (EPA, 2013a). This 20 decision, therefore, is not the focus of the NRCs safety and environmental reviews for the 21 proposed Mill Site license amendment. Further, the remediation of the NECR Mine Site is 22 independent of the NRCs proposed Mill Site licensing action assessed in this EIS, and if the 23 NRC denies the license amendment request, EPA would need to pursue other disposal options 24 or configurations for the mine waste.
25 UNC proposes to transfer the NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site using articulated 26 dump trucks on access and haul roads that connect the two sites. Additionally, UNC proposes 27 to source cover material for the disposal site from four borrow areas: the West Borrow Area 28 {68,000 m3 [89,000 yd3]}, the East Borrow Area {42,000 m3 [55,000 yd3]}, the South Borrow 29 Area {[122,000 m3 [160,000 yd3]}, and the North Borrow Area {54,000 m3 [71,000 yd3]}. The 30 locations of the four borrow areas are provided in EIS Figure 2.2-2. UNC has proposed two 31 other alternatives for implementing the proposed action, which are using a conveyor system to 32 transfer waste and sourcing cover material from other areas. These two alternatives are 33 described further in the following sections.
34 UNC proposes to install permanent stormwater controls for the proposed disposal site using 35 existing swales and channels constructed on the tailings impoundment, with improvements and 36 supplemental controls where necessary. Pipeline Arroyo also would be stabilized using a 37 reconstructed rock jetty with a riprap chute, requiring the excavation of approximately 38 381,100 m3 [498,500 yd3] of soil and 37,000 m3 [49,000 yd3] of sandstone (Stantec, 2019a).
39 Stabilization is required for long-term viability of the proposed disposal site and the tailings 40 impoundment, to address lateral southeastern migration of the arroyo that could erode the 41 embankment. UNC stated that it designed the Pipeline Arroyo stabilization to account for a 42 range of flood events, including the estimated peak rainfall intensity for several flood event 43 durations and frequencies (Stantec, 2019a). The NRC staff evaluated the Pipeline Arroyo 44 stabilization plans in detail as part of its safety review, which is documented in a Safety 45 Evaluation Report (SER) (NRC, 2020).
2-6
 
1 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 2 Under this alternative, rather than haul the NECR mine waste to the UNC Mill Site by truck, 3 UNC would convey the mine waste from the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered 4 conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would avoid crossing 5 New Mexico Highway 566 (NM 566) at grade to reduce the potential transportation-related 6 impacts. East of the one-lane haul road, the conveyor system would be placed within the same 7 access road and would cross NM 566 at the same location as under UNCs proposed action 8 described previously. West of the one-lane haul road, the conveyor would be oriented 9 northwest-southeast from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill Site. UNC estimates that this 10 alternative would disturb 0.8 hectares (ha) [2 acres (ac)] less than the proposed haul and 11 access roads under the proposed action. The system would include a bridge to protect passing 12 traffic from any spills or debris falls. Construction would require temporary lane closures and 13 interruptions to transportation.
14 Material Sourcing for Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 15 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal area would be sourced from the 16 Jetty Area rather than from the four preferred borrow areas as described under UNCs proposed 17 action (INTERA, 2018). Excavation for the proposed stormwater control structure at the Jetty 18 Area would require 380,000 m3 [497,000 yd3] of soil excavation and approximately 37,000 m3 19 [49,000 yd3] of sandstone excavation on the west side of Pipeline Arroyo. From the estimated 20 380,000 m3 [497,000 yd3] of soil to be removed, approximately 38,228 m3 [50,000 yd3] are 21 excluded from use as a borrow source for construction. The use of the remaining 342,000 m3 22 [447,000 yd3] of soil from the Jetty Area excavation would replace the need to borrow soil from 23 the West Borrow Area {68,000 m3 [89,000 yd3]}, the East Borrow Area {42,000 m3 [55,000 yd3]},
24 the South Borrow Area {[122,000 m3 [160,000 yd3]}, and the North Borrow Area {54,000 m3 25 [71,000 yd3]}. The four proposed borrow sources for the proposed action provide an estimated 26 cumulative total available volume of 287,000 m3 [375,000 yd3]. The area of disturbance of the 27 Jetty Area under this alternative would be the same as under UNCs proposed action. However, 28 sourcing cover material from the 9.3-ha [23-ac] area disturbed for construction of the Jetty Area 29 in place of the proposed borrow areas would reduce the overall area of land disturbance 30 associated with the cleanup and stabilization at the UNC Mill Site by 19.4 ha [48 ac] (the 31 amount of disturbance estimated for the borrow areas inclusive of the disturbance with 32 associated proposed haul roads).
33 2.2. 1. 1    Site Location and Description 34 The UNC Mill Site is located approximately 27 kilometers (km) [17 miles (mi)] northeast of 35 Gallup, New Mexico, in McKinley County (EIS Figure 1.1-1). The site is situated on 365 ha 36 [902 ac] and includes the area of a former (decommissioned) uranium mill facility, which 37 occupies approximately 10 ha [25 ac], and the tailings impoundment, which covers 38 approximately 40 ha [100 ac]. The UNC Mill Site is privately owned and is surrounded by 39 Navajo Nation land (on the Navajo Nation reservation) and Trust land. The former mill facilities 40 area is located between the NECR Mine Site and NM 566 (EIS Figure 2.2-1). The NECR Mine 41 Site is a former conventional, underground uranium mine that operated from 1967 to 1982.
42 Elevations at the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site range from approximately 2,103 to 2,195 m 43 [6,900 to 7,200 ft] above mean sea level (amsl).
44 The tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site comprises three cells (the South Cell, Central 45 Cell, and North Cell) and two former soil borrow pits (EIS Figure 2.2-1). The borrow pits were 2-7
 
1 previously excavated within the Central Cell as a source of borrow soil for construction of the 2 tailings impoundment. Borrow Pit No. 1 was used to dispose tailings, and Borrow Pit No. 2 was 3 used to retain tailings liquids (EPA, 1988) and was later backfilled with mill debris. The tailings 4 cells and borrow pits were reclaimed between 1989 and 1995 and covered with an engineered 5 barrier. Two evaporation ponds have been constructed on top of the South Cell as part of 6 groundwater remediation activities for the site conducted by UNC in accordance with a condition 7 of NRC license SUA-1475 (License Condition 30.C).
8 Pipeline Arroyo is an ephemeral drainage channel that runs along the western edge of the 9 tailings impoundment and NM 566 (EIS Figure 2.2-1). Other site features and infrastructure 10 include the rock jetty and diversion channels. The rock jetty, a buried riprap slope, is located 11 northeast of the evaporation ponds, outside of the tailings area, and perpendicular to Pipeline 12 Arroyo. The rock jetty was constructed by UNC as a measure to stabilize Pipeline Arroyo during 13 flood events. The North and South diversion channels are located along the east and southeast 14 sides of the tailings area, respectively (Stantec, 2019a). The purpose of these diversion 15 channels is to intercept stormwater runoff from native upgradient watersheds to the south and 16 east of the tailings impoundment and divert it to the alluvial floodplain to the north of the tailings 17 impoundment using the North diversion channel and to the south of the tailings impoundment 18 using the South diversion channel.
19 2.2.1.2      Site History, Status, and Regulatory Oversight 20 UNC operated the Church Rock uranium milling facility from 1977 to 1982 under a license 21 issued by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division. This license was issued under 22 New Mexicos authority as an NRC-approved Agreement State. The mill, designed to process 23 3,629 metric tons [4,000 tons] of ore daily, extracted uranium from ore using conventional 24 crushing, grinding, and acid-leach solvent extraction methods. Uranium from the NECR Mine 25 Site and other local mines was processed at the facility. The average ore grade processed was 26 approximately 0.12 percent uranium oxide. The milling of uranium ore produced an acidic slurry 27 of ground waste rock and fluid (tailings) that was pumped to the impoundment. An estimated 28 3.18 million metric tons [3.5 million tons] of tailings were disposed in the impoundment. As 29 described previously, the tailings impoundment comprises three cells (the South Cell, Central 30 Cell, and North Cell), subdivided by dikes and two borrow pits (EIS Figure 2.2-1).
31 On July 16, 1979, the UNC dam at the tailings impoundment failed and released approximately 32 350 million liters (L) [93 million gallons (gal)] of tailings that flowed down the Pipeline Arroyo into 33 the Puerco River drainage system and the underlying alluvium. A small emergency retention 34 pond captured approximately 1,000 metric tons [1,100 tons] of solid material from the release 35 (EPA, 2013b). A multi-agency cleanup effort and assessment was conducted and documented 36 in the NRC report entitled NUREG/CR-2449 Survey of Radionuclide Distributions Resulting 37 from the Church Rock, New Mexico, Uranium Mill Tailings Pond Dam Failure (NRC, 1981).
38 On June 1, 1986, the NRC assumed regulatory authority for uranium and thorium milling 39 activities and mill tailings in the State of New Mexico (51 FR 19432; May 29, 1986) and 40 subsequently issued Source Material License SUA-1475 for the UNC Mill Site, which was last 41 amended in 2019 (NRC, 2019b). In accordance with Condition 26 of the Source Material 42 License, UNC submitted a mill decommissioning plan dated December 29, 1988. This plan was 43 revised on April 10, 1990. On April 13, 1993, UNC submitted a mill decommissioning 44 completion report to NRC. The report included details of the mill facilities demolition and 45 placement of mill debris into Borrow Pit No. 2 on the east side of the Central Cell of the tailings 46 impoundment (EIS Figure 2.2-1).
2-8
 
1 In June 1987, UNC submitted a proposed reclamation plan to the NRC for the UNC Mill Site that 2 was eventually approved by NRC on March 1, 1991 and revised on August 30, 1991 (Canonie 3 Environmental, 1991). The licensee later modified the reclamation plan in multiple submittals 4 in 1996 (NRC, 2019b). Final reclamation activities included: (i) backfilling and grading Borrow 5 Pit No. 2; (ii) placing a final radon attenuation soil cover and an erosion protection cover on the 6 tailings area; (iii) constructing surface water control channels, diversion ditches, drainage 7 swales, Pipeline Arroyo low-flow channel, and the buried rock jetty; and (iv) revegetating 8 disturbed areas and securing reclaimed areas (Stantec, 2019a). These activities were 9 completed to meet the objectives of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A to the extent practicable by 10 minimizing final slopes containing and controlling major flood events, minimizing radon 11 emanation from the tailings impoundment, and maximizing the long-term stability of the 12 reclaimed site. The final tailings area radon attenuation soil cover was designed to provide 13 reasonable assurance that control of radiological hazards would be effective for 1,000 years and 14 that releases of Radon (Rn)-222 to the atmosphere would not exceed an average release rate 15 of 20 pCi/square meters (m2)/second (s), to the extent practicable, throughout the design life of 16 the cover. The cover design also included a 0.15-m [0.5-ft] soil/rock matrix layer to protect 17 against water and wind erosion (i.e., erosion protection layer).
18 Surface reclamation of the former mill facilities and three tailings cells (South, Central, and 19 North) and the two borrow pits is complete, except for the area on the South Cell covered by the 20 two evaporation ponds. These ponds are part of a groundwater corrective action plan currently 21 in effect to remediate the groundwater located in three shallow hydrostratigraphic units beneath 22 the UNC Mill Site. Two of the shallow water-bearing recharge areas beneath the UNC Mill Site 23 are Zone 1 and Zone 3 of the Upper Gallup Sandstone, and the third area is the shallow 24 Southwest Alluvium (EIS Figure 2.2-1). These areas were impacted before and during milling 25 operations by NECR mine water discharged into Pipeline Arroyo, by tailings liquids released 26 during the 1979 dam failure, and by past tailings seepage from the impoundment. NECR Mine 27 Site dewatering discharges ceased in 1986. Source control measures at the UNC Mill Site 28 tailings impoundment, such as recontouring, cover, and drainage improvements, were 29 constructed in 1996 to minimize infiltration, seepage, and mobilization of contaminants from the 30 tailings impoundment under NRC oversight (EPA, 2018).
31 License Condition 30 provides details of the groundwater corrective action plan, including:
32 (i) wells and constituents to be sampled, (ii) sample frequency, (iii) compliance standards, and 33 (iv) reporting frequency (NRC, 2019b). The groundwater corrective action plan is also under 34 oversight of the EPAs CERCLA action (NRC, 1987). Groundwater remediation activities 35 included a pump-and-treat groundwater extraction system and evaporation ponds for disposal of 36 extracted water. With approval from NRC and EPA, the extraction systems for Zone 1 and the 37 Southwest Alluvium were shut down in 1999 and 2001, respectively, because both groundwater 38 remediation systems had reached the limits of their effectiveness and would be unable to further 39 reduce the contaminant concentrations due to the reduction of saturated thickness in the water-40 bearing units (NRC, 2015; EPA, 2013a; EPA, 2018). As of 2018, performance monitoring was 41 ongoing in both Zone 1 and the Southwest Alluvium, and monitored natural attenuation was 42 being used to address residual contamination concentrations in the Southwest Alluvium (EPA, 43 2018). A small-scale pump-and-treat system is currently operating and being evaluated in 44 Zone 3 in an effort to continue to prevent groundwater migration towards the northern boundary 45 of Zone 3 (EPA, 2018). The EPA evaluated current site conditions in the Fifth Five-Year Review 46 Report (EPA, 2018) and subsequently suspended the ongoing Site-Wide Supplemental 47 Feasibility Study, the purpose of which was to develop, screen, and evaluate further alternative 48 remedial actions. This was due to the diminishing water volume in the hydrostratigraphic units 49 and so that EPA could complete water quality investigations at the NECR and Quivira Mine 2-9
 
1 Sites to determine the potential impact of mine discharge water to local water systems in the 2 vicinity (EPA, 2018).
3 Currently, License Condition 35 states that UNC shall complete site reclamation in accordance 4 with the approved reclamation plan and groundwater corrective action plan as authorized by 5 License Conditions 34 and 30, respectively (NRC, 2019b). Final site reclamation activities, 6 detailed in License Condition 35, are specific to the area of the existing evaporation ponds 7 located on the South Cell of the tailings impoundment and include placement of a final radon 8 barrier and erosion protection. Completing the reclamation of the two evaporation ponds 9 (including construction of surface water drainage features) and closing out the groundwater 10 corrective actions at the UNC Mill Site would be conducted under NRC and EPA oversight and 11 in accordance with an approved reclamation plan. The NRC staff is currently evaluating 12 groundwater corrective actions as part of a separate review. EIS Section 2.2.1.8 outlines the 13 steps remaining in the Mill Site reclamation and closure process.
14 2.2. 1.3      Proposed Action: Construction Activities (Construction) 15 The proposed action evaluated in this EIS is to amend UNCs Source Material License 16 SUA-1475 to allow UNC to transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 m3 [1,000,000 yd3] of 17 NECR mine waste at the proposed disposal site. To execute the proposed action, UNC would 18 be conducting construction or construction-like activities at the NECR Mine Site and the UNC 19 Mill Site. Additionally, access and haul roads would be constructed on portions of both sites 20 and in the areas between the two sites. The following sections summarize the proposed 21 construction activities at these locations.
22 Construction Activities at the NECR Mine Site 23 Prior to transferring the NECR mine waste, UNC proposes to excavate and, when necessary, 24 stockpile mine waste and construct runoff management systems and the access and haul roads 25 (EIS Figure 2.2-2). Initial construction activities include preparation of construction support 26 facilities, construction of access and haul roads, preparation of borrow areas, implementation of 27 environmental monitoring, and implementation of stormwater and traffic controls (Stantec, 28 2019a). The construction support facilities would be prepared for use during construction, and 29 would include security, construction laydown areas, construction water and fuel storage, 30 decontamination area facilities (including a vehicle decontamination pad, drainage controls, and 31 personnel facilities such as showers, lockers and laundry), and facilities required for separately 32 handling PTW. Locations for the construction support facilities include the former mill facilities 33 area of the UNC Mill Site, an area at the east end of the NECR Mine Site, and two proposed 34 laydown yards: one west of the tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site and one immediately 35 north of the tailings impoundment.
36 UNCs NECR mine waste excavation activities (Stantec, 2018b) include:
37
* Excavate soil materials within the NECR Mine Site above the 82.9 millibecquerels/gram 38          (mBq/g) [2.24 pCi/g] Ra-226 removal action level above bedrock using standard 39          excavating equipment.
40
* Complete excavations from high to low elevations (i.e., downhill), utilizing a horizontal 41          working surface whenever possible.
2-10
 
1
* Schedule excavations, if possible, during drier periods of the year to minimize the 2  potential for flooding of work areas.
3
* Identify and segregate the PTW (and stockpiling of PTW material within the PTW staging 4  area) using a combination of in situ and ex-situ gamma radiation level measurements.
5  Although the EPA removal action level for PTW waste is 7.40 Bq/g [200 pCi/g] Ra-226, 6  UNC conservatively plans to segregate mine waste exceeding 6.10 Bq/g [165 pCi/g]
7  Ra-226 to assure that the waste can initially be efficiently segregated as PTW with 8  regard to uranium (where the uranium concentration in the mine waste is above the total 9  EPA uranium removal action level of 500 mg/kg). UNC expects to utilize a full-time 10  material radiological scanning technician during excavation to confirm removal of the 11  PTW material. Segregated and stockpiled PTW material would be analyzed further by 12  grab sample and confirmatory laboratory analysis of Ra-226 and total uranium to make a 13  final determination and disposition decision. PTW would be transported offsite to an 14  EPA-approved off-site disposal facility or the White Mesa Mill; material that is 15  determined to be non-PTW NECR mine waste would be hauled to the proposed UNC 16  Mill Site disposal site with the other NECR mine waste.
17
* Maintain the temporary PTW staging area while practicing stormwater controls, dust 18  suppression, and good housekeeping. UNC would keep the stockpile moist to limit dust 19  generation and install wind breaks (i.e., snow fence or a sediment wall) on the north side 20  of the PTW storage area to prevent wind-blown material from leaving the work area.
21  UNC also plans to (i) cover PTW materials stored in the temporary staging area if the 22  area is inactive for longer than 48 hours and (ii) stabilize, using vegetation and other 23  methods acceptable to EPA, any other inactive PTW stockpiles elsewhere on the NECR 24  Mine Site after 14 days to prevent erosion and wind-blown contamination.
25
* As practicable immediately after excavation and without stockpiling, load non-PTW mine 26  waste materials and debris exceeding the removal action levels directly into haul trucks 27  and transport and emplace the waste within the proposed UNC Mill Site disposal site.
28
* Contain contact surface water generated during removals, including stormwater run-on 29  (i.e., stormwater that runs onto an area of interest) and runoff (i.e., stormwater that falls 30  on and runs off an area of interest) flows within the NECR Mine Site boundaries.
31
* Divert clean run-on water around areas where mine waste is being removed.
32
* Minimize construction traffic within previously cleaned areas (maintain a removal haul 33  access track to the cleaned upper portions of the NECR Mine Site valley).
2-11
 
Removal Action Level refers to the EPA-defined action levels for removal of mine waste at the NECR Mine Site. Mine waste and soil concentrations within 3 meters (10 feet) below the ground surface that exceed 82.9 millibecquerels per gram (mBq/g) [2.24 picocuries per gram (pCi/g)] radium (Ra)-226 or 230 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) [230 parts per million (ppm)] for natural uranium are targeted for removal (EPA, 2011a).
Principal Threat Waste (PTW) is defined by EPA as source materials that are considered to be either highly toxic or highly mobile (EPA, 2011a). For the NECR Mine Site removal action, EPA has defined PTW as material that contains 7.40 Bq/g [200 pCi/g] or more of Ra-226, and/or 500 (mg/kg) [500 ppm] or more of total uranium. EPA requires segregation of PTW from the NECR mine waste and transfer to a facility that is approved for disposal of such material (i.e., not at the proposed disposal site above the UNC tailings impoundment).
UNC is not expected to finalize arrangements for disposal of PTW until EPA authorizes UNC to proceed with implementing the remedial action (after NRC completes its review of the current UNC license amendment request).
UNCs Proposed PTW Screening would initially segregate NECR mine waste exceeding 6.10 Bq/g [165 pCi/g Ra-226] using surface gamma radiation scans and then conduct more detailed laboratory analysis of Ra-226 and total uranium concentrations to make a final determination and disposition decision based on the EPA PTW removal action levels.
1 Temporary stormwater run-on during excavation activities would be controlled using diversion 2 channels, capturing water up-gradient from the PTW staging area and diverting it along the west 3 and east side of the staging area, and emptying into the existing drainage north of NM 566 4 using two culverts running under the road. Stormwater runoff from the staging area would be 5 captured in a temporary stormwater catchment basin located along the northeast edge of the 6 staging area. This basin would be excavated at the beginning of the proposed action during 7 construction. Contaminated material excavated from the basin would be temporarily stockpiled 8 pending removal to the proposed UNC disposal site. Any excavated material below the removal 9 action level would be stockpiled onsite for activities such as grading and backfilling of the 10 stormwater basin after cleanup activities are finished (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2018b).
11 A road would be constructed to haul mine waste from the NECR Mine Site to the disposal site 12 located at the Mill Site, as shown in EIS Figure 2.2-2. The haul road would begin at the NECR 13 Mine Site and would be located approximately parallel to NM 566 until it crosses the highway 14 near the north end of the proposed disposal site. UNC proposes to construct access and haul 15 roads to accommodate articulated dump trucks with 23-m3 [30-yd3] capacities. A combination of 16 one-lane and two-lane roads would be constructed. One-lane haul roads would be sized at 17 twice the haul vehicle width and two-lane haul roads would be sized at 3.5 times the haul 18 vehicle width (INTERA, 2018). One-lane roads would be used to reduce the construction 19 footprint on the haul road through steeper terrain. The haul road would have a gravel surface 20 and turnouts would be constructed to allow trucks to pass each other.
21 Construction Activities Between the NECR Mine Site and UNC Mill Site 22 A portion of the haul road construction and associated stormwater controls would be located 23 between the two sites. At the crossing of NM 566, additional crossing traffic controls and any 24 necessary road enhancements would be constructed. UNC proposes to provide a manually 25 operated temporary traffic light and contamination control system during working hours for traffic 2-12
 
1 safety at the crossing. UNC would also consult with the New Mexico Department of 2 Transportation (NMDOT) prior to implementation of traffic interruptions (INTERA, 2018; 3 Stantec, 2018a).
4 Construction Activities at the UNC Mill Site 5 The proposed disposal site would be located on the existing North Cell and Central Cell of the 6 tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. The proposed disposal site would be constructed by 7 removing the existing erosion protection layer consisting of approximately 15 centimeters (cm) 8 [6 inches (in)] of rock and soil above an existing clay radon barrier. The material removed 9 would be segregated, stockpiled, and reused for construction of the proposed disposal site 10 cover (INTERA, 2018).
11 The existing clay radon barrier in the tailings impoundment would serve as the foundation for 12 the proposed disposal site. This radon barrier would be modified in place by compacting the 13 material to ensure it continues to meet NRC technical criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 14 for controlling radon flux from the mill tailings. NECR mine waste would be placed and 15 compacted directly on the modified radon barrier. The NECR mine waste would be spread in 16 thick layers to facilitate compaction from north to south, and the perimeter slopes of the 17 compacted mine waste would extend outward (widen) as the central portion of the disposal site 18 surface is raised by placement of additional mine waste.
19 Once all the NECR mine waste is placed in the proposed disposal site, an evapotranspiration 20 (ET) cover would be constructed on top of the proposed disposal site in accordance with the 21 EPA-approved design (Stantec, 2019a). To meet applicable EPA requirements under CERCLA, 22 the proposed ET cover was designed to limit the release of radon to the atmosphere to the 23 same level as the existing tailings impoundment (i.e., so as not to exceed an average radon 24 release rate of 20 pCi/m2/s). The ET cover system would be 1.4 meters (m) [4.5 feet (ft)] thick 25 and would consist of an upper erosion protection layer composed of a soil-rock mixture and a 26 lower soil layer (Stantec, 2019b). The rock in the erosion protection layer would provide 27 erosional stability, and the soil mixture would serve as a growth medium for vegetation that 28 would provide evapotranspiration. The thickness of the two layers composing the ET cover 29 system would vary based on the slope length and steepness of the proposed disposal site, as 30 depicted in EIS Figure 2.2-3.
31 Soil materials for the proposed project at the UNC Mill Site could consist of soil from onsite 32 borrow areas and soil excavated from the Jetty Area. UNC estimates that 346,000 m3 33 [453,000 yd3] of soil material would be required for construction of the disposal site including:
34 (i) 329,000 m3 [430,000 yd3] of soil for the ET cover layers, (ii) 8,400 m3 [11,000 yd3] of soil to fill 35 existing cover swales, and (iii) 9,200 m3 [12,000 yd3] of soil for grading around the proposed 36 disposal site (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019c). UNC has identified four onsite borrow areas 37 containing a total of 387,000 m3 [375,000 yd3] of soil that could meet most of the volume 38 requirements for the disposal site cover: the West Borrow Area {68,000 m3 [89,000 yd3]}, the 39 East Borrow Area {[42,000 m3 [55,000 yd3]}, the South Borrow Area {122,000 m3 [160,000 yd3]},
40 and the North Borrow Area {54,000 m3 [71,000 yd3]} (EIS Figure 2.2-2). Additionally, UNC has 41 determined that approximately 373,000 m3 [486,500 yd3] of the soil excavated from the Jetty 42 Area, as part of the Pipeline Arroyo stabilization work, would be available for use as cover soil 43 or elsewhere around the site as general fill (Stantec, 2019c). Analysis and testing of the soils 44 present in each borrow area and the Jetty Area indicated that the physical properties of the soils 45 are sufficient for the cover system (i.e., the soils do not require phasing, sequencing, or blending 2-13
 
1 to meet design specification) and that the chemical properties of the soils are suitable for use as 2 a reclamation growth medium (Dwyer Engineering, 2019; INTERA, 2018).
3 UNC proposes to excavate the borrow material using typical earthmoving equipment, including 4 dozers, motor graders, frontend loaders, excavators, rubber-tired backhoes, water trucks, and 5 haul trucks (Stantec, 2019c). The following list provides UNCs anticipated excavation 6 procedures for the borrow areas:
7
* Establish stormwater and erosion control features at borrow area locations.
8
* Strip surface vegetation from the proposed excavation and borrow areas and place in a 9        topsoil stockpile adjacent to each borrow area. UNC estimates approximately 0.30 m 10        [1 ft] of overburden would be cleared from the surface of each of these areas. The 11        stockpiled topsoil would be reused during borrow area reclamation activities.
12
* Provide for stormwater drainage away from the current borrow area working face.
13
* Complete sloped excavations to design grades and design elevations.
Cover {Top of Slope)  Cover {M i ddle o f Slo pe) Cover(Bottom of Sl ope)
M ine Spoils,.
Fill, ...
Figure 2.2-3      General Evapotranspirative Cover System Profile (Modified from Stantec, 2019b and Dwyer Engineering, 2019) 2-14
 
1 Because the borrow materials contribute to the structure of the disposal site (i.e., they form part 2 of the ET cover as described above), the activities to transport and emplace borrowed materials 3 on the disposal site (after the waste is emplaced) are categorized in this EIS as construction 4 activities, even though they occur after the waste is emplaced. As practicable, UNC would load 5 excavated borrow materials directly into haul trucks and would transport and emplace the 6 material at the proposed disposal site. Exceptions would include (i) stockpiling of borrow 7 material prior to cover material placement to meet project schedule requirements and 8 (ii) stockpiling excavated sandy material from the Jetty Area to be screened and used as filter 9 materials in stormwater control channels site-wide. UNC would also follow quality control 10 procedures for the borrow material (Stantec, 2019c).
11 During construction activities, UNC proposes to control fugitive dust using the following 12 measures (Stantec, 2019c,d):
13
* Enforcement of speed limits on haul roads.
14
* Application of water to excavation areas, work areas, and haul roads with water trucks.
15
* Application of approved chemical agents, such as calcium chloride or magnesium 16          chloride, to haul roads.
17
* Placement of aggregate wearing course (gravel) on haul roads to mitigate dust 18          generation in highly trafficked areas.
19 Within the proposed project area, suitable rock sources for the erosion protection in the 20 proposed disposal site cover system and stormwater channels are limited. The erosion 21 protection layer is designed to protect the cover from erosion due to wind and rainfall.
22 Additionally, rock is used to stabilize and protect stormwater channels from erosion during 23 rainfall events. UNC proposes using rock that would be removed from the existing tailings cover 24 at the disposal site location; however, most of the rock needed to construct the erosion 25 protection layer and stormwater channels would be obtained from an offsite quarry or quarries 26 (INTERA, 2018). UNC estimated the proposed project would need 161,314 m3 [211,000 yd3] of 27 rock (Stantec, 2019c). UNC has identified three offsite quarries for potential use to supplement 28 the available onsite rock. UNC expects that rock imported from offsite quarries would be 29 stockpiled on the north or west side of the North Cell of the tailings impoundment. Two quarries 30 are located near Gallup, New Mexico approximately 32 km [20 mi] southwest of the proposed 31 project area, and another quarry is located near Prewitt, New Mexico approximately 80 km 32 [50 mi] east of the proposed project area. Analysis of rock samples from each quarry indicated 33 that the rock meets NRC durability standards (NRC, 2002; Stantec, 2019c).
34 UNC would also install permanent stormwater controls for the proposed disposal site using 35 existing swales and channels constructed on the tailings impoundment with improvements and 36 supplemental controls where necessary. Pipeline Arroyo also would be stabilized with a 37 reconstructed rock jetty with a riprap chute, requiring the excavation of approximately 38 381,100 m3 [498,500 yd3] of soil and 37,000 m3 [49,000 yd3] of sandstone (Stantec, 2019a).
39 Stabilization to address lateral southeastern migration of the arroyo that could lead to 40 embankment erosion is required for long-term viability of the proposed disposal site and the 41 tailings impoundment. UNC stated that it designed the Pipeline Arroyo stabilization to account 42 for a range of flood events, including the estimated peak rainfall intensity for several flood event 43 durations and frequencies (Stantec, 2019a). The NRC staff evaluated the Pipeline Arroyo 2-15
 
1 stabilization plans in detail as part of its safety review, which is documented in a SER 2 (NRC, 2020).
3 UNC proposes to construct several access and haul roads at the UNC Mill Site to support the 4 proposed action (Stantec, 2019c). These haul road locations are shown in EIS Figure 2.2-2.
5 UNC would construct temporary access roads to provide access to the construction support 6 facilities in the Former Mill Site Yard and the yard(s) at the proposed disposal site. UNC would 7 also construct a mine waste haul road to transport waste excavated at the NECR Mine Site to 8 the disposal site located at the Mill Site. The haul road would begin at the NECR Mine Site and 9 would be located approximately parallel to NM 566 until it crosses the highway near the north 10 end of the proposed disposal site.
11 UNC also proposes to construct haul roads at the UNC Mill Site to access each of the four 12 proposed borrow areas (Stantec, 2019c). UNCs plans and profiles for the north, east, and west 13 borrow haul roads are shown on EIS Figure 2.2-2. These haul roads would extend from each 14 borrow area to the edge of the proposed disposal site. Once on the tailings impoundment, the 15 borrow haul trucks would operate directly on the existing cover surface. Upon completion of the 16 disposal site cover, UNC plans to reconstruct areas of the cover subjected to haul traffic to 17 mitigate over-compaction of cover soils or other damage that may occur from haul traffic. UNC 18 plans to construct all roads (access and haul) with stormwater controls.
19 2. 2. 1.4      Proposed Action: Transfer NECR Mine Waste to the UNC Mill Site (Transfer) 20 UNC proposes to transfer NECR mine waste exceeding the EPA-defined removal action level 21 (but not defined as PTW waste) to the proposed disposal site using articulated dump trucks on 22 haul roads (described in the prior section) that connect the two sites (EIS Figure 2.2-2) 23 (INTERA, 2018). The EPA-defined removal action level is 82.9 mBq/g [2.24 pCi/g] Ra-226 and 24 230 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) [230 parts per million (ppm)] for natural uranium. UNC 25 would conduct activities during the transfer phase in accordance with the EPA-approved UNC 26 Health and Safety Plan and associated EPA and NRC-approved (pending completion of the 27 NRC safety review) Radiation Protection Plan (Stantec, 2018a; Stantec 2019e). This includes 28 occupational health and safety measures applicable to construction projects and detailed 29 radiation safety protocols for conducting area radiation surveys, air sampling for radioactive 30 materials, and radiation monitoring. These measures would allow UNC to evaluate the potential 31 hazards during work activities and determine appropriate safety measures or corrective actions.
32 UNC plans to control and contain NECR mine waste during hauling operations to maintain 33 occupational and public health and safety and to protect the environment. To address 34 requirements associated with the EPA CERCLA actions, UNC developed protocols to limit the 35 generation of dust and contain NECR mine waste within the loaded haul truck beds. UNC 36 proposes to secure and cover loads on haul vehicles carrying NECR mine waste from the 37 NECR Mine Site (Stantec, 2019d). Heavy equipment and vehicles leaving the Mine Site or the 38 proposed disposal site would be scanned for radiation, and loose contamination (e.g., chunks of 39 dirt or material in tires) would be removed prior to entering the haul road (Stantec, 2018b). UNC 40 plans to install mud grates at the NECR Mine Site and the UNC Mill Site along the haul road for 41 trucks leaving these areas. Beyond the mud grates, UNC would require the haul trucks to stop 42 and be checked at a contamination control checkpoint (Stantec, 2018b). In addition, as 43 described in the UNC Dust Control Plan (Stantec, 2019d), wet washing or dry brushing of 44 equipment would be conducted as needed to control the tracking of contaminated material or 45 mud onto roadways. As needed, UNC would employ dust control measures during hauling, 46 including application of water or other approved dust suppressants to haul roads, application of 2-16
 
1 water during loading, wetting of loads, street sweeping and/or cleaning, enforcement of haul 2 road speed limits, and limiting access and haul road development to the minimum necessary to 3 execute work.
4 Once on the proposed disposal site, haul trucks would operate directly on the existing cover 5 surface within designated routes. Additional information related to offsite transportation 6 activities, including the haul road crossing of NM 566 during the transfer of mine waste, is 7 discussed in EIS Section 2.2.1.7.
8 2.2.1.5      Proposed Action: Disposal Site Closure (Closure) 9 After completing the construction and transfer activities, including construction of the ET cover 10 (approximately 4 years after beginning the proposed project), disturbed areas would be restored 11 and revegetated. Restoration activities at the UNC Mill Site would occur over a period of 12 approximately 6 months and include backfilling and regrading excavation areas for erosion and 13 stormwater control. These areas would be revegetated with native species in accordance with 14 the licensees vegetation plan (Stantec, 2018a; Stantec, 2019a). The licensees vegetation plan 15 includes a seed mix that emulates the native vegetation community to maintain resilience and 16 sustainability. The licensees vegetation plan also includes the use of soil amendments, such 17 as composted cow or green manure or composted bio solids to promote vegetation growth.
18 UNC stated that the ET cover system is designed to resist erosion without vegetation but 19 includes the establishment of a sustaining vegetative cover. The NRC would conduct 20 inspections following completion of the disposal site to verify that it has been constructed in 21 accordance with the proposed design and complies with applicable NRC requirements in 22 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
23 Upon the completion of proposed NECR mine waste transfer and disposal, roads used for 24 hauling mine waste, as well as associated ditches, sediment ponds, and other features, would 25 be subject to verification surveys (to detect the presence of contamination) and cleanup in 26 accordance with UNC procedures. Verification surveys also would be conducted on affected 27 portions of NM 566 in accordance with UNC procedures. Upon completion of verification and 28 cleanup, the roads would be reclaimed. Reclamation would consist of removing imported gravel 29 surfacing, removing culverts, and grading according to the final EPA-approved grading plans.
30 Borrow areas would be graded in accordance with the LAR. Revegetation would be conducted 31 in accordance with the revegetation plans described in the license amendment request 32 (Stantec, 2018a; Stantec, 2019a).
33 Following closure of the disposal site, UNC would complete any remaining Mill Site reclamation 34 activities and request termination of its NRC-issued license, and upon license termination, the 35 site would transfer to a custodial agency {e.g., the Federal government [U.S. Department of 36 Energy (DOE)] or the State of New Mexico} for long-term surveillance and maintenance under 37 the NRCs general license provisions in 10 CFR 40.28. The NRC mill tailings site reclamation 38 and license termination processes that remain are described in EIS Section 2.2.1.8. Other 39 actions, including other license amendments, would be necessary to complete reclamation of 40 the entire UNC Mill Site, and those actions are not addressed by the proposed action for the 41 disposal site that is assessed in this EIS. However, the completion of the overall UNC Mill Site 42 reclamation is addressed in the cumulative impact analysis in EIS Chapter 5.
2-17
 
1 2.2. 1.6      Emissions, Effluents, and Solid Wastes 2 All phases of the proposed action would generate effluents and waste streams that must be 3 handled and disposed properly. This section describes the various types and volumes of 4 effluents or wastes that would be generated by the proposed action.
5 Nonradiological Gaseous or Airborne Particulate Emissions 6 The primary nonradiological emissions generated by the proposed action would be combustion 7 emissions and fugitive dust. The main sources of the combustion emissions would be mobile 8 sources and construction equipment. Combustion emissions are further categorized 9 into nongreenhouse gases and greenhouse gases. The main sources of fugitive dust 10 [e.g., particulate matter (PM)2.5 and PM10] include working stockpiles, screening material, 11 traveling on unpaved roads, and wind blowing over disturbed land. PM10 refers to particles that 12 are 10 micrometers [3.9 x 104 inches] in diameter or smaller, and PM2.5 refers to particles that 13 are 2.5 micrometers [9.8 x 105 inches] in diameter or smaller.
14 EIS Table 2.2-1 contains the proposed action estimated emission levels for each project phase 15 used in this EIS (i.e., construction, transfer, and closure) as well as for the peak year of 16 emissions for each pollutant. The peak year emissions for a pollutant represent the highest 17 emission levels associated with the proposed action in any one year and therefore also 18 represent the greatest potential impact to air quality. The licensee provided the estimated 19 emission levels for each project year rather than by project phase. The NRC staff considers the 20 licensees emission estimates reasonable based on the types of emission sources considered 21 within the analysis. The licensee stated that project year one represents the construction phase 22 emissions; however, the transfer and closure phase emissions were not separated over the 23 remaining three project years (Trinity Consultants, 2020). Because the NRC staff evaluated 24 impacts of the proposed project by phase, years two and three represent the transfer phase 25 emissions and project year four represents the closure phase emissions. The NRC staff bases 26 this assessment on the types and timing of the various emission generating activities over the 27 project life span (Stantec, 2018a). For the air quality analyses, the peak emissions for each 28 pollutant would occur during the phase that generates the most amount of that pollutant. The 29 transfer phase generates the peak emission levels for all of the pollutants except for PM10, for 30 which the construction phase generates the peak emission levels.
Table 2.2-1          Estimated Emission Levels of Various Pollutants for the Proposed Action Construction          Waste Transfer                Closure Peak Year Pollutant                (TPY)*                  (TPY)*                  (TPY)*  (TPY)*
Carbon Dioxide              834.74                2,423.29                  169.29  2,423.29 Carbon                        5.25                    18.36                    1.20    18.36 Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides                4.58                    15.92                    1.07    15.92 Particulate                    2.85                    3.40                    0.86    3.40 Matter PM2.5 Particulate                    17.32                  16.67                    5.74    17.32 Matter PM10 Sulfur Dioxide                0.02                    0.05                    0.01    0.05
    *TPY = metric tons per year. To convert to short tons per year, multiply by 1.10231.
Source: Trinity Consultants, 2020 2-18
 
1 This EIS analyzes two secondary alternatives involving modifications to the proposed action:
2 Alternatives 1A and 1B. The construction phase emission levels for the proposed action and 3 these two secondary alternatives are the same; however, the transfer and closure phase 4 emission levels vary slightly between the proposed action and the two secondary alternatives.
5 EIS Section 4.7 provides the quantitative distinctions between the proposed action and the two 6 secondary alternatives.
7 Radiological Emissions 8 The proposed action presents limited possibilities for generating radiological emissions and 9 effluents. The NECR mine waste, consisting of uranium and its decay products, presents a 10 potential hazard from direct radiation and inhalation of dust and radon gas to individuals in close 11 proximity (i.e., workers involved in excavation and transfer activities on the Mine) to NECR mine 12 waste during proposed activities. Because radon gas disperses quickly in air, the potential 13 emissions are not expected to present a significant health hazard. Proposed activities that 14 could generate NECR mine waste dust include excavation, post-excavation stockpiling, loading 15 of haul trucks at the NECR Mine Site, and disposal operations at the UNC Mill Site, including 16 unloading, stockpiling, emplacement, and covering activities. The potential hazards to the 17 public from airborne emissions at downwind locations would be reduced by dispersion but would 18 be evaluated by UNCs monitoring program. UNC proposes monitoring of particulates (dust),
19 direct radiation, and radon gas in or around working areas and at downwind areas beyond the 20 controlled area boundary at the UNC Mill Site and NECR mine site boundary to demonstrate 21 compliance with applicable worker and public safety standards (EIS Chapter 7).
22 UNC has proposed a revision to their Radiation Protection Plan in Source Material License 23 No. SUA-1475 that addresses radiation safety training, organization and responsibilities, 24 occupational health physics monitoring for internal and external exposure assessment, and 25 administrative and engineering exposure control measures and protection (Stantec, 2019e).
26 The Radiation Protection Plan describes worker protections that address potential exposure 27 pathways such as inhalation of fugitive NECR mine waste dust and direct exposure to external 28 radiation from NECR mine waste. These worker protections include conducting area radiation 29 surveys, air sampling for radioactive materials, and radiation monitoring. Such monitoring would 30 allow UNC to evaluate the potential hazards during work activities and implement appropriate 31 safety measures and corrective actions, such as using personal protective equipment, modifying 32 control measures, or stopping work until safety issues are addressed or unsafe conditions 33 improve, consistent with the UNC Radiation Protection Plan.
34 Liquid and Solid Wastes 35 Wastes generated from the proposed action are primarily associated with routine activities 36 conducted in support of construction (e.g., workforce trash, sanitary waste, cleaning, and 37 maintenance). Nonhazardous solid waste produced by the proposed action includes a small 38 amount of solid waste from routine construction activities, such as trash generated by the 39 workforce that would be disposed at a local municipal landfill. During the construction phase, it 40 is expected that the 40 additional workers at the proposed project area would generate only 41 small quantities of typical solid and liquid wastes.
42 Liquid wastes for the proposed action include sanitary waste and materials such as oils, 43 solvents, and fuel resulting from construction equipment maintenance. Based on the types of 44 activities that would be conducted, limited quantities of hazardous wastes (e.g., batteries and 45 solvents from operating equipment and vehicle maintenance) are expected to be generated and 2-19
 
1 would fall within State and Federal guidelines applicable to Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity 2 Generators. Additional liquid wastes, including stormwater runoff and collected truck washdown 3 water, would be handled in accordance with an EPA-approved Construction Stormwater 4 Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) (Stantec, 2019a; Stantec, 2018b; INTERA, 2018) to 5 address applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program 6 requirements. UNC proposes that the CSWPPP would prescribe best management practices 7 (BMPs) to be implemented to limit the release of stormwater, sediment, pollutants, and 8 deleterious debris to downstream areas (Stantec, 2018b; INTERA, 2018).
9 2.2.1.7      Transportation 10 The proposed offsite transportation activities include truck shipments of equipment and supplies 11 and the use of personal automobiles for workers commuting to and from the proposed project 12 area. The licensee estimated the volume of construction traffic from supply shipments and 13 workers traveling on NM 566 to access the proposed project area. UNC estimated that the daily 14 construction traffic would include 30 to 40 workers or approximately 35 vehicles, plus 1 to 5 15 shipments of supplies, such as materials, equipment, and fuel (INTERA, 2018). Onsite 16 transportation activities, including the hauling of NECR mine waste and cover materials from 17 borrow areas, are described in EIS Sections 2.2.1.3 and 2.2.1.4.
18 The proposed haul roads from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill Site would cross NM 566 at 19 grade. UNC estimates they would run approximately 280 truck trips per day or 40 trips per hour 20 (one-way trips inclusive of travel in both directions) working 7 hours per day (Stantec, 2018a).
21 To facilitate the passage of several articulated dump trucks traveling back and forth each day 22 between the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill Site and crossing NM 566, UNC proposes to 23 implement additional traffic management measures. These measures would improve the safety 24 of these road crossings and include the installation of a temporary traffic light system and 25 additional signage at the crossing that would be monitored and operated by personnel stationed 26 at a safe distance (INTERA, 2018). In addition, a contamination control system would be 27 employed at the crossing that would supplement measures applied during haul truck loading 28 and hauling to control fugitive mine waste material releases. UNC proposes to submit a 29 construction-related traffic control plan to NMDOT for review describing the traffic light system 30 for all construction activity that impacts traffic on public roads. UNC would not delay school 31 buses and estimates that during crossings, the other traffic on NM 566 would be delayed for not 32 more than 15 minutes.
33 2.2.1.8      UNC Mill Site Reclamation 34 The NRC's proposed action to amend UNCs Mill Site license to allow the mine wastes to be 35 disposed on a portion of the Mill Site does not include closure and reclamation of the entire Mill 36 Site. The purpose of this section is to explain how the proposed action addressed in this EIS 37 fits into the larger Mill Site reclamation process.
38 Following cessation of operations, an NRC-licensed uranium mill is required to undergo site 39 reclamation in accordance with an NRC-approved reclamation plan that complies with the 40 requirements at 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix A. As described in EIS Section 2.2.1.2, the UNC Mill 41 Site began the site reclamation process in 1987 when UNC submitted its first reclamation plan.
42 The current proposed action extends the schedule for completing UNC Mill Site reclamation so 43 that the NECR mine waste disposal at the UNC Mill Site can be completed if the NRC grants the 44 requested license amendment. Upon completion of the proposed action, UNC would have 45 completed or would pursue completing the remaining site reclamation activities, request 2-20
 
1 termination of its NRC license, and upon approval, transfer the land and material to a custodial 2 agency [e.g., the Federal government (e.g., DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term 3 surveillance and maintenance under the NRCs general license provisions in 10 CFR 40.28.
4 This section provides a summary of the remaining steps typical of the site reclamation process 5 as described further in NUREG-1620, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation 6 Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 7 1978 (NRC, 2003a).
8
* The licensee provides documentation of completed surface remedial actions, and 9        documentation of completed ground-water corrective actions (EIS Section 1.1.1) for 10        NRC review.
11
* The NRC staff reviews the documentation to determine if the action has been conducted 12        in accordance with the license requirements and regulations. If that is the case, the 13        NRC will notify the licensee, and, if the licensee so requests, amend the license by 14        deleting applicable requirements for reclamation, decommissioning, or groundwater 15        cleanup, and identifying requirements for any disposal cell observational period and/or 16        environmental monitoring.
17
* The NRC staff may conduct site inspections, examining first-hand the closure actions 18        taken, including the quality assurance/quality control records.
19
* The NRC staff may conduct a final construction completion inspection, which is expected 20        to consist of a site walk-over and an examination of construction records.
21
* The length of an observation period following completion of surface remediation is 22        determined on a site-specific basis, with a minimum period of 1 year, commencing at the 23        completion of the erosion cover. Licensees should report significant cell degradation 24        (e.g., the development of settlement or erosional features) occurring during this period.
25        Sites employing a full self-sustaining vegetative cover (Criterion 4 of Appendix A) may 26        have an observation period of at least 2 years, and possibly as long as 5 years, based 27        on specific site conditions and the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
28
* Before termination of the specific license, NRC will set the final amount of the long-term 29        site surveillance charge to be paid by the licensee in accordance with Criterion 10 of 30        10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The NRC process for determining this amount will include 31        consultations with the licensee and the custodial agency.
32
* Once a licensee has completed site reclamation, decommissioning, and, if necessary, 33        groundwater corrective action, and is ready to terminate its license, it must formally 34        notify NRC and the custodial agency of its intentions 2 years prior to the expected 35        termination date.
36
* To maintain the isolation of the tailings and associated contaminants, the Atomic Energy 37        Act (AEA), as amended, provides that title to the byproduct material and associated land 38        be transferred to the care of the United States or the State. The NRC has interpreted 39        such long-term custody by a governmental agency, whether Federal or State, as a 40        prudent, added measure of control (NRC, 1980), so that land uses that might contribute 41        to the degradation of the cover or lead to direct human exposures can be prevented.
2-21
 
1
* Termination of a specific license and the subsequent placement of the site under the 2          general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.28 will involve several separate actions to be 3          completed by the NRC and other agencies. A long-term surveillance plan is required 4          before termination of the specific license and placement of the site material under the 5          10 CFR 40.28 general license. Significant internal coordination (and external, if 6          Agreement State licensees are involved) will be required so that these actions will be 7          completed in an efficient and timely manner, thereby ensuring that the byproduct 8          material and any land used for the disposal of such byproduct material remain under 9          NRC license throughout the process.
10
* The custodial agency responsibilities under the general license are defined in the 11          long-term surveillance plan, the required contents of which are provided at 12          10 CFR 40.28 and in Criterion 12 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The plan would 13          include, among other things, a detailed description of the long-term surveillance 14          program, including (i) the frequency of inspections and reporting to the NRC; (ii) the 15          frequency and extent of groundwater monitoring, if required; (iii) appropriate ground-16          water concentration limits; and (iv) inspection procedures, personnel qualifications, and 17          the criteria for instituting maintenance or emergency measures.
18
* If the NRC determines that all applicable standards and requirements have been met 19          and the NRC has accepted the site long-term surveillance plan, the NRC will need to 20          complete the following remaining relevant licensing actions: (i) terminating the specific 21          license by letter of termination addressed to the specific licensee; (ii) placing the site 22          under the general license in 10 CFR 40.28; (iii) noticing, in the Federal Register, the 23          completion of these licensing actions; and (iv) informing appropriate Federal and State 24          officials directly of the termination of the specific license and the placement of the site 25          under the general license.
26 2.2.2      No-Action (Alternative 2) 27 Inclusion of the no-action alternative in the EIS is a NEPA requirement and serves as a 28 comparison to the environmental impacts of the proposed action alternative (Alternative 1),
29 including the two secondary alternatives: Alternative 1A and Alternative 1B. A summary of the 30 impacts for comparison is provided in EIS Table 2.4-1. Under the no-action alternative, the 31 NRC would not amend the UNC license. The no-action alternative would not allow UNC to 32 dispose mine waste on top of the NRC-licensed tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site.
33 Without approval for this disposal, the mine waste would temporarily remain at the NECR Mine 34 Site until the EPA selects a different remedy under CERCLA that involves a different final 35 disposal alternative for the NECR mine waste.
36 EPA previously evaluated several alternatives for the removal of NECR mine waste (EPA, 37 2009). Alternatives that satisfied the selection criteria included the proposed action and offsite 38 disposal. EPA conducted a subsequent analysis of possible onsite and offsite disposal options 39 that evaluated 14 sites many of which were not viable due to legal or permitting constraints 40 (EPA, 2011b). These sites included the NECR Mine Site, the UNC Mill Site, three other 41 facilities licensed to accept low-level radioactive waste, seven existing UMTRCA (mill tailings) 42 sites that contain similar wastes, and two offsite locations where a facility could be built. Of the 43 sites evaluated, only 2 were shown to be clearly viable: disposal at the UNC Mill Site (part of the 44 proposed action), and disposal at the U.S. Ecology RCRA-permitted disposal facility in 45 Grand View, Idaho (EPA, 2011b). Two other sites (the Waste Control Specialists low-level 46 radioactive waste disposal site in Andrews, Texas and White Mesa uranium mill in 2-22
 
1 Blanding, Utah) were shown to be viable, but less desirable because they would be more 2 difficult and costly to implement. Disposal options at the NECR Mine Site satisfied EPA 3 effectiveness criteria but lacked community acceptance (EIS Section 2.3.1).
4 Within this context, it is reasonable to assume that a principal consequence of the selection of 5 the no-action alternative would be a delay in removing the NECR mine waste, which would 6 therefore generate different or additional public health or related environmental impacts than 7 what has been determined by EPA for the Church Rock project for disposal at the UNC Mill Site.
8 In documenting their non-time-critical removal action for the NECR Mine Site, EPA determined 9 that actual and threatened releases of hazardous substances from the NECR Mine Site, if not 10 addressed by implementing a Non-Time-Critical Removal Action, may continue to present an 11 imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment 12 (EPA, 2011a). For this EIS, the NRC assumes that under the no-action alternative, the NECR 13 mine waste would remain on the NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years before being 14 disposed at a location other than the UNC Mill Site.
15 2.3      Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 16 2.3.1      Alternatives to the EPA Response Actions that Were Previously Evaluated as 17            Part of the EPA CERCLA Process 18 The EPA previously evaluated (EPA, 2011b; 2009) several alternatives related to the broader 19 CERCLA response action to remove the mine waste from the NECR Mine Site and dispose the 20 waste at the UNC Mill Site, as documented in the EPA ROD for the remedial action (EPA, 21 2013a) and the memorandum for the removal action at the NECR Mine Site (EPA, 2011a).
22 Alternatives evaluated that were not pursued - but remain viable - are described under the 23 NRCs no-action alternative (Alternative 2) in Section 2.2.2 of this EIS. Other alternatives that 24 did not satisfy the EPA selection criteria relating to effectiveness, implementability, and cost 25 were not pursued further by EPA for various reasons that are described in detail in the EPA 26 ROD and summarized in this section. These include the following alternatives:
27
* No action.
28
* Consolidation and covering of mine wastes on the NECR Mine Site.
29
* Construction of an above-ground, capped, and lined repository on the NECR Mine Site.
30
* Consolidation of the mine wastes with a cap and liner at the UNC Mill Site currently 31          under license by the NRC in a newly constructed repository (other than the proposed 32          action disposal site).
33 The last three alternatives included options to transfer high-concentration PTW material to an 34 offsite Class I hazardous waste disposal facility or an alternative appropriate facility.
35 Additionally, the alternatives that included disposal onsite at the NECR Mine Site included an 36 option for removal of PTW and transfer for containment in an existing tailings cell on the UNC 37 Mill Site. EPA previously evaluated these alternatives to inform past decisions made under its 38 CERCLA authority as part of a public process informed by stakeholder input, as documented in 39 an EPA ROD (EPA, 2013a).
40 The EPA evaluated each alternative based on effectiveness, implementability, and cost (EPA, 41 2009). Selection criteria relating to effectiveness addressed the overall protection of human 2-23
 
1 health and the environment; compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate 2 Requirements (ARARs) and other criteria, advisories, and guidance; long-term effectiveness 3 and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; and short-term 4 effectiveness. The selection criteria relating to implementability included technical feasibility; 5 administrative feasibility; availability of services and materials; State acceptance; and 6 community acceptance.
7 The ROD for the remedial action (EPA, 2013a) provided the EPA reasons for not pursuing the 8 aforementioned alternatives. In particular, the EPA noted that not addressing removal (no 9 action) was not protective of public health and the environment (a criterion relating to 10 effectiveness). Additionally, EPA described that on-site disposal of the NECR mine waste at the 11 NECR Mine Site was rejected by the Navajo Nation and the community and therefore the two 12 NECR Mine Site disposal alternatives did not satisfy an applicable review criterion for 13 implementability. The EPA further noted that two areas on the UNC Mill Site identified as 14 potentially large enough to accommodate the volume of mine waste were determined to be 15 unacceptable for reasons relating to implementability. One location would not be acceptable 16 because it would require the plugging and abandonment of all wells associated with the ongoing 17 groundwater remedial action. The second location was determined to be too small to 18 accommodate the volume of the NECR mine waste. In evaluating 11 potential offsite locations 19 for disposal of the NECR mine waste, the EPA concluded that most of these sites were not 20 viable alternative disposal locations based on various factors relating to implementability, 21 including lack of authorization to accept the waste, available capacity, non-operational status, 22 and complications with permitting and licensing new capacity or disposal sites (EPA, 2011b).
23 After reviewing the EPA memorandum and ROD in light of the additional information generated 24 in developing this EIS, the NRC staff finds that the assumptions and conclusions in the EPA 25 evaluation of potential alternatives under CERCLA are applicable to the NRCs evaluation of 26 alternatives in this EIS, and that the alternatives rejected by EPA are also not reasonable 27 alternatives to the proposed action because they do not meet the proposed actions purpose 28 and need. Specifically, they do not facilitate the expeditious and safe disposal of the NECR 29 mine waste from Navajo Nation land to protect human health and the environment from actual 30 or threatened releases of this material. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that these 31 alternatives are not reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and should not be evaluated 32 in detail in this EIS.
33 2.4    Comparison of Predicted Environmental Impacts 34 NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 35 Programs (NRC, 2003b) categorizes the significance of potential environmental impacts 36 as follows:
37 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither 38 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource considered.
39 MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 40 important attributes of the resource considered.
41 LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 42 important attributes of the resource considered.
2-24
 
1 EIS Chapter 4 presents a detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts from the proposed 2 action and the no-action alternative on resource areas within the region of influence for 3 disposing the NECR mine waste at the UNC Mill Site. For each resource area, the NRC staff 4 identifies the significance level during each phase of the proposed project: construction (EIS 5 Section 2.2.1.3), transferring mine waste (EIS Section 2.2.1.4), and closure of the proposed 6 disposal area (EIS Section 2.2.1.5).
7 The predicted environmental impacts to each resource area for the proposed project are 8 summarized in Table 2.4-1 and can also be found in the Executive Summary.
Table 2.4-1        Summary of Potential Impacts for the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives of the Proposed Church Rock License Amendment Proposed Action                                                  No-Action Alternative 1      Alternative 1A    Alternative 1B        Alternative 2 Land Use Construction            SMALL              SMALL              SMALL Waste Transfer          SMALL              SMALL              SMALL                LARGE Disposal Site            SMALL              SMALL              SMALL Closure Transportation Construction          MODERATE          MODERATE          MODERATE Waste Transfer        MODERATE          MODERATE          MODERATE                SMALL Disposal Site            SMALL              SMALL              SMALL Closure Geology and Soils Construction            SMALL              SMALL              SMALL          SMALL for geology; Waste Transfer          SMALL              SMALL              SMALL            LARGE for soils Disposal Site            SMALL              SMALL              SMALL            until mine waste Closure                                                                        above EPA action levels is removed, then SMALL Water Resources-Surface Water Construction            SMALL to          SMALL to          SMALL to MODERATE          MODERATE          MODERATE                SMALL to Waste Transfer          SMALL to          SMALL to          SMALL to            MODERATE MODERATE          MODERATE          MODERATE Disposal Site        MODERATE          MODERATE          MODERATE Closure Water Resources-Groundwater Construction            SMALL              SMALL              SMALL                SMALL Waste Transfer          SMALL              SMALL              SMALL Disposal Site            SMALL              SMALL              SMALL Closure 2-25
 
Table 2.4-1    Summary of Potential Impacts for the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives of the Proposed Church Rock License Amendment (cont.)
Proposed Action                                                    No-Action Alternative 1        Alternative 1A      Alternative 1B      Alternative 2 Ecology Construction    SMALL for wildlife    SMALL for wildlife  SMALL for wildlife      SMALL and MODERATE for      and MODERATE for    and MODERATE for vegetation            vegetation        vegetation Waste Transfer  SMALL for wildlife    SMALL for wildlife  SMALL for wildlife and MODERATE for      and MODERATE for    and MODERATE for vegetation            vegetation        vegetation Disposal Site  SMALL for wildlife    SMALL for wildlife  SMALL for wildlife Closure        and MODERATE for      and MODERATE for    and MODERATE for vegetation            vegetation        vegetation Air Quality Nongreenhouse Gases Construction      MODERATE              MODERATE          MODERATE              SMALL Waste Transfer    MODERATE              MODERATE          MODERATE Disposal Site        SMALL                SMALL              SMALL Closure Air Quality Greenhouse Gases Construction        SMALL                SMALL              SMALL              SMALL Waste Transfer      SMALL                SMALL              SMALL Disposal Site        SMALL                SMALL              SMALL Closure Noise Construction      MODERATE              MODERATE          MODERATE              SMALL Waste Transfer    MODERATE              MODERATE          MODERATE Disposal Site      MODERATE              MODERATE          MODERATE Closure Historic and Cultural Resources Construction  SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE                      SMALL Waste Transfer SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE Disposal Site  SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE Closure Visual and Scenic Resources Construction      MODERATE              MODERATE          MODERATE              SMALL Waste Transfer    MODERATE              MODERATE          MODERATE Disposal Site      MODERATE              MODERATE          MODERATE Closure Socioeconomics Construction        SMALL                SMALL              SMALL            MODERATE Waste Transfer      SMALL                SMALL              SMALL Disposal Site        SMALL                SMALL              SMALL Closure Environmental Justice Construction  Disproportionately    Disproportionately Disproportionately  Disproportionately high and adverse      high and adverse  high and adverse    high and adverse environmental        environmental      environmental      environmental impacts              impacts            impacts            impacts Waste Transfer Disproportionately    Disproportionately Disproportionately high and adverse      high and adverse  high and adverse environmental        environmental      environmental impacts              impacts            impacts 2-26
 
Table 2.4-1        Summary of Potential Impacts for the Proposed Action and Action Alternatives of the Proposed Church Rock License Amendment (cont.)
Proposed Action                                                    No-Action Alternative 1      Alternative 1A    Alternative 1B      Alternative 2 Disposal Site      Disproportionately Disproportionately Disproportionately Closure            high and adverse    high and adverse  high and adverse environmental        environmental      environmental impacts              impacts            impacts Public and Occupational Health Construction            SMALL                SMALL              SMALL            LARGE public Waste Transfer          SMALL                SMALL              SMALL          health impact until Disposal Site            SMALL                SMALL              SMALL          mine waste above Closure                                                                        EPA action levels is removed, then SMALL Waste Management Construction            SMALL                SMALL              SMALL              SMALL Waste Transfer          SMALL                SMALL              SMALL Disposal Site            SMALL                SMALL              SMALL Closure 1 2.5      Preliminary Recommendation 2 After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and two secondary alternatives, and 3 comparing to the no-action alternative, the NRC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, sets 4 forth its preliminary NEPA recommendation. The adverse environmental impacts of the 5 proposed action, Alternative 1A and Alternative 1B, which each involve the issuance of a license 6 amendment to transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 m3 [1,000,000 yd3] of NECR mine 7 waste on top of a portion of the existing tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site, are such that 8 preserving for decisionmakers the option of issuing such a license amendment is reasonable, 9 and that the project should proceed. This recommendation is based on (i) the license 10 application request, which includes the ER and supplemental documents and the licensees 11 responses to the NRC staffs requests for additional information; (ii) consultation with Federal, 12 State, Tribal, and local agencies and input from other stakeholders; (iii) independent NRC staff 13 review; and (iv) the assessments summarized in this EIS.
14 2.6      References 15 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. Standards for 16 Protection Against Radiation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
17 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 18 Appendix A. Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 19 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 20 Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 21 Printing Office.
22 10 CFR 40.28. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, &sect; 40.28. General license for 23 custody and long-term care of uranium or thorium byproduct materials disposal sites.
24 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
2-27
 
1 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. Environmental 2 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.
3 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4 51 FR 19432. Federal Register. Vol. 51, No. 103, p. 19,432. Reassertion of Certain 5 Regulatory Authority in the State of New Mexico. May 29, 1986.
6 Canonie Environmental. Tailings Reclamation Plan As Approved by NRC March 1, 1991 7 License No. SUA-1475, Volume 1 - Text. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103230255, 8 ML103230287, and ML103230306. Project 86-060-27. August 1991.
9 Dwyer Engineering. Cover System Design Report, Northeast Church Rock Site Closure.
10 ADAMS Accession No. ML19315A009. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Dwyer Engineering, LLC.
11 October 13, 2019.
12 EPA. Fifth Five-Year Review Report for United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Superfund 13 Site McKinley County, New Mexico. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 14 Region 6. September 2018. <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/100011828.pdf> (Accessed 15 25 August 2020).
16 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, 17 USEPA ID NMD030443303; Operable Unit: OU 02, Surface Soil Operable Unit. Dallas, Texas:
18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. March 2013a.
19 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/681353.pdf> (Accessed 21 January 2019).
20 EPA. Fourth Five-Year Review Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Ground Water 21 Operable Unit, Church Rock, McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No.
22 ML13336A390. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.
23 September 2013b.
24 EPA. Action Memorandum: Request for a Non-Time Critical Removal Action at the Northeast 25 Church Rock Mine Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation.
26 ML12003A095. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 and 27 San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
28 September 29, 2011a.
29 EPA. Northeast Church Rock - Post EE/CA Analysis of Alternatives, Alternative Off-Site 30 Disposal Locations. Superfund Records Center 2240730. Memo from C. Wetmore and 31 M. Rongone to C. Tenley. San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 32 Region 9. September 23, 2011b.
33 EPA. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis, Northeast Church Rock (NECR) Mine Site, 34 Gallup, New Mexico. SDMS DOCID# 2183626. San Francisco, California:
35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. May 30, 2009.
36 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, Groundwater Operable Unit 37 McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML063630443. EPA R06-R88-044.
38 Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. 1988.
2-28
 
1 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 2 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 3 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 4 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
5 NRC. Safety Evaluation Report of License Amendment Request. Docket No. 040-08907.
6 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ADAMS Accession No.
7 ML20210M050. 2020.
8 NRC. Site Summary: UNC-Church Rock Mill Uranium Recovery Facility. Washington, DC:
9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2019a. <https://www.nrc.gov/info-10 finder/decommissioning/uranium/is-united-nuclear-corporation-unc.pdf>
11 (Accessed 24 July 2019).
12 NRC. Materials License SUA-1475, Amendment No. 54. ADAMS Accession No.
13 ML19143A149. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 2019b.
14 NRC. Final Environmental Assessment Related to Issuance of a License Amendment to 15 Modify Background Groundwater Protection Standards for the United Nuclear Corporation 16 Uranium Mill Site, Church Rock, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML14339A839.
17 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015.
18 NRC. NUREG-1620, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill 19 Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 20 (NUREG-1620, Revision 1). ADAMS Accession No. ML032250190. Washington, DC:
21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 2003a 22 NRC. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 23 NMSS Programs. ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 24 Regulatory Commission. August 2003b.
25 NRC. NUREG-1623, Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stabilization, Final Report.
26 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. September 2002.
27 NRC. Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 28 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for Ground-Water Cleanup at the UNC-Churchrock 29 Uranium Mill in McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML060950415.
30 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1987.
31 NRC. NUREG/CR-2449, Survey of Radionuclide Distributions Resulting from the Church 32 Rock, New Mexico, Uranium Mill Tailings Pond Dam Failure (PNL-4122). Richland Virginia:
33 Pacific Northwest Laboratory. December 1981.
34 NRC. NUREG-0706, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling.
35 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1980.
36 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475. ADAMS 37 Accession No. ML19287A009. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
38 October 2019a.
2-29
 
1 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, Figures.
2 ADAMS Accession No. ML19322D037. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
3 October 2019b.
4 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 5 Appendix A: General Design Information; Appendix H: Borrow Areas. ADAMS Accession No.
6 ML19322D019. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 2019c.
7 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 8 Appendix Q: Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan. ADAMS Accession No. ML19305D532.
9 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 2019d.
10 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 11 Attachment L-1 Radiation Protection Plan. ADAMS Accession No. ML19305D530.
12 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. October 2019e.
13 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 14 Appendix J: Technical Specifications; Appendix K: Removal Action Schedule; Appendix L:
15 Health and Safety Plan; Appendix U: Revegetation Plans. ADAMS Accession No.
16 ML18267A276. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018a.
17 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 18 Appendix B: Construction Support Facilities; Appendix C: Mine Site Removal Excavations and 19 Demolition; Appendix E: Stormwater Management Plan. ADAMS Accession No.
20 ML18267A239. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018b.
21 Trinity Consultants. Modeling Addendum, Supplemental Environmental Report for the United 22 Nuclear Corporation Source Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession No.
23 ML20245E178. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Trinity Consultants. May 2020.
2-30
 
1              3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2 3.1      Introduction 3 The United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Mill Site is located in McKinley County, New Mexico, 4 approximately 27 kilometers (km) [17 miles (mi)] northeast of Gallup, New Mexico. As discussed 5 in EIS Section 1.2, the proposed action that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 6 staff is evaluating in this environmental impact statement (EIS) is to amend UNCs Source 7 Material License SUA-1475 to allow UNC to transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 cubic 8 meters (m3) [1,000,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine waste on top 9 of the NRC-licensed tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. The amendment, if approved, 10 would also revise the previously approved tailings reclamation plan for the NRC-licensed mill site 11 and revisions to the reclamation schedule at the UNC Mill Site. The proposed UNC schedule to 12 complete the disposal of the NECR mine waste is approximately 4 years (Stantec, 2018a).
13 EIS Figure 2.2-2 depicts the locations of various project components within the proposed project 14 area that are discussed in this chapter (e.g., Jetty Area, Pipeline Arroyo, and borrow areas).
15 This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions within the proposed project area 16 and, for some resource areas, the region surrounding the proposed project area. For this EIS, 17 the proposed project area is defined as the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site. The 18 resource areas described in this section include land use, transportation, geology and soils, 19 water resources, ecology, air quality, noise, historic and cultural resources, visual and scenic 20 resources, socioeconomics, public and occupational health, and waste management. The 21 descriptions of the affected environment are based upon information provided in the licensees 22 environmental report (ER) (INTERA, 2018), license application (Stantec, 2019a) as revised in 23 several subsequent submittals, and responses to NRC requests for additional information (RAIs) 24 (Stantec, 2019b,c,d,e; INTERA, 2019; Trinity Consultants, 2020), and supplemented by 25 additional information that the NRC staff identified. The information in this chapter will form the 26 basis for assessing the potential impacts of the proposed action in Chapter 4, including 27 Alternative 1A for transferring NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site using a conveyor, 28 and Alternative 1B for using cover material for the proposed disposal area sourced from the Jetty 29 Area, as well as the no-action alternative (the NRCs summary of potential alternatives is 30 provided in EIS Section 2.4).
31 3.2      Land Use 32 A description of land use at the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area) 33 and 3.2 km [2 mi] of the surrounding area, as well as a general description of land use in 34 McKinley County is presented in this section.
35 The proposed project area is located in a semiarid region approximately 27 km [17 mi] northeast 36 of the city of Gallup, New Mexico. The proposed project area is depicted in EIS Figure 2.2-2.
37 Local residences and land ownership within 3.2-km [2-mi] of the proposed project area are 38 shown in EIS Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2, respectively. The land surrounding the proposed project 39 area includes Navajo Nation land to the north, east, and south, U.S. Bureau of Land 40 Management (BLM) land to the southeast, and Navajo Nation Trust land to the west (EIS Figure 41 3.2-2) (Stantec, 2019a; INTERA, 2018).
3-1
 
29                28 32                33 5                    'l l
                                    \
                          !-\
UNC Mill Site
                                        \\
9                                                                      7        8 0 0.25 0.5        1.5  2 0
Nearby          r***-..*1 3.2-Km [2-Mi]  ~    NECRMine      -      limits of    N Miles Residents      1..._ ..__ , Radius            Sile                  Disturbance
      - - Local Roads
      - - State Route 566 Proposed Project Area iLZJ UNC Mill Site        Public Land c:::::J s urvey Sections
_J~
0  0.4 0.8    1.6 2.4 Kilometers 3.2 Figure 3.2-1                    Locations of Nearest Residents and Homesites Near the Proposed Project Area 1 NRC License SUA-1475 Condition 31 requires UNC, the licensee, to conduct annual land use 2 surveys at the existing mill tailings impoundment to identify grazing, residence distribution, well 3 status, and other land use activities within a 3.2-km [2-mi] area surrounding the proposed 4 disposal area. The annual 2019 survey indicated that there have been minimal changes to land 5 ownership and land use over the past 20 years (NRC, 2019a). Approximately 80 percent of the 6 land in McKinley County is still owned by the Federal government or is held in trust for Indian 7 Tribes (i.e., Indian Trust Land). Approximately 60 percent of the land in McKinley County is 8 Indian Trust Land. Private lands make up the next largest amount (roughly 20 percent of the 9 county), followed by land managed by BLM (7 percent), the U.S. Forest Service (5 percent),
10 and the State (5 percent) (INTERA, 2018). The NRC staff note that 3 percent of the total 11 (100 percent) land ownership is not accounted in the summation of land areas; this is a result 12 of estimation.
3-2
 
r-L    3.2-Km [2-Mi]
Radius c=J Private (14%)
c=JBLM(1 2%)
Navajo Nation c=J (On Reservation)
(55%)
liiiill Navajo Nation Trust (20%)
                                                                              -c:::,*-==--- Kilometers 1.2 Figure 3.2-2      Land Ownership Near the Proposed Project Area (Source: Modified from INTERA, 2018) 1 Approximately 90 percent of the land in McKinley County is classified as desert or semi-desert, 2 forest, and woodland (INTERA, 2018). The majority of the land within McKinley County is 3 rangeland that is primarily used for livestock grazing (NRC, 1997; NRC, 2019a). Land cover in 4 McKinley County is primarily a mix of pinyon-juniper woodland and semi-desert shrub steppe, 5 along with semi-desert grassland to a lesser extent (USGS, 2011). Developed land in the 6 smaller established rural communities outside Gallup, New Mexico, and in the Tribal 7 communities is widely dispersed residential use, in which any land not used for rangeland is 8 nearly entirely residential (NNMCG, 2012). Recreational activities in McKinley County occur 9 primarily in the Mount Taylor Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest, which encompasses 10 Mount Taylor and the Zuni Mountains (NRC, 2009). The former Kerr-McGee Quivira Mine (also 11 referred to as the Quivira Mine Site because it is owned by Quivira Mining Corporation) is located 12 about 1.6 km [1 mi] north of the proposed project area (EPA et al., 2014) (EIS Figure 2.2-2). The 13 nearest railroad is approximately 16 km [10 mi] south of the proposed project area.
14 The locations of occupied homesites within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed project area are 15 depicted in EIS Figure 3.2-1. UNCs license application provides a description of the residents 16 and homesites located within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed project area (Stantec, 2019a; 17 INTERA, 2018). The license amendment application indicates that the number of homesites 18 within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the UNC Mill Site has decreased from 36 to 34 over the past 10 years. Of 19 the 34 homesites present in 2017, 22 are located on Navajo Nation land (on the Navajo Nation 20 reservation) to the north of the proposed project area, 11 homesites are located on 21 privately-owned land southwest of the UNC Mill Site, and 1 unoccupied homesite is located 22 on UNC-owned land in Section 2, Township 16 North, Range 16 West (Stantec, 2019a; 3-3
 
1 INTERA, 2018). The nearest full-time resident to activities associated with the UNC proposal to 2 remove the NECR mine waste is located approximately 0.22 km [0.14 mi] north of the NECR 3 Mine Site boundary.
4 3.2.1      Land Ownership and Ongoing Activities at the Proposed Disposal Site 5 The UNC Mill Site is located on private land owned by UNC that encompasses Section 2, 6 Township 16 North, Range 16 West and extends to Section 36, Township 17 North, Range 16 7 West. The proposed disposal site is approximately 0.8 km [0.5 mi] southeast from the NECR 8 Mine Site boundary (EIS Figure 2.2-2). When it was operational, the UNC Mill Site included an 9 ore processing mill and a mill tailings impoundment (EIS Section 2.2.1.2). Although no longer an 10 operating milling site, UNC is still the fee owner (i.e., owner of the land title) of the UNC Mill Site 11 property (INTERA, 2018). Surface land ownership within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed project 12 area is approximately 55 percent Navajo Nation land, 20 percent Navajo Nation Trust land, 13 14 percent private ownership, and 12 percent Federal lands managed by the BLM, as depicted in 14 EIS Figure 3.2-2.
15 The proposed project area is located near the northern end of New Mexico Highway 566 16 (NM 566) within Pipeline Canyon. Elevations at the proposed project area range from about 17 2,103 to 2,195 meters (m) [6,900 to 7,200 feet (ft)] above mean sea level (amsl); the proposed 18 disposal area is approximately 2,124 m [6,970 ft] amsl (INTERA, 2018). Two soil borrow pits at 19 the UNC Mill Site were previously excavated as the source of borrow soil for construction of the 20 existing mill tailings impoundment. Two existing evaporation ponds are located southwest of the 21 proposed disposal site (EIS Figure 2.2-1). The rock jetty is located northeast of the evaporation 22 ponds outside of the proposed disposal site. Dilco Hill is a natural rock outcrop located east of 23 the North Tailings Cell and is one of the highest points of elevation on the UNC Mill Site (Dilco 24 Hill is depicted in EIS Figure 2.2-2). Existing UNC offices are located on the west side of 25 NM 566 between the proposed disposal site and the NECR Mine Site.
26 The perimeter of the UNC Mill Site is fenced to exclude livestock and prevent grazing. Access is 27 further restricted by a 1.8 m [6 ft] chain link fence topped with barbed wire. All fencing is posted 28 with No Trespassing signs (UNC, 1975; INTERA, 2018).
29 3.2.2      Land Use Activities at the NECR Mine Site 30 As described in EIS Chapter 1, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working with 31 the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) to oversee cleanup work and 32 remediation at the NECR Mine Site as part of a separate Federal action (EPA et al., 2014). EIS 33 Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 provide additional information on Federal actions associated with NECR 34 Mine Site and UNC Mill Site.
35 Prior mining surface activity at the NECR Mine Site covered approximately 24 hectares (ha) 36 [60 acres (ac)] of land. Activities and structures associated with the mine included several vent 37 holes, support buildings, roads, and water extraction wells and treatment facilities. The NECR 38 Mine Site is currently fenced to keep people and animals out of the area (INTERA, 2018). As 39 described in EIS Chapter 1, uranium ore from the NECR Mine Site was processed at the UNC 40 Mill Site.
3-4
 
1 3.2.3    Tribal Land 2 Four Navajo Chapters are located within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed project area. The 3 chapters are identified as Coyote Canyon, Standing Rock, Church Rock, and Pinedale (EIS 4 Figure 3.2-3) (INTERA, 2018). UNC, as part of its original application (UNC, 1975), leased a 5 total of 13,550 ha [33,484 ac] of land, of which 12,557 ha [31,030 ac] were Navajo Nation land 6 (on the Navajo Nation reservation). Some of the NECR Mine Site is located on land held in trust 7 by the United States for the Navajo Nation. Newmont Realty Corporation presently owns the 8 minerals rights in those same areas, but UNC owns both the surface and mineral rights on a 9 small portion of the NECR Mine Site (INTERA, 2018).
10 The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has authority over land use planning of Indian Trust Lands in 11 McKinley County (INTERA, 2018). However, the Navajo Nation Housing Authority (NNHA) has 12 published a planning manual for developing communities along with a vision statement of 13 [h]ousing our Nation by growing sustainable communities. The NNHA planning manual 14 provides general guidelines for Navajo community development but does not discuss any 15 specific plans for the land within McKinley County (Swaback Partners, 2012).
N
      +                      COYOTE CANYON STANDING ROCK CHURCH ROCK
                                                                                **f l\4 D  LE 0    0.5                  2 LJ ::'~."e':1~~anpter ~ ~i7;R Mine          CJ Proposed      State Route P'771 Proj ect Area 566
                                                                                            --=:::i---===------* M ile s LJ Navajo aiapter Nation Standing Rock    ILL.LI UNC M ill Site    3.2-Km [2-Mi]
Radius                      --==---==----* Kilometers 0 0.5          2 Figure 3.2-3      Navajo Nation Chapters Located within 3.2-Kilometers [2 Miles] of the Center of the Proposed Project Area 3-5
 
1 3.3        Transportation 2 3.3.1        Regional and Local Transportation Characteristics 3 This section describes the transportation infrastructure and conditions at the proposed 4 project area and in the region surrounding the proposed project area. As described in EIS 5 Section 2.2.1.7, UNC has proposed to use roads to ship equipment, supplies, and waste 6 materials, as well as to move commuting workers, for the duration of the proposed project.
7 EIS Figure 3.3-1 shows the roads surrounding the proposed project area. The major roads in the 8 area consist of interstate highways, non-interstate U.S. highways, State highways, county roads, 9 Navajo-BIA roads, and named and unnamed local roads (INTERA, 2018). NM 566, a two-lane 10 highway that travels through mostly rural areas, provides the primary access to the proposed 11 project area.
12 Access to the region where the proposed project area is located involves transportation on 13 Interstate 40 East/West until Exit 33 near Gallup, New Mexico, and then continues northwest on 14 the Interstate 40 frontage road for approximately 6.4 km [4 mi], then proceeds north on NM 566 15 for approximately 16.1 km [10 mi] to reach the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018).
    <t>
Proposed Traffic Signs
                          =  A ccess Roads c::J Area Proposed Proj ect LJ Site Proposed Disposal 0    0.2    0.4        0.8
                          =  Haul Roads LJ                      J~                            Miles Q)
At-Grade NM 566                    ~ UNC Ta ilings          Ev apo rati on Ponds 0-ossing
    - - Pipeline A rroy o
                          - - Public Roads lmpoundment
                                                                  -  Umtsof Disturbance t                      1Ki lometers 0 0.2    0.4    0.8 1.2 Figure 3.3-1            Proposed Project Area Access and Haul Roads 3-6
 
1 UNC provided estimates of the average annual daily traffic (AADT) for the transportation routes 2 applicable to their proposal (INTERA, 2018). The estimated AADT for Interstate 40 eastbound 3 was 204,000 vehicles per day and 20,000 vehicles per day for westbound lanes. Southbound 4 NM 566 near the intersection with Interstate 40 had an estimated AADT of 5,000 vehicles per 5 day. In 2017, southbound NM 566 at the proposed haul road crossing immediately east and 6 west with the intersection with Pipeline Canyon Road had a monitored AADT of 130 vehicles per 7 day with an hourly maximum of 14 vehicles per hour during morning and evening peak travel 8 times (INTERA, 2018). UNC estimated approximately 12 vehicles of the 130 per day were due 9 to mine site activities while the remaining 118 vehicles were assumed to be non-mine traffic.
10 The accident rates reported in 2016 for the State of New Mexico were 171 accidents per 11 100 million vehicle miles traveled and 1.4 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 12 (NMDOT, 2020).
13 UNC proposes to construct a haul road to transfer NECR mine waste from the NECR Mine Site 14 to the UNC Mill Site that crosses NM 566. Other haul roads would be constructed and used to 15 move fill material from borrow areas. The NM 566 crossing would be located between the two 16 sites and would include additional signage, contamination control systems, and traffic control 17 systems that would be developed by UNC in consultation with the New Mexico Department of 18 Transportation (NMDOT). The proposed haul roads, the location of the proposed NM 566 19 crossing, and new traffic sign locations within the proposed project area are depicted in EIS 20 Figure 3.3-1.
21 3.4      Geology and Soils 22 Descriptions of the geology, seismology, and soils at and in the vicinity of the UNC Mill Site and 23 NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area) are presented in this section. The proposed project 24 area is located along the southwest margin of the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico.
25 The geology of the proposed disposal site is characterized by sediments of Quaternary age in 26 the form of alluvial deposits of Pleistocene age that overlie sediments of Mesozoic age (Canonie 27 Environmental, 1991).
28 3.4.1    Regional Geology 29 Information presented in this section on the physiography, structure, and stratigraphy of the 30 San Juan Basin, where the proposed project area is located, is taken largely from Craigg (2001),
31 Geologic Framework of the San Juan Structural Basin of New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and 32 Utah with Emphasis on Triassic through Tertiary Rocks, and Stone et al. (1983), Hydrogeology 33 and Water Resources of the San Jan Basin, New Mexico.
34 3.4.1. 1    Physiography 35 The proposed project area is situated along the southwest margin of the San Juan Basin in the 36 east-central part of the Colorado Plateau physiographic province (EIS Figure 3.4-1). The basin 37 straddles the Four Corners area but is mainly located in northwestern New Mexico and 38 southwestern Colorado; smaller parts are located in northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah 39 (EIS Figure 3.4-1). This area is characterized by various landforms that include broad uplands 40 and wide valleys, deep canyons, badlands, volcanic plugs, cuestas, mesas, buttes, and 41 hogbacks. In areas away from canyons and mesas and buttes, the land is generally flat. The 42 proposed disposal site is located in Pipeline Valley, an incised valley system transecting rock 43 outcrops of the southwestern rim of the San Juan Basin (INTERA, 2018; UNC, 1975).
3-7
 
105 110 UTAH 40 COLORADO Bounda ry Bounda ry of the of the San Juan Colorad o structu ral Plateau basin FOUR CORNERS 35 NEW MEXICO ARIZONA 0          100      200        300            400 M ILES
                                            ~~---1          ----'-- _ _ _ J 0    100      200 300  400 KILOMETERS Figure 3.4-1        Location of Proposed Disposal Site in the San Juan Basin (Modified from Craigg, 2001) 1 3.4. 1.2    Structure and Stratigraphy 2 The San Juan Structural Basin is an approximately circular, asymmetric structural depression 3 formed during the Laramide time. The basin has an area of approximately 55,944 km2 4 [21,600 mi2] and a maximum structural relief of about 3,048 m [10,000 ft]. Faulting is common, 5 especially in the northeastern, southeastern, and south-central parts of the basin, and also along 6 the north-central and east-central margins. Structural boundaries and elements of the San Juan 7 Basin are of three major types: (i) large, elongated, domal uplifts; (ii) low, marginal platforms; 8 and (iii) abrupt monoclines.
9 The basin is bounded on the north by the San Juan Uplift, on the east by the Nacimiento Uplift 10 and the Rio Grande River Depression, on the south by the Zuni Uplift, and on the west by the 11 Defiance Uplift) (EIS Figure 3.4-2). Other major structural elements of the San Juan Basin 12 include: (i) prominent masses of the Carrizo Mountains, Sleeping Ute Mountains, and La Plata 13 Mountains, which bound the basin in the northwest; (ii) the Puerco Platform and Puerco Fault 14 Zone, which mark the southeastern limit of the basin; (iii) the prominent Chaco Slope - a broad, 3-8
 
1 northwest-trending platform - south of the Central Basin and north of the Puerco Platform, 2 Puerco Fault Zone, and Zuni Uplift; (iv) the Four Corners Platform in the northwestern part of the 3 basin; (v) the Hogback Monocline that extends northward from the Rio Grande Rift in the 4 southeastern part of the basin to the San Juan Uplift in the northern part of the basin and then 5 southwestward for about 160 km [100 mi]; and (vi) the Central Basin. These regional features 6 are shown in EIS Figure 3.4-2.
109                                        1111                                  o, T
BoundAry nf Sleeping
                                                                                                              , study area Ute Paradox        M1n Basin Jl KIO ARRIBA CO
                                                      \NJUAN CO Centra basin    II basin I
                                  --L ~
0e1,ance monocl1no Proposed MCKL'ILEY O Ch.,co I
II
                                                                                                    !>A,,OOVI\L CO Disposal ite *              *1 011.,
7 _
Ml T ay lo r OllOL/1 CO                      Ignacio Zuni embaymen1 \                                                                      monochne EXPIANATION Acoma sag Monocllne 10    20      3C      40      so  to II LES I  1,        I  I    I I 10  20  JO  40  !iO IO <l.ONf l fHS Figure 3.4-2              Major Structural Features of the San Juan Basin (Modified from Craigg, 2001) 3-9
 
1 The San Juan Basin is filled to a depth of about 4,390 m [14,400 ft] with sedimentary rocks 2 mainly ranging in age from Devonian through Tertiary. On the western, northern, and eastern 3 margins of the basin, the rocks dip relatively steeply into the basin, whereas rocks dip less 4 steeply into the basin along its southern margin (EIS Figure 3.4-3). The basins structural center 5 is located in the northeastern part of the basin. Older sedimentary rocks crop out around the 6 basin margins and are successively overlain by younger strata toward the basin center.
7 The stratigraphy of the San Juan Basin region is characterized by Mesozoic age sediments 8 deposited in and adjacent to the western margin of a transgressing and regressing Late 9 Cretaceous sea. Sedimentary rocks consist of sandstones, siltstones, shale, mudstone, and 10 coal deposited in fluvial, eolian, and marine environments. A stratigraphic column typical of the 11 San Juan Basin is shown in EIS Figure 3.4-4. A detailed discussion of the geologic units 12 deposited in the San Juan Basin is provided in Stone et al. (1983) and Craigg (2001). From 13 oldest to youngest the major geologic units are:
14
* Undivided Paleozoic-era rocks and the Permian San Andres Limestone and 15        Glorieta Sandstone.
16
* The Upper Triassic Chinle Formation. Triassic sedimentary rocks were generally 17        deposited in continental (non-marine) environments and attain a maximum thickness of 18        about 488 m [1,600 ft].
19
* The Upper Jurassic Wingate Formation, the Carmel Formation, the Entrada Sandstone, 20        the Todilto Limestone, the Summerville Formation, the Bluff Sandstone, and the Morrison 21        Formation. The Morrison Formation is divided into three members, which are (from 22        oldest to youngest) the Recapture Member, the Westwater Canyon Member, and the 23        Brushy Basin Member. Jurassic rocks also mainly represent deposition in continental 24        environments and collectively attain a maximum thickness of about 457 m [1,500 ft]. The 25        Morrison Formation is the major uranium ore-bearing formation in the region.
26
* The Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone, the late Cretaceous Mancos Shale, the Upper 27        Cretaceous Mesaverde Group (which contains the Gallup Sandstone, the Crevasse 28        Canyon Formation, the Point Lookout Sandstone, the Menefee Formation, and the Cliff 29        House Sandstone), the Lewis Shale, the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone, the Kirtland 30        Formation, and the Fruitland Shale. Cretaceous sedimentary rocks represent continental, 31        marginal marine, and marine environments associated with transgressing and regressing 32        seas. During the Cretaceous time, at least 1,981 m [6,500 ft] of strata were deposited in 33        the basin.
34
* The Tertiary Ojo Alamo Sandstone and the Animas, Nacimiento, and San Jose 35        Formations, as undivided Tertiary rocks. Tertiary sedimentary rocks were deposited in 36        continental environments and attain a maximum thickness of about 1,158 m [3,800 ft].
37
* Tertiary- and Quaternary-age volcanic rocks and various unconsolidated surficial deposits 38        (alluvial, eolian, landslide, talus, and terrace deposits) also are present in the basin.
39 Many of these geologic units are only found in parts of the San Juan Basin. Other units, such as 40 the Mancos Shale and Morrison Formation, extend across nearly all of the basin. Except for 41 alluvium, the stratigraphic units above the Crevasse Canyon Formation of the Mesaverde Group 42 are not present at the proposed disposal site.
3-10
 
WEST                                                                                              EAST
(/)                                                                                        0 C
                  '<<i E.,
('O
            ,,,:, s-            .,                                                                    ~ -~ :0&sect; ~
          .c      0            Q.                                                                    ~o 2"' -a.
u~                    0                                                                    D. 0 O> C          :,
                                -;;;                                                                    o o pC 0
u                          Central basin                              :c E        .
co
                                .c u
T K
J H
Pl and pC                                Nacim iento fault NOT TO SCALE SOUTH                                                                                          NORTH C:
                                                                                                              ..,-!=
Zun i                                                                                    C:    :.=
Chaco                                                                "' a.
uplift                                                                                  V>::,
NOTTO SCALE EXPIANATION Tertiary strata                        Triassic strata Cretaceous strata                      Paleozoic strata Jurassic strata                        P recambrian crystalline rocks Contact-Dashed where inferred Figure 3.4-3                Diagrammatic east-west-trending and north-south-trending Geologic Sections Showing Principal Structural Features of the San Juan Basin (Modified from Craigg, 2001) 3-11
 
SYSTEM                    ROCk UNITS                                                                        LITHOLOGY.
Colluviilm : weathered shole -sondstone *
                                                                                                                  *          *,  . fro9ment1, boso1t fragments Alluvium: sil'y cloy and t l'lin grovel . lenses:
* Volcanics
                                                                                .,....TT,,,,._-.-                    boson I ~nde;ite*; rhyo'1ite I lava UQWS. . .
and dikes *
                                                                                                                . gray I brown c loys tone and shale I . scindsfone ;
                                                                                                                    *1imestone, and cool '
* dork orange to**ye_u.owish .9r oy,.-o~kosic .
sandstone                                        * *; ,~
                                                                                                                  . sandstone      I cloy.stone    I shale .
    . .C(etCJc.eous .
Goilup Sondstorie                          *.'/}~(/ .-=//*                        brown sandstone.
* Mancos Shale . . .
                                          *. Tres Hermqn~~ Member
                                                                          . .-  ~~-                              *. dork gray
* shale with- !n terbedded *
::- *.-:, .:**.**. ;.** :,:: ) sandstone .* *
* L..,;
Dakota Sandstone                            * .::*.* Kd : : *, , : ;_:            ton
* to gray quartz . sandstone .'
Morrison .Formati~
* Brushy Basin. Membe.r Jockpile Srindstone        &#xa5;&#xa3;-iii :;::i::: : : : : *
                                              . . Poison Canyon Sandstone * : , * '.,.: i : ::.--.:1:
                                      *. Westwater Canyon Member *
* Recapture Member *                  ':)':_:_. _f *.=*      f            sands tone and siltstone Bluff        *Sandstone**
                                                              *'*.
* po le* red to brown. sondstorie
: Juro_ssic
* 1 *.          .
S~mmerville . Fort:n0t\~f .                                                    . pole .b.row*n . sondsforie crnd siltstone*.
son .                                .                .i,.J J t ,..L-,-l-,4.. limestone
                        . Rafael  *Tod i I to Limestone
* Group    Entrada Sandstone                        :{(){;\/}1*                            fine* groined son*dst one Carmel* Formotilfn*                            -::-S :.-;.7;:,: -&sect; ::.,1 -red ., fine* groi ned.: silty sond.s fone
    ---"---'---'--Wingate
* For mation Tr iassic;
                                                                                                  '    '      ' limestone*
San Andres .,Fory;not,io~
      ..F'ermian ...
                                              .Glorieto Membe! .
_\}~\(,\( .*:r~~:*                              b~ ~t~ :d f~~~ds~~~~ed Figure 3.4-4                  Stratigraphic Column Typical of the San Juan Basin (Modified from DAppolonia, 1981) 1 3.4.2            Site Geology 2 The proposed project area is located in the mesa lands of northwestern New Mexico at the 3 juncture of the San Juan Basin, the Zuni Uplift, and the Defiance Uplift (EIS Figure 3.4-2). The 4 proposed project area lies on the Chaco slope, which forms the northeast edge of the Zuni Uplift 5 and the southwest rim of the San Juan Basin (INTERA, 2018). Monoclinal folds are the most 6 distinctive smaller-scale structures that have been identified at the proposed disposal site.
7 These folds occur throughout the Colorado Plateau and commonly form the boundaries of the 8 large uplifts and basins.
3-12
 
1 The proposed project area is situated within the province of three structural features: the 2 Pipeline Canyon lineament (i.e., a linear feature such as a fault), the Fort Wingate lineament, and 3 the Pinedale monocline. The Pipeline Canyon lineament trends east-northeast from the northern 4 margin of the Zuni Uplift. The origin of the Pipeline Canyon lineament is consistent with a 5 monoclonal fold (as described previously, monoclinal folds are the most distinctive structures 6 identified at the proposed disposal site) (DAppolonia, 1981). The Pipeline Canyon lineament is 7 the result of a tectonic system that is no longer active. The Fort Wingate lineament is similar to 8 the Pipeline Canyon lineament in origin. The Pinedale monocline passes to the northeast of 9 the proposed disposal site and is a doubly-hinged monocline of Upper Cretaceous age 10 (DAppolonia, 1981).
11 Elevations at the proposed project area range from about 2,103 to 2,195 m [6,900 to 7,200 ft]
12 amsl. Alluvial valleys, floodplains, and drainage ways along valley floors and valley sides are 13 common throughout the area. The alluvial valleys gradually transition to alluvial fans and fan 14 remnants, terminating at cones of unconsolidated sediment from escarpments of upland mesas, 15 cuestas, and plateaus.
16 As discussed previously, the proposed project area is characterized by sediments of Quaternary 17 age in the form of alluvial deposits of Pleistocene age that overlie sediments of Cretaceous age 18 (Canonie Environmental, 1991). Cretaceous sediments outcrop in the area of the proposed 19 disposal site and dip from 2 to 4 degrees to the north-northwest into the San Juan Basin. Valleys 20 carved into the Cretaceous sediments during the Pleistocene epoch are filled with alluvium. The 21 alluvium consists of interfingering, poorly sorted, lenticular deposits of clay, silt, sand, and gravel 22 (DAppolonia, 1981). The thickness of the alluvium ranges from 0 m [0 ft] in the northeastern and 23 eastern portions of the proposed disposal site to 46 m [150 ft] in the west-central portion of the 24 proposed disposal site (INTERA, 2018). The alluvium is in contact with bedrock in Pipeline 25 Arroyo and across the tailings disposal area.
26 Bedrock units at the proposed disposal site, in descending order, are the Dilco Coal Member of 27 the Crevasse Canyon Formation, the Upper Gallup Sandstone, and the Upper D-Cross Tongue 28 Member of the Mancos Shale (Canonie Environmental, 1991; INTERA, 2018). The Dilco Coal 29 Member consists of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, shale, and coal beds and is approximately 30 46 m [150 ft] thick (INTERA, 2018). The Upper Gallup Sandstone underlies the Dilco Coal 31 Member and has been subdivided into three units in the proposed disposal site area: Zone 3, an 32 upper sandstone; Zone 2, a shale and coal unit; and Zone 1, a lower sandstone unit (Canonie 33 Environmental, 1991). The sandstone units are present beneath alluvium throughout the 34 proposed disposal site, but also crop out in a limited area. The Upper D-Cross Member of the 35 Mancos Shale underlies the Upper Gallup Sandstone throughout the proposed project area and 36 is present under the alluvium at the south end of the proposed disposal site. The lithology and 37 thickness of these bedrock units are summarized in EIS Table 3.4-1.
3-13
 
Table 3.4-1        Summary of Lithostratigraphic Units at the Proposed Disposal Site (Modified from INTERA, 2018)
Lithostratigraphic Unit        Approximate Thickness                  Lithology Alluvium                        0 to 46 m [0 to 150 ft]        Unconsolidated deposits of silt, sand, and gravel in stream valleys, on flood plains, and on upslope areas adjacent to bedrock outcrops.
Crevasse          Dilco Coal    46 m [150 ft]                  Uppermost portion consists of Canyon            Member                                        light gray to yellowish-brown, Formation                                                      fine- to medium-grained sandstone and siltstone; light- to dark-gray shale and coal.
Middle portion is massive, fine-grained sandstone. Lowermost portion consists of dark gray, highly carbonaceous shale; light gray to grayish-brown shale where in contact with siltstone and sandstone.
Gallup            Zone 3, upper  21 to 27 m [70 to 90 ft]      Fine- to coarse-grained, Sandstone        sandstone                                    quartzose sandstone with a continuous, 0.6- to 2.1-m [2- to 7-ft] thick coal and shale seam in the lower part.
Zone 2, shale  4.5 to 6 m [15 to 20 ft]      Shale and coal with fine-grained and coal                                      sandstone and thin, lenticular coal interbeds at bottom of the unit.
Zone 1, lower  24 to 27 m [80 to 90 ft]      Fine- to medium-grained sandstone                                    massive sandstone with thin beds of carbonaceous shale and coal. Clay and coal content increases with depth.
Mancos Shale      Upper D-Cross  40 m [130 ft]                  Massive, dark-gray, calcareous, Tongue                                        silty shale with interbedded, Member                                        discontinuous, thin-bedded, fine-grained sandstone and siltstone.
1 3.4.3      Soils 2 A National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey map of the proposed project area 3 is depicted in EIS Figure 3.4-5 and shows that seven soil map units are present at the NECR 4 Mine Site and UNC Mill Site. Soils range in depth from very shallow {less than 12.7 centimeters 5 (cm) [5 inches (in)]} on mesas and cuestas to very deep {greater than 203 cm [80 in]} in valleys.
6 The soil map units shown in EIS Figure 3.4-5 are described in detail in Soil Survey of McKinley 7 County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of Cibola and San Juan County (NRCS, 8 2005). Characteristics of the soil map units at the proposed project area are summarized next.
3-14
 
3-15 c::::J Proposed Project Area                  D  Sparank-San Mateo-Zia complex        -      Vessilla-Rock outcrop complex f777>a                              0    0.25    0.5
          -      Buckle fine sanct, loam                -  Toldohn-Vessilla-Rock outcrop complex ~ NECR MineSite            N        ---===--*c:==iM  iles D                                              D                                        EZJ UNC Mill Site        ~
Mentmore loam Rock outcrop--Eagleye-Atchee complex Uraniummined lands D        PLSS Sections      11      0
                                                                                                                                        ---====---==:::i 0.5        1 Kilometers Figure 3.4-5                Soil Map Units at the NECR Mine Site and UNC Mill Site (Modified from INTERA, 2018)
 
1
* Uranium-mined lands compose the majority (71.7 percent) of soils within the NECR Mine 2  Site and UNC Mill Site (INTERA, 2018). Uranium-mined lands consist of all areas 3  associated with uranium mine activities including the actual mines, shafts, structures, 4  borrow pits, barren tailings and waste rock piles, evaporation ponds, and contaminated 5  waste yards. Uranium-mined lands occur on a wide variety of different soils and, unless 6  reclaimed or revegetated, have no agricultural uses.
7
* The Toldohn-Vessilla-Rock outcrop complex soil map unit consists of very shallow {less 8  than 25.4 cm [10 in] deep} and shallow {25.4 to 50.8 cm [10 to 20 in] deep} gravelly clay 9  loam and fine sandy loam. Toldohn soils are gravelly clay loams that occur on breaks, 10  ridges, and hills and are well drained. Parent material for these soils is slope alluvium 11  over residues derived from shale. Vessilla soils are fine sandy loams that occur on 12  breaks and structural benches on ridges and hills and are excessively drained. Parent 13  material of these soils is eolian and slope alluvium derived from sandstone. Rock 14  outcrops consist of barren or nearly barren areas of exposed sandstone and shale on 15  ridges, ledges, and escarpments. The Toldohn-Vessilla-Rock outcrop complex soil rock 16  unit composes 17.7 percent of soils at the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018).
17
* The Buckle fine sandy loam is a very deep {greater than 152.4 cm [60 in] deep},
18  well-drained soil that occurs in drainage ways and fan remnants on valley sides. Parent 19  material consists of eolian material and fan and slope alluvium derived from sandstone 20  and shale. The Buckle fine sandy loam makes up 7 percent of soils at the proposed 21  project area (INTERA, 2018).
22
* The Sparank-San Mateo-Zia complex soil map unit consists of very deep fine sandy 23  loam, silty clay loam, and clay loam. Sparank soils are silty clay loams that occur on 24  flood plains on valley floors and on alluvial fans on valley sides and are well-drained.
25  Parent material for these soils are fan and stream alluvium derived from sandstone and 26  shale. San Mateo soils are clay loams that occur on flood plains on valley floors and on 27  alluvial fans on valley sides and are well drained. Parent material for these soils are fan 28  and stream alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. Zia soils are fine sandy loams 29  that occur on stream terraces on valley floors and alluvial fans on valley sides and are 30  somewhat excessively drained. Parent material consists of eolian material and fan and 31  stream alluvium derived from sandstone. The Sparank-San Mateo-Zia complex soil map 32  unit makes up about 2.8 percent of soils at the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018).
33
* The Vessilla-Rock outcrop complex soil map unit consists of very shallow and shallow 34  fine sandy loam. Vessilla soils are fine sandy loams that occur on summits on mesas 35  and dipslopes on cuestas and are well drained. Parent material of these soils is eolian 36  material derived from sandstone. Rock outcrops consist of barren or nearly barren areas 37  of exposed sandstone and shale on ridges, ledges, and escarpments. The Vessilla-Rock 38  outcrop complex soil map unit composes 0.4 percent of soils at the proposed project area 39  (INTERA, 2018).
40
* The Mentmore loam is a very deep, well-drained, fine sandy loam that occurs on fan 41  remnants on valley sides and drainage ways on dipslopes on cuestas, drainage ways, 42  and valley sides. Parent material for this soil is slope and fan alluvium derived from 43  sandstone and shale. The Mentmore loam composes 0.3 percent of soils at the 44  proposed project area (INTERA, 2018).
3-16
 
1
* The Rock outcrop-Eagleye-Atchee complex soil map unit consists of very shallow and 2        shallow gravelly clay loam and fine sandy loam. Eagleye soils are gravelly clay loams 3        that occur on escarpments on cuestas and mesas and are well drained. Parent material 4        is slope alluvium over residuum derived from shale. Atchee soils are fine sandy loams 5        that occur on structural benches on escarpments on cuestas and mesas and are well 6        drained. Parent material is slope alluvium over residues derived from sandstone. Rock 7        outcrops consist of barren or nearly barren areas of exposed sandstone and shale on 8        ridges, ledges, and escarpments. The Rock outcrop-Eagleye-Atchee complex soil map 9        unit makes up 0.1 percent of soils at the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018).
10 Most of the soils at the proposed project area are well drained with a medium to very high runoff 11 potential. The NRCS evaluates the upper 100 cm [40 in] of soil for use as topsoil (NRCS, 2018).
12 Soils are rated as good, fair, or poor as potential sources of topsoil based on soil properties that 13 affect plant growth, ease of excavating, loading, and spreading material, and reclamation of the 14 borrow area. While a small percent of soils at the proposed project area are not accounted for in 15 the ER, according to NRCS data, the topsoil source ratings for soils at the proposed project area 16 are approximately 6 percent good, 2 percent fair, and 13 percent poor (INTERA, 2018).
17 Approximately 4 percent of the soils have no topsoil rating because they are composed of 18 bedrock, and the remaining percentages of the proposed project area are mapped as uranium-19 mined lands with no soils information.
20 EIS Figure 3.4-6 depicts the licensees reclamation material rating for the soil map units based 21 on NRCS data. The soils at the proposed project area with reclamation material ratings shown in 22 EIS Figure 3.4-6 are approximately 0.5 percent fair and 28.5 percent poor, while the remaining 23 71 percent of soils at the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site are mapped as uranium-mined 24 lands. A fair rating indicates that vegetation can be established and maintained, and the soil can 25 be stabilized through modification of one or more properties or the implementation of mitigation 26 measures. A poor rating indicates that vegetation and stabilization would be difficult and costly 27 (INTERA, 2018).
28 3.4.4    Seismicity 29 The licensee conducted a site-specific seismic hazard analysis of the proposed disposal site 30 (Stantec, 2019f). Seismic hazard can be characterized by the probability that an earthquake 31 exceeding a given threshold will occur in a given geographic area within a given window of time.
32 The site-specific evaluation for the proposed project area used data from earthquakes and faults 33 surrounding the UNC Mill Site. The analysis considered historic earthquake data to identify 34 major contributors to the site-wide seismic hazard and evaluated ground motions associated with 35 crustal faults likely to contribute to the site-wide seismic hazard. The NRC staff compared 36 results of the licensees site-specific seismic hazard analyses with previous seismic hazard 37 analyses conducted at the UNC Mill Site by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 38 (NRC, 1997). Results of the LLNL seismic hazard analyses indicated a peak ground 39 acceleration (PGA) of 0.196 g (acceleration due to gravity) for an earthquake with a moment 40 magnitude (Mw) of 6.25.
3-17
 
3-18 c:J Proposed Project Area D  Uran ium Mine  D  PLSS Sections  N  0      Q25      Q5 Fair Poor
                                          ~ NECR Mine Site
                                          ~ UNC Mill Site                          +  0        Q5 M~es 1
                                                                                                                ~~~~
Figure 3.4-6    Soil Reclamation Rating for Soil Units at the NECR Mine Site and UNC Mill Site (Modified from INTERA, 2018)
 
1 Recorded earthquakes on the Colorado Plateau 2 from 1887 through 2016 with Mw greater than or          Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is 3 equal to 2.5 are shown in EIS Figure 3.4-7. The          equal to the maximum ground 4 seismic hazard analysis for the proposed disposal        acceleration that occurred during 5 site included a catalog of 413 earthquakes. The          earthquake shaking at a location. PGA is 6 largest earthquake recorded was Mw of 6.5. Over          equal to the amplitude of the largest 7 99 percent of the earthquakes were relatively            absolute acceleration recorded on an 8 small, with Mw less than 5.0. For the licensees        accelerogram at a site during a particular 9 analysis, ground motions at the UNC Mill Site were      earthquake. PGA is reported in terms of 10 calculated for the average horizontal component of      acceleration due to gravity (g). The 11 motion in terms of PGA (Stantec, 2019a).                acceleration due to gravity is 980 12 Horizontal PGAs are generally larger than those in      cm/sec/sec. As an example, if the 13 the vertical direction, especially close to large        shaking at a location is measured as an 14 earthquakes.                                            acceleration of 335 cm/sec/sec
[11 ft/sec/sec], then the measured 15 Results of the seismic hazard analysis estimated shaking is 335/980, or 3.4 g.
16 mean PGAs ranging from 0.25 g to 0.3 g for 17 an average return period of 10,000 years. An            The moment magnitude scale (Mw) is a 18 event with a 10,000-year return period has a            measure of an earthquakes magnitude 19 1-percent probability of exceedance during a            (size or strength) based on its seismic 20 100-year period and less than a 10 percent              moment (a measure of the energy 21 probability of exceedance in a 1,000-year period.        released by an earthquake). The 22 These estimated mean PGAs are notably higher            moment magnitude scale is logarithmic 23 than the PGA estimated by LLNL (PGA of 0.196 g)          with an increase of one unit of magnitude 24 in the 1997 evaluation (NRC, 1997). The licensee        equivalent to an increase of 10 times the 25 speculated that the PGA reported by LLNL may be          amplitude recorded on a seismograph 26 for soft rock {the time-averaged shear-wave              and approximately 30 times the energy.
27 velocity to 30 m [98 ft] depth of 760 m/s [2,493 ft/s]}
28 and not the existing subsurface alluvium used in its 29 site-specific hazard analysis (Stantec, 2019a,f), and the values are conservative compared to the 30 LLNL value.
31 The location of Quaternary-age faults within 320 km [200 mi] of the UNC Mill Site are depicted in 32 EIS Figure 3.4-8. Quaternary faults are those that have been active during the past 1.6 million 33 years (USGS, 2018). The seismic sources evaluated in the seismic hazard analysis included the 34 following faults: the unsegmented Nacimiento fault, the interbasin faults on the Llano de 35 Albuquerque, the unsegmented Jemez-San Ysidro fault, and the unsegmented San Felipe fault.
36 These unsegmented faults are approximately 200 km [125 mi] from the site, with estimated 37 rupture lengths greater than 80 km [50 mi]. Results for the four faults considered in the analysis 38 had PGA values ranging from 0.04 to 0.07 g, with the Nacimiento fault (PGA of 0.07 g) resulting 39 in ground motions only slightly higher than the other three faults (Stantec, 2019a). These 40 estimated PGAs are notably lower than the PGAs estimated by the previously described analysis 41 of earthquake data (PGAs ranging from 0.25 to 0.3 g).
3-19
 
                                                                                                            ~~
                                                                                                                ~
LEGEND
            ~~
0 I
0*o 0 - .., ~
                                                                                                                                                                                            ~
                                                                                                                                                                                            ~
* Projecl Location
              ~
0 0
                                                                                                                                                        &#xa9;    6      0 Denver Magnitude 0
City 2.3 -3.0 ooO tOQ_
66~                      e~.2 ,~-30        &
0    i l,o 9
0  4 0
CfJ 0
0 3.1 -4.0 4.1 -5.0
                                                                                                ~ 42<}!}4.4 1
0
                                                                                  '~          -- ~    O
                                                                                                                        ~
cJ.)
52 0  oO 0  "f'
                                                                                                                                                              "'''"'11
                                                                                                                                                              ,I-"'              0 0 3-90>                  oO J?}41 0
5.1 -6.0 6.1 -6.5 fzt                                          , ~a
                                                                                    'lli 1 ~/
S,fW
                                                                                                                                                                !~J I                          ~--
0                                                                Physiog raphic Province 0        !o I                                                      ~
* Basin and Range 3
                                                                                                                                &                              I                                4.2~        5.2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~
                                                                                                            ~~  0                                                                              Q)4.1
* COiorado Plateau 4                                                                                                                          ~
                                              !                      4                o                                                                                                                                                                          (Ml
                                                              ~~
Great Plains i                  _              _
* 4.4                      2                                                              0 ro                                                                                                                                            D
                                                              ~ <0 ~
I                                  ~ ~ p - 04.4                  o                                                                                                                                                              Middle Rocky Mountains i                                    f3)                      o                  '<le,._ 8                                                    o, 0            southern Rocky Mountains
                                              !          t3            oO                                        o          oA~o                                I
* Wyoming Basin l                  coo                                                            (L) 0 0
                                                                                                                                                  """'"""I O
1//ega .'I                        JC)
Q cy u-*ot*~
                                            ,*----*--    O                u5-5 c:JI,
                                                                          ~            ip~o
                                                                                    ~- OOo0 0
                                                                                                            "'          0    - _o_
ct!~
O  !' 0 ARIZO~NA
                                                                                                                                        ~ ~                                                ----*-**-4:6't*g-**-**&#xa3;?.!c~!'..!!.~--
                                                                                                                                                                                                          "<.J 4 -  <N_EW MEXICO - *- **- * * - * - - -
I 3-20 Cb
              * . s                              Q)                      0      o                    Q s.                                                                                                        _.3  0 r---..            I <D          4_2                        oo:9                        s 9
                      }
                      \
                                    , **I                                        O    0 0 0 41 (Qilio o    (Gs i                                                                                                                  W
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      +E  s 0          &deg;                                        0 4-4
                                                                                                                                                                    !o 0                              cg        3
:049                                                    ~Bi 0 ,W                                    0 4, 4    &deg;0        AlbThgu*erque 25
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **-===*****Miles 40 50 80 100 160
                  ~*-... j
                  ,~,;;
0 o0
                                                                                                                                                                ~&#xb5;-
0          1111  -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ~
km
                          ;                                                                                                                  0
                          \
W' z    0                                                                    ~
                              ''\                                                                              0 ~5_1              O
                                '                                                                                                                                                                    Oo
                          ?
0                                                                  0 0
0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~&sect;1Ji'"rltri_c{s, NOAA Figure 3.4-7                    Historical Earthquakes Recorded in the Colorado Plateau Between 1887 and 2016 (Stantec, 2019f)
 
I                /
              ;,/ ,i
            /, --?--i:.-,{                I I
                \:.~"i,{
Proposed Disposa
      -        / ..(f      11-=            \                        Site          /                t
      ~) \
l \      Arizona \.
100 m,,                  * ,'          /                    !hterbasin faults on the
                  ''          \                            I ,\ /                                  /Liano de Albuquerque
                                            ~'\ d'                ' __.,          i* t      New Mexico l.,          \ .
200ml                                      r;      '-J . /
                                  "                                              h.i  ,.t: ~ ,
                                                                              ' ;t- i/ )
                                                                                      ~
I
                                      \                              /
                                                                                                                  \
                                                                                                              ) -"\
                                                                                                                  ~/
                                                  )                                                        ~--~
Q  37.5 75 o~--=~2~~5.;.0_ _
150 1or::::o==
225 15*0_ _
300 Kilometers 20~iles 1
Figure 3.4-8          Quaternary Faults within a 320 km [200 mi] Radius of the Proposed Disposal Site [Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS),
2020a]
3-21
 
1 3.5      Water Resources 2 This section presents a description of water resources, including surface water and groundwater 3 hydrology, water use, and water quality within and in the vicinity of the UNC Mill Site and NECR 4 Mine Site (the proposed project area). The proposed project area is in the San Juan Basin in 5 northwestern New Mexico, and surface water at the proposed project area drains via Pipeline 6 Arroyo to the Puerco River, a tributary of the Little Colorado River.
7 3.5.1      Surface Water Resources 8 3.5. 1. 1    Surface Water Features 9 The proposed project area is located within the Hard Ground Canyon-Puerco River drainage 10 basin, which is a subbasin of the Little Colorado River Basin, as shown in EIS Figure 3.5-1.
11 The Hard Ground Canyon-Puerco River Watershed is approximately 720 km2 [278 mi2]
12 and encompasses the upper reaches of the Puerco River as it runs south of Crownpoint, 13 New Mexico, to Gallup, New Mexico. Within the Hard Ground Canyon-Puerco River Watershed 14 is Pipeline Arroyo, which traverses the length of the UNC Mill Site (EIS Figure 3.5-2). Pipeline 15 Arroyo drains approximately 47 km2 [18 mi2] of land and flows northeast to southwest for 16 approximately 2.7 km [1.7 mi] until it reaches the Puerco River, which is a tributary of the Little 17 Colorado River.
18 Prior to 1967, Pipeline Arroyo was an ephemeral stream. Between 1967 and 1986, Pipeline 19 Arroyo was the recipient of approximately 140 million m3 [37 billion gallons (gal)] of water from 20 dewatering and discharge from the NECR Mine Site and dominated by discharges of up to 21 21,198 liters per minute (Lpm) [5,600 gallons per minute (gpm)] from the NECR Mine and the 22 Quivira Mine, resulting in a steady flow in the arroyo (INTERA, 2018; Shuey, et al., 2007). Since 23 1986, when mine operations ceased, Pipeline Arroyo has become an ephemeral stream again, 24 flowing primarily in response to precipitation events.
25 In addition to changes in flow, Pipeline Arroyo has also laterally migrated from its pre-1954 flow 26 path to the present flow path (INTERA, 2019). This migration is caused by scouring (the forcible 27 erosion of soil or rock by the flow of water) and sediment transport within the Pipeline Arroyo 28 channel. Based on images since the 1950s, scour may continue to deepen and widen the arroyo 29 (Stantec, 2019a; INTERA, 2019). Because of its proximity to the existing tailings impoundment, 30 the licensee has attempted to divert surface water flow in the arroyo away from the 31 impoundment. During their spring 2019 site visit, the NRC staff observed various concrete and 32 steel structure debris from these diversion efforts in the arroyo and received several public 33 comments during scoping for this EIS regarding the continued migration of Pipeline Arroyo 34 towards the existing NRC-licensed tailings impoundment (NRC, 2019b).
3-22
 
                                                                            \  San Juan County Proposed Project Area Proposed Project Area Puerco River
    - - and Pipeline
        /vroyo Hard Ground 12221 Cany on-U pper Puerco River Watershed Upper Puerco Watershed
                                          =
Interstate U.S. Hwy
                                          - - State Hwy co unties c:J NM-AZ State Line N
                                                                          -1~  --
0 0
3 5
6 10 12 20 18 30 24 Miles 40 Kilometers Figure 3.5-1            Upper Puerco and Hard Ground Canyon-Upper Puerco Watersheds 1 There are no perennial streams in the region, and other than Pipeline Arroyo, there are no other 2 significant natural surface water features in the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018). There 3 are two man-made evaporation ponds located southwest of the proposed disposal site, as 4 depicted in EIS Figure 2.2-2. The evaporations ponds are used as part of the NRC-approved 5 groundwater corrective action plan (CAP) to evaporate extracted groundwater. The licensee 6 maintains a water depth of 0.15 m [0.5 ft] in both evaporation ponds via an active groundwater 7 well known as the Mill Site Well or the United Nuclear Well.
3-23
 
- - Pipeline Arroyo*      CJ Proposed              ,------i Proposed            0    0.25 0.5          1
-***-* Puerto River
~ FEMA Zone A
~      Floodpla1rn li'.liLll Project Area l'x7xA NECR Mine Site
* L___J    Disposal Site Limits of    1*N Disturbance --* ....--
I                    Kilometers Miles 0        UNC MIii Site  - - State Hwy                  * *
* According to Stantec, 2018 b and National Hydrography Dataset (USGS, 2020b)      0 0.25 0.5    1 Figure 3.5-2              FEMA Floodplains and Pipeline Arroyo at the Proposed Project Area 3-24
 
1 3.5.1.2      Surface Water Use 2 Prior to mine dewatering and discharge practices at the NECR Mine Site (described in EIS 3 Section 3.5.1.1), surface water use in the vicinity of the proposed project area was limited due to 4 low precipitation and high evaporation (INTERA, 2018). As previously stated, Pipeline Arroyo 5 was used for NECR mine dewatering and discharge practices from 1967 to 1986, resulting in a 6 steady flow in the arroyo. During this time, Pipeline Arroyo became an important source for 7 livestock watering. UNCs ER states that at the time of the 1979 dam failure at the UNC mill 8 tailings impoundment (EIS Section 1.1.3), this surface water source was not used for human 9 consumption (INTERA, 2018). This statement is supported by New Mexico Office of the State 10 Engineers (NMOSE) Technical Report 41, which reports that during 1975, no surface water was 11 used for domestic water supply in McKinley County (Sorensen, 1977). However, some members 12 of the local community reported collecting local surface water for domestic purposes, including 13 drinking water, from Pipeline Arroyo when it had more steady flow (NRC, 2019b).
14 Use of any surface water in the State of New Mexico requires a valid permit through the NMOSE.
15 A NMOSE permit allows the grantee the ability to put surface water to beneficial use in 16 accordance with the approved conditions. As defined in 19.26.2.7 New Mexico Administrative 17 Code (NMAC) (2005), beneficial use is the direct use or storage of water by man for a beneficial 18 purpose including, but not limited to, agricultural, municipal, commercial, industrial, domestic, 19 livestock, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses. Diversion of surface water for beneficial use 20 from Pipeline Arroyo and other ephemeral streams in the vicinity of the proposed project area 21 requires a permit, although the arroyos and streams only flow in response to precipitation events 22 at present. According to NMOSE permit records, livestock watering is still the primary use of 23 surface water in the vicinity of the proposed project area (NMOSE, 2015). Surface water from 24 the San Juan River would be brought to the Navajo Nation and the City of Gallup as part of the 25 Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project to be used for municipal and industrial uses, as described 26 further in EIS Section 5.1.1.3.
27 Many people in the nearby Navajo communities have concerns regarding the safety of local 28 water but have expressed the desire to use surface water to garden or farm. Currently, in the 29 Navajo Nation, the Din&#xe9; people use surface water to irrigate farms to grow corn and other 30 agricultural products, as well as to water livestock. Surface water may also be used for 31 ceremonial purposes, such as to bless a home or sacred object, or even to be consumed as part 32 of a ceremony.
33 Downstream (southwest) of the NECR Mine Site, the Puerco River receives effluent from the 34 wastewater treatment plant in Gallup, New Mexico (INTERA, 2018). The City of Gallup 35 Wastewater Treatment Plant has a permit from the New Mexico Environment Department 36 (NMED) to discharge 13,250 m3 [3.5 million gal] of treated wastewater per day to the Puerco 37 River (NMED, 2018a). In 2018, the City of Gallup received Clean Water State Revolve Fund 38 Loan 065 from NMED to help fund upgrades to their existing wastewater treatment plant in order 39 to address the excessive odors and amounts of foam and solids in the treated effluent, and 40 thereby improving the water quality of the effluent discharged to the Puerco River (City of Gallup, 41 2018).
42 3.5.1.3      Surface Water Quality 43 Historically, surface water quality in the Gallup, New Mexico area was greatly influenced by mine 44 dewatering and discharge practices, as well as the 1979 dam failure (EIS Section 1.1.3). The 45 ER estimates that during the normal operation of the NECR Mine Site, over 558 metric tons 3-25
 
1 [615 short tons] of uranium and 260 Curies of gross alpha activity were released into Pipeline 2 Arroyo (EIS Section 3.12.1.2) (INTERA, 2018). The dam failure at the UNC mill tailings 3 impoundment released approximately 356,000 m3 [94 million gal] of mill-tailings impacted water 4 and 16,329 metric tons [18,000 short tons] of suspended solids into Pipeline Arroyo and 5 ultimately into the Puerco River (INTERA, 2018).
6 The licensees ER references a 1986 study conducted by Gallaher and Cary of the impacts of 7 uranium mining on surface waters and shallow groundwaters in the Grants Mining District, which 8 encompasses the Church Rock Mining District (INTERA, 2018). The Gallaher and Cary (1986) 9 study concluded that, as a result of uranium mining activities, the water quality in surface water 10 features in the Grants Mining District were adversely impacted. As a result of mine dewatering, 11 which occurred at the NECR Mine during the operation of the mine (EIS Section 1.1.3), surface 12 waters in the Grants Mining District had elevated concentrations of gross alpha radioactivity, 13 uranium, molybdenum, and selenium, sometimes a hundred times greater than natural 14 concentrations (Gallaher and Cary, 1986). The same study also found that in most of the Grants 15 Mining District, surface water quality was inconsistent with regional surface water uses and 16 although the quality of natural runoff in the Church Rock Mining District is likely poor, the quality 17 from mine waste pile runoff and mine dewatering is much worse, resulting in elevated 18 concentrations of arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, vanadium, gross alpha activity, and radium 19 (Ra)-226 above what is acceptable for ingestion by livestock (Gallaher and Cary, 1986). It is 20 important to note that the results of their study are applicable to the Grants Mining District overall 21 and are not necessarily indicative of water quality at specific sites (i.e., the NECR Mine Site and 22 UNC Mill Site) (Gallaher and Cary, 1986).
23 The ER also references a study by Delemos et al. (2008), Rapid Dissolution of Soluble Uranyl 24 Phases in Arid, Mine-Impacted Catchments near Church Rock, NM, which describes the analysis 25 of over 100 sediment and suspended sediment samples from seven drainage areas within the 26 Upper Puerco Watershed, including areas with no history of uranium influence, uranium-bearing-27 outcrops, and the proposed project area. Delemos et al. (2008) concluded that uranium levels in 28 sediment in the Puerco River are not elevated above background concentrations, but suggested 29 that the uranium levels being at or below background concentrations might be an indicator of the 30 dissolution (dissolving) and flushing (washing away) of soluble uranium during precipitation 31 events, potentially impacting groundwater resources. However, soil samples are only indicative 32 of the presence of contaminants that have bound to soil or sediments and are unable to capture 33 contaminants in the dissolved form. Another limitation of the Delemos study is the potential for 34 dilution of contaminated sediments with clean sediments, eventually making the levels of 35 radioactivity associated with arroyo sediments indistinguishable from natural conditions 36 (Delemos et al., 2008).
37 The Gallaher and Cary (1986) and Delemos et al. (2008) studies suggest that although the water 38 quality of surface waters in the area were impacted by the mining and milling activities in the 39 area, the water quality impacts have lessened as uranium mining in the immediate vicinity has 40 ceased and time has passed. However, both studies have limitations in their applicability: both 41 studies are over 10 years old, and due to the ability of surface water quality in the area to change 42 within that period of time, may not be representative of the current water quality conditions.
43 Unfortunately, due to the difficultly and safety concerns of collecting new site-specific surface 44 water samples (i.e., the intensity and infrequency of flow in Pipeline Arroyo), more recent and 45 site-specific surface water quality data is not available. Therefore, there is some uncertainty as 46 to the current surface water quality characteristics in the immediate vicinity of the proposed 47 project area.
3-26
 
1 A 35-km [22-mi] reach of the Puerco River from the City of Gallup Wastewater Treatment Plant 2 to the Arizona State line has been designated by NMED as impaired due to ammonia from an 3 unknown source, although no total maximum daily load concentrations have been designated 4 (NMED, 2018b).
5 3.5.1.4      Floodplains 6 Pipeline Arroyo is usually dry but can temporarily convey torrential flows following heavy rains, 7 during which scouring and sediment transport occur (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019a). During 8 the scoping period, the NRC received several comments containing anecdotal accounts of 9 flooding in Pipeline Arroyo that destroyed road channel improvement projects (NRC, 2019b).
10 MWH Global (MWH) performed flood hydrology calculations for Pipeline Arroyo because flood 11 measurements were not available. The MWH flood hydrology results indicated that the peak 12 flow of a 10-year flood in Pipeline Arroyo would be 34.4 cubic meters per second (m3/s) 13 [1,216 cubic feet per second (cfs)], a 100-year flood would have an estimated peak flow of 14 135.0 m3/s [4,766 cfs] and the estimated peak flow of the probable maximum flood, the largest 15 probable flood for Pipeline Arroyo, would be 757.7 m3/s [26,759 cfs] (Stantec, 2019g; 16 INTERA, 2019).
17 The area immediately north of the proposed project area and Red Water Pond Road has not 18 been evaluated by FEMA as a flood hazard (FEMA, 2019). The majority of the proposed project 19 area has been designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as an area 20 of minimal flood risk with the exception of a portion of Pipeline Arroyo, as shown in EIS 21 Figure 3.5-2 (FEMA, 2019). FEMA designated the Pipeline Arroyo floodplain as an area with a 22 1 percent chance of flooding annually or an area that would flood during a 100-year storm 23 (FEMA, 2019; FEMA, 1998). The 100-year floodplain covers part of the existing tailings 24 impoundments North Cell, Central Cell, and South Cell.
25 3.5.1.5      Waters of the United States and Wetlands 26 No determinations of Waters of the United States (WOTUS), as defined by the current 2020 27 regulatory definition, have been made. However, the NRC, under the 1986 regulatory definition, 28 previously found WOTUS within the general region of the proposed project area but they were 29 limited to ephemeral streams or arroyos with few perennial streams (NRC, 2009).
30 The EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) define wetlands as areas that are 31 inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to 32 support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically 33 adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, 34 and similar areas (85 FR 22250). Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National 35 Wetlands Inventory (an online mapping tool used to identify wetlands), ephemeral streams (such 36 as arroyos) and areas of sporadic ponding were identified in the proposed project area, including 37 Pipeline Arroyo and the evaporation ponds southwest of the proposed disposal site. INTERA 38 conducted a pedestrian field survey of the proposed project area (additional discussion in EIS 39 Section 3.6.2) and found no wetland vegetation present near the arroyos, evaporation ponds, or 40 tailings storage facility, except for an occasional tamarisk (INTERA, 2018). Although invasive 41 tamarisk is present, no wetland-obligate species or wetlands were identified by INTERA (2018).
42 UNC has not sought a USACE jurisdictional determination for the National Wetlands Inventory-43 identified wetlands because ground surveys verified that those areas are not wetlands. INTERA 44 stated in the ER that as there is no vegetation, species, or clear delineation of a wetland and by 3-27
 
1 the definition set forth by the EPA, there are no wetlands areas in the Project Area (INTERA, 2 2018). However, in the design approved by the EPA, UNC agreed to comply with substantive 3 Clean Water Act (CWA) provisions and regulations, which would protect any identified WOTUS.
4 Additionally, EPA would oversee CWA compliance and protect surface water features such as 5 Pipeline Arroyo and any subsequently identified waters and their adjacent wetlands, consistent 6 with the CWA.
7 3.5.2    Groundwater Resources 8 The proposed project area is located in the Gallup Groundwater Basin, as declared by NMOSE 9 (2017). The EPA, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and UNC and its contractors have conducted 10 numerous groundwater studies and groundwater sampling in this basin since 1977 (INTERA, 11 2018).
12 3.5.2.1      Regional Groundwater Resources 13 The regional groundwater basin for the proposed project area is the San Juan Structural Basin, 14 which underlies portions of Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval, San Juan, and Rio Arriba Counties in 15 New Mexico as well as Montezuma, La Plata, and Archuleta Counties in Colorado. The primary 16 water-bearing formations from oldest to youngest are Bluff-Cow Springs Sandstone (also 17 referred to as Zuni Sandstone) (Craigg, 2001), Westwater Canyon, Dakota Sandstone, Mancos 18 Shale, Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, and Quaternary Alluvium, and these are described in the 19 following paragraphs. Use of water from these resources is discussed in EIS Section 3.5.3.
20 Bluff-Cow Springs Sandstone 21 The Bluff-Cow Springs Sandstone, also referred to as the Zuni Sandstone, is of the Jurassic 22 period (Craigg, 2001). This formation can be up to 152 m [500 ft] thick, underlying portions of the 23 Dakota Sandstone, although well yields are under 189 L/min [50 gpm] (NMOSE, 2017).
24 Westwater Canyon 25 The Westwater Canyon is a sandstone member of the Morrison Formation, a uranium-bearing 26 rock unit which, near the proposed project area, has combined with the Dakota Sandstone 27 formation to create the Dakota-Westwater Canyon aquifer (EPA, 2011a). The Morrison 28 Formation in the Gallup Basin exhibits specific conductance of 0.4-2.2 millisiemens (mS) 29 [400-2,200 micromhos (mhos)] (NMOSE, 2017). The Westwater Canyon has the potential to 30 be a notable water resource for Northwest New Mexico, with potential wells yields on the order of 31 189.3 L/min [50 gpm] (NMOSE, 2017).
32 Dakota Sandstone 33 The Dakota Sandstone is approximately 30 m [100 ft] thick and is composed of coal, shale, 34 siltstone, and sandstone. This formation has well yields ranging from 37.8 L/min [10 gpm] to 35 189 L/min [50 gpm] and a specific conductance of 2,000-10,000 mhos (NMOSE, 2017).
36 Mancos Shale 37 The Mancos Shale Formation consists of three members: the Whitewater Arroyo Shale Member, 38 Two Wells Sandstone Member, and Mancos Shale Member, all of which are separated by thin 39 sandstone layers (EPA, 2011a). The Mancos Shale Member is approximately 213 m [700 ft]
3-28
 
1 thick and is interbedded with the lower portion of Gallup Sandstone of the Mesaverde Group 2 (EPA, 2011a).
3 Cretaceous Mesaverde Group 4 The Cretaceous Mesaverde Group includes several formations, most notably the Gallup 5 Sandstone and the Crevasse Canyon Formation. Wells and springs in the Gallup Sandstone 6 range in specific conductance from 0.4 to 3.1 mS [457 to 3,130 mhos] and have a wide 7 variance of yields (NMOSE, 2017). Water produced from wells in the Crevasse Canyon 8 Formation of the Mesaverde Group have a specific conductance less than 2 mS [2,000 mhos]
9 but are of insufficient capacity for municipal supply (NMOSE, 2017).
10 Quaternary Alluvium 11 The Quaternary Alluvium is the topmost water-bearing layer in the region (NMOSE, 2017). The 12 alluvium aquifer was created by the saturation of the alluvium in the Pipeline Canyon by mine 13 dewatering, which in turn generated an artificial groundwater aquifer (EPA, 2011a). Although not 14 a regionally important aquifer, the Quaternary Alluvium is used for stock wells and some public 15 water supply systems (NMOSE, 2017) and can be found deposited in arroyos, washes, and 16 stream channels (INTERA, 2018). The alluvium can reach a thickness of up to 45.7 m [150 ft]
17 and exhibits an average permeability of 10-2 cm/sec [0.004 in/sec (very well-drained) and an 18 average transmissivity of approximately 8,700 liters/day/meter (L/day/m) [7,000 gallons per 19 day/feet (gpd/ft)] (Canonie Environmental, 1987). Specific conductance of the alluvial 20 groundwater ranges from 0.3 to 4.5 mS [300 to 4,500 mhos] and has wells that yield up to 37.8 21 L/min [10 gpm] (NMOSE, 2017).
22 3.5.2.2      Local Groundwater Resources 23 The main water-bearing strata in the proposed project area are the alluvial deposits, the Upper 24 Gallup Sandstone, the Lower Gallup Sandstone, and the Westwater Canyon Sandstone (EPA, 25 2011a). Each of these strata outcrop along Pipeline Arroyo and deepen going southward from 26 the proposed project area (EPA, 2011a). Rainfall infiltrates along Pipeline Arroyo into the 27 shallow subsurface, becoming alluvium groundwater, and begins traveling southwesterly (EIS 28 Figure 3.5-3). Recharge to the aquifers occurs where the alluvium comes into contact with other 29 water-bearing formations as water passes through the formation (EPA, 2011a). The flow of the 30 groundwater in the Quaternary Alluvium, Zone 3, and Zone 1 are depicted in EIS Figures 3.5-3, 31 3.5-4, and 3.5-5 respectively.
32 3.5.2.3      Groundwater Characteristics at the Mill Tailings Impoundment 33 The hydrostratigraphic units of importance at the UNC Mill Site are the Quaternary Alluvium and 34 Zone 3 and Zone 1 of the Gallup Sandstone Member of the Mesaverde Formation (EIS 35 Table 3.4-1).
36 The groundwater in the Quaternary Alluvium, as stated previously, was created by mine 37 dewatering and aids in the recharge of underlying hydrostratigraphic units. Zone 3 of the Gallup 38 Sandstone, also known as the Upper Gallup Sandstone, underlies the Quaternary Alluvium and 39 is approximately 46 m [150 ft] thick (EPA, 2011a). Zone 1 of the Gallup Sandstone, also known 40 as the Lower Gallup Sandstone, is interbedded with upper portions of the Mancos Shale and is 41 approximately 49 m [160 ft] thick (EPA, 2011a).
3-29
 
I
                      ...                    ..,..,."        0802  '6'c9 s-,,,.
                          ' ' ....... _.,, ;              685 2.
G
                                                      ~ . Si
                                      \...
L]    NECR Mine Site                        ,. ,      Approximate Extent of N
                                                                                                +
                                                          -* Alluvium UNC Mill Site
                                                    - - UNC Tailings lmpoundment Cells Sout hwest Alluvium Monitoring Well                        D        Tow nship Bou ndary
    ,,,,--- Groundwater Elevation                  LJ Section Boundary                0  250 500        1,000    1,500 Contour
                                                                                      --=
                                                                                          --=--11111111c:::=:::::::i1 Feet
        -  Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour                                                        *  *                  ,Meters 0 55 11 0    220    330 Figure 3.5-3                Flow of Groundwater in the Quaternary Alluvium Near the Proposed Project Area (Modified from INTERA, 2018) 3-30
 
North Cell Central Cell UNC Mill Site              - Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour      N
  '11 Monitoring Well Non-Pumping Well Pumping Well Approximate Eastern D
D Boundary of Zero Saturation
.,,,,-- Groundwater Elevation Cell Boundary Township Boundary Section Boundary 0
250 500 1,000
                                                                                +  1,500 1Feet Contour                                  *
* 1 Meters 0 55110        220      330 Figure 3.5-4          Flow of Groundwater in Zone 3 Near the Proposed Project Area (Modified from INTERA, 2018) 3-31
 
02 Central Cell N
UNC Mill Site              D  Township Boundary Zone 1 Monitoring Well Groundwater Elevation Contour D
Inferred Groundwater Elevation Contour Section Boundary 0  250 500
                                                                +    1,000    1,500 Ma::::::1Ma:::::1****===::::J1 Feet
                                                      *
* 1Meters Cell Boundary 0 55110    220    330 Figure 3.5-5      Flow of Groundwater in Zone 1 Near the Proposed Project Area (Modified from INTERA, 2018) 3-32
 
1 Each of these strata outcrop along Pipeline Arroyo due to the northward dip of the rock units 2 (EPA, 2011a). It is along these outcrops in Pipeline Arroyo that precipitation infiltrates into the 3 alluvial aquifers and then flows southwesterly until reaching the water-bearing strata (EIS 4 Figure 3.5-3; EPA, 2011a). Zone 3 and Zone 1 of the Gallup Sandstone flow northeast following 5 the regional dip (EIS Figures 3.5-4 and 3.5-5; EPA, 2011a).
6 As a result of groundwater remediation activities that have occurred since 1980 (i.e., pump-and-7 treat groundwater extraction systems described in EIS Section 3.5.4.2), and the withdrawal rate 8 of the area being substantially higher than the recharge rate, water levels in the Quaternary 9 Alluvium, Zone 3, and Zone 1 have declined and are currently below the base of the tailings 10 impoundment cells. As reported in EPAs 2013 Record of Decision (ROD) for the UNC Mill Site 11 (EPA, 2013a): (i) water level data from October 2002 show as much as 12 to 21 m [40 to 70 ft]
12 of unsaturated alluvium separating the existing tailings deposits from the groundwater present in 13 the Southwest Alluvium; (ii) water level data from October 2003 show that at least 18 m [60 ft] of 14 unsaturated material separates the bottom of the tailings from the ground water found in Zone 3; 15 and (iii) water level data from October 2012 show as much as 5 to 9 m [17 to 29 ft] of 16 unsaturated material separating the tailings deposits from the ground water present in Zone 1.
17 Based on a comparison of this water level data with historic and current water elevation data 18 reported in the 2018 Groundwater Corrective Action Annual Review Report for the UNC Mill Site 19 (Hatch, 2019), water levels in the Southwest Alluvium, Zone 3, and Zone 1 continue to decline 20 and, without a substantial recharge and rise in the water table in these units, contact between 21 groundwater and the existing tailings would not occur.
22 3.5.3      Groundwater Use 23 Use of any groundwater in the State of New Mexico requires a valid permit through the NMOSE, 24 and use of wells located within the Navajo Nation requires a valid permit through the Navajo 25 Nation Water Code Department. A NMOSE permit allows the grantee the ability to put 26 groundwater to beneficial use in accordance with the approved conditions. As defined in 27 19.26.2.7 NMAC (2005), beneficial use is the direct use or storage of water by man for a 28 beneficial purpose including, but not limited to, agricultural, municipal, commercial, industrial, 29 domestic, livestock, fish and wildlife, and recreational uses. Diversion of groundwater for 30 beneficial use from any of the wells in the vicinity of the proposed project area requires a permit.
31 3.5.3.1      Regional Groundwater Use 32 As described in EIS Section 3.5.2.1, major water-bearing formations in northwestern New Mexico 33 from oldest to youngest include Bluff-Cow Springs Sandstone (Zuni Sandstone), Westwater 34 Canyon, Dakota Sandstone, Mancos Shale, Cretaceous Mesaverde Group, and Quaternary 35 Alluvium. The water from these formations is used for municipal water supply, domestic use, 36 livestock watering, mineral processing, and industrial uses.
37 The Bluff-Cow Springs Sandstone hosts five known stock wells that also provide domestic water 38 (NMOSE, 2017). The Westwater Canyon and Dakota Sandstone formations (collectively 39 referred to as Dakota-Westwater Canyon aquifers) are primarily used for municipal water supply 40 by the City of Gallup and surrounding communities (NMOSE, 2017). The Mancos Shale 41 Formation and the Crevasse Canyon Formation may provide water for stock wells and possibly 42 limited domestic use (NMOSE, 2017). Wells and springs from the Gallup Sandstone provide 43 water for public water systems, domestic use, livestock, and coal operations, with the City of 44 Gallup being the primary consumer (NMOSE, 2017).
3-33
 
1 NMOSE has deemed the current rate of groundwater use in the City of Gallup and the 2 surrounding communities as unsustainable due to the extensive drawdown in the Gallup 3 Sandstone and Dakota-Westwater Canyon aquifers (NMOSE, 2017). The Navajo-Gallup Water 4 Supply Project, an ongoing project by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), would 5 supplement the water supply of Gallup and the Navajo Nation with approximately 46 million m3 6 [37,376 acre-feet] of water annually from the San Juan River Basin (USBR, 2020a; NMOSE, 7 2017). The project is currently under construction, and legislation associated with the funding for 8 the project requires that all project construction be completed no later than December 31, 2024 9 (USBR, 2020a,b).
10 3.5.3.2      Local Groundwater Use 11 There are 129 points of groundwater diversion within and immediately adjacent to the proposed 12 project area (within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the UNC offices), 128 of which are owned by UNC (NMOSE, 13 2019). Although each well is permitted for a specific use, overall, groundwater from the 14 128 wells is used for mining, industrial, or domestic purposes, which could include drinking, 15 sanitation, equipment cleaning, decontamination, and dust control (NMOSE, 2019). The 16 remaining point of diversion is owned by the City of Gallup and is not in use (NMOSE, 2019).
17 3.5.4    Groundwater Quality 18 The historical quality of the groundwater in the Grants Uranium District has been extensively 19 studied by Federal and State agencies, researchers, and scientists. Some of the most notable 20 publications regarding the water quality in the region include Stone et al. (1983), Van Metre et al.
21 (1997), DAppolonia (1981), and EPA publications in connection with the clean-up efforts at the 22 NECR Mine Site and UNC Mill Site. Several sampling programs have been initiated to address 23 the increasing concern regarding water quality; specifically, the presence of radionuclides, total 24 dissolved solids (TDS), nitrates, and arsenic (EPA, 2018a; EPA, 2011a). The NRC and EPA 25 remedial actions for the UNC Mill Site Operable Unit 1 discusses these contaminants of concern 26 (NRC and EPA groundwater corrective actions are further explained in EIS Chapter 1 and EIS 27 Section 2.2.1.2).
28 3.5.4. 1    Regional Groundwater Quality (Including on Tribal Lands) 29 Groundwater in the region contains notably high concentrations of naturally occurring radium, 30 fluoride, arsenic, and selenium (NMOSE, 2017). Water from the Westwater Canyon aquifer is 31 impacted by the uranium ore in the formation, resulting in variable water quality, while the Dakota 32 Sandstone wells produce fair quality water (NMOSE, 2017).
33 Septic tanks are common in the region and are a concern for groundwater contamination 34 because the septic tanks are spread out over rural areas and they are considered a potential 35 non-point source of TDS, iron, manganese, sulfide, nitrate, toxic organic chemicals, bacteria, 36 viruses, and parasites (NMOSE, 2017).
37 3.5.4.2      Local Groundwater Quality 38 Monitoring and remediation of the groundwater impacted by the operations at the NECR Mine 39 Site, the UNC Mill Site, and the Quivira Mine Site have occurred since 1980. UNC performed 40 radiological monitoring in accordance with New Mexico Environmental Improvement Department 41 (NMEID), the precursor to NMED, installing over 200 groundwater monitoring wells in the 42 proposed project area (DAppolonia, 1981). These wells were monitored to evaluate the current 3-34
 
1 condition of the water and to watch for migration of any contaminants. In 1988, the EPA issued a 2 ROD under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 3 (CERCLA) requiring UNC to remediate groundwater affected by releases from the UNC Mill Site.
4 It laid out a six-pronged approach to address the threat of further migration of radionuclides and 5 chemicals from the UNC Mill Site: (i) monitor to determine the extent of migration, if any, of 6 groundwater contamination from the mill tailings impoundment; (ii) continue the existing seepage 7 extraction systems in place in Zone 3 and Zone 1 (EIS Figure 2.2-1); (iii) contain and remove 8 contaminated groundwater in Zone 3; (iv) contain and remove contaminated groundwater in the 9 southwest alluvium; (v) evaporate groundwater removed from outside the mill tailings 10 impoundment using the evaporation ponds; and (vi) monitor and evaluate the performance of the 11 remedial actions (EPA, 1988).
12 In the 2018 Groundwater Corrective Action Annual Review Report, Hatch, a contractor for the 13 licensee, noted that in the Southwest Alluvium (an area of the Quaternary Alluvium) and Zone 1 14 of the groundwater corrective action area, the natural systems were working to improve water 15 quality as effectively as active remediation was when it took place in those areas (Hatch, 2019).
16 As a result, acidic seepage is being neutralized and the concentrations of metals and 17 radionuclides in the groundwater is being reduced (Hatch, 2019). During 2018 sampling, there 18 were some exceedances of NRC concentration limits (i.e., the groundwater protection standards 19 in the NRC license) for nickel, EPA cobalt standards, and EPA chloride standards (Hatch, 2019; 20 EPA, 2018a). However, overall groundwater in the Southwest Alluvium and Zone 1 has 21 improved by natural attenuation and it continues to be monitored by UNC under EPA and NRC 22 oversight (Hatch, 2019; EPA, 2018a).
23 Active remediation is still occurring in Zone 3. 2018 groundwater quality samples in Zone 3 24 exceeded several NRC concentration limits, including beryllium, nickel, uranium, vanadium, 25 thorium-230, gross alpha, arsenic, and combined radium concentrations (Hatch, 2019). The 26 arsenic level exceedances are believed to be related to the background groundwater chemistry 27 and potential exposure of groundwater to coal or pyrite and oxygen (Hatch, 2019). The NRC 28 staff anticipates that groundwater quality in Zone 3 would continue to improve and further 29 down-gradient contaminant migration from all three hydrostratigraphic zones would continue to 30 be prevented as the groundwater CAP continues to be implemented. More information on the 31 groundwater corrective action activities can be found in EIS Section 2.2.1.2.
32 3.6      Ecological Resources 33 This section describes the ecological characteristics within the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine 34 Site (the proposed project area) and surrounding 1-km [0.62-mi] buffer from proposed disturbed 35 areas. It also discusses important plant and animal species that occur or have the potential to 36 occur at the proposed project area and habitats that are important to those species. These 37 descriptions support the evaluation of potential impacts in EIS Chapter 4, as well as mitigation 38 activities identified throughout the EIS analyses to avoid, reduce, minimize, rectify, or 39 compensate for potential impacts.
40 The licensees contractor, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. (CCA), conducted ecological surveys of 41 the proposed project area in 2009, 2013, and 2018 (Cedar Creek Associates, 2010; Cedar Creek 42 Associates, 2014a; Cedar Creek Associates, 2019). CCA also conducted a biointrusion survey 43 for the UNC Mill Site in 2014 and developed a revegetation plan in 2018 (Cedar Creek 44 Associates, 2014b; Cedar Creek Associates, 2019). INTERA also consulted with FWS, the 45 Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW), and Natural Heritage New Mexico 46 (NHNM) (INTERA, 2018). INTERAs habitat assessment conducted for the UNC proposal also 3-35
 
1 incorporated results of the New Mexico Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (NMCHAT), a 2 collaborative project between the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF), NHNM, 3 and the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (INTERA, 2018). For development of 4 this EIS, the NRC staff also reviewed prior ecological surveys and information related to the 5 ecology of the region as references and consulted with EPA, FWS, NMDGF, and NNEPA.
6 3.6.1      Description of Ecoregions Found at the UNC Mine and Mill Sites 7 The EPA, in cooperation with NMED, the USGS, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 8 NRCS, has developed a common framework for describing, classifying, and mapping ecological 9 regions of the United States for environmental resource management purposes. The UNC Mill 10 Site is located in EPAs Level IV Arizona/New Mexico Plateau ecoregion (EPA, 2013b). The 11 EPA describes the Arizona/New Mexico Plateau ecoregion as a transitional area between drier 12 shrublands and wooded tablelands to the north, forested mountains to the northeast and south, 13 and low, dry, and less vegetated basins to the west. Large areas within this ecoregion are 14 characterized as mesas, plateaus, valleys, and canyons formed from sedimentary rocks. A mix 15 of pinyon-juniper woodlands, desert scrub/shrub, and semi-desert grasslands are common in this 16 northwest New Mexico ecoregion.
17 3.6.2      Local Vegetation 18 Baseline evaluations of biological resources were conducted at the proposed project area 19 between 2009 and 2018 (EIS Section 3.6). Five vegetative communities are identified and are 20 described in this section of the EIS based on prior vegetation surveys conducted at the proposed 21 project area and a 61-m [200-ft] vegetation survey buffer around proposed disturbances for the 22 UNC proposal (INTERA, 2018; EIS Section 3.6). EIS Figure 3.6-1 shows the five vegetative 23 communities within the proposed project area and a 61-m [200-ft] buffer around proposed 24 disturbances for the UNC proposal.
25 Descriptions of the five vegetative communities are:
26
* Reclaimed - Reclaimed areas within the proposed project area have previously been 27          disturbed and have been revegetated through either natural or artificial means. Shrubs 28          and sub-shrubs and some perennial grasses dominate this vegetative community.
29          Dominant plants include rubber rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), western 30          wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), and crested 31          wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) (INTERA, 2018). Burningbush (Kochia scoparia) is the 32          most common forb (flowering plant). Although the reclaimed areas at the proposed 33          project area and within the vegetation survey buffer produce an average amount of 34          vegetative growth and woody plant density, reclaimed areas are currently in an early 35          developmental stage. As reclaimed areas mature, grasslands with year-round shrubland 36          species would gradually become the dominant plant types. At the existing stage of 37          succession, the reclaimed areas generally provide limited value to wildlife habitat but 38          stabilize the area for further successional development (INTERA, 2018). The NRC staff 39          observed reclaimed area vegetation during a site visit. The existing NRC-licensed mill 40          tailings impoundment is covered with this vegetative community and is shown in EIS 41          Figure 3.6-1.
3-36
 
N
                                                                            +
      ~ Proposed Disposal Site            Vegeta ti on Comm unity
      -        Limits of Disturbance          Bottom land
    ,----, 1 Km [O 6 Mi] W ildlife      -    Grass land l - - - 1 SurveryBo un dary          -    Pin on Junipe r    0 1,500 3,000  6,000 I        61 M [200 fl ] Vegetati on -    Reclaimed          -    -              Feet l-        Survery Boun dary          -    Ro ck              -                    Meters 0  500  1,000    2,000
                                          -    Shrubland Figure 3.6-1            Vegetative Communities at the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (Modified from INTERA, 2018) 3-37
 
1
* Grassland - Native grasslands at the proposed project area and within the vegetation 2        survey buffer are characterized by deep soils in thick-soiled alluvial valleys dominated by 3        grazing-tolerant short grasses and occasional forbs (INTERA, 2018). Almost all the 4        grassland vegetative community occurs on the northwestern portion of the NECR Mine 5        Site (see example of vegetation communities in EIS Figure 3.6-2). Where present, 6        perennial grasses provide most of the vegetative cover, followed by shrubs and 7        sub-shrubs. Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) is the dominant grass species in this 8        vegetative community. Grassland areas observed at the proposed project area typically 9        produce low levels of above-ground organic matter and average woody plant density.
10        Grassland communities in this area are generally in an intermittent developmental stage 11        and support habitat and forage for burrowing animals (e.g., burrowing owl and prairie 12        dog). Historical livestock grazing has reduced the ability for the grassland community to 13        provide good wildlife cover or the habitat capacity typical of grassland systems that have 14        not been grazed.
15
* Shrubland - Shrublands cover the least amount of land at the proposed project area and 16        within the vegetation survey buffer and are located in thick-soiled alluvial valleys where 17        drier conditions persist (INTERA, 2018). Some shrublands have invaded grassland areas 18        and areas that have been intentionally altered, such as Pipeline Arroyo. Shrubs and 19        subshrubs such as big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and threadleaf snakeweed 20        (Gutierrezia microcephala) provide the majority of vegetative cover, followed by perennial 21        grasses including blue grama. Shrublands are communities in a late developmental 22        stage that provide good cover for wildlife and support sufficient prey species (e.g., mice) 23        for predators (e.g., hawks).
Figure 3.6-2      Looking East Across the NRC-Licensed Mill Tailings Impoundment (i.e., the Central Portion of the Proposed Disposal Site) Covered by the Reclaimed Vegetative Community (Source: A. Minor) 3-38
 
1
* Pinyon-juniper - The pinyon-juniper vegetative community is located on shallow, well 2          drained soils over bedrock that support woody plants and trees instead of grasses and 3          forbs (INTERA, 2018). Dominant plants in this community include two-needle pinyon 4          (Pinus edulis), Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia stansburiana), and Utah juniper (Juniperus 5          osteosperma). The pinyon-juniper community produces dense woody plants but poor 6          organic matter content. Trees represent a mature developmental stage of vegetation 7          that, along with a shrub layer under the trees, offer a wide range of physical 8          characteristics. Because of this physical diversity, there is a good amount of wildlife 9          habitat in terms of nesting, cover, and food sources in the pinyon-juniper vegetative 10          community. However, shallow soils and typically steep slopes make pinyon-juniper areas 11          more susceptible to erosion and other land disturbances, such as excessive livestock 12          grazing and wildfires.
13
* Disturbed bottomland - The bottomland ecosystem at the proposed project area and 14          within the vegetation survey buffer is characterized by deep soils and riparian vegetation 15          where a higher amount of available water is present in the soil (INTERA, 2018). Riparian 16          areas have increased vegetative cover and more diverse plants, including noxious 17          weeds. Perennial grasses provide the majority of vegetative cover, followed by shrubs 18          and sub-shrubs. Dominant plants in the bottomland vegetative community include 19          western wheatgrass, rubber rabbitbrush, burningbush, squirreltail (Sitanion hystrix), and 20          fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens). Bottomland areas are typically important 21          communities that support prey base for predators; however, current and past grazing 22          pressure in the proposed project area and human disturbances of the bottomland 23          vegetative community have diminished its habitat value.
24 During vegetation surveys conducted between 2009 and 2018, several plants that the 25 New Mexico Department of Agriculture and the Navajo Nation Integrated Weed Management 26 Plan identifies as noxious weed species were recorded in the bottomland vegetative community, 27 including field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), nodding plumeless thistle (Carduus nutans), bull 28 thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and Scotch cottonthistle (Onopordium acanthium) (INTERA, 2018).
29 Other noxious weeds, including musk thistle (Carduus nutans) and saltcedar/tamarisk (Tamarix 30 ssp.), have been observed in the East Borrow Area in the reclaimed vegetative community 31 (Cedar Creek Associates, 2014a). Russian thistle (Salsola kali), burningbush (Kochia scoparia) 32 and bull thistle were also found in the reclaimed vegetation community. Musk thistle and 33 saltcedar/tamarisk were present in Pipeline Arroyo during prior vegetation surveys. The NRC 34 staff observed large stands of saltcedar/tamarisk south of the Jetty Area in Pipeline Arroyo 35 during a site visit to the proposed project area in March 2019.
36 In preparation for detailed vegetation surveys that CCA conducted in fall 2013, CCA compiled a 37 list of all rare and sensitive vascular plant species believed to occur on or within the Navajo 38 Nation lands near the proposed project area and used the list to determine whether they 39 encountered plants that were species of concern during the vegetation survey (Cedar Creek 40 Associates, 2010). A total of 63 species were included on the initial list, and that number was 41 reduced to 14 based on the types of habitats found in the proposed project area. An additional 42 nine species were added to the list that had been identified in the field as rare, resulting in a total 43 of 23 potential species. During the survey, all plants that were observed were documented; 44 however, special attention was given to looking for plants considered rare and sensitive plants to 45 the Navajo Nation. As described in EIS Section 3.6.4, no rare, threatened or endangered plant 46 species were found on or near the project area (Cedar Creek Associates, 2014a).
3-39
 
1 Resource Dependencies and Religious Uses of Vegetation on Tribal Lands 2 During the EIS process, the NRC staff will continue to consult with the NNEPA and address the 3 potential impacts to species of cultural significance.
4 3.6.3    Local Wildlife 5 Many types of wildlife were observed at the proposed project area during previous ecological 6 surveys listed in EIS Table 3.6.-1. The majority of wildlife that have been reported at the 7 proposed project area are birds.
Table 3.6-1        Animal Species Observed in the Proposed Project Area and within a 1-Kilometer [0.62-Mile] Buffer Species Status Common Name                          Scientific Name (if listed)
Migratory Birds American kestrel                    Falco sparvarius American pipet                      Anthus rubescens American Robin                      Turdus migratorius Black capped chickadee              Poecile atricapillus Black-throated grey warbler          Setophaga nigrescens                      BCC, SGCN Blue winged teal                    Anas discors Blue-grey gnatcatcher                Polioptila caerulea Brewers blackbird                  Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewers sparrow                    Spizella breweri                              BCC Bushtit                              Psaltriparus minimus Canyon wren                          Catherpes mexicanus Cassins flycatcher                  Muscicapa cassin Chipping sparrow                    Spizella passerina Cinnamon teal                        Anas cyanoptera                              NNSS Cliff swallow                        Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Common raven                        Corvus corax Coopers hawk                        Accipiter cooperii Crow                                Corvus brachyrhynchos Dark-eyed junco                      Junco hyemalis Downy woodpecker                    Picoides pubescens Great horned owl                    Bubo virginianus Greater road runner                  Geococcyx californianus                      NNSS Green tailed towhee                  Pipilo chlorurus Hairy woodpecker                    Leuconotopicus villosus Hermit thrush                        Catharus guttatus Horned lark                          Eremophila alpestris House finch                          Haemorhous mexicanus House sparrow                        Passer domesticus House wren                          Troglodytes aedon Juniper titmouse                    Baeolophus ridgwayi                      BCC, SGCN Lark sparrow                        Chondestes grammacus Mountain bluebird                    Sialia currucoides                            SGCN Mourning dove                        Zenaida macroura Norther flicker                      Colaptes auratus Northern harrier                    Circus cyaneus                                NNSS 3-40
 
Table 3.6-1        Animal Species Observed in the Proposed Project Area and within a 1 Kilometer [0.62-Mile] Buffer (cont.)
Species Status Common Name                        Scientific Name (if listed)
Orange-crowned warbler              Vermivora celata Pinyon jay                          Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus          BCC, SGCN Plumbeous vireo                    Vireo plumbeus Red naped sapsucker                  Sphyrapicus nuchalis Redtailed hawk                      Buteo jamaicensis Rock wren                          Salpinctes obsoletus Sage sparrow                        Artemisiospiza nevadensis              SGCN Sage thrasher                      Oreoscoptes montanus Says phoebe                        Sayornis saya Scaled quail*                      Callipepla squamata*                  NNSS Spotted towhee                      Pipilo maculatus Turkey vulture                      Cathartes aura Violet green swallow                Tachycineta thalassina Western bluebird                    Sialia mexicana                        SGCN Western kingbird                    Tyrannus verticalis Western meadowlark                  Sturnella neglecta Western scrub jay                  Aphelocoma californica Western tanager                    Piranga ludoviciana White throated swift                Aeronautes saxatalis Wilsons warbler                    Cardellina pusilla Yellow-rumped warbler              Setophaga coronata Mammals Badger                              Taxidea taxus Black tailed jackrabbit            Lepus californicus Bobcat                              Lynx rufus Bottas pocket gopher              Thomomys bottae Cliff chipmunk                      Tamias dorsalis Coyote                              Canis latranis Deer mouse                          Peromyscus maniculatus Desert cottontail                  Sylvilagus audoboni Gunnisons prairie dog              Cynomys gunnisoni                      SGCN Little pocket mouse                Perognathus longimembris              NNSS Mexican woodrat                    Neotoma mexicana Mule deer                          Odocoileus hemionus Pinyon mouse                        Peromyscus truei Plains pocket mouse                Perognathus flavescens Porcupine                          Erethizon dorsatum Rock squirrel                      Otospermophilus variegatus Western harvest mouse              Reithrodontomys megaloitis Reptiles Garter snake                        Thamnophis elegans vagrans Horned lizard                      Phrynosoma sp Plateau spotted whiptail            Cnemidophorus septemvittatus Prairie lizard                      Sceloporus undulata consobrinus Prairie rattlesnake                Crotalus viridis Western fence lizard                Sceloporus occidentalis 3-41
 
Table 3.6-1          Animal Species Observed in the Proposed Project Area and within a 1 Kilometer [0.62-Mile] Buffer (cont.)
Species Status Common Name                              Scientific Name I                                    I        (if listed)
BCC = Fish and Wildlife Birds of Conservation Concern SGCN = New Mexico Species of Greatest Conservation Need NNSS = Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife Navajo Natural Heritage Program Sensitive Species Not protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Sources: INTERA, 2018; NNDFW, 2008 1 During the March 2019 site visit, the NRC staff observed two ravens, a red-tailed hawk, and a 2 couple species of passerine birds at the NECR Mine Site. In addition to the avian species 3 observed during the NRC site visit, previous ecological surveys recorded mammalian species in 4 the proposed project area and within a 1-km [0.62-mile] buffer, including black-tailed jackrabbit 5 (Lepus californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audoboni), coyote (Canis latrans), mule deer 6 (Odocoileus hemionus), badgers (Taxidea taxus), and a variety of small rodents including Bottas 7 pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and Gunnisons prairie dogs (Cynomys gunnisoni) (INTERA, 8 2018). Prairie dogs were present northeast of the proposed disposal site in fall 2013 (Cedar 9 Creek Associates, 2014a). The Gunnisons prairie dog is listed as a species of greatest 10 conservation need (SGCN) in New Mexico, and the little pocket mouse (Perognathus flavescens) 11 is also identified as a NNDFW sensitive species (EIS Table 3.6-1) 12 In addition to the vegetation surveys that CCA conducted at the proposed project area in 2013 13 discussed in EIS Section 3.6.2, CCA also conducted small mammal surveys using trap-and-14 release methods in each of the vegetative communities (Cedar Creek Associates, 2014b). Over 15 the course of a 3-day capture survey, CCA reported that no small mammals were trapped in the 16 reclaimed and shrubland vegetative communities. One deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) 17 was trapped in the grassland and one in the bottomland vegetative communities, and 12 pinon 18 mice (Peromyscus truei) were trapped in the pinyon-juniper vegetative community. CCA stated 19 in their findings that the number of small mammals trapped was low compared to other 20 comparable habitats in the region, and that the trapping results did not reveal the presence of 21 burrowing animals such as weasels that CCA expected to encounter (Cedar Creek Associates, 22 2014b).
23 3.6.4      Protected Species and Species of Concern 24 Three plant species of concern are known to occur or have the potential to occur within McKinley 25 County that are monitored by either the FWS, the New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural 26 Resources Department (EMNRD), NNDFW, or NHNM. These species are found in areas with 27 similar environmental conditions that exist within the proposed project area. The three plant 28 species are as follows:
29
* Naturita milk-vetch (Astragalus naturitensis) - This species is identified as imperiled by 30          the State of New Mexico, and endangered by the NNHP (INTERA, 2018; NNDFW, 31          2020; NHNM, 2020). This species could potentially occur along sandstone ledges and 32          rock walls at the upper edges of canyons in the pinyon-juniper vegetative community 33          (Cedar Creek Associates, 2014a).
34
* Sivinskis fleabane (Erigeron sivinskii) - This species is identified as a species of 35          concern and imperiled by the State of New Mexico (INTERA, 2018; EMNRD, 2020; 36          NHNM, 2020). This species could potentially occur in Chinle shale in the pinyon-juniper 3-42
 
1          vegetative community (Cedar Creek Associates, 2014a). The NNDFW does not currently 2          have sufficient information to support this species to be listed as endangered, but would 3          consider more information about the species, if available, that either warrants its inclusion 4          as an endangered species or removal from consideration (NNDFW, 2020).
5
* Zuni (rhizome) fleabane (Erigeron rhizomatus) - This species is identified by the FWS as 6          threatened, as endangered and critically imperiled by the State of New Mexico, and as 7          endangered by the NNHP (INTERA, 2018; FWS, 2020; EMNRD, 2020; NHNM, 2020; 8          NNDFW, 2020).
9 Based on the results of prior vegetation surveys documented in the license amendment request 10 submitted to the NRC, including systematic pedestrian surveys for the special status species, 11 and based on agency consultations discussed previously in EIS Section 3.6, the licensee 12 determined that there are no aquatic environments that support plants that grow in water 13 saturated conditions (hydrophytic plants), and no rare, threatened, or endangered plant species 14 that occur at or within 61 m [200 ft] of proposed disturbed areas at the proposed project area 15 (INTERA, 2018).
16 Several bird species that have been observed in the proposed project area are identified by the 17 FWS as birds of conservation concern, New Mexico SGCN, or a NNDFW endangered or 18 sensitive species (INTERA, 2018; FWS, 2020; see EIS Table 3.6-1, Animals Observed). All 19 migratory birds, their feathers and body parts, nests, eggs, and nestling birds are protected by 20 the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). With few exceptions (such as the scaled quail),
21 all bird species that are native to the United States are protected by the MBTA. Eagles are 22 additionally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (FWS, 2020). No 23 Tribal, Federal, or State threatened, endangered, candidate, or proposed wildlife species have 24 been recorded within the proposed project area during prior ecological surveys; however, the 25 NNDFW reports that the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), a NNDFW sensitive species, is 26 known to occur within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018).
27 The FWS identifies three avian species that may potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed 28 project area (FWS, 2020). The licensees ER suggests that there is no suitable habitat for these 29 species within the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018). The three avian species are as 30 follows:
31
* Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) - This species is listed as threatened by the 32          FWS and endangered by the Navajo Nation (FWS, 2020; NNDFW, 2020). The NNDFW 33          also identifies the proposed project vicinity as having suitable habitat for the species, but 34          NNDFW does not report this species occurring within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the proposed 35          project area (INTERA, 2018). The FWS established critical habitat for this species on the 36          southern border of McKinley County in 2004 (69 FR 53182).
37
* Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) - This species is listed as 38          endangered by the FWS and the Navajo Nation (FWS, 2020; NNDFW, 2020).
39          According to FWS, critical habitat for this species is not present in McKinley County 40          (76 FR 50542).
41
* Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) - This species is listed as 42          threatened by the FWS and endangered by the Navajo Nation (FWS, 2020; NNDFW, 43          2020). The FWS has proposed critical habitat for this species that is not in McKinley 44          County (85 FR 11458).
3-43
 
1 In addition, the FWS identifies the Zuni blueheaded sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi) 2 (fish), a FWS threatened species, as a species that may potentially occur in the proposed project 3 area (FWS, 2020). The Zuni blueheaded sucker is listed as endangered by the Navajo Nation 4 and was once common in the Little Colorado River and Zuni River drainages, but no longer 5 occurs in the Zuni River in New Mexico (80 FR 19941; NNDFW, 2020). In McKinley County, the 6 species occurs only incidentally in Tampico Draw, the headwaters of Rio Nutria, Tampico Spring 7 (formerly known as Deans Creek), and Agua Remora (formerly known as Radosevich Creek) in 8 Cibola National Forest, approximately 32 km [20 mi] southeast of the proposed project area 9 (79 FR 43131).
10 3.7      Meteorology and Air Quality 11 A description of the meteorology and air quality at and in the vicinity of UNC Mill Site and NECR 12 Mine Site (the proposed project area) is presented in this section. As described in more detail in 13 the following sections, the climate and air quality of the proposed project area is similar to and 14 primarily characterized by the climate and air quality of McKinley County, New Mexico.
15 3.7.1      Meteorology 16 3.7.1.1      Climate 17 The climate at the proposed project area ranges from semi-arid to arid and is characterized by 18 low precipitation, abundant sunshine, and low relative humidity. Without an onsite 19 meteorological station since 1978, the proposed project areas weather is primarily characterized 20 by data from the Gallup Municipal Airport meteorological station. The National Weather Service 21 operates the Gallup Municipal Airport meteorological station, which is located about 29 km 22 [18 mi] southwest of the UNC Mill Site (INTERA, 2018). EIS Table 3.7-1 contains temperature 23 and precipitation data collected at the Gallup Municipal Airport between 1981 and 2010. The 24 monthly mean daily temperatures range from -1.83 degrees Celsius (&deg;C) [28.7 degrees 25 Fahrenheit (&deg;F)] in both January and December to 21.5 &deg;C [70.7 &deg;F] in July. The rainiest time of 26 the year happens during the summer monsoon, which typically occurs from July to September, 27 while the rest of the year is mostly dry (INTERA, 2018). From 2002 to 2017, winds at the Gallup 28 Municipal Airport were predominantly from the southwest and averaged 3.1 meters per second 29 (m/s) [6.9 miles per hour (mph)] (INTERA, 2018). The available data from an onsite 30 meteorological that operated at the UNC Mill Site from May 1977 to April 1978 is limited to wind 31 speed and direction. The average onsite wind speed from May 1977 to April 1978 was 2.0 m/s 32 [4.5 mph] (INTERA, 2018). The predominant onsite wind direction was from the southwest and 33 south-southwest; however, north winds were common from November to January. If the NRC 34 grants UNCs license amendment request, the NRC staff does not expect to include a license 35 condition requiring an onsite meteorological station.
Table 3.7-1      Temperature and Precipitation Data Collected at the Gallup Municipal Airport Meteorological Station from 1981 to 2010 Temperature (&deg;C)*                        Precipitation (cm)
Mean Daily      Mean Daily          Rain            Snow Month        Mean Daily        Minimum          Maximum        Mean Total        Mean Total January              -1.83            -10.7            7.06            2.1              16 February              0.72            -8.00            9.05            1.7              15 March                4.00            -5.55            13.5            2.0              12 April                7.83            -2.50            18.1            1.5              7.1 May                  13.1            2.50            23.7            1.4              1 3-44
 
Table 3.7-1          Temperature and Precipitation Data Collected at the Gallup Municipal Airport Meteorological Station from 1981 to 2010 (cont.)
Temperature (&deg;C)*                            Precipitation (cm)
Mean Daily          Mean Daily        Rain            Snow Month          Mean Daily          Minimum              Maximum        Mean Total      Mean Total June                      18.2                7.11                29.3            1.2                0 July                      21.5                12.1                31.1          4.42                0 August                    20.5                11.6                29.6          5.33                0 September                16.3                6.39                26.2          3.05                0 October                  9.55              -0.72                19.8            2.5                2 November                  2.83              -6.94                12.6            2.1              11 December                -1.83              -10.7                7.05            2.0              19 Annual                    9.22              -0.44                18.9          29.4              83.1
    *To convert Celsius (&deg;C) to Fahrenheit (&deg;F), multiply by 1.8 and add 32 To convert centimeters (cm) to inches (in), multiply by 0.3937 Source: Modified from National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), 2020 1 3.7.1.2      Climate Change 2 Temperature and precipitation are two parameters that characterize climate change. The 3 average temperature in New Mexico is projected to increase between 4.45 and 5.56 &deg;C [8 and 4 10 &deg;F] by the latter part of this century (2070 - 2099) (GCRP, 2017). By that time, the 5 U.S. Global Change Research Program also forecasts that precipitation levels in the region of 6 New Mexico where the proposed project area is located would decrease between 0 to 10 percent 7 during the summer, fall, and winter and decrease between 10 to 20 percent during the spring 8 (GCRP, 2017). Additional climate change projections for the State of New Mexico by the NCEI 9 (NOAA, 2017) include (i) an increase in drought intensity, (ii) an increase in the number of 10 extremely hot days, most prominently in the eastern plains of New Mexico, (iii) an increase in the 11 frequency and severity of wildfires, and (iv) no increase or upward trend in the frequency of 12 extreme precipitation events, which is in contrast to projections for many other areas of the 13 United States.
14 3.7.2    Air Quality 15 3.7.2.1      Non-Greenhouse Gases 16 The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that specify maximum 17 ambient (outdoor air) concentration levels for the following six criteria pollutants: sulfur dioxide, 18 nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, lead, and particulate matter (PM) (both PM10 and 19 PM2.5). PM10 refers to particles which are 10 micrometers [3.9 x 104 in] in diameter or smaller, 20 and PM2.5 refers to particles which are 2.5 micrometers [9.8 x 105 in] in diameter or smaller.
21 States may develop standards that are stricter or that supplement the EPA NAAQS.
22 New Mexico promulgated both stricter and supplemental ambient air standards. EIS Table 3.7-2 23 contains estimated ambient air concentrations and associated Federal and applicable 24 New Mexico ambient air standards. The proposed project area is located adjacent and south of 25 Navajo Nation land as well as Navajo Nation Trust land, as described in EIS Section 3.2.1 (EIS 26 Figure 3.2-2). The NNEPA can regulate air quality as described in the Navajo Nation Air 27 Pollution Prevention and Control Act.
3-45
 
Table 3.7-2          Estimated Background Pollutant Concentrations for the Proposed Project Area and National (NAAQS) and Applicable New Mexico Ambient Air Quality Standards (NMAAQS)
Estimated                  Standards (&#xb5;g/m3)*
 
===Background===
Averaging          Concentrations              National            New Mexico Pollutant                Time                  (&#xb5;g/m3)*              (NAAQS)                (NMAAQS) 1 hour                2,203              40,069.6                  14,997.5 Carbon Monoxide 8 hours                1,524              10,303.6                  9,960.1 Hydrogen Sulfide            1 hour                unavailable        not applicable            13.9 1 hour                52.1                188.03                    188.03 Nitrogen Dioxide            24 hours              52.1                not applicable            188.03 annual                11.0                99.66                      94.02 Ozone                      8 hours                unavailable        137.3                      137.3 Particulate Matter          24 hours              11.77              35                        35 PM2.5                      annual                4.19                12                        12 Particulate Matter                                                    150 24 hours              50.0                                          150 PM10 1 hour                5.31                196.4                      196.4 3 hours                5.31                1309.3                    1309.3 Sulfur Dioxide 24 hours              5.31                not applicable            261.9 annual                0.219              not applicable            52.4
* To convert g/m3 to oz/yd3 multiply by 2.7 x 10-8 not applicable = the State has a supplemental standard without a national standard counterpart Note: The sulfur dioxide 3-hour standard is a secondary standard (safeguard the environment and property damage), whereas the other standards in this table are primary standards (protect public health).
Sources: Trinity Consultants, 2020 1 EPA requires States to monitor ambient air quality and evaluate compliance with the NAAQS.
2 Based on the results of these evaluations, EPA assigns areas to various NAAQS compliance 3 classifications (e.g., attainment and nonattainment) for each of the six criteria air pollutants. An 4 attainment area is defined as a geographic region that EPA designates meets the NAAQS for 5 that pollutant. A nonattainment area is defined as a geographic region that EPA designates does 6 not meet the NAAQS for that pollutant. These EPA classifications characterize the air quality 7 within a defined area, which can range from portions of cities to large Air Quality Control Regions 8 (AQCR) comprising many counties. An AQCR is a Federally designated area for air quality 9 management purposes.
10 The proposed project area is located in the Four Corners Interstate AQCR, which includes the 11 northwestern portion of New Mexico (EIS Figure 3.7-1) as well as five Colorado counties and 12 eight Utah counties (40 CFR 81.121). This AQCR is classified as in attainment for each criteria 13 pollutant (see 40 CFR 81.332) with the background concentrations below the ambient air 14 standards. Based on this attainment classification, the air quality at the proposed project area is 15 considered good. Ambient air pollutant levels are characterized for both the proposed project 16 area (EIS Table 3.7-2) and McKinley County (EIS Table 3.7-3). There are no ambient air 17 monitoring stations that collect data (i.e., pollutant concentrations) used to assess compliance 18 with NAAQS within McKinley County. Therefore, to support UNCs proposal, NMED staff 19 provided INTERA with estimates of appropriate background concentrations for the proposed 20 project area, which are included in EIS Table 3.7-2 (INTERA, 2018). EIS Table 3.7-3 contains 21 air pollutant emission levels for McKinley County as documented in EPAs National Emission 22 Inventory. The emissions detailed in EIS Table 3.7-3 include both stationary and mobile 23 sources.
3-46
 
D UNCOffices New Mexico Portion_of Ai r Qualrty Control Region 3 Wind Turbines
                                  =    Interstate
                                  - - U.S. Hwy l[___J 80-Krn [50-Mi] Radius Counti es 0
0 12.5 25 15 30    60 50 90 75      100 Kilomete rs 120 Mil es Figure 3.7-1            New Mexico Portion of the Four Corners Air Quality Control Region Table 3.7-3              Annual Air Pollutant Emissions in Metric Tons* from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys 2014 National Emission Inventory for McKinley County, New Mexico Particulate Carbon                                                  Matter      Particulate Monoxide                Nitrogen Oxides                    PM10      Matter PM2.5        Sulfur Dioxide 22,028                      10,506                    33,771        4,030                748
*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231 Source: EPA, 2020a 3-47
 
1 Regarding characterization of potential receptors close to the proposed project area, the nearest 2 residence from UNCs proposed action is approximately 0.22 km [0.14 mi] north of the NECR 3 Mine Site property boundary. EIS Figure 3.2-1 shows the location of various receptors to the 4 UNC Mill Site. This includes NM 566 and Pipeline Road, both of which are partly located within 5 the proposed project area. The waste being transported from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC 6 Mill Site would cross NM 566, as shown in EIS Figure 2.2-2.
7 EPA also established Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) standards (40 CFR 52.21) 8 that set maximum allowable concentration increases for nitrogen dioxide, PM2.5, PM10, and sulfur 9 dioxide above baseline conditions in attainment areas. In part, the purpose of this requirement is 10 to ensure that air quality in attainment areas remains good. There are several different classes 11 of PSD areas. Different standards were developed for these different classes, with Class I areas 12 having the most stringent requirements. The proposed project area is located in a Class II area.
13 The closest Class I area to the UNC Mill Site is Petrified Forest National Park, located 14 approximately 119 km [73.9 mi] to the southwest.
15 3.7.2.2    Greenhouse Gases 16 Greenhouse gases, which can trap heat in the atmosphere, are produced by numerous activities 17 such as the burning of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 18 oxide, and certain fluorinated gases. These gases vary in their ability to trap heat and in their 19 atmospheric longevity. Greenhouse gas emission levels are expressed as carbon dioxide 20 equivalents (CO2e), which is an aggregate measure of total greenhouse gas global warming 21 potential described in terms of carbon dioxide and accounts for the heat-trapping capacity of 22 different gases. Present-day carbon dioxide concentrations in the air are around 400 parts per 23 million (ppm), and by the end of the century, these levels are estimated to range between 24 450 and 936 ppm (GCRP, 2017).
25 In 2010, EPA promulgated a phased approach known as the Tailoring Rule to address 26 greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act permitting programs. This rule established 27 thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions that define whether sources are subject to EPA air 28 permitting. As initially constituted, the Tailoring Rule specified that new sources, as well as 29 existing sources with the potential to emit 90,718 metric tons [100,000 short tons] per year of 30 CO2e, were subject to EPA PSD and Title V requirements. Modifications at existing facilities that 31 increase greenhouse gas emissions by at least 68,039 metric tons [75,000 short tons] per year of 32 CO2e were also subject to Title V requirements. Revisions to this rule have not changed these 33 thresholds (EPA, 2016).
34 3.8      Noise 35 Noise is considered in this EIS because it may interfere with people and wildlife present in the 36 surrounding area. This section provides a description of existing noise sources within the UNC 37 Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area) and surrounding area, and other 38 resources that could be affected by noise generated from the proposed project.
39 The definition of noise is an unwanted or disturbing sound. Sound measurements are 40 described in terms of frequencies and intensities. The decibel (dB) is used to describe the sound 41 pressure level. The A-scale on a sound level meter best approximates the audible frequency 42 response of the human ear and is commonly used in noise measurements. Sound pressure 43 levels measured on the A-scale of a sound meter are abbreviated dBA. Generally, sound level 44 changes of 3 dBA are barely perceptible, while a change of 5 dBA is readily noticeable by most 3-48
 
1 people. A 10 dBA increase is usually perceived as a doubling of loudness. A list of various 2 common noises, the associated dBA, and the possible effects on the listener are shown in EIS 3 Table 3.8-1.
Table 3.8-1          Common Noises and Associated Decibel Levels in dBA Decibels in dBA                      Equivalent Sound                                  Effect 130-150          Firecrackers                                  Pain and ear injury 120              Standing next to a siren                      Very painful 110              Shouting or barking in the ear                Hearing loss possible in less than 2 minutes 100              Car horn at 5 m [16 ft], and sporting          Hearing loss possible after events at large arenas                        15 minutes 80-90            Gas-powered lawn equipment (lawn              Hearing damage possible with mower, leaf blower); motorcycle                1-2 hours of exposure 70                Washing machine, dishwasher                    Potentially bothersome to some people 60                Conversation in a restaurant, air conditioner 50                Quiet suburb, conversation at home Noises at these decibels typically do 40                Library, bird calls, refrigerator hum not cause hearing damage 30                Quiet rural area 20                Whisper, rustling leaves 10                Breathing Modified from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 (https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html).
4 3.8.1      Sound Sources and Potential Receptors 5 Existing noise sources were analyzed in the licensees ER within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius from the 6 center of the proposed project area (UNC offices). Portions of Navajo Nation land, Navajo 7 Nation Trust land, and BLM land are within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the center of the proposed project 8 area (EIS Figure 3.2-3). The primary source of background noise within the proposed project 9 area is traffic from NM 566 and Red Water Pond Road. The closest receptors of noise to UNCs 10 proposed action are the residents of the Red Water Pond Road Community. The nearest 11 resident is approximately 0.22 km [0.14 mi] north of the NECR Mine Site property boundary.
12 Because of the planned disturbance at the NECR Mine Site as part of the mine waste removal 13 action, the Red Water Pond Road Community residents are considered sensitive noise 14 receptors.
15 There is no noise monitoring data available for the proposed project area, but the baseline 16 (background) noise level can be estimated based on known noise ranges and land use. EIS 17 Section 3.2 describes the surrounding land as sparsely populated with a mix of land ownership.
18 The baseline average noise level over a 24-hour period for sound energy in an undeveloped, arid 19 environment ranges from 22 to 38 dB [28 to 44 dBA], while urban noise levels can be as high as 20 78 dB or 84 dBA. Due to the low density of residents in the area and the primary land use of 21 livestock grazing, the licensee estimates that the baseline noise level is less than 50 dB or 22 56 dBA (INTERA, 2018). Based on the sparse population and lack of development, the NRC 3-49
 
1 staff estimates that the baseline noise level is similar to that of a quiet rural area, around 30 dBA 2 (EIS Table 3.8-1).
3 3.8.2      Noise Regulatory Controls 4 Noise level standards are established by Federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of 5 Housing and Urban Development (HUD) (24 CFR Part 51), the EPA (EPA, 1974), the Federal 6 Highway Administration (23 CFR Part 772), and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health 7 Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR Part 1910). Because the proposed project is located in 8 McKinley County, New Mexico, and on Navajo Nation land, the licensee reached out to McKinley 9 County, NNEPA, and the local chapters of the Navajo Nation (Church Rock, Coyote Canyon, and 10 Pinedale Chapters) to determine any non-Federal applicable noise regulations (INTERA, 2018).
11 The Navajo Nation OSHA Office confirmed that the Navajo Nation uses the U.S. Department of 12 Labor OSHA noise limits for all construction on Navajo lands. McKinley County confirmed that 13 there is no noise ordinance enforced by the county. Neither New Mexico, McKinley County, nor 14 NNEPA have ordinances or regulations governing noise (INTERA, 2018). Two Navajo chapters, 15 Church Rock and Pinedale, confirmed that there are no applicable noise regulations, and Coyote 16 Canyon Chapter did not respond to INTERAs attempts to contact them. Copies of 17 communications between INTERA, McKinley County, the Navajo Nation OSHA Office, and the 18 local chapters of the Navajo Nation (Church Rock, Coyote Canyon, and Pinedale Chapters) were 19 provided in the licensees ER in Appendix B (INTERA, 2018).
20 The EPA has defined a goal of 55 dBA for average 24-hour sound levels in outdoor spaces 21 (EPA, 1974). OSHA standards prescribe the maximum noise levels that employees can be 22 exposed to within a facility. For an 8-hour work period, sound levels must remain below 90 dBA 23 or noise abatement measures must be taken to comply with OSHA [29 CFR 1910.95(b)(2)].
24 HUD guidelines are that noise levels at 65 dBA or below are acceptable in a residential setting in 25 normal situations.
26 3.9      Historical and Cultural Resources 27 This section describes the historic properties that may be affected by activities related to UNCs 28 proposed action. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to 29 consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are defined 30 as resources that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The 31 criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR 60.4 and include (a) association with significant events 32 in history; (b) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; (c) embodiment of 33 distinctive characteristics of type, period, or construction; and (d) sites or places that have 34 yielded or are likely to yield important information. The historic preservation review process 35 (NHPA Section 106) is outlined in regulations the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 36 issued in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties.
37 The decision to grant or deny the proposed UNC license amendment is a Federal action 38 (undertaking) that could affect either known or undiscovered historic properties located on or 39 near the UNC Mill Site. In accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, the NRC is required to 40 make a reasonable effort to identify historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE). The 41 APE for this review is an area that includes both direct and indirect effects as prescribed in the 42 implementing regulations of NHPA Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800). The location, 43 components, and size of the APE are described in EIS Section 3.9.2.
3-50
 
1 If historic properties are present or affected, the NRC is required to document identification 2 efforts and findings with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (NMSHPO) and the 3 Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (NNTHPO), and to assess and resolve possible 4 adverse effects of the undertaking before proceeding with licensing. The NRC staff contacted 5 the NMSHPO and Indian Tribes as described in EIS Section 1.7.2 and 1.7.3, and gathered and 6 reviewed documentation regarding previous efforts to locate and evaluate historic properties 7 located where activities related to the UNCs proposal would occur. These efforts and findings 8 are discussed in the next sections. A record of consultations between the NRC staff and Federal 9 and Tribal agencies can be found in EIS Appendix A.
10 3.9.1      Cultural History 11 The following cultural history summarizes information contained in cultural resource reports 12 relevant to the undertaking, principally Boggess and Begay (2005). This brief description 13 outlines the typically employed periods used to subdivide prehistory in the region, and overviews 14 changing material culture, settlement patterns, and cultural adaptations through time.
15 Paleoindian Period [ca. 10,500 to 5500 before current era (BCE)] The earliest identifiable 16 cultural period in the area near the Church Rock project is the Paleoindian (Anderson and 17 Faught, 2000). Settlement during the Paleoindian period is currently understood to include 18 small, highly mobile bands of hunter-gatherers who may have relied upon and followed herds of 19 large animals, including the now extinct ancient bison and mammoth. Diagnostic finds from the 20 period include lithic toolkits characterized by the inclusion of large lanceolate projectile points 21 such as the well-known fluted Clovis spearpoints, from which the earliest culture of the period 22 draws its name. This culture-defining projectile point is named after the town of Clovis, New 23 Mexico, where fluted points were documented in associated extinct Pleistocene megafauna at 24 the Blackwater Draw site in the early twentieth century. Little evidence of permanent structures 25 has been associated with sites of the period, reinforcing the inference that Paleoindian peoples 26 lived a largely nomadic lifestyle. Folsom and Plano cultures appear to have followed similar 27 lifestyles but are distinguishable by the use of diagnostic project point forms (i.e., shaped stone 28 for tools such as knives and arrowheads) (Cordell, 1997; Judge and Dawson, 1972).
29 Archaic Period [ca. 5000 BCE to current era (CE) 400] Following the Paleoindian, increased 30 evidence of the utilization of a wider range of plants and small game animals marks the 31 beginning of the Archaic period. This change is often associated with large-scale climatic 32 changes that may have contributed to the extinction of megafauna. Settlements patterns were 33 likely more cyclical than nomadic, with movement limited to smaller areas and a more diverse set 34 of resources exploited on a recurring basis. Archaeologically, the Archaic period is seen in a 35 transition from an earlier lithic toolkit focused on megafauna hunting and processing to a greater 36 diversity of shorter stemmed and notched types along with the inclusion of groundstone 37 implements likely employed in processing plant foods. Locally, Archaic-period sites are 38 associated with the Oshara tradition and can generally be subdivided in a group of early and late 39 phases (Irwin-Williams, 1973). Chronologically, the early group includes the Jay (5550 to 40 4800 BCE), Bajada (4800 to 3200 BCE), and San Jose (3200 to 1800 BCE) phases. Sites of 41 these phases are found on cliff tops and canyon heads and tend to increase in number and size 42 over time. San Jose phase sites include evidence of temporary structures and groundstone 43 tools, suggesting an expanding reliance on plant foods. The late Archaic group includes the 44 Armijo (1800 to 800 BCE) and En Medio (800 BCE to CE 400) phases. These phases continue 45 to exhibit growth in the size and density of settlement; the earliest evidence of the introduction of 46 maize is seen in the Armijo phase, and the earliest small projectile points likely associated with 47 the use of bow-and-arrow technology appear in the En Medio phase.
3-51
 
1 Anasazi-Ancestral Pueblo Period (ca. CE 400 to 1540) The subsequent Anasazi or Ancestral 2 Pueblo period reflects a widespread reliance on agriculture and is typically subdivided across 3 much of the Southwest region into a sequence known as the Pecos Classification developed by 4 Kidder (1927). This cultural sequence locally includes Basketmaker III, Pueblo I, Pueblo II, 5 Pueblo III, and Pueblo IV phases.
6 Basketmaker III phase (CE 400 to 750) sites include formal pithouse structures arranged in 7 settlements with up to 20 houses, with evidence of agriculture practiced alongside more 8 traditional hunting and gathering. Sites are often located on mesa tops near arable land, 9 although others are more deeply buried on canyon floors (Cordell 1997). Ceramic types 10 diagnostic of the Basketmaker III phase include Lino Gray and subsequent pattern-decorated 11 Lino Black-on-gray. The Pueblo I phase (CE 750 to 920) is defined by the appearance of 12 above-ground masonry dwellings and proto-kivas. The appearance of painted ceramics, 13 predominantly neck-banded Kanas Gray and Lino plain and decorated types typify this phase.
14 Small bow-and-arrow projectile points had largely replaced larger forms by this phase, and sites 15 are often found in floodplains and canyon floors in proximity to agricultural fields.
16 The Pueblo II phase (CE 920 to 1120) includes sites with more complex multi-story masonry 17 dwellings with adjoining kivas. Site size and complexity continues to increase through the 18 Pueblo II phase. Ceramics of this phase are more diverse and include a variety of black-on-19 white and polychrome types. Complex canal systems, terraced gardens, and road systems are 20 further evidence of the increased importance of agricultural, trade, and socio-political interaction 21 during this time.
22 The Pueblo III (CE 1120 to 1300) phase marks a shift from the earlier trajectory of 23 ever-increasing settlement sizes, with evidence of depopulation and site abandonment. A range 24 of explanations has been suggested for this occurrence, including disease, inter-group conflict, 25 and crop failures. Ceramic types of this period are largely imported from other regions, such as 26 the Mesa Verde to the north (Toll et al., 1980).
27 The Pueblo IV (CE 1300 to 1540) phase includes the abandonment of most sites in the general 28 vicinity of the project area. Trails through the area served as important trade routes between the 29 Zuni and Pueblos of the Rio Grande, Galisteo Basin, and Pecos areas. Pratt and Scurlock 30 (1990) suggest the earliest ancestral Navajo and Apache peoples may have entered the area as 31 early as CE 1000, although most did not arrive until the 1400s from the Great Plains and Rocky 32 Mountains, practicing more mobile hunting lifestyles before adopting horticulture from 33 neighboring Pueblo peoples.
34 Historic Period (CE 1540 to 1955) The Spanish were the first European explorers to enter the 35 region, with an expedition led by Antonio de Espejo making contact with local Pueblos and 36 Navajos in 1583. Missions were established in the area in the early 1600s, although Navajo 37 resisted the intrusion with raids. After raids in the 1620s, the Spanish ceased attempts to 38 convert the Navajo in 1629; however, Spanish livestock had already changed the Navajo 39 economy. Navajo and other groups continued resistance against the Spanish, including a revolt 40 in 1680 by the Rio Grande Pueblos and Navajo. Many Pueblo villagers joined the Navajo in the 41 1690s after the Spanish reclaimed Santa Fe and brought most Pueblos under control of their 42 missions. After a period of relative peace in the first half of the eighteenth century, Spanish 43 settlers were given land grants in areas used by the Navajo for hunting and grazing that sparked 44 decades of conflict until a peace treaty was signed in 1805 granting Navajo land rights. Those 45 rights were soon violated by Spanish settlers and conflict resumed, splitting the Navajo in 1819 46 with one group submitting to Spanish authority and another joining the Ute to continue fighting.
3-52
 
1 Spanish attacks were successful in scattering the resistors and another treaty was signed 2 in 1819.
3 As Mexico fought for independence from Spain in 1821, Anglo-American traders began to enter 4 the area on the Santa Fe trail. Cycles of conflict continued between Mexico and the Navajo until 5 the United States gained the New Mexico territory at the conclusion of the Mexican-American 6 War in 1848. After several military campaigns, the Navajo and Ute were placed on reservations 7 and forts were established to protect American settlements on the Rio Grande in the 1850s. The 8 establishment of Fort Fauntleroy in 1860 marked the beginning of a period of strife for the 9 Navajo. Military conflict, drought, famine, and displacement led to the surrender of thousands of 10 Navajo in the mid-1860s. The U.S. government attempted to force the Navajo to adopt 11 sedentary, agricultural lifestyles on the Bosque Redondo Reservation. In 1868, the Navajo were 12 allowed to return to their homeland and the present Navajo Reservation was established, 13 although the U.S. government still attempted to force the Navajo to adopt agricultural lifestyles.
14 In 1880, the railroad reached the area, opening it to large-scale white settlement. The town of 15 Gallup developed around a station, saloon, and several coal companies that by the late 1800s 16 had over 50 mines in operation. McKinley County was established in 1899 with Gallup as the 17 county seat. Nearby Fort Wingate was established in 1868 on the site of former Fort Lyon and 18 Fort Fauntleroy. The post briefly closed in 1911 but reopened in 1912 to house Mexican 19 refugees during the Poncho Villa revolution. The U.S. Army Ordnance Department took over 20 operations of the fort in 1918, which has since served as a munitions storage facility.
21 Trading posts were established on the Navajo Reservation and surrounding area in the early 22 20th century, and wool, woven blankets, jewelry, and other goods were principal commodities 23 produced for sale. Along with this trade, government and mission-run schools helped develop a 24 more commercially focused economy among the Navajo; however, the Great Depression and 25 harsh climatic conditions in the 1930s severely impacted local and regional economic growth.
26 The regional economy quickly rebounded with the onset of World War II, and thousands of local 27 Navajo worked in war-related construction industry and served in the U.S. armed forces. In the 28 postwar years, a decline in railroads coupled with increased automobile culture contributed to the 29 growing tourism industry along Route 66 and Interstate 40. The resurgence of coal mining, 30 uranium mining, and local brickmaking also contributed to the areas growth between 1940s and 31 1980s (Fugate and Fugate, 1989).
32 The licensees ER provides a brief overview of cultural history within and around the proposed 33 project area, including more recent local developments, which is summarized next. The ER 34 states that portions of the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site where activities related to the 35 UNCs proposed action would occur are located in the Church Rock, Coyote Canyon, and 36 Pinedale Chapters of the Navajo Nation (INTERA, 2018; EIS Figure 3.2-3). The name Church 37 Rock refers to a sandstone formation at the south edge of the Church Rock Chapter that 38 resembles a church. The sandstone formation is known as Ts&#xe9; i&#xe1;h&#xed; (Standing Rock). The 39 Navajo name for the chapter is Kin&#322;itsoh sinil&#xed;, often translated as Group of Yellow Houses.
40 The name likely refers to a cluster of houses once known as Indian Village constructed during 41 the World War II era near the intersection of old U.S. Route 66 and NM 566. A modern housing 42 development has replaced the old housing tract.
43 Discovery of uranium in the Church Rock area in 1962 by the Pinon-Sabre Corporation and in 44 1966 by Kerr-McGee led to competitive bid leases by the Navajo Nation. UNCs Church Rock 45 Mine began operations shortly thereafter. The production of uranium on these leases was part of 46 a larger San Juan Basin trend. Many Navajos worked in the uranium mines.
3-53
 
1 Many of the community members of the Navajo Nation raise livestock, including sheep, goats, 2 cattle, horses, llamas, and alpacas. The predominant species is sheep, followed by cattle and 3 goats. Livestock still play an important role in the lives of Navajo people.
4 The licensees ER describes the results of the review of sacred site files and maps at the Navajo 5 Nation Historic Preservation Department (NNHPD), which are not publicly available (INTERA, 6 2018). Based on the review of the files and map, the proposed project is situated in a region 7 important in Navajo ceremony and culture. Specific ceremonies that have history and locations 8 where offerings are given in conjunction with traditional Navajo prayers in the area include 9 H&#xf3;zh&#xf3;&#xf3;j&#xed; (Blessingway) and T&#322;&#xe9;ej&#xed; (Nightway). Information maintained by the NNHPD refers to 10 the general area as a route for the Western Water clans return to Navajo lands, and it suggests 11 the area as a possible route for certain ceremonial progenitors between Jemez Pueblo (to the 12 northeast) and Walpi on the Hopi mesas (to the west). The NNHPD information also suggests 13 that there are unrecorded ceremonial traditions, and further hints of an early Navajo habitation in 14 the area (INTERA, 2018).
15 In the discussion of cultural and historic resources in the following EIS subsections, the NRC 16 staff refers to archaeological sites and cultural resources at or near the proposed project area 17 and their eligibility for listing on the NRHP. As part of the NRC staffs review of cultural and 18 historic resources, field investigators or surveyors that conduct archaeological surveys and other 19 cultural resource investigations recommend to the NRC whether each of the recorded 20 archaeological sites is or is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, or if further evaluation work is 21 necessary. Field investigators and surveyors also make recommendations to the NRC about the 22 management of the sites, such as whether the site should be avoided or monitored. For 23 historical context relevant to this EIS, a summary of the recommendations made during previous 24 archaeological surveys and other cultural resource investigations in the project area are 25 summarized in the following subsections. These recommendations inform the NRC staffs 26 analysis and conclusions for this proposed action. EIS Section 4.9 provides information that will 27 aid the readers understanding of how the NRC staff developed determinations on site eligibility 28 and potential effects to the NMSHPO and NNTHPO for review; how the NRC staff considers 29 impacts to all historic and cultural resources regardless of eligibility for listing on the NRHP; and 30 how the licensee, EPA, NRC, the NMSHPO and the NNTHPO would coordinate the 31 management of historic and cultural resources during the execution of proposed action, if a 32 license amendment is granted.
33 The NRC staff, EPA, and NNTHPO are currently developing a programmatic agreement that 34 would describe the mitigation measures that the licensee would follow during the implementation 35 of the proposed action, if approved. Because a programmatic agreement has not been 36 executed, the NRC staff provides a discussion of the potential impacts to historical and cultural 37 resources in EIS Section 4.9 both with and without recommended mitigation measures. The 38 impact analysis for historical and cultural resources in this EIS will be updated once a 39 programmatic agreement has been executed by the NRC staff, EPA, and NNTPHO.
40 3.9.2    Area of Potential Effect 41 As defined in the NHPA Section 106-implementing regulations (36 CFR 800.16), the area of 42 potential effects refers to the areas of an undertaking that may directly or indirectly cause 43 adverse effects to historic properties. Therefore, the NRC has defined APEs for both direct and 44 indirect effects. The APE for direct effects includes those portions of the UNC Mill Site and the 45 NECR Mine Site where ground-disturbing activities related to the UNCs proposal would occur.
46 To the west of NM 566, these areas include the NECR Mine Site, the access and haul roads, 3-54
 
1 support zones, and the proposed conveyor (Alternative 1A) and topsoil stockpile area 2 (Alternative 1B). On the east side of NM 566, the APE for direct effects includes the Jetty Area, 3 staging area, proposed disposal site, and four borrow areas (north, south, east, and west) and 4 their associated haul roads. In total, the APE for direct effects covers 150.1 ha [370.8 ac].
5 Given the nature of the proposed action, with limited permanent alteration to the present grade 6 and appearance of the landscape, the NRC staff has determined that the APE for indirect effects 7 includes a 1.6-km [1-mi] radius around the direct APE. The aspects of a historic property that 8 measure its integrity, or the authenticity of the historic property, include location, design, setting, 9 materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (Moffson, 2020). In this instance, indirect 10 effects would largely be limited to the aspects of integrity, such as setting, for above-ground 11 historic properties. In total, the APE for indirect effects covers 2,712.8 ha [6,703.4 ac].
12 3.9.3    Historic and Cultural Resources Investigations 13 Past Studies and Surveys 14 Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources Management (DCRM) conducted several archaeological surveys 15 and other cultural resource investigations within and near the proposed project area. A list of 16 seven known historic and cultural reports from 1974 through 2019 are listed next and are 17 referenced in the licensees ER (INTERA, 2018). A summary of the cultural and archaeological 18 findings in the following reports are provided in EIS Figure 3.9-1 and EIS Table 3.9-1.
19 1.      Koczan (1974). The University of New Mexico Research Section completed this original 20        survey for the application that UNC submitted to the State of New Mexico to construct 21        and operate the Church Rock Uranium Mill. The surveyors identified three archaeological 22        resources: Sites LA 11617, 11618, and an unnamed resource near Site LA 11618. No 23        sites were to be impacted by construction, but use of the UNC Mill tailings pond posed a 24        threat to Site LA 11618 and the unnamed resource, which, according to correspondence 25        contained in UNCs (1975) ER, were excavated by the Museum of New Mexico.
26 2.      Boggess and Begay (2005). This survey covered approximately 50.6 ha [125 ac] of the 27        NECR Mine Site for its proposed closeout and reclamation of the mine facilities. Lone 28        Mountain Archaeological Services completed a 100-percent archaeological pedestrian 29        survey at 15-m [49.2-ft] intervals, and DCRM conducted an ethnographic study. No sites 30        were identified, although three isolated prehistoric ceramic sherds were recorded.
31        Despite ethnographic informants relating the location of a suspected burial, the surveyors 32        were not able to locate the site in the field.
33 3.      Martin and Begay (2009). This survey covered approximately 28 ha [69 ac] of additional 34        land selected for remediation north of the NECR Mine Site. The 100-percent pedestrian 35        survey using 15-m [49.2-ft] interval transects identified seven isolated finds, one 36        archaeological site (NM-Q-20-48), and one traditional cultural property (TCP 1). TCP 1 is 37        a traditional Navajo sweat lodge near the homestead of a local resident. The isolated 38        finds included small numbers of isolated prehistoric pottery sherds. DCRM 39        recommended that Site NM-Q-20-48, an Anasazi ceramic artifact scatter, was eligible for 40        the NRHP, and avoidance was recommended for TCP 1.
3-55
 
N
                                                                        +
Koczan (1974)          - Mart in et al. (2018)
CJ Boggess and Begay (2005)  - Martinetal.(2019) 1111 Martin and Begay (2009)
CJ BegayandWero(2011)                                0  1 ,000 2,000      4 ,000 Feet 1111 Begay (2013)
                                                              -*::::J-*c:::::=-***- Meters 0  250 500      1,000 Figure 3.9-1    Geographic Limits of Previous Cultural and Archaeological Investigations at Portions of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (Modified from INTERA, 2018) 3-56
 
Table 3.9-1          Evaluation of Cultural Resources Documented During Previous Investigations at Portions of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site Eligibility Recommendations Under Site                  Site              Federal Regulations and Acts Number              Description              Yes                    No                    Report Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Koczan, 1974; LA 11617 Habitation              NRHP                NAGPRA                Martin et al., 2019 LA 11618            Prehistoric Anasazi                          ARPA Habitation                                  NRHP AIRFA                  Koczan, 1974 NAGPRA Resource has been excavated.
Unknown            Historic Navajo                              ARPA                  Martin and Begay, 2009 Activity Area                                NRHP AIRFA NAGPRA NM-Q-21-100        Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Begay and Wero, 2011 Habitation              NRHP                NAGPRA NM-Q-20-50          Historic Navajo          ARPA                                      Begay and Wero, 2011 Habitation              NRHP AIRFA NAGPRA LA 177466          Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Begay, 2013; Artifact Scatter        NRHP                NAGPRA                Martin et al., 2018 LA 177467          Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Begay, 2013 Habitation              NRHP                NAGPRA LA 177468          Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Begay, 2013 Habitation              NRHP                NAGPRA LA 177469          Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Begay, 2013 Habitation              NRHP                NAGPRA NM-Q-20-69          Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Martin et al., 2018 Artifact Scatter        NRHP                NAGPRA NM-Q-20-70          Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Martin et al., 2018 Habitation              NRHP                NAGPRA NM-Q-20-71          Prehistoric Anasazi      ARPA                AIRFA                  Martin et al., 2018 Artifact Scatter        NRHP                NAGPRA NM-Q-20-72          Multicomponent                              ARPA                  Martin et al., 2019 Rock Art Panel                              NRHP AIRFA NAGPRA AIRFA = American Indian Religious Freedom Act ARPA = Archaeological Resources Protection Act NAGPRA = Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NRHP = National Register of Historic Places Source: INTERA, 2018 Note: Site numbers beginning with LA (state-issued by Laboratory of Anthropology) are used by the New Mexico Cultural Resource Inventory. Site numbers beginning with S and secondary numbers are assigned by the Navajo Nation.
3-57
 
1 4.      Begay and Wero (2011). This survey covered two parcels proposed for reclamation north 2          and east of the NECR Mine Site totaling [11 ha] 27.5 ac. The survey included pedestrian 3          reconnaissance at 3-m [10-ft] intervals as well as ethnographic interviews with local 4          informants. Six isolated finds and two archaeological sites (NM Q-21-100 and 5          NM-Q-20-50) were identified. The isolated finds included small numbers of isolated 6          prehistoric lithic and ceramic artifacts. Site NM-Q-21-100 is a prehistoric Anasazi rubble 7          mound with associated lithic and ceramic artifact scatter. Site NM-Q-20-50 is a historic-8          period Navajo habitation site containing the remains of several structures, including those 9          relating to burials, and therefore part of a Jishchaa, or place associated with death.
10          DCRM recommended that both sites were eligible for the NRHP, and the surveyors 11          recommended avoidance for the site.
12 5.      Begay (2013). This survey included five proposed soil borrow areas for source cover 13          material at the proposed disposal site at the existing UNC Mill Site tailings impoundment.
14          The total area surveyed was 30 ha [73.94 ac] by pedestrian reconnaissance at 10-m 15          [32.8-ft] intervals. DCRM identified 4 new archaeological sites and 17 isolated 16          occurrences. The isolated occurrences were all between 1 and 13 shards or prehistoric 17          ceramics. The four sites are were prehistoric Anasazi and include (i) one ceramic and 18          lithic artifact scatter with no associated features (NM-Q-21-122) and (ii) three habitation 19          sites with both multi-room pueblo ruins, kivas, and dense middens of ceramic and lithic 20          artifacts. DCRM recommended that all four sites were eligible for the NRHP and 21          recommended avoidance from proposed project activities.
22 6.      Martin et al. (2018). This survey covered 48.6 ha [120 ac] of land proposed for clean-up 23          activities at the proposed project area, including a network of roads and small parcels.
24          The survey included both pedestrian reconnaissance at 10-m [32.8-ft] intervals as well as 25          ethnographic interviews. DCRM identified two previously recorded sites, LA 11617 and 26          LA 177466 (NM-Q-21-122), five isolated occurrences, and three new archaeological 27          sites, including two Anasazi artifact scatters and a habitation site: NM-Q-20-69, 28          NM-Q-20-70, and NM-Q-20-71. DCRM recommended that all five sites were eligible for 29          the NRHP and recommended that the proposed project avoid all the sites with the 30          exception of site LA 177466, which was located outside the area where proposed project 31          activities are planned.
32 7.      Martin et al. (2019). This survey included approximately 13 ha [32 ac] of land across the 33          proposed project area that the EPA identified for inclusion in site cleanup activities. The 34          survey included a pedestrian reconnaissance at 10-m [32.8-ft] intervals and identified one 35          new archaeological site (NM-Q-20-72) and one previously recorded archaeological site 36          (LA 11617). DCRM recommended that both sites were eligible for the NRHP, and 37          recommended avoidance from proposed project activities.
38 The results of ethnographic and archaeological field surveys, review of sacred sites files and 39 maps at the NNHPD, and interviews with Navajo Nation chapters conducted on behalf of the 40 licensee revealed that there are no TCPs in the vicinity of the proposed project area (INTERA, 41 2018). Thus, a separate TCP report is not warranted. The nearest identified resource is the 42 sandstone formation known as Ts&#xe9; i&#xe1;h&#xed; (Standing Rock) located approximately 13.7 km 43 [8.5 mi] southwest of the UNC Mill Site that resembles a church. The name Church Rock refers 44 to this sandstone formation. This formation has ceremonial significance in a Holyway ceremony.
3-58
 
1 Protocol Agreement with the NMSHPO and the NNHPD 2 Cultural resource protection and mitigation on all lands potentially affected by cultural resource 3 investigations are subject to NHPA requirements (P.L. 89-665; 16 USC 470 et seq, as 4 amended), Tribal standards, and a Protocol Agreement with the NMSHPO and the NNHPD. The 5 ER developed for UNCs proposal states that during previous projects conducted at the proposed 6 project area where activities related to the UNCs proposed action would occur, project 7 archaeologists adhered to State of New Mexico and Navajo Nation standards for field work 8 during all phases of the investigations (INTERA, 2018).
9 3.9.3. 1    Archaeological Resources 10 EIS Table 3.9-2 contains documented archaeological sites and the management 11 recommendations based on previous surveys and investigations conducted at portions of the 12 UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site. Eligibility recommendations are listed in EIS Table 3.9-1 13 and are based on the requirements in the Federal legislation described in EIS Section 3.9, 14 NHPA, NRHP, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and the Native American 15 Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The sites described in and after Table 3.9-2 16 are those identified during the seven cultural resource investigations described previously. All 17 sites are located either within the APE for direct effects, or the APE for indirect effects (i.e., within 18 a 1.6-km [1-mi] radius around the direct APE). As discussed in the following site descriptions, 19 based upon current project design plans, several of these sites are not within the APE for direct 20 effects. EIS Section 4.9 provides a full description of impacts to identified cultural resources.
Table 3.9-2      Archaeological Resources Documented During Investigations at Portions of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site Authors Land            Management Site Number    Site Description      Ownership        Recommendation              Report LA 11617          Prehistoric        Private (UNC)      Avoidance            Koczan, 1974; Anasazi                                                    Martin et al., 2018 Habitation LA 11618          Prehistoric        Private (UNC)      Excavation            UNC, 1975 Anasazi Habitation Unknown            Historic Navajo Navajo Tribal        No                    Martin and Begay, Activity Area      Trust              Recommendations 2009 NM-Q-21-100        Prehistoric        Navajo Tribal      Avoidance            Begay and Wero, Anasazi            Trust                                    2011 Habitation NM-Q-20-50        Historic Navajo Navajo Tribal        Avoidance            Begay and Wero, Habitation        Trust                                    2011 LA 177466          Prehistoric        Private (UNC)      Avoidance            Begay, 2013; Anasazi Artifact                                            Martin, et al., 2018 Scatter LA 177467          Prehistoric        Private (UNC)      Avoidance            Begay, 2013 Anasazi Habitation 3-59
 
Table 3.9-2        Archaeological Resources Documented During Investigations at Portions of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (cont.)
Authors Land          Management Site Number      Site Description      Ownership      Recommendation            Report LA 177468          Prehistoric        Private (UNC)    Avoidance          Begay, 2013 Anasazi Habitation LA 177469          Prehistoric        Private (UNC)    Avoidance          Begay, 2013 Anasazi Habitation NM-Q-20-69          Prehistoric        Navajo Tribal    Avoidance          Martin et al., 2018 Anasazi Artifact Trust Scatter NM-Q-20-70          Prehistoric        Navajo Tribal    Avoidance          Martin et al., 2018 Anasazi            Trust Habitation NM-Q-20-71          Prehistoric        Navajo Tribal    Avoidance          Martin et al., 2018 Anasazi Artifact Trust Scatter NM-Q-20-72          Multicomponent Navajo Tribal        Avoidance          Martin et al., 2019 Rock Art Panel Trust Source: INTERA, 2018 1 Site LA 11617 is a small Anasazi habitation site located on a small hill overlooking Pipeline Road 2 (NM 566), first recorded in the 1974 Museum of New Mexico survey (UNC, 1975). The site was 3 recorded as a single eroded masonry room block with a small scatter of associated debris, 4 including ceramics, covering only about 10 x 8 m [32.8 x 26.2 ft]. DCRM revisited the site in 5 their 2017 survey (Martin et al., 2018). The site was essentially unaltered, although the 6 surveyors expanded the boundaries to approximately 19 x 14 m [62 x 46 ft] to encompass all 7 visible surface artifacts, and the site was assessed as having the potential for subsurface 8 deposits. In 2018, DCRM revisited the site (Martin et al., 2019). A second locus of artifact 9 scatter was found to exist on the southeast side of the highway, and the site boundaries were 10 again adjusted to include this 25 x 25-m [82 x 82-ft] area. Portions of the mapped site boundary 11 for Site LA 11617 fall within the APE for direct effects for this EIS.
12 Site LA 11618 is a larger {70 x 40 m [229.6 x 131.2 ft]} Anasazi artifact scatter with no 13 associated architecture. The site included a range of ceramic types amongst a concentration of 14 coal. The ceramics were discolored and suggestive of the use of coal for firing the pottery. The 15 site and a nearby unnamed resource were recommended for excavation because they would be 16 impacted by the tailings pond. According to information in the UNC (1975) ER, these sites have 17 been excavated and are no longer extant.
18 Site NM-Q-20-48 is a 25 x 16 m [78.7 x 52.5 ft] Anasazi ceramic artifact scatter located on a 19 plateau overlooking a deep arroyo north of the NECR Mine Site. The DCRM (Martin and Begay, 20 2009) recorded the site during the 2009 survey of additional mine reclamation areas. DCRM 21 interpreted the ceramic types dated to between AD 900 and 1000 as being associated with water 22 procurement. No structures or features were identified, and the site was recommended as not 23 eligible for the NRHP. Site NM-Q-20-48 is not located within the APE for direct effects.
3-60
 
1 Site NM-Q-20-50 is a prehistoric Anasazi habitation site, approximately 30 x 30 m [98.4 x 98.4 ft]
2 in size, located on the northeast end of a ridge. DCRM identified the site during the survey 3 consisting of additional parcels proposed for reclamation on the northeast side of the NECR Mine 4 Site (Begay and Wero, 2011). The site includes a single structural feature of sandstone wall 5 slabs and a large associated scatter of lithic and ceramic artifacts. DCRM assessed the site as 6 having the potential for subsurface deposits and recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Site 7 NM-Q-20-50 is not located within the APE for direct effects.
8 Site NM-Q-20-61 (LA 177469) is a prehistoric Anasazi habitation site including a multi-room 9 pueblo ruin and dense sheet midden of ceramic and lithic artifacts heavily disturbed by bulldozer 10 activity located on the north slope of an unnamed east-west oriented ridge outside of the West 11 borrow area. DCRM located the 43 x 31-m [141 x 101.7 ft] site during the survey of five 12 proposed borrow areas (Begay, 2013). Approximately 50 percent of the site has not been 13 disturbed, and the surveyors estimated that the site could potentially include subsurface deposits 14 up to 4 m [13 ft] in depth. DCRM recommended the site as eligible for the NRHP and 15 recommended avoidance by the project. The boundaries of the West Borrow Area were 16 subsequently altered to the avoid the site, and Site NM-Q-20-61 is not located within the APE for 17 direct effects.
18 Site NM-Q-20-69 is a prehistoric Anasazi artifact scatter located at the end of a northeast-19 running ridge. DCRM identified the 26 x 16-m [85.3 x 52.5-ft] site during their 2017 survey of the 20 NECR Mine and UNC Mill Site clean-up activity areas (Martin et al., 2018). The site consists of a 21 range of ceramic sherds with no associated features or structures, and there may be subsurface 22 deposits up to 0.5 m [1.6 ft] in depth. DCRM recommended the site as eligible for the NRHP.
23 Portions of the mapped site boundary for Site NM-Q-20-69 fall within the APE for direct effects.
24 Site NM-Q-20-70 is a prehistoric Anasazi habitation site located on a southeast-facing hill slope 25 with sandstone rock outcrops. DCRM identified the 38 x 33-m [124.7 x 108.3-ft] site during their 26 2017 survey of the NECR Mine Site and UNC Mill Site clean-up activity areas (Martin et al.,
27 2018). The site includes two features: a mound of sandstone block rubble covering a two-room 28 structure and a large midden of over 3,000 ceramic and lithic artifacts. The site likely contains 29 subsurface deposits up to 1 m [3.3 ft] in depth, and DCRM recommended the site as eligible for 30 the NRHP. A portion of the mapped site boundary for Site NM-Q-20-70 is adjacent to the APE 31 for direct effects.
32 Site NM-Q-20-71 is a prehistoric Anasazi artifact scatter located on a northeast-facing slope 33 overlooking an arroyo floodplain. DCRM identified the 20 x 18-m [65.6 x 59-ft] site during their 34 2017 survey of the NECR Mine Site and UNC Mill Site clean-up activity areas (Martin et al.,
35 2018). The site consists of about 100 ceramic artifacts with no associated features or structures.
36 The site has been impacted by mine operations but may still contain subsurface deposits up to 37 0.5 m [1.6 ft] in depth. DCRM recommended the site as eligible for the NRHP. Site NM-Q-20-71 38 is located entirely within the APE for direct effects.
39 Site NM-Q-20-72 is an Anasazi and Navajo petroglyph site that includes both prehistoric and 40 historic markings. The site is located on a sandstone bedrock overhang facing southwest.
41 DCRM recorded the site as approximately 15 x 7 m [49.2 x 23 ft] in size during a recent survey 42 of 17 additional cleanup areas (Martin et al., 2019). There are two groupings of petroglyphs.
43 The first features images of an animal, man, and an abstract shape pecked into the rock and 44 filled with white paint. The second group is the recent historic markings of an elk, horses, and a 45 series of letters done in black paint and graphite. Several ceramic sherds were also found 46 nearby. Portions of the recent markings have been vandalized and eroded by running water.
3-61
 
1 DCRM recommended the site as eligible for the NRHP. Site NM-Q-20-72 is wholly outside, but 2 within 10 m [32.8 ft] of the APE for direct effects.
3 Site NM-Q-21-100 is a historic Navajo homestead site located on the northern edge of an east-4 west running terrace. DCRM identified the 60 x 55-m [197 x 180-ft] site during the survey of 5 additional parcels proposed for reclamation on the northeast side of the NECR Mine Site (Begay 6 and Wero, 2011). The site includes four structural features: the ruins of a sandstone house, a 7 log and stone ramada (shade), a traditional hogan structure, and a horno (outdoor adobe oven).
8 The hogan was burned, and informants related that the structure was part of a Jishchaa, a home 9 or place associated with death. The site was assessed as having the potential for subsurface 10 deposits and recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Site NM-Q-21-100 is not located within the 11 APE for direct effects.
12 Site NM-Q-21-122 (LA 177466) is a ceramic and lithic artifact scatter with no subsurface deposits 13 located on the north slope of an east-west running ridge south of the North borrow area. DCRM 14 located the 30 x 32-m [98.4 x 105-ft] site during the survey of five proposed borrow areas 15 (Begay, 2013). DCRM recommended the site as eligible for the NRHP and recommended 16 avoidance of the project. DCRM revisited the site in their 2017 survey (Martin et al., 2018). The 17 site was essentially unaltered, and the previous recommendations were unchanged. The 18 boundaries of the North Borrow Area were subsequently altered to the avoid the site, and Site 19 NM-Q-21-122 is not located within the APE for direct effects.
20 Site NM-Q-21-123 (LA 177467) is a large habitation site including a collapsed multi-room pueblo, 21 kiva or pithouse, plaza, and a dense midden with tens of thousands of ceramic sherds and lithic 22 artifacts, located at the south base of an unnamed mesa east of the proposed South Borrow 23 Area. DCRM located the 56 x 42-m [184 x 138-ft] site during the survey of five proposed borrow 24 areas (Begay 2013). The surveyors noted that the site was in pristine condition and could 25 potentially include subsurface deposits up to 4 m [13 ft] in depth. DCRM recommended the site 26 as eligible for the NRHP and recommended avoidance from the project. The boundaries of the 27 South Borrow Area were subsequently altered to the avoid the site, and Site NM-Q-21-123 is not 28 located within the APE for direct effects.
29 Site NM-Q-21-124 (LA 177468) is a habitation site including a collapsed multi-room pueblo, two 30 kivas, and a large midden with thousands of ceramic and lithic artifacts located on a spur of an 31 unnamed west-oriented ridge east of the East Borrow Area. The site is partially disturbed by a 32 road. DCRM located the 37 x 39-m [121.4 x 127.9-ft] site during the survey of five proposed 33 borrow areas (Begay, 2013). The site could potentially contain subsurface deposits up to 4 m 34 [13 ft] in depth. DCRM recommended the site as eligible for the NRHP and recommended 35 avoidance from the proposed project. The boundaries of the East Borrow Area were 36 subsequently altered to avoid the site, and Site NM-Q-21-124 is not located within the APE for 37 direct effects.
38 DCRM recorded TCP 1 during the 2009 survey of additional mine reclamation areas (Martin and 39 Begay, 2009). A local resident informed the surveyors of a traditional Navajo sweat lodge near 40 his homestead. While TCP 1 is located within the APE for indirect effects, it is not located within 41 the APE for direct effects and is located outside of the area where proposed project activities 42 are planned.
3-62
 
1 3.10    Visual and Scenic 2 This section presents a description of the visual and scenic resources within and in the vicinity of 3 the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area). The proposed project 4 area is located in the west-central portion of McKinley County, New Mexico. The topography 5 varies from low-elevation mesas transitioning to rock outcroppings, shallow canyons, and alluvial 6 and arroyo valleys (INTERA, 2018). Pinyon-juniper woodland is the predominant land cover.
7 More information about the topography, soils, and land cover can be found in EIS Sections 3.2 8 (Land Use) and 3.6.2 (Local Vegetation).
9 Man-made structures in the area are primarily the residences of the Red Water Pond Road 10 Community with minimal, dispersed development outside of the proposed project area (INTERA, 11 2018). EIS Section 3.2 describes the homesites immediately surrounding the proposed project 12 area, and EIS Figure 3.2-1 shows locations of the nearest residences.
13 Visual resources consist of landscape or visual character as well as visual sensitivity and 14 exposure. The Visual Resource Management (VRM) Manual 8410 produced by BLM provides a 15 means for determining visual values for public land visual resources (BLM, 1986; BLM, 2003).
16 The evaluation consists of three determinations: (i) scenic quality, (ii) sensitivity level analysis, 17 and (iii) delineation of distance zones.
18 Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of an area. In the visual resource inventory 19 process, lands are given an A, B, or C rating based upon the apparent scenic quality, which is 20 determined using seven factors. These factors include landform, vegetation, water resource 21 features, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications (that either add to or detract 22 from visual quality).
23 Sensitivity levels are a measure of public concern for scenic quality. Public lands are assigned 24 high, medium, or low sensitivity levels by analyzing the various indicators of public concern.
25 Indicators of public concern include type of users, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land 26 use, special areas, and other factors specific to the location.
27 Landscapes are subdivided into three distance zones based on relative visibility from travel 28 routes or observation points. These three zones are foreground-middleground, background, and 29 seldom seen.
30 Based on these categories, the BLM places land into one of four visual resource inventory 31 classes (i.e., Class I - IV), with each class having its own management objective. These 32 management objectives for the classes describe the different degrees of modification allowed in 33 the basic elements of the landscape. Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III is of 34 moderate value, and Class IV is of least value (BLM, 1986). The proposed project area and 35 most of the land to the east and west of the proposed project area are classified by the BLM as 36 Class IV areas, meaning that the level of changes to the landscape can be high and may 37 dominate the view (BLM, 2003). However, BLMs position is that, even in Class IV landscapes, 38 every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, 39 minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements form, line, color, and texture found in the 40 predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape (BLM, 2003). The nearest Class II 41 landscape is located south of the Pecos River, approximately 4.83 km [3 mi] south of the 42 proposed project area. There are no Class I locations in the San Juan Basin or Grants Uranium 43 District (NRC, 2009).
3-63
 
1 The BLMs Visual Contrast Rating provides guidance on how to select key viewpoints using 2 public sensitivity and where people are present. After determining what areas were visible from 3 the proposed project area and quantifying each areas visibility (EIS Figure 3.11-1), INTERA 4 used BLMs rating system to determine key viewpoints (i.e., locations were people are present or 5 frequently travel or visit) that consisted of homes, residences, roads, and other visibly significant 6 resources in the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018; INTERA, 2019). Photographs from the 7 key viewpoints were also taken and copies are provided in the licensees ER in Appendix C 8 (INTERA, 2018). According to the licensees ER, there are no local or regional high-quality or 9 significant views visible from the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018).
10 The NRC staff acknowledges that the visual and scenic value of the land to the Navajo Nation 11 and the residents of the Red Water Pond Road Community, as well as what is considered 12 high-quality or significant views, might differ from the conclusions of the BLM visual resource 13 inventory and the key viewpoint analysis conducted by INTERA due to the cultural and religious 14 connection the Din&#xe9; (Navajo people) have with the surrounding land. The NRC staff received 15 several comments during the scoping period indicating that there are visual and scenic resources 16 of importance to the Din&#xe9; in the proposed project area (NRC, 2019b).
17 The closest areas with views that attract visitors include Chaco Cultural Center National Historic 18 Park, El Malpais National Monument, El Morro National Monument, Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness 19 Area, and the Red Rock Park. The closest of these visitor attractions to the proposed project 20 area is Red Rock Park, which is accessible from NM 566 approximately 15.3 km [9.5 mi]
21 southwest of the proposed project area.
22 3.11    Socioeconomics 23 This section describes the socioeconomic context and the socioeconomic resources near the 24 UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area). The following subsections 25 summarize the affected socioeconomic environment for five primary topic areas: (i) demography 26 (i.e., population characteristics), (ii) employment structure and personal income, (iii) housing, 27 (iv) local finance, and (v) community services. The socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) for 28 the proposed action is defined as the area in which employees that are expected to be employed 29 by UNC to support UNCs proposal and their families reside, spend their income, and use their 30 benefits, thereby affecting economic conditions in the region. The NRC staff anticipates that the 31 majority of workers and their families would live in or near Gallup, New Mexico, which is within 32 32.2 km [20 mi] of the proposed project area, because it is the only large city in the county and 33 would not require a long commute for workers employed by UNC. Gallup is the county seat and 34 the most populous city in northwest New Mexico. Because McKinley County is where the 35 proposed action is located and where the majority of the demographic and socioeconomic 36 impacts would occur, the NRC staff determined that the socioeconomic ROI includes all of 37 McKinley County, New Mexico.
38 The communities around the proposed project area are predominantly rural and include the Red 39 Water Pond Road Community and the Pipeline Road Community, which are located on Navajo 40 Nation land. The center of the proposed project area is located approximately 0.72 km [0.45 mi]
41 southeast of the nearest resident on Navajo Nation land. This description of the existing 42 socioeconomic environment includes these communities.
3-64
 
N
                                                                              --1L__
Viewability        D    NECRMine
                                                                              - - ~-
C    High                Site II I! UNC Mill Site            0  0.5  1    2 Low                                                          Miles LJ Proposed Project Area                                  Kilometers Initial Key 0
Vtewpoints    =    Roads                    0    1    2        4 Figure 3.11-1        Viewability and Key Viewpoints Analyzed by INTERA to Support UNCs Proposed Action (Modified from INTERA, 2018) 3-65
 
1 3.11.1    Demography 2 3.11. 1.1    Population Distribution in the Socioeconomic ROI 3  The proposed project area is located in an unincorporated area of McKinley County. According 4  to data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 5-year American Community Survey 5  (ACS), the average population in McKinley County as of July 1, 2019 was 71,367, which 6  represents a population density of 5 persons per km2 [13 persons per mi2]. The average state 7  population density of New Mexico as of July 1, 2019 was about 6.7 persons per km2 8  [17.3 persons per mi2] (USCB, 2019a,b).
9  Communities and transportation routes within the county are depicted in EIS Figure 3.11-2. The 10  USCB 2014-2018 5-year estimated populations for McKinley County and communities in 11  McKinley County where the USCB collects population data are provided in EIS Table 3.11-1.
12  The USCB population estimates indicate that approximately 31 percent of McKinley Countys 13  population resided in Gallup, New Mexico, the largest municipality in the county (USCB, 2018a).
14  According to the 2012 McKinley County Comprehensive Plan Update, the population grew every 15  decade in both the City of Gallup and McKinley County between 1910 and 2000. Between 2000 16  and 2010, the population of McKinley County declined approximately 0.5 percent or about 17  3,300 people (NNMCG, 2012). The overall county population is projected to grow for the next 18  10 years, and then slightly decline between 2030 and 2040 (UNM, 2019).
19  Over a dozen communities in McKinley County are in unincorporated areas and are not 20  represented by the list in EIS Table 3.11-1, such as Coyote Canyon, Mexican Springs, Hospah, 21  Whitehorse, Ojo Encino, Pueblo Pintado, Smith Lake, McGaffey, and Chichiltah (EIS 22  Figure 3.11-2). The unincorporated areas of McKinley County more than doubled in population 23  from 23,120 persons in 1960 to 54,589 persons in 2000, but again declined from 2000 to 2010 24  (NNMCG, 2012).
25  There are 29 Navajo Chapters that are entirely or mostly located within the county, and a portion 26  of the Zuni Indian Reservation is located in the south of the county, as shown in EIS 27  Figure 3.11-3. The estimated population for four Navajo Chapters located within 3.2 km [2 mi] of 28  the proposed project area (Church Rock, Coyote Canyon, Pinedale, and Standing Rock) are also 29  provided in EIS Table 3.11-1. The Navajo population in McKinley County, New Mexico, during 30  the 2014-2018 5-year period was approximately 44,000 people (USCB, 2018a).
3-66
 
Cr~ ta l San        uan County                                                                Sandoval County 134 Ojo Encino Pueblo Pintado
              . Navajo To hat hi IM1 le horse MeL s prings Coyote Canyon Ho sp ah Twin Lakes                                    ~  ownpomt C:
0
* Mana no Lake (
N
                                                                                          ? ' ih Lake
  <(
                                                                                          )      McKinley County Thoreau Chich ita h u
('II a.
  <(
amah Bla~k*R Zuni Pue blPl,/
Towns Proposed Project Area
                        =
Interstates u .S. Hwy
                        - - State Hwy D
D County Lines McKinley County c::J Nex Mexico -
Arizona State Line
_JL__
                                                                                                  --r    ----
0  5 0 5 10 10 20    30 20 40 30 Kilometers 40 Miles Figure 3.11-2                    Communities in McKinley County (Source: NNMCG, 2012)
Table 3.11-1                      Population of Incorporated Areas in McKinley County where the USCB Collects Population Data 2014-2018 Average Incorporated Areas                                                          Population Estimate Black Rock (Zuni Indian Reservation)                                                                                      1,684 Brimhall Nizhoni (Navajo Reservation)                                                                                        383 Church Rock                                                                                                                  909 Church Rock Chapter of the Navajo Nation                                                                                  2,570 Coyote Canyon Chapter of the Navajo Nation                                                                                  857 Crownpoint                                                                                                                2,500 Crystal                                                                                                                      357 Gallup                                                                                                                22,105 Nakaibito (Navajo Reservation)                                                                                              352 Navajo (Navajo Reservation)                                                                                              1,498 Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation                                                                                    1,235 Pueblo Pintado                                                                                                              404 Ramah                                                                                                                        359 Rock Springs                                                                                                                410 3-67
 
Table 3.11-1          Population of Incorporated Areas in McKinley County where the USCB Collects Population Data (cont.)
2014-2018 Average Incorporated Areas                                Population Estimate Standing Rock Chapter of the Navajo Nation                                            516 Thoreau                                                                            1,666 Tohatchi (Navajo Reservation)                                                        825 Tse Bonito                                                                            176 Twin Lakes (Navajo Reservation)                                                    1,008 Yah-ta-hey                                                                            648 Zuni Pueblo (Zuni Indian Reservation)                                              7,590 Source: USCB, 2018a Sandoval County OJO ENCINO WHI TE HORSE Lfl.l<E FO  T DE McKinley County 7347fl*
CJ Proposed Project Area D D    Navajo Nation Chapters Zuni Reserv ation National Parks and Forests CJ county Lines
                                                              -..{/ --
0 5
0 5 10 10 20    30 20 40 30 Kilometers 40 Mil es Figure 3.11-3          Navajo Nation Chapters and Zuni Indian Reservation in McKinley County (Source: ESRI ArcGIS) 3-68
 
1 3.11.1.2    Environmental Justice: Minority and Low-Income Populations, and Unique Pathways 2 On February 11, 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 3 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which directs all 4 Federal agencies to develop strategies that consider environmental justice in their programs, 5 policies, and activities. Environmental justice is described in the Executive Order as identifying 6 and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 7 environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and 8 low-income populations. On December 10, 1997, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 9 issued Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 10 (CEQ, 1997). The NRC has provided general guidelines on the evaluation of environmental 11 analyses in Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS 12 [Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards] Programs (NUREG-1748) (NRC, 2003), and issued a 13 final policy statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and 14 Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040) and environmental justice procedures to be followed in NEPA 15 documents prepared by the NRCs Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS).
16 NRCs NMSS environmental justice guidance, as found in NUREG-1748, Appendix C (NRC, 17 2003), recommends that the area for assessment for a facility in a rural area be a circle with a 18 radius of approximately 6.4 km [4 mi] whose centroid is the facility being considered. However, 19 the guidance also states that the scale should be commensurate with the potential impact area.
20 As described in EIS Section 3.11, the NRC staff anticipates that the majority of workers and their 21 families would live in or near Gallup, New Mexico, which is within 32.2 km [20 mi] of the 22 proposed project area. Thus, the NRC staff considers a radius of approximately 32.2 km [20 mi]
23 from the center of the project area to be an adequate area for assessment, or environmental 24 justice ROI, for this EIS. The entire area in this radius is within McKinley County. In addition, the 25 NRC staff recognizes that there are benefits from expanding the environmental justice study area 26 to include the same geographic area as the socioeconomic ROI established in EIS Section 3.11, 27 primarily comparing consistent data in a rural area. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that the 28 environmental justice study area for this EIS should also include the remainder of McKinley 29 County, New Mexico, consistent with the socioeconomic ROI.
30 Methodology 31 A minority or low-income community may be considered as either a population of individuals 32 living in geographic proximity to one another or a dispersed/transient population of individuals 33 (e.g., migrant workers) where either type of group experiences common conditions of 34 environmental exposure (NRC, 2003). NUREG-1748 defines minority groups as the following 35 races, not including individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin: American Indian or Alaskan Native, 36 Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, African American, some other race, and 37 individuals of any race with Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (NRC, 2003). The 2000 Census 38 introduced a multiracial category. In the NRCs process, anyone who identifies themselves as 39 white and a minority is counted as that minority group. Individuals that identify themselves as 40 more than one minority group are counted in a two or more races group (NRC, 2003).
41 Low-income is defined as being below the poverty level as defined by the USCB (NRC, 2003).
42 The NRC-recommended area for evaluating census data is the census block group, which is 43 delineated by the USCB and is the smallest area unit for which race and poverty data are 44 available (NRC, 2003).
45 The NRC staff used ESRI ArcGIS online and the USCB website to identify block groups within 46 McKinley County, and 53 block groups were identified as being within, or partially within, 47 McKinley County. The NRC guidance in NUREG-1748 (NRC, 2003) indicates that a potentially 3-69
 
1 affected environmental justice population exists if at least one of these conditions exists: either 2 the minority or low-income population of the block group is more than 50 percent of the entire 3 block group population, or the minority or low-income population percentage of the block group is 4 significantly or meaningfully greater (typically at least 20 percentage points) than the minority or 5 low-income population percentage in the geographic areas chosen for comparative analysis 6 (here, McKinley County and New Mexico).
7 Minority Populations 8 Using the most recent available USCB annual surveys conducted during the 2014-2018 period, 9 which represent average characteristics during this period (American Community Survey 5-year 10 estimates), the NRC staff calculated (i) the percentage of each block groups population 11 represented by each minority group for each of the 53 block groups within McKinley County, 12 New Mexico, and (ii) the percentage that each minority group is represented in the entire 13 population of the county and the State of New Mexico. If the percentage met one of the above-14 stated conditions, then that block group was identified as having a significant minority population.
15 If a block group met one or both criteria for either the State or the county, it was not double 16 counted. The CEQ recommends that Federal agencies follow this approach to identify minority 17 populations (CEQ, 1997). EIS Table 3.11-2 provides the average minority populations in 18 New Mexico, McKinley County, and the City of Gallup, and the number of block groups in 19 McKinley County that meet at least one of the NRC conditions previously described for 20 significant minority populations. EIS Figure 3.11-4 shows where those block groups are located.
21 Of the 53 block groups located in McKinley County, there are 49 block groups with potentially 22 affected minority populations. Over 70 percent of the minority population within McKinley County 23 is American Indian and Alaskan Native (EIS Table 3.11-2). A portion of the proposed project 24 area is located on lands held by the United States in trust for the Navajo Nation, land to the north 25 is on the Navajo Nation Reservation, and the surrounding region is important in Navajo 26 ceremony and culture (EIS Sections 1.1.2, 3.2.1, and 3.9.1).
Table 3.11-2      Minority Populations in the Environmental Justice Region of Influence American                Native Indian                  Hawaiian and                      or Other      Some        Two or African      Alaskan                  Pacific      Other      More      Hispanic American Native            Asian      Islander      Race        Races    Ethnicity New Mexico          1.8%          8.8%        1.4%          0.0%        0.2%      1.5%      48.5%
Average McKinley County          0.6%        73.7%        1.0%          0.0%        0.1%      1.5%      14.3%
Average City of Gallup          1.4%        38.2%        2.6%          0.1%        0.0%      2.6%      34.1%
Average 3-70
 
Table 3.11-2 Minority Populations in the Environmental Justice Region of Influence (cont.)
American                          Native Indian                            Hawaiian and                                or Other        Some        Two or African          Alaskan                            Pacific          Other        More              Hispanic American Native                      Asian          Islander        Race        Races              Ethnicity Number of the 53 Block Groups in McKinley                              0                    45              0                  0              0          0                      9 County with Significant Minority Populations Source: USCB, 2018a OU n I y Sandoval County
            * -.,.._---,.,.---J-7 Navaj
(
            --~--"'-    )
                        '  \
C:                                                                                                            McKinley County 0
N
<(
the Block Qtoups (I)                                                                                                                      Gaijup~NM!
.c                                                                                                                        I    I ' _,.,.,
u                                                                                                                            __,      t __I m
C.
(
i
<(                                                                        Cibola County
                                                                                                                                          ;:~1,-;]
__ j L. .. - .
iJ    \J.~c;b-~otk a,[)  1 2          4      /
                                                                                                                                    -. .                  Mi~s lliE:.. Ki lometet
                                                                                                                              -, 0!1 2      4
                                                                                            +
L ____ i Block Groups
[:::-] Hispanic Indian or Alaskan Native
            & Hispanic
                                          *                            -  u .s . Hwy Pro posed Project Area - - State Hwy Cities                D  County Lines 0
5  10      20
                                                                                                        =::11--==----====--- Mile~
30              40 l _ _____ i Indian or Alaskan Native =          Interstates            CJ Line New Mexico. Arizona State MCJIMICI---===--- Kilometers 0  5 10    20  30    40 Figure 3.11-4                        Block Groups with Potentially Affected Minority Populations in McKinley County 3-71
 
1 Low-Income Populations 2 The NRC guidance defines low-income households based on statistical poverty thresholds 3 (NRC, 2003), which is consistent with CEQs recommendation for Federal agencies in assessing 4 environmental justice (CEQ, 1997). The NRC staff applied the 50 percent or greater than 5 20 percent standard in NUREG-1748 Appendix C to compare the low-income population in the 6 block groups to the statewide and county percentages.
7 Of the 53 block groups located in McKinley County, there are 21 block groups with potentially 8 affected low-income families and 21 block groups with potentially affected low-income individuals 9 that meet one of the previously described criteria used in this EIS to identify potentially affected 10 environmental justice populations. EIS Table 3.11-3 provides the average low-income 11 populations in New Mexico, McKinley County, and the City of Gallup, and the number of block 12 groups in McKinley County that represent potentially affected low-income populations. EIS 13 Figure 3.11-5 provides a graphical representation of the block groups with potentially affected 14 low-income families and individuals.
15 Unique Pathways For Potentially Affected Populations 16 To fulfill the NRCs obligation to evaluate potential environmental justice impacts from this 17 licensing action, the NRC staff considered whether the minority and low-income populations 18 identified in this section of the EIS could experience disproportionately high and adverse human 19 health and environmental effects from the proposed action. The NRC staff found noticeable 20 differences in concentrations of minority and low-income populations between the study area 21 (McKinley County) and the State of New Mexico. In addition, the NRC staff identified unique 22 cultural ties between the Navajo Nation and the proposed project area. Through its independent 23 review of census data, information available through the Section 106 process, and comments 24 that the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community provided to NRC on the 25 proposed action, the NRC staff identified communities with unique characteristics that would 26 make these communities susceptible to disproportionately high and adverse impacts. Due to its 27 close proximity to the proposed project area, the Red Water Pond Road Community would be 28 disproportionately affected (EIS Section 1.1.3).
Table 3.11-3      Low-Income Populations in the Environmental Justice Region of Influence Low-Income Families            Low-Income Individuals New Mexico Average                        15.3%                              20.0%
McKinley County Average                  30.9%                              36.0%
City of Gallup Average                    24.8%                              29.2%
Number of the 53 Block Groups in McKinley 21                                21 County with Significant Low-Income Populations Source: USCB, 2018a 3-72
 
I    r              San J      n County                                                                                Sandoval County C . stal- - - - - - , - - - - -'l-- - - - - - - - - , - - - ----1:3111)-- - - - - - - - ~. , - - - - - - - -...L- - -- - - - - - - ,
Navaj *1--,~\    ,7
                  *-;;-~
                      \_                                          I i
____2:lw                                      I P~bposed Prt>j ect Area
                                                              -***-***-***r-***-** - - "*-*-
                                                                        ~
C 0
(_
N Q)
    .c 0
(II c..
    <(                                                                                  Cibola County
[ .=-."J Low Inc ome Families    [&deg;-_:-_J Bl ock Groups                                                  N
      ,----*, Low Income Families &
L.____ J Indiv iduals Proposed Project Area - - St ate Hwy Cit ies                      D U.S. Hwy County Line s
                                                                                                            --J-r--
0  5  10    20      30
                                                                                                                      --==i--==-----====----- Mile!
40
                                                                                                                      *-=:::i*-=*--===--- Kilometers
      -        Low Income Indiv iduals =        Interstates D            N_ew Mexico - Arizona State 0 5 10    20 30  40 Line Figure 3.11-5                  Block Groups with Potentially Affected Low-Income Populations in McKinley County 1 3.11.2            Employment and Income 2 Based on USCB 2014-2018 5-year estimates, the McKinley County labor force was estimated to 3 be 53,940 (USCB, 2018a). The unemployment rate for McKinley County was estimated to be 4 15.7 percent, which is more than double the statewide unemployment rate of 7.2 percent 5 (USCB, 2018a).
6 According to the Greater Gallup Economic Development Center, Gallup-McKinley County 7 Schools is the largest employer in the County (Greater Gallup Economic Development 8 Corporation, 2019). Other large employers in the City of Gallup and McKinley County that 9 employ 50 or more people are listed in EIS Table 3.11-4.
10 During the 2014-2018 period, the average annual earnings for full-time individual workers in the 11 City of Gallup and in McKinley County are estimated to be $55,652 and $43,347, respectively 12 (USCB, 2018a). During the same period, the estimated average annual earnings for families 13 in the City of Gallup and in McKinley County are $62,789 and $48,620, respectively 14 (USCB, 2018a).
3-73
 
Table 3.11-4        Largest Employers in McKinley County Company                                    Industry          # of Employees Gallup-McKinley County Schools                        Education                  1,992 Gallup Indian Medical Center                          Medical                    1,692 Wal-Mart                                              Retail                      530 Rehoboth McKinley Christian Hospital                  Medical                      506 City of Gallup                                        Government                  390 Bureau of Indian Affairs                              Energy                      323 University of New Mexico-Gallup                        Education                    266 Zuni Public School District                            Education                    261 Peabody Energy                                        Energy                      240 Andeavor/Western Refining                              Energy                      213 McKinley County                                        Government                  155 McKinley Paper/Bio Pappel                              Manufacturing                129 Escalante Generating Station                          Energy                      117 BNSF Railway Company                                  Rail Transport                50 Source: Greater Gallup Economic Development Corporation, 2019 1 3.11.3  Housing 2 McKinley County planning documents show that the demand for housing in McKinley County is 3 stronger than recent homebuilding activity. In the City of Gallup, business development is stifled 4 by the lack of available housing for new entrepreneurs and employees. County planners 5 recognize that housing development could generate more wealth in the community, but currently 6 new housing development composes a relatively small sector of the economy, despite the high 7 housing demand (NNMCG, 2012).
8 According to HUD, families who pay more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing are 9 considered cost-burdened (HUD, 2019). In the 2014-2018 period, between 26.4 and 30.4 10 percent of homeowners in New Mexico, McKinley County, and the City of Gallup spent more 11 than 30 percent of their income on housing, and between 30.2 and 43.8 percent of renters spent 12 more than 30 percent of their income on housing (Economic Profile System, 2020).
13 A comparison of the USCB 2014-2018 estimates for housing vacancies in New Mexico, 14 McKinley County, and the City of Gallup is provided in EIS Figure 3.11-6. The percent of owners 15 and renters that spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing in New Mexico, McKinley 16 County, and the City of Gallup is provided in EIS Figure 3.11-7.
22.6%
25.0%                                                                      16.8%
20.0%                14.7%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0% - - - ~ - - ~ - - ~ - -
Gallup , New Mexico        McKinley County, New            New Mexico Mexico Figure 3.11-6      Percent of Housing Vacant in Gallup, McKinley County, and New Mexico (Source: Modified from Economic Profile System, 2020) 3-74
 
Owners    >30% of household income Renters >30% of household income 50%                                                                                  43.8%
45%                    39.7%
40%
35%                                                    30.2%            30.4%
30%        26.4%                          27.2%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Gallup, New Mexico          McKinley County, New                  New Mexico Mexico Figure 3.11-7      Percent of Housing Costs for Households in Gallup, McKinley County, and New Mexico (Source: Modified from Economic Profile System, 2020) 1 3.11.4    Local Finance 2 Property taxes in New Mexico are among the lowest in the United States. Four governmental 3 entities within New Mexico are authorized to impose property taxesthe State, counties, 4 municipalities, and school districts. Property assessment rates are 33.3 percent of the property 5 value (NMDFA, 2017). The tax applied to property is a composite of State, county, municipal, 6 and school district levies. Millage or mill rate is a tool that municipalities use to calculate property 7 taxes. The amount of municipal tax payable by a property owner is calculated by multiplying the 8 mill rate by the assessed value of a property and dividing by 1,000. New Mexico distributes 9 revenues from property tax rate totals as follows: 11.85 mills to each county, 7.65 mills to each 10 municipality, and .5 mills to each school district (NMDFA, 2017).
11 New Mexico has a gross receipts tax structure instead of a sales tax structure. The state gross 12 receipts tax rate through June 2019 is 5.125 percent. Businesses pay the total gross receipts tax 13 to the State, which then distributes the counties' and municipalities' portions to them. McKinley 14 County receives 0.25 percent gross tax proceeds as part of the goods and services tax collected 15 by New Mexico (INTERA, 2018). The gross receipts tax rate schedule for McKinley County is 16 6.75 percent, and 8.3125 percent for Gallup (NMTRD, 2019). Additional taxation options for 17 McKinley County include property tax on equipment and improvements outside of Navajo Nation 18 land and on any Navajo land that has been privately acquired (INTERA, 2018).
19 Navajo Nation taxation can be applied to areas outside the Navajo Reservation if the land is 20 considered Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1151 (40 CFR 144.3) (INTERA, 21 2018). Navajo Nation sales tax was raised from 5 percent to 6 percent as of July 2018, and 22 Navajo business sales tax is 5 percent on all business gross receipts (Office of Navajo Tax 23 Commission, 2019). Quarterly deductions from business activities are allowed, including the 3-75
 
1 greater of $125,000 or 10 percent of gross receipts from the sale of Navajo goods or services, 2 and for salaries and wages paid to Navajos (Office of Navajo Tax Commission, 2019).
3 3.11.5    Community Services 4 Education 5 The proposed project area is located in the Gallup-McKinley School District, which encompasses 6 34 schools throughout McKinley County (Gallup McKinley County Schools [GMCS], 2019). The 7 Zuni Public School District (ZPSD) is also located in McKinley County (ZPSD, 2020). Together, 8 the GMCS and the ZPSD student enrollment for the 2017-2018 school year was approximately 9 13,040 (ZPSD, 2020, NMPED, 2020). Approximately 660 students in McKinley County attend 10 private schools (NCES, 2020; Rehoboth Christian School, 2020). One of the schools nearest to 11 the proposed project area is Catherine A. Miller Elementary, a kindergarten-through-fifth grade 12 elementary school that is the sole public school in the town of Church Rock, New Mexico, 13 located roughly at NM 566 and Interstate 40 (INTERA, 2018; GMSC, 2019). There are three 14 public middle schools and three public high schools in Gallup (GMCS, 2019). The Rehoboth 15 Christian School, a private school located between Church Rock and Gallup, offers 16 pre-kindergarten through high school education (Rehoboth Christian School, 2020).
17 For post-secondary education, McKinley County is served by the University of New Mexico 18 at Gallup and Din&#xe9; College, chartered by the Navajo Nation. In 2019, approximately 19 2,880 residents in the socioeconomic ROI (McKinley County) were enrolled at an undergraduate 20 institution, with another 302 students seeking graduate or professional degrees (USCB, 2018b).
21 Hospitals 22 The nearest emergency room to the proposed project area is at Rehoboth McKinley Christian 23 Hospital (RMCH) in Gallup, New Mexico. RMCH is a 60-bed acute care hospital that offers a 24 wide range of inpatient and outpatient services (RMCH, 2019). RMCH supports the Gallup 25 community with four clinics. Emergency health services are also provided by the fire districts in 26 conjunction with emergency medical services for McKinley County and the Navajo Nation 27 (INTERA, 2018). Presbyterian Medical Services offers primary care, dental, behavioral health, 28 childhood education, home care, hospice and senior programs in Gallup (Presbyterian Medical 29 Services, 2019). The Red Rocks Care Center in Gallup provides diverse short-term and 30 long-term care services in Gallup (Genesis Healthcare, 2019).
31 American Indian and Alaskan Native residents that live near the proposed project area can seek 32 healthcare in Gallup at the Gallup Indian Medical Center (GIMC), a 99-bed facility that provides 33 health services in the area of internal medicine, cardiology, anesthesia, OB/GYN, general 34 surgery, orthopedics, ophthalmology, ear, nose and throat, radiology, pathology, pediatrics, 35 psychiatry, emergency medicine, and urology (GIMC, 2019). In addition, the Navajo Senior 36 Center located in Church Rock provides free lunch during the weekdays and recreational 37 activities for the Navajo elders (New Mexico Aging and Long-Term Services Department, 2019).
38 Fire and Police 39 There are 22 fire stations across 18 districts throughout McKinley County that provide fire and 40 emergency medical services, including on the Navajo Reservation (McKinley County, 2019).
41 The department is primarily staffed by over 300 volunteers in addition to 8 full-time and 3-76
 
1 2 part-time firefighters and emergency medical technicians. A New Mexico State Police 2 department is located on Highway 40 on the east side of Gallup.
3 Utilities 4 The UNC office is equipped with electricity; however, no potable water is available on the UNC 5 Mill Site. The Church Rock community has a water supply and wastewater system located about 6 8 km [5 mi] south of the UNC Mill Site (NRC, 1997). Additional information about local drinking 7 water wells is provided in EIS Section 3.5.3.2, Local Groundwater Use.
8 3.12      Public and Occupational Health 9 This section summarizes the sources of radiation and chemical exposure at and in the region 10 surrounding the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area), including 11 natural background radiation levels. This section also describes applicable radiation dose limits 12 that have been established for the protection of public and occupational health and safety, 13 potential exposure pathways and receptors, and available occupational and public health 14 studies.
15 3.12.1    Radiation Protection Standards 16 The NRC has a statutory responsibility, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 17 to protect worker and public health and safety. The NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 specify 18 annual worker dose limits, including 0.05 Sv [5 rem] total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) and 19 dose limits to members of the public including 1 millisieverts (mSv) [100 millirem (mrem)] TEDE 20 with no more than 0.02 mSv [2 mrem] in any 1-hour period from any external sources. These 21 public dose limits from NRC-licensed activities are a fraction of the background radiation dose, 22 as discussed in EIS Section 3.12.1.1. Additionally, under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 23 Control Act of 1978, as amended, NRC is authorized to license the possession and use of 24 byproduct material at uranium mill facilities in a manner that protects public health and safety.
25 The regulation in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, provides technical criteria for the management of 26 mill tailings and implements EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental 27 Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.
28 3.12.2      Sources of Radiation Exposure 29 Sources of radiation exposure at the proposed project area and in the region surrounding the 30 proposed project area include background radiation and radiation from other sources such as 31 nearby facilities or transportation of radioactive materials.
32 3.12.2.1      Background Radiological Conditions 33 Radiation dose is a measure of the amount of ionizing energy that is deposited in the body.
34 Ionizing radiation is a natural component of the environment and ecosystem, and members of 35 the public are exposed to natural radiation continuously. Radiation doses to the general public 36 occur from radioactive materials found in soils, rocks, and minerals. Radon (Rn-222) is a 37 radioactive gas that escapes into ambient air from the decay of uranium (and its progeny, 38 Ra-226) that is found in most soils and rocks. Naturally occurring low levels of uranium and 39 radium are also found in drinking water and foods. Cosmic radiation from outer space is another 40 natural source of exposure and ionizing radiation dose. In addition to natural sources of 41 radiation, there are artificial or human-made sources that contribute to the dose the general 3-77
 
1 public receives. Medical diagnostic procedures using radioisotopes and X-rays are a primary 2 human-made radiation source.
3 The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (2009) estimates that the 4 annual average dose to the public from all natural background radiation sources (terrestrial and 5 cosmic) is {3.1 mSv [310 mrem]}. Due to the increase in medical imaging and nuclear medicine 6 procedures, the annual average dose to the public from all sources (natural and human-made) is 7 6.2 mSv [620 mrem] (NCRP, 2009). The average annual natural background dose in the State 8 of New Mexico has lower radon and higher cosmic radiation relative to the national average that 9 results in a net decrease of about 0.45 mSv [45 mrem] (NRC, 2009). Applying this correction to 10 the national average annual background dose results in a New Mexico background dose of 11 approximately 5.75 mSv [575 mrem] with a contribution of naturally occurring radiation of 12 approximately 2.65 mSv [265 mrem].
13 3.12.2.2    UNC Mill Site Tailings Disposal and Tailings Impoundment 14 Historical operations of the UNC Mill Site (EIS Section 2.2.1.2) resulted in routine and non-15 routine releases and exposures to radioactive materials. A major release occurred on 16 July 16, 1979, when the UNC Mill Site dam collapsed, releasing approximately 350 million L 17 [93 million gal] of tailings that flowed down the Pipeline Arroyo into the Puerco River drainage 18 system and the underlying alluvium. A small emergency retention pond captured approximately 19 1,000 metric tons [1,100 tons] of solid material from the release (EPA, 2013b).
20 After the incident, the NRC published an abnormal occurrence report (45 FR 2424) that 21 described the event, the probable consequences, the causes, and corrective actions taken. This 22 included multi-agency oversight of the cleanup effort and actions to prevent recurrence. A 23 subsequent survey of drainage sediments to assess the geographic scope of the tailings release 24 was documented in the NRC report entitled NUREG/CR-2449 Survey of Radionuclide 25 Distributions Resulting from the Church Rock, New Mexico, Uranium Mill Tailings Pond Dam 26 Failure (NRC, 1981). Additional assessments following the incident included a biological 27 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC, 1980) and a health and environmental 28 assessment by NMEID (1983). The CDC report noted that elevated levels of radionuclides in 29 water and sediments had declined significantly over time and posed no significant danger to 30 human health. The CDC made recommendations for further mitigating public doses associated 31 with specific elevated pathways (e.g., consumption of organ meat from livestock that routinely 32 consumed mine dewatering effluents from drainages). NMEID concluded that the spill affected 33 the Puerco River valley environment for a brief period and had little or no effect on the health of 34 local residents. They noted the greater concern at the time was the quality of perennial 35 dewatering effluents in the Puerco River and the quality of natural runoff following thunderstorms 36 or snowmelt (NMEID, 1983).
37 Following the tailings spill and related corrective actions, UNC resumed uranium milling 38 operations and eventually disposed an estimated 3.5 million tons of tailings onsite in the mill 39 tailings impoundment, which was covered and completed in accordance with the NRC-approved 40 reclamation plan in 1996. The tailings impoundment consists of three contiguous cells 41 differentiated as the North, Central, and South Cells (EIS Figure 2.2-1). The Central Cell 42 contains two reclaimed borrow pits. Borrow Pit No. 1 was used to dispose tailings, and Borrow 43 Pit No. 2 was used to retain tailings liquids (EPA, 1988) and for disposal of various mill facility 44 decommissioning materials and equipment (structural steel, siding from demolished buildings, 45 process equipment, piping, tanks, wooden staves, process area foundations, sumps, floor and 46 the solvent extraction circuit) (UNC, 1993). The South Cell includes two evaporation ponds that 3-78
 
1 contain byproduct material. The ponds are currently being used for the NRC-licensed 2 groundwater corrective action program at the UNC Mill Site (EIS Section 2.2.1.2). Historically, 3 seepage from the three tailings disposal cells as well as infiltration of mine effluent water during 4 NECR mine dewatering operations contributed to the saturated conditions and elevated levels of 5 radiological and chemical constituents observed in the Southwest Alluvium and Zones 1 and 3 of 6 the Upper Gallup Sandstone (N.A. Water Systems, 2004) that are the focus of the groundwater 7 corrective actions (EIS Section 3.5.4.2).
8 Significant remedial activities completed at the UNC Mill Site that addressed sources of radiation 9 exposure include (i) decommissioning and unrestricted release of the mill facilities and 10 associated areas including the two borrow pits in 1993 (NRC, 2019a; UNC, 1993) and 11 (ii) consolidation and reclamation of the three tailings disposal cells between 1989 and 1995 with 12 final reclamation and emplacement of a radon cover in 1996 (UNC, 1997). As a result of these 13 actions, the surface reclamation at the UNC Mill Site is nearing completion. Remaining areas 14 that have not yet been reclaimed include a portion of the south tailings cell consisting of the two 15 evaporation ponds. UNC maintains the water levels in the evaporation ponds to support their 16 use in the ongoing groundwater corrective action program and to avoid wind damage to the liner, 17 limit radon emissions, and prevent drying and potential dispersion of byproduct material until the 18 corrective actions are completed and pond reclamation occurs.
19 Radiological surveys were completed at the UNC Mill Site from October 2013 to February 2014 20 (INTERA, 2018). These surveys included two radiological measures that NRC requires for 21 completed tailings impoundments: the external gamma radiation exposure rate (gamma 22 radiation from the tailings that shines through cover material) and the radon flux (e.g., the rate 23 that radon gas from the tailings seeps through small spaces in the cover material and exits the 24 impoundment to outside air). Pre- and post-drilling gamma radiation level surveys were 25 conducted at 33 borehole locations at the UNC Mill Site tailings impoundment. The gamma 26 radiation level rates at these 33 locations, measured in counts per minute, were converted to an 27 exposure rate (micro Roentgen per hour, R/hr). The average exposure rate across all the 28 locations was approximately 21 R/hr. For comparison, the aforementioned New Mexico 29 average annual background dose rate from natural sources is 2.65 mSv [265 mrem] or 30 approximately 30 R/hr. The average radon flux in 1996 was measured at 5.7 pCi/m2 per 31 second, compared to the applicable NRC 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, limit of 20 pCi/m2 per 32 second (NRC 1998).
33 3.12.2.3    Portions of the NECR Mine Site 34 The NECR Mine Site includes areas of contaminated soil that are the focus of the EPA removal 35 and remedial actions (EPA, 2013a; EPA 2011b). Operations at the NECR Mine Site resulted in 36 the accumulation of uranium protore (low grade ore), waste rock, and overburden onsite. The 37 EPA established a risk-based soil field screening level (FSL) of 2.24 pCi/g for Ra-226 to define 38 areas within the NECR Mine Site that represent sources of radioactive material that require 39 remedial action. This screening level corresponds to a cancer risk of 2 x 104 for a residential 40 scenario (EPA, 2011b). To protect human health, EPA has set the acceptable risk range for 41 carcinogens at Superfund Sites from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 (expressed as 1 x 104 to 1 x 42 106). A risk of 1 in 1,000,000 (1 x 106) means that one person out of one million people could 43 be expected to develop cancer as a result of a lifetime exposure to the site contaminants.
44 Although the established EPA Ra-226 screening level for the NECR Mine Site is slightly higher 45 than this range, EPA notes in the remedial action ROD (EPA, 2013a) that under a Clean Air Act 46 rulemaking establishing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 47 NRC licensees, U.S. Department of Energy facilities, and many other kinds of sites, EPA 3-79
 
1 determined that radon emissions of 20 pCi/m2s results in a maximum individual risk of 1.8 x 104 2 and concluded that a risk level of 1.8 x 104 is essentially equivalent to the presumptively safe 3 level of 1 x 104 (54 FR 51673).
4 Areas on the NECR Mine Site that contain materials above the 2.24 pCi/g FSL for Ra-226 have 5 been identified as the following: NECR 1; NECR 2; NECR-1 Step-Out Area; Sandfill Areas 1, 6 2, and 3; Ponds 1, 2 and 3; Sediment Pad; Former Magazine Area; Vent Holes 3 and 8; 7 Boneyard; Unnamed Arroyo Number 1; and the Non-Economic Material Storage Area (NEMSA) 8 (EIS Figure 3.12-1; INTERA, 2018). As part of a required assessment under CERCLA, a UNC 9 contractor conducted a dose assessment involving a hypothetical residential scenario (i.e.,
10 building a house and living there) for these areas considering existing contamination levels. The 11 calculated annual doses range from 1.34 to 4.44 mSv [134 to 444 mrem] and the reported entire 12 site annual dose is 3.81 [381 mrem] (INTERA, 2018).
13 3.12.2.4    Other Sources of Radiation Exposure 14 The region surrounding the proposed project includes other projects or actions that involve 15 radioactive materials, including other existing or abandoned uranium mines, uranium mill sites, 16 and legacy uranium site remediation activities. These regional projects or actions are described 17 in the following paragraphs.
18 The EPA is administering the cleanup of the Quivira Mine Site, located immediately north of the 19 Red Water Pond Road Community and the Mine Site (EIS Figure 2.2-2) (INTERA, 2018). This 20 includes interim removal actions at the vent holes and restoration of the bridge required to 21 access the site. The EPA is working on and plans to complete an engineering evaluation/cost 22 analysis (EECA) in 2020 to evaluate cleanup options for the Quivira Mine Site (EPA, 2018b).
23 The Navajo Nation, in cooperation with the NRC, the EPA, and other agencies, is addressing the 24 legacy of uranium mining within the Navajo Nations land in several respects (EPA et al., 2020b).
25 One part of this broad program involves the remediation of structures that have been 26 contaminated by mined or naturally occurring radioactive materials. Historically, uranium mining 27 or milling waste was occasionally used as sand for aggregate in foundations or in stucco, and 28 contaminated stones were incorporated into the walls and floors of structures. This remedial 29 effort involves assessing and cleaning up structures that were contaminated by the presence of 30 these radioactive materials. Goals described in the current 10-Year Plan, which builds on the 31 work of two previous 5-year plans, include conducting radiological assessments at additional 32 structures beyond 0.8 km [1 mi] of abandoned uranium mines to determine if there is a potential 33 health risk to residents and standardizing a data-sharing agreement that covers relevant and 34 digital data for the structures program and gives EPA and NNEPA full and equal access to 35 records (EPA et al., 2020b). Structure surveys and remediation activities have occurred and are 36 ongoing in the Church Rock, Pinedale, Nahodishgish, and Coyote Canyon Chapters of the 37 Eastern Abandoned Uranium Mine (AUM) region (EIS Section 5.1.1.1). The 10-year plan is 38 broad and addresses several aspects of the legacy of uranium mining within the Navajo Nations 39 land, including the cleanup of the NECR Mine Site.
3-80
 
Step Out                                                    Step Out Area1    ~                                  1,/              Area2 35
                                                                                                                      /                        36
                                                                                \ Bio-venting Area NECR Mine Site        NECRMlne      \
Outlet Chann';j\
1 34 Non,.Econ Material Sto,.
Area (NEMS 0;>
N
                                                                                                              +
NECRMine Site            ~ Public Land Survey Townships C      UNC Mill Site            0  Public l and Survey Sections a:::,
250 -=5::100111111111111ii
                                                                                                                                ,oc::
oo::::::='=i*s~et NECR Mine Site Removal Areas
                                                                                                    -=-=--==M 0 55110            220 330 eters Step Out Areas Figure 3.12-1        Locations of Areas at the NECR Mine Site that are Included in the EPA Removal Action (Source: Modified from INTERA, 2018) 1 The proposed Crownpoint Uranium Project is located in McKinley County, New Mexico, which is 2 another potential source of radioactive exposure in the region. The project is located in three 3 different project areas referred to as Section 8 and Section 17, Unit 1, and Crownpoint.
4 Sections 8 and 17 are located approximately 5.6 km [3.5 mi] south of the UNC Mill Site, while 5 Unit 1 and Crownpoint are near the town of Crownpoint, New Mexico, approximately 29 km 6 [18 mi] from the UNC Mill Site. The NRC issued Source Material License SUA-1580 to Hydro 7 Resources, Inc. (HRI) in January 1998 for uranium production at the Crownpoint Uranium Project 8 using the in-situ recovery method. The Crownpoint Uranium Project has been licensed since 9 that time but has never been active. The NRC does not anticipate, therefore, that this site 10 presently contributes to radiation exposure beyond that received from natural background 11 radiation.
3-81
 
1 3.12.3    Pathways and Receptors 2 The potential exposure pathways for workers and members of the public from the proposed 3 project vary based on the particular activities and their proximity to receptors. Under normal 4 operations, the existing UNC tailings impoundment and the proposed NECR mine waste disposal 5 site would perform as designed to limit water infiltration and contain the stored radioactive 6 material. Under these circumstances, the applicable exposure pathways for workers include 7 direct radiation and inhalation of any airborne radioactive material when in close proximity to 8 NECR mine waste; for example, during proposed transfer and disposal operations. Additionally, 9 workers constructing the disposal cell atop the tailings impoundment would be exposed to 10 external radiation from the existing covered tailings. Members of the public at or near the 11 proposed project would be primarily exposed to any unmitigated airborne NECR mine waste dust 12 and radon gas that could be generated during the proposed transfer and disposal activities and 13 inhaled by downwind receptors. Because direct radiation and airborne radon and dust 14 concentrations both decrease with distance from the source, the level of exposure would vary 15 based on the distance between the source and the receptor and the duration of the exposure.
16 There are 34 home sites located within approximately 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed project area 17 (UNC, 2018). The nearest residents to the proposed project are located approximately 0.22 km 18 [0.14 mi] north of the NECR Mine Site (EIS Figure 3.2-1) (INTERA, 2018).
19 3.12.4    Sources of Chemical Exposure 20 Based on past characterization activities at the NECR Mine Site, elevated levels of uranium are 21 present throughout the NECR Mine Site (INTERA, 2018). Areas with elevated radiological 22 contamination were characterized by UNC and found to have levels of uranium above the FSL of 23 200 mg/kg (MWH, 2007). Arsenic was detected at concentrations above background. However, 24 the concentrations were below the health-based preliminary remediation goal and did not 25 indicate a spatial pattern, nor did they indicate a correlation with the Ra-226 concentrations to 26 confirm that the presence of arsenic was mine site-related (MWH, 2007; EPA, 2013a).
27 Molybdenum, selenium, and vanadium concentrations were also measured but all results were 28 well below their respective FSLs (MWH, 2007). Additionally, immediately north of the NECR 29 Mine Site is an area under remediation to clean up soil contaminated with petroleum products 30 that originated from past mining operations. No other sources of chemical exposure were 31 identified by the NRC staff in the vicinity of the proposed project area. The historic seepage from 32 the borrow areas and tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site was previously a source of 33 chemical constituents to underlying groundwater (addressed by the corrective actions described 34 in EIS Section 2.2.1.2). The addition of a low permeability cover to the tailings impoundment in 35 1996 addressed further water infiltration into the tailings, thereby limiting the potential for 36 continued leaching of additional chemical constituents from the tailings.
37 3.12.5    Health Studies 38 Health studies characterize baseline health conditions applicable to the region around the 39 proposed project area. This includes occupational safety studies and public health evaluations.
40 3. 12.5. 1  Occupational Health 41 The New Mexico State Department of Health (NMDOH) evaluated workplace injuries and 42 illnesses and found that the rate of work-related fatalities in New Mexico appeared to be 43 declining, as are rates for the U.S., but New Mexico's work-related fatality rate remains well 3-82
 
1 above the U.S. rate (NMDOH, 2018). The study noted that the top two areas of concern for 2 occupational health in New Mexico are the high rates of transportation-related injuries and 3 fatalities in two industries, oil and gas development, and construction.
4 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction was the industry category with the largest 5 percentage of fatalities, with 31.9 percent of deaths (NMDOH, 2018). Oil and gas-related 6 fatalities are also among the most common in the State, occurring most frequently as a result of 7 motor vehicle accidents, falls, struck-by-object injuries, or electrocutions. The crude fatality rate 8 for the oil and gas industry in New Mexico for 2016 was 31.9 per 100,000 full-time equivalents 9 (FTE) (ages 16 and over), which is more than three times the U.S. rate of 10.1 per 100,000 FTEs 10 for this job category.
11 The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides annual state-level occupational injury and fatality 12 data. For 2018, the reported incidence of occupational injury for heavy and civil engineering 13 construction in New Mexico was 2.4 injuries per 100 full-time equivalent workers (BLS, 2019a).
14 The incidence of occupational fatalities reported for New Mexico construction in that same year 15 was 10.1 fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers (BLS, 2019b).
16 3.12.5.2      Public Health 17 Baseline health conditions have been evaluated by the New Mexico State Department of Health 18 (NMDOH, 2018). For the three leading causes of death, New Mexico has lower death rates than 19 the U.S. overall for heart disease and cancer, but much higher rates for unintentional injuries 20 including drug overdose, motor vehicle injuries, and older adult falls. New Mexico also has 21 substantially higher death rates than the U.S. for suicide and for cirrhosis and chronic liver 22 disease, which occurs primarily from alcohol use. Life expectancy from age 65 was reported for 23 New Mexico at 20.7 years in 2016, compared with 19.4 years in the U.S. NMDOH reported 24 years of life expectancy from age 65 was lower in southeastern New Mexico and generally 25 higher in northern counties. Relative to the U.S., the NMDOH characterized New Mexico as 26 having a low population with complex public health challenges.
27 Health studies within the region surrounding the proposed project area were previously 28 conducted by Federal and State agencies to evaluate the potential health consequences of the 29 1979 UNC tailings spill (CDC, 1980; NMEID, 1983) (EIS Section 3.12.1.2). The CDC study 30 surveyed livestock that were known to use the Puerco River and its tributaries for drinking, 31 evaluated the public health impacts from consuming livestock, and evaluated the potential health 32 impacts from other exposures to contaminated environmental media. The CDC conducted 33 bioassay surveys of residents that lived near the UNC Mill Site and found that results were 34 consistent with measured values from other known locations in the U.S. and abroad with high 35 background radiation. The CDC concluded that the livestock had elevated concentrations of 36 radionuclides in edible tissues that warranted additional monitoring and investigation but noted 37 that no State or Federal regulations were violated by these elevated concentrations. They 38 described evidence that some of the highest concentrations of radionuclides in the livestock were 39 from animals that drank water from mine discharge rather than impacts from the tailings spill.
40 The NMEID assessment provided a detailed evaluation of available post-spill survey data and 41 concluded that water quality in the Puerco River had returned to pre-spill levels and that the 42 background contaminants of concern from upgradient dewatering operations were potentially 43 hazardous to human health if used over several years as the primary source of drinking water, 44 livestock water, or irrigation water. Therefore, NMEID recommended at the time that the 3-83
 
1 Puerco River should not be used as a primary source of water for human consumption, livestock 2 watering, or irrigation (NMEID, 1983).
3 More recently, as part of the multi-agency Federal effort to address the legacy of uranium mining 4 within the Navajo Nations land (EPA et al., 2014), the Indian Health Service funded a medical 5 monitoring program. In addition, the CDCs Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 6 (ATSDR) provided funding to the University of New Mexico, the Navajo Nation Division of Health, 7 and the Navajo Area Indian Health Service to implement a Navajo Birth Cohort Study of the 8 health effects of non-occupational exposure on pregnancy outcomes and infant health (IHS, 9 2019). The Navajo Birth Cohort Study is ongoing at the time of this EIS.
10 The Navajo Nation has a Cancer Workgroup that analyzes cancer statistics applicable to the 11 Navajo Nation with the aim of increasing awareness and improving cancer prevention, education, 12 and treatment (Navajo Cancer Workgroup, 2018). The workgroup consists of representatives 13 from the Navajo Epidemiology Center, Navajo Department of Health Programs, New Mexico 14 Tumor Registry, Arizona Cancer Registry, Navajo Area Indian Health Service, Non-Profit 15 Organizations, Universities, and the CDC. The groups most recent report (Navajo Cancer 16 Workgroup, 2018) concludes that cancer remains a substantial public health challenge for the 17 Navajo Nation. The most common cancers remain prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers, with 18 higher incidence rates in 2005-2013 compared to 1995-2004. Although the incidence and 19 mortality of the most common cancers (prostate, breast, and colorectal) remain lower than for the 20 referent non-Hispanic white population in Arizona and New Mexico, the study reported that the 21 Navajo Nation has comparatively high rates of kidney, liver, stomach and gallbladder cancers 22 (Navajo Cancer Workgroup, 2018).
23 3.13      Waste Management 24 This section describes the environment that could potentially be affected by the disposition of 25 liquid and solid waste streams generated by UNCs proposal in the vicinity of the UNC Mill Site 26 and NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area).
27 EIS Section 2.2.1 describes the types and volumes of liquid and solid waste that could be 28 generated by the proposed action. The proposed action assessed in this EIS is a waste transfer 29 and disposition operation. Therefore, this section focuses only on the generation, management, 30 and disposition of wastes from ancillary or supporting activities.
31 Nonhazardous solid waste produced from the proposed project would include a small amount of 32 solid waste from routine administrative activities (e.g., typical office waste, and cleaning and 33 maintenance waste products) conducted at the UNC office. Nonhazardous solid waste would be 34 disposed offsite in an NMED-permitted municipal landfill. The nearest municipal solid waste 35 facility is the Red Rock Landfill that is located 14 km [9 mi] east of the proposed project area.
36 The Red Rock landfill has the capacity to dispose nonhazardous waste for approximately 37 52 years after 2020, based on a remaining capacity of 7,469,700 m3 [9.77 million yd3] (Northwest 38 New Mexico Regional Solid Waste Authority, 2020).
39 Liquid wastes resulting from the proposed project would be limited to sanitary waste, stormwater 40 and truck washdown water, and limited hazardous waste resulting from construction equipment 41 maintenance (e.g., grease and solvents). Currently, the only liquid wastes generated at the UNC 42 Mill Site are managed in evaporation ponds located in the South Cell of the mill tailings 43 impoundment, which are described in more detail in EIS Sections 3.5 (Water Resources) and 44 3.12 (Public and Occupational Health). These ponds are used to support groundwater corrective 3-84
 
1 actions at the UNC Mill Site in accordance with a condition of UNCs NRC-issued license and as 2 part of an EPA remedial action for the UNC Mill Site Operable Unit 1. The ponds are used to 3 evaporate extracted groundwater; however, sediments that collect in the evaporation ponds are 4 not removed (INTERA, 2018), and the ponds would eventually be covered in accordance with 5 the NRC-approved reclamation for the South Cell. Therefore, any radioactive materials (such as 6 byproduct material) or chemical constituents in the extracted groundwater that is evaporated 7 from ponds would not be disposed offsite.
8 The nearest sanitary waste treatment facility to the project area is the City of Gallup Wastewater 9 Treatment Plant, which currently processes approximately 13 million L per day [3.5 million gal 10 per day] of sanitary waste (City of Gallup, 2019). Based on common industry practice of using 11 portable toilets to manage sanitary waste for small, temporary workforces, and the limited 12 sanitary waste volume produced as a result of the limited number of workers for the proposed 13 project, the NRC staff expects that sanitary wastes generated during the term of proposed 14 project would be collected in portable toilets or using sewage collection tanks. Furthermore, 15 because it is common industry practice for sanitary wastes collected from portable toilets to be 16 disposed in publicly owned treatment works, the NRC staff expects that the sanitary waste from 17 the proposed project would be disposed at nearby treatment facilities.
18 The NRC staff expects that limited quantities of hazardous wastes (e.g., oil from operating 19 equipment) are expected to be generated and would fall within State and Federal guidelines 20 applicable to Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG). Any hazardous waste 21 generated as a result of the proposed action would need to be collected and disposed at nearby 22 licensed disposal facilities. The Red Rock landfill currently accepts and dispositions (e.g.
23 recycles or temporarily stores for transfer to another facility) hazardous waste and would have 24 ample capacity to manage the limited hazardous waste generated from the proposed project.
25 Furthermore, UNC would comply with all Federal and State requirements applicable to CESQGs.
26 3.14 References 27 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. Standards for 28 Protection Against Radiation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
29 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 30 Appendix A. Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 31 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 32 Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 33 Publishing Office.
34 23 CFR Part 772. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 772. Procedures for 35 Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. Washington, DC:
36 U.S. Government Publishing Office.
37 24 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Housing and Urban Development.
38 Environmental Criteria and Standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
39 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 19, Labor, Part 1910. Occupational 40 Safety and Health Standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
41 36 CFR 60.4. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 42 &sect; 60.4. Criteria for evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
3-85
 
1 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 2 Part 800. Protection of Historic Properties. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing 3 Office.
4 36 CFR 800.16. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 5 &sect; 800.16. Definitions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
6 40 CFR 52.21. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 52.21.
7 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 8 Publishing Office.
9 40 CFR 81.121. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 81.121.
10 Four corners interstate air quality control region. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 11 Publishing Office.
12 40 CFR 81.332. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 81.332.
13 New Mexico. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
14 40 CFR 144.3. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 144.3.
15 Definitions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
16 40 CFR Part 192. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 192.
17 Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.
18 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
19 45 FR 2424. Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 8, p. 2,424-2,455. Abnormal Occurrence; Mill 20 Tailings Impoundment Dam Failure. January 1980.
21 54 FR 51673. Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 240, p. 51,653-51,715. National Emission 22 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Radionuclides. December 1989.
23 69 FR 52040. Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 163, p. 52,040-52,048. Policy Statement on the 24 Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.
25 August 2004.
26 69 FR 53182. Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 168, p. 53,182-53,298. Endangered and 27 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl; 28 Final Rule. August 2004.
29 76 FR 50542. Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 157, p. 50,542-50,629. Endangered and 30 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow 31 Flycatcher. August 2011.
32 79 FR 43131. Federal Register, Vol. 79, p. 43,132-43,161. Endangered and Threatened 33 Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker. July 2014.
34 80 FR 19941. Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 71, p. 19,941-19,953. Endangered and 35 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Zuni Bluehead Sucker.
36 April 2015.
3-86
 
1 85 FR 11458. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 39, p. 11,458-11,594. Endangered and 2 Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct 3 Population Segment of the Yellow Billed Cuckoo. February 2020.
4 85 FR 22250. Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 77, p. 22,340-22,341. The Navigable Waters 5 Protection Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States. April 2020.
6 Anderson, D. and M. Faught. Paleoindian Artefact Distributions: Evidence and Implications.
7 Antiquity. Vol. 74, Issue 285. pp. 507-513. 2000.
8 Begay, J. A Cultural Resources Inventory of Five Proposed Borrow Pits for MWH Global in the 9 NECR Mine Area, McKinley County, New Mexico. Farmington, New Mexico: Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; 10 Cultural Resources Management. 2013.
11 Begay, J. and S. Wero. A Cultural Resource Inventory of 27.5 Acres of Land for Reclamation 12 for MWH Global in Churchrock Mine in McKinley County, New Mexico.
13 Farmington, New Mexico: Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources Management. 2011.
14 BLM. Farmington Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 15 Statement, Volume 1. Farmington, New Mexico: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 16 Land Management, Farmington Field Office. March 2003. BLM-NM-PL-03-014-1610.
17 <https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/64524/20001905/250002264/FDO_-
18 _FFO_-_2003_-_Farmington_Proposed_RMP_Vol_1.pdf> (Accessed 24 February 2020).
19 BLM. Manual H-8410 Visual Resource Inventory. ADAMS Accession No. ML13014A664.
20 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad Field 21 Office. 1986.
22 BLS. Nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses data by industry (SOII): Table 1. Incidence 23 Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, New Mexico, 24 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019a.
25 <https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/18summ1_35.xlsx> (Accessed 10 March 2020) 26 BLS. Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities: Fatal Injury Rates by State of Incident and Industry, 27 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2019b.
28 <https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/18summ1_35.xlsx> (Accessed 10 March 2020) 29 Boggess, D. and R. Begay. A Cultural Resources Survey of 125 Acres for the Proposed 30 Closeout of the Northeast Church Rock Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico.
31 Albuquerque, New Mexico: Lone Mountain Archaeological Services, Inc. 2005.
32 Canonie Environmental. Tailings Reclamation Plan As Approved by NRC March 1, 1991 33 License No. SUA-1475, Volume 1 - Text. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103230255, 34 ML103230287, and ML103230306. Project 86-060-27. Dallas, Texas: Canonie Environmental.
35 August 1991.
36 Canonie Environmental. Geohydrologic Report, Church Rock Site, Gallup, New Mexico.
37 Prepared for UNC Mining and Milling, Gallup, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No.
38 ML14168A065. Dallas, Texas: Canonie Environmental. May 1987.
3-87
 
1 Cedar Creek Associates. Supplemental Survey for Updated Closure Design at the Northeast 2 Church Rock Mine Site and Remedial Action at the UNC Mill Site. ADAMS Accession No.
3 ML20132A276. Fort Collins, Colorado: Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. May 2019.
4 Cedar Creek Associates. Baseline Vegetation and Wildlife Surveys, Church Rock Mill Site.
5 ADAMS Accession No. ML18267A345. Fort Collins, Colorado: Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
6 July 2014a.
7 Cedar Creek Associates. Vegetation Characterization and Biointrusion Surveys, Church Rock 8 Mill Site. ADAMS Accession No. ML18267A334. Fort Collins, Colorado: Cedar Creek 9 Associates, Inc. July 2014b.
10 Cedar Creek Associates. Vegetation & Wildlife Evaluations/Revegetation Recommendations, 11 2009 Evaluations and Planning. ADAMS Accession No. ML17108A410. Fort Collins, Colorado:
12 Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. February 2010.
13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Loud Noise Can Cause Hearing Loss.
14 Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019 15 <https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html>
16 (Accessed 19 May 2019).
17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Biological Assessment After Uranium Mill Tailings 18 Spill, Church Rock, New Mexico. EPI-79-94-2. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control 19 and Prevention. 1980. <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/1000485.pdf>
20 (Accessed 3 March 2020).
21 CEQ. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act.
22 ML12199A438. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. December 1997.
23 City of Gallup. City of Gallup Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Improvements Project 24 Gallup, New Mexico: City of Gallup. 2019.
25 <https://www.gallupnm.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3274/City-of-Gallup-WWTP-Capital-26 Improvement-Project-> (Accessed 11 July 2019) 27 City of Gallup. City of Gallup WWTP Capital Improvement Project. 2018.
28 <https://www.gallupnm.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3274/City-of-Gallup-WWTP-Capital-29 Improvement-Project-> (Accessed 8 May 2020) 30 Cordell, L. Archaeology of the Southwest. San Diego, California: Academic Press. 1997.
31 Craigg, S.D. Geologic Framework of the San Juan Structural Basin of New Mexico, Colorado, 32 Arizona, and Utah, with Emphasis on Triassic through Tertiary Rocks. U.S. Geological Survey 33 Professional Paper 1420. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. 2001.
34 DAppolonia. State of New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division Uranium Mill License 35 Renewal Application - Environmental Report, License No. NM-UNC-ML. ADAMS Accession No.
36 ML13070A158. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: DAppolonia. 1981.
3-88
 
1 Delemos J.L, B.C. Bostick, A.N. Quicksall, J.D. Landis, C.C. George, N.L. Slagowski, T. Rock, 2 D. Brugge, J. Lewis, and J.L. Durant. Rapid Dissolution of Soluble Uranyl Phases in Arid, Mine-3 Impacted Catchments Near Church Rock, NM. Environmental Science Technology. Vol. 42, 4 No. 11. pp. 3,951-3,957. 2008.
5 Economic Profile System. A Demographic Profile. Bozeman, Montana: Headwaters 6 Economics. May 2020.
7 EMNRD. New Mexico Rare Plant Conservations Scorecard. Updated March 24, 2020.
8 Santa Fe, New Mexico: State of New Mexico Energy Conservation and Management Division, 9 Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department. 2020.
10 <http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/SFD/ForestMgt/documents/Scorecard_Updated_24March2020_l 11 ocked.xlsx> (Accessed 7 June 2020) 12 EPA. 2014 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 13 Protection Agency. 2020a. <https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-14 emissions-inventory nei-data> (Accessed 27 February 2020) 15 EPA. Ten-Year Plan, Federal Actions to Address Impacts of Uranium Contamination on the 16 Navajo Nation. Draft, 2020-2029. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 17 Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, the 18 Indian Health Service; Atlanta, Georgia: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 19 Registry. 2020b.
20 EPA. Fifth Five-Year Review Report for United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Superfund 21 Site McKinley County, New Mexico. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 22 Region 6. September 2018a. <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/100011828.pdf> (Accessed 23 25 August 2020).
24 EPA. Fact Sheet - Kerr-McGee Quivira Mines Site Update. Washington, DC:
25 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018b.
26 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100014599.pdf> (Accessed 17 May 2020) 27 EPA. Fact Sheet - Proposed Revisions to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 28 Permitting Regulations for Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and Establishment of a GHG Significant 29 Emissions Rate. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016.
30 <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/ser_proposal_factsheet_8 31 16.pdf> (Accessed 8 May 2019) 32 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, 33 EPA ID NMD030443303; Operable Unit: OU 02, Surface Soil Operable Unit. Dallas, Texas:
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. 2013a.
35 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/681353.pdf> (Accessed 21 January 2019) 36 EPA. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the Continental United States. ADAMS Accession 37 No. ML18023A341. Corvallis, Oregon: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health 38 and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. 2013b.
39 EPA. Draft Regional Groundwater Assessment of Impacts from Historic Releases of the 40 NECR Mine and UNC Mill Facilities Navajo Nation. SEMS-RM DOCID # 1178232.
41 San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 2011a.
3-89
 
1 EPA. Action Memorandum: Request for a Non-Time Critical Removal Action at the Northeast 2 Church Rock Mine Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation.
3 ADAMS Accession No. ML12003A095. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4 Region 6 and San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
5 September 29, 2011b.
6 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, Groundwater Operable Unit 7 McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML063630443. EPA R06-R88-044.
8 Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. 1988.
9 EPA. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and 10 Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004. ADAMS Accession 11 No. ML110110692. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1974.
12 FEMA. FEMAs National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Washington, DC: Federal 13 Emergency Management Agency. April 2019. <https://hazards-14 fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9 15 cd&extent=-108.90972821289034,35.4579947126075,-
16 108.57739178710955,35.59769836915588> (Accessed 6 February 2020) 17 FEMA. Managing Floodplain Development Through the National Flood Insurance Program.
18 Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency. pp 3-33. March 1998.
19 <https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1535-20490-4172/unit3.pdf>
20 (Accessed 6 February 2020) 21 Fugate, F. and R. Fugate. Roadside History of New Mexico. Missoula, Montana: Mountain 22 Press Publishing Co. 1989.
23 FWS.
 
==Subject:==
Updated List of Threatened and Endangered Species that May Occur in Your 24 Proposed Project Location, and/or may be Affected by Your Proposed Project. Consultation 25 Code: 02ENNM00-2019-SLI-0620. Project Name: Former Church Rock Uranium Mill Site 26 Proposed License Amendment. ADAMS Accession No. ML20156A413. Albuquerque, 27 New Mexico: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
28 June 2020.
29 Gallaher, B. and J. Cary. Impacts on Uranium Mining on Surface and Shallow Ground Waters, 30 Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML19248D037. Santa Fe, 31 New Mexico: New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division. September 1986.
32 Gallup McKinley County Schools. Gallup, New Mexico. 2019.
33 <https://www.gmcs.k12.nm.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1189320&type=d&pREC_ID=14 34 32724> (Accessed 11 May 2019).
35 GCRP. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I.
36 Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017.
37 Genesis Healthcare. Red Rocks Care Center. Kennett Square, Pennsylvania: Genesis 38 Healthcare. 2019. <http://www.genesishcc.com/RedRocks/services-amenities>
39 (Accessed 13 May 2019) 3-90
 
1 GIMC. Gallup Indian Medical Center. 2019. Rockville, Maryland: Indian Health Services.
2 <https://www.ihs.gov/navajo/healthcarefacilities/gallup/> (Accessed 13 May 2019) 3 Greater Gallup Economic Development Corporation. Top Employers in Gallup/McKinley 4 County. 2019. <http://www.gallupedc.com/work-here/top-employers>
5 (Accessed 11 May 2019) 6 Hatch. Annual Review Report - 2018 Groundwater Corrective Action Church Rock Site Church 7 Rock, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML19037A416. State College, Pennsylvania:
8 Hatch. January 2019.
9 HUD. Affordable Housing. 2019. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 10 Development. <https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/>
11 (Accessed 22 May 2019) 12 IHS. Testimony from Dr. Loretta Christensen on Americas Nuclear Past: Examining the Effects 13 of Radiation in Indian Country before Committee on Indian Affairs. Window Rock, Arizona:
14 Indian Health Service, Navajo Area Office, 2019.
15 <https://www.hhs.gov/about/agencies/asl/testimony/2019-10/americas-nuclear-past-examining-16 effects-radiation-indian-country.html> (Accessed 5 March 2020).
17 INTERA. Response to August 6, 2019 Environmental Request for Additional Information (RAI),
18 United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) License Amendment Request to Move Mine Waste from the 19 Northeast Church Rock Mine to the Church Rock Mill Site, McKinley County, NM (Docket 20 No. 040-8907). ADAMS Accession No. ML19248D035 Package. Albuquerque, New Mexico:
21 INTERA Geosciences and Engineering Solutions. September 2019.
22 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 23 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 24 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 25 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
26 Irwin-Williams, C. The Oshara Tradition: Origins of Anasazi Culture. Contributions in 27 Anthropology. Vol. 5, No. 1. Portales, New Mexico: Eastern New Mexico University.
28 September 1973.
29 Judge, J. and J. Dawson. PaleoIndian Settlement Technology in New Mexico. Science.
30 Vol. 176. pp 1,210-1,206. 1972.
31 Kidder, A. Southwest Archaeological Conference. Science. Vol. 66, (1716). pp 489-491.
32 1927.
33 Koczan, S. An Archaeological Clearance Investigation near Church Rock, New Mexico.
34 Laboratory of Anthropology Note No. 268. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Museum of New Mexico 35 Research Section. 1974.
36 Martin, R. and R. Begay. A Cultural Resources Inventory of 68.87 Acres of Proposed 37 Reclamation North of The Church Rock Mine, McKinley County, New Mexico.
38 Farmington, New Mexico: Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources Management. 2009.
3-91
 
1 Martin, R., S. Wero, and A. Werito. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed INTERA 2 Church Rock 17 Additional Areas AUM Cleanup in Church Rock and Coyote Canyon Chapters, 3 McKinley County, New Mexico. Farmington, New Mexico: Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources 4 Management. 2019.
5 Martin, R., S. Wero., and J. Begay. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed INTERA 6 Churchrock AUM Clean-up in the Church Rock and Coyote Canyon Chapters, McKinley County, 7 New Mexico. Farmington, New Mexico: Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources Management. 2018.
8 McKinley County Fire and EMS Department. 2019.
9 <https://www.co.mckinley.nm.us/158/Fire-Rescue> (Accessed 14 May 2019) 10 Moffson, S. Evaluation of National Register Historic Districts Guidance from the New Mexico 11 Historic Preservation. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Historic Preservation Division, 12 New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs Division. 2020.
13 <http://nmhistoricpreservation.org/assets/files/registers/Guidance%20on%20Historic%20Districts 14 .pdf> (Accessed 6 May 2020) 15 MWH. Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) Report. Northeast Church Rock Mine Site.
16 Steamboat Springs, Colorado: MWH, Inc. October 2007.
17 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/1178256.pdf> (Accessed 11 June 2020).
18 N.A. Water Systems, LLC. Annual Review Report 2004, Groundwater Corrective Action, 19 Church Rock Site, Church Rock, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML050070220; 20 ML050070233, ML050070242, and ML050070245. Moon Township, Pennsylvania: N.A Water 21 Systems, LLC. 2004.
22 Navajo Cancer Workgroup. Cancer Among the Navajo: 2005 to 2013. Window Rock, Arizona:
23 Navajo Epidemiology Center, Navajo Department of Health. 2018. <https://www.nec.navajo-24 nsn.gov/Portals/0/Reports/Cancer%20Among%20Navajo%202018%20Spread.pdf>
25 (Accessed 6 March 2020) 26 NCEI. Summary of Monthly Normals, 1981-2010; Gallup Municipal Airport, New Mexico.
27 Asheville, North Carolina: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers 28 for Environmental Information. 2020.
29 NCES. Search for Private Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National 30 Center for Education Statistics (NCES). <https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/privateschoolsearch/>
31 (Accessed 9 May 2020) 32 NCRP. Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. Report No. 160.
33 Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 2009.
34 <https://ncrponline.org/publications/reports/ncrp-report-160/> (Accessed 29 August 2018).
35 New Mexico Aging & Long-Term Services Department. Church Rock Senior Center.
36 Church Rock, New Mexico: New Mexico Aging & Long-Term Services Department.
37 <http://newmexico.networkofcare.org/aging/services/agency.aspx?pid=ChurchRockSeniorCenter 38 _1534_1_0> (Accessed 22 May 2019).
3-92
 
1 NHNM. New Mexico's Conservation Information and Research Center. Species Search.
2 Albuquerque, New Mexico: Albuquerque, New Mexico: Natural Heritage New Mexico.
3 <https://nhnm.unm.edu/> (Accessed 7 June 2020) 4 NMAC. New Mexico Administrative Code Title 19, Natural Resources and Wildlife. Santa Fe, 5 New Mexico: New Mexico State. 2005.
6 NMDFA. Local Government Division Budget and Finance Bureau Property Tax Facts for Tax 7 Year 2017. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration.
8 2017.
9 <http://nmdfa.state.nm.us/uploads/FileLinks/ff1373ca37bb4c4f800f868687821827/Property_Tax 10 _Facts_2017.pdf> (Accessed 8 August 2018) 11 NMDOH. 2018: The State of Health in New Mexico. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico 12 Department of Health. April 2018. <https://nmhealth.org/publication/view/report/4442/>
13 (Accessed 29 August 2018) 14 NMDOT. New Mexico Traffic Crash Annual Report 2018. Santa Fe, New Mexico:
15 New Mexico Department of Transportation. January 2020.
16 <https://gps.unm.edu/gps_assets/tru_data/Crash-Reports/Annual-Reports/annual-report-17 2018.pdf> (Accessed 1 March 2020) 18 NMED. Domestic and Industrial Groundwater Discharge Permits. Santa Fe, New Mexico:
19 New Mexico Environment Department. 19 July 2018a.
20 <https://cloud.env.nm.gov/water/resources/_translator.php/Icxb9qRhoYRqj0myQz1ZrKZxrNdV/tY 21 gnkbLSNTvfX/4APIzDCsYCNdtGekULZ20eE+4xHTA94BbM+6cCzREXMEq8x5nBlTSZGe4BM6 22 i324=.pdf> (Accessed 8 May 2020) 23 NMED. Integrated List by IR Category. Clean Water Act 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report, 24 2018-2020 Integrated Report summary spreadsheets. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico 25 Environment Department, Surface Water Quality Bureau. 2018b.
26 NMEID. The Church Rock Uranium Mill Tailings Spill: A Health and Environmental 27 Assessment, Summary Report. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Environmental 28 Improvement Division. 1983. <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/1000720.pdf>
29 (Accessed 3 March 2020) 30 NMOSE. OSE POD Locations. Interactive Map Version 2.1.2. Santa Fe, New Mexico: State 31 of New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission. April 2019.
32 <https://gis.ose.state.nm.us/gisapps/ose_pod_locations/> (Accessed 8 May 2020) 33 NMOSE. Northwest New Mexico Regional Water Plan. Santa Fe, New Mexico: State of 34 New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission. January 2017.
35 NMOSE. New Mexico Water Use By Categories 2015. Technical Report 55. Santa Fe, 36 New Mexico: State of New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission.
37 2015.
3-93
 
1 NMPED. STARS, STARS Enrollment Data. 2017-2018 Enrollment by district by location by 2 grade. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Public Education Department. 2020.
3 <https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/bureaus/information-technology/stars/>
4 (Accessed 21 April 2020) 5 NMTRD. Gross Receipts Tax Rates. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Taxation and 6 Revenue Department. 2019. <http://www.tax.newmexico.gov/gross-receipts-tax-historic-7 rates.aspx> (Accessed 11 May 2019) 8 NNDFW. Navajo Nation Endangered Species List, February 2020. Window Rock, Arizona:
9 Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 2020.
10 <https://www.nndfw.org/nnhp/nnhp_nesl.pdf> (Accessed 7 June 2020) 11 NNDFW. Navajo Nation Sensitive Species List 2008. Window Rock, Arizona: Navajo Nation 12 Division of Natural Resources Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008.
13 <https://www.nndfw.org/nnhp/tracking.pdf> (Accessed 7 June 2020) 14 NNMCG. McKinley County, New Mexico, Comprehensive Plan Update. Final Plan. Northwest 15 New Mexico Council of Governments. September 2012.
16 NOAA. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information - State Climate Summaries -
17 New Mexico. Asheville, North Carolina: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
18 2017. <https://statesummaries.ncics.org/nm> (25 April 2019) 19 Northwest New Mexico Regional Solid Waste Authority. Email to N. Hall (February 13) 20 Northwest New Mexico Regional Solid Waste Authority from G. Hall, Northwest New Mexico 21 Regional Solid Waste Authority. ADAMS Accession No. ML20245E151. 2020.
22 NRC. Church Rock Uranium MillNRC Inspection Report. Inspection Report 23 040-08907/2019-001. License No. SUA-1475. ADAMS Accession No. ML19094A708.
24 Arlington, Texas: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2019a.
25 NRC. Summary Report for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste 26 at the United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Mill Site in McKinley County, New Mexico.
27 ADAMS Accession No. ML19338E254. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
28 December 2019b.
29 NRC. NUREG-1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 30 Milling Facilities. Volumes 1 (May 2009) and 2 (July 2008). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 31 Regulatory Commission. 2009.
32 NRC. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 33 NMSS Programs. ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 34 Regulatory Commission. August 2003.
35 NRC. Evaluation of Church Rock Radon Flux Rates. Letter (April 22, 1998) to J.R Velasquez, 36 United Nuclear Corporation, Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML070680251. Washington, DC: U.S.
37 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1998.
3-94
 
1 NRC. NUREG-1508, Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate the 2 Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico. Washington, DC:
3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 1997.
4 NRC. NUREG/CR-2449, Survey of Radionuclide Distributions Resulting from the Church Rock, 5 New Mexico, Uranium Mill Tailings Pond Dam Failure. ADAMS Accession No. ML102220206.
6 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1981.
7 NRCS. Web Soil Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource 8 Conservation Service. 2018.
9 <https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx> (Accessed 20 May 2019) 10 NRCS. Soil Survey of McKinley County Area, New Mexico, McKinley County and Parts of 11 Cibola and San Juan Counties. Washington, DC: National Resource Conservation Service.
12 2005.
13 Office of the Navajo Tax Commission. Business Activity Tax. Office of the Navajo Tax 14 Commission. 2019. <http://www.tax.navajo-nsn.gov/> (Accessed 11 May 2019) 15 Pratt, B. and D. Scurlock. The Northeast New Mexico Regional Overview, Volume 1: Historic 16 Overview. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. 1990.
17 Presbyterian Medical Services. Presbyterian Medical Services. 2019. Santa Fe, New Mexico:
18 Presbyterian Medical Services. <http://www.pmsnm.org/> (Accessed 20 May 2019) 19 Rehoboth Christian School. Rehoboth Christian School. 2020. Rehoboth, New Mexico.
20 <http://www.rcsnm.org/> (Accessed 9 May 2020) 21 RMCH. Rehoboth McKinley Christian Health Care Services. 2019. Gallup, New Mexico.
22 <http://rmch.org/> (Accessed 13 May 2019) 23 Shuey, C. Report of the Church Rock Uranium Monitoring Project (CRUMP), 2003-2007.
24 Albuquerque, New Mexico: Southwest Research and Information Center. May 2007.
25 <http://www2.clarku.edu/mtafund/prodlib/crump/CRUMP-Report.pdf> (Accessed 25 August 26 2020>
27 Sorensen, E.R. Water Use by Categories in New Mexico Counties and River Basins, and 28 Irrigated and Dry Cropland Acreage in 1975. Technical Report 41. Santa Fe, New Mexico:
29 New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. 1977.
30 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475. ADAMS 31 Accession No. ML19287A009. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
32 October 2019a.
3-95
 
1 Stantec. Responses to Request for Additional Information on the Application for Amendment of 2 USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475 for the United Nuclear Corporation Mill Site, 3 McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML19157A165 Package. Edmonton, 4 Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. June 2019b.
5 Stantec. Responses to Request for Additional Information (Group 2) on the Application for 6 Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475 for the United Nuclear Corporation 7 Mill Site, McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML19287A007 Package.
8 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. October 2019c.
9 Stantec. Responses to Request for Additional Information (Group 1) on the Application for 10 Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475 for the United Nuclear Corporation 11 Mill Site, McKinley County, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML19305D526 Package.
12 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 4, 2019d.
13 Stantec. Responses to Request for Additional Information (Group 2) on the Application for 14 Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475 for the United Nuclear Corporation 15 Mill Site, McKinley County, New Mexico (2nd submittal). ADAMS Accession No. ML19315A006 16 Package. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 11, 2019e.
17 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 18 Attachment G.1, Seismic Hazard Analysis. ADAMS Accession No. ML19315A008.
19 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 2019f.
20 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 21 Attachment I.1, Estimation of Flood Flows for Design of Interim and Final Surface Water Controls 22 for the Removal Action at the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site and Church Rock Mill Site."
23 ADAMS Accession No. ML19287A010. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
24 October 2019g.
25 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 26 Appendix J: Technical Specifications; Appendix K: Removal Action Schedule; Appendix L:
27 Health and Safety Plan; Appendix U: Revegetation Plans. ADAMS Accession No.
28 ML18267A276. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018a.
29 Stantec. Northeast Church Rock Project, Revised 95% Design Submittal - September 2018, 30 Volume 2 - Design Drawings. ADAMS Accession No. ML18267A348. Edmonton, Canada:
31 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. September 2018b.
32 Stone, J.S., F.P. Lyford, P.F. Frenzel, N.H. Mizell, and E.T. Padgett. Hydrogeology and Water 33 Resources of the San Jan Basin, New Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral 34 Resources, Hydrologic Report 6. 1983.
35 Swaback Partners, PLLC. The Sustainable Journey of Beauty, A Planning Manual for 36 Developing New Housing and Community Initiatives on the Navajo Nation. October 2012.
37 Toll, W., T. Windes, and P. McKenna. Late Ceramic Patterns in Chaco Canyon: The 38 Pragmatics of Modeling Ceramic Exchange. Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited 39 by Robert Fry. Society for American Archaeology. pp. 95-118. 1980.
3-96
 
1 Trinity Consultants. Modeling Addendum, Supplemental Environmental Report for the United 2 Nuclear Corporation Source Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession No.
3 ML20245E178. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Trinity Consultants. May 2020.
4 UNC. Annual Land Use Survey Report for 2017. ADAMS Accession No. ML18088A198.
5 License No. SUA-1475, Condition No.31. Gallup, New Mexico: United Nuclear Corporation.
6 March 2018.
7 UNC. Letter to NRC (January 2, 1997) Report on Emanation Testing of Final Radon Cover 8 Over UNCs Church Rock Tailings Site. License No. SUA-1475, Docket 40-8907. ADAMS 9 Accession No. ML102110265. Gallup, New Mexico: United Nuclear Corporation. January 1997.
10 UNC. Church Rock Mill Decommissioning Report. License No. SUA-1475, Docket 40-8907.
11 ADAMS Accession No. ML102990254. Gallup, New Mexico: United Nuclear Corporation.
12 April 1993.
13 UNC. Applicant's Environmental Report on the Church Rock, New Mexico Uranium Mill and 14 Mine. Volume l. UNC-ER-1. ADAMS Accession No. ML13070A155. Rehoboth, New Mexico:
15 United Nuclear Corporation. 1975.
16 UNM. Population Projections. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico. 2019.
17 <https://gps.unm.edu/pru/projections> (Accessed 11 May 2019) 18 USBR. Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project. Farmington, New Mexico: U.S. Bureau of 19 Reclamation, Interior Region 7 Upper Colorado Basin, Four Corners Construction Office.
20 April 2020a. <https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/navajo-gallup/index.html>
21 (Accessed 4 May 2020) 22 USBR. Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Newsletter, 3rd Quarter. Farmington, New Mexico:
23 US Bureau of Reclamation, Four Corners Construction Office. March 2020b.
24 <https://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/navajo-gallup/pdf/newsletter/NavajoGallupProjectNewsletter-25 3rdQtr2020-508-UCRO.pdf> (Accessed 4 May 2020) 26 USCB. State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010-2019. Datasets.
27 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2019a.
28 <https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html>
29 (Accessed 13 April 2020) 30 USCB. TIGERweb Nation-Based Data Files. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 31 Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2019b.
32 <https://tigerweb.geo.census.gov/tigerwebmain/TIGERweb_nation_based_files.html>
33 (Accessed 13 April 2020) 3-97
 
1 USCB. 2014-2018 5-year American Community Survey; Table DP05: ACS Demographic and 2 Housing Estimates 2014-2018; Table B01003, Total Population; Table B03002: Hispanic or 3 Latino Origin by Race; Table B17010: Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months of Families by 4 Family Type by Presence of Related Children Under 18 Years by Age of Related Children; 5 Table B17021: Poverty Status of Individuals by Living Arrangement; Table C02003: Detailed 6 Race; Table C02014: American Indian and Alaska Native Alone for Selected Tribal Groupings; 7 Table S1901, Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars); Table S2001:
8 Earnings in the Past 12 Months (in 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars); Table S2301: Employment 9 Status. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2018a.
10 <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/> (Accessed 13 August 2020) 11 USCB. 2018 1-year American Community Survey; Table B14001: School Enrollment by Level 12 of School for the Population 3 Years and Over, McKinley County, New Mexico. Washington, DC:
13 U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2018b. <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/>
14 (Accessed 13 August 2020) 15 USGS. Quaternary Fold and Fault Database of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey 16 Earthquake Hazards Program, Faults. 2020a. <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/>
17 (Accessed 20 February 2020) 18 USGS. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography 19 Products. 2020b. <https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-20 hydrography/access-national-hydrography-products> (Accessed 1 September 2020) 21 USGS. Quaternary Fold and Fault Database of the United States. Earthquake Hazards 22 Program, Faults. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. 2018.
23 <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/> (Accessed 21 May 2019) 24 USGS. Gap Analysis Project. National Land Cover, Version 2. Reston, Virginia:
25 U.S. Geological Survey. 2011.
26 Van Metre, P.C., L. Wirt, T.J. Lopes, and S.A. Ferguson. Effects of Uranium-Mining Releases 27 on Ground-Water Quality in the Puerco River Basin, Arizona, and New Mexico. U.S. Geological 28 Survey Water-Supply Paper 2476. 1997.
29 ZPSD. Tribal Education Status Report Zuni Public School District 2017-2018.
30 Zuni, New Mexico: Zuni Public School District. <https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-31 content/uploads/2018/12/Zuni-Public-School-District-2017-18-TESR.pdf>
32 (Accessed 8 May 2020) 3-98
 
1  4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, 2                        AND CLOSURE, AND MITIGATIVE ACTIONS 3 4.1      Introduction 4 This chapter analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could occur under the proposed 5 action, two secondary alternatives, and the no-action alternative. Because this licensing action is 6 an amendment to an existing license for a facility that is undergoing reclamation as part of a 7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved reclamation plan, the activities included 8 as part of the proposed action are limited to (i) construction-related activities [e.g., disposal of 9 non-11e.(2) mine waste from the Northeast Church Rock (NECR) Mine Site on top of the 10 NRC-licensed tailings impoundment (i.e., the proposed disposal site)], (ii) transferring NECR 11 mine waste to and placing the mine waste on the proposed disposal site, and (iii) proposed 12 disposal site closure activities. Although various classifications of waste exist at the NECR Mine 13 Site, for the purpose of the impact analyses in this chapter, the term NECR mine waste refers 14 only to those materials from the NECR Mine Site with radium (Ra)-226 concentrations above 15 82.9 millibecquerels per gram (mBq/g) [2.24 picocuries per gram (pCi/g)] and below 7.40 Bq/g 16 [200 pCi/g] or below 230 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) [230 parts per million (ppm)] natural 17 uranium that are addressed by the proposed license amendment request to allow disposal at the 18 United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Mill Site. Other mine waste materials that are beyond these 19 ranges would not be disposed at the UNC Mill Site.
20 This proposed license amendment is requesting changes to ongoing NRC-approved surface 21 reclamation activities at the UNC Mill Site. Previously reviewed and approved surface 22 reclamation activities that are ongoing at the UNC Mill Site under the NRC license that are not 23 affected by the proposed action [e.g., groundwater corrective actions discussed in this 24 environmental impact statement (EIS) Section 1.1.1] may be mentioned for context in the impact 25 analysis within this chapter but are not evaluated in detail and would either continue to proceed 26 as planned in parallel with the proposed action or resume once the proposed action is 27 completed. The timeframe of this National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 28 (NEPA) analysis extends through the completion of closure activities at the proposed disposal 29 site (approximately 4 years). Because these other ongoing and previously-approved activities 30 (which are not part of the proposed action) present the potential for overlapping impacts beyond 31 the timeframe of this analysis, these additional activities are addressed in this chapter for 32 completeness and in the NRCs evaluation of cumulative impacts EIS Chapter 5), as appropriate.
33 Additionally, because of the unique nature of the proposed project, the potential exists for 34 environmental impacts associated with long-term performance of the modified tailings 35 impoundment that could occur well beyond the 4-year timeframe when the active site work would 36 be taking place. Therefore, the timeframe is extended beyond the 4-year period for some 37 resource areas to allow consideration of potential long-term impacts of the proposed action (see 38 the Post-closure Considerations discussion in this section).
39 Under the no-action alternative (Alternative 2), the NRC would not amend the UNC license and 40 UNC would continue to proceed with currently authorized ongoing surface and groundwater 41 reclamation at the UNC Mill Site (EIS Section 2.2.2 provides additional details regarding the 42 no-action alternative). The no-action alternative would not allow UNC to dispose the NECR mine 43 waste on top of the NRC-licensed tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. Without approval 44 for this disposal, the material would temporarily remain at the NECR Mine Site until the 45 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) selects a different remedy under the 46 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) for final 4-1
 
1 disposal of the NECR mine waste. EPA previously evaluated several alternatives for the 2 removal of NECR mine waste (EPA, 2009). Alternatives that satisfied the selection criteria 3 included the proposed action and offsite disposal. Based on the EPA analysis, the NRC staff 4 concludes that under the no-action alternative, the waste would likely be shipped to a disposal 5 facility, such as the U.S. Ecology facility in Grand View, Idaho, or the White Mesa uranium mill in 6 Blanding, Utah. The NRC staff cannot speculate as to which facility or facilities could ultimately 7 be chosen and in what configuration under the no-action alternative; thus, the impacts of 8 shipping the waste cannot be assessed quantitatively in this EIS, although transportation impacts 9 between alternatives can be and still are meaningfully assessed in this chapter. The analysis of 10 no-action alternative (Alternative 2) impacts in this chapter focuses on the short-term impacts of 11 leaving the waste in place for another estimated 10 years. Generally, these impacts would be a 12 continuation of existing conditions described in EIS Chapter 3. This chapter presents the NRC 13 staffs evaluation and impact determinations of UNCs proposal. The NRCs impact 14 determinations in this chapter only consider mitigations that are required or have been included 15 explicitly in the UNC proposal. Any additional or optional mitigations identified by the NRC staff 16 are documented in EIS Chapter 6 but are not relied upon to mitigate impact findings.
17 The NRC staff will use the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations-based standard 18 of significance for assessing environmental impacts, as described in the NRC guidance in 19 NUREG-1748 and summarized as follows:
20 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither 21 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource considered.
22 MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 23 important attributes of the resource considered.
24 LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 25 important attributes of the resource considered.
26 Authority Under CERCLA 27 As described in more detail in Chapter 1, the proposed action would allow UNC to implement two 28 EPA-required response actions under CERCLA to address threats to public health: (i) the 2011 29 removal action for the NECR Mine Site that requires UNC to remove mine wastes from the 30 NECR Mine Site (EPA, 2011), and (ii) the 2013 remedial action for the UNC Mill Site that 31 selected a remedy that involves disposal of a portion of the removed waste at the UNC Mill Site 32 (EPA, 2013). To implement the selected EPA disposal option at the UNC Mill Site, UNC must 33 first obtain NRC approval of the requested amendment to the NRC license under the licensing 34 authority granted by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). The 35 potential environmental impacts of the proposed NRC licensing action are evaluated in this EIS 36 in accordance with the NRCs regulations that implement NEPA. In addition, the NRC staff are 37 conducting a safety review to evaluate this proposed actions compliance with the applicable 38 NRC safety regulations. This complex set of actions and authorities has resulted in a unique 39 circumstance in which the NRC is developing an EIS for an NRC licensing action that is 40 necessary for UNC to comply with current EPA requirements under CERCLA for the NECR Mine 41 Site. For these EPA-required CERCLA actions, UNC has already completed several evaluations 42 and received multiple approvals.
43 Because the CERCLA process applies a unique Federal regulatory framework to response 44 actions, including those put forth as the proposed action, it is necessary for this EIS to be 4-2
 
1 informed by aspects of the CERCLA process that may overlap with the NRC staffs independent 2 evaluation of the potential environmental impacts. This has resulted in the NRC staffs additional 3 review and consideration of EPA CERCLA process-related documentation. As applicable and 4 appropriate, the NRC has incorporated in this EIS CERCLA concepts and terminology to 5 accurately describe the regulatory frameworks and oversight applicable to the proposed action.
6 For example, to improve the efficiency of the Federal response to public health threats, many of 7 the typical Federal agency regulatory reviews and oversight (e.g., permitting) responsibilities are 8 preempted by EPA authority under CERCLA. Under the CERCLA process, EPA instead 9 identifies Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and ensures the 10 substantive aspects of the ARARs are met by the response action. As a result, the NRC impact 11 analyses in this chapter that discuss compliance with regulations in the context of potential 12 impacts may involve references to requirements that are ARARs instead of referring to the 13 typical authorities, requirements, or associated permitting processes. Many of the important 14 details associated with the implementation of the remedial action are addressed in the 15 95% Design Report, which UNC developed and the EPA approved as part of the CERCLA 16 process (MWH, 2018). UNC incorporated large portions of the 95% Design Report as 17 appendices of the license amendment application submitted to the NRC. Some portions of the 18 document have been revised in response to NRC requests for additional information (RAIs). The 19 95% Design Report documents several plans and procedures that were developed to address 20 ARARs or other applicable requirements. Some of these plans are referenced in the impact 21 analyses in this chapter, including:
22
* Health and Safety Plan - Addresses nonradiological and radiological health and safety.
23          U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements are not 24          ARARs because they are part of the National Contingency Plan.
25
* Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) - Addresses stormwater 26          management during construction activities.
27
* Release Contingency and Prevention Plan (RCPP) - Addresses mitigation of hazardous 28          material release. The RCPP would include a Spill Prevention, Control, and 29          Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP).
30
* Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan - Addresses dust control measures that would be 31          applied during the proposed action.
32
* Revegetation plans - Two plans address revegetation of disturbed areas at the NECR 33          Mine Site and UNC Mill Site.
34 Post-closure Considerations 35 Following closure of the disposal site and pending UNCs completion of the remaining surface 36 reclamation and groundwater corrective actions in accordance with their NRC-issued license, the 37 NRC would terminate the license and the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a 38 custodial agency {e.g., the Federal government [the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)] or the 39 State of New Mexico} for long-term surveillance and maintenance. If the NRC, under its 40 regulatory authority, approves the license amendment request, that approval would be based, in 41 part, on an NRC safety finding that the proposed amendments to the license would not adversely 42 affect the capability of the existing tailings impoundment to conform to the long-term performance 43 objective in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 40, Domestic Licensing of 44 Source Material, Appendix A, to isolate the tailings at the UNC Mill Site for 1,000 years, to the 4-3
 
1 extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years. Additionally, EPA, under 2 CERCLA authority, has selected the remedial action to dispose the NECR mine waste at the 3 UNC Mill Site based, in part, on the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy.
4 EPA addresses the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy by applying long-5 term design standards, requiring long-term oversight and maintenance to ensure cover stability, 6 integrity, and longevity as well as the enforcement of institutional controls restricting site use 7 (Stantec, 2019a; EPA, 2013). Considering the NRC and EPA authorities and approvals for the 8 aspects of the proposed action that fall within their respective authorities, the NRC staff 9 concludes that the potential environmental impacts associated with the long-term performance of 10 the tailings impoundment with the added disposal site containing NECR mine waste would be 11 subject to the use of approved designs, compliance with applicable requirements, and provisions 12 for long-term surveillance, as further discussed in the specific impact evaluations in this chapter.
13 Navajo Nation and Red Water Pond Road Community 14 While the NRC staff has attempted to accurately capture and describe the perspectives of the 15 Navajo Nation in this EIS, members of the Navajo Nation and Red Water Pond Road Community 16 may hold views that differ from the conclusions presented in this EIS. This chapter of the EIS 17 provides further details regarding the effects on selected resource areas (e.g., land use, visual 18 and scenic resources, noise, historical and cultural resources, and environmental justice) that 19 may impact the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community. The NRC staff also 20 recognizes that there may be intangible impacts felt by the Navajo Nation and the Red Water 21 Pond Road Community in ways that may not be fully captured in this EIS. During the NRCs 22 consultations with the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA), the NNEPA 23 shared with the NRC staff that the Navajo Nation's cultural and religious connection is outlined in 24 Din&#xe9; Fundamental Law found in Navajo Nation Code 1 N.N.C. &sect;&sect; 201-206.
25 4.2      Land Use Impacts 26 As described in EIS Section 3.2, the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (the proposed project 27 area) is located in a sparsely populated, semiarid region approximately 27 kilometers (km) 28 [17 (miles) mi] northeast of the City of Gallup, New Mexico. The nearest residence is located 29 0.22 km [0.14 mi] north and 1.6 km [1 mi] northwest from the center of the NRC-licensed mill 30 tailings impoundment and of the NECR Mine Site property boundary, respectively. The land 31 surrounding the proposed project area includes the Navajo Nation Reservation to the north, east, 32 and south, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land to the southeast, and Indian Trust 33 Land to the west (Stantec, 2019b; INTERA, 2018).
34 The following sections discuss potential environmental impacts to land use from the proposed 35 action, including alternatives for transferring the mine waste to the proposed disposal site using a 36 conveyor and sourcing material for the proposed disposal site cover from the Jetty Area, and the 37 no-action alternative.
38 4.2.1      Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 39 4.2.1.1      Construction Impacts 40 Impacts to land use from the construction phase would primarily result from surface-disturbing 41 activities associated with the excavation of mine waste at the NECR Mine Site, construction of 42 the proposed disposal site at the UNC Mill Site, modifications to stabilize Pipeline Arroyo, and 43 construction of the haul and access roads from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill Site 4-4
 
1 (INTERA, 2018). The proposed action would disturb a total of 138 hectares (ha) [340 acres (ac)]
2 of land within the proposed project area.
3 Of the 138 ha [340 ac] of surface-disturbing activities during the construction phase, 73.7 ha 4 [182 ac] of disturbance would include haul and access road construction, borrow area 5 excavation, Jetty Area modifications, and laydown areas at the UNC Mill Site. Land use would 6 remain unchanged and restricted at the UNC Mill Site because construction of the proposed 7 disposal site on top of the tailings impoundment would still place the facility under restricted use 8 under UMTRCA and as an NRC-licensed facility (INTERA, 2018). Furthermore, the UNC Mill 9 Site has and would continue to restrict access and grazing.
10 At the NECR Mine Site, land is also currently under restricted use. As part of construction phase 11 of the proposed action, waste material (including contaminated soil) from the NECR Mine Site 12 would be excavated, hauled, and disposed at the UNC Mill Site, and approximately 63.9 ha 13 [158 ac] of land at the NECR Mine Site would be disturbed. Therefore, land at the NECR Mine 14 Site would continue to have restricted use for the duration of the construction phase of the 15 proposed action (INTERA, 2018). In addition, the licensee would implement an EPA-approved 16 RCPP to mitigate the impacts (e.g., additional land use restrictions) of an accidental release of 17 hazardous materials (Stantec, 2018a; INTERA, 2018) that could occur as the result of the 18 proposed action (further discussed in EIS Section 4.4.1.1).
19 Because the activities associated with the proposed action on both the UNC Mill Site and NECR 20 Mine Site would occur within an already restricted area, and land would be released for 21 unrestricted use at the NECR Mine Site after the construction phase of the proposed action, the 22 NRC staff concludes that the impact to land use from the construction phase of the proposed 23 action would be SMALL.
24 4.2.1.2      Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 25 Impacts to land use from transferring NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site would be 26 associated with construction of the haul truck road from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill 27 Site. Construction of the haul road would disturb approximately 3.2 ha [8 ac] of land. As 28 described previously, the licensee would implement an EPA-approved RCPP to mitigate the 29 impacts of an accidental release of hazardous materials (Stantec, 2018a; INTERA, 2018) that 30 could potentially lead to additional land restrictions. Haul trucks would be loaded within the 31 contaminated area of the NECR Mine Site using loading methods that would facilitate control and 32 containment of the NECR mine waste. Any spills from contaminated mine waste on land or 33 water would be cleaned up per the RCPP (Stantec, 2018a). EIS Section 4.13.1.2 further details 34 UNCs proposal for control and containment of NECR mine waste during hauling operations, as 35 well as implementation of UNCs Radiation Protection Plan and Health and Safety Plan to ensure 36 that safety is maintained in accordance with NRC standards at 10 CFR Part 20. The trucks 37 would then transfer the contaminated soil from the NECR Mine Site to the proposed disposal site 38 (on the UNC Mill Site) via the haul roads.
39 UNC stated that they would submit any necessary plans for the planned crossing of New Mexico 40 Highway 566 (NM 566) to the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) for approval.
41 In addition, any spill contamination would be cleaned per the RCPP; therefore, the NRC staff 42 concludes that the potential impacts to land use from transferring mine waste to the proposed 43 disposal site would be SMALL.
4-5
 
1                Closure Impacts 4.2 .1.3 2  Closure activities at the UNC Mill Site would include reclamation and revegetation of disturbed 3  areas and the evapotranspiration (ET) cover. As described previously, the proposed action 4  would disturb up to 138 ha [340 ac] within the proposed project area. During closure, disturbed 5  areas within the proposed project area would be regraded and revegetated with a seeding mix 6  similar to the native vegetation community to maximize resilience and sustainability. Soil 7  amendments or composted material that meets an EPA-approved revegetation plan would be 8  placed to final grade in excavated areas to promote growth of vegetation (Stantec, 2018a).
9  Closure activities at the UNC Mill Site are not expected to impact land use. Disturbed areas and 10  the ET cover would be revegetated with native species to maximize resilience and sustainability.
11  Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts to land use from 12  closure activities would be SMALL.
13  Beyond closure of the disposal site, the future land use for the UNC Mill Site would remain 14  restricted under EPA CERCLA and NRC UMTRCA authority from uses other than long-term 15  oversight and surveillance of the disposal site. This means that residential and industrial use 16  would be prohibited, and grazing uses would be restricted. Upon the completion of reclamation, 17  UNCs license would be terminated, and the site would transfer to a custodial agency [e.g., the 18  Federal government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance and 19  maintenance. Under this process, the UNC Mill Site would be maintained and managed by the 20  custodial agency pursuant to an NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28 and EPA oversight under 21  CERCLA to provide for the continued safe isolation of the material (EIS Section 2.2.1.8) (EPA, 22  2013). Based on these considerations, the NRC staff concludes that the long-term impacts to 23  land use from the tailings impoundment with the proposed added disposal site would be SMALL.
24            Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 4.2.2 25  Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 26  Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 27  the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site that 28  follows the same path as the proposed haul roads (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would 29  disturb approximately 0.8 ha [2 ac] less of the land surface. The conveyor and associated 30  access road would be restricted use areas. All other activities (e.g., borrow pit excavation) and 31  impacts (e.g., disturbed land areas at the NECR Mine and UNC Mill Sites) to land use from the 32  construction, transfer, and disposal of the NECR mine waste would be similar to or the same as 33  the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to land use from the 34  conveyor alternative would be SMALL during the construction and transfer phases, and SMALL 35  during the closure phase.
36  Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 37  Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 38  Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas (INTERA, 2018). The sourcing of cover 39  material from the Jetty Area would eliminate the need to use the four borrow areas, and reduce 40  the area disturbed by 19 ha [48 ac]. The Jetty Area, the four borrow areas, and the borrow area 41  haul roads east of NM 566, are all within the UNC Mill Site, which is currently designated as 42  restricted use and would remain restricted under the proposed action. Therefore, because these 43  lands would not be released for public use whether or not the Jetty Area is used as the source of 4-6
 
1 the cover material, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to land use from use of alternate 2 material sourcing would be SMALL during the construction and transfer phases, and SMALL 3 during the closure phase.
4 4.2.3    No Action (Alternative 2) 5 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and EPA would 6 pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 7 NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 8 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 9 different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 10 Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill 11 Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time 12 the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal 13 government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. Therefore, the land 14 use impacts associated with construction, waste transfer, and closure of the proposed action 15 (and Alternatives 1A and 1B) including land disturbance areas, excavation, Jetty Area 16 modifications, and laydown areas would not occur. The current land restrictions would remain 17 unchanged under the no-action alternative. Additional land use impacts are possible when 18 another remedy is selected by EPA to address the disposal of the NECR mine waste; however, 19 the magnitude of the impacts would depend on the specific remedy that is selected. A delay in 20 the disposition of the NECR mine waste would delay the remediation of the NECR Mine Site and 21 thereby delay potential productive uses of the land by the Navajo people, such as grazing and 22 farming, and cultivating traditional plants for dyes and medicinal uses. Therefore, under the no-23 action alternative, the restricted land use would continue to noticeably influence the ability of the 24 Navajo Nation to use the land. The prolonged restrictions would also continue to significantly 25 delay the potential cultural benefits of the use of land to the Navajo people, as well as benefits 26 from access to farming and grazing. The NRC staff recognizes that, while the NRC staff has 27 attempted to accurately capture and describe the perspectives of the Navajo Nation in this EIS, 28 members of the Navajo Nation may hold views that differ from the conclusions presented in this 29 EIS (EIS Section 1.1.3). Therefore, because the EPA determined that the mine waste presents a 30 threat to public health, and the mine waste could remain in place at the NECR Mine Site for 31 another estimated 10 years, thus continuing to threaten public health and precluding productive 32 use of the mine site, the NRC staff concludes that under the no-action alternative, there would be 33 a LARGE impact on land use.
34 4.3      Transportation Impacts 35 This section considers the potential offsite transportation impacts from the proposed action, 36 Alternatives 1A and 1B, and the no-action alternative. Potential transportation impacts around 37 the proposed project area may occur during all phases of the proposed action. Impacts such as 38 increases in traffic, accidents, and road degradation would result from the proposed traffic 39 management and the use of roadways for commuting and shipping equipment, supplies, and 40 produced wastes. Other potential radiological health and safety impacts could result from the 41 proposed NM 566 crossing. Health- and safety-related impacts associated with onsite hauling 42 activities are addressed as public and occupational safety impacts in EIS Section 4.13.
43 The potential transportation impacts during the construction, transfer of NECR mine waste to the 44 disposal site, and closure phases of the proposed action are detailed in the following sections.
4-7
 
1 4.3.1    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 2 4.3.1.1      Construction Impacts 3 Impacts to transportation from the construction phase of the proposed action are primarily 4 associated with increases in traffic from transportation of equipment, supplies, and workers to the 5 site. The regional and local transportation infrastructure that would serve the proposed action is 6 described in EIS Section 3.3. Access to the proposed project area from nearby communities 7 would be from NM 566, which bisects the project area.
8 The NRC staffs construction traffic impact analysis considered the volume of estimated 9 construction traffic from supply shipments and worker commuting and determined the estimated 10 increase in the applicable annual average daily traffic counts on NM 566, which would be used to 11 access the proposed project area. UNC estimated that daily construction traffic would include 12 30 to 40 workers, or approximately 35 vehicles plus 1 to 5 shipments of supplies, such as 13 materials, equipment, and fuel (INTERA, 2018). The NRC staff finds UNCs values to be 14 consistent with the project plan. To estimate the daily traffic from the proposed transportation, 15 the NRC staff added the licensees estimated 5 trucks to the 35 vehicles and doubled the result 16 to account for travel to and from the site, resulting in 80 additional vehicles per day during 17 construction. Considering the annual average daily non-project traffic on NM 566 of 118 vehicles 18 per day (EIS Section 3.3), the NRC staff estimates that the proposed construction would 19 increase the traffic on NM 566 near the haul road crossing by approximately 68 percent. Based 20 on this analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed change in traffic during the 21 construction phase of the proposed action would be noticeable and therefore would be 22 MODERATE. These impacts would be expected to occur for the duration of construction.
23 4.3.1.2      Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 24 During the proposed transfer of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site at the UNC Mill 25 Site, the offsite transportation impacts would be associated with the NM 566 road crossing and 26 any ongoing proposed action traffic associated with continued movement of equipment, supplies, 27 and commuting workers.
28 As described in EIS Section 2.2.1, the proposed haul roads going from the NECR Mine Site to 29 the UNC Mill Site would cross NM 566 at grade. This would involve several articulated dump 30 trucks traveling back and forth between the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill Site, crossing 31 NM 566 each day during transfer operations. UNC estimates they would run approximately 32 280 truck trips per day or 40 trips per hour (one-way trips inclusive of travel in both directions) 33 working 7 hours per day (EIS Section 2.2.1.7). To address the safety and efficiency of these 34 road crossings while limiting disruption to local traffic, UNC proposes additional traffic 35 management measures. This includes installing a temporary traffic light system and additional 36 signage at the crossing. Additionally, the crossing would be monitored and operated by 37 personnel stationed at a safe distance (INTERA, 2018). UNC also proposes a contamination 38 control system at the crossing to supplement control measures applied during haul truck loading 39 and hauling. These supplemental control measures are designed to limit the potential for public 40 exposure to fugitive mine waste material at the crossing (radiological health impacts are 41 addressed in EIS Section 4.13). UNC stated that it would submit a construction-related traffic 42 control plan to NMDOT for review describing the traffic light system for all construction activity 43 that impacts traffic on public roads. UNC would not delay school buses and estimates that 44 during crossings, the other traffic on NM 566 would be delayed for not more than 15 minutes at 45 any given time. Because the transfer activities would occur concurrently with construction 4-8
 
1 activities (e.g., the excavation, sorting, loading, unloading, and spreading of NECR mine waste) 2 that would involve the construction workforce, the additional traffic impacts associated with 3 proposed equipment, supply, and worker commuting would be the same as the impacts 4 previously evaluated for construction in EIS Section 4.3.1.1 (MODERATE for the duration 5 of construction).
6 Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff concludes that as long as the proposed traffic 7 revisions to NM 566 at the haul road crossing are made to the satisfaction of NMDOT, the traffic 8 revisions would be executed safely, and the traffic safety impacts would therefore be SMALL.
9 Because the traffic delays from the crossing would be frequent, unavoidable, and noticeable to 10 users of NM 566, the NRC staff concludes the additional traffic flow impacts from the proposed 11 road crossing would be MODERATE. These impacts would be added to the MODERATE 12 impacts from the increase in the annual average daily traffic on NM 566 from proposed 13 construction shipments and commuting workers evaluated in EIS Section 4.3.1.1. The overall 14 offsite transportation impacts during waste transfer activities would be noticeable and therefore 15 would be MODERATE.
16 4.3.1.3      Closure Impacts 17 During the closure phase of the proposed action, the primary construction and transfer activities 18 would be complete and remaining activities to revegetate disturbed areas at the UNC Mill Site 19 would require less equipment, supplies, and workers relative to the construction phase. Because 20 NECR mine waste hauling would have been completed, the traffic control measures would be 21 removed and crossing related impacts would cease. The NRC staff expect that the proposed 22 action traffic would diminish as the remaining activities are completed and conditions on NM 566 23 would return to pre-construction levels. Overall, the offsite transportation impacts during the 24 closure phase would be SMALL.
25 4.3.2      Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 26 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 27 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 28 the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site.
29 (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would increase the level of construction activity, supplies, 30 equipment, and workers to build and remove the conveyor, but that would be offset to some 31 degree by a decrease in construction, supplies, equipment, and associated workers for building 32 the UNC mine waste haul roads. During transfer operations, a conveyor system would travel 33 over NM 566, thereby omitting the need for proposed traffic modifications and the resulting 34 delays in daily traffic. During the closure phase, there could be additional shipments of materials 35 resulting from the removal of the conveyor system; however, because a conveyor is likely to 36 consist of modular construction, the number of additional shipments each day is not expected to 37 be a significant change relative to the traffic for the proposed action.
38 Based on this analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the conveyor alternative would not cause 39 the MODERATE traffic flow impacts during transfer operations from the proposed traffic 40 modifications on NM 566 described in EIS Section 4.3.1.2. This change would result in a 41 significant reduction in transportation impacts when using a conveyor; however, because the 42 impacts to traffic volume from the other aspects of this alternative action (e.g., for construction 43 activities) would be MODERATE as described in EIS Section 4.3.1.1 during construction, the 44 overall transportation impacts would be MODERATE under the conveyor alternative for the 4-9
 
1 construction phase, and SMALL for transfer and closure phases. Impacts to other resources 2 from the reduction in onsite hauling activities from this alternative are documented in the impact 3 analyses for those resources.
4 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 5 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 6 Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas under the proposed action (INTERA, 2018).
7 Because all of these cover material sources are on the UNC Mill Site and would utilize onsite 8 haul roads to transfer cover materials to the disposal site, the choice of cover material source 9 would not affect offsite transportation impacts and, therefore, transportation impacts would be 10 MODERATE during the construction and transfer phases, and SMALL during the closure phase.
11 4.3.3    No-Action (Alternative 2) 12 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and the EPA would 13 pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 14 NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 15 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 16 different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 17 Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations would continue to 18 proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time the tailings 19 impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government (DOE) or 20 State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. Therefore, the transportation impacts 21 associated with construction, waste transfer, and closure of the proposed action or the two 22 secondary alternatives including increased traffic, road closures to allow for haul truck crossing 23 of NM 566, and the potential for radiation exposures to workers and the public from the 24 transportation of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal facility at the UNC Mill Site would 25 not occur. The current transportation conditions on and near the project (EIS Section 3.3) would 26 remain unchanged by the no-action alternative. The NRC staff expects that no further impacts to 27 transportation would occur from the delay in selecting a remedy for the disposition of the mine 28 waste under the no-action alternative. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that under the 29 no-action alternative, there would be SMALL transportation impacts. Additional transportation 30 impacts are possible when EPA selects a new remedy to address the disposal of the NECR 31 mine waste; however, the magnitude of the impacts would depend on the specific remedy that 32 is selected.
33 4.4    Geology and Soils Impacts 34 This section describes the potential environmental impacts to geology and soils from the 35 proposed action, the two alternatives for modifying the proposed action, and the no-action 36 alternative.
37 4.4.1    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 38 As described in EIS Section 3.4, the proposed project area is characterized by sediments of 39 Quaternary age in the form of alluvial deposits of Pleistocene age that overlie sediments of 40 Mesozoic age (Canonie Environmental, 1991). Bedrock units at the proposed project area 41 consist of Cretaceous age sediments. The bedrock units, in descending order, are the Dilco 42 Coal Member of the Crevasse Canyon Formation, the Upper Gallup Sandstone, and the Upper 43 D-Cross Tongue Member of the Mancos Shale (Canonie Environmental, 1991; INTERA, 2018).
4-10
 
1  The lithology and thickness of alluvium and the bedrock units at the proposed project area are 2  summarized in EIS Table 3.4-1.
3 4.4.1.1      Construction Impacts 4  Impacts to geology and soils during the construction phase would primarily be from earthmoving 5  activities associated with removal of mine waste at the NECR Mine Site and construction of the 6  proposed disposal site at the UNC Mill Site. While the proposed action would disturb up to 7  138 ha [340 ac] within the proposed project area, earthmoving activities that would potentially 8  impact geology and soils include: (i) excavation of a 64 ha [157 ac] area to remove an estimated 9  665,927 cubic meters (m3) [871,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of mine waste soils exceeding the 10  EPA-defined removal action level of 82.9 mBq/g [2.24 pCi/g] for Ra-226 and 230 mg/kg 11  [230 ppm] for uranium at the NECR Mine Site; (ii) road construction for transportation of the mine 12  waste [excluding Principal Threat Waste (PTW)] to the UNC Mill Site for disposal at the proposed 13  disposal site or for staging for offsite disposal; (iii) construction of laydown yards and staging 14  areas; (iv) construction of the proposed disposal site, including a 1.4-meter (m) [4.5-foot (ft)] thick 15  ET cover; and (v) excavation from the four borrow areas, transport, and stockpiling of clean soil 16  materials for use in construction of the final cover over the mine waste (INTERA, 2018; 17  Stantec, 2019c).
18  Construction activities are not expected to impact bedrock geology. The licensee would 19  excavate mine waste at the NECR Mine Site either to depths where measurements show wastes 20  are below the removal action limit of 82.9 mBq/g [2.24 pCi/g] for Ra-226 and 230 mg/kg 21  [230 ppm] for uranium, or to bedrock (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2018b). Excavation of mine 22  waste would not exceed 3 m [10 ft] in depth. To reduce impacts to geologic resources, 23  excavated areas would be graded after mine waste removal to provide positive drainage into 24  existing drainage channels, maintain excavated and fill slopes at a horizontal to vertical ratio of 25  3:1 or shallower (unless excavated slopes expose bedrock), and minimize excavated slope 26  lengths, as appropriate (INTERA, 2018).
27  At the UNC Mill Site, excavation of soil material from the borrow areas would not impact bedrock 28  geology. To implement the proposed action, a total of 346,000 m3 [453,000 yd3] of soil material 29  would be required to fill existing cover swales, for cover layers, and for grading around the 30  proposed disposal site (Stantec, 2019a). A total of 287,000 m3 [375,000 yd3] of soil material is 31  estimated to be available in the borrow areas: 54,000 m3 [71,000 yd3] in the North Borrow Area; 32  122,000 m3 [160,000 yd3] in the South Borrow Area, 42,000 m3 [55,000 yd3] in the East Borrow 33  Area; and 68,000 m3 [89,000 yd3] in the West Borrow Area (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019a).
34  As depicted in EIS Figure 3.4-6, the East and West Borrow Areas are located on uranium-mined 35  lands and topsoil in the North and South Borrow Areas have a poor reclamation rating. As 36  described in EIS Section 3.4.3, uranium-mined lands are composed of soils disturbed by past 37  uranium mining and are of no agricultural use unless reclaimed and revegetated. As further 38  described in EIS Section 3.4.3, a poor rating signifies that soils would be difficult and costly to 39  vegetate and stabilize. Therefore, the excavation and permanent use of the soils from the 40  borrow areas to implement the proposed action is expected to have little to no impact on soil 41  resources within the proposed project area.
42  Construction activities would have direct and indirect impacts to soils within the proposed project 43  area. Adverse effects to soils from the earthmoving activities described previously would include 44  soil removal, soil loss due to erosion from wind and water, compaction, loss of productivity, 45  and contamination.
4-11
 
1 Earthmoving activities may increase the potential for wind and water erosion due to removal of 2 vegetation and soil disturbance from heavy equipment operation and truck traffic. As described 3 in EIS Section 3.4.3, most of the soil units within the proposed project area are susceptible to 4 wind and water erosion. During storm events and rapid snowmelt, disturbed and stockpiled soil 5 would be susceptible to increased wind and water erosion. Disturbed and stockpiled soils would 6 continue to be susceptible to wind and water erosion until stabilizing vegetation is established.
7 To mitigate the impacts from water erosion and to reduce impacts of stormwater and sediment 8 runoff during precipitation events, the licensee would develop and implement an EPA-approved 9 CSWPPP (Stantec, 2019b; Stantec, 2018b; INTERA, 2018) that would address applicable 10 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program requirements administered 11 by the EPA. UNC proposes that the CSWPPP would prescribe best management practices 12 (BMPs) to limit the release of stormwater, sediment, pollutants, and deleterious debris to 13 downstream areas (Stantec, 2018b). The licensee would implement EPA-approved BMPs for 14 erosion control that include: (i) preservation of existing vegetation, (ii) mulching, (iii) geotextiles 15 and mats, (iv) earth dikes and drainage swales, (v) slope drains, (vi) soil preparation/roughening, 16 and (vii) seeding and temporary vegetation. BMPs proposed by UNC for sediment control 17 include: (i) silt fencing, (ii) sediment basins, (iii) sediment traps, (iv) fiber rolls or straw wattles, 18 and (v) straw bales. Erosion and sediment controls would remain in place until vegetation has 19 established or other permanent controls are in place (Stantec, 2018b).
20 To mitigate the impacts from wind erosion during construction activities, the licensee would 21 enforce a speed limit of 32 kilometers per hour (kph) [20 miles per hour (mph)] on access and 22 haul roads and implement measures to minimize and control dust generation during excavation, 23 placement, and grading (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019d). Measures to minimize and control 24 dust generation include: (i) application of water or other approved dust suppressants to reduce 25 visible dust; (ii) avoidance of excavation or placement of overly dry soils during high wind 26 conditions; (iii) application of water or other approved dust suppressants to areas where wind 27 can generate dust, including disturbed areas that are not being actively worked; (iv) use of wind 28 breaks; (v) maintenance and protection of native vegetation through minimization of site 29 disturbance; and (vi) stabilization of inactive, disturbed work areas using matting, tack and 30 mulch, or crusting agents.
31 Construction activities may also impact the productivity and fertility of disturbed soils by mixing 32 and compaction during excavation, stockpiling, handling, and transport of mine waste and borrow 33 materials. Physical effects of mixing and compaction on the soils include reduced permeability 34 and porosity, damage to biological soil crusts, decreased water-holding capacity, and loss of soil 35 aggregate structure. A reduction in soil productivity and fertility would affect vegetation growth 36 and the success of reclamation and revegetation efforts associated with closure of the proposed 37 action (EIS Section 4.4.1.3). To mitigate the impacts of soil mixing and compaction during 38 construction, the licensee stated that it would not stockpile soil to be used as growth media for 39 restoring disturbed areas any longer than is necessary to complete the project (INTERA, 2018).
40 This measure is intended to conserve, to the extent possible, the native soil structure and 41 aggregation, the microbial community, and the presence of organic matter.
42 During construction activities, soil contamination may result from leaks and spills of hazardous 43 materials, including fuels and lubricants used in vehicles and construction equipment. In 44 accordance with applicable regulations and proposed site plans, the licensee would develop and 45 implement an EPA-approved RCPP to mitigate the impacts of an accidental release of 46 hazardous materials (Stantec, 2018a; INTERA, 2018). The RCPP would include a SPCCP 4-12
 
1 describing measures that would be implemented to prevent and clean up contamination resulting 2 from leaks and spills of hazardous materials, including fuels and lubricants.
3 Construction activities would also include covering the proposed disposal site with an ET cover 4 (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019b). The ET cover would be 1.4 m [4.5 ft] thick and composed of 5 compacted cover soil overlain by a rock/soil admixture (Stantec, 2019c). The surface rock/soil 6 mixture is designed to minimize erosion while providing a rooting medium for native vegetation 7 as well as storage capacity for infiltrated precipitation. The ET cover would be designed with top 8 slopes of 2 to 5 percent to avoid ponding while minimizing the effects of soil loss due to erosion 9 (Stantec, 2019c). In addition, the licensee has proposed stormwater controls for the disposal 10 site that use existing swales and channels constructed for the tailings impoundment with 11 improvements and supplemental controls where necessary to reduce the impacts of sediment 12 runoff. These stormwater controls include the East Repository Channel and related sediment 13 controls and drainage improvements for the south and west side of the proposed disposal site 14 (Stantec, 2019b).
15 As a result of the measures described previously in this section, construction activities are not 16 expected to impact bedrock geology. The East and West Borrow Areas are located on 17 uranium-mined lands and topsoil in the North and South Borrow Areas have a poor reclamation 18 rating. Therefore, the excavation and removal of soils in the borrow areas to implement the 19 proposed action is expected to have a minor impact on soil resources. The implementation of 20 the licensees proposed CSWPPP would mitigate impacts of stormwater and sediment runoff.
21 Application and enforcement of speed limits and implementation of measures to minimize and 22 control dust generation would mitigate impacts of wind erosion. Conducting activities in 23 accordance with the licensees RCPP and SPCCP would mitigate impacts of accidental releases 24 of hazardous wastes including leaks and spills of fuels and lubricants. Proposed ET cover 25 design features would minimize soil loss due to erosion, avoid ponding, and provide a rooting 26 medium for native vegetation. Stormwater controls for the disposal site would use existing 27 surface features (e.g., swales and channels) with improvements where necessary to reduce 28 sediment runoff. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts to 29 geology and soils from construction activities would be SMALL.
30 4.4.1.2      Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 31 Impacts to geology and soils from transferring NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site 32 would be associated with haul truck loading and transport from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC 33 Mill Site. The primary impacts during haul truck loading and transport to the proposed disposal 34 site would be the erosion of surface soils by dust generation and soil contamination from 35 potential releases of mine waste.
36 The erosion of surface soils along haul roads from dust generation is a potential mechanism for 37 erosion of surface soil. As described previously, to minimize dust generation, the licensee has 38 stated that it would apply and enforce a speed limit of 32 kph [20 mph] on haul and access 39 roads. The licensee would also implement additional dust suppression measures to minimize 40 the impacts of dust generation associated with truck hauling of mine waste to the UNC Mill Site.
41 These measures would include: (i) application of water or other dust suppressants to haul roads 42 to minimize visible dust during hauling, (ii) application of water during loading, (iii) wetting and 43 covering loads during hauling, and (iv) limiting access and haul road development to the 44 minimum necessary to execute work (Stantec, 2019d).
4-13
 
1 As described previously, the licensee would implement an RCPP to mitigate the impacts of an 2 accidental release of hazardous materials (Stantec, 2018a; INTERA, 2018). The licensee would 3 follow health and safety practices (EIS Section 4.13.1.2) that address material control and 4 containment during transfer operations that would prevent or mitigate releases of NECR mine 5 waste to soil during transfer activities.
6 Spilled mine waste, depending on the size of the spill, would be cleaned up with a loader, hand 7 shovels, rakes, and shop brooms (Stantec, 2018a). If the spill is large, the mine waste would be 8 transferred directly to another vehicle approved for mine waste haulage. Smaller spills would be 9 placed in barrels or other suitable containers. During windy conditions, mine waste dust would 10 be controlled with light water sprays; however, large volumes of water that may result in runoff 11 would not be used. As further described in EIS Section 4.5.2.2, implementation of the licensees 12 RCPP would mitigate impacts of an accidental release of mine waste. Implementing procedures 13 for cleanup of spilled mine wastes as described in the licensees RCPP would ensure that 14 contamination would be contained and removed to the extent practicable.
15 After removing visible spilled mine waste, a gamma radiation survey would be conducted to 16 identify residual contamination on ground surfaces. After residual contamination is removed, the 17 area would be rechecked with a gamma radiation survey to verify that the area is at or near 18 background radiation levels. If there is a concern regarding the cleanup levels achieved, soil 19 samples would be taken from the contaminated area and a nearby uncontaminated area to 20 establish background levels (Stantec, 2018b).
21 In conclusion, loading and truck transportation of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal 22 site is not expected to impact bedrock geology. Implementation of speed limits and dust 23 suppression measures would mitigate soil loss impacts from dust generation. Implementation of 24 the licensees RCPP and safety-related plans would mitigate impacts of an accidental release of 25 mine waste. Implementation of procedures for cleanup of spilled mine wastes as described in 26 the licensees RCPP would ensure that contamination would be contained and removed to the 27 extent practicable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts 28 to geology and soils from transferring mine waste to the proposed disposal site would be SMALL.
29              Closure Impacts 4.4.1.3 30 Closure activities would include reclamation and revegetation of disturbed areas, including the 31 ET cover constructed on top of the proposed disposal site. Prior to closure activities, potential 32 impacts to disturbed areas would be from elevated erosion risks and diminished capacity of soils 33 to support functioning ecological communities. As described in EIS Section 4.4.1.1, construction 34 activities are not expected to impact bedrock geology; therefore, closure activities are not 35 expected to impact geological resources.
36 As described in EIS Section 3.2, the proposed action would disturb up to 138 ha [340 ac] within 37 the proposed project area. During closure, disturbed areas within the proposed project area 38 would be regraded and revegetated in accordance with the licensees revegetation plans 39 (Stantec, 2018a; Stantec, 2019b). The revegetation plans describe BMPs, such as topsoil 40 management practices and erosion control measures (e.g., mulching), that would be 41 implemented to minimize potential soil impacts. Disturbed areas would be revegetated with a 42 seeding mix that emulates the native vegetation community to maximize resilience and 43 sustainability (Stantec, 2018a). Soil amendments, such as composted cow manure, green 44 manure, or composted biosolids, would be used to promote the growth of vegetation on 45 disturbed areas (Stantec, 2018a).
4-14
 
1 In conclusion, closure activities are not expected to impact geological resources. Implementation 2 of the licensees revegetation plan would ensure successful reclamation and revegetation of 3 disturbed areas and successful covering of the proposed disposal site. Disturbed areas and the 4 ET cover would be revegetated with native species to maximize resilience and sustainability.
5 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts to geology and soils 6 from closure activities would be SMALL.
7 4.4.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 8 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 9 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 10 the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site 11 (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would have no impacts on geologic resources. Activities 12 associated with construction of the conveyor system would take place on the surface of the 13 proposed project area and would not extend down into bedrock geologic units.
14 Under this alternative, earthmoving activities associated with construction activities (e.g., NECR 15 mine waste excavation, road construction, construction of laydown yards and staging areas, 16 construction of the proposed disposal site, and excavation, transport, and stockpiling of soil 17 materials from the borrow areas) would disturb an estimated 137 ha [338 ac] rather than 138 ha 18 [340 ac] for the proposed action. Therefore, impacts to soil resources would be comparable to 19 the proposed action. As described in EIS Section 4.4.1.1, the excavation and use of 346,000 m3 20 [453,000 yd3] of soil material to implement this alternative is expected to have a minor impact on 21 soil resources because these soils would be sourced from uranium-mined lands or from areas 22 with a poor topsoil reclamation rating. The licensee would implement all EPA-approved plans 23 (e.g., the CSWPPP, RCPP, SPCCP, and revegetation plans) and BMPs (e.g., reduced speed 24 limits and watering to control dust) for mitigating impacts to soils during construction, mine waste 25 transfer, and closure described for the proposed action for this alternative.
26 In conclusion, there would be no impacts to geology from the conveyor alternative. The 27  excavation and use of 346,000 m3 [453,000 yd3] of soil material to implement this alternative is 28 expected to have a minor impact on soil resources. The disturbed area would be reduced by 29 0.8 ha [2 ac], and the licensee would implement the same plans and BMPs for mitigating impacts 30 to soils during construction, mine waste transfer, and closure as previously described for the 31 proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to geology and soils from 32 the conveyor alternative would likewise be SMALL during the construction, transfer, and 33 closure phases.
34 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 35 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 36 Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would have 37 no additional impact on geology. Excavation for proposed jetty improvements would require 38  381,100 m3 [498,500 yd3] of soil excavation and approximately 37,000 m3 [49,000 yd3] of 39 sandstone excavation on the west side of Pipeline Arroyo (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019a).
40 From the estimated 381,100 m3 [498,500 yd3] of soil to be removed, approximately 9,200 m3 41 [12,000 yd3] is excluded from use as a borrow source for construction (Stantec, 2019a). The use 42 of the remaining 372,000 m3 [486,500 yd3] of soil from the Jetty Area excavation would replace 43 the need for the four original borrow sources (EIS Section 4.4.1.1). Therefore, the proposed 4-15
 
1 removal of soil for disposal site cover material would have no additional impact on bedrock 2 geologic units within the proposed project area.
3 As depicted in EIS Figure 3.4-6, the Jetty Area is located on uranium-mined lands. As described 4 previously, uranium-mined lands are composed of soils disturbed by past uranium mining and 5 are of no agricultural use unless reclaimed and revegetated. Therefore, the excavation and 6 permanent use of the soils from the Jetty Area to implement this alternative would have a minor 7 impact on soil resources within the proposed project area.
8 Sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area rather than the four borrow areas would disturb an 9 estimated 118 ha [292 ac] rather than 138 ha [340 ac] for the proposed action (INTERA, 2018).
10 Therefore, potential adverse impacts to soil resources would be reduced by approximately 20 ha 11 [48 ac] compared to the proposed action. This reduction includes disturbance impacts 12 associated with construction of proposed haul roads. Using the material from the Jetty Area for 13 the proposed disposal site cover source would require the topsoil in the Jetty Area to be 14 removed, segregated, and stored appropriately while the work in the Jetty Area is conducted.
15 The licensee would implement all EPA-approved plans (e.g., the CSWPPP, RCPP, SPCCP, and 16 revegetation plans) and BMPs (e.g., reduced speed limits and watering to control dust) for 17 mitigating impacts to soils during construction, mine waste transfer, and closure described for the 18 proposed action for this alternative (INTERA, 2018).
19 In conclusion, there would be no additional impacts to geology and soil resources. The 20 excavation and use of soils from the Jetty Area would have a minor impact on soil resources 21 because the disturbed area would be reduced by 20 ha [48 ac], and the licensee would 22 implement the same plans and BMPs implemented for mitigating impacts to soils during 23 construction, mine waste transfer, and closure previously described for the proposed action for 24 this alternative. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to geology and soils from 25 the alternative of sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area would be SMALL during the 26 construction, transfer, and closure phases.
27 4.4.3    No Action (Alternative 2) 28 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and EPA would 29 pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 30 NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 31 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 32 different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 33 Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill 34 Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time 35 the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal 36 government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. The estimated 37 665,927 m3 [871,000 yd3] of soils that have contamination levels above the EPA-defined removal 38 action level of 82.9 mBq/g [2.24 pCi/g] Ra-226 and 230 mg/kg [230 ppm] for natural uranium (but 39 not defined as PTW waste) would remain at the NECR Mine Site, and impacts to geology and 40 soils from the excavation and transfer of this material would not occur. In the absence of a 41 disposal facility at the UNC Mill Site, the existing site-specific impacts at the NECR Mine Site, 42 including the EPA determination of an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public 43 health or welfare or the environment as described in the EPA Record of Decision (ROD) (EPA, 44 2013), would continue, resulting in temporarily LARGE impacts to soils {i.e., the estimated 45 665,927 m3 [871,000 yd3] of soils that have contamination levels above the EPA-defined removal 46 action level} until another remedy is selected and implemented. Upon completion of the new 4-16
 
1 disposal remedy, the temporary adverse impacts to soils would decrease to SMALL and the 2 overall beneficial impacts of having removed the NECR mine waste would then be realized. No 3 further impacts to geology would occur from the delay in selecting another remedy for the 4 disposition of the mine waste under the no-action alternative, and impacts on geology from this 5 alternative would therefore be SMALL. Additional impacts to geology are possible when a new 6 remedy is selected by EPA to address the disposal of the NECR mine waste; however, the 7 magnitude of impacts would depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
8 4.5      Water Resources Impacts 9 This section describes the potential impacts to water resources (surface water and groundwater) 10 from the proposed action, two secondary alternatives, and the no-action alternative within and in 11 the vicinity of the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area). The 12 proposed project area is in the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico, and surface water 13 at the proposed project area drains via Pipeline Arroyo to the Puerco River, a tributary of the 14 Little Colorado River.
15 4.5.1      Proposed Action (Alternative 1) - Surface Water Impacts 16 As described in EIS Section 3.5.1, the primary surface water feature at the UNC Mill Site and 17 NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area) is the Pipeline Arroyo, a tributary to the Puerco 18 River. Potential impacts to surface waters and wetlands may be greater in areas containing 19 floodplains, such as the Pipeline Arroyo and Puerco River, as well as jurisdictional waters 20 and wetlands.
21 The proposed action is described in detail in EIS Section 2.2.1. Part of the proposed action 22 involves stabilization work in Pipeline Arroyo in the Jetty Area (EIS Figure 2.2-2) to address 23 concerns about the potential for future undercutting near the existing tailings impoundment (EIS 24 Sections 2.2.1.3 and 4.4.2). The proposed action also includes improvements to stormwater 25 drainage at the existing tailings impoundment, such as installation of a check dam in the existing 26 drainage channel northeast of the proposed disposal site, as described in EIS Section 2.2.1.3 27 (Stantec, 2019b). Impacts on surface waters and wetlands in the proposed project area from the 28 proposed action may result from erosion runoff, spills and leaks of equipment fuels and 29 lubricants, and stormwater runoff. How these potential impacts could occur during each phase of 30 the proposed project is discussed in the following sections.
31 4.5. 1. 1    Construction Impacts 32 The impacts to surface waters from the construction phase of the proposed action are primarily 33 associated with stormwater runoff and resulting erosion. Erosion could occur in newly disturbed 34 areas or within the Pipeline Arroyo. Additionally, spills or leaks of equipment fuels or lubricants 35 could occur during the construction phase.
36 The main construction-related activities associated with the UNC Mill Site include road 37 construction, removal of a portion of the existing tailings impoundments erosion protection layer, 38 placement and compaction of the excavated NECR mine waste, construction of a new ET cover, 39 and surface drainage modifications. The main NECR Mine Site construction activities include 40 excavation, post-excavation stockpiling, haul road construction, and stormwater control 41 implementation.
4-17
 
1 Soil disturbance caused by the excavation of the mine waste and the clearing and grading of the 2 proposed project area for the haul roads, borrow area haul roads, staging areas, erosion 3 protection layer removal, and surface drainage modifications would increase soil erosion and 4 sediment runoff into drainage features and Pipeline Arroyo. To address potential impacts on 5 water and provide mitigation as needed to maintain water quality standards and avoid 6 degradation to water resources at or near the proposed project area, the licensee stated that it 7 would develop and implement an EPA-approved CSWPPP that would address applicable 8 requirements of the NPDES program that the EPA administers. The CSWPPP would prescribe 9 general stormwater management practices and BMPs to be employed to reduce impacts to 10 water quality during construction (Stantec, 2018b). Such stormwater BMPs include, but are not 11 limited to: (i) the capture and isolation of surface water and stormwater with potential to come 12 into contact with mine waste, (ii) minimization of site grading for construction activities to reduce 13 the amount of land disturbed and thereby the opportunity for erosion to occur, (iii) installation of 14 silt fences and stormwater basins to capture stormwater runoff from sloped areas, and (iv) the 15 diversion of stormwater away from construction activities to prevent potential contamination 16 (Stantec, 2018b). The CSWPPP would ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and the 17 New Mexico Water Quality Act (EPA, 2013). The erosion and sediment control BMPs 18 implemented by the licensee, as described in EIS Section 4.4.1.1, would minimize adverse 19 effects such as erosion and sedimentation on surface water resources (Stantec, 2018b). Under 20 the CERCLA process, the licensee would also need to meet applicable requirements identified 21 by the EPA from the New Mexico Water Quality Act and the Surface Mining Control and 22 Reclamation Act of 1977 (as amended) (EPA, 2013). During the drainage improvement work in 23 the Jetty Area, prior to the completion of the stabilization work, it is possible that, in the event of a 24 heavy storm, the BMPs implemented within Pipeline Arroyo could be overwhelmed. This could 25 potentially allow for the transportation of sediment and other nonradiological contaminants, 26 especially within the Pipeline Arroyo, which could negatively impact surface water quality. In the 27 event the BMPs at the site become overwhelmed, such as during a heavy storm, the licensee 28 would continue to follow the CSWPPP. This would require maintenance and repair of BMPs to 29 maintain control of stormwater and sediment.
30 Leaks and spills of fuels and lubricants from construction equipment and stormwater runoff from 31 impervious surfaces resulting from road construction could also impact surface water quality.
32 The licensee would implement the RCPP, as required by the EPA, which includes a SPCCP, 33 pollution removal, and other solid and hazardous material management programs and 34 regulations (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2018a). The RCPP and all associated plans and programs 35 would minimize the adverse effects of any leaks or spills of fuels and lubricants and ensure 36 compliance with applicable rules and regulations as determined by the EPA.
37 As described in EIS Section 3.5.1.4, the FEMA-delineated 100-year floodplain along Pipeline 38 Arroyo in the proposed project area encroaches on the proposed disposal site, the north portion 39 of the Jetty Area, and South Cell of the existing tailings impoundment (EIS Figure 3.5-2).
40 Construction activities at the proposed disposal site and in the Jetty Area would alter the extent 41 of this floodplain throughout construction by activities that alter ground elevations and stormwater 42 drainage paths, such as grading and earthwork. The floodplain could also be impacted by 43 construction activities, especially those in the Jetty Area, which would affect downstream 44 drainage and flooding patterns.
45 As described in EIS Section 3.5.1.5, no wetlands were identified within the proposed project area 46 during the field survey; however, UNC has not sought a United States Army Corps of Engineers 47 (USACE) jurisdictional determination (INTERA, 2018). As discussed in EIS Section 1.6.2, EPA 48 oversight and requirements would ensure compliance with substantive requirements of the Clean 4-18
 
1 Water Act and protect Navajo Nation and State waters from being negatively impacted by 2 discharge of dredged and/or fill material (EPA, 2013).
3 In summary, the proposed action (i) would alter the floodplains in the immediate vicinity of the 4 proposed project area throughout the construction phase, (ii) could impact the floodplain and 5 downstream drainage in Jetty Area, and (iii) could result in temporary and geographically-limited 6 surface water quality degradation in the event of a heavy storm prior to stabilization work in the 7 Jetty Area. The licensee would (i) develop and implement the EPA-approved CSWPPP, RCPP, 8 and SPCCP that would address the substantive aspects of applicable surface water discharge 9 requirements, which would mitigate potential surface water quality impacts caused by erosion, 10 sedimentation, and spills and leaks of fuels and lubricants; and (ii) implement BMPs as part of 11 the CSWPPP to control stormwater and prevent the increase of stormwater flows downstream.
12 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts to surface waters during the 13 construction phase would be SMALL but could become MODERATE in the event of a heavy 14 storm after work begins in the Jetty Area, but prior to completing stabilization work.
15 4.5.1.2    Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 16 Surface water impacts from the transfer of mine waste to the proposed disposal site are 17 associated with the haul truck loading and hauling. The impacts from soil disturbances and 18 increased stormwater runoff caused by the haul roads is considered in EIS Section 4.5.1.1 as 19 part of construction and would be mitigated by the implementation of BMPs as prescribed in the 20 licensees proposed CSWPPP. The handling and transport of the material could generate dust, 21 which would be managed as described in EIS Section 4.7 and by an EPA-approved Dust Control 22 and Air Monitoring Plan implemented by the licensee. Any spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, or 23 hazardous waste occurring during the transfer of the mine waste would be handled according to 24 the RCPP and the SPCCP, as described in EIS Section 4.4.1.2, minimizing adverse effects and 25 ensuring compliance with applicable rules and regulations as determined by the EPA.
26 As with the construction phase and as discussed in EIS Section 1.6.2, the licensee would 27 develop and implement EPA-approved plans (CSWPPP, RCPP, and SPCCP) to minimize any 28 adverse impacts of dust generation, runoff, or spills or leaks during transfer of the mine waste.
29 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts to surface waters during transfer of 30 the NECR mine waste would not be noticeable compared to the impacts from construction, which 31 occurs concurrently with the transfer of waste in the proposed action. Therefore, the impact 32 would be SMALL with the potential to become MODERATE in the event of a heavy storm after 33 work begins in the Jetty Area but prior to completing stabilization work.
34 4.5.1.3    Closure Impacts 35 Closure activities include revegetation of disturbed areas and the ET cover. Previously disturbed 36 areas would be revegetated according to the licensees revegetation plan and would be held by 37 the EPA to the standards of the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division rules and regulations, 38 the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended, and the New Mexico 39 Solid Waste Act (Stantec, 2019a; EPA, 2013). Slopes would be kept to a minimum while 40 maintaining proper drainage to reduce erosion, and silt fences and stormwater basins would be 41 maintained to capture stormwater runoff from sloped areas (Stantec, 2019a). Permanent 42 stormwater controls would be aligned with existing roadways when possible to reduce the 43 amount of soil and habitat disturbance, and excavated areas would be evaluated as potential 44 stormwater retention basins to reduce stormwater runoff and revegetation time (Stantec, 2019a).
45 The licensee also plans to use drought-resistant plants in revegetation to reduce water need and 4-19
 
1 future maintenance (Stantec, 2018a). The NRC staff anticipates that during the closure phase, 2 mitigation measures similar to those used in the construction phase to control erosion and 3 sedimentation would be continued and would be effective in protecting surface water resources.
4 The NRC staff anticipates that the Jetty Area drainage improvements, combined with an 5 observation period to verify the performance of these site features prior to license termination, 6 would mitigate concerns regarding the lateral migration of Pipeline Arroyo towards the tailings 7 impoundment and reduce the amount of scouring in that area, thereby potentially reducing the 8 amount of sediment loading from scouring within Pipeline Arroyo.
9 The licensee evaluated how the completed project would respond to potential flooding events.
10 According to the flood hydrology calculations conducted by MWH Global Inc. [(MWH) a UNC 11 contractor], the completion of the proposed project would permanently alter the extents of the 12 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-delineated 100-year floodplain and the 13 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) floodplain. The flood hydrology calculations for the proposed 14 project area after the completion of the proposed action reveal that both the estimated 100-year 15 floodplain and the estimated PMF floodplain extents would overtop Pipeline Arroyo at the 16 location adjacent to the proposed disposal site, and encroach on the west and north edge of the 17 existing tailings impoundment, as shown in EIS Figure 4.5-1 (Stantec, 2018c; Stantec, 2019a).
18 The NRC staff reviewed the flood modeling results of MWH depicted in EIS Figure 4.5-1, and, in 19 particular, the results that appear to show an area of accumulating water well within the 20 boundary of the proposed disposal site (south of the center). The NRC staff requested additional 21 information from UNC, and UNCs response confirmed that this is not depicting an area of 22 accumulating water for any storm, but is an artifact of the UNC model and presentation of results 23 (showing a thin layer of overland flow down a gradual slope) (UNC, 2020).
24 The difference between the FEMA-delineated 100-year floodplain and the post-proposed action 25 100-year floodplain delineated by INTERAs consultants (EIS Figure 4.5-1) is 92.4 ha [228.4 ac].
26 The difference between the Canonie Environmental (1991)-delineated PMF floodplain that was 27 developed for the UNC Mill Site reclamation plan and the post-proposed action PMF floodplain 28 (EIS Figure 4.5-1) is 88.1 ha [217.8 ac]. These floodplain changes could alter the way in which 29 Pipeline Arroyo flows in response to a 100-year and probable maximum precipitation event. The 30 goal of the re-configured portion of the Pipeline Arroyo in the Jetty Area would be to protect the 31 existing tailing impoundment and added proposed mine waste disposal site from scouring and to 32 safely convey flow from probable maximum precipitation events and all smaller storms 33 downstream. The design of the Pipeline Arroyo improvements was evaluated by the NRC staff 34 and documented in a safety evaluation report (SER) (NRC, 2020).
35 Additionally, the licensee would be required to visually monitor, and report to NRC their 36 observations, about the updated cover and Pipeline Arroyo after construction to ensure that 37 these systems are functioning as designed. The licensees plans also call for increasing the 38 height of the protective berm that runs along the north edge of the existing tailings impoundment 39 and proposed disposal site. This change is intended to reduce the flow velocities and potential 40 for erosion along the base of the proposed disposal site, which would protect the proposed 41 disposal site from being adversely impacted by precipitation events, including the probable 42 maximum precipitation event (Stantec, 2018c). The changes in the floodplain extents are not 43 expected to impact ongoing groundwater remediation activities.
4-20
 
0  0.125  0.25      0.5
                                                                                                  --==---
  ~      FEMA 100-Yea r        PMF Floodplain - - Pipeline A rroyo      UNC M ill Sil e
  ~ Floodplain            - - Pre-Proposed Action (1 991) 177,7,1 Proposed      - - State Hwy N    ---===i----- Miles 100-Year
  , - - , Floodplain Post-      PMF Floodplain
                                                ~ Disposal Site D                                          7_'6.-                  Kilometers L___J Proposed Action    c::J Post-Proposed          NECR Mine Site                            0 0.175  0.35  0.7 Action Figure 4.5-1                Extents of the 100-year and Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Floodplains Pre- and Post-Proposed Action 1 In summary, the extent of Pipeline Arroyos floodplain would be permanently altered by the 2 closure of the proposed project, and the licensee would (i) revegetate the disturbed areas to 3 stabilize the land surfaces in accordance with applicable requirements identified by EPA under 4 CERCLA including the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, as amended, the 5 New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division rules and regulations, and the New Mexico Solid 6 Waste Act; and (ii) continue erosion and sedimentation controls until disturbed areas are 7 adequately revegetated. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental 8 impacts to the surface waters from the closure phase is MODERATE.
9 Beyond closure of the disposal site, the potential for long-term impacts to surface water would be 10 addressed by the combined effect of the NRC and EPA approvals and oversight of those aspects 11 of the proposed action that fall within their respective authorities that are important to long-term 12 performance of the tailings impoundment and the added disposal site (EIS Section 4.1, 13 Post-closure Considerations). If the NRC under its authority approves the license amendment 14 request, that approval would be based, in part, on an NRC safety finding that the proposed 15 amendments to the license would not adversely affect the capability of the existing tailings 16 impoundment to conform to the long-term performance objective in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 4-21
 
1 to isolate the tailings at the UNC Mill Site. Additionally, EPA under its CERCLA authority has 2 selected the remedial action to dispose of the NECR mine waste at the UNC Mill Site based, in 3 part, on the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy. EPA has also required that 4 the design of the proposed disposal site addresses long-term performance standards established 5 by EPA for this remedial action (Stantec, 2019a). Upon the completion of reclamation, UNCs 6 license would be terminated, and the UNC Mill Site would transfer to a custodial agency [e.g., the 7 Federal government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance and 8 maintenance. Under this process, the UNC Mill Site would be maintained and managed by the 9 custodial agency pursuant to an NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28 to provide for the 10 continued safe isolation of the material (EIS Section 2.2.1.8) and EPA oversight under CERCLA 11 to maintain long-term effectiveness of the remedy (EPA, 2013). Therefore, with respect to the 12 proposed action and secondary alternatives, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 13 environmental impacts to surface water associated with the modified tailing impoundments 14 long-term performance would be SMALL.
15 4.5.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 16 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 17 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 18 the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site 19 (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would reduce the amount of soil disturbance by 0.8 ha [2 ac],
20 thereby reducing the opportunity for soil erosion and potentially reducing the amount of 21 impervious cover, which could also reduce the potential for increased surface runoff. When 22 compared to the overall site {approximately 138 ha [340 ac]}, the reduction in soil disturbance 23 and impervious cover is negligible. Additionally, the licensee would still implement plans 24 discussed in EIS Section 4.5.1 for this alternative. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 25 impacts to surface water resources from the conveyor alternative would likewise be SMALL 26 during the transfer phase, and SMALL during the construction and disposal phases, with the 27 potential to become MODERATE in the event of a heavy storm after work begins in the Jetty 28 Area but prior to stabilization work is completed.
29 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 30 Under this alternative, as described in EIS Section 2.2.1, the cover material for the proposed 31 disposal site would be sourced from the Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas under 32 the proposed action (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would not result in any additional material 33 being removed from the Jetty Area but would reduce the total soil disturbance in the proposed 34 project area by approximately 20 ha [49 ac] compared to the proposed action, eliminating 35 any surface impacts at the borrow areas and the borrow haul roads. As described in EIS 36 Section 3.5.1.4, a FEMA-delineated 100-year floodplain is present in the proposed project area 37 along Pipeline Arroyo, which encroaches on the proposed disposal site, the northern portion of 38 the Jetty Area, and the South Cell of the existing tailings impoundment (EIS Figure 3.5-2). The 39 licensee would implement all EPA-approved plans (e.g., the SWPPP, RCPP, SPCCP, and 40 revegetation plans) and BMPs (e.g., berms and stormwater containment) for mitigating impacts 41 to surface water resources during construction, mine waste transfer, and closure described for 42 the proposed action for this alternative (INTERA, 2018). However, as described in EIS 43 Section 4.5.1.1, in the event of a heavy storm between when the soil-disturbing work in the 44 Jetty Area starts and the stabilization of the area ends, BMPs implemented in the channel could 45 be overwhelmed, and surface water quality could be adversely, but temporarily, impacted by an 46 increase in erosion and the transportation of sediments and other non-radiological contaminants.
4-22
 
1 In the event the BMPs at the site become overwhelmed, such as during a heavy storm, the 2 licensee would continue to follow the CSWPPP. This would require maintenance and repair of 3 BMPs to maintain control of stormwater and sediment. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 4 the impacts associated with the alternative of sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area would 5 be SMALL but could become MODERATE in the event of a heavy storm after work begins in the 6 Jetty Area but prior to stabilization work is completed.
7 4.5.3    No-Action (Alternative 2) 8 As noted in the introductory section of this chapter, under the no-action alternative, the NRC 9 would not amend the UNC license, and the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 10 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 11 different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 12 Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill 13 Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time 14 the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal 15 government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. Under the no-action 16 alternative, the lateral migration of Pipeline Arroyo towards the existing NRC-licensed tailings 17 impoundment would be addressed as part of the NRCs ongoing regulatory oversight, mitigating 18 the potential for the tailings to come into contact with flows in Pipeline Arroyo. The impacts of 19 the improvement would likely be similar to those of the drainage improvements considered as 20 part of the proposed action in EIS Section 4.5.1.1.
21 In the absence of a mine waste disposal facility at the UNC Mill Site, the existing site-specific 22 impacts at the NECR Mine Site, including the EPA determination of an imminent and substantial 23 endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment as described in the EPA ROD 24 (2013) would continue, resulting in temporarily MODERATE impacts to surface water from the 25 potential of contaminated runoff (i.e., runoff containing soils that have contamination levels above 26 the EPA-defined removal action level) until another remedy is selected and implemented. It 27 should be noted that EPA has addressed immediate threats at the NECR Mine Site by 28 temporarily stockpiling and covering mine waste materials; however, this impact determination is 29 driven by the delay in addressing the longer-term threats that are the focus of the removal action.
30 Under the no-action alternative, the NECR mine waste would be safely dispositioned in 31 accordance with current EPA CERCLA requirements once another remedy is selected. Upon 32 completion of the new remedy and the mitigation of Pipeline Arroyos lateral migration, the 33 adverse impacts to surface water resources would decrease to SMALL and the overall beneficial 34 impacts of having removed the NECR mine waste and remediating the UNC Mill Site 35 groundwater would then be realized, including the improvement of permanent surface drainage 36 at the NECR Mine Site. Additional impacts to surface water are possible when a new remedy is 37 selected by EPA to address the disposal of the NECR mine waste; however, the magnitude of 38 impacts would depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
39 4.5.4    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) - Groundwater Impacts 40 As described in EIS Section 3.5.2, the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (the proposed project 41 area) are located in the Gallup Groundwater Basin. Water-bearing strata of interest in the 42 proposed project area include the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation, the 43 Upper Gallup Sandstone of the Mesaverde Group, and Quaternary alluvium. The Quaternary 44 alluvium and the Upper Gallup Sandstone are hydrologically connected, and both of these units 45 outcrop along Pipeline Arroyo. UNC is currently diverting groundwater for industrial uses from a 46 well (G-12-S) that produces water from the Westwater Canyon Member at a depth of 4-23
 
1 approximately 457 m [1,500 ft]. Under the proposed action, UNC plans to use water diverted 2 from this well for decontamination, sanitary services, and dust control purposes (INTERA, 2018).
3 As described in EIS Section 3.5.2, there are three shallow water-bearing hydrostratigraphic units 4 beneath the UNC Mill Site: the Southwest Alluvium (a portion of the Quaternary Alluvium) and 5 Zone 3 and Zone 1 of the Upper Gallup Sandstone. Each of these units received seepage from 6 the three tailings disposal cells as well as infiltration during the mine dewatering and discharge 7 practices that occurred from 1967 to 1986 from the NECR Mine Site. Groundwater in these units 8 is currently undergoing remedial action and monitoring, as described in detail in EIS Chapter 1 9 and summarized in EIS Sections 3.5.4 and 4.12.1.
10 4.5.4.1      Construction Impacts 11 Potential impacts to groundwater would primarily result from consumptive use to support 12 construction activities and from potential degradation of groundwater quality in shallow (alluvial) 13 aquifers if an influx of pore water from the tailings impoundment were to occur. Impacts could 14 also occur to groundwater and may affect water quality during the construction phase through 15 recharge of the groundwater aquifers. Groundwater could be affected if stormwater comes into 16 contact with construction equipment, structures, stockpiles, the tailings impoundment 17 construction area, and other disturbed areas and is then allowed to flow into recharge areas. As 18 discussed in EIS Section 3.5.4, the water quality of the three local hydrostratigraphic units 19 exceed several NRC and EPA concentration standards and these waters are not suitable for 20 human consumption (Hatch, 2019, EPA, 2018).
21 UNC estimates consumptive groundwater use at a maximum withdrawal rate of 386 liters per 22 minute (L/min) [102 gallons per minute (gpm)] in support of construction activities and as part of 23 the Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan, as described in EIS Section 4.7 (INTERA, 2018). As 24 described in EIS Section 4.5.2, this groundwater would come from a well owned by UNC that is 25 screened in the Westwater Canyon Member and, because the use would be compatible with the 26 current uses of groundwater in the area for mining, industrial, and domestic purposes such as 27 drinking, sanitation, equipment cleaning, decontamination, and dust control, the demand would 28 be sufficiently fulfilled by UNCs current water permit (NMOSE, 2019; INTERA, 2018). To reduce 29 consumptive water use, the licensee stated that it would also use non water-based techniques 30 for dust suppression, including road salts, resin modified emulsions, or biodegradable oils for 31 dust suppression where possible (Stantec, 2019d). The water use would be short term, lasting 32 only for the duration of the 3.5-year construction phase (INTERA, 2018). Additionally, the 33 licensee would acquire appropriate approvals from the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer 34 (NMOSE) prior to diverting any additional groundwater, which would protect groundwater 35 resources and the water rights of other NMOSE-regulated groundwater wells (INTERA, 2018).
36 As described in EIS Section 3.5.1.1, following the cessation of mine dewatering activities at the 37 NECR Mine Site in 1986, the surface water flow that occurs in Pipeline Arroyo is ephemeral in 38 response to precipitation events, and, thus, no longer receives a regular water source. In 39 addition, due to relatively low precipitation and high evaporation, infiltration in the area is limited.
40 As described in EIS Section 3.5.2.2, the bottom of the existing NRC-licensed tailings 41 impoundment is above the current groundwater levels and groundwater levels are not expected 42 to rise sufficiently to contact the tailings impoundment in the future. Thus, groundwater impacts 43 from infiltration are not likely to occur because of the separation between the tailings and 44 groundwater levels.
4-24
 
1 According to the EPAs 2013 ROD for the UNC Mill Site, due to evapotranspiration, vertical 2 drainage, and the lack of water recharge, excess free water no longer exists within the tailings 3 now located in the tailings impoundment (EPA, 2013). The remaining water in the tailings is 4 within the water storage capacity of the tailings and is held within the pore spaces. The 5 Consolidation and Groundwater Report evaluated the potential for the placement of mine waste 6 on top of the tailings and the construction of a new cover system to change the influx of pore 7 water from the tailings impoundment into the underlying groundwater (Dwyer Engineering, 2019).
8 The report used consolidation and unsaturated flow modeling to evaluate reduction in tailings 9 porosity and tailings liquid fluxes (i.e., changes in water flow) at the base of the unsaturated 10 alluvium from the placement of mine waste on the tailings impoundment. The modeling results 11 indicated that, although consolidation and reduction in porosity would occur, there would be no 12 increase in flux into the underlying groundwater from the tailings impoundment (Dwyer 13 Engineering, 2019). The modeling results also showed that the new ET cover would prevent 14 flux, while the existing cover potentially allows small amounts of percolation into the underlying 15 groundwater. Therefore, the placement of the mine waste and construction of the new ET cover 16 could reduce the potential future groundwater impacts (Dwyer Engineering, 2019).
17 The drainage improvements in the Jetty Area, specifically those within Pipeline Arroyo, could 18 impact groundwater if they alter the strata outcrops of the Quaternary Alluvium, Upper Gallup 19 Sandstone, or the Lower Gallup Sandstone, which appear along the arroyo. If the improvements 20 do alter the strata outcrops, the extent and nature (i.e., beneficial or adverse) of the impact would 21 depend on the specifics of the strata outcrop alteration and the way in which the water in Pipeline 22 Arroyo interacts with the altered outcrops. Adverse impacts could be amplified if, during 23 construction in the Jetty Area, a heavy storm event was to occur. However, in the event the 24 BMPs at the site become overwhelmed, such as during a heavy storm, the licensee would 25 continue to follow the CSWPPP. This would require maintenance and repair of BMPs to 26 maintain control of stormwater and sediment, which would help mitigate potential adverse 27 impacts to groundwater resources.
28 During construction, the groundwater quality of near-surface aquifers could potentially be 29 affected by stormwater runoff and leaks and spills of fuels and lubricants. However, the licensee 30 would continue to use BMPs and mitigation measures and operate in accordance with its NRC 31 license and EPA-approved plans to prevent significant deterioration of groundwater quality (EPA 32 groundwater corrective actions are further explained in EIS Chapter 1 and EIS Sections 3.5.4 33 and 4.12.1). As described in EIS Section 4.5.1, the licensee would develop and implement an 34 EPA-approved CSWPPP (Stantec, 2018b) that would address applicable NPDES program 35 requirements that the EPA would administer, and would set limits on the amounts of pollutants 36 entering drainage features that may be in hydraulic communication with alluvial and shallow 37 aquifers at the site. BMPs proposed by UNC for managing stormwater include: (i) erosion and 38 sediment controls, (ii) the capture and isolation of surface water and stormwater with potential to 39 come into contact with mine waste, and (iii) the diversion of stormwater away from construction 40 activities to prevent potential contamination (Stantec, 2018b). The licensees RCPP, as required 41 by the EPA, includes an SPCCP and pollution removal plans. Other solid and hazardous 42 material management programs and regulations would also minimize the adverse effects of any 43 leaks or spills of fuels and lubricants. As described in EIS Section 1.6.2, the EPA stated that the 44 remedial action would meet the substantive requirements of the Clean Water Act, Section 404.
45 Water demand for construction and dust suppression would be fulfilled by UNCs water rights 46 through their groundwater well and existing NMOSE permit. The groundwater table in shallow 47 water-bearing units (i.e., the Southwest Alluvium, Zone 3, and Zone 1) occurs at depths of 48 greater than 5 to 21 m [17 to 70 ft] below the disposal cells in the tailings impoundment.
4-25
 
1 Therefore, without a substantial rise in the water table, mine waste from the NECR Mine Site can 2 be disposed on top of the cells at the tailings impoundment as proposed without direct contact 3 with groundwater. Based on consolidation and unsaturated flow modeling, placement of the 4 mine waste from the NECR Mine Site within a portion of the tailings impoundment would 5 not cause the release of tailings liquid into the groundwater. The implementation of all 6 EPA-approved plans (CSWPPP, RCPP, and the SPCCP) would protect groundwater quality in 7 shallow aquifers. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to groundwater during the 8 construction phase would be SMALL.
9 4.5.4.2      Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 10 Impacts on groundwater from the transfer phase of the proposed project are associated with the 11 loading, transport, and unloading of the mine waste, which could generate dust, requiring use of 12 groundwater for suppression. UNC would implement dust suppression measures, as shown in 13 EIS Table 4.7-1. Dust suppression measures would include: (i) application of water or other 14 dust suppressants to haul roads to minimize visible dust during hauling, (ii) application of water 15 during loading, and (iii) wetting and covering loads during hauling (Stantec, 2019d).
16 Consumptive use associated with these measures is included in the maximum water demand 17 and would be fulfilled by UNCs current water rights and groundwater well.
18 As with groundwater impacts during the construction phase, stormwater runoff and spills and 19 leaks of fuels and lubricants could impact groundwater quality in near-surface aquifers.
20 Stormwater runoff and spills and leaks of fuels and lubricants along roads would be managed in 21 compliance with the CSWPPP and SPCCP. A release of mine waste during haul truck loading 22 and transport (e.g., mine waste material that may fall out of a haul truck) could also impact 23 groundwater quality in near-surface aquifers or hydrostratigraphic units. A release of mine waste 24 during loading and transfer onto land or water (including spills) would be prevented, mitigated, or 25 cleaned up per the implementation measures in the licensees RCPP (Stantec, 2018a). EIS 26 Section 4.13.1.2 further explains UNCs proposal for control and containment of NECR mine 27 waste during hauling operations.
28 Consumptive use associated with these dust suppression measures is included in the maximum 29 water demand and would be fulfilled by UNCs current water rights and groundwater well.
30 Implementation of the licensees RCPP would mitigate impacts of an accidental release of mine 31 waste. Implementation of procedures for cleanup of spilled mine wastes as described in the 32 licensees RCPP would ensure that contamination would be contained and removed to the extent 33 practicable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts to 34 groundwater resources associated with the transfer of NECR mine waste to the proposed 35 disposal site would be SMALL.
36 4.5.4.3      Closure Impacts 37 Closure phase activities include revegetation of disturbed areas and the ET cover. Previously 38 disturbed areas would be revegetated according to the licensees revegetation plans. The NRC 39 staff anticipates that during the closure phase, the licensee would continue to implement 40 mitigation measures similar to those used in the construction phase to control erosion and 41 sedimentation and prevent groundwater contamination and would be effective in protecting 42 groundwater quality.
43 UNC would (i) revegetate the disturbed areas in accordance with EPA, ensuring stabilization of 44 the surfaces; (ii) continue to manage stormwater in a way that protects groundwater quality; and 4-26
 
1 (iii) continue erosion and sedimentation controls until disturbed areas are adequately revegetated 2 (INTERA, 2018). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that groundwater impacts from the closure 3 phase of the proposed action would be SMALL.
4 Beyond closure of the disposal site, the potential for long-term impacts to groundwater would be 5 addressed by the combined effect of the NRC and EPA approvals of those aspects of the 6 proposed action that fall within their respective authorities that are important to long-term 7 performance of the tailings impoundment and the added disposal site (EIS Section 4.1, 8 Post-closure Considerations). If the NRC under its authority approves the license amendment 9 request, that approval would be based, in part, on an NRC safety finding that the proposed 10 amendments to the license would not adversely affect the capability of the existing tailings 11 impoundment to conform to the long-term performance objective in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 12 to isolate the tailings at the UNC Mill Site. Additionally, EPA under CERCLA authority has 13 selected the remedial action to dispose the NECR mine waste at the UNC Mill Site based, in 14 part, on the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy. EPA has also required that 15 the design of the proposed disposal site address long-term performance standards established 16 by EPA for this remedial action (Stantec, 2019a). Upon the completion of reclamation, UNCs 17 license would be terminated, and the UNC Mill Site would transfer to a custodial agency [e.g., the 18 Federal government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance and 19 maintenance. Under this process, the UNC Mill Site would be maintained and managed by the 20 custodial agency pursuant to an NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28 to provide for the 21 continued safe isolation of the material (EIS Section 2.2.1.8) and EPA oversight under CERCLA 22 to maintain long-term effectiveness of the remedy (EPA, 2013). Therefore, with respect to the 23 proposed action and secondary alternatives, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 24 environmental impacts to groundwater associated with the modified tailing impoundments 25 long-term performance would be SMALL.
26 4.5 .5    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 27 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 28 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 29 the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site 30 (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would reduce the amount of soil disturbance by 0.8 ha [2 ac],
31 thereby reducing the opportunity for soil erosion and potentially reducing the amount of 32 impervious cover, which could also reduce the potential for increased stormwater runoff.
33 However, when compared to the overall site {approximately 138 ha [340 ac]}, the reduction in 34 soil disturbance and impervious cover is negligible. The licensee would implement the 35 CSWPPP, RCPP, and SPCCP as for the proposed action. Additionally, the licensee estimates 36 that the consumptive water use would be unchanged. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that 37 the impacts to groundwater resources from the conveyor alternative would be SMALL during the 38 construction, transfer, and closure phases.
39 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 40 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 41 Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas under the proposed action (INTERA, 2018).
42 This alternative would reduce the amount of land disturbed by approximately 20 ha [49 ac]
43 compared to the proposed action, eliminating any groundwater impacts at the borrow areas and 44 the borrow haul roads. If sourcing material from the Jetty Area alters the outcrops of the 45 Quaternary Alluvium, Upper Gallup Sandstone, or the Lower Gallup Sandstone, which appear 4-27
 
1  along Pipeline Arroyo, this alternative could have an impact on groundwater. Because the 2  sourcing of site cover material from the Jetty Area would not disturb any additional area than 3  would be disturbed as part of the Jetty Area drainage improvements that are part of the proposed 4  action, the impacts from this alternative would be bounded by those of the proposed action.
5  Furthermore, the licensee would implement all EPA-approved plans and BMPs described for the 6  proposed action for this alternative. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the groundwater 7  impacts from the alternative of sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area would be SMALL 8  during the construction, transfer, and closure phases.
9            No-Action (Alternative 2) 4.5.6 10  As noted in the introduction section of this chapter, under the no-action alternative, the NRC 11  would not amend the UNC license, and the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 12  NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 13  different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 14  Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill 15  Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time 16  the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal 17  government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. The EPA would 18  continue to oversee groundwater corrective actions at the UNC Mill Site that UNC has agreed to 19  implement and that have been incorporated as part of UNCs NRC License SUA-1475, License 20  Condition 30.C (EIS Section 3.12.1.2). The NRC staff would administer the corrective action 21  program until such time that the NRC license condition is met, changed, or the license is 22  terminated. Under the no-action alternative, the lateral migration of Pipeline Arroyo towards the 23  existing NRC-licensed tailings impoundment would be addressed as part of the NRCs ongoing 24  regulatory oversight, mitigating the potential for exposure of the tailings to groundwater pathways 25  by way of the strata outcrops in Pipeline Arroyo. The impacts of the improvement would likely be 26  similar to those of the drainage improvements considered as part of the proposed action, as 27  described in EIS Section 4.5.4.1. Historic releases, both routine and non-routine, resulted in the 28  contamination of groundwater resources and exceedances of some groundwater quality 29  concentration limits at the UNC Mill Site, as described in EIS Section 3.5.4.2. Although the NRC 30  staff considers that these historic releases continue to be of a significant and temporary impact to 31  groundwater at the UNC Mill Site, these impacts are existing conditions that would continue to be 32  addressed under existing NRC and EPA oversight and are independent of the CERCLA remedy 33  relating to NECR mine waste, and therefore, would not be expected to change under the 34  no-action alternative. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes the impacts to groundwater at the 35  UNC Mill Site of not proceeding with the proposed action under the no-action alternative would 36  be SMALL. Upon completion of the UNC Mill Site groundwater corrective actions and the 37  mitigation of Pipeline Arroyos lateral migration, the existing adverse impacts to groundwater at 38  the UNC Mill Site and beyond would decrease and be mitigated to the extent necessary to 39  protect public health and safety when the NRC and EPA have determined that UNC has 40  satisfactorily addressed the applicable requirements.
41  In the absence of a disposal facility at the UNC Mill Site, the existing site-specific conditions at 42  the NECR Mine Site would continue. The NECR mine waste would ultimately be safely 43  dispositioned in accordance with current EPA CERCLA requirements once a new remedy is 44  selected. The EPA has worked to assess groundwater for the NECR Mine Site; however, EPA 45  has not completed a final groundwater assessment. In the absence of EPAs final groundwater 46  assessment, the NRC staff determines that potential impacts on groundwater at the NECR Mine 47  Site from the delay of the mine waste removal would continue to be monitored and controlled 48  pursuant to EPA oversight and therefore would be SMALL. Additional impacts to groundwater 4-28
 
1 are possible when a new remedy is selected by EPA to address the disposal of the NECR mine 2 waste; however, the magnitude of impacts would depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
3 4.6      Ecological Resources Impacts 4 This section describes the potential impacts to ecological resources from the proposed action 5 and surrounding 1-km [0.62-mi] buffer from proposed disturbed areas, the two secondary 6 alternatives, and the no-action alternative. Impacts to ecological resources at the proposed 7 project area may result from the removal of vegetation and associated reduction in or alteration 8 of wildlife habitat and forage productivity. In addition, the potential exists for an increased risk of 9 soil erosion and the potential spread of invasive species and noxious weed populations. During 10 the proposed action, direct and/or indirect wildlife mortalities could occur within the proposed 11 project area, and wildlife that exist at the proposed project area could be displaced to other 12 surrounding habitats.
13 Based on information provided in EIS Section 3.6.4, one plant species [Zuni fleabane (Erigeron 14 rhizomatus)] and three avian species [Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis), Southwestern 15 willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 16 americanus)] that are either listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 17 Service (FWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) could potentially occur in the vicinity of 18 the proposed project area. In addition, the FWS identifies the Zuni blueheaded sucker 19 (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi) (fish), a FWS threatened species, as a species that may 20 potentially occur in the proposed project area (FWS, 2020). According to the FWS, there are 21 three known populations of Zuni fleabane, and all known populations of Zuni fleabane are 22 located on Federal or Tribal managed lands (FWS, 2018). According to the New Mexico Rare 23 Plant Technical Council (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council, 2020), this species has 24 been reported in northwest McKinley County and in south-central McKinley County. The 25 licensees environmental report (ER) stated that there is no suitable habitat for the three avian 26 species within the proposed project area (INTERA, 2018; FWS, 2020). The Mexican spotted 27 owl, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Western yellow-billed cuckoo, and Zuni fleabane have not 28 been observed at the proposed project area, and based upon these factors, these species are 29 not expected to occur at the proposed project area.
30 The Zuni blueheaded sucker occurs only incidentally in Tampico Draw, the headwaters of 31 Rio Nutria, Tampico Spring (formerly known as Deans Creek), and Agua Remora (formerly 32 known as Radosevich Creek) in Cibola National Forest, approximately 32 km [20 mi] southeast 33 of the proposed project area (EIS Section 3.6.4). Surface water at the proposed project area 34 drains by way of Pipeline Arroyo for approximately 2.7 km [1.7 mi] until it reaches the Puerco 35 River, a tributary of the Little Colorado River (EIS Section 3.5.1). Pipeline Arroyo has become an 36 ephemeral stream again, flowing primarily in response to precipitation events (EIS Section 3.5.1),
37 and therefore could not support the existence of this aquatic species. Groundwater used for the 38 proposed project would come from a well owned by UNC that is screened in the Westwater 39 Canyon Member and, because the use would be compatible with the current uses of 40 groundwater in the area for mining, industrial, and domestic purposes such as drinking, 41 sanitation, equipment cleaning, decontamination, and dust control, the demand would be 42 sufficiently fulfilled by UNCs current water rights (NMOSE, 2019; INTERA, 2018). Additional use 43 of groundwater to support the proposed project beyond current authorization would require 44 permission from NMOSE. In addition, extended groundwater use at the proposed project would 45 be unlikely to impact groundwater, much less surface water, as far southeast as the Cibolo 46 Nation Forest because groundwater from the proposed project area flows southwesterly.
4-29
 
1 In addition, field studies conducted at the proposed project area, independent review of 2 documents previously discussed in EIS Section 3.6, and the results of consultation activities with 3 the EPA, FWS, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF), and Navajo Nation 4 Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) described in EIS Section 3.6 provide that no 5 FWS-designated critical habitat for any Federal threatened or endangered plant or animal 6 species and no Navajo Nation endangered species have been observed within the proposed 7 project area (FWS, 2020; INTERA, 2018; NNDFW, 2020). Therefore, because these species 8 have not been observed at the proposed project area, and because of the short duration of the 9 proposed action, all phases of the proposed project would have no effect on Federally-listed 10 species under the ESA, and no effect on any existing or proposed critical habitats.
11 The proposed project area is not located in a natural vegetation community of concern or a 12 wildlife corridor according to the New Mexico Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool, and there are no 13 aquatic environments that occur within the proposed project area (NMDGF, 2019a; CCA, 2019; 14 INTERA, 2018; EIS Section 3.6.4).
15 The potential environmental impacts and related mitigation measures for ecological resources for 16 the proposed action, secondary alternatives, and no-action alternative are discussed in the 17 following sections.
18 4.6.1      Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 19 4.6. 1. 1    Construction Impacts 20 The impacts to ecological resources from the proposed action described in EIS Section 4.6 are 21 primarily associated with earthmoving activities including (i) excavation of NECR mine waste, 22 (ii) construction of the main haul road and haul roads to the borrow area, (iii) construction of 23 laydown yards and staging areas, (iv) construction of the proposed disposal site, and 24 (v) excavation of the material at the borrow areas (INTERA, 2018).
25 During construction, approximately 138 ha [340 ac] of land would be disturbed within the 26 proposed project area, and most of the planned disturbance would be located within the 27 previously-disturbed reclaimed vegetation community (INTERA, 2018; EIS Figure 3.6-1).
28 Construction activities would disturb approximately 73.7 ha [182 ac] of land at the UNC Mill Site.
29 The amounts of vegetation anticipated to be disturbed from each of the vegetative communities 30 within the proposed project area are provided in EIS Table 4.6-1. A description of these 31 vegetative communities is provided in EIS Section 3.6.2.
32 In general, areas affected by earth-moving activities during the construction phase could 33 experience a loss of shrub species and an increase in annual species. A shift in the plant 34 community could also lead to localized changes in the animal community that depend on the 35 plant community for food and shelter.
Table 4.6-1        Amount of Vegetation to be Disturbed Under the Proposed Action Vegetation Community                    Hectares                            Acres Reclaimed                          90.6                              224 Bottomland                        19.0                              47 Grassland                          5.3                              13 Shrubland                          2.4                                6 Pinyon-Juniper                      20.2                              50 TOTAL                          137.6                              340 Source: INTERA, 2018 4-30
 
1 UNC proposed to develop and implement a CSWPPP as described in EIS Section 4.4.1.1 to 2 reduce impacts of stormwater and sediment runoff during precipitation events (Stantec, 2018b).
3 Vegetation and wildlife may be affected as a result of leaks or accidental releases of 4 hydrocarbons or other fluids used in construction machinery. Should contamination of vegetation 5 or wildlife occur, impacts are anticipated to be short term, localized, and minor because of the 6 monitoring and response programs described in EIS Section 4.4.1.1.
7 Noise, dust, and air emissions associated with vegetation clearing would be short-lived and 8 represent only a temporary adverse impact to the biota within the proposed project area until 9 plants are reestablished in the revegetated areas. Removal of the vegetation and the soil 10 disturbance that would occur during construction activities would likely destroy nesting substrates 11 for many of the potential breeding bird species found in this area. In addition to the mitigation 12 measures provided in the revegetation plans, the licensee stated that it would implement the 13 following wildlife protection measures during the construction phase of the proposed action to 14 minimize damage to habitat and disruption of wildlife: (i) reduce speed limits for haul and access 15 roads to minimize the possibility of wildlife collisions, (ii) conduct bird nest surveys prior to the 16 commencement of vegetation and mine waste removal and consult with NMDGF and Navajo 17 Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW) if any nests are found, (iii) implement FWS and 18 Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department (NNHPD)-recommended seasonal and spatial 19 protection buffers for raptor nests and eagle roost sites, and (iv) follow the air monitoring plan, 20 including requirements for dust control during construction (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019d).
21 Considering that the land within 1-km [0.62-mi] around the proposed disturbed area is mostly 22 undeveloped and covered by Pinyon-juniper woodland, and the larger region is primarily used for 23 livestock grazing, the NRC staff determines that the potential impacts from the 4-year proposed 24 action may be noticeable within the proposed project area, but would not destabilize the use of 25 habitats or isolate sensitive wildlife species, resulting in a MODERATE impact. However, the 26 removal of 138 ha [340 ac] of vegetation within the surrounding Arizona/New Mexico Plateau 27 ecoregion that is primarily covered by Pinyon-juniper woodlands would not be noticeable, and 28 there would be abundant habitat available around the proposed facility to support the gradual 29 movement of wildlife.
30 All migratory birds, their feathers and body parts, nests, eggs, and nestling birds are protected by 31 the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), making it unlawful to hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 32 capture, or sell birds listed under this convention. With a few exceptions, all bird species that are 33 native to the United States are protected by the MBTA. Eagles are additionally protected by the 34 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (FWS, 2019). The licensee would be 35 responsible for complying with these Acts during all phases of the proposed project, thus limiting 36 potential effects on birds from the proposed project.
37 As discussed in EIS Section 3.6, the species of wildlife present or that could be present in the 38 vicinity of the proposed project area are typical of those found in the habitat at the proposed 39 project area, and there are no unique habitats at or near the proposed project area. The 40 licensee stated that it would limit impacts to vegetation and wildlife as described previously in this 41 section. The NRC staff concludes that impacts to wildlife from the proposed action for 42 construction would be SMALL because (i) the area including and surrounding the proposed 43 project area is largely undeveloped (EIS Section 3.2), (ii) there is abundant suitable habitat in the 44 vicinity of the project to support displaced animals, and (iii) the proposed action construction 45 activities would have no effect on Federally listed species under the ESA.
46 The NMDGF has suggested that ground disturbances and vegetation removal activities occur 47 outside of the primary breeding season for migratory songbirds and raptors (March 1 through 4-31
 
1 September 1), and that buffers be established around bird nests during construction (NMDGF, 2 2019b). The FWS also recommends that construction activities occur outside the general bird-3 nesting season from March through August (FWS, 2020). If the licensee instituted the NMDGF 4 and FWS recommendations, fewer nesting activities in the proposed project area would be 5 affected and impacts to ecological resources would continue to be SMALL for wildlife and 6 MODERATE for vegetative communities.
7 4.6.1.2      Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 8 Impacts to vegetation and wildlife from transferring NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal 9 site would be associated with haul truck loading and transport from the NECR Mine Site to the 10 UNC Mill Site. Handling and truck transportation of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal 11 site is not expected to disturb vegetation in addition to the vegetation disturbance during 12 construction, or directly affect wildlife beyond the effects that wildlife would experience during 13 construction. The primary impacts during haul truck loading and transport to the proposed 14 disposal site would be from the dust generated from the haul trucks driving on dirt access roads, 15 reduced air quality from haul truck emissions, mortalities of individual animals from truck 16 collisions, and noise. Any disturbance to wildlife as a result of waste transfer-related dust, air 17 emissions, and noise would be short-term because wildlife would be able to occupy habitats 18 surrounding the proposed project area until the transferring activities ceased, minimizing 19 long-term impacts.
20 To minimize dust generation, the licensee stated that it would enforce speed limits on haul and 21 access roads, which would also limit collisions with wildlife. The licensee also stated that it 22 would implement dust suppression measures to minimize the impacts of dust generation 23 associated with the transport of mine waste to the UNC Mill Site. These measures would 24 include: (i) application of water or other dust suppressants to haul roads to minimize visible dust 25 during transport, (ii) application of water during loading, (iii) wetting and covering loads during 26 transport, and (iv) limiting access and haul road development to the minimum necessary to 27 execute work (Stantec, 2019d). These mitigation measures would limit dust that may settle 28 on forage and edible vegetation, rendering it undesirable to animals. As described in EIS 29 Section 4.5.4.1, the licensee would implement a RCPP to mitigate the impacts of an accidental 30 release of hazardous materials, which would limit overall exposure of contaminants to vegetation 31 and wildlife (Stantec, 2018a).
32 In conclusion, haul truck loading and transport of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal 33 site is not expected to result in noticeable additional impacts on vegetation and wildlife beyond 34 the impacts from construction. Implementation of speed limits and dust suppression measures 35 would mitigate impacts of dust generation that may settle on forage and edible vegetation.
36 Implementation of the licensees RCPP would mitigate impacts of an accidental release of 37 hazardous materials. Implementation of procedures for cleanup of spilled mine wastes as 38 described in the licensees RCPP would ensure that contamination would be contained and 39 removed to the extent practicable. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 40 environmental impacts to ecological resources from transferring mine waste to the proposed 41 disposal site would be SMALL for wildlife and MODERATE for vegetative communities.
42 4.6.1.3      Closure Impacts 43 Closure activities would include reclamation and revegetation of disturbed areas and covering of 44 the proposed disposal site with an ET cover. The licensee estimates that closure activities would 45 occur during the last 6 months of the overall 4-year proposed action. EIS Section 2.2.1.5 4-32
 
1 explains that during the closure phase, restoration activities would include backfilling and 2 regrading excavation areas for erosion and stormwater control. These areas would be 3 revegetated with native species in accordance with the licensees vegetation plan (Stantec, 4 2018a; Stantec, 2019b). The licensees vegetation plan includes a seed mix that emulates the 5 native vegetation community to maintain resilience and sustainability. The licensees vegetation 6 plan includes the use of soil amendments, such as composted cow or green manure or 7 composted biosolids to promote vegetation growth. The NRC staff reviewed the revegetation 8 plans associated with restoration activities and determined that revegetation efforts during the 9 closure phase would meet or exceed the NRC staffs NEPA-implementing guidance in 10 NUREG-1748 (NRC, 2003). Other requirements that EPA would ensure are met by UNC are 11 provided in the New Mexico Surface Mining Act Coal Mining Regulations (EPA, 2013).
12 Because the proposed project area has undergone reclamation at the existing mill tailings 13 impoundment and the NECR Mine Site, the licensee has historical experience in carrying out 14 successful revegetation plans. In addition, annual revegetation monitoring reports have been 15 generated since 2010, presenting performance results from the revegetation implemented on 16 and around the NECR Mine Site (Stantec, 2018a).
17 According to UNCs proposal, restoration and revegetation of the UNC Mill Site during the 18 closure phase, including the proposed disposal site, would follow construction. According to the 19 revegetation plans, the licensee would: (i) avoid excessive disruption to soil, especially after 20 precipitation events, to avoid compaction; (ii) implement weed control management measures 21 that include the use of chemical herbicides applied by a licensed contractor; (iii) use a seed mix 22 of native species; (iv) fence revegetated areas to exclude grazing livestock and wildlife; and 23 (v) implement amendments to the revegetation plans to meet future field requirements, such as 24 adding organic matter to increase the fertility of the soils, adjusting seed species, and using 25 supplement irrigation in response to future climate conditions, if necessary (Stantec, 2018a).
26 In addition to implementing the mitigation measures provided in the revegetation plans, during 27 closure, remaining unreclaimed disturbed areas within the proposed disposal site would be 28 regraded and revegetated in accordance with the licensees revegetation plans described in EIS 29 Section 4.6.1.1. UNCs revegetation plan for the proposed disposal site provides for vegetation 30 sampling and monitoring schedules designed to determine the species composition, relative 31 health (condition), and successional status of the revegetated areas. Reclaimed areas on the 32 proposed disposal site would be evaluated following the first growing season after seeding to 33 document plan establishment and reclamation considerations and would be compared against 34 performance standards contained in the revegetation plan. Reclaimed areas on other portions of 35 the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site would be reviewed for at least a 10-year period in 36 accordance with New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division rules and regulations (Stantec, 37 2018a). Revegetation success in revegetated areas would result in a stable soil system and 38 concentrate on three performance standards: (i) vegetative ground cover, (ii) diversity, and 39 (iii) woody plant density. Additional details about the revegetation success criteria are provided 40 in UNCs revegetation plan (Stantec, 2018a). Other requirements that EPA would ensure are 41 met by UNC are provided in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA),
42 as amended, and the New Mexico Solid Waste Act (EPA, 2013).
43 The NRC staff anticipate that during closure, the licensee would continue to use similar 44 mitigation measures described for construction in EIS Section 3.6.1.1, such as implementing 45 FWS and NNHP recommended seasonal and spatial protection buffers for raptor nests and 46 eagle roost sites and following the air monitoring plan, including requirements for dust control.
47 Should contamination of vegetation or wildlife occur, impacts are anticipated to be less than 4-33
 
1 construction impacts and would be short term, localized, and minor because of the continued use 2 of mitigation measures. The NRC staff finds that the licensees EPA-approved revegetation 3 plans would ensure successful reclamation and revegetation of disturbed areas and successful 4 covering of the proposed disposal site. Disturbed areas and the ET cover would be revegetated 5 with native species to maximize resilience and sustainability. Therefore, the NRC staff 6 concludes that the potential environmental impacts to ecological resources from closure activities 7 would be SMALL for wildlife and MODERATE for vegetative communities.
8            Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 9 Transfer 4.6.2 Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 10 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 11 the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site 12 (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would disturb approximately 0.8 ha [2 ac] less land compared 13 to the proposed action because fewer haul roads would be required to transfer the mine waste to 14 the proposed disposal site; thus, fewer impacts to vegetation and soils would occur. This 15 alternative would increase the number of shipments for supplies, equipment, and workers 16 (i.e., traffic) to build and remove the conveyor during the construction and closure phases 17 compared to the proposed action, but because the conveyor would likely be modular, and 18 because traffic impacts could be lessened without the necessary road closures during transfer, 19 the overall change in traffic would be substantively the same as under the proposed action (EIS 20 Section 4.3.2). Because a comparable number of shipments would be needed for this 21 alternative, the potential for wildlife collisions with trucks and passenger vehicles would also be 22 comparable to the proposed action. EIS Section 4.7.2 describes that under this alternative, the 23 impacts to air quality from airborne pollutants (including dust particulates) during the construction 24 and transfer phases would be substantively the same as for the proposed action. The related 25 impact on ecological resources - which would be the same for this alternative as under the 26 proposed action - is that dust may settle on forage and edible vegetation, rendering it 27 undesirable to animals.
28 Under this alternative, the licensee would continue to use similar mitigation measures described 29 for construction in EIS Sections 4.6.1.1 through 4.6.1.3 such as (i) reduce speed limits for haul 30 and access roads to minimize the possibility of wildlife collisions, (ii) conduct bird nest surveys 31 prior to the commencement of vegetation and mine waste removal and consult with NMDGF and 32 NNDFW if any nests are found, (iii) implement FWS and NNHPD recommended seasonal and 33 spatial protection buffers for raptor nests and eagle roost sites, and (iv) follow the air monitoring 34 plan, including requirements for dust control during the construction and transfer phases 35 (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019d). The licensee would implement all EPA-approved plans 36 (e.g., the CSWPPP, RCPP, SPCCP, and revegetation plan) during construction, mine waste 37 transfer, and closure as described for the proposed action for this alternative. Therefore, impacts 38 to ecological resources would be comparable to the proposed action.
39 In conclusion, there would be no additional impacts to ecological resources from this alternative 40 compared to the proposed action. The licensee would implement the same plans and BMPs for 41 mitigating impacts to vegetation and wildlife during construction, mine waste transfer, and 42 closure described for the proposed action for the conveyor alternative. Therefore, the NRC staff 43 concludes that the impacts to ecological resources from the conveyor alternative would likewise 44 be SMALL for wildlife and MODERATE for vegetative communities during the construction, 45 transfer, and closure phases.
4-34
 
1 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 2 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 3 Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas (INTERA, 2018). Although the area of 4 disturbance within the Jetty Area under this alternative would be similar to the area disturbed for 5 the proposed action, this cover material sourcing alternative would reduce the overall amount of 6 land disturbed by approximately 20 ha [48 ac]. Therefore, potential adverse impacts to the 7 vegetative communities and wildlife habitats in the proposed project area would be reduced by 8 approximately 20 ha [48 ac] compared to the proposed action. The licensee would implement all 9 plans (e.g., the CSWPPP, RCPP, SPCCP, and revegetation plans) and mitigation measures to 10 protect wildlife (e.g., conduct bird nest surveys prior to removal of vegetation and mine waste 11 removal and apply seasonal and spatial protection buffers for raptor nests and eagle roost sites) 12 during construction, mine waste transfer, and closure described for the proposed action for this 13 alternative (INTERA, 2018).
14 In conclusion, this alternative would reduce the amount of land disturbance by approximately 15 20 ha [48 ac] compared to the proposed action, and the licensee would implement the same 16 plans and mitigations for limiting impacts to ecological resources during construction, mine waste 17 transfer, and closure described for the proposed action for this alternative. Therefore, the NRC 18 staff concludes that the impacts to ecological resources from the alternative of sourcing cover 19 material from the Jetty Area would likewise be SMALL for wildlife and MODERATE for vegetative 20 communities during the construction, transfer, and closure phases.
21 4.6.3    No-Action (Alternative 2) 22 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and EPA would 23 pursue a different remedy that involves a different final disposal alternative for the NECR mine 24 waste. Under this alternative, NECR mine waste could remain in place at the NECR Mine Site 25 for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a different CERCLA 26 remedy. Therefore, ecological impacts associated with construction, waste transfer, and closure 27 of the proposed action or the two secondary alternatives including vegetation removal and 28 diminished habitat within the proposed project area to support wildlife, increased risk of soil 29 erosion, the potential spread of invasive species and noxious weed populations, direct and/or 30 indirect wildlife mortalities, displacement of wildlife to surrounding habitats, dust generated from 31 the haul trucks driving on dirt access roads, reduced air quality from haul truck emissions, 32 mortalities of individual animals from truck collisions, and noise would not occur. The current 33 plants and animals that occur on and near the project (EIS Section 3.6) would remain unchanged 34 by the proposed UNC project under the no-action alternative. The NRC staff expects that no 35 further impacts to ecological resources would occur from the delay in selecting another remedy 36 for the disposition of the mine waste under the no-action alternative. Therefore, the NRC staff 37 concludes that under the no-action alternative, there would be SMALL impacts on ecological 38 resources. Additional impacts to ecological resources are possible when a new remedy is 39 selected by EPA to address the disposal of the NECR mine waste; however, the magnitude of 40 the impacts would depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
41 4.7    Air Quality Impacts 42 This section considers the potential impacts to air quality from the proposed action, the two 43 secondary alternatives, and the no-action alternative. The EIS analysis considers both 44 nongreenhouse gases and greenhouse gases. Impacts to air quality may result from activities 4-35
 
1 generating combustion emissions from stationary and mobile sources and fugitive dust 2 [e.g., particulate matter (PM) PM2.5 and PM10].
3 4.7.1      Proposed Action (Alternative 1) - Nongreenhouse Gases 4 The information in this section of the EIS provides an assessment of the proposed actions 5 potential environmental impacts on air quality for the construction, transfer, and closure phases.
6 This EIS section also assesses the environmental impacts from the peak year of emissions for 7 each pollutant. Peak year emissions for a pollutant represent the highest emission levels 8 associated with the proposed action in any one year and therefore also represent the greatest 9 potential impact to air quality.
10 The licensee conducted air dispersion modeling using AERMOD Version 19191 to assess the 11 impacts of the proposed actions nongreenhouse gas emissions. The ability of the projects 12 gaseous emissions to accumulate over time is addressed by dispersion of the pollutants, 13 which is accounted for in the modeling by the various meteorological input parameters. EIS 14 Figure 2.2-2 defines the proposed project boundary (i.e., the red outline), which delineates the 15 area within this boundary, where the project emission sources such as trucks and soil stockpiles 16 are located (hereafter called the emission source area) and the areas outside this boundary, 17 where the impacts are assessed for the effluents generated by these emission sources.
18 In the following evaluation, the NRC staff characterizes the magnitude of air effluents from the 19 proposed action in part by comparing the proposed actions emission levels to regulatory 20 standards like the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and thresholds like the 21 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The EIS characterization is meant to (i) provide 22 context for understanding the magnitude of the proposed project air effluents, which are mostly 23 from mobile and fugitive sources rather than stationary sources, and (ii) identify what emissions 24 the analysis should focus on for potential environmental effects. The comparison of pollutant 25 concentrations to these thresholds in this EIS does not document or represent air permitting 26 compliance under the Clean Air Act, which is outside of the NRCs jurisdiction.
27 4.7.1.1      Peak Year Impacts 28 Impacts to air quality from the proposed actions peak year emissions are primarily associated 29 with (i) fugitive dust emissions generated from vehicle travel on unpaved roads as well as wind 30 erosion to disturbed land, and (ii) combustion emissions from mobile sources and construction 31 equipment. As discussed in EIS Section 2.2.1.6, the peak year emissions for each pollutant 32 would occur during the phase that generates the greatest amount of that pollutant.
33 Key factors in assessing impacts to air quality include the existing air quality, the proposed 34 actions emissions, and the proximity of the emission sources to the receptors. As described in 35 EIS Section 3.7.2.1, the air quality where the proposed project area is located is in attainment 36 and good. EIS Table 2.2-1 contains the proposed actions peak year emission levels, and EIS 37 Section 2.2.1 describes the activities and emission sources that compose the peak year 38 emissions. EIS Table 4.7-1 identifies the mitigations considered when estimating the emission 39 levels in EIS Table 2.2-1 and specifies the control efficiency of that mitigation (i.e., the percent by 40 which the emission levels are reduced). Based on these emission levels (which include 41 mitigations), the licensee conducted air dispersion modeling, and EIS Table 4.7-2 contains the 42 results for the proposed action.
4-36
 
Table 4.7-1            Mitigation Incorporated into the Proposed Actions Estimated Air Emission Levels Source                            Mitigation                        Control Efficiency (%)
Watering Roads                                50 Haul Roads                            Setting Speed Limits                          44 Using Basecoarse                              60 Watering Stockpile                            60 Stockpiles Covering Stockpiles                            90 Material Screening                    Wet Suppressant                                91 Using Tier 3 engines                          not applicable*
Diesel Construction Fuel with no more than                        not applicable*
Equipment 15 parts per million of sulfur Conveyor Belt Diesel                  Using Tier 4 engines                          not applicable*
Generator (Alternative 1A)
* Control efficiencies were not used for these mitigations in the emissions inventory calculation but were incorporated in a different manner.
Source: Trinity Consultants, 2020 Table 4.7-2            Comparison of Proposed Action Peak Emission Level AERMOD Modeling Results to Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Thresholds Proposed                                                Percent Action                                                    of Modeling      Background              Total          Ambient      Percent of Averaging        Result      Concentration      Concentration            Air          PSD Pollutant            Time        (&#xb5;g/m3)*          (&#xb5;g/m3)*            (&#xb5;g/m3)*        Standard    Threshold Carbon              1 hour            837.57            2,203          3,040.57            20.3            na Monoxide            8 hours          187.87            1,524          1,711.87            17.2            na 1 hour          134.75&sect;              52.1            186.85            99.4            na Nitrogen 24 hours            51.54            52.1            103.64            55.1            na Dioxide annual              17.02            11.0              28.02            29.8          68.1 Particulate          24 hours            5.86            11.77              17.63            50.4          65.1 Matter PM2.5        annual              1.63            4.19                5.82            48.5          40.7 Particulate          24 hours          44.55            50.0              94.55            63.0        130.8 Matter PM10          annual              4.24            13.0              17.24              na          24.9 1 hour              4.64            5.31                9.95            5.1            na 3 hours              2.17            5.31                7.48            0.6            0.4 Sulfur Dioxide 24 hours            0.42            5.31                5.73            2.2            0.5 annual              0.13            0.219              0.349              0.7            0.6
*To convert &#xb5;g/m3 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 x 10-8 Calculation compares the total concentration (i.e., proposed action modeling results combined with background concentrations) to the relevant Federal or New Mexico State ambient air standard identified in EIS Table 3.7-2. In cases where the Federal and State standards differ, the calculation uses the lower of the two standards. The acronym na stands for not applicable, meaning there was no standard (or associated background and total concentrations) for this pollutant-averaging time combination.
Calculation compares project action modeling results without the background concentrations to the relevant PSD Class II threshold in 40 CFR 52.21. The acronym na stands for not applicable, which means there was no threshold for this pollutant-averaging time combination.
&sect;For this ambient air standard calculation, the 98th percentile modeling result was used rather than the maximum concentration because the ambient air quality standard specifies this value and the proposed action modeling result was high.
For the PSD calculation, the second highest modeling result (i.e., 39.23 &#xb5;g/m3) was used rather the maximum concentration (i.e., 44.55 &#xb5;g/m3) because the PSD threshold specifies the second highest value and the proposed action modeling result was high.
4-37
 
Table 4.7-2      Comparison of Proposed Action Peak Emission Level AERMOD Modeling Results to Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Thresholds (cont.)
Source: Trinity Consultants, 2020 for proposed action modeling results and NMED, 2019 for the background concentrations 1 The modeling results indicate that the short-term emissions of PM10 (130.8 percent of the 2 24-hour Prevention of Significant Deterioration threshold) and nitrogen dioxide (99.4 percent of 3 the 1-hour ambient air quality standard) would likely present the greatest impacts to air quality.
4 Again, the comparison of pollutant concentrations to these thresholds in this EIS does not 5 document or represent air permitting compliance under the Clean Air Act, and the proposed 6 project air effluents are mostly from mobile and fugitive sources rather than stationary sources.
7 The highest concentrations for both pollutants occur just north of the proposed project area, 8 which is where the nearest residences to the proposed project area are located (EIS 9 Figure 3.2-1) (Trinity Consultants, 2020). UNCs proposed Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan 10 specifies that the proposed action includes nonradiological fugitive dust monitoring for PM2.5 and 11 PM10 (Stantec, 2019d). This plan specifies that the 24-hour NAAQS for these two pollutants 12 would serve as the action levels associated with this monitoring (ER Table 3.7-2). The fugitive 13 dust monitoring results would be reviewed by the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), and if air 14 monitoring results indicate unacceptable dust levels (e.g., at or above action levels), then UNC 15 would modify the existing mitigation, or new mitigation would be implemented until acceptable 16 monitoring results are achieved.
17 As described in EIS Section 3.7.2.1, the closest Class I area to the UNC Mill Site is Petrified 18 Forest National Park, located about 119 km [73.9 mi] to the southwest. Federal land managers 19 responsible for managing Class I areas developed guidance that recommends a screening test 20 be applied to proposed sources greater than 50 km [31 mi] from a Class I area to determine 21 whether analysis for air quality-related values (e.g., visibility and atmospheric deposition) is 22 warranted (National Park Service, et al., 2010). Impact to visibility occurs when the pollution in 23 the air either scatters or absorbs the light. The screening test considers the projects distance to 24 the Class I area and the projects emission levels. If the combined annual mass emission rate 25 (i.e., tons per year) for nitrogen oxides, PM10, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid divided by the 26 distance in kilometers from the Class I area is 10 or less, then this source is considered to have 27 negligible impacts with respect to air quality-related values and further analysis is not warranted.
28 Based on the peak year emission estimates in EIS Table 2.2-1, the screening test result is 0.3, 29 which is well below the threshold of 10; thus, no further analysis is warranted.
30 Based on the screening test results, the estimated peak year (and any individual phase) 31 emissions for the proposed action would have negligible impacts on air quality related values for 32 Petrified Forest National Park.
33 Combustion emissions also generate hazardous air pollutants. The NRC staff expects that the 34 proposed action would generate low levels of these pollutants and therefore would have minor 35 impacts because of the relatively small emission factors associated with the sources that 36 generate these pollutants.
37 In summary, the air quality where the proposed project area is located is in attainment and good.
38 The NRC staff considers the proposed projects air emissions noticeable but not destabilizing 39 when compared to ambient air standards, Prevention of Significant Deterioration thresholds, and 40 screening tests for potential impacts to Class I areas. The licensees modeling results indicated 4-38
 
1 that the pollutant of greatest concern is PM10 over the short-term (i.e., 24 hours). UNCs Dust 2 Control and Air Monitoring Plan includes (i) nonradiological monitoring for PM2.5 and PM10 over 3 the 24-hour time period, and (ii) corrective actions if emission levels exceed action levels 4 (Stantec, 2019d). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts 5 to air quality from the peak year emissions for the proposed action would be MODERATE.
6 4.7.1.2      Construction Impacts 7 Impacts to air quality from the construction phase are primarily associated with activities 8 generating fugitive dust and combustion emissions. EIS Section 2.2.1 describes in more detail 9 the activities and emission sources that are included in the construction phase. EIS Table 4.7-3 10 provides a relative comparison of the construction, transfer, and closure phase emission levels to 11 the peak year emission levels. The construction phase emission levels would be the same as 12 the peak year emission levels (i.e., 100 percent) for PM10. As discussed in EIS Section 4.7.1.1, 13 PM10 was one of two pollutants that would be high relative to thresholds and resulted in the NRC 14 staffs determination of an overall MODERATE peak year impact. Because the peak year for 15 PM10 occurs during the construction phase, the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts to 16 air quality from the construction phase for the proposed action would also be MODERATE.
Table 4.7-3        Percentage of the Proposed Action Phase Emission Levels Relative to the Peak Year Emission Levels Construction Phase            Transfer Phase          Closure Phase
(% of Peak            (% of Peak              (% of Peak Pollutant                Emissions)            Emissions)              Emissions)
Carbon Monoxide                        28.6                100.0                    6.5 Nitrogen Oxides                        28.8                100.0                    6.7 Particulate Matter PM 2.5              83.8                100.0                    25.3 Particulate Matter PM10              100.0                  96.2                    33.1 Sulfur Dioxide                        40.0                100.0                    20.0 Source: Modified from EIS Table 2.2-1 17 4.7.1.3      Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 18 Impacts to air quality from transferring NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site are 19 primarily associated with activities generating fugitive dust and combustion emissions. EIS 20 Section 2.2.1 describes the activities and emission sources that would be conducted during the 21 NECR mine waste transfer. As shown in EIS Table 4.7-3, for nitrogen oxides, the transfer phase 22 emission levels would be the same as the peak year emission levels (i.e., 100 percent). As 23 discussed in EIS Section 4.7.1.1, nitrogen oxides were one of two pollutants that would be high 24 relative to thresholds and resulted in the NRC staffs determination of an overall MODERATE 25 peak year impact. Because the peak year for nitrogen oxides occurs during the transfer phase, 26 the NRC staff concludes that the potential impacts to air quality from the transfer phase for the 27 proposed action would also be MODERATE.
28 4.7. 1.4      Closure Impacts 29 Impacts to air quality from closure of the disposal site are primarily associated with activities 30 generating fugitive dust and combustion emissions. EIS Section 2.2.1 describes the activities 31 and emission sources that would be conducted during the closure of the proposed disposal site.
4-39
 
1 EIS Table 4.7-3 shows that the closure phase does not represent the peak year for any pollutant.
2 The two pollutants that determined the MODERATE peak year impact magnitude were PM10 and 3 nitrogen oxides. The percentage of closure phase emission levels relative to the peak year 4 emission levels for these two pollutants were 33.1 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively.
5 Because of the lower closure phase emission levels relative to the peak year emission levels, the 6 NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts to air quality from the closure 7 phase for the proposed action would be SMALL.
8 Beyond closure of the disposal site, the activities that generate air emissions essentially cease.
9 As such, the impacts to air quality beyond closure would be minimal.
10 4.7.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) -
11          Nongreenhouse Gases 12 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 13 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 14 the NECR Mine Site with an above ground, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site 15 (INTERA, 2018). The construction phase emissions and associated modeling results are 16 identical for Alternative 1A and the proposed action; however, the waste transfer and closure 17 phase emissions and modeling results vary because of the different emission sources 18 (e.g., waste transfer by conveyor system rather than truck). The actual waste transfer activity, 19 whether by truck or conveyor system, generates only a small portion of the overall emissions.
20 The main emissions-generating sources (e.g., fugitive dust from the stockpiles as well as the 21 disturbed areas at the NECR Mine Site and the UNC Mill Site) remain the same for both 22 Alternative 1A and the proposed action. The licensee revised their emission inventory to 23 accommodate for the variation in emission sources for Alternative 1A and conducted air 24 dispersion modeling for this alternative using the revised inventory. The mitigations specified in 25 EIS Table 4.7-1 and Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan also apply to Alternative 1A. EIS 26 Table 4.7-4 contains the peak year modeling results for Alternative 1A. The results are 27 substantively the same as for the proposed action, so the impacts would also be the same. The 28 pollutants with the likely greatest impact are PM10 (130.8 percent of the 24-hour Prevention of 29 Significant Deterioration threshold) and nitrogen dioxide (98.7 percent of the 1-hour ambient air 30 quality standard). The highest concentrations for both of these pollutants occur just north of the 31 proposed project area (Trinity Consultants, 2020). Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 32 potential environmental impacts to air quality from the peak year emissions for Alternative 1A 33 would be MODERATE.
Table 4.7-4        Comparison of Alternative 1A Peak Emission Level AERMOD Modeling Results to Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Thresholds Proposed Action                                    Percent of Modeling    Background          Total        Ambient    Percent of Averaging      Result  Concentration    Concentration      Air          PSD Pollutant        Time      (&#xb5;g/m3)*      (&#xb5;g/m3)*        (&#xb5;g/m3)*      Standard  Threshold Carbon            1 hour      837.57        2,203        3,040.57        20.3            na Monoxide        8 hours      187.17        1,524        1,711.17        17.2            na 1 hour    133.50&sect;          52.1        185.60        98.7            na Nitrogen 24 hours        53.09          52.1        105.19        55.9            na Dioxide annual        17.02          11.0          28.02        29.8          68.1 4-40
 
Table 4.7-4        Comparison of Alternative 1A Peak Emission Level AERMOD Modeling Results to Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Thresholds (cont.)
Proposed Action                                              Percent of Modeling      Background              Total          Ambient        Percent of Averaging      Result      Concentration      Concentration          Air            PSD Pollutant            Time        (&#xb5;g/m3)*        (&#xb5;g/m3)*            (&#xb5;g/m3)*        Standard      Threshold Particulate          24 hours          5.73          11.77                17.5          50.0            63.7 Matter PM2.5          annual          1.63            4.19              5.82          48.5            40.7 Particulate          24 hours        44.55              50.0              94.55          63.0          130.8 Matter PM10            annual          4.24            13.0              17.24            na            24.9 1 hour          4.64            5.31              9.95            5.1              na Sulfur                3 hours          2.17            5.31              7.48            0.6            0.4 Dioxide              24 hours          0.42            5.31              5.73            2.2            0.5 annual          0.13          0.219              0.349            0.7            0.6
    *To convert &#xb5;g/m3 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 x 10-8 Calculation compares the total concentration (i.e., proposed action modeling results combined with background concentrations) to the relevant Federal or New Mexico State ambient air standard identified in EIS Table 3.7-2. In cases where the Federal and State standards differ, the calculation uses the lower of the two standards. The acronym na stands for not applicable, meaning there was no standard (or associated background and total concentrations) for this pollutant-averaging time combination.
Calculation compares project action modeling results without the background concentrations to the relevant class.
    &sect;For this ambient air standard calculation, the 98th percentile modeling result was used rather than the maximum concentration because the ambient air quality standard specifies this value and the proposed action modeling result was high.
PSD threshold in 40 CFR 52.21. The acronym na stands for not applicable, which means there was no threshold for this pollutant-averaging time combination. For the PSD calculation, the second highest modeling result (i.e., 39.23 &#xb5;g/m3) was used rather the maximum concentration (i.e., 44.55 &#xb5;g/m3) because the PSD threshold specifies the second highest value, and the proposed action modeling result was high.
Sources: Trinity Consultants, 2020 for proposed action modeling results and NMED, 2019 for the background concentrations.
1 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 2 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 3 Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas described for the proposed action (INTERA, 4 2018). Both the proposed action and this alternative generate fugitive dust from travel on 5 unpaved access roads and wind erosion on disturbed lands. The difference is the footprint 6 where these activities occur. For Alternative 1B, the disturbance occurs in the Jetty Area, and 7 travel occurs on the unpaved access road between the proposed disposal site and the Jetty 8 Area. For the proposed action, land is disturbed at the four borrow areas, and travel occurs on 9 the unpaved access roads between the proposed disposal site and the borrow areas. The 10 licensee revised the emission inventory accordingly and conducted air dispersion modeling for 11 Alternative 1B based on this revised inventory.
12 The mitigations identified in EIS Table 4.7-1 and Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan also apply 13 to Alternative 1B. EIS Table 4.7-5 contains the peak year modeling results for Alternative 1B.
14 The results are substantively the same as for the proposed action, so the impacts would also be 15 the same. The pollutants with the likely greatest impact are PM10 (131.0 percent of the 24-hour 16 Prevention of Significant Deterioration threshold) and nitrogen dioxide (98.7 percent of the 1-hour 17 ambient air quality standard). The highest concentrations for both of these pollutants occur just 4-41
 
1 north of the proposed project area (Trinity Consultants, 2020). Therefore, the NRC staff 2 concludes that the potential environmental impacts to air quality from the peak year emissions for 3 Alternative 1B would be MODERATE.
Table 4.7-5            Comparison of Alternative 1B Peak Emission Level AERMOD Modeling Results to Ambient Air Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Thresholds Proposed Action                                          Percent of Modeling        Background            Total        Ambient      Percent of Averaging          Result      Concentration Concentration              Air          PSD Pollutant            Time          (&#xb5;g/m3)*        (&#xb5;g/m3)*          (&#xb5;g/m3)*      Standard Threshold Carbon                  1 hour            837.57            2,203          3,040.57          20.3          na Monoxide                8 hours          188.17            1,524          1,712.17          17.2          na 1 hour          133.52&sect;            52.1            185.62          98.7          na Nitrogen Dioxide        24 hours          51.54            52.1            103.64          55.1          na annual            17.02            11.0            28.02          29.8          68.1 Particulate            24 hours            5.97            11.77            17.74          50.7          66.3 Matter PM2.5            annual              1.63            4.19              5.82          48.5          40.7 Particulate            24 hours          44.55            50.0            94.55          63.0        131.0 Matter PM10            annual              4.24            13.0            17.24            na          24.9 1 hour              4.64            5.31              9.95            5.1          na 3 hours            2.18            5.31              7.49            0.6          0.4 Sulfur Dioxide 24 hours            0.42            5.31              5.73            2.2          0.5 annual              0.13            0.219            0.349            0.7          0.6
    *To convert &#xb5;g/m3 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 x 108 Calculation compares the total concentration (i.e., proposed action modeling results combined with background concentrations) to the relevant Federal or New Mexico State ambient air standard identified in EIS Table 3.7-2. In cases where the Federal and State standards differ, the calculation uses the lower of the two standards. The acronym na stands for not applicable, meaning there was no standard (or associated background and total concentrations) for this pollutant-averaging time combination.
Calculation compares project action modeling results without the background concentrations to the relevant class.
    &sect;For this ambient air standard calculation, the 98th percentile modeling result was used rather than the maximum concentration because the ambient air quality standard specifies this value, and the proposed action modeling result was high.
PSD threshold in 40 CFR 52.21. The acronym na stands for not applicable, which means there was no threshold for this pollutant-averaging time combination. For the PSD calculation, the second highest modeling result (i.e., 39.23 &#xb5;g/m3) was used rather the maximum concentration (i.e., 44.55 &#xb5;g/m3) because the PSD threshold specifies the second highest value, and the proposed action modeling result was high.
Source: Trinity Consultants, 2020 for proposed action modeling results and NMED, 2019 for the background concentrations.
4 4.7.3      No-Action (Alternative 2) - Nongreenhouse Gases 5 Under this alternative, the NRC would not issue the requested license amendment, and thus the 6 NECR mine waste could remain in place at the NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years 7 to allow for EPA to select and implement a different CERCLA remedy. Therefore, air quality 8 impacts associated with construction, transfer, and closure of the proposed action and the two 9 secondary alternatives would not occur because nongreenhouse gases from the combustion 10 emissions from mobile sources and fugitive dust from vehicle travel on unpaved roads as well as 11 wind erosion to disturbed land would not be generated. Delay in the disposition of the NECR 12 mine waste would result in the continued generation of fugitive dust from wind erosion to land 13 already disturbed. The current air quality at and near the project (EIS Section 3.7.2) would 14 remain unchanged by the proposed UNC project under the no-action alternative. The NRC staff 4-42
 
1 expects that no additional impacts to air quality would occur from the delay in selecting another 2 remedy for the disposition of the mine waste under the no-action alternative. Therefore, the NRC 3 staff concludes that under the no-action alternative, there would be SMALL air quality impacts 4 associated with nongreenhouse gases.
5 4.7.4    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) - Greenhouse Gases 6 Climate change effects are considered the result of overall greenhouse gas emissions from 7 numerous sources rather than an individual source. In addition, there is not a strong cause and 8 effect relationship between where the greenhouse gases are emitted and where the impacts 9 occur. Because of these two factors, the NRC staff addresses the contribution of greenhouse 10 gases from the proposed action and the two secondary alternatives to the overall atmospheric 11 greenhouse gas levels and the relevant climate change effects on air quality in the cumulative 12 effects section of the EIS (Section 5.7.2) rather than in this section, which addresses the air 13 quality effects specifically attributed to the proposed action and the two secondary alternatives.
14 4.7.5    No-Action (Alternative 2) - Greenhouse Gases 15 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and the EPA would 16 pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 17 NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 18 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 19 different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 20 Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill 21 Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time 22 the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal 23 government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. Therefore, generation 24 of greenhouse gases associated with construction, waste transfer, and closure of the proposed 25 action (and its two alternatives) from combustion emissions from mobile sources would not 26 occur. The NRC staff expects that delay in selecting a remedy for the disposition of the mine 27 waste under the no-action alternative would not result in the generation of additional greenhouse 28 gases. Furthermore, the NRC staff expects that the impact magnitude associated with the 29 no-action alternative greenhouse gas emissions would be bounded by the impact magnitude of 30 the project level greenhouse gas emissions (EIS Section 5.7.2.1) because of a reduced level of 31 emission-generating activities. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the no-action alternative 32 would have a SMALL impact on air quality in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Additional 33 greenhouse gas emissions are possible when a new remedy is selected by EPA to address the 34 disposal of the NECR mine waste; however, the magnitude of the impacts of those emissions 35 would depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
36 4.8      Noise Impacts 37 This section describes the potential noise impacts from the proposed action, the two secondary 38 alternatives, and the no-action alternative within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the UNC offices, 39 including all of the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area). Noise 40 impacts within and in the vicinity of the proposed project area are primarily the result of 41 construction equipment, earthwork, and the transport of NECR mine waste.
42 Based on information in EIS Section 3.8, the closest noise receptors to the proposed project area 43 are the residents of the Red Water Pond Road Community, and due to their proximity, they are 4-43
 
1 considered sensitive noise receptors. The nearest resident is approximately 0.22 km [0.14 mi]
2 north of the NECR Mine Site property boundary.
3 4.8.1    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 4 The proposed action is described in detail in EIS Section 2.2.1. The activities involved in the 5 proposed action that may have a noise impact include (i) construction and earthwork activities, 6 such as the excavation of mine waste from the NECR Mine Site; (ii) the preparation and 7 construction of the haul road and borrow area access; (iii) preparation of the staging yards; 8 (iv) excavation at the borrow areas; (v) the removal of the erosion protection layer from the 9 existing NRC-licensed tailings impoundment; (vi) placement and compaction of the excavated 10 NECR mine waste; (vii) drainage improvement construction in Pipeline Arroyo; (viii) the 11 construction of the final ET cover; (ix) transfer of NECR mine waste and source material from the 12 borrow areas; and (x) the operation of emergency generators.
13 4.8.1. 1    Construction Impacts 14 Most of the noise impacts associated with construction would result from the use of construction 15 equipment and earthwork activities. Construction activities for the proposed action would require 16 the use of heavy equipment such as excavators, front loaders, bulldozers, dump trucks, and 17 materials-handling equipment (e.g., cement mixers and cranes). These earthwork and 18 excavation activities can generate noise levels up to 95 decibels (dBA) and typically range from 19 80-95 dBA at distances of approximately 15 m [50 ft] from the source. Noise levels decrease by 20 approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source, although further reduction 21 occurs when the sound energy has traveled far enough to have been appreciably reduced by 22 absorption into the atmosphere (NRC, 2001). Construction would operate a total of 7 hours a 23 day, with most of the activities occurring during weekday daylight hours (INTERA, 2018);
24 however, construction could occur during weekends, if necessary.
25 The licensee conducted noise analyses for different construction scenarios for the proposed 26 action that assumes there would be six dump trucks, four excavators, one bulldozer, and one 27 front-end loader working continuously in each scenario (INTERA, 2018). To predict potential 28 noise impacts, the licensee also assumed that, because hauling mine waste and clean fill from 29 the borrow areas would be conducted by the same fleet of trucks, not all of the activities would 30 be able to occur simultaneously (INTERA, 2018). According to the licensee, the noise sources 31 for the worst-case (most impactful) scenario are the NECR Mine Site haul roads, the access 32 roads at the UNC Mill Site, the soil stockpiles, screened rock, the screener, removal of the mine 33 waste, the modifications to the existing NRC-licensed tailings impoundment, and work in the 34 Jetty Area (INTERA, 2018). Modeling the worst-case scenario (EIS Figure 4.8-1) showed that 35 the noise level at almost all the receptor locations would be above the 30 dBA similar to a quiet 36 rural area and above the 55 dBA threshold for outside noise that the EPA considers a potential 37 nuisance (INTERA, 2018; EPA, 1974).
4-44
 
u
                                                        ~,-*
                                                        .ol-row t:''    Q.    *
                                                                            ..o rea, D
[
55 dBA Noise Level 65 dBA Noise Level Red Water Pond Road Community Structures D
                                                      ~
c:J 75 dBA Noise Level c:J Proposed ProJect Area D Limits of Disturbance Proposed Disposal Site Evaporation Ponds N
0
                                                                                + --
: 0. 1 0.2 0 0. 15 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6
: 0. 9 0.8 Miles Kilometers 1.2 Figure 4.8-1            Worst-Case Noise Scenario for the Construction Stage 1 Additional modeled scenarios for the proposed action identified fewer sources of noise and 2 altered the haul roads, stockpiles, and borrow areas that would be used. None of the modeled 3 scenarios, including the worst-case scenario, accounted for (i) the use of the emergency 4 generators, because their use would be temporary and only in emergency situations; or (ii) the 5 construction of the support zones or roads. The NRC staff anticipates that the construction of 6 the support zones and the roads would be completed prior to other construction and earthwork 7 activities because the other activities rely on the presence of the support zones and roads. The 8 NRC staff also concludes that due to the considerably smaller amount of land being disturbed 9 and the smaller demand of heavy equipment for the construction of the access and haul roads 10 and support zones, the actual noise levels experienced during the construction phase would be 11 less than any of the modeled noise levels for the proposed action.
12 Increased traffic associated with construction activities could increase noise levels temporarily.
13 However, as described in EIS Section 3.2, the proposed project area is located in a sparsely 14 populated area and mostly surrounded by undeveloped land and small residential areas 15 (EIS Figure 3.2-1). The primary source of background noise is from traffic on Red Water Pond 16 Road and NM 566, which has an average annual daily traffic (AADT) estimate of less than 17 130 vehicles per day. The estimated increase of 80 vehicles per day from construction workers 4-45
 
1 would not noticeably increase the overall background noise but would likely be noticeable to the 2 nearby residents of the Red Water Pond Road Community. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 3 that noise impacts from increased traffic due to the construction associated with the proposed 4 action would be SMALL.
5 Although sound dissipates with increasing distance and all modeled construction scenarios (with 6 the exception of the worst-case scenario) fall under the EPA potential nuisance threshold and the 7 current AADT, the noise generated by the construction activities of the proposed action would 8 generate much higher levels of noise than that of the estimated baseline noise level 9 (approximately 30 dBA); thus, the NRC staff anticipates that the proposed actions overall noise 10 impacts during the construction phase would be noticeable. Noise impacts would primarily affect 11 those in closest proximity to the site (e.g., the Navajo Nation and Red Water Pond Road 12 Community), and those individuals may measure noise impacts differently than EPAs standard 13 nuisance thresholds. Additionally, the conservatively modeled worst-case scenario exceeds the 14 threshold for outdoor nuisance [55 dBA] and could adversely impact noise-sensitive activities, 15 such as the herding of sheep, which occurs in the Red Water Pond Road Community.
16 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the noise impacts during the construction of the 17 proposed action would be MODERATE.
18 4.8.1.2      Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 19 Noise from the transfer of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site would primarily be 20 generated from the loading of excavation material (front-end loaders and dump trucks) and the 21 noise of the trucks and materials traveling down the various roads. These activities were 22 included in the analysis of construction noise impacts because they would be occurring 23 simultaneously with the construction activities. Therefore, the noise impacts associated with the 24 transfer of mine waste would not exceed (but would be similar to) those of construction. Thus, 25 the NRC staff conclude that the noise impacts during the transfer of NECR mine waste to the 26 proposed disposal site would be MODERATE.
27 4.8.1.3      Closure Impacts 28 Sources of noise during closure activities would be limited to that generated from equipment 29 used to transport topsoil, plants, and other supplies, as well as earthwork equipment to regrade 30 and revegetate, as described in the licensees revegetation plan. Because of the limited 31 activities and the limited use of heavy equipment associated with closure activities, the NRC staff 32 conclude that noise levels associated with closure would not exceed those of construction.
33 Additionally, the closure activities of the proposed project area would last approximately 34 6 months and all noise impacts would cease once closure is complete. However, the NRC staff 35 anticipates that the proposed actions overall noise impacts during the closure phase would be 36 noticeable to nearby residents. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the noise impacts from 37 closure activities would be MODERATE.
38 4.8.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 39 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 40 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 41 the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site 42 (INTERA, 2018). The licensee conducted noise analysis for this alternative and determined that 43 the modeled noise levels generated using a conveyor to transfer mine waste would be similar to 4-46
 
1  the proposed action (INTERA, 2018). In the ER, Table 4.7-1 shows that under the conveyor 2  alternative, the haul road noise source from trucks would be replaced with the conveyor and 3  conveyor generators (INTERA, 2018). Thus, overall noise impacts would be similar to those 4  determined for the construction, transfer, and closure phases of the proposed action. Because 5  the noise impact of the conveyor is similar to that of the haul trucks, the NRC staff concludes that 6  the potential noise impacts would be MODERATE for the construction, transfer, and closure 7  phases.
8  Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 9  Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 10  Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas as described for the proposed action (INTERA, 11  2018). In UNCs noise analysis for the proposed action (Alternative 1), UNC assumed that the 12  same trucks would be used for hauling mine waste as would be used for transporting clean fill 13  from the borrow areas (i.e., not all of the haul activities would be able to occur simultaneously).
14  UNCs noise analysis for the proposed action indicates that only one borrow area would be 15  utilized at a single point in time. As a result, the noise sources for the most impactful scenario of 16  the proposed action are the same for the noise analysis of this alternative, with the addition of 17  one noise source, activities at the topsoil stockpile. The topsoil stockpile was added as a noise 18  source under this alternative because using the material from the Jetty Area for the proposed 19  disposal site cover source would require the topsoil in the Jetty Area to be removed, segregated, 20  and stored appropriately while the work in the Jetty Area is conducted, which would not be 21  necessary under the proposed action.
22  The addition of the topsoil stockpile as a noise source does not significantly change the noise 23  level compared to the proposed action analysis. In the most impactful scenario for this 24  alternative, the noise level at most of the receptors would be above 55 dBA, as was the case for 25  the same scenario under proposed action (EIS Figure 4.8-2) (INTERA, 2018).
26  Based on the dissipation of sound with increasing distance, the most impactful scenario analyzed 27  for the proposed action above estimated baseline noise levels (approximately 30 dBA) exceeding 28  the threshold for outdoor nuisance [55 dBA], but not that of acceptable noise in a residential 29  setting [65 dBA], and the duration of the noise impacts from Alternative 1B, the NRC staff 30  concludes that noise impacts from sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B) 31  would be MODERATE during the construction, transfer, and closure phases.
4.8 .3 32            No-Action (Alternative 2) 33  As noted in the introductory section of this chapter, under the no-action alternative, the NRC 34  would not amend the UNC license, and EPA would pursue a different remedy that involves a 35  different final disposal alternative for the NECR mine waste. Under the no-action alternative, the 36  NECR mine waste could remain in place at the NECR Mine Site for an estimated 10 years to 37  allow for EPA to select and implement a different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site 38  reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill Site in accordance with existing license conditions and 39  applicable regulations at the UNC Mill Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until 40  the license is terminated, at which time the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a 41  custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term 42  surveillance. Under this alternative, the impacts to noise from the use of heavy equipment for 43  excavation of mine waste from the NECR Mine Site, the preparation and construction of the haul 44  and access roads, transportation of construction workers and of NECR mine wastes, equipment 45  use for revegetation of the NECR Mine Site, and the potential operation of emergency 4-47
 
1 generators would not occur. Therefore, the baseline noise conditions at the site would remain 2 unchanged. The NRC staff concludes that under the no-action alternative, there would be 3 SMALL noise impacts. However, noise impacts are likely to occur when a new remedy is 4 selected and implemented by EPA to address the disposal of the NECR mine waste; the 5 magnitude of the impacts would depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
u St                  ,,
f            Ar              rati
                                            ~                          p
                                                      /
                                                    .,                          **o
                                                              ,t:"-      a*
ol-row rE~ 1 65 dBA Noise Level
                              ~
Red Water Pond Road Community Structures LJ Limits of Disturbance
                                                        ~    Proposed Disposal c::J 75 dBA Noise Level c::J Proposed Project A rea LJ Evaporation Ponds Site 0
                                                                                    + --
: 0. 1 0.2 0 0. 15 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 Miles Kilomete rs 1.2 Figure 4.8-2              Worst-Case Noise Scenario for Alternative 1B 6 4.9      Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts 7 4.9.1      Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 8 4.9. 1. 1      Construction Impacts 9 Impacts to historical and cultural resources that could result from the construction phase of the 10 proposed action are primarily associated with ground disturbance required to remove and 11 relocate waste and fill materials, construction and modification of access and haul roads, and 12 construction of the proposed disposal site and support facilities. Indirect impacts to historical and 13 cultural resources within the proposed project area could include visual effects from stockpiling 14 construction materials and equipment, vibrations from construction activities, increased noise 15 caused by construction activities, and surface drainage modifications to the present landscape 4-48
 
1 and topography. These impacts could result in the loss of or damage to eligible archaeological 2 and cultural resources, as discussed throughout this section.
3 As described in EIS Section 3.9, seven previous cultural resource investigations have been 4 conducted within the proposed project area since 1974. These investigations have identified 5 16 archaeological sites within the proposed project area, 10 of which have been recommended 6 as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and may constitute historic 7 properties. Based upon current project design plans, 6 of the 10 NRHP-eligible sites are not 8 within 15 m [50 ft] of the direct area of potential effect (APE) as determined by the NRC and 9 therefore would not be directly impacted by the proposed action. Four archaeological sites fall 10 within the APE for direct effects: Sites LA 11617, NM-Q-20-69, NM-Q-20-70, and NM-Q-20-71 11 (EIS Table 4.9-1). Each of the four sites within the direct APE includes Anasazi-period artifact 12 scatters and/or habitation sites. A fifth site, NM-Q-20-72, includes historic and Anasazi-period 13 pictographs and is located fully outside the proposed actions direct APE but within 10 m [33 ft] of 14 the direct APE (i.e., the indirect APE), warranting consideration of the proposed actions indirect 15 effects on the setting of this cultural site. EIS Table 4.9-1 provides a summary of sites within the 16 direct and indirect APE that could be either directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed action.
17 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process is ongoing, and the New 18 Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (NMSHPO) and the Navajo Nation Tribal Historic 19 Preservation Office (NNTHPO) concurred with the NRC staffs eligibility recommendations 20 (NMSHPO, 2020; NNTHPO, 2020).
21 The NRC staff conducted a site visit on December 12, 2019 as part of its ongoing consultation 22 with Indian Tribes pursuant to NHPA Section 106. Other attendees included staff from the 23 NNTHPO and NRC subcontractor staff assisting with the NRC staffs Section 106 activities 24 during the development of this EIS. The group discussed the recommended eligibility, potential 25 impacts, and recommendations for avoidance and mitigation measures for each of the five 26 sites listed in EIS Table 4.9-1. The assessments of these five sites from the site visit are 27 discussed next.
28 Site LA 11617 is a small Anasazi habitation that includes a single eroded masonry room block 29 with a small scatter of associated artifacts located on a small hill west of Pipeline Road 30 (NM 566). During a previous archaeological survey, Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources 31 Management (DCRM) found a second locus of artifacts on the southeast side of the highway 32 (EIS Section 3.9). The two loci were likely part of one large site that NM 566 bisected. During 33 the most recent survey (Martin et al., 2019), DCRM mapped small portions of the site that fell 34 within the direct APE for proposed support zone facilities on the west side of NM 566. The direct 35 APE for a proposed haul road also intersected the Site LA 11617 boundary on the east side of 36 the highway. During the December 12, 2019 site visit, the location of Site LA 11617 was 37 compared with the APE for direct effects. The participants at the site visit found that the artifacts 38 on the west side of NM 566 were tightly clustered around the masonry room block on the summit 39 of the small rise outside the direct APE, and that the site boundary had been drawn generously 40 to include areas downslope. A similar circumstance was found on the east side of NM 566, 41 where surface artifacts were located upslope from the proposed projects direct APE and would 42 not likely be impacted by haul road construction. During the December 12, 2019 site visit, the 43 NNTHPO noted that the proposed project would not likely impact Site LA 11617. Given the 44 proximity of the site to the direct APE, the participants of the December 12, 2019 site visit agreed 45 with following DCRMs recommendations made during a previous survey (Martin et al., 2019),
46 which included marking the site boundaries and having an archaeological monitor present during 47 any ground-disturbing activities within 15 m [50 ft] of the site.
4-49
 
Table 4.9-1        Cultural Resources Documented within the Direct Area of Potential Effect (APE) and Indirect APE with Potential Impacts From the Proposed Action National Register of Site            Site Type    Historic Places Eligibility          Recommendation LA 11617          Anasazi Pueblo    Recommended as eligible,    Site components avoided by APE, II-III habitation  Criterion D                  archaeological monitoring during construction NM-Q-20-69        Anasazi Pueblo II  Recommended as eligible,    Site components avoided by APE, artifact scatter  Criterion D                  archaeological monitoring during construction NM-Q-20-70        Anasazi Pueblo I-  Recommended as eligible,    Site components avoided by APE, II habitation      Criterion D                  archaeological monitoring during construction NM-Q-20-71        Anasazi Pueblo II  Recommended as eligible,    Limited subsurface potential, artifact scatter & Criterion D                  archaeological monitoring during 20th-century                                    construction, recording of historic-Navajo habitation                              period trailer pads and refuse prior to construction NM-Q-20-72        Anasazi and        Recommended as eligible,    No direct impacts, high-quality historic Navajo    Criterion D                  photo documentation of site and pictographs                                    setting to mitigate potential indirect impacts to surrounding landscape 1 Site NM-Q-20-69 is an Anasazi artifact scatter located at the east end of a northeast-running 2 ridge (EIS Section 3.9). The site consists of a range of ceramic sherds with no associated 3 features or structures and appears to date to the Pueblo II period (CE 900-1100). The direct 4 APE of the proposed project intersects the east edge of the mapped boundary of Site 5 NM-Q-20-69 at the base of the ridge (Martin et al., 2018). During the December 12, 2019 site 6 visit, the group noted that the vast majority of artifacts were located upslope along the ridge and 7 outside of the direct APE, and any other substantive features or subsurface remains were likely 8 located upslope and outside the direct APE. The group agreed that given the sites location 9 relative to the direct APE, Site NM-Q-20-69 would not be impacted by the proposed project.
10 Given the proximity of the site to the direct APE, the group agreed that avoidance measures 11 recommended by DCRM (Martin et al., 2018) should be followed during the proposed project 12 activities, including marking the site boundaries and having an archaeological monitor present 13 during ground-disturbing activities within 15 m [50 ft] of the site.
14 Site NM-Q-20-70 is an Anasazi habitation site located on a southeast-facing hill slope with 15 sandstone rock outcrops. The direct APE touches the southeast corner of the mapped site 16 boundary but does not appear to overlap the site area (Martin et al., 2018). During the 17 December 12, 2019 site visit, the sites components, including two featuresa mound of 18 sandstone block rubble covering a two-room structure and large midden of over 3,000 ceramic 19 and lithic artifactswere identified well upslope from and outside the direct APE. A few isolated 20 artifacts were identified on the surface further downslope within a few meters of the APE 21 and have almost certainly been displaced downslope by erosion. The NNTHPO at the 22 December 12, 2019 site visit noted that the principal elements of Site NM-Q-20-70 were located 23 well away from the direct APE and are not likely to be directly impacted by the project. Given the 24 proximity of the site to the direct APE, the group agreed that DCRMs recommendations made 25 during a previous survey (Martin et al., 2018) that avoidance measures should be followed, 4-50
 
1 including marking the site boundaries and having an archaeological monitor present during 2 ground-disturbing activities within 15 m [50 ft] of the site.
3 Site NM-Q-20-71 is an Anasazi artifact scatter located on a northeast-facing slope that consists 4 of about 100 ceramic artifacts with no associated features or structures. The site has been 5 impacted by mine operations in the past and is mapped entirely within the direct APE for the 6 mine waste removal area. During the site visit, a light-density scatter of prehistoric artifacts was 7 observed on the ground surface, although the NNTHPO noted there was no indication of any 8 other prehistoric cultural features or even a habitable landform. In a previous archaeological 9 survey (Martin et al., 2018), DCRM recommended the site as NRHP-eligible under Criterion D; 10 however, the NNTHPO noted that the site may retain little research potential or integrity and that 11 any further investigations, such as Phase II site evaluations, had little potential to provide 12 additional information prior to mine waste removal activities. The NNTHPO recommended that 13 several nearby historic-period remains, including several concrete trailer pads, should be 14 documented and added to the site description. The NNTHPO also recommended that an 15 archaeological monitor be present to thoroughly inspect and record the site during initial ground 16 disturbing activities.
17 Site NM-Q-20-72 is an Anasazi and Navajo petroglyph site that includes both precontact and 18 historic-period markings, with fewer than 10 ceramic sherds also found nearby. The site is 19 located on a sandstone bedrock overhang facing southwest. The site is wholly outside but within 20 10 m [33 ft] of the direct APE for the mine waste removal area (Martin et al., 2019). The 21 participants of the December 12, 2019 site visit discussed the fact that the site would not be 22 directly impacted by the nearby mine waste removal activity but that the surrounding landscape 23 of the site would be at least temporary altered. Given the visual nature of the sites features and 24 the significance of the aspect of setting to their integrity, the NNTHPO at the December 12, 2019 25 site visit recommended that both the site and its setting (i.e., the surrounding landscape) be 26 documented with higher quality photography than presently contained in the survey report that 27 DCRM previously conducted (Martin et al., 2019). Given the proximity of the site to the direct 28 APE, the participants of the December 12, 2019 site visit agreed that DCRMs avoidance 29 measures (Martin et al., 2019), including marking the site boundaries and having an 30 archaeological monitor present during ground-disturbing activities within 15 m [50 ft] of the site, 31 should be followed.
32 Potential Impacts to Historical and Cultural Resources and Mitigations 33 Based on the previous analysis, Sites LA 11617, NM-Q-20-69, NM-Q-20-70, Site NM-Q-20-71, 34 and NM-Q-20-72 could be adversely affected, resulting in LARGE impacts to historic and cultural 35 resources. The topographic position of sites that are positioned on slopes and ridgetops above 36 the direct APE boundaries should prevent any effects from surface drainage modifications to the 37 present landscape.
38 The NRC staffs proposed mitigation measures and recommendations for Sites LA 11617, 39 NM-Q-20-69, NM-Q-20-70, and NM-Q-20-72 include (i) clearly marked 15-m [50-ft] avoidance 40 buffers and (ii) archaeological monitors empowered to stop work should stoppage prevent 41 impacts or other direct effects that could result from activities outside the direct APE, such as 42 stockpiling construction materials and equipment and vibrations and noise from construction 43 activities. The mitigation measures and recommendations for Site NM-Q-20-71 include 44 (i) documenting and adding the presence of nearby remains to the site description, and (ii) that 45 an archaeological monitor be present to thoroughly inspect and record the site during initial 46 ground disturbing activities.
4-51
 
1 If the 15-m [50-ft] avoidance buffers are not placed around Sites LA 11617, NM-Q-20-69, 2 NM-Q-20-70, and NM-Q-20-72, but the sites are still marked and monitored, potential impacts at 3 these sites would largely be limited to areas where small numbers of artifacts have been 4 redeposited downslope from their original location by erosion, and this would not substantially 5 alter the integrity of the sites enough to detract from their NRHP eligibility. The NRC staff 6 determines that if buffers were placed around these sites, that Sites LA 11617, NM-Q-20-69, 7 NM-Q-20-70, and NM-Q-20-72 would still be adversely affected by the proposed action, and that 8 there would be MODERATE impacts to historical and cultural resources. If none of the sites are 9 marked or monitored, there would be no way to ensure that ground disturbing activities do not 10 reach outside the direct APE and there could be serious risk to portions of the sites that contain 11 significant features and deposits. Sites that contain significant features and deposits could be 12 damaged or destroyed by construction activities, substantially altering the sites to a degree that 13 could detract from their NRHP eligibility. Therefore, the NRC staff determines that without either 14 the recommended avoidance buffer or the archaeological monitor, that Sites LA 11617, 15 NM-Q-20-69, NM-Q-20-70, and NM-Q-20-72 would be adversely affected, and that the impacts 16 to historical and cultural resources would be LARGE.
17 For Site NM-Q-20-71, if the recommended mitigation measures for adding nearby remains to the 18 site description and monitoring were not implemented, impacts from the proposed action would 19 adversely affect and destroy the site without any further examination and recording, resulting in a 20 LARGE impact to historical and cultural resources. The NRC staff recommended that the site is 21 eligible for listing on the NRHP, and the NMSHPO and the NNTHPO concurred. An adverse 22 effect to cultural resources would occur only if impacts diminish the integrity of a historic 23 property. The NRC, EPA, and NNTHPO are currently developing a programmatic agreement 24 that would describe the mitigation measures for the proposed action. Pending completion of the 25 programmatic agreement and consultation under NHPA Section 106, the NRCs preliminary 26 conclusion is that Site NM-Q-20-71 is avoidable, and if the site is avoided, the construction of the 27 proposed project would have no effect on historic properties, and there would be SMALL impacts 28 on historical and cultural resources. If mitigation measures such as those that would be provided 29 in a programmatic agreement are not followed, the proposed action would adversely affect and 30 destroy a historic property, and there would be LARGE impacts on historical and cultural 31 resources.
32 The NRC staff will continue Tribal consultation throughout the environmental review process.
33 The licensee would follow a plan, in which if historical or cultural resource discoveries are made 34 during the construction phase, then work would cease and all appropriate State, Tribal, and 35 Federal parties would be contacted (INTERA, 2018). Any discovered artifacts would be 36 inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.
37 In summary, pending completion of consultation under NHPA Section 106, because historic 38 properties are located within the direct and indirect APE, the NRC staff concludes that historic 39 properties would be adversely affected by the construction phase of the proposed action, and 40 that there would be an overall MODERATE to LARGE impact on historical and cultural 41 resources. However, the NRC staff concludes that historic properties would not be adversely 42 affected from the construction phase of the proposed action if the recommended mitigation 43 measures described previously in this section are implemented, and that the impacts to historic 44 and cultural resources would then be reduced to SMALL.
4-52
 
1 4.9.1.2      Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 2 Transferring the mine waste would occur in parallel with the 3.5-year construction period. The 3 NRC staff anticipates that no additional impacts on historical and cultural resources beyond 4 those evaluated for the construction phase would occur during the transfer phase because no 5 additional land disturbances are planned. Activities included in the transfer of NECR mine waste 6 to the proposed disposal site such as haul truck loading, hauling mine waste to the UNC Mill 7 Site, and water and dust management would need to avoid sites within the direct APE to prevent 8 any additional impacts on historical and cultural resources. The NRC staff would continue Tribal 9 consultations throughout the environmental review process. The NRC staff concludes that the 10 impact to historical and cultural resources during the transfer phase of the proposed action of 11 mine waste would be consistent with those of the construction phase; that historic properties 12 would be adversely affected by the transfer phase of the proposed action, and that there would 13 be MODERATE to LARGE impacts on historical and cultural resources. However, the NRC staff 14 concludes that historic properties would not be adversely affected from the transfer phase of the 15 proposed action if the mitigation measures described in EIS Section 4.9.1.1 are implemented, 16 and that the impacts to historic and cultural resources would then be reduced to SMALL.
17 4.9.1.3      Closure Impacts 18 During closure, no additional direct or indirect effects to historic and cultural resources would 19 occur beyond the limits of potential impacts experienced during the construction phase because 20 no additional land disturbances are planned. The closure activities of the proposed project area 21 would last approximately 6 months. Remaining unreclaimed disturbed areas within the proposed 22 disposal site would be regraded and revegetated in accordance with the licensees revegetation 23 plans. While the change in the vegetation and landscape would not be generally significant, 24 these changes could be significant to the Red Water Pond Road Community and surrounding 25 communities because of their close proximity and the nature of the Navajo Nations cultural and 26 religious connection with the land. Vibration and noise impacts during closure activities would be 27 limited to that generated from equipment used to transport topsoil, plants, and other supplies, as 28 well as earthwork equipment to regrade and revegetate, as described in the licensees 29 revegetation plan (EIS Section 4.8.1.3). Additionally, the NRC staff will continue Tribal 30 consultations throughout the environmental review and closure phase of the proposed action.
31 The NRC staff concludes that the impact to historical and cultural resources during the closure 32 phase of the proposed action would be similar to the construction phase; that historic properties 33 would be adversely affected by the closure phase of the proposed action, and that there would 34 be MODERATE to LARGE impacts on historical and cultural resources. However, the NRC staff 35 concludes that historic properties would not be adversely affected from the closure phase of the 36 proposed action if the mitigation measures described in EIS Section 4.9.1.1 are implemented, 37 and therefore the impacts to historic and cultural resources would then be reduced to SMALL.
38 4.9.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 39 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 40 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 41 the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system from the NECR Mine Site to 42 the UNC Mill Site (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would disturb 0.8 ha [2 ac] less than the 43 proposed action because fewer haul roads would be required to transfer the mine waste to the 44 proposed disposal site. The conveyor would follow essentially the same alignment as the 45 proposed truck haul road evaluated under the proposed action and would cross NM 566 at the 4-53
 
1  same location for the proposed action. The construction and use of the conveyor are included in 2  the NRC staffs determination of the APE for direct and indirect effects. Therefore, if this 3  alternative were utilized, no additional direct or indirect effects to historic and cultural resources 4  would occur beyond the limits of potential impacts experienced during the construction phase.
5  During construction of the conveyor system, the licensee would follow an inadvertent discovery 6  plan. If an inadvertent discovery of historical or cultural resources is made, work would cease 7  and all appropriate State, Tribal, and Federal parties would be contacted. Any discovered 8  artifacts would be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. The NRC 9  staff concludes that Alternative 1A would adversely affect historic properties and, therefore, the 10  impacts to historical and cultural resources from Alternative 1A would be MODERATE to 11  LARGE. However, the NRC staff concludes that under Alternative 1A, historic properties would 12  not be adversely affected if the mitigation measures described in EIS Section 4.9.1.1 are 13  implemented, and that the impacts to historic and cultural resources would then be reduced 14  to SMALL.
15  Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 16  Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 17  Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas under the proposed action (INTERA, 2018).
18  Because all the soil cover material would be obtained from the Jetty Area (which is within the 19  direct APE), the material sourcing alternative would reduce the surface area disturbed by 19 ha 20  [48 ac]. All other disturbed areas, transportation routes, and disposal locations would be the 21  same as under Alternative 1A.
22  The licensee would follow an inadvertent discovery plan (INTERA, 2018). If an inadvertent 23  discovery of historical or cultural resources is made during the proposed project under this 24  alternative, work would cease and all appropriate State, Tribal, and Federal parties would be 25  contacted. Any discovered artifacts would be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 26  36 CFR Part 800. The NRC staff concludes that Alternative 1B would adversely affect historic 27  properties and, therefore, the impacts to historical and cultural resources from Alternative 1B 28  would be MODERATE to LARGE. However, the NRC staff concludes that under Alternative 1B, 29  historic properties would not be adversely affected if the mitigation measures described in EIS 30  Section 4.9.1.1 are implemented, and that the impacts to historic and cultural resources would 31  then be reduced to SMALL.
4.9 .3 32            No-Action (Alternative 2) 33  Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and the EPA would 34  pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 35  NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 36  NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 37  different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 38  Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the Mill Site 39  would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time the 40  tailings impoundment would transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government 41  (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. Effects on historical and cultural 42  resources such as land disturbance, visual effects from stockpiling construction materials and 43  equipment, vibrations from construction activities, increased vibration and noise caused by 44  construction activities, and surface drainage modifications to the present landscape and 45  topography would not occur. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impact to historical and 4-54
 
1 cultural resources from the no-action alternative would be SMALL. Additional impacts on 2 historical and cultural resources are possible when a new remedy is selected by EPA; however, 3 the magnitude of the impacts would depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
4 4.10    Visual and Scenic Resources Impacts 5 This section describes the potential impacts to visual and scenic resources from the proposed 6 action (including two secondary alternatives) and the no-action alternative for the areas from 7 which the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area) would be visible 8 (EIS Figure 3.10-1). The proposed project area is located in the west-central portion of 9 McKinley County, New Mexico. The topography of the area varies from low-elevation mesas 10 transitioning to rock outcroppings, shallow canyons, and alluvial and arroyo valleys (INTERA, 11 2018). There are few man-made structures in the area other than the Red Water Pond Road 12 Community structures and UNC buildings.
13 4.10.1    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 14 The proposed action would impact visual and scenic resources by introducing large heavy 15 equipment into the area for construction, transportation, and closure activities and by excavating 16 approximately 765,000 m3 [1,000,000 yd3] of NECR mine waste and disposing it across NM 566 17 at the proposed disposal site, which would result in landscape and topography changes.
18 Additional visual and scenic impacts include the addition of roads and excavation from the 19 borrow areas. EIS Section 2.2.1 contains a detailed description of the proposed action.
20 4.10.1.1    Construction Impacts 21 Impacts to visual and scenic resources from the construction phase would be associated with the 22 introduction of heavy equipment used in excavation, transportation, and construction activities as 23 well as the introduction of new roads and excavation activities. Due to the topography and land 24 cover in the area, heavy equipment would be most noticeable from the roads and within the 25 proposed project area. The equipment on the NECR Mine Site would be visible to some 26 members of the Red Water Pond Road Community. The excavation of the borrow areas and the 27 NECR Mine Site would be gradual but noticeable and would require the installation of stormwater 28 controls, as laid out in UNCs CSWPPP. The access roads, along with fugitive dust generated 29 by trucks on the access roads, would be visible from adjacent roads and immediately adjacent 30 land, but would not notably alter the landscape to a casual observer. These impacts would be 31 temporary, lasting for the 3.5-year period of excavation and construction, and would primarily 32 impact observers on NM 566 and the Red Water Pond Road Community. Longer-term impacts 33 associated with placement of the mine waste on the existing tailings impoundment are discussed 34 in EIS Section 4.10.1.3.
35 The proposed project area has been determined to be a Class IV BLM visual resource inventory 36 class, as described in EIS Section 3.10, meaning that the level of changes to the landscape can 37 be high and may dominate the view (BLM, 2003). Although there are no high-quality scenic 38 views in the area as determined by the BLM, the NRC staff determines that based on (i) heavy 39 equipment use, (ii) construction of infrastructure, (iii) additional vehicle traffic, (iv) noticeable 40 fugitive dust generated during the proposed construction, and (v) noticeable land disturbances, 41 the visual and scenic impacts due to construction would be MODERATE. Impacts would 42 primarily affect those in closest proximity to the site (e.g., the Navajo Nation and Red Water 43 Pond Road Community), and those individuals may measure visual impacts differently. The 44 surrounding visual and scenic landscape may also have cultural and religious significance to the 4-55
 
1 Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community, which is further described in EIS 2 Section 4.12.1.1.
3 4.10.1.2    Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 4 Visual and scenic impacts from the transfer of mine waste to the proposed disposal site would 5 involve the visual presence of roads and heavy equipment. These impacts were included above 6 in the analysis of visual and scenic impacts during construction (EIS Section 4.10.1.1).
7 Therefore, the visual and scenic impacts associated with transferring the NECR mine waste 8 would not change or exceed the visual and scenic impacts experienced during the construction 9 phase. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the visual and scenic impacts during the transfer of 10 NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site would be MODERATE.
11 4.10.1.3    Closure Impacts 12 The visual and scenic impacts from closure at the proposed project area are closely tied to the 13 excavation and transport of the mine waste and the construction of the ET cover and surface 14 drainage features. The only visual and scenic impacts solely associated with the closure phase 15 of the disposal site are those associated with the removal of the access and haul roads, as well 16 as the staging areas, and revegetation of the disturbed areas of the proposed project area 17 (Stantec, 2018d).
18 Revegetation of the UNC Mill Site would be conducted in accordance with the licensees 19 revegetation plan and would be held by the EPA to the standards of the New Mexico Mining and 20 Minerals Division rules and regulations, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 21 as amended, and the New Mexico Solid Waste Act (Stantec, 2018a; EPA, 2013). The extent of 22 the proposed project area is approximately 138 ha [340 ac] with a maximum excavation depth of 23 15.8 m [15 ft] (INTERA, 2018). After the completion of the movement of materials to the 24 proposed disposal site, the maximum height of the proposed disposal site would be 13.1 m [43 ft]
25 above the existing ground level (INTERA, 2018). Due to the varying topography of the proposed 26 project area, this permanent change in the landscape would not be significant to the casual 27 observer from the scale of the viewshed. However, the change in landscape could be significant 28 to the Red Water Pond Road Community due to their proximity and the potential loss of culturally 29 or religiously significant visual and scenic areas. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 30 visual and scenic impacts associated with the closure of the proposed action would be 31 MODERATE.
32 4.10.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 33 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 34 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 35 the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site 36 (INTERA, 2018). The conveyance system would be a strong contrast to the existing landscape, 37 especially when compared to the addition of at-grade roads (INTERA, 2018). During 38 construction, it is unlikely that the conveyance system would be highly noticeable in contrast to 39 MODERATE visual and scenic impacts from the heavy equipment, stockpiles, and soil 40 disturbances. However, although this alternative would disturb 0.8 ha [2 ac] less than the 41 proposed action would disturb, the temporary visual and scenic impact would be greater than the 42 impact associated with the transfer of the waste using trucks due to the constant presence of the 43 above-grade conveyance system throughout the estimated 3.5 years of construction and transfer 4-56
 
1 activity. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the visual and scenic impacts associated with 2 Alternative 1A would likewise be MODERATE during construction, transfer, and closure phases 3 of the proposed project.
4 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 5 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 6 Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas under the proposed action (INTERA, 2018),
7 eliminating any visual and scenic impacts at the borrow areas and any haul roads associated 8 with them. The most notable visual and scenic impacts associated with material sourcing from 9 the Jetty Area would be from the presence of heavy equipment. Since the Jetty Area is 10 below-grade, the visual and scenic impact associated with it is minimal and primarily only visible 11 from NM 566 and the proposed project area itself. The primary impacts to the visual and scenic 12 resources from Alternative 1B would be temporary, minimal, and only visible in areas 13 immediately adjacent to the Jetty Area. While topsoil from the Jetty Area would be removed, 14 segregated, and stored appropriately in stockpiles, impacts to visual resources at the borrow 15 areas and borrow area haul roads would be eliminated. In addition, the increased area of 16 disturbed land that would be reclaimed and revegetated would create a temporary visual impact 17 under this alternative. Because the nature and significance of the visual impacts that would 18 occur under Alternative 1B are similar to those visual impacts that the NRC staff evaluated under 19 the proposed action, the NRC staff determines that the overall impacts to visual and scenic 20 resources from Alternative 1B would be MODERATE during construction, transfer, and 21 closure phases.
22 4.10.3    No-Action (Alternative 2) 23 As noted in the introduction section of this chapter, under the no-action alternative, the NRC 24 would not amend the UNC license, and EPA would pursue a different remedy that involves a 25 different final disposal alternative for the NECR mine waste. Under the no-action alternative, the 26 NECR mine waste could remain in place at the NECR Mine Site for an estimated 10 years to 27 allow for EPA to select and implement a different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site 28 reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill Site in accordance with existing license conditions and 29 applicable regulations at the UNC Mill Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until 30 the license is terminated, at which time the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a 31 custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term 32 surveillance. Under this alternative, the impacts to visual and scenic resources from the 33 excavation of the NECR mine waste, the permanent change in the landscape at the NECR Mine 34 Site, the addition of haul and access roads to and from the NECR Mine Site, soil disturbances, 35 the introduction of heavy equipment to the proposed project area, and revegetation of the NECR 36 Mine Site (a change in vegetative cover) would not occur. Therefore, the visual and scenic 37 resources would remain unchanged. The NRC staff concludes that under the no-action 38 alternative, there would be SMALL visual and scenic impacts. However, visual and scenic 39 impacts are likely to occur when a new remedy is selected and implemented by EPA to address 40 the disposal of the NECR mine waste; the magnitude of the impacts would depend on the 41 specific remedy that is selected.
42 4.11    Socioeconomic Impacts 43 This section considers the potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed action, including 44 two secondary alternatives, and the no-action alternative on employment and economic activity, 45 population and housing, and public services and finances. The basis for NRCs selection of the 4-57
 
1 socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) and the existing socioeconomic and community 2 resources in the ROI are explained in EIS Sections 3.11 through 3.11.5. Potential impacts 3 to environmental justice (minority and low-income) communities are addressed in EIS 4 Section 4.12.
5 4.11.1    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 6 As described in EIS Section 3.11, the communities around the proposed project area in 7 northwest McKinley County are predominantly rural and include the Red Water Pond Road 8 Community and the Pipeline Road Community, which are located on the Navajo Reservation.
9 The primary factor that would influence social and economic changes during the 4-year proposed 10 action is the relocation of workers into the area, which would influence resource availability for 11 the community. As stated in EIS Section 3.11, the NRC staff anticipates that most workers and 12 their families would live in or near Gallup, New Mexico, which is within 32.2 km [20 mi] of the 13 proposed project area, because it is the only large city in the county and would not require a long 14 commute for workers involved with the proposed action. The licensee anticipates that up to 15 40 workers, consisting of machine operators, flaggers, and general laborers, would be involved 16 in one or more phases of the proposed action, and assumes that between 70 and 80 percent of 17 those workers (between 28 and 34 individuals) can be hired locally (INTERA, 2018). The 18 licensee estimates that the remaining 20 to 30 percent of those workers (between 8 and 12 19 individuals) would require specialized knowledge and may not be locally available. Because of 20 the nature and location of the proposed project, including the types of workers that would be 21 needed and local labor resources available, and based on the NRCs staffs experience in 22 evaluating the potential impacts to socioeconomic and community resources, the NRC staff 23 agrees with this estimated range of workers that may not be locally available to work on the 24 proposed action (NRC, 2012; NRC, 2001; Malhotra and Manninen, 1981). For the purpose of 25 this EIS, the NRC staff conservatively assumes that 30 percent of workers (12 individuals) would 26 move into McKinley County and would live in the Gallup area (EIS Section 3.11). New workers 27 (i.e., workers moving into the ROI and those previously unemployed) would have an additional 28 indirect effect on the local economy because these new workers would be spending money 29 locally on goods and services in other industries.
30 The NRC staff conservatively assumes that all 12 of the workers that may move into the 31 Gallup area would bring families. The average family size in McKinley County in 2010 was 32 3.82 persons (USCB, 2010). If all 12 workers have an approximate 4-person family, then a total 33 of up to 48 new people may be moving into the Gallup area as a result of the proposed action.
34 The NRC staff also assumes that each new family would have 1 school-aged child; thus, up to 35 12 school-aged children may move into the Gallup area as a result of the proposed project.
36 4.11.1. 1    Construction Impacts 37 The development of the proposed action is expected to employ 40 people (INTERA, 2018; EIS 38 Section 4.11.1). As presented in EIS Sections 3.11.1 and 3.11.2, respectively, the population in 39 McKinley County as of July 1, 2019 was 71,367, and the labor force during the 2014-2019 40 period was estimated to be 53,940 (USCB, 2018; USCB, 2019). An increase of 48 people in 41 McKinley County would change the population of the county by less than 0.1 percent. In 42 addition, the 48 new people would account for less than 0.1 percent of the labor force in the 43 county. An increase of 48 people in the communities of Gallup and Church Rock, which are the 44 nearest communities to the proposed project area, would change the total population of those 45 communities by approximately 0.2 percent.
4-58
 
1 The licensee estimates that the average projected salary of the 40 workers employed as a result 2 of the proposed action would be approximately $35,000 per year. According to the U.S. Census 3 Bureau (USCB), the average (mean) income for all full-time workers between 2014 and 2018 4 that live in the Church Rock area is $40,501 and $55,652 for workers that live in Gallup (USCB, 5 2018). Median income is the amount that divides the income distribution into two equal groups, 6 half having income above that amount, and half having income below that amount. During the 7 2014-2018 period, the median income in the Church Rock area and in Gallup for workers in the 8 construction industry was about $26,719 and $24,700, respectively (USCB, 2018). The ER 9 states that UNC would seek every opportunity to employ and would give first preference to 10 qualified, local Navajo labor (INTERA, 2018). The NRC staff concludes that, due to the less than 11 0.1 percent increase in population compared to the size of the available workforce in the ROI, 12 and due to the similar income of workers that would support the proposed project in comparison 13 to local income levels, the effect of construction on employment and income within the ROI 14 would be SMALL and beneficial.
15 Construction activities would result in an influx of approximately 12 new workers and their 16 families in the Gallup area, all of whom would need housing and community services. Over 17 17 percent of housing units are available (vacant) in the Gallup area, as discussed in EIS 18 Section 3.11.3; therefore, housing the 12 new workers (and any family members) would not 19 adversely affect the existing housing inventory. In addition, Gallup has temporary housing in 20 hotel and motel rooms available for short-term leasing, and areas available for mobile homes as 21 well (NNMCG, 2012). Because the existing vacant housing inventory would be more than 22 sufficient to accommodate the expected population increase associated with the proposed 23 action, the NRC staff determines that the impact of construction on area housing would 24 be SMALL.
25 As noted in the introduction to this section, the NRC staff assumes that 12 school-aged children 26 may move into the Gallup area during the construction phase of the proposed action (EIS 27 Section 4.11.1). As described in EIS Section 3.11.5, there are approximately 13,040 students 28 that attend public schools in McKinley County. The addition of 12 school-aged children in the 29 county represents an increase of less than 0.1 percent. Furthermore, a population increase of 30 about 48 new people (EIS Section 4.11.1) would not measurably affect the demand for other 31 services, such as hospital and physician services, law enforcement, or fire protection. As 32 presented in EIS Section 3.11.5, towns surrounding the proposed project area have adequate 33 medical facilities; social services; and police, fire, and emergency medical services to 34 accommodate additional workers and their families. Local governments are expected to have 35 the capacity to effectively plan for and manage any increased demands on health and social 36 services because population increases would be small (about 48 people) (NNMCG, 2012);
37 therefore, the NRC staff expects that there would be no additional burden on the community.
38 The proposed action would have a beneficial impact on local finances in the local economy from 39 increased county and state tax revenues through the purchase of goods and services (EIS 40 Section 3.11.4). The NRC staff reviewed UNCs license amendment request and their Financial 41 Surety Rebaselining Report (Stantec, 2020), which provides the estimated costs for the 42 remaining reclamation at the UNC Mill Site, short-term surveillance activities, and the long-term 43 surveillance fee surety. The NRC staff also reviewed the EPAs reports, which provided an 44 estimate that the total cost of all phases of the proposed action would be approximately 45 $41.6 million (M) (EPA, 2009). Comparing the estimated costs in the surety report with the 46 EPAs estimated costs, the NRC staff concludes that the EPA estimate of $41.6M for the 47 potential cost of the proposed action is appropriate. Because of the short duration of the 48 construction phase (3.5 years) and small size of the construction workforce (40 workers) in 4-59
 
1 relation to the total labor force in McKinley County and nearby communities of Church Rock and 2 Gallup, the NRC staff concludes that the construction activities for the proposed action would not 3 appreciably affect the financial characteristics of the area. Therefore, the NRC staff determines 4 that overall potential socioeconomic impacts within the ROI during the construction phase of the 5 proposed action would be SMALL and beneficial.
6 4.11.1.2    Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 7 Impacts to socioeconomics during the 3.5 years that the licensee transfers NECR mine waste to 8 the proposed disposal site would be associated with continued employment of workers and the 9 continued purchasing of goods and services in McKinley County by both UNC and the project 10 workers. No additional workers would be needed during the transfer phase compared to the 11 construction phase evaluated in EIS Section 4.11.1.1. As described in the transportation impacts 12 discussion in EIS Section 4.3.1.2, transferring the NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal 13 site would increase traffic impacts on NM 566 as a result of regular road closures to allow the 14 haul trucks to cross NM 566.
15 Workforce numbers would decrease once transfer of the NECR mine waste is complete because 16 there would be less demand for haul truck drivers, flaggers, and machine operators. The 17 resulting decrease in related payrolls could lead to a change in the nature or intensity of 18 economic impacts in the community. The NRC staff assumes that some workers and their 19 families who move into the ROI to work on the proposed action would choose to stay in the area 20 once the proposed action is complete, and these workers would need to find new employment.
21 Economic effects, such as proposed project costs, wages, and population growth, are evaluated 22 for the construction phase of the proposed action in EIS Section 4.11.1.1. Because the transfer 23 phase occurs in parallel with the construction phase and no additional workers would be needed 24 for transfer operations, there would be no additional demand for housing, schools, or medical 25 facilities beyond that assessed in EIS Section 4.11.1.1. Therefore, the NRC staff determines 26 that the transfer phase would have a SMALL and beneficial impact on socioeconomics in 27 McKinley County.
28 4.11.1.3    Closure Impacts 29 Closure activities include reclamation and revegetation of disturbed areas over a period of about 30 6 months. Fewer workers would be needed to conduct closure activities because no mine waste 31 hauling would occur, and no new construction-related activities would occur (e.g., grading and 32 contouring disturbed land, excavating mine waste, constructing haul roads, or constructing the 33 ET cover over the proposed disposal site). Some of the workers that move into the ROI during 34 the construction phase may move out of the ROI during the closure phase. However, because 35 the incoming population change due to employment associated with the proposed action would 36 be so small, the eventual possible decrease in population would not create detectable 37 socioeconomic changes during closure activities. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 38 potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed action during the closure phase would 39 be SMALL.
4-60
 
1            Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 4.11.2 2  Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 3  Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from 4  the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site 5  (INTERA, 2018). The licensee states in the ER that fewer workers would be needed overall for 6  this alternative compared to the proposed action due to the elimination of some haul truck driver 7  positions (INTERA, 2018). While the license application does not provide a detailed estimate for 8  the activities that are evaluated in this EIS for the proposed action and alternatives, the 9  application does provide an estimate for the additional costs that would be incurred for the 10  proposed alternative activities that differ from the proposed action (i.e., Alternatives 1A and 1B).
11  The licensee estimates that this Alternative 1A (use of a conveyor) would cost about $1M more 12  than the proposed action because UNC would hire a specialized maintenance team to maintain 13  and operate the conveyor and to build the conveyor supports, which could require specialty 14  foundations (INTERA, 2018). The employment of specialized workers may increase the average 15  annual salary of project workers compared with the average salary under the proposed action.
16  This alternative would also have fewer impacts on traffic because the traffic on NM 566 would 17  cross beneath the conveyor and would not be delayed.
18  The NRC staff determines that the additional cost of $1M for this alternative compared to the 19  EPAs estimate of $41.6M for all phases of the proposed action (an approximate 2.2 percent 20  increase over a 4-year period compared to the proposed action) would not noticeably change the 21  overall socioeconomic effects within the ROI that were determined for the proposed action. In 22  addition, the NRC staff does not anticipate that the reduced number of haul truck drivers would 23  measurably alter the impacts to population, employment and income, housing, local finances, 24  and community services as assessed for the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff 25  concludes that the impact of this alternative on socioeconomics would be SMALL and beneficial 26  during the construction, transfer, and closure phases.
27  Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 28  Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 29  Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas (INTERA, 2018). The licensee states in the ER 30  that sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area rather than the four borrow areas would require 31  the same number of workers as the proposed action, but that this alternative would cost $3M 32  less than the proposed action (INTERA, 2018). Because excavated material from Pipeline 33  Arroyo would be used in place of cover material sourced from the four borrow areas as described 34  under the proposed action, and because this effort would reduce the need to construct haul 35  roads to the borrow areas, Alternative 1B would reduce the overall land disturbance at the UNC 36  Mill Site by approximately 19 ha [48 ac]. In addition, the time (labor) and seed mix and 37  revegetation equipment needed to reseed the four borrow areas would not occur under 38  Alternative 1B because they would not be disturbed (INTERA, 2018).
39  The NRC staff determines that the reduced costs of $3M for this alternative compared to the 40  EPAs estimate of $41.6M for the proposed action (an approximate 7.2 percent decrease over a 41  4-year period compared to the proposed action) would not noticeably change the overall 42  socioeconomic effects within the ROI that were determined for the proposed action. There would 43  be no change in impacts to population, employment and income, housing, and community 44  services than those assessed under the proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes 4-61
 
1 that the impacts to socioeconomics from the alternative of sourcing cover material from the Jetty 2 Area would be SMALL and beneficial during the construction, transfer, and closure phases.
3 4.11.3    No-Action (Alternative 2) 4 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and EPA would 5 pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 6 NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 7 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 8 different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 9 Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill 10 Site would proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time the tailings 11 impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government (DOE) or 12 the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. This alternative would delay worker 13 employment and needs for community services. This alternative also could result in greater or 14 lower tax revenues for McKinley County than the revenues expected under the proposed action 15 because instead of the proposed action, a different future remedy would be selected and 16 implemented. The current socioeconomic conditions on and near the project (EIS Section 3.11) 17 would continue under the no-action alternative, and the socioeconomic conditions in the ROI 18 would not change under this alternative. No noticeable changes to the regional economic 19 conditions would occur, and, based on the NRC staffs NEPA guidance (NRC, 2003), this would 20 result in a SMALL socioeconomic impact. However, given that the NECR Mine Site is on Navajo 21 Nation land (on the Navajo Nation reservation) and Navajo Nation Trust land, and the use of that 22 land for grazing and farming could provide means of economic stability, the no-action alternative 23 would continue to noticeably influence the ability of current and future ranchers to repurpose the 24 NECR Mine Site for ranching and grazing. The NNEPA noted that a delay in returning the NECR 25 Mine Site to the Navajo Nation would affect the ability for local Navajo farmers and ranchers to 26 earn a living. The potential impact from delaying the return of Navajo Nation land and Trust land 27 to the Navajo Nation could be destabilizing to those members of the Navajo Nation that farm and 28 ranch the land on and around the NECR Mine Site as a means of income. Therefore, the NRC 29 staff concludes that under the no-action alternative, there would be MODERATE impacts on 30 socioeconomics. Additional impacts on socioeconomic resources are possible when a new 31 remedy is selected by EPA to address the disposal of the NECR mine waste; however, the 32 magnitude of the impacts would depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
33 The NRC staff recognizes that while the NRC staff has attempted to accurately capture and 34 describe the perspectives of the Navajo Nation in this EIS, members of the Navajo Nation may 35 hold views that differ from the conclusions presented in this EIS (EIS Section 1.1.3).
36 4.12    Environmental Justice Impacts 37 Environmental justice refers to a Federal executive order that directs all Federal agencies, 38 including the NRC, to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health 39 and environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. This environmental justice 40 review includes an analysis of the human health and environmental impacts on low-income and 41 minority populations resulting from the proposed action, the two secondary alternatives for 42 modifying the proposed action, and the no-action alternative. Through NRCs environmental 43 review for this EIS, the NRC staff describes here the potential impacts of the proposed action 44 that could disproportionately impact environmental justice populations identified in EIS 45 Section 3.12. As stated in EIS Sections 1.1.3 and 4.1, the NRC staff recognizes that there may 4-62
 
1 also be intangible impacts felt by the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community 2 in ways that may not be fully captured in this EIS.
3 In the majority of its assessment, the NRC staff used data from the USCB as provided in EIS 4 Sections 3.11 and 3.12. Where the NRC staff used different analytical methods or additional 5 information for the analysis, the sections include explanatory discussions and citations for those 6 sources. EIS Section 3.11.1.2 defines and identifies the potentially affected minority and 7 low-income populations within McKinley County, the environmental justice ROI for this EIS. Out 8 of the 53 block groups located in McKinley County, there are 49 block groups that meet at least 9 one of the two criteria for potentially affected American Indian or Alaskan Native populations and 10 9 block groups that meet the criteria for potentially affected Hispanic ethnicity populations (EIS 11 Section 3.11.1.2). Of the 53 block groups in McKinley County, there are 21 block groups with 12 potentially affected low-income families and 21 block groups identified as potentially affected 13 low-income individuals (EIS Section 3.11.1.2). The locations of these block groups that 14 represent potentially affected environmental justice populations are shown in EIS Figures 3.11-3 15 and 3.11-4.
16 4.12.1    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 17 In cooperation with the NRC and the EPA, the Navajo Nation government and other Federal, 18 State, and Tribal agencies are engaged in an effort to address the legacy of uranium mining 19 within the Navajo Nation (EPA, 2014). One of the objectives is to assess and clean up structures 20 that were contaminated by the presence of mined or naturally occurring radioactive materials.
21 The NECR Mine Site was identified by both the Navajo Nation and the EPA as the highest 22 priority abandoned uranium mine for cleanup (EPA, 2014).
23 Through the NRC staffs review of the licensees ER and license application documents, 24 research of census data, information that the NNEPA provided to the NRC staff as part of their 25 consultation, and public comments provided to the NRC on the proposed action during the 26 scoping period, the NRC staff identified communities with unique characteristics that would make 27 them susceptible to disproportionately high and adverse impacts (EIS Section 3.11.1.2). Due to 28 its proximity to the proposed project area, the Red Water Pond Road Community could be 29 disproportionately affected by the proposed action.
30 4.12.1.1    Construction Impacts 31 For each of the areas of technical analysis presented in this EIS, a review of impacts to the 32 human and natural environment was conducted to determine if any minority or low-income 33 populations could be subject to disproportionately high and adverse impacts from the 34 construction phase of the proposed action. The NRC staff analyzed the proposed project 35 impacts on the general population and addresses whether minority and low-income populations 36 would experience disproportionately high and adverse impacts during the construction phase for 37 the proposed action. Based on (i) the information provided in the EPAs approach to remove 38 NECR mine waste described in UNCs LAR and the 95% Design Report (MWH, 2018), (ii) the 39 satisfactory completion of the detailed EPA (CERCLA) and NRC (licensing) reviews as 40 documented in the EPA ROD (EPA, 2013) and the NRC SER, respectively, (iii) the continued 41 oversight by EPA and NRC established during the construction phase (monitoring for 42 radionuclides in airborne particulates), and (iv) the information and the analysis of human health 43 and environmental impacts presented throughout this EIS, the NRC staff does not expect 44 adverse health effects to any population, including minority and low-income populations, from the 45 construction phase. As described in EIS Section 4.13.1, safety controls described in the UNC 4-63
 
1 Radiation Protection Plan for workers would also serve to mitigate exposures to the offsite 2 members of the public; for example, by controlling fugitive dust emissions and taking care to limit 3 dust generation when working with NECR mine waste. The UNC Radiation Protection Plan, 4 approved by the NRC and EPA, proposes additional measures aimed at protecting the public 5 from exposure to radiation from the proposed action, and it adequately addresses the potential 6 pathways for exposure to radiation applicable to the proposed action.
7 While the NRC staff does not expect adverse human health effects from the construction phase 8 to any population, including minority and low-income populations, the NRC staff found evidence 9 to suggest that potential impacts from construction of the proposed disposal site could be 10 disproportionate on minority or low-income populations or to communities with unique 11 characteristics or practices. Because the Red Water Pond Road Community is closer than any 12 other community to the proposed project area, that community could be disproportionately 13 affected due to the transportation-related effects that would occur during the construction phase 14 from the traffic delays from the frequent truck crossings of NM 566 that would be unavoidable 15 and noticeable to users of NM 566 (EIS Section 4.2.1). Impacts to air quality may result from 16 activities generating combustion emissions and fugitive dust during the construction phase, 17 resulting in visible dust in the air at the NECR Mine Site, the UNC Mill Site, along haul roads, and 18 at the NM 566 crossing. Although UNC would follow a Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan and 19 would modify or implement new mitigation measures if air monitoring results indicate 20 unacceptable dust until acceptable monitoring results are achieved, disproportionate impacts 21 could be experienced by the Red Water Pond Road Community from the presence of fugitive 22 dust that would be temporarily visible during the construction phase. Overall noise levels during 23 construction, with the exception of the worst-case (most impactful) scenario, would be below the 24 potential nuisance threshold (EIS Section 4.8.1.1). However, an increase in background noise 25 would disproportionately impact Red Water Pond Road Community residents during the 3.5-year 26 construction phase. Although there are no high-quality scenic views in the area as determined 27 by the BLM, visual impacts would primarily affect those in closest proximity to the site (e.g., the 28 Navajo Nation and Red Water Pond Road Community), and the surrounding visual and scenic 29 landscape may have cultural and religious significance to the Navajo Nation. The construction 30 phase of the proposed action would alter the landscape noticeably for 3.5 years, particularly for 31 the nearby Red Water Pond Road Community, and therefore this community would be 32 disproportionately impacted. The EPA is providing voluntary alternative housing options for 33 residents affected by the disturbances caused by the proposed action (traffic, noise, dust, etc.).
34 For the reasons previously described in this section of the EIS, the NRC staff concludes that 35 there are disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts (but not human health 36 impacts) to minority and low-income populations that would likely result from the construction 37 phase of the proposed action.
38 Although the NHPA Section 106 process is ongoing at the time of this draft EIS, the impacts to 39 historical and cultural resources are not considered significant if the identified mitigation 40 measures are implemented (EIS Section 4.9.1.1). However, there are unrecorded ceremonial 41 traditions and further hints of an early Navajo habitation in the area that may not be tied to a 42 specific location (EIS Section 3.9.2). Further, the NRC staff recognizes that the proposed project 43 may not align with Navajo cultural values (EIS Section 1.1.3). There are other actions that are 44 beyond NRCs regulatory authority that could be taken to limit environmental justice impacts, 45 such as holding culturally important or sacred ceremonies (e.g., blessings by medicine men) 46 prior to land disturbance (EIS Section 1.1.3). Local residents have also called on the EPA to 47 include in its CERCLA action remedy the relocation of nearby residents to a location acceptable 48 to the residents to ensure that their culture is not lost.
4-64
 
1 4.12.1.2    Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 2 Transferring the mine waste would occur in parallel with the 3.5-year construction period. The 3 NRC staff considered these activities in the construction analysis for environmental justice 4 impacts for this EIS because they would be occurring simultaneously with the construction 5 activities. The NRC staff would continue mitigation procedures throughout the transfer phase of 6 the proposed action. Based on (i) the NRC staffs evaluation in EIS Section 4.13.1.2 that UNC 7 would perform the proposed transfer activities in accordance with the EPA-approved UNC Health 8 and Safety Plan and the associated NRC-approved Radiation Protection Plan, and (ii) the 9 analysis of human health and environmental impacts presented throughout this EIS, the NRC 10 staff does not expect adverse health effects to the any population, including minority and 11 low-income populations, from the transfer phase.
12 Environmental impacts on environmental justice populations during the 3.5-years that the 13 licensee transfers NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site would be similar to those 14 experienced by environmental justice populations during the construction phase. The NRC staff 15 therefore concludes that disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts (but not 16 human health impacts) on minority and low-income populations associated with the transfer 17 phase would result from traffic delays, continued exposure to fugitive dust and noise, disruptions 18 to the visual and scenic landscape, and limitations on the use of undocumented cultural sites and 19 disruption of Navajo cultural values.
20 4.12.1.3    Closure Impacts 21 Closure activities would include reclamation and revegetation of disturbed areas. Land use for 22 the UNC Mill Site would remain restricted under EPA CERCLA and NRC UMTRCA requirements 23 from uses other than long-term oversight and surveillance and monitoring of the disposal site.
24 The closure activities would require fewer equipment, supplies, and workers relative to the 25 construction and transfer phases; thus, fugitive dust and transportation impacts on NM 566 26 would be minimal. During the closure phase, the UNC disposal site would effectively contain the 27 NECR mine waste and the NRC staff does not anticipate any radiological impacts during this 28 phase (EIS Section 4.13.1.3). Remaining activities to be completed during the closure phase 29 would be conducted in accordance with the UNC Health and Safety Plan and associated 30 Radiation Protection Plan described in EIS Section 4.12.1.1. Noise impacts during closure 31 activities would be limited to that generated from equipment used to transport topsoil, plants, and 32 other supplies, as well as earthwork equipment to regrade and revegetate as described in the 33 licensees revegetation plan, but would still be noticeable (EIS Section 4.8.1.3). Additionally, the 34 NRC staff would continue Tribal consultations throughout the environmental review process (EIS 35 Section 4.9.1.3). As described in EIS Section 4.10.1.3, after the completion of the movement of 36 materials to the proposed disposal site, the maximum height of the proposed disposal site would 37 be 13.1 m [43 ft] above the existing ground level (INTERA, 2018), which would be a noticeable 38 change to the landscape to nearby residents. For these reasons, the NRC staff concludes that 39 there would be disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts (but not human 40 health impacts) to minority and low-income populations from the closure phase of the proposed 41 action. The existing threat to public health at the NECR Mine Site that the EPA identified under 42 CERCLA would be reduced after completion of the removal of mine waste associated with the 43 proposed action. Cumulative impacts, which include the reclamation of the Mine Site and other 44 impacts to the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community, are discussed further 45 in EIS Chapter 5.
4-65
 
1 4.12.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 2 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 3 Under this alternative, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste from the NECR Mine Site with 4 an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the UNC Mill Site (INTERA, 2018). This alternative 5 would affect the same minority and low-income populations in a manner similar to the 6 construction and transfer phases of the proposed action. The NRC staff therefore concludes 7 that, under the conveyor alternative, disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts 8 (but not human health impacts) on minority and low-income populations would remain from traffic 9 delays during construction of the conveyor, exposure to fugitive dust and noise, disruptions to the 10 visual and scenic landscape, and limitations on the use of undocumented cultural sites and 11 disruption of Navajo cultural values.
12 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 13 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 14 Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would affect 15 the same minority and low-income populations in a similar manner to the construction phase of 16 the proposed action, where the four borrow areas would be used. The NRC staff therefore 17 concludes that by using cover material from the Jetty Area, disproportionately high and adverse 18 environmental impacts (but not human health impacts) on minority and low-income populations 19 would remain from traffic delays, exposure to fugitive dust and noise, disruptions to the visual 20 and scenic landscape, and limitations on the use of undocumented cultural sites and disruption 21 of Navajo cultural values.
22 4.12.3    No-Action Alternative 23 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and the EPA would 24 pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 25 NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 26 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 27 different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 28 Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill 29 Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time 30 the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal 31 government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] or another suitable custodial agency for 32 long-term surveillance and maintenance. However, in the absence of a disposal facility at the 33 UNC Mill Site, the existing site-specific impacts at the NECR Mine Site, including the EPA 34 determination of an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the 35 environment as described in the EPA ROD (2013), would continue. This would result in 36 disproportionately high and adverse environmental and human health impacts on the minority or 37 low-income populations (i.e., the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road Community) until 38 another remedy is selected and implemented. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste 39 would still ultimately be dispositioned in accordance with current EPA CERCLA requirements 40 once a new remedy is identified. A delay in the disposition of the NECR mine waste would delay 41 the remediation of the NECR Mine Site and thereby delay the Navajo peoples use of the current 42 NECR Mine Site for grazing, farming, and cultivating traditional plants for dyes and medicinal 43 uses. During implementation of the new remedy, disproportionately high and adverse impacts 44 on the minority or low-income populations could be similar to those impacts described for the 45 construction and transfer phases of the proposed action (EIS Sections 4.12.1.1 and 4.12.1.2).
4-66
 
1 Upon completion of the new remedy, the temporary and adverse impacts to the minority or 2 low-income populations would decrease, and the overall beneficial effects of having removed the 3 NECR mine waste would then be realized.
4 4.13    Public and Occupational Health Impacts 5 This section considers the potential impacts to public and occupational health from the proposed 6 action, the two secondary alternatives for modifying the proposed action, and the no-action 7 alternative. The potential radiological and nonradiological effects from the proposed action may 8 occur during all phases of the project life cycle. Additionally, the potential hazards and 9 associated effects can be either radiological or nonradiological. Therefore, the analysis in this 10 section evaluates the potential radiological and nonradiological public and occupational health 11 and safety effects for normal and off-normal conditions in each phase of the proposed action.
12 Normal conditions refers to proposed activities that are executed as planned. The impacts of 13 potential off-normal conditions occur when unplanned events such as accidents generate 14 additional hazards or impacts.
15 4.13.1    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 16 The environmental impacts on public and occupational health and safety from the proposed 17 action are described in the following sections.
18 4.13.1.1      Construction Impacts 19 Impacts to public and occupational health from the construction phase of the proposed action 20 include radiological impacts to workers and the public from proximity to NECR mine waste and, 21 to a lesser degree, tailings material at the UNC Mill Site during construction activities at both 22 sites. Nonradiological construction impacts to public and occupational health would be typical of 23 common construction activities. Fugitive dust could be generated that could migrate to offsite 24 locations where members of the public live. Occupational construction hazards involve moving 25 objects such as heavy machinery and earthmoving equipment, exposure to sustained high noise 26 levels, and the potential for injuries from slips, trips and falls. An additional consideration for 27 workers and members of the public is the potential for exposures to elevated chemical 28 constituents in soils (e.g., arsenic) (EIS Section 3.13.4). The potential nonradiological impacts to 29 air quality from fugitive dust generated during the proposed construction are evaluated in EIS 30 Section 4.7.1.2.
31 The NECR mine waste that would be disposed at the UNC Mill Site is limited to materials with 32 Ra-226 concentrations above 82.9 mBq/g [2.24 pCi/g] and below 7.40 Bq/g [200 pCi/g], and 33 below 230 mg/kg [230 ppm] natural uranium (INTERA, 2018). The radiological constituents in 34 the mine waste from the NECR Mine Site and tailings from the UNC Mill Site are similar because 35 both are derived from the same uranium ore source material. Uranium ore contains uranium and 36 its radioactive decay products, including Ra-226. After characterizing contaminated surface soil 37 areas at the mine site and evaluating associated human health risks (EIS Sections 3.12.1.3 and 38 3.12.3) EPA identified Ra-226 as the primary contaminant of concern for the removal action at 39 the NECR Mine Site (EPA, 2013). The average radium content of the mine waste at the NECR 40 Mine Site was reported by EPA as 1.12 Bq/g [30.4 pCi/g]. Additionally, EPA reported the 41 average Ra-226 content of UNC Mill tailings is 5.70 Bq/g [154 pCi/g] for coarse tailings and 42 20.2 Bq/g [547 pCi/g] for fine-grained tailings, with a maximum concentration of 40.66 Bq/g 43 [1,099 pCi/g]. The NRC staff found these concentrations are within the range of measured 44 concentrations of Ra-226 at other uranium mill tailings sites {0.15 to 163.6 Bq/g [4.1 to 4-67
 
1 4,422 pCi/g]} (Rogers et al., 1980). Therefore, the NECR mine waste is radiologically similar to 2 tailings in the existing NRC-licensed UNC tailings impoundment and falls within the same 3 general range as the concentrations of radium in the uranium tailings material disposed at the 4 UNC Mill Site, but has lower average Ra-226 radioactivity. Regarding potential chemical 5 hazards, the only chemical constituent other than uranium that exceeded EPA screening levels 6 at the NECR Mine Site was arsenic that was detected above background levels; however, 7 concentrations were below the health-based preliminary remediation goal, and the data did not 8 indicate a spatial pattern, nor did it indicate a correlation with the elevated Ra-226 concentrations 9 to confirm that the presence of arsenic was mine site-related (MWH, 2007; EIS Section 3.12.3).
10 Overall, the lower average Ra-226 radioactivity in the NECR mine waste presents a relatively 11 lower hazard to workers and the public, yet the waste remains sufficiently radioactive to require 12 the application of radiation safety practices that are typical of uranium mill sites to maintain 13 worker and public safety. While the NRC does not regulate mining or mine material before it is 14 milled, the impacts and handling of this material are considered here as part of the proposed 15 action under NEPA.
16 As described in EIS Section 3.13.2, the applicable radiological exposure pathways for workers 17 under normal conditions include direct radiation and inhalation of dust from proximity to NECR 18 mine waste during proposed activities. For the construction phase of the proposed action, the 19 applicable activities that present a potential for occupational health impacts include excavation, 20 post-excavation stockpiling, and loading haul trucks at the NECR Mine Site, and disposal 21 operations at the UNC Mill Site (including unloading, stockpiling, emplacement, and covering).
22 Additionally, workers constructing the disposal site on top of the tailings impoundment would be 23 exposed to low levels of radiation from the existing covered tailings. Because the tailings 24 impoundment was previously constructed with a cover that attenuates the external gamma 25 radiation emitted from the tailings, the worker exposure to this radiation would be low. Results of 26 radiological surveys for gamma radiation at the tailings impoundment showed that average levels 27 in 2013 were less than typical natural background gamma radiation in New Mexico (EIS 28 Section 3.13.1.2).
29 Radiological and nonradiological worker and public safety during all activities associated with the 30 proposed action is addressed by the UNC Health and Safety Plan, which also incorporates a 31 Radiation Protection Plan that UNC proposed to follow in its license application (Stantec, 2018a; 32 Stantec, 2019e). The UNC Health and Safety Plan describes the minimum health, safety, and 33 emergency response requirements for performing the proposed activities at the NECR Site and 34 UNC Mill Site (Stantec, 2018a; Stantec, 2019e). UNC stated that the construction contractor 35 would prepare their own Contractor Safety and Health Plan that would be specific to the project 36 and, at a minimum, is compliant with the UNC Health and Safety Plan. UNC developed the 37 Health and Safety Plan based on a variety of safety requirements, including: OSHA 29 CFR 38 Part 1910 (General Industry Standards); 29 CFR Part 1926 (Construction Standards); 10 CFR 39 Part 20; American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N14.1-2001 (Nuclear Materials - Uranium 40 Hexafluoride - Packaging for Transport); ANSI N14.5-2014 (Radioactive Materials - Leakage 41 Tests on Packages for Shipment); and New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Titles 19 and 42 20, as applicable. The UNC Radiation Protection Plan, which is part of the UNC Health and 43 Safety Plan, was designed to comply with NRC standards for protection against radiation at 44 10 CFR Part 20, OSHA requirements at 29 CFR 1910.1096 for exposure to ionizing radiation, 45 and New Mexico standards for protection against radiation at NMAC 20.3.4.
46 The UNC Radiation Protection Plan, as revised to incorporate applicable responses to NRC 47 RAIs, addresses radiation safety training, organization, and responsibilities; occupational health 48 physics monitoring for internal and external exposure assessment; and administrative and 4-68
 
1 engineering exposure control measures and protection. In particular, the Radiation Protection 2 Plan describes worker protective measures that account for the potential exposure pathways 3 applicable to the proposed work described in EIS Section 3.13.2, including inhalation of fugitive 4 NECR mine waste dust and direct exposure to external radiation from being near NECR mine 5 waste. This includes conducting area radiation surveys, air sampling for radioactive materials, 6 and radiation monitoring to allow UNC to evaluate the potential hazards during various work 7 activities and determine appropriate safety measures or corrective actions. More specifically, 8 UNC proposes to conduct work-area airborne particulate sampling near workers during intrusive 9 work or when the site activities can create airborne radioactivity (Stantec, 2019e). UNC also 10 proposes to limit fugitive dust generation during activities involving NECR mine waste by taking 11 measures such as applying water to areas to be excavated, spraying water during excavation 12 and material handling operations, modifying or stopping work during windy conditions (presence 13 of visible dust), controlling locations of work stations relative to wind direction, and conducting 14 intrusive work during low wind conditions. Additionally, UNC would issue personal dosimeters to 15 all construction personnel to monitor their external exposure to radiation and have those 16 dosimeters processed by a National Institutes of Standards and Technology National Voluntary 17 Laboratory Accreditation Program-accredited dosimetry processor (Stantec, 2019e). Regarding 18 potential off-normal or accident conditions (e.g., spills or other loss of control of NECR mine 19 waste), the UNC Radiation Protection Plan establishes that the UNC RSO will document all 20 incidents and report incidents in the same manner as required by NRC in 10 CFR Part 20.
21 Members of the public at or near the proposed project could be exposed to any unmitigated 22 airborne NECR mine waste dust and radon gas generated during the proposed action activities, 23 and these could be inhaled by downwind receptors. As described in EIS Section 3.13.2, there 24 are 34 home sites located within approximately 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed project area 25 (INTERA, 2018). The nearest residents to the proposed project are located approximately 240 m 26 [800 ft] north of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (INTERA, 2018). Available 27 meteorological data indicates that prevailing winds are from the southwest, placing some 28 residents downwind from some areas of the NECR mine site (INTERA, 2018). Because direct 29 radiation and airborne radon and dust concentrations all decrease with distance from the source, 30 the level of exposure to these residents would be much lower than experienced by workers.
31 Many of the safety controls previously described from the UNC Radiation Protection Plan for 32 workers would also serve to mitigate exposures to the offsite members of the public; for example, 33 by controlling fugitive dust emissions and taking care to limit dust generation when working with 34 NECR mine waste. The UNC Radiation Protection Plan proposes additional measures aimed at 35 protecting the public from exposure to radiation from the proposed action. This includes 36 monitoring for radioactivity in airborne particulates at the downwind boundary of the proposed 37 project area to assess dose for individual members of the public, as described in the Dust 38 Control and Air Monitoring Plan (Stantec, 2019d). Specifically, UNC has stated that they would 39 limit the annual average radionuclide concentrations of uranium (U)-234, U-238, thorium-230, 40 Ra-226, radon-222, and lead-210 in air at the nearest downwind boundary monitoring locations 41 to NRC air effluent limits in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B, Table 2. These limits are equivalent to 42 the radionuclide concentrations which, if inhaled continuously over the course of a year, would 43 produce a total effective dose equivalent of 0.5 mSv [50 mrem] (Stantec, 2019e). Additionally, 44 UNC proposes to take direct gamma radiation exposure rate measurements at the perimeter of 45 the proposed project area upwind and downwind boundary to determine external radiation 46 exposure to the public. UNC has stated that they would limit the annual public dose from 47 continuous exposure at these locations to 0.5 mSv [50 mrem] in accordance with NRC limits at 48 10 CFR 20.1302(b)(2)(ii).
4-69
 
1 The UNC Health and Safety Plan has been approved by EPA as part of the process for 2 implementing the CERCLA removal action (EPA, 2011) and the remedial action (EPA, 2013).
3 The NRC safety staff is also reviewing the included Radiation Protection Plan in detail to assess 4 whether the plan adequately addresses NRC safety regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. Because the 5 UNC Radiation Protection Plan has been reviewed and approved by EPA and must be approved 6 by the NRC staff, the NRC staff concludes that the radiological exposures to workers and the 7 public from the proposed action would be maintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) 8 and within NRC standards in 10 CFR Part 20, and therefore the associated radiological impacts 9 would be minor.
10 The potential nonradiological impacts to workers would be associated with typical construction 11 hazards and the potential for exposures to hazardous substances. OSHA has promulgated 12 standards for protection of workers who may be exposed to hazardous substances at Resource 13 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or CERCLA sites (29 CFR 1910.120 and 1926.65). The 14 aforementioned UNC Health and Safety Plan was developed to address these requirements as 15 well as the potential nonradiological impacts to public health and safety from the proposed 16 activities. The EPA requires compliance with OSHA standards under National Oil and 17 Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan requirements at 40 CFR 300.150; therefore, 18 EPA ensures that these requirements are addressed during the removal action (EPA, 2013).
19 Considering available occupational injury and fatality incidence data for construction in 20 New Mexico (EIS Section 3.12.5) of 2.4 injuries per 100 full-time equivalent workers and 21 10.1 fatalities per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, the proposed number of workers (40),
22 and the proposed duration of construction (3.5 years), the NRC estimated there would be 23 approximately 3.4 nonfatal injuries and less than one (0.014) fatalities among the workforce 24 during construction. Considering (i) the small number of estimated injuries and no expected 25 fatalities, (ii) UNCs plans to conduct proposed construction activities in accordance with the 26 EPA-approved UNC Health and Safety Plan that addresses compliance with applicable safety 27 requirements, and (iii) regulatory oversight by EPA under CERCLA, the NRC staff concludes that 28 the nonradiological public and occupational health impacts from the construction phase of the 29 proposed action would be low.
30 Overall, based on the preceding analyses and conclusions regarding the radiological and 31 nonradiological impacts to workers and members of the public from the construction phase of the 32 proposed action, the NRC staff concludes that the public and occupational health impacts from 33 the construction phase of the proposed action would be SMALL.
4.13. 1. 2 34                Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 35 During the proposed transfer of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site at the UNC Mill 36 Site, the radiological and nonradiological public and occupational health impacts under normal 37 and off-normal conditions would be associated with the potential for inhalation exposure to 38 fugitive NECR mine waste dust along haul routes, the adequacy of efforts to control and contain 39 NECR mine waste during the NM 566 road crossing, and the potential for external exposures to 40 workers and the public from the radiation emitted from the loaded NECR mine waste haul trucks.
41 The potential nonradiological impacts to air quality from fugitive dust generated during proposed 42 hauling operations are evaluated in EIS Section 4.7.1.3.
43 Activities conducted during the transfer phase would be carried out in accordance with the UNC 44 Health and Safety Plan and associated Radiation Protection Plan described in EIS 45 Section 4.12.1.1, which apply to both normal and off-normal conditions. This includes 46 occupational health and safety measures applicable to construction projects and detailed 4-70
 
1 radiation safety protocols that include conducting area radiation surveys, air sampling for 2 radioactive materials, and radiation monitoring to allow UNC to evaluate the potential hazards 3 during work activities and determine appropriate safety measures or corrective actions. As 4 indicated in the impact analysis for the construction phase in EIS Section 4.12.1.1, maintaining 5 occupational safety onsite and providing the proposed site boundary air and radiation monitoring 6 would protect the offsite members of the public from hazards associated with fugitive NECR mine 7 waste dust and external radiation levels.
8 Control and containment of NECR mine waste during hauling operations is important for 9 maintaining both occupational and public health and safety. UNC proposes comprehensive 10 protocols to limit the generation of dust and maintain containment of NECR mine waste within 11 the loaded haul truck beds. UNC proposes to secure and cover loads on haul vehicles carrying 12 NECR mine waste from the NECR Mine Site (Stantec, 2019d). Heavy equipment and vehicles 13 leaving the NECR Mine Site or the proposed disposal site would be scanned for radiation, and 14 loose contamination (e.g., chunks of dirt or material in tires) would be removed prior to entering 15 the haul road (Stantec, 2018b). Both the NECR Mine Site and the proposed disposal site would 16 have mud grates located along the haul road for trucks leaving these areas to travel over.
17 Beyond the mud grates, the haul trucks would be required to stop and be checked at a 18 contamination control checkpoint (Stantec, 2018b). In addition, as described in the UNC Dust 19 Control Plan (Stantec, 2019d), wet washing or dry brushing of equipment would be conducted as 20 needed to control tracking of impacted material or mud onto roadways. As needed, UNC would 21 apply dust control measures during hauling, including use of water or other approved dust 22 suppressants to haul roads, application of water during loading, wetting loads, street sweeping 23 and/or cleaning, haul road speed limits, and limiting access and haul road development to the 24 minimum necessary to execute work. The NRC staff considers these proposed practices 25 acceptable for controlling and containing NECR mine waste during transfer operations.
26 UNC proposes additional measures to address potential safety hazards at the haul road crossing 27 of NM 566. This includes installing a traffic control signal system that would be used as needed 28 to stop public traffic on NM 566 while haul trucks are crossing and, likewise, to stop haul traffic 29 from crossing NM 566 while public traffic proceeds through the crossing area (Stantec, 2019b).
30 UNC also proposes to install additional mud grates at the highway crossing. At the end of each 31 haul workday, UNC proposes to check the highway crossing surface for contamination and to 32 collect and move any identified contamination to the proposed UNC disposal site for final 33 disposition. UNC would prevent the accumulation of mud and dirt on the paved section of the 34 crossing by sweeping any uncontaminated sediment or soils to the shoulder. UNC also 35 proposes to install temporary gates at the haul road access points when the crossing is not in 36 use. The NRC staff considers these proposed practices acceptable for limiting potential 37 occupational and public health and safety impacts at the NM 566 crossing during NECR mine 38 waste transfer operations.
39 Considering the preceding analyses of the potential radiological and nonradiological impacts to 40 workers and members of the public from the transfer phase of the proposed action, the NRC staff 41 concludes that conducting the proposed activities in accordance with the EPA-approved UNC 42 Health and Safety Plan and the associated Radiation Protection Plan and the related UNC 43 measures to control and contain transferred material and maintain safe conditions at the haul 44 road crossing at NM 566, the public and occupational health impacts from the proposed transfer 45 of NECR mine waste to the UNC Mill Site would be SMALL.
4-71
 
1 4.13.1.3    Closure Impacts 2 The closure phase would begin when the construction and transfer phases are complete and 3 thus would not involve most of the potential hazards of these previous phases. Closure phase 4 activities and related impacts are associated with the revegetation of those areas at the UNC Mill 5 Site that were disturbed by the proposed action. These activities would involve the use of 6 earthmoving and seed distribution equipment to recontour and revegetate disturbed areas. The 7 UNC disposal site on top of the tailings impoundment would now effectively contain the NECR 8 mine waste and thereby mitigate the associated hazards to workers and the public. Thus, the 9 NRC staff does not anticipate any radiological impacts during this phase other than possible low 10 radiation doses to workers conducting activities on top of the disposal site where attenuated 11 radiation from the covered NECR mine waste and mill waste may be present at low levels.
12 Remaining activities to be completed during the closure phase would be conducted in 13 accordance with the UNC Health and Safety Plan and associated Radiation Protection Plan 14 described in EIS Section 4.12.1.1. Because the radiological impacts of NECR mine waste 15 disposal would have been addressed by completing the proposed action and the nonradiological 16 public and occupational health impacts during the closure phase would be less than the impacts 17 associated with construction and transfer activities described in EIS Sections 4.12.1.1 and 18 4.12.1.3, the NRC staff concludes that impacts would be SMALL.
19 Beyond closure of the disposal site, the potential for long-term impacts to public health would be 20 addressed by the combined effect of the NRC and EPA approvals of those aspects of the 21 proposed action that fall within their respective authorities that are important to long-term 22 performance of the tailings impoundment and the added disposal site (EIS Section 4.1, 23 Post-closure Considerations). If the NRC under its authority approves the license amendment 24 request, that approval would be based, in part, on an NRC safety finding that the proposed 25 amendments to the license would not adversely affect the capability of the existing tailings 26 impoundment to conform to the long-term performance objective in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A 27 to isolate the tailings at the UNC Mill Site. Additionally, EPA under CERCLA authority has 28 selected the remedial action to dispose the NECR mine waste at the UNC Mill Site based, in 29 part, on the long-term effectiveness and permanence of the remedy. EPA has also required that 30 the design of the proposed disposal site addresses long-term performance standards established 31 by EPA for this remedial action (Stantec, 2019a). Upon the completion of reclamation, UNCs 32 license would be terminated, and the UNC Mill Site would transfer to a custodial agency [e.g., the 33 Federal government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance and 34 maintenance. Under this process, the UNC Mill Site would be maintained and managed by the 35 custodial agency pursuant to an NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28 to provide for the 36 continued safe isolation of the material (EIS Section 2.2.1.8) and EPA oversight under CERCLA 37 to maintain long-term effectiveness of the remedy (EPA, 2013). Therefore, with respect to the 38 proposed action and secondary alternatives, the NRC staff concludes that the potential 39 environmental impacts to public health associated with the modified tailing impoundments 40 long-term performance would be SMALL.
41 4.13.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to the Proposed Action) 42 Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A) 43 Under this alternative, rather than haul by truck, UNC would convey the NECR mine waste with 44 an above-grade, covered conveyor system from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill Site 45 (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would increase the level of construction activity and number of 46 workers to build and remove the conveyer and therefore would increase the potential 4-72
 
1 construction workplace hazards, but that would be offset to some degree by a decrease in 2 construction and associated workers for building the UNC mine waste haul roads. During 3 transfer operations, a conveyor system would travel over NM 566, thereby omitting the need for 4 the proposed radiological health and safety measures at the road crossing. A conveyer would be 5 designed to contain materials and operate in a reliable, reasonably fail-safe manner to ensure 6 the safe transfer of materials, in particular at the road crossing. During the closure phase, there 7 could be additional nonradiological and radiological safety concerns regarding the dismantling 8 and disposition of the conveyor system. This includes avoiding typical workplace hazards 9 associated with dismantling structures, as well as addressing any radiological safety concerns 10 that could result from decontamination, if needed, or from storage and disposal of conveyor 11 components contaminated with residual NECR mine waste material.
12 Based on this analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the conveyor alternative would increase the 13 complexity of construction and closure activities, which might increase safety hazards during 14 these phases to some degree. During transfer operations, a conveyor would eliminate the 15 potential nonradiological safety impacts associated with the use of trucks but might present 16 additional hazards associated with maintenance of the conveyor. The staff concludes that any 17 potential change in these hazards as a result of implementing this alternative instead of using 18 haul trucks would be minor and would not meaningfully change transfer operations impacts.
19 Both technologies are common and could be implemented safely under the proposed UNC 20 Health and Safety Plan. Therefore, the public and occupational health impacts would be SMALL 21 under the conveyor alternative. Impacts to other resources from the reduction in onsite hauling 22 activities are documented in the impact analyses for those resources (e.g., transportation).
23 Material Sourcing for the Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B) 24 Under this alternative, cover material for the proposed disposal site would be sourced from the 25 Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas described for the proposed action (INTERA, 26 2018). Because (i) the quantity of material to be excavated would not change, (ii) all of the cover 27 material sources (for both the proposed action and this alternative) are on the UNC Mill Site, 28 (iii) the activities to remove and haul the material are similar from a public and occupational 29 health perspective, and (iv) the activities would be conducted under the proposed UNC Health 30 and Safety Plan, the choice of source area would not affect the public and occupational safety 31 impact conclusions, and the public and occupational health impacts would be SMALL under 32 this alternative.
33 4.13.3    No-Action (Alternative 2) 34 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license, and the EPA would 35 pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 36 NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 37 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 38 different CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill 39 Site in accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill 40 Site would continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time 41 the tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal 42 government (DOE) or the State of New Mexico] another suitable custodial agency for long-term 43 surveillance. Therefore, the public and occupational health impacts associated with construction, 44 waste transfer, and closure of the proposed action (and its two secondary alternatives) including 45 the potential occupational and public radiological impacts from exposure to direct radiation and 46 unmitigated NECR mine waste dust and the potential occupational and public nonradiological 4-73
 
1 impacts from construction injuries and fatalities and nonradiological unmitigated fugitive dust 2 would not occur. The current public and occupational health conditions on and near the project 3 (EIS Section 3.13) would remain unchanged by the proposed UNC project under the no-action 4 alternative. In the absence of a disposal facility at the UNC Mill Site, the existing site-specific 5 impacts at the NECR Mine Site, including the EPA determination of an imminent and substantial 6 endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment as described in the EPA ROD 7 (2013), would continue, resulting in temporarily LARGE public health impacts until another 8 remedy is selected and implemented. The potential occupational health impacts would be minor 9 due to the limited occupational activities that would occur under the no action alternative. The 10 NECR mine waste would be dispositioned in accordance with EPA CERCLA requirements once 11 a new remedy is selected. Upon completion of the new remedy, the temporary and adverse 12 impacts to public health would decrease to SMALL impacts, and the overall beneficial effects of 13 having removed the NECR mine waste would then be realized. Therefore, the NRC staff 14 concludes that under the no-action alternative, there would be temporarily LARGE public health 15 impacts until another remedy is selected and then impacts would be SMALL. Additional public 16 and occupational health impacts are possible when a new remedy to address the disposal of the 17 NECR mine waste is selected by EPA; however, the magnitude of the impacts would depend on 18 the specific remedy that is selected. The NRC staff recognizes that while the NRC staff has 19 attempted to accurately capture and describe the perspectives of the Navajo Nation in this EIS, 20 members of the Navajo Nation may hold views that differ from the conclusions presented in this 21 EIS (EIS Section 1.1.3).
22 4.14    Waste Management Impacts 23 This section describes the potential impacts to waste management resources in the vicinity of the 24 UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area) that could potentially be affected 25 by the disposition of liquid and solid waste streams generated by UNCs proposed action, the two 26 secondary alternatives for modifying the proposed action, and the no-action alternative.
27 EIS Section 2.2.1.6 describes the types and volumes of liquid and solid waste that could be 28 generated by the proposed action and the no-action alternative. EIS Section 3.13 describes the 29 environment that could potentially be affected by the disposition of liquid and solid waste streams 30 generated by UNCs proposal in the vicinity of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (the 31 proposed project area).
32 4.14.1    Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 33 4. 14.1.1    Construction Impacts 34 This section describes the potential impacts to waste management resources in the vicinity of the 35 UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (the proposed project area) that could potentially be affected 36 by the disposition of liquid and solid waste streams generated by UNCs proposed action, the two 37 secondary alternatives for modifying the proposed action, and the no-action alternative.
38 Impacts to waste management resources from the construction phase of the proposed action are 39 primarily associated with routine activities conducted in support of typical construction-related 40 activities for a large earthmoving project with a small workforce of up to 40 workers 41 (e.g., workforce trash, stormwater management, sanitary waste, cleaning, and maintenance).
42 Nonhazardous solid waste from the proposed action includes a small amount of solid waste from 43 routine construction activities such as trash and recyclables generated by the small workforce 4-74
 
1 that would be disposed at a local municipal landfill. The NRC staff estimates that quantities of 2 solid waste generated by the proposed action would be commensurate with the presence of a 3 small workforce at the proposed project area during the construction phase, and would be limited 4 to common nonhazardous waste generated from the presence of onsite workers (e.g., workforce 5 trash). Thus, the NRC staff anticipates that the amount of nonhazardous solid waste generated 6 would not be significant and would be disposed in the nearby Northwest New Mexico Regional 7 Solid Waste Authoritys Red Rock Landfill. The annual intake of nonhazardous waste at the Red 8 Rock landfill is approximately 104,052 metric tons [115,000 short tons], and this landfill has an 9 estimated remaining life of 52 years after 2020 (Northwest New Mexico Regional Solid Waste 10 Authority, 2020). The NRC staff considers the amount of nonhazardous wastes that would be 11 generated during the construction phase to be minor in comparison to the available capacity for 12 disposing such waste and therefore concludes that the impact on non-hazardous solid waste 13 management resources from the construction phase of the proposed action would be minor.
14 Nonhazardous liquid wastes from the proposed action include sanitary waste, as well as 15 stormwater and truck washdown water. For the construction phase, sanitary waste would be 16 generated in quantities commensurate with the presence of a small workforce at the proposed 17 project area. UNC has an established presence in the area as an existing generator of sanitary 18 waste that operates consistent with standard industry practice, and the duration of the project is 19 limited; thus, the NRC staff assumes that UNC would continue to apply standard industry 20 practices regarding the management of sanitary waste (e.g., collect sanitary liquid waste using 21 sewage collection tanks or portable toilets), which would then be disposed at the nearby City of 22 Gallup Wastewater Treatment Plant. The City of Gallup Wastewater Treatment Plant currently 23 processes approximately 13 million L per day [3.5 million gal per day] of sanitary waste (City of 24 Gallup, 2019). The NRC staff considers the amount of liquid sanitary waste that the proposed 25 construction phase would generate to be minor in comparison to the capacity of publicly owned 26 treatment works to process such waste. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to 27 sanitary waste management resources from sanitary waste streams from the proposed project 28 would be minor.
29 As described in EIS Section 2.2.1.6, UNC proposes to collect potentially affected stormwater 30 runoff (e.g., stormwater from areas where NECR mine waste excavation activities would be 31 conducted) and truck washdown water and manage these waste streams in accordance with 32 an EPA-approved CSWPPP (Stantec, 2018b) to address applicable NPDES program 33 requirements. UNC proposes that the CSWPPP would prescribe BMPs to be implemented to 34 limit the release of stormwater, sediment, pollutants, and deleterious debris to downstream areas 35 (Stantec, 2018b). Because these wastes would be managed according to EPA-approved plans 36 and practices to address applicable requirements as part of the CERCLA removal action, the 37 NRC staff concludes that the associated waste management impacts would be minor.
38 The NRC staff estimates that the construction phase would involve limited activities that would 39 produce hazardous waste (e.g., grease and solvents from construction equipment maintenance) 40 and that UNC would be classified as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator.
41 Furthermore, the NRC staff expects that UNC would store and dispose any hazardous waste in 42 accordance with applicable State and Federal requirements. The Red Rock landfill currently 43 accepts and dispositions (i.e., recycles or temporarily stores for transfer to another facility) 44 hazardous waste and would have ample capacity to manage the limited hazardous waste 45 generated from the proposed project. Additionally, for construction activities, the NRC staff 46 expects that UNC would implement a SPCCP describing measures that would be taken to 47 prevent and clean up contamination resulting from any leaks and spills of hazardous materials, 48 including fuels and lubricants. Therefore, the NRC staff considers that the impacts to hazardous 4-75
 
1 waste management resources from hazardous waste generated as a result of the construction 2 phase of proposed action would be minor.
3 The NRC staff considers impacts to waste management from the construction phase of the 4 proposed action for all waste streams to be minor in comparison to the remaining capacity of 5 local municipal landfills and publicly owned treatment works to process such waste, and that 6 stormwater and truck washdown water would be managed in accordance with an EPA-approved 7 CSWPPP. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the impacts to waste management 8 resources from all waste streams (e.g., nonhazardous, hazardous, stormwater and truck 9 washdown water, and sanitary wastes) generated as a result of the construction phase of the 10 proposed action would be SMALL.
11 4.14.1.2    Transferring NECR Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site 12 Transferring the mine waste occurs in parallel with the 3.5-year construction period. Activities 13 associated with the transfer of NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site would produce 14 nonhazardous solid waste, liquid waste, and limited quantities of hazardous waste similar to that 15 described for construction in EIS Section 4.14.1.1. Because the activities associated with 16 transferring NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site occur concurrently with construction 17 (e.g., excavation) and do not require additional workers or involve activities that would produce 18 additional waste, no additional impacts to waste management would be expected during the 19 transfer phase. Stormwater and truck washdown water would continue to be managed in 20 accordance with an EPA-approved CSWPPP. The NRC staff considers the amounts of waste 21 generated during this phase of the proposed action to be minor in comparison to the capacity for 22 disposing of such wastes, and therefore the impact would be SMALL.
23 4.14.1.3    Closure Impacts 24 Closure activities at the UNC Mill Site would include reclamation and revegetation of disturbed 25 areas and the ET cover. As described previously, the proposed action would generate minimal 26 amounts of nonhazardous solid and liquid wastes and limited hazardous waste from construction 27 and transfer activities. Closure would involve a comparatively diminished level of activity and 28 resulting waste generation. Additionally, during closure activities, there would be no significant 29 new sources of waste that would be generated and contribute to impacts to waste management 30 resources. Disturbed areas and the ET cover would be revegetated, which could result in a 31 small amount of solid waste from seed packaging and revegetation equipment. Local capacity to 32 dispose of such waste is ample, as discussed for the construction phase (EIS Section 4.14.1.1).
33 Following the transfer phase, trucks would no longer require washdown, and stormwater would 34 be managed according to the site modifications discussed in EIS Section 4.5.1. Therefore, the 35 NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts to waste management resources 36 from closure activities would be SMALL.
37 4.14.2    Other Alternatives Considered (Modifications to Proposed Action) 38 Compared to the proposed action, there would be no additional impacts to waste management 39 resources from conveying the NECR mine waste with an above-grade, covered conveyor system 40 from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill Site (Alternative 1A) or from sourcing cover material 41 for the proposed disposal site from the Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas 42 (Alternative 1B). The NRC staff does not anticipate that additional amounts or types of wastes 43 would be produced by using a conveyor or from using a different borrow area. Although fewer 44 workers would be needed for the conveyor alternative, the associated minor decrease in wastes 4-76
 
1 generated would not likely be significant in comparison to the proposed action. Therefore, the 2 NRC staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts to waste management resources 3 from these alternatives would be SMALL.
4 4.14.3    No-Action (Alternative 2) 5 As noted in the introduction section of this chapter, under the no-action alternative, the NRC 6 would not amend the UNC license, and the EPA would pursue a different remedy under 7 CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the NECR mine waste. Under this 8 alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the NECR Mine Site for another 9 estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a different CERCLA remedy.
10 Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill Site in accordance with 11 existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill Site would continue to 12 proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time the tailings 13 impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government (DOE) or 14 the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. Therefore, waste streams and volumes 15 produced during activities conducted under the no-action alternative would be less than the 16 proposed action during the short-term period that the mine waste remains on the Mine Site.
17 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that under the no-action alternative, there would be SMALL 18 impacts to waste management resources. Potential additional impacts to waste management 19 resources are possible once EPA selects another remedy for the disposition of NECR mine 20 waste, but those impacts would depend on the remedy that is selected.
21 4.15    References 22 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. Standards for 23 Protection Against Radiation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
24 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 25 Appendix A. Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 26 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 27 Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 28 Printing Office.
29 10 CFR 40.28. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, &sect; 40.28. General license for 30 custody and long-term care of uranium or thorium byproduct materials disposal 31 sites. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
32 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910. Occupational 33 Safety and Health Standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34 29 CFR Part 1926. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1926. Safety and Health 35 Regulations for Construction. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
36 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 37 Part 800. Protection of Historic Properties. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing 38 Office.
39 40 CFR 52.21. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, &sect; 52.21.
40 Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 41 Publishing Office.
4-77
 
1 40 CFR 300.150. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, &sect; 300.150.
2 Worker health and safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
3 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N14.1, American National Standard for 4 Radioactive Materials, Uranium Hexafluoride - Packaging for Transport. New York, New York:
5 American National Standards Institute, Inc. February 2001.
6 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N14.5, American National Standard for 7 Radioactive Materials, Leakage Tests on Packages for Shipment. New York, New York:
8 American National Standards Institute, Inc. June 2014.
9 BLM. Farmington Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 10 Statement, Volume 1. Farmington, New Mexico: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 11 Land Management, Farmington Field Office. March 2003. BLM-NM-PL-03-014-1610.
12 <https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/64524/20001905/250002264/FDO_-
13 _FFO_-_2003_-_Farmington_Proposed_RMP_Vol_1.pdf> (Accessed 24 February 2020) 14 Canonie Environmental. Tailings Reclamation Plan As Approved by NRC March 1, 1991 15 License No. SUA-1475, Volume 1 - Text. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML103230255, 16 ML103230287, and ML103230306. Project 86-060-27. Dallas, Texas: Canonie Environmental.
17 August 1991.
18 CCA.
 
==Subject:==
Supplemental Survey for Updated Closure Design; at the Northeast Church 19 Rock Mine Site and Remedial Action at the UNC Mill Site. Fort Collins, Colorado: Cedar Creek 20 Associates, Inc. May 16, 2019.
21 City of Gallup. City of Gallup Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital Improvements Project 22 Gallup, New Mexico: City of Gallup. 2019.
23 <https://www.gallupnm.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3274/City-of-Gallup-WWTP-Capital-24 Improvement-Project-> (Accessed 11 July 2019) 25 Dwyer Engineering. Consolidation and Groundwater Evaluation Report. ADAMS Accession 26 No. ML19315A010. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Dwyer Engineering, LLC. October 2019.
27 EPA. Fifth Five-Year Review Report for United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Superfund 28 Site McKinley County, New Mexico. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 29 Region 6. September 2018. <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/100011828.pdf> (Accessed 30 25 August 2020).
31 EPA. Federal Actions to Address Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation.
32 San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014.
33 <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/nn-five-year-plan-2014.pdf>
34 (Accessed 16 May 2019) 35 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, McKinley County, New Mexico.
36 EPA ID NMD030443303; Operable Unit: OU 02, Surface Soil Operable Unit. Dallas, Texas:
37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. 2013.
38 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/681353.pdf> (Accessed 21 January 2019) 4-78
 
1 EPA. Action Memorandum: Request for a Non-Time Critical Removal Action at the Northeast 2 Church Rock Mine Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation.
3 ADAMS Accession No. ML12003A095. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4 Region 6 and San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
5 September 29, 2011.
6 EPA. Engineering Evaluation/Cost AnalysisNortheast Church Rock (NECR) Mine Site, 7 Gallup, New Mexico. SDMS DOCID# 2183626. San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental 8 Protection Agency, Region 9. May 2009. <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-9 12/documents/engineering_evaluation_-_cost_analysis_20090530.pdf> (Accessed 10 25 April 2019) 11 EPA. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and 12 Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004. ADAMS Accession 13 No. ML110110692. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1974.
14 FWS.
 
==Subject:==
Updated List of Threatened and Endangered Species that May Occur in Your 15 Proposed Project Location, and/or may be Affected by Your Proposed Project. Consultation 16 Code: 02ENNM00-2019-SLI-0620. ADAMS Accession No. ML20156A413. Project Name:
17 Former Church Rock Uranium Mill Site Proposed License Amendment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 18 Service. February 2020.
19 FWS. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 2019. <https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-20 regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php> (Accessed 9 June 2019) 21 FWS. Recovery Plan for Erigeron rhizomatus (Zuni Fleabane). Albuquerque, New Mexico:
22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region. June 2018.
23 Hatch. Annual Review Report - 2018 Groundwater Corrective Action Church Rock Site Church 24 Rock, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession No. ML19037A416. State College, Pennsylvania:
25 Hatch. January 2019.
26 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 27 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 28 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 29 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
30 Malhotra, S. and D. Manninen. NUREG/CR-2002, Volume 1, Migration and Residential 31 Location of Workers at Nuclear Power Plant Construction Sites. ADAMS Accession No.
32 ML19094B801. PNL-3757. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1981.
33 Martin, R., S. Wero, and A. Werito. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed INTERA 34 Church Rock 17 Additional Areas AUM Cleanup in Church Rock and Coyote Canyon Chapters, 35 McKinley County, New Mexico. Farmington, New Mexico: Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources 36 Management. 2019.
37 Martin, R., S. Wero., and J. Begay. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed INTERA 38 Churchrock AUM Clean-up in the Church Rock and Coyote Canyon Chapters, McKinley County, 39 New Mexico. Farmington, New Mexico: Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources Management. 2018.
4-79
 
1 MWH. Northeast Church Rock 95% Design Report. Fort Collins, Colorado: MWH, now part of 2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018. <https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-3 cleanup/northeast-church-rock-mine-technical-reports> (Accessed 9 May 2020) 4 MWH. Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) Report. Northeast Church Rock Mine Site. Steamboat 5 Springs, Colorado: MWH, Inc. October 2007. <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/1178256.pdf>
6 (Accessed 11 June 2020) 7 National Park Service. Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Work Group 8 (FLAG): Phase I ReportRevised (2010). Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR 9 2010/232. Washington, DC: U.S. Forest Service; Denver, Colorado: National Park Service; and 10 Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010.
11 New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. Erigeron rhizomatus (Zuni fleabane). Map 12 distribution. Albuquerque, New Mexico: New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. 2020.
13 <https://nmrareplants.unm.edu/node/75> (Accessed 6 June 2020) 14 NMAC. New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 19, Natural Resources and Wildlife, 15 Administration. Santa Fe, New Mexico: The Commission of Public Records Administrative 16 Law Division.
17 NMAC. New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 20, Environmental Protection, Ambient Air 18 Quality Standards. Santa Fe, New Mexico: The Commission of Public Records Administrative 19 Law Division.
20 NMDGF. New Mexico Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico 21 Department of Game and Fish. 2019a. <http://nmchat.org/map/> (Accessed 3 June 2019) 22 NMDGF. Letter to NRC (April 12, 2019) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, United Nuclear 23 Corporation, Church Rock Project (Docket ID NRC-2019-0026); NMDGF No 18968, from 24 M. Wunder, Chief, Ecological and Environmental Planning Division. ADAMS Accession No.
25 ML19133A316. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2019b.
26 NMED. New Mexico Air Quality Bureau Air Dispersion Modeling Guidelines. Santa Fe, 27 New Mexico: New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau. June 2019.
28 NMOSE. OSE POD Locations. Interactive Map Version 2.1.2. Santa Fe, New Mexico: State 29 of New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Interstate Stream Commission. April 2019.
30 <https://gis.ose.state.nm.us/gisapps/ose_pod_locations/> (Accessed 8 May 2020) 31 NMSHPO. Letter to State Historic Preservation Officer, New Mexico Historic Preservation 32 Division (April 15) Request for Section 106 Consultation for the Proposed Transfer of Mine 33 Waste From the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site to the United Nuclear Corporation Church 34 Rock Mill Site (Docket Number: 40-8907), from C. Roman, NRC. Concur with eligibility 35 determination as proposed. ADAMS Accession No. ML20107F771. Washington, DC:
36 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April 2020.
37 NNDFW. Navajo Nation Endangered Species List, February 2020. Window Rock, Arizona:
38 Navajo Nation Division of Natural Resources Department of Fish and Wildlife. February 2020.
39 <https://www.nndfw.org/nnhp/nnhp_nesl.pdf> (Accessed 7 June 2020) 4-80
 
1 NNMCG. McKinley County, New Mexico, Comprehensive Plan Update. Final Plan. Northwest 2 New Mexico Council of Governments. September 2012.
3 NNTHPO. Email (May 26) RE: Request for concurrence on eligibility determinations, from 4 R. Begay, NNTHPO. ADAMS Accession No. ML20167A115. Window Rock, Arizona: Navajo 5 Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office. May 2020.
6 Northwest New Mexico Regional Solid Waste Authority. Email to N. Hall (February 13) 7 Northwest New Mexico Regional Solid Waste Authority from G. Hall, Northwest New Mexico 8 Regional Solid Waste Authority. ADAMS Accession No. ML20245E151. 2020.
9 NRC. Safety Evaluation Report of License Amendment Request. Docket No. 040-08907.
10 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ADAMS Accession No.
11 ML20210M050. 2020.
12 NRC. NUREG-2113, Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Fluorine Extraction 13 Process and Depleted Uranium Deconversion Plant in Lea County, New Mexico. ADAMS 14 Accession No. ML12220A380. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15 August 2012.
16 NRC. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 17 NMSS Programs. ADAMS Accession No. ML032450279. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 18 Regulatory Commission. August 2003.
19 NRC. NUREG-1714, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction and Operation 20 of an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation on the Reservation of the Skull Valley Band of 21 Goshute Indians and the Related Transportation Facility in Tooele County, Utah.
22 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December 2001.
23 Rogers, V.C., R.F. Overmyer, K.M. Putzig, C.M. Jensen, K.K. Nielson, B.W. Sermon.
24 NUREG/CR-1081, FBDU-218-2, Characterization of Uranium Tailings Cover Materials for 25 Radon Flux Reduction. ADAMS Accession No. ML102430419. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 26 Regulatory Commission. March 1980.
27 Stantec. United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Mill Site Financial Surety Cost Estimate.
28 ADAMS Accession No. ML20091J373. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
29 March 2020.
30 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 31 Appendix A: General Design Information; Appendix G: Mine Waste Repository Design; 32 Appendix H: Borrow Areas. ADAMS Accession No. ML19322D019. Edmonton, Canada:
33 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 2019a.
34 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475. ADAMS 35 Accession No. ML19287A009. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
36 October 2019b.
37 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, Figures.
38 ADAMS Accession No. ML19322D037. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
39 October 2019c.
4-81
 
1 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 2 Appendix Q: Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan. ADAMS Accession No. ML19305D532.
3 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. October 2019d.
4 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 5 Attachment L-1 Radiation Protection Plan. ADAMS Accession No. ML19305D530.
6 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. October 2019e.
7 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 8 Appendix J: Technical Specifications; Appendix L: Health and Safety Plan; Appendix R:
9 Release Contingency and Prevention Plan; Appendix U: Revegetation Plans. ADAMS 10 Accession No. ML18267A276. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
11 July 2018a.
12 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 13 Appendix B: Construction Support Facilities; Appendix C: Mine Site Removal Excavations and 14 Demolition; Appendix E: Stormwater Management Plan. ADAMS Accession No.
15 ML18267A239. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018b.
16 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 17 Appendix I: Mill Site Stormwater Controls. ADAMS Accession No. ML18267A240.
18 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018c.
19 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 20 Appendix J: Technical Specifications. ADAMS Accession No ML18267A276.
21 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018d.
22 Trinity Consultants. Modeling Addendum, Supplemental Environmental Report for the United 23 Nuclear Corporation Source Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession No.
24 ML20245E178. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Trinity Consultants. May 2020.
25 UNC. UNC Responses to USNRC Group 2 RAI Clarification Comments. ADAMS Accession 26 No. ML20091H057. Gallup, New Mexico: United Nuclear Corporation. March 2020.
27 USCB. State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010-2019. Datasets.
28 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2019.
29 <https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html>
30 (Accessed 13 April 2020) 31 USCB. 2014-2018 5-year American Community Survey; Table B2403, Industry by Median 32 Earnings in the Past 12 Months (in 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars); Table S2001, Earnings in 33 the Past 12 Months (in 2018 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars); Table S2301, Employment Status.
34 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
35 <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/>
36 USCB. Table QT-P11: Households and Families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 37 Commerce, Census Bureau. 2010.
4-82
 
1                                5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 2 5.1      Introduction 3 The Council on Environmental Qualitys (CEQs) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 4 defines cumulative effects as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 5 impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 6 actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 7 actions [Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 1508.7]. Cumulative effects, 8 synonymous with cumulative impacts, can result from individually minor but collectively 9 significant actions taking place over a period of time. A proposed project could contribute to 10 cumulative effects when its environmental impacts overlap with those of other past, present, or 11 reasonably foreseeable future actions. For this environmental impact statement (EIS), other 12 past, present, and future actions considered in the analysis for the proposed Church Rock 13 Project include (but are not limited to) legacy uranium mining and milling operations, rock and 14 mineral mining (other than uranium), oil and gas projects, housing development and 15 urbanization, Navajo Nation projects, and wind and solar projects.
16 The cumulative impacts analysis of the proposed Church Rock project was based on publicly 17 available information on existing and proposed projects, information in United Nuclear 18 Corporations (UNCs) environmental report for the UNC Site Source Material License 19 Amendment Request (INTERA, 2018), UNCs Application for Amendment of U.S. Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission (NRC) Source Material License SUA-1475 (Stantec, 2019), information 21 and documentation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the 22 proposed action and associated Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 23 Liability Act (CERCLA) actions, input from the Navajo Nation, input from McKinley County, and 24 the NRC staffs general knowledge and research regarding the conditions in northwest New 25 Mexico and in nearby communities to determine reasonably foreseeable future actions that 26 could occur. For the cumulative impacts analysis in this EIS, the broadest geographic scope of 27 analysis for an individual resource area is 80 kilometers (km) [50 miles (mi)] from the middle of 28 the proposed action area, which is described, as applicable, in later sections of this chapter.
29 The geographic scope of analysis {the 80 km [50 mi] radius} encompasses the majority of 30 McKinley County, portions of southern San Juan County, and portions of northern Cibola 31 County in New Mexico, as well as a portion of eastern Apache County in Arizona. Past, 32 present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities are described within this 80 km [50 mi]
33 area. However, the analyses for certain resource areas delineate a narrower geographic scope, 34 based on where overlapping impacts could occur (e.g., land use evaluates cumulative 35 impacts within a 10-km [6-mi] radius of the proposed project area). The temporal scope 36 (e.g., timeframe) of the cumulative impact analysis considered for all resource areas extends 37 from 2019 to 2030 to address the short-term timeframe when the proposed onsite activities and 38 associated near-term impacts would be occurring. An additional long-term timeframe is also 39 considered for those resource areas that could potentially be impacted in the future by the 40 performance of the tailings impoundment with the added disposal site. Additional details of the 41 analysis timeframes are described in EIS Section 5.1.2.
42 EIS Section 5.1.1 describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 43 considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. Figure 5.1-1 depicts the locations of the past, 44 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative impacts 45 analysis. The methodology used to conduct the cumulative impacts analysis in this EIS is 46 provided in EIS Section 5.1.2.
5-1
 
Canyon de Chelly -
National Monum_ent
                                                                                                  ,,JP
                                                                                            ,,,,4:?-"
                                                                                                        ~ ~ #,_,.,.._
                                                                                                                        ~,.:=-~      ~ ~- _,,
l
                                                                                      . , f/Y
                                                                                ,I/
                                                                .I' 9fJ
                                                            'I'
                                                      /
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ~
* Pueblo Pintado I
* Navajo
                                                                                                                                                                                          \"
f
                                          ,,l 1
I
{IA pache Count y
                                                            *    ** j  zo n a
                                                                                                                                                                                              ~
                                                                                                                                                                                              \
                                                                                                                                                                                              '\)
                                                                                                                                                                                                  *'.)
II'
                                        \, /
I'."\
                                          ~t li 5-2                                          '\  ~
                                                      \,.
                                                        '\ :
_ _ _ Navajo-Gallup
      ~  Gallup Solar Wata Suppl y Pipe
                                                                            ~ fvtt. Taylof Ranga District
                                                                                                                  - - - State Hwy            -            Pinedale Cha pta
* LJ                                            Othe1 N av ajo    r-----1  16-1:m (10*m i)                                                                  N Coal Mine
                              ~    Uranium M ill                                        Parts                                              l_ ____ J Radius Cha ptas 0  5 10          20              30    40
* Hurnate Mine Uranium Mine                            ~ Amtrosia Lak e                      Chutch Roc:t:            f'-.---  32-km (20-m i }
l,______J Radius Miles Uranium District                    Cha pta
* Red Dog {Scaia)
Mine
* Active O il/Gas W ell                  =            Interstate
                                                                                                                  -      Coyote Canyon Cha pta D            80-km (50-m i)
Radius            0  10  20                  40        60            80
* Navajo-Gallup Pu01)ing Station    0 Potential O i VGas Well                                    -          US Hwy Kilometers Figure 5.1-1                Geographic Locations of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions
 
1 5.1.1      Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 2 The proposed Church Rock project would be located approximately 27 km [17 mi] northeast of 3 Gallup, New Mexico at the former UNC Church Rock Mill Site and the Northeast Church Rock 4 (NECR) Mine Site (together referred to as the proposed project area) in McKinley County, 5 New Mexico. The UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site are in the Grants Uranium District, 6 which extends along the southern margin of the San Juan Basin through Cibola, McKinley, 7 Sandoval, and Bernalillo Counties and Tribal lands in northwest New Mexico (EPA, 2019a).
8 Currently, there is no uranium production in the area; however, from the 1950s to the late 1990s, 9 the Grants Uranium District was a major producer of uranium, yielding more than any other 10 district in the United States (New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, 2019).
11 Several mines in the Grants Uranium District that are located within 80 km [50 mi] of the 12 proposed project area are now under the jurisdiction of the New Mexico Environment 13 Department (NMED); New Mexico Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department 14 (EMNRD); and EPA. EPA is evaluating these mines to assess and address their health risks 15 and environmental effects and they are in various stages of remediation (EPA, 2019a).
16 Investigative reports and remediation documentation related to uranium mining activities focus 17 on mitigating the environmental and public health impacts associated with past and present 18 radiological pathways. The NRC staff used these documents along with (i) EPA Superfund 19 documents; (ii) planning documents developed by or for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
20 counties, and cities within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area; (iii) information provided 21 by New Mexico and Arizona State agencies; and (iv) other publicly available information to 22 determine past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the proposed 23 Church Rock project area.
24 The NRC staff recognizes that the COVID-19 public health emergency may affect ongoing and 25 future projects in ways that may not have been fully realized and that may not be reflected in the 26 sources of information supporting the development of this EIS. The NRC is aware that some 27 planned projects described in this section have been delayed temporarily, and others may be 28 delayed for indefinite amounts of time as a result of the public health emergency. The NRC staff 29 will update the final EIS with current information with respect to the status of the ongoing and 30 future projects in this cumulative impact analysis.
31 5.1.1.1      Uranium Mining and Milling Sites 32 Ambrosia Lake is a large sub-district of the Grants Uranium District that is situated almost 33 entirely within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area, southeast of the former UNC Mill Site, 34 in the middle of the southern portion of McKinley County, and stretching into Cibola County. The 35 Ambrosia Lake sub-district contained the majority of the uranium mines and four uranium mills 36 operating from the early 1950s until 2002, with most operations ceasing in the 1980s (EPA, 37 2018a). The mills in Ambrosia Lake include Ambrosia Lake Mill, Phillips Mill, Bluewater Mill, and 38 Homestake Mill, all of which are within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area and are 39 considered in this cumulative impact analysis (EPA, 2018a). San Mateo Creek Basin is located 40 within the Ambrosia Lake sub-district and is approximately 830 square kilometers (km2) 41 [320 square miles (mi2)] in size, the majority of which is within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed 42 project area. It contains 85 legacy uranium mines as well as the four legacy mill sites mentioned 43 previously, all of which may have contributed to the degradation of the groundwater quality in the 44 San Mateo Creek Basin (EPA, 2018b). In November 2019, EPA initiated responsible party 45 commitments to perform the equivalent of a remedial investigation/feasibility study assessment 46 of the San Mateo Basin, which will inform EPAs selection of a cleanup remedy (EPA, 2019b).
47 Homestake Mill is located approximately 8.8 km [5.5 mi] north of Milan, New Mexico, and is 5-3
 
1 currently undergoing soil and groundwater remediation overseen by the EPA, NRC, NMED, and 2 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (EPA, 2019c). Other cleanup activities within 80 km [50 mi]
3 of the proposed project area include (i) the Bluewater Village in Cibola County, where the EPA 4 removed radiologically contaminated soil from 26 residential properties in 2013; (ii) the Johnny M 5 Mine Area, where a rancher and his business were relocated in 2011 and an engineering 6 evaluation/cost analysis (a specific type of document developed in the Superfund program) is 7 being conducted to determine how to respond to the radionuclides and uranium contamination; 8 and (iii) Mormon Farms, where the EPA removed contaminated soils from 19 residential 9 properties near Milan, New Mexico in 2013 (EPA, 2018c).
10 The EPA has entered into enforcement agreements and settlements valued at over $1.7 billion to 11 reduce the highest risks of radiation exposure to the Navajo people from abandoned uranium 12 mines (EPA, 2019d). As a result, funds are available to begin the assessment and cleanup 13 process at 219 of the 523 abandoned uranium mines. As a result of these agreements and 14 settlements, EPA has overseen detailed investigations at a number of mines located within the 15 cumulative area of analysis for this EIS {within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area},
16 including (i) the NECR Mine Site within the proposed project area, (ii) the Quivira Mine Site 17 located north of the proposed project area (EIS Figure 2.2-2 and Section 5.1.1.1.3), (iii) Old Gulf 18 Mine (also called the Mariano Lake Mine), (iv) Ruby Mines, (v) Section 26 Mine, (vi) Sections 32 19 and 33 Mines, (vii) Haystack #1 Mine, (viii) Bibo Trespass Mine, (ix) Section 24 Mine, and 20 (x) Mac and Black Jack Mines (EPA, 2019e). These abandoned uranium mines are located in 21 five Navajo Nation Chapters within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area. After the 22 investigations concluded that the contaminated soils were an immediate and severe risk, the 23 EPA oversaw the excavation and removal of contaminated soils near houses and in the 24 communities around the NECR Mine Site, the Quivira Mine Site, Section 26 Mine, and 25 Sections 32 and 33 Mines (EPA, 2019e). For the Section 26 Mine, an open adit (a horizontal 26 passage leading into a mine for the purposes of access or drainage) was closed, and 27 approximately 68,810 cubic meters (m3) [90,000 (cubic yards) yd3] of waste material was 28 excavated in 1991. In 2012, waste was consolidated and covered on the Section 32 Mine. The 29 Section 24, Haystack #1, and the Bibo Trespass Mines were all reclaimed between 1990 and 30 1991. The EPA also addressed physical hazards at the Ruby Mines, such as closing vent holes 31 and entrances (EPA, 2019e). The EPA has installed fences and signs at several other mine 32 sites (EPA, 2019e). Ongoing EPA actions include (i) the development of the Engineering 33 Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the four Mac and Black Jack Mines (anticipated to be complete in 34 2021), (ii) development of the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Quivira Mine 35 (anticipated to be complete in 2021), (iii) contaminated structure remediation, and (iv) remedial 36 actions at the NECR Mine Site described in EIS Chapter 2. Additional information about the 37 NECR Mine Site remediation and planned activities at the Quivira Mine Site are discussed 38 further in EIS Sections 5.1.1.1.1 and 5.1.1.1.3, respectively.
39 The EPA and the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) joined efforts in 40 establishing the Structure Remediation Program, a voluntary program involving an evaluation of 41 potentially contaminated structures, yards, and material on Navajo land, as well as the removal 42 and cleanup of contaminated structures and material if there is an exposure risk (EPA, 2017).
43 Under this program, the EPA discusses the cleanup of a specific structure with a Navajo resident 44 enrolled in the structure remediation program and takes appropriate action (EPA, 2017). Over 45 1,000 Navajo homes have already been surveyed, and contaminated soil and materials have 46 been removed from over 60 yards and 45 houses or other residential structures (EPA, 2017).
47 Structure surveys and remediation activities have occurred and are ongoing in the Navajo 48 Chapters of Fort Defiance, Bread Springs, Church Rock, Iyanbito, Pinedale, Mariano Lake, 49 Nahodishgish, Haystack, Casamero Lake, Thoreau, and Coyote Canyon (EPA, 2017).
5-4
 
1 In the Grants Uranium Mining district, approximately 185,520 metric tons [204,500 tons] of 2 uranium resources remain, most of which is believed to be in the Morrison Formation (New 3 Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, 2019). Due to the economic potential of these 4 uranium deposits, a few areas in the Grants district are being evaluated again as future uranium 5 sources, especially as improvements are made to lower-cost extraction technologies, such as 6 in-situ leaching (New Mexico Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, 2019). For example, the 7 U.S. Forest Service is leading the development of an EIS for the Roca Honda Mine, located in 8 McKinley County, approximately 80 km [50 mi] southeast of the Church Rock proposed project 9 area, with the final EIS anticipated in August of 2020. If undertaken, this proposed project would 10 be one of the largest {143 hectares (ha) [354 acres (ac)] within the 777-ha [1,920-ac] facility} and 11 highest-grade uranium projects in the United States (Energy Fuels, 2019; USDA, 2019).
12 Historical operations of the UNC Mill Site (EIS Section 2.2.1.2) resulted in routine and 13 non-routine releases and exposures to radioactive materials. A major release occurred on 14 July 16, 1979, when the UNC Mill Site dam collapsed, releasing approximately 350 million liters 15 (L) [93 million gallons (gal)] of tailings that flowed down the Pipeline Arroyo into the Puerco River 16 drainage system and the underlying alluvium. A small emergency retention pond captured 17 approximately 1,000 metric tons [1,100 tons] of solid material from the release (EPA, 2013).
18 Additional details about this incident, its consequences, and the multi-agency response are 19 described in EIS Sections 3.12.1 and 3.12.5.
20 5.1.1.1.1    NECR Mine Site Activities and Remediation 21 As stated above, the EPA has overseen the excavation and removal of contaminated soils near 22 houses and in the communities around the NECR Mine Site (EPA, 2019e). As of January 2020, 23 approximately 181,437 metric tons [200,000 tons] of contaminated soil had been removed from 24 residential areas and taken to the NECR mine waste pile (EPA, 2020a). The EPA removed soil 25 at three properties prior to September 2007 (MWH, 2007). Between August 17, 2009 to 26 May 21, 2010, the EPA oversaw the removal of 83,948 m3 [109,800 yd3] of contaminated soil at 27 the NECR-1 Step-Out Area and of approximately 25,230 m3 [33,000 yd3] from along the 28 unnamed arroyo (MWH, 2010).
29 EIS Section 2.2.1 describes the proposed action evaluated in this EIS, which is to amend UNCs 30 Source and Byproduct Material License SUA-1475 to allow UNC to transfer and dispose 31 approximately 765,000 m3 [1,000,000 yd3] of NECR mine waste on top of the tailings 32 impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. The proposed UNC schedule to complete the disposal of the 33 NECR mine waste is approximately 4 years (Stantec, 2018). EIS Section 2.2.1.3 provides 34 details about UNCs proposed NECR mine waste excavation objectives and associated activities 35 that would overlap with the proposed action, including the identification and segregation of 36 principal threat waste (PTW). UNC would identify and segregate the PTW (and stockpiling of 37 PTW material within the PTW staging area) using a combination of in situ and ex-situ gamma 38 radiation level measurements. UNC proposed segregating mine waste exceeding the 39 EPA-imposed 200 picoCuries (pCi)/gram (g) radium (Ra)-226 removal action level and would 40 also ensure that uranium ore mine waste above the total uranium removal action level of 41 500 milligrams (mg) per kilogram (kg) [500 parts per million (ppm)] is segregated. Based on 42 sample results, UNC would make a final determination and disposition decision: PTW would be 43 transported offsite to an EPA-approved disposal facility or the White Mesa Mill; non-PTW would 44 be hauled to the proposed UNC Mill Site disposal site with the other non-PTW mine waste that 45 exceeds the removal action level.
5-5
 
1 EPA selected disposal of the mine waste on top of the mill disposal site, as documented in the 2 EPA ROD (EPA, 2013). The EPA CERCLA remediation process is described in UNCs ER and 3 LAR and further in the 95% Design Report (MWH, 2018). Mitigating activities that UNC 4 proposes that the EPA would oversee are similar to those described throughout EIS Chapter 4, 5 such as revegetating disturbed areas and radiological monitoring. These activities are planned 6 and described in the licensees environmental report (ER), license application report (LAR), and 7 95% Design Report. In addition to the potential and temporary adverse impacts evaluated in this 8 EIS from the NECR Mine Site activities related to the proposed action, completing the 9 remediation of the NECR Mine Site would have long-term beneficial impacts from applying the 10 EPA CERCLA process to address threats to public health and the environment. Land would be 11 released for unrestricted use at the NECR Mine Site after reclamation is complete (EIS 12 Section 4.2.1.1).
13 5.1.1.1.2    UNC Mill Site Reclamation and Long-Term Surveillance 14 EIS Section 2.2.1.8 states that, following cessation of operations, an NRC-licensed uranium mill 15 is required to undergo site reclamation in accordance with an NRC-approved reclamation plan 16 that complies with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix A. Upon completion of the 17 proposed action, the NRC staff expects that UNC would complete the remaining site reclamation 18 activities, terminate its NRC license, and transfer the site to a custodial agency {e.g. the Federal 19 government [U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)] or the State of New Mexico} for long-term 20 surveillance. EIS Section 2.2.1.8 provides context for what steps would follow completion of the 21 proposed action and clarifies that the actual steps taken to complete the reclamation and land 22 transfer at the UNC Mill Site may differ in some details. Reclamation activities would extend 23 beyond the timeframe of the proposed action (i.e., beyond 2030); however, the NRC staff 24 expects that Mill Site reclamation and long-term surveillance would have no additional adverse 25 impacts beyond those considered for the proposed action. The completion of UNC Mill Site 26 reclamation, license termination, and transfer of the site to a custodial agency for long-term 27 surveillance would have net beneficial impacts regarding the stabilization and containment of the 28 mill tailings and associated contaminants, and providing a level of protection for public health, 29 safety, and the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with 30 the site.
31 5.1.1.1.3    Quivira Mine Site Remediation 32 The EPA is currently working in consultation with the Navajo Nation as they continue to address 33 contamination at the Quivira Mine Site. The EPA has set aside $85 million for Quivira Mine 34 cleanup actions, has repaired fences and placed warning signs to restrict access to the area, and 35 has completed repairs on Red Water Pond Road (EPA, 2018d,e). Additionally, the EPA oversaw 36 the removal of 7,460 m3 [10,000 yd3] of contaminated soil from grazing areas, and over 37 10,922 m3 [14,286 yd3] of contaminated soil were removed from residential areas. Approximately 38 12,997 m3 [17,000 yd3] of soil along the road was removed in 2012, and approximately 7,646 m3 39 [10,000 yd3] of soil from the areas around ventilation shafts was removed in 2017 (EPA, 2018d; 40 EPA, 2020b). The excavated soil was placed back on the Quivira mine waste pile, after which 41 the pile was temporarily covered and stabilized in 2012 and again in 2017 (EPA, 2018d; EPA, 42 2020b). As of the writing of this document (September 2020), the EPA is in the process of 43 conducting an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis to evaluate the options for further 44 addressing contamination at the Quivira Mine Site (EPA, 2020b). The EPA plans to release the 45 final Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for public comment in 2021 and then proceed to 46 implement the selected remedy in coordination with the timing of the proposed action (EPA, 47 2020b). The EPA anticipates cleanup to begin in 2022. Therefore, these activities may overlap 5-6
 
1 in time with the proposed action; however, the remediation activities that would be selected and 2 planned under the EPA CERCLA process would not be determined until after EPA publishes the 3 Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis. Completing the remediation of the Quivira Mine Site 4 could produce temporary short-term environmental impacts but would also have long-term 5 beneficial impacts from applying the EPA CERCLA process to address threats to public health 6 and the environment.
7 5.1.1.1.4    Crownpoint Uranium Project 8 The environmental impacts of the proposed Crownpoint in-situ uranium recovery project in 9 McKinley County were documented in an NRC EIS in 1997 (NRC, 1997). In 1998, the NRC 10 issued Source Material License SUA-1580 to Hydro Resources, Inc. for uranium production at 11 the Crownpoint Uranium Project, but the project was not developed. In 2002, Hydro Resources 12 requested a renewal of the license but, in 2014, after several discussions with Hydro Resources, 13 the NRC paused the review of the renewal application until further notice (NRC, 2019). In 2015, 14 the licensee submitted a request for an indirect change of control of the Crownpoint Uranium 15 Project license from Hydro Resources to Laramide Resources Ltd. (Laramide), which the NRC 16 approved in 2016 (NRC, 2019). No additional actions have taken place since the change of 17 control and there have been no operations at any of the project areas (NRC, 2019).
18 The Crownpoint Uranium Project license authorizes an in situ recovery milling operation 19 consisting of three project areas that are depicted in EIS Figure 5.1-2: (i) the Crownpoint project 20 area, (ii) the Unit 1 project area, and (iii) Sections 8 and 17 (previously the Old Churchrock Mine; 21 hereafter called the Crownpoint satellite facility to avoid confusion with the NECR Mine Site).
22 The Crownpoint and Unit 1 project areas are located west of Crownpoint, New Mexico, 23 approximately 31 km [19 mi] from the proposed project area (McCarn, 2001). The two project 24 areas are less than 1.6 km [1 mi] apart and together cover 877 ha [2,192 ac] of land (McCarn, 25 2001). The Crownpoint satellite site is 145 ha [360 ac] in size and is located in the northwest 26 corner of the Zuni Uplift, approximately 4 km [2.5 mi] southwest of the UNC Mill Site (McCarn, 27 2001). If developed, the Crownpoint Uranium Project could produce 13,229 metric tons 28 [14,583 tons] of uranium from the Westwater Canyon Member (McCarn, 2001). Following in situ 29 recovery operations, the licensee would be required to conduct groundwater restoration of the 30 project areas as well as all other reclamation activities required by the NRC (NRC, 1997; 31 McCarn, 2001).
32 5.1.1.2      Mining and Oil and Gas Projects 33 Other than uranium mines, there are 11 registered rock and mineral extraction mines within 34 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area (EIS Figure 5.1-1) (AZGS, 2019; EMNRD, 2019).
35 There are two red dog (scoria) mines approximately 45 km [28 mi] east of the proposed project 36 area. One of the scoria mines is active and the other is permanently closed (EMNRD, 2019).
5-7
 
UNITt          __
                                                                                /~~~&#xa3;T~.!!_~~---/
NAVAJO NATION RESERVATION McKinley County ZUNI              Clbola County RESERVATION PROJECT AREAS
                                          ~    GRAPHIC SCALE (MILES)
Figure 5.1-2      Locations of Crownpoint Uranium Project (Modified from Hydro Resources Inc., 2013) 1 There are eight coal mines within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area, the closest of 2 which is approximately 24 km [15 mi] west of the proposed project area. Five of the eight coal 3 mines are in McKinley County. Of these, the nearest four are permanently closed, and four of 4 five have been reclaimed and released, and the fifth is undergoing reclamation (EMNRD, 2019).
5 The only active coal mine in McKinley County is approximately 60 km [37 mi] east of the 6 proposed project area (EMNRD, 2019). The other three coal mines are located in San Juan 7 County, approximately 70 km [43 mi] north of the proposed project area, and have been 8 permanently closed, reclaimed, and released (EMNRD, 2019). One humate mine is located 9 approximately 32 km [20 mi] southwest of the proposed project area (EMNRD, 2019). Humate is 10 organic matter that is used by the agricultural industry as a soil conditioner.
11 The Mancos Shale formation of the San Juan Basin produces oil and gas. In the New Mexico 12 portion of this formation and within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area, there are 13 currently 191 active oil and gas wells, 8 new but undrilled wells, 838 plugged wells, and 14 9 abandoned wells (NMOCD, 2019a). Since 1994, in McKinley County, oil production has had 15 an overall decreasing trend (NMOCD, 2019b). Similarly, there has been a decreasing trend of oil 16 and gas production in northwestern New Mexico since 2000 with an average rate of decline of 17 5 percent and 3 percent, respectively, per year (NMOCD, 2019c). More recently, in McKinley 18 County, gas production peaked in 2011 but has since shown a steady 11 percent annual decline 19 (NMOCD, 2019b).
5-8
 
1 There is one active oil well in the Arizona portion of the Mancos Shale formation within 80 km 2 [50 mi] of the proposed project area (AZOGCC, 2019; FracTracker, 2019). However, due to the 3 lack of subsurface oil and gas reserves in the area, the potential for additional oil and gas 4 development is unlikely (Nations, 2008). However, in the City of Gallup, New Mexico, oil and gas 5 development support industries remain a major economic driver (Architectural Research 6 Consultants, 2016).
7 Mineral ownership within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area includes the Navajo Nation, 8 private owners, and the Federal government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Navajo 9 Nation Oil and Gas Company help manage mineral leases on the Navajo Nation land (BIA, 2019; 10 Intermountain Oil and Gas, 2019). The BLM manages subsurface aspects of oil and gas leases 11 where BLM owns the mineral rights and on lands administered by the BLM or the U.S. Forest 12 Service (BLM, 2003). The proposed project area is within the BLM Farmington Field Office 13 boundary. The BLM is currently developing a resource management plan (RMP) amendment 14 with an associated EIS to address the issues relating to oil and gas exploration and development 15 in the Mancos Shale/Gallup Formation (BLM, 2017). The upcoming RMP amendment planning 16 and decision area is northeast and just within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area (BLM, 17 2014). Prior to BLM permitting an oil or gas well, a BLM site-specific analysis and approval is 18 conducted, and well development must minimize adverse impacts to other natural resources and 19 land use (BLM, 2003). Oil and gas development is restricted in areas with steep or broken 20 terrain, on benches (hydrocarbon producing layers), and in areas with soil concerns. Seasonal 21 Timing Limitations are also used (BLM, 2003).
22 In April 2019, the State Land Commissioner of New Mexico banned new oil and gas leasing on 23 29,542 ha [73,000 ac] surrounding the Chaco Culture National Historic Park, which is located 24 between approximately 56 and 72 km [35 and 45 mi] northeast of the proposed project area 25 (Nott, 2019; EIS Figure 5.1-1). The Federal government is currently considering creating a 26 16 km [10 mi] buffer around the historic park, which would mostly be inside the cumulative 27 impact study area, prohibiting any new oil and gas leases in the area (ONeal, 2019).
28 5.1.1.3      Housing Development and Urbanization 29 Development in McKinley County and on Navajo Nation land is largely unplanned, following 30 traditional settlement patterns of the Navajo Nation (BLM, 2003). The City of Gallup, 31 New Mexico is the main focus of planned urban development and is the county seat (BLM, 32 2003). Population in the City of Gallup has grown each decade for the past 100 years and grew 33 by 1,500 people between 2000 and 2010 (Architectural Research Consultants, 2016). There 34 also has been an increase in the American Indian population, specifically from the Navajo Nation 35 (Architectural Research Consultants, 2016). Due to the increased population, housing demands 36 have grown in Gallup; however, the average household size has decreased (Architectural 37 Research Consultants, 2016). In an effort to ensure that development is conducted in a 38 structured and sustainable way, the City of Gallup plans to coordinate housing developments 39 with employers, promote the revitalization of downtown Gallup through mixed used development 40 (including a variety of housing types and infrastructure improvements), and discourage the 41 wasteful use of land and uncoordinated infrastructure improvements (Architectural Research 42 Consultants, 2016).
43 To support the growing population and the increase in water demand, the Navajo-Gallup Water 44 Supply Project plans to convey water from the San Juan River to the eastern section of the 45 Navajo Nation and to the City of Gallup for municipal and industrial use (Architectural Research 46 Consultants, 2016). The project is slated to begin construction in 2020 and be completed in 5-9
 
1 2024 (Smith, 2018). At completion, the system would have several pumping plants, two water 2 treatment plants, and approximately 450 km [280 mi] of waterlines (Architectural Research 3 Consultants, 2016).
4 5. 1.1.4    Other Projects 5 Capital Outlay Bill Projects 6 The New Mexico legislature passed a bill in April 2019 investing millions of dollars in 7 infrastructure improvements in northwest New Mexico, of which the Navajo Nation alone 8 received more than $28.7 million (Grover, 2019). Projects funded by this bill in McKinley County 9 total over $41.5 million and include the construction of the Din&#xe9; College livestock research center 10 in Crownpoint, New Mexico and other projects located within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed 11 project area, including (i) the purchase of buses and vehicles; (ii) improvements to the countys 12 bridges, local and county roads, and parking lots; and (iii) the expansion and construction of 13 service buildings such as veterans centers, senior centers, public bathrooms, and police stations 14 (NM Legislature, 2019a; NM Legislature, 2019b). Additional projects have been identified in 15 Gallup, New Mexico in the Coyote Canyon Chapter and Pinedale Chapters of the Navajo Nation 16 (EIS Figure 3.2-1). Projects also have been identified in San Juan County, New Mexico that are 17 in the study area for this cumulative impact analysis.
18 Solar and Wind Power Projects 19 New Mexico and Arizona both have high potential for solar energy generation (Roberts, 2018).
20 According to New Mexicos EMNRD, New Mexico was generating over 254 megawatts (MW) of 21 energy from solar sources as of January 2017 and had plans to generate 1,103 MW more from 22 solar sources within the State of New Mexico (EMNRD, 2017). Arizona generation of solar 23 power increased 11.3 percent from April 2018 to April 2019, generating over 790 Megawatt-24 hours (MWh) in April 2019 (EIA, 2019a). The only existing solar power generation facility within 25 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area is in Gallup, New Mexico. In July 2018, Standard 26 Solar completed a 9.8 MW solar farm, Gallup Solar, with a capacity of 2,100 MWh per year (EIA, 27 2019b; Misbrener, 2018; Mangan Renewables, 2017). Gallup Solar was built on 36 ha 28 [89.01 ac] of undeveloped land west of Gallup (Mangan Renewables, 2017).
29 According to the American Wind Energy Association, New Mexico is the fastest growing state in 30 wind power development, with a goal of sourcing at least 50 percent of its energy from 31 renewable sources by 2030 (AWEA, 2018; AWEA, 2019). Wind power generation in Arizona is 32 growing at a much slower pace, with 76,000 MWh generated in April 2019, compared to the 33 generation of 601,000 MWh that occurred in New Mexico in April 2019 (EIA, 2019a). This is 34 likely due to most of Arizona having less potential for wind power generation than New Mexico 35 (DOE, 2009). There are no known plans for wind power generation projects within 80 km [50 mi]
36 of the proposed project area; however, based on the growth of this industry (particularly in 37 New Mexico), the NRC staff considers potential wind farms a reasonably foreseeable future 38 action (USGS, et al., 2019).
39 In addition to these projects, the Navajo Nation stated that it would invest $2 million in a 40 renewable energy project at an undetermined location that could potentially be sited within the 41 study area for cumulative impacts (Grover, 2019).
5-10
 
1 5.1.1.5      Recreational Activities 2 There are several recreational areas and activities within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project 3 area. The closest recreational area is Red Rock Park, which is accessible from NM 566 15.3 km 4 [9.5 mi] southwest of the proposed project area. The park is home to the Church Rock formation 5 (the natural feature) and has campground facilities, a theater, meeting rooms, an exhibit space, 6 and a 5,000-seat arena (City of Gallup, 2019). Activities at Red Rock Park include hiking, 7 rodeos, sports, and outdoor performances in addition to several annual events. May through 8 September, Red Rock Park hosts weekend events which attract up to 8,000 visitors (NMDOT, 9 2019). For at least a week each year in August, the park hosts the Inter-Tribal Indian 10 Ceremonial, an annual event dedicated to preserving and perpetuating American Indian art and 11 culture (Gallup Inter-Tribal Indian Ceremonial, 2018). Red Rock Balloon Festival is held annually 12 at the park during the first weekend in December, and more than 100 hot air balloons ascend 13 over a 3-day weekend (City of Gallup, 2019).
14 The northwest boundary of El Malpais National Monument is approximately 80 km [50 mi]
15 southeast of the proposed project area. Covering approximately 462 km2 [178 mi2], the 16 El Malpais National Monument includes a visitor center, campgrounds, hiking trails, and caves, 17 including lava tubes (NPS, 2019a). Open year-round, the monument attracts more than 18 150,000 visitors annually (NPS, 2019a,b).
19 West of El Malpais, approximately 68 km [42 mi] south of the proposed project area, is El Morro 20 National Monument. Like El Malpais, El Morro is open year-round and has a visitor center, 21 campgrounds, and hiking trails (NPS, 2019c). El Morro covers approximately 89 ha [220 ac] and 22 offers visitors the opportunity to view archeological and historical sites, including over 2,000 23 signatures carved in sandstone from the ancient Pueblo times (NPS, 2019c).
24 Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness Area, also known as the Bisti Badlands, is a 15,540 ha [45,000 ac]
25 area in San Juan County, north of the intersection of State Highway 377 and County Road 7500 26 (Farmington, 2019). Approximately 70 km [43 mi] northeast of the proposed project area, 27 Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness Area offers camping, hiking, horseback riding, and wildlife-viewing 28 (BLM, 2019).
29 Southeast of the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness Area, nearly 80 km [50 mi] from the proposed 30 project area, is the Chaco Culture National Historical Park. This park preserves massive ancient 31 Pueblo buildings and offers hiking and biking trails, camping grounds, and a Night Sky Program 32 (NPS, 2018). The park is open year-round and has guided tours, a visitor center, and an 33 observatory (NPS, 2018). Chaco Culture National Historical Park is over 13,700 ha [33,900 ac]
34 and attracts over 50,000 visitors a year (NPS, 2019b).
35 A portion of the Cibola National Forest, named the Mount Taylor Ranger District, is within 80-km 36 [50-mi] of the proposed project area. This is the site of most recreational activities in McKinley 37 County, which include hiking, camping, fishing, vehicle trails, skiing, and snowmobiling (Forest 38 Service, 2019a). The Mount Taylor Ranger District comprises the Zuni Mountains and Mount 39 Taylor and covers nearly 210,440 ha [520,000 ac] (Forest Service, 2019b). Mount Taylor has 40 cultural and religious significance to several American Indian communities.
41 5.1.2    Methodology 42 The NRCs general approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on principles and 43 guidelines described in the CEQs Considering Cumulative Effects under the National 5-11
 
1 Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997) and relevant portions of the EPAs Considerations of 2 Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (EPA, 1999). Based on these 3 documents, NRCs regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, and NRCs guidance for developing EISs in 4 NUREG-1748 (NRC, 2003), the NRC developed the following methodology for assessing 5 cumulative impacts in this EIS:
6 1.      Identify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and evaluate the 7        incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 8        foreseeable future actions for each resource area. Potential environmental impacts are 9        discussed and analyzed in EIS Chapter 4.
10 2.      Identify the geographic scope of the analysis for each resource area. This scope will vary 11        from resource area to resource area, depending on the geographic extent over which the 12        potential impacts may occur.
13 3.      Identify the timeframe for assessing cumulative impacts. The selected timeframe begins 14        with NRC acceptance of the application for an NRC license amendment for the proposed 15        Church Rock Project on March 7, 2019 to allow for establishing the baseline 16        characteristics of the affected environment (EIS Chapter 3) that includes the effects of 17        past and present actions within the geographic scope of analysis at the point in time 18        when the impact analysis is conducted. The NRC staff anticipates issuing a licensing 19        decision in 2022. The proposed Church Rock project is estimated to occur over a 4-year 20        span, including construction and closure. Other actions, such as the UNC Mill Site 21        reclamation and NECR Mine Site remediation, would be completed at some time after the 22        Church Rock project is completed. The expected schedule for these activities is 23        uncertain, but the NRC staff assumes that they would occur several years beyond the 24        completion of the Church Rock project. Therefore, to account for these other actions, the 25        timeframe of cumulative impacts analysis in this EIS extends from 2019 to 2030. This 26        timeframe does not address the period of long-term post-closure performance that is 27        described in EIS Section 4.1 because most resource areas are not expected to have 28        cumulative impacts from the proposed action during the long-term post-closure period.
29        For resource areas where the potential exists for impacts during the long-term post-30        closure period (land use, water resources, climate change impacts on the proposed 31        action, and public and occupational health), an additional long-term timeframe of 32        1,000 years beyond UNC Mill Site closure is considered, consistent with the NRC 33        long-term radiological hazard control period specified in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
34 4.      Identify past, ongoing, and prospective projects and activities (past, present, and 35        reasonably foreseeable future actions) within and beyond the proposed project and the 36        impacts from such that could overlap in time with the impacts of the proposed action.
37        These projects and activities are described in EIS Section 5.1.1.
38 5.      Assess the cumulative impacts for each resource area considering impacts from the 39        proposed project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
40        This analysis takes into account the environmental impacts of concern identified in 41        Step 1, the resource-area-specific geographic scope identified in Step 2, and the 42        timeframe for identifying other present or future actions identified in Step 3.
43 The following terms describe the level of cumulative impact:
5-12
 
1 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither 2 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource considered.
3 MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 4 important attributes of the resource considered.
5 LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 6 important attributes of the resource considered.
7 The NRC staff recognizes that many aspects of the activities associated with the proposed 8 Church Rock Project would have SMALL impacts on the affected resources. It is possible, 9 however, that an impact that may be SMALL when considered alone could contribute to a 10 MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact when considered in combination with the impacts of 11 other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or 12 imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates 13 the overall resource decline, and the impacts to that resource from the proposed action, when 14 combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, could be 15 significant, even where the incremental contribution of the proposed action is minor. In EIS 16 Chapter 4, the NRC staff determined the appropriate level of analysis that was merited for each 17 resource area potentially affected by the proposed project. EIS Table 5.1-1 summarizes the 18 potential impacts and cumulative impacts of the proposed Church Rock project on environmental 19 resources the NRC staff identified and analyzed for this EIS, which are then detailed in the 20 subsequent sections.
Table 5.1-1        Summary of Cumulative Impacts From the Proposed Action Incremental Impact of                  Cumulative Impacts Resource Category the Proposed Action from Proposed Action and Other Actions Land Use                SMALL                      MODERATE Transportation          SMALL to MODERATE          MODERATE Geology and Soils        SMALL                      MODERATE Surface Water            SMALL to MODERATE          MODERATE Groundwater              SMALL                      LARGE Ecology                  SMALL for wildlife and      MODERATE MODERATE for vegetation Air Quality:            SMALL to MODERATE          MODERATE Nongreenhouse Gases Air Quality:            SMALL                      MODERATE Greenhouse Gases Noise                    MODERATE                    MODERATE Historic and Cultural    Adverse impacts would      LARGE occur without mitigation (MODERATE to LARGE).
No adverse impacts to historic resources would occur (SMALL), if mitigations are implemented Visual and Scenic        MODERATE                    MODERATE Socioeconomics          SMALL                      MODERATE 5-13
 
Table 5.1-1      Summary of Cumulative Impacts From the Proposed Action (cont.)
Incremental Impact of                  Cumulative Impacts Resource Category the Proposed Action from Proposed Action and Other Actions Environmental            There would be            There would be disproportionately high and Justice                  disproportionately high    adverse environmental impacts (but not human and adverse                health impacts) on minority and low-income environmental impacts      populations.
(but not human health impacts) on minority and low-income populations Public and              SMALL                      LARGE, until EPA completes CERCLA actions, Occupational Health                                then SMALL.
Waste Management        SMALL                      SMALL 1 5.2      Land Use 2 The NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts on land use within a 10-km [6-mi] radius of the UNC 3 Mill Site, which is a land area of approximately 29,293 ha [72,384 ac]. Land use impacts from 4 the proposed action would not disturb land or influence land access outside the proposed project 5 area. The cumulative impacts on land use were not assessed beyond 10 km [6 mi] from the 6 proposed project area because, at that distance, land use would not be anticipated to influence 7 or be influenced by the proposed project. The land usage and classification within the 10-km 8 [6-mi] radius is similar to that outside the geographic region of influence, and therefore any 9 activities within the proposed project area would not further reduce or restrict land usage more 10 than what has already occurred as part of past activities at the proposed project area. However, 11 the NRC staff recognize that outside this land use cumulative impacts study area, the concerns 12 regarding land use from legacy uranium mining and milling, as well as oil and gas explorations, 13 are still present. EIS Section 5.1.1 contains additional information on activities within 80 km 14 [50 mi] of the proposed project area. The timeframe for the analysis of short-term cumulative 15 impacts is 2019 to 2030. This encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license 16 amendment decision would be made, the proposed duration of the project activities, and other 17 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, specifically including amending the 18 UNC Mill Site reclamation plan and license termination, as described in EIS Section 5.1.1. An 19 additional consideration of the potential for long-term cumulative impacts to land use over a 20 timeframe of 1,000 years (EIS Section 5.1.2) is included in this impact analysis.
21 As discussed in EIS Section 5.1.1, there are (i) a number of legacy uranium mining and milling 22 sites, (ii) active and inactive coal and scoria mining, (iii) numerous active and abandoned 23 (i.e., plugged) oil and gas wells, (iv) increased housing developments and urbanization near 24 Gallup, (v) infrastructure improvements, and (vi) limited recreational activities all within the region 25 of the proposed project area. However, for the purpose of analyzing the cumulative impacts on 26 land use for the proposed action, the only actions within the 10 km [6 mi] land use study area are 27 activities associated with NECR Mine Site remediation, the UNC Mill Site reclamation and long-28 term surveillance, the Quivira Mine Site remediation, and the NRC-licensed (but not constructed) 29 Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility (EIS Section 5.1.1.1.4). These facilities are within 30 the land use cumulative study area and would have overlapping impacts on land disturbance 31 and restrictions.
32 As described in EIS Section 4.2.1, the land use impacts from the construction, transfer, and 33 closure of the proposed disposal site would be SMALL. The alternative of transferring mine 34 waste to the proposed disposal site using a conveyor (Alternative 1A) would disturb slightly less 5-14
 
1 land {i.e., 0.8 ha [2 ac] less} than the proposed action, and the conveyor and associated access 2 road would be on land with existing access restrictions (EIS Section 4.2.2). For these reasons, 3 the NRC staff concluded that the impact from the use of the conveyor alternative would be 4 SMALL. Additionally, using the Jetty Area rather than the four borrow areas as the source for 5 cover material (Alternative 1B) would reduce the area disturbed by 20 ha [48 ac]. The Jetty 6 Area, the four borrow areas, and the borrow area haul roads are all within the UNC Mill Site, 7 which is currently designated as restricted use and would remain restricted under the proposed 8 action or any alternative. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts to land use from 9 alternate material sourcing would also be SMALL. Based on the post-closure considerations 10 provided in EIS Section 4.2.1.3, the NRC staff concluded that the long-term impacts to land use 11 from the tailings impoundment with the proposed added disposal site would be SMALL. Land 12 within 10 km [6 mi] of the UNC Mill Site is Navajo Nation reservation land, Navajo Nation Trust 13 land, or owned by private entities, the BLM, and the State of New Mexico (EIS Figure 3.2-2).
14 Currently, there are land access restrictions at both the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site.
15 As part of the NECR Mine Site remediation process, radiological surveys would be conducted to 16 ensure compliance with all applicable EPA regulations, the ground surface would be recontoured 17 to minimize soil erosion and encourage establishment of native vegetation, and the land would 18 be released for unrestricted use. The reclamation of the NECR Mine Site would result in the 19 release of 24 ha [60 ac] of land and would thereby increase the land available for grazing or site 20 occupation (i.e., habitation).
21 Reclamation and long-term surveillance activities at the UNC Mill Site following the closure 22 phase of the proposed action would include activities identified in UNCs reclamation plan and 23 the continuation of groundwater restoration activities (EIS Section 2.2.1.8). Additionally, the site 24 would be revegetated with a seeding mix similar to the native vegetation community (Stantec, 25 2018; Stantec, 2019). Reclamation activities at the UNC Mill Site as described in EIS 26 Section 2.2.1.8 would have long-term impacts to land use because the area would remain 27 restricted under EPA CERCLA and NRCs Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 28 (UMTRCA)-implementing regulations from uses other than long-term oversight and surveillance 29 of the tailings disposal area. This means that residential and industrial use would be prohibited, 30 and grazing uses would be restricted.
31 The region surrounding the proposed project within the land use study area includes other 32 projects that involve radioactive materials, including the Quivira Mine Site. The EPA is 33 administering the cleanup of the Quivira Mine Site located immediately north of the Red Water 34 Pond Road Community and the Mine Site (EIS Figure 2.2-2) (INTERA, 2018). Cleanup includes 35 removal of contaminated soil, repair of fencing to maintain access restrictions, stabilization of 36 mine spoil piles, and infrastructure repair. As stated in EIS Section 5.1.1.1.3, the EPA is in the 37 process of conducting an engineering evaluation and cost analysis to evaluate the options for 38 further addressing contamination at the Quivira Mine Site, and additional remediation and repair 39 actions may be identified during this process.
40 In 1998, the NRC issued a Source Material License to Hydro Resources, Inc. (HRI) for uranium 41 recovery facilities collectively known as the Crownpoint Uranium Project (EIS Section 5.1.1.1.4).
42 The Crownpoint satellite facility (Sections 8 and 17) is located within the land use study area, 43 approximately 4 km [2.5 mi] from the proposed project area. However, there have been no 44 uranium recovery operations at the satellite facility since the license was issued. The most 45 recent activity regarding the Crownpoint Uranium Project was the NRC-approved transfer of 46 control from HRI to its subsidiary, Laramide. However, if future activity during the evaluation 47 period (until 2030) were to occur from potential construction or operation activities of the 48 Crownpoint satellite facility, the NRC staff assume that the impacts would be similar to those 5-15
 
1 evaluated in the NRC EIS for the Crownpoint Uranium Project (NRC, 1997). In that analysis, the 2 NRC determined there would be temporary land use impacts from access restrictions, including 3 restrictions to grazing that could impact local residents. The NRC staff concluded that the 4 impacts from the Crownpoint satellite facility would not be significant if NRC-recommended 5 mitigations were implemented, including the applicant (Laramide) compensating individuals who 6 hold livestock grazing permits on project lands that would be interrupted during project 7 construction and operation. While construction for the Crownpoint satellite facility has not 8 commenced, given the existence of the current license for the Crownpoint Uranium Project, 9 impacts from the satellite facility were considered in this cumulative impacts analysis.
10 Beyond the short-term timeframe and closure of the disposal site and the UNC Mill Site, the 11 potential for long-term impacts to land use from the proposed action would be associated with 12 existing access restrictions during the long-term surveillance period (EIS Section 4.2.1.3) After 13 reclamation of the UNC Mill Site is completed and the license is terminated, the UNC Mill Site 14 would be maintained and managed by a custodial agency [e.g. the Federal government (DOE) or 15 the State of New Mexico] pursuant to an NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28 and EPA 16 oversight under CERCLA to provide for the continued safe isolation of the material (EIS 17 Section 2.2.1.8) (EPA, 2013). No comparable tailings or disposal sites exist or are planned 18 within the geographic area of interest, and therefore additional cumulative impacts to land use 19 are not expected. If additional sites are developed in the future during the long-term timeframe, 20 the associated land use restrictions would incrementally add to the long-term cumulative land 21 use impacts. Land uses that would involve Federal authorizations would also include further 22 evaluation, as appropriate.
23 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions evaluated within the land use study 24 area include the NECR Mine Site remediation, the reclamation and long-term surveillance of the 25 UNC Mill Site, the Quivira Mine Site remediation, and the licensed (but not constructed) 26 Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility. There are no solar or wind energy generation 27 projects, urban development, or recreation facilities within or planned within the land use study 28 area. Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the potential cumulative 29 land use impacts from the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 30 land use cumulative impacts study area would be MODERATE. Several factors contribute to this 31 impact determination, such as long-term land use restrictions and the potential for unmitigated 32 grazing restriction impacts. These potential impacts from land restrictions could be reduced by 33 increased site reclamation, recontouring, and remediation to increase the land acreage available 34 for use. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the SMALL incremental impacts of the 35 proposed action, or impacts associated with the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) or sourcing 36 cover material from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B), when combined with the MODERATE 37 impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in 38 overall MODERATE cumulative impacts to land use.
39 5.3      Transportation 40 Cumulative offsite transportation impacts related to increases in road traffic were evaluated 41 locally and regionally within a 16-km [10-mi] radius of the proposed project area. The NRC staff 42 chose this region to be inclusive of areas close to the proposed project area that would be most 43 likely to notice changes in traffic. This encompasses NM 566 south to the intersection with I-40 44 and NM 566 north and connected northbound routes until its intersection with Navajo Service 45 Route 9 that travels east-west. The timeframe for the analysis is 2019 to 2030, which 46 encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license amendment could be granted and the 47 proposed duration of the project activities and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 5-16
 
1 future actions, as described in EIS Section 5.1.1. The cumulative impacts to public and 2 occupational health that includes applicable impacts from some proposed transportation 3 activities are addressed in EIS Section 5.13.
4 The offsite transportation impacts from the proposed action for all project phases would be 5 MODERATE except during closure, when the proposed transportation activities and resulting 6 impacts would diminish and lead to SMALL transportation impacts. These impacts, discussed in 7 detail in EIS Section 4.3.1, address the transportation impacts of equipment and supply 8 shipments and commuting workers during all project phases and the proposed traffic 9 modifications to NM 566 during NECR mine waste transfer operations. The NRC staffs 10 assessment of the projects effect on annual average daily traffic on NM 566 concluded that the 11 project would cause a noticeable change to existing traffic and therefore would have a 12 MODERATE impact. Additionally, the traffic modifications on NM 566 that are needed to allow 13 NECR mine waste trucks to transfer the material to the UNC Mill Site would require frequent 14 interruption of traffic flow and would also lead to MODERATE impacts when transfer operations 15 are ongoing. The potential radiological safety impacts at the NM 566 crossing are addressed 16 as public and occupational health impacts in EIS Sections 4.13 and 5.13. No other offsite 17 radioactive materials transportation was included in the proposed action. All of the transportation 18 impacts associated with the proposed action would be temporary and would be limited to the 19 duration of the proposed activities. The potential offsite transportation impacts of Alternative 1A 20 (use of a conveyor to transfer NECR mine waste) would eliminate the MODERATE traffic flow 21 impacts associated with the proposed traffic controls at the NM 566 crossing. However, the 22 overall impact conclusion would remain MODERATE based on the proposed increase in traffic 23 from project-related transportation except during closure, when the proposed transportation 24 activities and resulting impacts would diminish and lead to SMALL transportation impacts. No 25 potential offsite transportation impacts were identified for Alternative 1B (use of different 26 borrow areas) that differed from the proposed action.
27 Other, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including other uranium mining-28 and milling-related projects or actions within the region of the proposed action, are described in 29 EIS Section 5.1.1.1. Traffic and the related impacts associated with all current traffic-generating 30 activities conducted within the 16-km [10-mi] radius that could overlap with the traffic generated 31 by the proposed action are reflected in the existing annual average daily traffic counts for area 32 roadways described in EIS Section 3.3. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 33 actions that could contribute additional traffic-related impacts during the proposed project 34 timeframe include NECR Mine Site remediation-related PTW shipments, potential construction or 35 operation activities at the nearby Crownpoint satellite facility, and large public events that would 36 be expected to continue to occur at the Red Rock Park. Future site remediation actions at the 37 nearby Quivira Mine Site have the potential to generate additional traffic on NM 566, depending 38 on the removal action alternatives that are selected once EPA completes their engineering and 39 cost analysis. However, until that occurs, the remediation plans for that site, and therefore the 40 potential transportation impacts, remain uncertain. No other major future traffic-generating 41 projects in the region were identified. The other actions occurring in the region such as the 42 remaining UNC Mill Site remediation, other mining or oil and gas production, housing and 43 infrastructure developments, or other projects including energy are not expected to contribute 44 significantly to traffic volume or flow at the location where project impacts were identified.
45 Therefore, the focus of the remaining analysis of the impacts of other past, present, and 46 reasonably foreseeable future actions focuses on the impacts on traffic volume or flow from the 47 expected NECR Mine Site offsite PTW shipments, the potential Crownpoint uranium recovery 48 satellite impacts, and Red Rock Park events.
5-17
 
1 The EPA NECR Mine Site removal action (EPA, 2011) includes segregating higher-activity 2 materials from the excavated NECR mine waste as PTW and shipping this material to an 3 EPA-approved offsite disposal facility. Because this material is not destined for disposal at the 4 UNC Mill Site, it is not included in the EPA remedial action for the UNC Mill Site nor the NRC 5 proposed action. However, UNC plans to implement PTW shipments during the same timeframe 6 as the proposed action activities but proposes to stagger shipments so that PTW and NECR 7 Mine Waste would not be hauled on the same roads at the same time. UNC has described 8 these activities in their NRC license application (Stantec, 2019). UNC proposes to load covered 9 trucks or sealed intermodal shipping containers for transport to the White Mesa Mill or 10 appropriate disposal facility. The NRC staff conducted a similar but more localized calculation 11 for all proposed traffic on NM 566 plus the PTW shipments for the distance from the proposed 12 project area to I-40 {approximately 16 km [10 mi]}. This involved adding the annual proposed 13 action round-trip construction traffic (an additional 80 vehicles per day from EIS Section 4.3 14 multiplied by 261 working days per year) and twice the annual PTW shipments of 1,750 to 15 account for PTW truck round-trip travel and then multiplying the result by the distance traveled 16 from the NECR Mine Site to I-40 {approximately 16 km [10 mi]} and the aforementioned accident 17 rate of 1.2 x 106 accidents/km [2.0 x 106 accidents/mi] to calculate the number of additional 18 expected accidents of 0.49. Therefore, adding the PTW shipments to proposed action traffic on 19 NM 566 to I-40 would still result in less than one additional potential accident. Therefore, the 20 NRC staff conclude that PTW transportation would result in only a minor potential increase 21 in accidents.
22 Additional transportation impacts could occur from the licensed (but not constructed) Crownpoint 23 uranium recovery satellite facility located approximately 4.0 km [2.5 mi] southwest of the UNC 24 Mill Site if the proposed facility were constructed and operated within the timeframe of the 25 proposed action (e.g., before 2026). Because the facility has not been constructed or operated 26 since NRC granted the license in 1998, there is uncertainty whether that status would change 27 within the time period of analysis; however, the potential transportation impacts are evaluated for 28 completeness. The environmental impacts of the previously proposed Crownpoint facilities were 29 documented in a 1997 NRC EIS (NRC, 1997). The local Crownpoint satellite facility (referred to 30 as Church Rock in the NRC EIS) was licensed to produce uranium slurry that would be shipped 31 to the main Crownpoint facility for drying. These shipments would travel north on NM 566 and 32 then east on Pinedale Road (Navajo Service Route 11) and thereby bypass the proposed project 33 area. Approximately 100 slurry shipments per year were expected from the proposed satellite 34 operations. This would amount to a shipment every 3 or 4 days and would not significantly add 35 to the existing or proposed action traffic or accident risk. Additionally, construction and 36 operational supply shipments for a uranium recovery facility significantly contribute to traffic 37 (NRC, 2016). The other Crownpoint facilities (near the town of Crownpoint, New Mexico) are 38 served by a different north-south transportation corridor than the proposed action and therefore 39 would not add to the cumulative impacts. Therefore, the overall transportation impact from the 40 Crownpoint satellite facility, if constructed and operated, would be minor.
41 The NRC staff also evaluated the potential for cumulative transportation impacts from large 42 public events at Red Rock Park. The park is located off NM 566 north of the I-40 junction 43 but several miles south of the proposed project area. Events can draw approximately 44 8,000 individuals traveling by roadway. Based on the location of the park and limited annual 45 average daily traffic that occurs on NM 566 at the proposed project area, the NRC staff expects 46 that the majority of park event traffic would be traveling from the more populated areas south of 47 the park, including the City of Gallup, New Mexico. While construction equipment and supply 48 shipments associated with the proposed action traveling from I-40 to the proposed project could 49 potentially be delayed by the park traffic, a small proportion of park traffic that would be traveling 5-18
 
1 from north of the proposed project would be inconvenienced by the proposed 15-minute delays 2 on NM 566 at the location of the planned NM 566 crossing. Because the number of individuals 3 affected by the crossing delays are a function of the population that resides north of the 4 proposed project area, the NRC staff concludes that the overall contribution of park event 5 transportation impacts to the overall proposed action cumulative impacts would be minor.
6 Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the potential cumulative 7 transportation impacts from the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 8 the transportation cumulative impacts study area would be SMALL. As described in the 9 preceding analysis, the estimates of the transportation impacts from other actions in the study 10 area represent a small contribution to the transportation impacts in the study area. Considering 11 the aforementioned estimated traffic and related impacts to transportation proposed by UNC for 12 the proposed action and the preceding estimated traffic and other transportation impacts from 13 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the cumulative transportation 14 impacts would not significantly change from the impacts already evaluated for the proposed 15 action and would not change the NRC staff impact conclusions that were evaluated for the 16 proposed action. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the incremental SMALL to 17 MODERATE impacts from the proposed action or the impacts of Alternatives 1A and 1B, when 18 added to the SMALL impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 19 would result in MODERATE traffic-related impacts during construction and transfer phases 20 and SMALL traffic-related impacts of the closure phase. The NRC staff notes that under 21 Alternative 1A, the use of a conveyor system to transfer the NECR Mine Waste to the UNC Mill 22 Site for disposal would eliminate the traffic flow impacts associated with the proposed traffic 23 controls at the NM 566 crossing. However, the overall impact conclusion would remain 24 MODERATE based on the proposed increase in traffic from project-related transportation.
25 5.4    Geology and Soils 26 The NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts on geology and soils within a 10-km [6-mi] radius of 27 the proposed project area. The cumulative impacts on geology and soils were not assessed 28 beyond 10 km [6 mi] from the proposed project area because, at that distance, geological and 29 soil resources would not be expected to be impacted by the proposed action. The timeframe for 30 the analysis of cumulative impacts is 2019 to 2030, which encompasses the estimated timeframe 31 when the license amendment could be granted and the proposed duration of the project activities 32 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as described in EIS 33 Section 5.1.1.
34 As described in EIS Section 4.4.1, the impacts to geological and soil resources from the 35 construction, transfer of mine waste, and closure of the proposed disposal site would be SMALL.
36 No impacts to geological resources are expected. Results of site-specific seismic hazard 37 analyses show that the proposed project area is in an area of low seismic risk from natural 38 phenomena (earthquakes and faulting) (EIS Section 3.4.4). Excavation of soil material from the 39 four borrow areas for use in construction of the proposed disposal site or for disposal would not 40 impact bedrock geology. As described in EIS Section 4.4.1.1, the volume of borrow soil material 41 in the four borrow areas is adequate to implement the proposed action without impacting the 42 underlying bedrock geology. As further described in EIS Section 4.4.1.1, the east and west 43 borrow areas are located on uranium-mined lands and topsoil in the north and south borrow 44 areas have a poor reclamation rating. Therefore, the excavation and removal of soils in the 45 borrow areas to implement the proposed action is expected to have a minor impact on soil 46 resources. If the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) is used, the impacts to geological 47 resources would also be SMALL because activities associated with construction of the conveyor 5-19
 
1 system would take place at the land surface and would not extend down into bedrock geologic 2 units. If the material for the proposed disposal site cover is sourced from the Jetty Area 3 (Alternative 1B), the impacts on geological resources would also be SMALL because the 4 excavation of soil from the Jetty Area would have no additional impact on bedrock geologic units 5 (EIS Section 4.4.2). In addition, as described in EIS Section 4.4.2, the Jetty Area is located on 6 uranium-mined lands and, therefore, the excavation and permanent use of the soils from the 7 Jetty Area to implement Alternative 1B is expected to have a minor impact on soil resources.
8 Potential impacts to soil resources from the proposed action (i.e., construction, transfer of mine 9 waste, and closure of the proposed disposal site) would include soil removal and disturbance, 10 soil loss due to wind and water erosion, compaction, loss of productivity, and potential 11 contamination. As described in EIS Section 4.4, mitigation measures, best management 12 practices (BMPs), National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 13 requirements, if applicable, an EPA-approved Construction Stormwater Prevention Pollution Plan 14 (CSWPPP), and an EPA-approved Release Contingency and Prevention Plan (RCPP) and Spill 15 Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) would be implemented by the licensee 16 to limit soil loss and disturbance, avoid soil contamination and accidental releases of mine waste, 17 and minimize stormwater runoff impacts. During closure, disturbed areas would be regraded and 18 revegetated in accordance with the licensees revegetation plans, which would prescribe BMPs, 19 such as topsoil management practices and erosion control measures, to minimize potential soil 20 impacts (Stantec, 2018). If the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) were used, the impacts to 21 soil resources would also be SMALL because earthmoving activities would potentially disturb 22 an estimated 137 ha [338 ac] rather than 138 ha [340 ac] for the proposed action (EIS 23 Section 4.4.2). Therefore, impacts to soil resources would be comparable to the proposed 24 action. If the material for the proposed disposal site cover was sourced from the Jetty Area 25 (Alternative 1B), the impacts on soil resources would also be SMALL, because sourcing cover 26 material from the Jetty Area would potentially disturb an estimated 118 ha [292 ac] rather than 27 138 ha [340 ac] for the proposed action (EIS Section 4.4.2). Therefore, impacts to soil resources 28 would be reduced by 20 ha [48 ac] compared to the proposed action. All plans and BMPs for 29 mitigating impacts to soils for the proposed action would be implemented for Alternatives 1A 30 and 1B.
31 Within the geological and soil resources study area, cumulative impacts could result from 32 uranium mining, livestock grazing, and oil and gas production and development (EIS 33 Section 5.1.1). Relevant activities within the 10-km [6-mi] geological and soil resources study 34 area are associated with NECR Mine Site remediation, the UNC Mill Site reclamation and 35 long-term surveillance, the Quivira Mine Site remediation, and the NRC-licensed, but not 36 constructed, Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility.
37 Currently, there are no operating uranium mines in the geological and soil resources study area.
38 Past (legacy) and one reasonably foreseeable future uranium mining site (Crownpoint satellite 39 facility) within the study area are described in EIS Section 5.1.1.1. As described in EIS 40 Section 5.1.1.1, EPA has overseen detailed investigations at a number of mines located within 41 on or near Navajo Nation land in the geological and soil resources study area. Under the 42 Superfund Program, the EPA has entered into agreements and settlements with the Navajo 43 Nation to reduce the risks of radiation exposure from these abandoned uranium mines. The EPA 44 conducted investigations of radiation levels at several abandoned uranium mines and 45 subsequently completed excavation and removal of contaminated soils deemed an immediate 46 and severe risk at the NECR Mine, the Quivira Mine Site, Section 26 Mine, and Sections 32 and 47 33 Mines (EIS Section 5.1.1.1). Direct effects on geology and soils from these cleanup actions 48 would include excavation and relocation of disturbed bedrock and unconsolidated surficial 5-20
 
1 materials associated with surface disturbances. Impacts from cleanup activities include loss of 2 soil productivity due to wind erosion, sediment transport to surface water resources (i.e., runoff),
3 and compaction from heavy equipment. Reclamation and restoration of disturbed soils would 4 mitigate loss of soil and soil productivity and would make salvaged and replaced soil viable upon 5 establishment of vegetation.
6 As described in ER Section 5.1.1.1, the Grants Uranium District contains significant uranium 7 resources and a few areas are being evaluated as future uranium sources. The Crownpoint 8 Uranium Project has an NRC license (Source Material License SUA-1580) to mine uranium 9 using the in-situ recovery method in three project areas (EIS Section 5.1.1.1.4). The Crownpoint 10 satellite facility (Sections 8 and 17) is located within the land use study area, approximately 4 km 11 [2.5 mi] from the proposed project area. There have been no uranium recovery operations at the 12 satellite facility since the license was issued. Development of the Crownpoint satellite facility 13 would have impacts on geology and soils due to mineral extraction, increased vehicle traffic 14 (e.g., driving on unpaved roads and constructing access roads), clearing of vegetated areas, soil 15 salvage and redistribution, discharge of stormwater runoff, and construction and maintenance of 16 project facilities and infrastructure (e.g., roads, pipelines, drill pads, and associated ancillary 17 facilities). The construction and operation of the satellite facility would be subject to monitoring, 18 mitigation, and response programs required to limit potential surface impacts (e.g., erosion and 19 contamination from spills). Reclamation and restoration of disturbed areas would mitigate loss of 20 soil and soil productivity associated with project activities.
21 Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geological and soil 22 resources study area include livestock grazing, oil and gas production and development, and the 23 reclamation of the UNC Mill Site and NECR Mine Site (EIS Section 5.1.1.1). Surface-disturbing 24 activities related to these actions, such as construction of new access roads and drill pads and 25 overburden stripping, or reclaiming disturbed land, would have direct impacts on geological and 26 soil resources. Direct effects on geology and soils from these activities would be limited to 27 excavation and relocation of disturbed bedrock and unconsolidated surficial materials associated 28 with surface disturbances. Impacts from these activities also include loss of soil productivity due 29 primarily to wind erosion, changes to soil structure from soil handling, sediment delivery to 30 surface water resources (i.e., runoff), and compaction from equipment and livestock pressure.
31 Reclamation and restoration of soils disturbed by historic livestock grazing and exploration 32 activities would mitigate loss of soil and soil productivity and would make salvaged and replaced 33 soil viable soon after vegetation is established.
34 Surface-disturbing activities associated with remediation and reclamation of legacy uranium 35 mining sites and reasonably foreseeable future uranium recovery projects and energy resource 36 exploration and development (i.e., oil and gas) would have direct impacts on geology and soils.
37 Therefore, the NRC staff determines that the cumulative impacts on geology and soils within the 38 study area resulting from numerous past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 39 would be MODERATE. Direct impacts would result from increased traffic, clearing of vegetated 40 areas, soil salvage and redistribution, and construction of new project facilities and infrastructure.
41 Factors to consider for the cumulative impact determination include: (i) the measures, plans, and 42 BMPs that would be in place to limit soil loss, avoid soil contamination, and minimize stormwater 43 runoff; (ii) information showing that the proposed project area is in an area of low seismic risk 44 from natural phenomena; and (iii) the reclamation that would take place to return the proposed 45 project area to preoperational conditions through return of topsoil, removal of contaminated soils, 46 and reestablishment of vegetation. As described previously, impacts to geological and soils 47 resources associated with the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) and sourcing cover material 5-21
 
1 from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B) would be similar to or less than the proposed action because 2 land disturbance would be reduced by 0.8 ha [2 ac] and 20 ha [48 ac], respectively. Therefore, 3 the NRC staff concludes that the SMALL incremental impacts of the proposed action, or impacts 4 associated with Alternatives 1A or 1B, when combined with the MODERATE impacts from other 5 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in overall MODERATE 6 cumulative impacts to geology and soils.
7 5.5    Water Resources 8 The timeframe for the cumulative impacts analysis to surface water and groundwater is from 9 2019 to 2030, which encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license amendment could 10 be granted and the proposed duration of the project activities and other past, present, and 11 reasonably foreseeable future actions as described in EIS Section 5.1.1. The geographic study 12 areas for cumulative impacts for surface water and groundwater are described below in each 13 respective subsection.
14 5.5.1    Surface Water 15 The NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts on surface water features within the Upper Puerco 16 River Watershed. Actions outside of the Upper Puerco River Watershed are not considered, 17 even if they are within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area. The Upper Puerco River 18 Watershed is a 4,900 km2 [1,890 mi2] sub-watershed of the Little Colorado River Watershed and 19 drains water from the northern and eastern portions of the watershed to the southeast edge of 20 the watershed near the confluence of Black Creek and the Puerco River. The proposed project 21 area is located approximately 3.5 km [2 mi] inside the northeastern portion of the Upper Puerco 22 River Watershed (EIS Figure 3.5-1). This study area also captures potential impacts from the 23 proposed project area and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on 24 the Upper Puerco River. The analysis timeframe is from 2019 to 2030. An additional 25 consideration of the potential for long-term cumulative impacts to surface water over a timeframe 26 of 1,000 years (EIS Section 5.1.2) is included in this impact analysis.
27 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed 28 project area are described in EIS Section 5.1. For analysis of cumulative impacts to surface 29 water, only those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Upper 30 Puerco River Watershed are considered, which includes the reclamation of the NECR Mine Site; 31 reclamation and long-term surveillance of the UNC Mill Site; Quivira Mine Site remediation; 32 structure remediation activities in the Navajo Nation Chapters; the Crownpoint Uranium Project; 33 coal, scoria, and humate mining; housing development in Gallup, New Mexico; the Navajo-34 Gallup Water Supply Project; Capital Outlay Bill Projects; the solar farm west of Gallup, 35 New Mexico; and recreational activities in Red Rock Park and a portion of Cibola National 36 Forests Mount Taylor Ranger District. The uranium-related activities in Ambrosia Lake 37 sub-district and all active and reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas activities are outside of 38 the surface water study area and are not considered in this analysis because the surface water 39 impacts from these projects do not have the potential to overlap with those of the proposed 40 action because they are within different watersheds than that of the proposed action.
41 As described in EIS Section 4.5.1, the potential impacts to surface waters from the construction 42 and transfer activities associated with the proposed action would be SMALL but could become 43 MODERATE in the event of a heavy storm coinciding with work in the Jetty Area. Surface water 44 impacts from the closure phase, as described in EIS Section 4.5.1.3, would be MODERATE.
45 The surface water impacts resulting from the two secondary alternatives - transferring mine 5-22
 
1 waste to the proposed disposal site using a conveyor (Alternative 1A) and sourcing material for 2 the proposed disposal site cover from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B) - would be SMALL, with the 3 potential to become MODERATE if a heavy storm were to occur while work was occurring in the 4 Jetty Area. Based on the post-closure considerations provided in EIS Section 4.1.5.3, the NRC 5 staff concluded that the potential environmental impacts to surface waters associated with the 6 modified tailings impoundments long-term performance would be SMALL.
7 The reclamation of the NECR Mine Site includes radiological surveys, grading and stabilization 8 of the soil, and revegetation. Surface water impacts from these activities are similar to those of 9 the proposed action and include erosion runoff, potential spills and leaks, and stormwater runoff, 10 all of which have the potential to degrade surface water quality. The NECR Mine Site 11 remediation would be conducted in compliance with applicable rules and regulations that the 12 EPA would identify and oversee. The NRC staff anticipates that appropriate BMPs (e.g., silt 13 fences, sedimentation basins, and straw bales) and mitigation measures would be required by 14 the EPA and implemented throughout the NECR Mine Site remediation process, thereby 15 mitigating potential impacts to surface water resources from the reclamation activities. After 16 reclamation, the NECR Mine Site would be released for unrestricted use, and there would be 17 permanent improvements to the surface water drainage.
18 Reclamation activities at the UNC Mill Site following the closure phase of the proposed project 19 would include actions identified in the reclamation plan and the continuation of the groundwater 20 restoration activities, as well as those described in EIS Section 2.2.1.8. Potential surface water 21 impacts from the closure of the UNC Mill Site following the closure phase of the proposed action 22 would result from sediment erosion and runoff from disturbed soils. Closure activities would be 23 required to comply with 10 CFR Part 40 regulations concerning closure, and thus surface water 24 resources would be protected from degradation, consistent with the licensees reclamation plan.
25 There are two uranium-related cleanup projects in the Upper Puerco River Watershed: the 26 Quivira Mine Site and the Structure Remediation Program. Approximately 2.4 km [1.5 mi] north 27 of the proposed project area is the Quivira Mine Site, a legacy uranium mine currently 28 undergoing remediation that the EPA oversees. Past actions at the Quivira Mine Site include the 29 transfer of contaminated soils from residences and grazing lands back to the mine waste pile.
30 Additional reclamation activities have yet to be determined, but the NRC staff anticipates that the 31 potential surface water impacts would be similar to those of the proposed action evaluated in this 32 EIS and would result from the transfer of mine waste, earthwork activities, erosion, erosion 33 runoff, spills and leaks, and stormwater runoff. EPA will oversee cleanup actions at the Quivira 34 Mine Site, and the NRC staff anticipates that BMPs and mitigation measures similar to those of 35 the proposed action would be implemented, ensuring the protection of surface water resources.
36 The Structure Remediation Program, a collaborative effort between the EPA and the Navajo 37 Nation, could have impacts to surface water resources, specifically to the Pipeline Arroyo and the 38 Upper Puerco River. Impacts to surface water from the structural remediation of contaminated 39 structures, yards, and materials located within the Navajo Nation could result in surface water 40 quality degradation from erosion, erosion runoff, spills and leaks, and stormwater runoff that 41 would be similar in nature, though of a smaller scale, to those of the proposed action.
42 As described in EIS Section 5.1.1, the Grants Uranium District has a large amount of uranium 43 resources remaining and there is potential for uranium production to occur in the Upper Puerco 44 River Watershed. A portion of the Crownpoint satellite facility (Sections 8 and 17) is located 45 within the surface water study area. The Crownpoint satellite facility was licensed in 1998 but 46 has never been developed. The most recent activity associated with the Crownpoint Uranium 5-23
 
1 Project was the transfer of control of the mine to a new company in 2016. No other activity has 2 occurred regarding the site since then. The environmental impacts of the licensed (but not 3 constructed) Crownpoint facilities were documented in a 1997 NRC EIS (NRC, 1997). That EIS 4 concluded that impacts to surface water from the proposed facility were not expected.
5 Therefore, this facility, if constructed and operated, would not contribute significantly to 6 cumulative impacts in the proposed project area.
7 Within the surface water study area (watershed), there are seven mines: four inactive coal 8 mines, two scoria mines, and one humate mine. Of the four coal mines, the closest is Amcoal 9 No. 1 Mine located approximately 24 km [15 mi] southwest of the proposed project area. This 10 mine has been permanently closed, reclaimed, and released, as have the next closest two 11 mines: Carbon No. 2 Mine {26 km [16 mi] southwest} and Mentmore Mine {32 km [20 mi] west}.
12 McKinley Mine is a permanently closed mine 43.7 km [27 mi] west of the proposed project area, 13 currently undergoing active remediation (EMNRD, 2019). The two red dog (scoria) mines are 14 both approximately 40 km [25 mi] west of the proposed project area, only one of which is active 15 (EMNRD, 2019). The humate mine is active and is located approximately 32 km [20 mi] west of 16 the proposed project area (EMNRD, 2019). The permanently closed, reclaimed, and released 17 mines have undergone reclamation and therefore do not have an overlapping impact on surface 18 water resources with the proposed action. The active mining, active reclamation, and the future 19 reclamation of the active mines could have an impact on surface water resources through 20 erosion runoff, spills and leaks from operations or equipment, and stormwater runoff. Mining in 21 New Mexico is regulated by the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, and surface waters 22 are protected by the NMED. Under the oversight of these two State agencies, mining operations 23 are required to implement BMPs and mitigation measures that ensure surface water resources 24 are protected from negative impacts of mining activities.
25 As mentioned in EIS Sections 3.11 and 5.1.1.3, the population of Gallup, New Mexico and 26 associated housing demands have been increasing. The City of Gallup, which is 25 km [15.5 mi]
27 southwest of the proposed project area, has established the goal of addressing the need for 28 more housing by coordinating infrastructure improvements, revitalizing its downtown, and 29 strategically building housing developments (Architectural Research Consultants, 2016). This 30 requires construction and demolition activities that could impact surface water features through 31 erosion, erosion runoff, stormwater runoff, spills and leaks of fuels and lubricants, and diversion 32 of surface water. To protect surface water features, NMED could require a NPDES permit be 33 obtained and a CSWPPP be developed and implemented. For any project with large quantities 34 of petroleum product storage, a SPCCP would also be required. This would ensure the surface 35 water resources in the area are protected.
36 The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project would convey water from the San Juan River to the City 37 of Gallup and the eastern portion of the Navajo Nation (Architectural Research Consultants, 38 2016) (EIS Figure 5.1-1). This project includes the installation of over 60 km [37 mi] of pipeline 39 within the Upper Puerco River Watershed and one pumping station. The installation would 40 require heavy construction equipment, disturbance of soils, and revegetation of the disturbed 41 areas. As with the proposed action, surface water impacts from these construction activities 42 could result from erosion, erosion runoff, spills and leaks of fuels and lubricants, and stormwater 43 runoff, but would be mitigated by the implementation of CSWPPP BMPs as required by NMED 44 through a NPDES permit. Operation of the water supply project could impact Pipeline Arroyo 45 and the Upper Puerco River through spills or leaks from equipment at the pumping station. As 46 required by NMED, the pumping station would have a SPCCP, which would protect surface 47 water resources in the area. The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (NMOSE) manages 48 water resources of the State, including well permits and surface water withdrawal (NNMCG, 5-24
 
1 2012). The Navajo Nation Department of Water Resources also has jurisdiction over the 2 issuance of well permits and surface water withdrawals within the Navajo Nation (Department of 3 Interior, 2009). The NRC staff assumes that the NMOSE and Navajo Nation permitting 4 processes would ensure that proposed projects requesting water diversion or consumption would 5 meet all applicable requirements and be subject to NMOSE or Navajo Nation stipulations, 6 including water quantity use rates.
7 As explained in EIS Section 5.1.1.5, New Mexico is funding several projects in its northwest 8 region. The projects that are within or have the potential to be within the surface water study 9 area are the purchase of buses and vehicles for use in McKinley County and Gallup, 10 New Mexico; improvements to bridges, roads, and parking lots; the construction of and upgrades 11 to service buildings such as veterans centers, senior centers, public bathrooms, and police 12 stations; bathroom construction in the Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation; and the Navajo 13 Nation renewable energy project. The surface water impacts from the purchase and use of 14 buses and vehicles are bounded by the preexisting impacts of traffic and vehicular transportation 15 already present in the study area. The addition of buses and vehicles would have a negligible 16 effect on surface water impacts. Improvements to bridges, roads, parking lots, the construction 17 of bathrooms in Pinedale Chapter, the construction of and on service buildings, and the potential 18 construction of the renewable energy project could potentially impact surface water through 19 erosion runoff, spills and leaks from equipment, and stormwater runoff. Because these activities 20 would be under the jurisdiction of the NMED, they would require a NPDES permit and the 21 implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures to protect surface water resources. As 22 previously stated, the NRC staff assumes that the NMOSE and Navajo Nation permitting 23 processes would ensure that proposed projects requesting water diversion or consumption would 24 meet all applicable requirements and be subject to NMOSE or Navajo Nation stipulations, 25 including water quantity use rates.
26 Recreational areas in the surface water study area include Red Rock Park and a portion of 27 Cibola National Forests Mount Taylor Ranger District. Red Rock Park hosts several activities 28 which could impact surface water by potentially contaminating stormwater runoff, such as the 29 rodeo, camping, and the Inter-Tribal Indian Ceremonial events. However, due to the lack of 30 flowing surface water in the vicinity of Red Rock Park, it is unlikely that these activities would 31 noticeably impact the Puerco River or its tributaries. Activities in Cibola National Forest include 32 hiking, camping, fishing, vehicle trails, skiing, and snowmobiling, which could also contaminate 33 stormwater runoff. However, due to the sparseness of surface water features in the area and the 34 lack of large impervious areas, it is unlikely that activities in Cibola National Forest would have a 35 notable impact on any surface water features within the Upper Puerco River Watershed.
36 Beyond closure of the disposal site, the potential for long-term impacts to surface water would be 37 addressed by the combined effect of the NRC and EPA approvals of those aspects of the 38 proposed action that fall within their respective authorities that are important to long-term 39 performance of the modified tailings impoundment (EIS Section 4.1, Post-closure 40 Considerations). After reclamation of the UNC Mill Site is completed and the license is 41 terminated, the UNC Mill Site would be maintained and managed by the custodial agency 42 pursuant to an NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28 to provide for the continued safe isolation 43 of the tailings (EIS Section 2.2.1.8) and EPA oversight under CERCLA to maintain long-term 44 effectiveness of the remedy (EPA, 2013). Based on the post-closure considerations provided in 45 EIS Section 4.5.1.3, the NRC staff concluded that the potential environmental impacts to surface 46 water associated with the modified tailings impoundments long-term performance would be 47 SMALL. While no comparable tailings or disposal sites exist within the geographic area of 48 interest, should additional sites be developed in the future during the long-term timeframe, the 5-25
 
1 NRC staff expect that the sites would be subject to similar regulatory controls, thereby limiting 2 the potential for long-term cumulative impacts.
3 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions evaluated within the surface water 4 study area (the Upper Puerco River Watershed) include the NECR Mine Site remediation, the 5 reclamation and long-term surveillance of the UNC Mill Site, the Quivira Mine Site remediation, 6 structural remediation in the Navajo Nation Chapters, the licensed (but not constructed) 7 Crownpoint Uranium Project, mining operations, housing development in Gallup, portions of the 8 Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project, several Capital Outlay Bill projects, the Gallup solar farm, 9 Red Rock Park activities, and activities in a portion of Cibola National Forests Mount Taylor 10 Ranger District. Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff concludes that the incremental 11 SMALL to MODERATE impacts of the proposed action or the impacts of Alternatives 1A and 1B 12 when added to the MODERATE surface water impact resulting from other past, present, and 13 reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in an overall MODERATE cumulative impact 14 to surface water resources.
15 5.5.2    Groundwater 16 The cumulative impacts study area for groundwater is within a 32 km [20 mi] radius of the 17 proposed project area. The NRC staff selected this area for analysis because of the direction 18 of groundwater flow in the vicinity of the project, as described in EIS Section 3.2.2. Within the 19 short-term timeframe of the cumulative analysis (i.e., 2019-2030), groundwater would not flow 20 beyond this radius, and therefore any overlapping groundwater impacts would be from projects 21 and activities within 32 km [20 mi] of the proposed project area. An additional consideration of 22 the potential for long-term cumulative impacts to groundwater over a timeframe of 1,000 years 23 (EIS Section 5.1.2) is included in this impact analysis.
24 As described in EIS Section 5.1, within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area there are:
25 numerous uranium mines and mills; uranium-related remedial actions; coal, humate, and scoria 26 mines; active and abandoned or plugged oil and gas wells; growth and development of the City 27 of Gallup; the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project; capital improvements; the Gallup solar farm; 28 and recreational activities in Red Rock Park and a portion of Cibola National Forests Mount 29 Taylor Ranger District. For the groundwater cumulative impacts analysis, only those past, 30 present, and foreseeable future actions within 32 km [20 mi] of the proposed project area are 31 considered. The uranium-related activities in Ambrosia Lake sub-district, all active and 32 reasonably foreseeable future oil and gas activities, and all active coal and scoria mining are 33 outside the groundwater study area and, as such, are not considered in this analysis. The 34 groundwater impacts from the projects outside the groundwater study area do not have the 35 potential to overlap with those of the proposed action due to the rate and direction of 36 groundwater flow in this area.
37 As described in EIS Section 4.5.1, the groundwater impacts from the construction, transfer of 38 mine waste, and closure of the proposed disposal site would be SMALL. Transferring mine 39 waste to the proposed disposal site using a conveyor (Alternative 1A) would reduce the amount 40 of land disturbance and would have a SMALL impact on groundwater (EIS Section 4.5.2).
41 Alternative 1B involves sourcing material for the proposed disposal site cover from the Jetty 42 Area. This would reduce the amount of land disturbed and has the potential to impact 43 groundwater if it alters the strata outcrops which appear along Pipeline Arroyo or the operation of 44 the existing tailings impoundment. The NRC staff concludes that, because the EPA-approved 45 plans and BMPs would be implemented to protect groundwater quality, the impacts to 46 groundwater from sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area would be SMALL. Based on the 5-26
 
1 post-closure considerations provided in EIS Section 4.5.4.3, the NRC staff concluded that the 2 potential environmental impacts to groundwater associated with the modified tailings 3 impoundments long-term performance would be SMALL. The reclamation of the NECR Mine 4 Site includes radiological surveys, grading and stabilization of the soil, and revegetation.
5 Groundwater impacts from these activities would be similar to those of the closure phase of the 6 proposed action and could include consumptive use and potential degradation of groundwater 7 quality in shallow aquifers. The EPA has the responsibility of overseeing the NECR Mine Site 8 remediation and will determine the appropriate rules, regulations, and mitigation measures to 9 ensure groundwater quality is protected from any negative environmental impacts resulting from 10 reclamation activities. After the reclamation, the NECR Mine Site would be released for 11 unrestricted use.
12 As mentioned in EIS Sections 3.5.4.2 and 5.1.1.1, historical operation of the NECR Mine Site 13 and the UNC Mill Site included routine and non-routine releases and exposures of radiological 14 materials. The most notable release occurred on July 16, 1979, when the UNC Mill Site tailings 15 impoundment dam collapsed, releasing approximately 350 million liters (L) [93 million gallons 16 (gal)] of tailings into Pipeline Arroyo and the underlying alluvial hydrostratigraphic unit. These 17 releases, both routine and non-routine, resulted in the contamination of local groundwater 18 resources and exceedances of some groundwater quality concentration limits, as described in 19 EIS Section 3.5.4.2, and continue to be a significant (major) impact to local groundwater. Since 20 the dam failure, efforts to remediate the contaminated groundwater have occurred and are 21 ongoing, as described in EIS Sections 1.1.1, 2.2.1.2, and 3.5.2.3. Groundwater quality 22 concentration limit exceedances are currently being addressed by corrective actions associated 23 with the UNC Mill Site reclamation and an EPA remedial action under CERCLA. When the NRC 24 and EPA have determined that UNC has satisfactorily addressed the applicable requirements, 25 these impacts to groundwater would have been mitigated to the extent necessary to protect 26 public health and safety. Reclamation and long-term surveillance of the UNC Mill Site following 27 the proposed action includes activities identified in the reclamation plan and the continuation of 28 the groundwater restoration activities, as well as those actions described in EIS Chapter 2.
29 Similar to the closure impacts of the proposed action, groundwater impacts resulting from the 30 continued reclamation of the UNC Mill Site could result from groundwater contamination from 31 contaminated recharge and consumptive use of groundwater. Reclamation activities would 32 comply with NRC requirements, protecting groundwater resources from degradation.
33 There are two other uranium-related cleanup projects within the groundwater cumulative study 34 area that are not directly associated with the proposed action: the Quivira Mine Site and the 35 Structure Remediation Program. The Quivira Mine Site is a legacy uranium mine undergoing 36 cleanup administered by the EPA with future cleanup actions slated for 2022. The EPA has 37 already managed the transfer of contaminated soils from residential areas and grazing lands 38 back to the mine waste pile but has yet to determine future cleanup actions. The NRC staff 39 anticipates the future actions would have similar groundwater impacts to those of the proposed 40 action evaluated in this EIS resulting from the transfer of mine waste, earthwork activities, and 41 consumptive use and that these impacts would be mitigated or reduced as appropriate through 42 EPA oversight.
43 The EPA, in collaboration with the Navajo Nation, is actively remediating contaminated 44 structures, yards, and materials on Navajo Nation lands within the study area through the 45 Structural Remediation Program. Groundwater impacts from structural remediation in the Navajo 46 Nation Chapters are similar in nature but smaller in scale than those of the proposed action and 47 include consumptive groundwater use and degradation of water quality. The NRC staff 48 anticipates that the EPA would ensure that the remediation of contaminated structures is 5-27
 
1 conducted in a manner compliant with all applicable rules and regulations, thereby protecting 2 groundwater resources.
3 As described in EIS Section 5.1.1, the Grants Uranium District still has large stores of uranium 4 resources, and there is potential for uranium production to occur within the groundwater study 5 area. The Crownpoint Uranium Project has two locations within 32 km [20 mi] of the proposed 6 project area. One location is 4.4 km [2.7 mi] southwest of the proposed project area. The other 7 location is the just west of Crownpoint, approximately 32 km [20 mi] from the proposed project 8 area. Both locations would use in-situ recovery technologies and were licensed in 1998, but 9 there has not been recent activity other than the indirect transfer of control of the facility.
10 According to the NRCs 1997 Crownpoint EIS, the potential impacts to groundwater resources, if 11 the facility became operational, would be related to consumptive groundwater use and short- and 12 long-term changes to groundwater quality (NRC, 1997). During operation, the quality of local 13 groundwater in the Westwater Canyon Aquifer would be adversely impacted and the licensee 14 would monitor the water quality to ensure that serious degradation of groundwater did not occur 15 (NRC, 1997). After the operation of the mine ceased, the licensee would conduct groundwater 16 restoration activities to clean the aquifer. Thus, if construction and operation of the Crownpoint 17 facility begins, impacts to groundwater are expected to be a minor and temporary impact to the 18 overall groundwater resources in the area.
19 Within the groundwater cumulative study area, there are four mine sites: three coal mines and 20 one humate mine. All three of the coal mines are permanently closed and have been reclaimed 21 and released (EMNRD, 2019). The humate mine is active and is located approximately 32 km 22 [20 mi] west of the proposed project area (EMNRD, 2019). The groundwater impacts of the coal 23 mines have ceased since the mines have been permanently closed, reclaimed, and released.
24 The active mining and the future reclamation of the humate mine could have an impact on 25 groundwater resources through consumptive use and groundwater contamination. Mining in 26 New Mexico is regulated by the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, and groundwater 27 resources are protected by the NMED. Under the oversight of these two agencies, mining 28 operations are required to follow groundwater protection standards as set forth in NMED 29 regulations or as part of the mining permit.
30 As mentioned in EIS Sections 3.11 and 5.1.1.3, as the population of Gallup, New Mexico has 31 grown, associated housing demands have been increasing. To address this, the City of Gallup 32 has established the goal of strategically building housing developments, coordinating 33 infrastructure improvements, and focusing on integrating housing projects with the revitalization 34 of its downtown (Architectural Research Consultants, 2016). These activities would require 35 consumptive use of groundwater and construction and demolition, which could degrade 36 groundwater quality through contaminated recharge. For all construction activities, NMED 37 requires a NPDES permit be obtained as well as a SPCCP for all projects with large quantities of 38 petroleum product storage, reducing the risk for contaminated recharge. The consumptive water 39 requirements would be evaluated prior to construction as well, to ensure water availability.
40 These measures would protect groundwater resources in the area.
41 The Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project would convey water from the San Juan River to the City 42 of Gallup and the eastern portion of the Navajo Nation (Architectural Research Consultants, 43 2016) (EIS Figure 5.1-1). This project includes the installation of over 140 km [87 mi] of pipeline 44 within the groundwater study area and four pumping stations. The installation would require 45 heavy construction equipment, disturbance of soils, and revegetation of the disturbed areas.
46 Groundwater impacts from these construction activities could include consumptive use and 47 groundwater recharge, but as with the proposed action, impacts would be reduced and mitigated 5-28
 
1 by the implementation of BMPs and the CSWPPP, as required by NMED through a NPDES 2 permit. Any potential groundwater quality impacts from leaks or spills from the pumping station 3 equipment would be mitigated by groundwater protective measures required by NMED.
4 As explained in EIS Section 5.1.1.5, there are several projects being funded in northwest 5 New Mexico by the State. The projects that are within or have the potential to be within the 6 groundwater study area are the purchase of buses and vehicles for use in McKinley County and 7 Gallup; improvements to bridges, roads, and parking lots; the construction of and upgrades to 8 service buildings such as veterans centers, senior centers, public bathrooms, and police 9 stations; bathroom construction in the Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation; and the Navajo 10 Nation renewable energy project. There are negligible, if any, groundwater impacts from the 11 purchase and use of buses and vehicles. Improvements to bridges, roads, parking lots, the 12 construction of bathrooms in Pinedale Chapter, the construction of service buildings, and the 13 potential construction of the renewable energy project could potentially impact groundwater 14 quality through contaminated recharge and would require some consumptive water use. The 15 Pinedale Chapter bathroom construction could positively impact groundwater by the removal 16 of old and leaking septic tanks, thus reducing opportunity for wastewater to contaminate 17 groundwater aquifers. The construction of these projects would be under the jurisdiction of the 18 NMED and therefore would require NPDES permits and the implementation of BMPs and 19 mitigation measures to protect groundwater resources.
20 Gallup Solar is the only existing or foreseeable future wind or solar project within the 21 groundwater cumulative study area. Gallup Solar is located in Gallup, New Mexico, 22 approximately 27 km [17 mi] away from the UNC offices. The solar farm is operational and there 23 is no current or foreseeable future construction planned at the site. Consumptive use of 24 groundwater at the solar farm is regulated by NMOSE, the New Mexico regulatory authority in 25 charge of water rights.
26 Recreational areas in the groundwater study area include Red Rock Park and a portion of Cibola 27 National Forests Mount Taylor Ranger District. Red Rock Park hosts several activities such as 28 the rodeo, camping, and the Inter-Tribal Indian Ceremonial, and activities in Cibola National 29 Forest include hiking, camping, fishing, vehicle trails, skiing, and snowmobiling. Consumptive 30 use and the potential for groundwater contamination through septic tanks or contaminated 31 infiltration are the most likely sources of adverse groundwater impacts. However, due to the 32 regulatory requirements for septic systems and surface water protections, as well as the permit 33 requirements for consumptive use, the impacts to groundwater resources from continuation of 34 these recreational activities is unlikely to be noticeable.
35 Beyond closure of the disposal site, the potential for long-term impacts to groundwater would be 36 addressed by the combined effect of the NRC and EPA approvals of those aspects of the 37 proposed action that fall within their respective authorities that are important to long-term 38 performance of the tailings impoundment and the added disposal site (EIS Section 4.1, 39 Post-closure Considerations). After reclamation of the UNC Mill Site is completed and the 40 license is terminated, the UNC Mill Site would be maintained and managed by the custodial 41 agency pursuant to an NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28 to provide for the continued safe 42 isolation of the modified tailings impoundment (EIS Section 2.2.1.8) and EPA oversight under 43 CERCLA to maintain long-term effectiveness of the remedy (EPA, 2013). Based on the 44 post-closure considerations provided in EIS Section 4.5.4.3, the NRC staff concluded that the 45 potential impacts to groundwater associated modified tailings impoundments long-term 46 performance would be SMALL. While no comparable tailings or disposal sites exist within the 47 geographic area of interest, should additional sites be developed in the future during the 5-29
 
1 long-term timeframe, the NRC staff expect that the sites would be subject to similar regulatory 2 controls, thereby limiting the potential for long-term cumulative impacts.
3 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions evaluated within the groundwater study 4 area include the NECR Mine Site remediation, the reclamation and long-term surveillance of the 5 UNC Mill Site, the Quivira Mine Site remediation, structural remediation in the Navajo Nation 6 Chapters, the licensed (but not constructed) Crownpoint Uranium Project facilities, the humate 7 mining operation, housing development in Gallup, portions of the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply 8 project, several Capital Outlay Bill projects, the Gallup solar farm, and recreational activities in 9 Red Rock Park and a portion of Cibola National Forests Mount Taylor Ranger District. Of these 10 actions, the effects of past activities at the UNC Mill Site and the NECR Mine Site (those that are 11 being addressed by the UNC Mill Site reclamation and associated corrective actions) have most 12 significantly impacted local groundwater within the proposed project area. Based on the 13 preceding analysis of these actions, the NRC staff concludes that the SMALL incremental 14 impacts of the proposed action, or Alternative 1A or Alternative 1B, when added to the LARGE 15 impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions evaluated in the 16 groundwater study area, would result in LARGE overall cumulative impacts to groundwater that 17 would be mitigated to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety when the NRC and 18 EPA have determined that UNC has satisfactorily addressed the applicable requirements.
19 5.6      Ecology 20 The impacts analysis in EIS Section 4.6 describes the ecological impacts that could occur within 21 the proposed project area and a 1 km [0.62 mi] buffer around the proposed disturbed areas. The 22 cumulative impact analysis is limited to this radius because ecological resources are not 23 anticipated to influence or to be influenced by the proposed activities associated with the 24 proposed disposal site outside of this area due to the short duration of the proposed action and 25 the availability of the surrounding habitats within 1 km [0.62 mi] where wildlife could disperse 26 during project activities. The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts is 2019 to 2030, 27 which encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license amendment could be granted 28 and the proposed duration of the project activities and other past, present, and reasonably 29 foreseeable future actions as described in EIS Section 5.1.1.
30 As discussed in EIS Section 5.1.1, there are (i) a number of legacy uranium mining and milling 31 sites; (ii) active and inactive coal and scoria mining; (iii) numerous active and abandoned 32 (i.e., plugged) oil and gas wells; (iv) increased housing developments and urbanization near 33 Gallup, New Mexico; (v) infrastructure improvements; and (vi) recreational activities, all within the 34 region of the proposed project area. However, for analyzing the cumulative impacts on 35 ecological resources, the only past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within a 36 1-km [0.62-mi] buffer from proposed disturbed areas (the ecology study area) are activities 37 associated with NECR Mine Site remediation, the reclamation and long-term surveillance of the 38 UNC Mill Site, and the Quivira Mine Site remediation. These facilities are wholly or partly within 39 the cumulative impacts study area for ecological resources, and, as described in EIS 40 Section 5.1.1.1.1, would have overlapping impacts on vegetation and wildlife.
41 Most of the planned disturbances under the proposed action would be located within the 42 previously disturbed and reclaimed vegetation community (INTERA, 2018; EIS Figure 3.6-1).
43 EIS Section 4.6 states that the proposed project area is not located in a natural vegetation 44 community of concern or a wildlife corridor, and there are no aquatic environments within the 45 proposed project area. Suitable habitat for threatened or endangered species designated by the 46 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is not located within the proposed project area. Because of 5-30
 
1 this, and because no FWS-designated critical habitat, no Federal threatened or endangered 2 plant or animal species, and no Navajo Nation endangered species have been observed within 3 the proposed project area, the NRC staff concluded in EIS Section 4.6 that the proposed project 4 would have no effect on Federally listed species and no effect on any existing or proposed 5 critical habitats. As described in EIS Section 4.6.1, the impacts to ecological resources from the 6 construction, transfer of mine waste, and closure of the proposed disposal site would be SMALL 7 to MODERATE. Impacts to the vegetative communities and wildlife habitats in the proposed 8 project area associated with the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) and sourcing cover 9 material from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B) would be similar to or less than the proposed action 10 because land disturbance would be reduced by 0.8 ha [2 ac] and 20 ha [48 ac], respectively.
11 Thus, fewer animals would be directly and indirectly affected, and less vegetation would be 12 removed. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts on ecological resources as a 13 result of both alternatives also would be SMALL to MODERATE.
14 The cumulative effects of remediation at the NECR Mine Site and the Quivira Mine Site could 15 influence habitats indirectly or directly, thereby affecting wildlife. Direct effects on ecological 16 resources from these cleanup actions would include the removal of vegetation and associated 17 reduction in or alteration of wildlife habitat and forage productivity. In addition, the potential 18 exists for an increased risk of soil erosion and the potential spread of invasive species and 19 noxious weed populations. During vegetation removal, direct and/or indirect wildlife mortalities 20 could occur, and wildlife that exist within the project areas could be displaced to other 21 surrounding habitats. Potential effects to wildlife could involve loss, alteration, and incremental 22 habitat fragmentation. The activities associated with these projects are located within previously 23 disturbed, reclaimed or partly reclaimed areas of the mine sites. The reclamation of the NECR 24 Mine Site would restore vegetation on 24 ha [60 ac] of land and would thereby increase the 25 available wildlife habitat and ecological value of the land. The revegetation plans describe 26 BMPs, such as topsoil management practices and erosion control measures (e.g., mulching),
27 that would be implemented to minimize potential soil impacts. Revegetation activities associated 28 with these cleanup actions would have a beneficial impact of restoring wildlife habitat 29 (vegetation) and forage productivity; however, succession (the change in the species structure of 30 an ecological community over time) of disturbed areas revegetated during closure would 31 continue for decades. These mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to 32 ecological resources within the study area.
33 EIS Section 5.1.1.1.3 describes that over 18,144 metric tons [20,000 tons] of contaminated soil 34 from residential areas and 7,650 m3 [10,000 yd3] from grazing areas have been placed on the 35 Quivira mine waste pile, which is temporarily covered and stabilized (EPA, 2018d). Future 36 cleanup activities at the Quivira Mine Site that affect ecological resources would include 37 earthmoving activities to remove contaminated soil and may cause impacts on ecological 38 resources similar to the impacts anticipated for the proposed action. Because the Quivira Mine 39 Site is also part of EPAs CERCLA cleanup program, the NRC staff anticipates that similar 40 EPA-approved plans and mitigations described for the NECR Mine Site would be implemented 41 during future activities at the Quivira Mine Site.
42 Completing the remaining actions associated with the reclamation of the UNC Mill Site would 43 have potential impacts to ecology. This includes completing the reclamation of the two 44 evaporation ponds and closing out the groundwater corrective actions at the UNC Mill Site.
45 These activities would be conducted under NRC and EPA oversight and in accordance with an 46 approved reclamation plan (EIS Section 2.2.1.2). Future reclamation and long-term surveillance 47 activities at the UNC Mill Site described in EIS Section 2.2.1.8 are not expected to noticeably 48 impact ecological resources because the area would remain restricted under EPA CERCLA and 5-31
 
1 NRC UMTRCA authority from uses other than long-term oversight and surveillance of the tailings 2 disposal area.
3 Significant changes to land use in the study area over the last 80 years, primarily from mining, 4 have had a significant impact on ecological resources. As shown in EIS Figure 3.2-2, most of 5 the land within the area evaluated for cumulative ecological impacts is within the Navajo Nation 6 reservation or is Navajo Nation Trust land. Ecological resources in the study area would 7 experience beneficial cumulative impacts from Tribal management actions for the reasonably 8 foreseeable future. All reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area are subject to 9 Federal laws (e.g., the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Water 10 Act), and, where applicable, Navajo Nation regulations and laws. Most private projects are 11 subject to other State requirements such as land reclamation and complying with State-issued 12 NPDES permits. Adherence to these standards would reduce many of the cumulative adverse 13 impacts from reasonably foreseeable future actions. Because a large amount of the land in the 14 study area is either part of the EPAs CERCLA cleanup program and associated remediation 15 actions under EPA authority, or within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation, other reasonably 16 foreseeable future actions are not expected to significantly impact ecological resources through 17 the completion of the proposed project in 2026 and within the analysis timeframe that extends to 18 2030. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the cumulative impacts on ecological resources 19 within the study area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 20 would be MODERATE.
21 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions evaluated within the ecology study area 22 include the NECR Mine Site remediation, the reclamation and long-term surveillance of the UNC 23 Mill Site, and the Quivira Mine Site remediation. The NRC staff concludes that the SMALL to 24 MODERATE incremental impacts of the proposed action, or impacts associated with the 25 conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) or sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area 26 (Alternative 1B), when combined with the MODERATE impacts from other past, present, and 27 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area, would result in an overall MODERATE 28 cumulative impact to ecological resources.
29 5.7      Air Quality 30 The NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts on air quality within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the 31 proposed project area, hereafter called the air quality study area. As described in EIS 32 Section 3.7.2.1, the proposed project area would be located in the Four Corners Interstate Air 33 Quality Control Regions (AQCR). As portrayed in EIS Figure 5.1.1, the air quality study area 34 includes areas located outside of the Four Corners Interstate AQCR such as the southeastern 35 portion of McKinley County. The NRC staff selected this air quality study area in order to 36 consider areas beyond the Four Corners Interstate ACQR since the proposed project area would 37 be located about 29.8 km [18.5 mi] from the AQCR boundary. All of the past, present, and 38 reasonably foreseeable future actions identified in EIS Section 5.1.1 fall within the air quality 39 study area. The timeframe for the cumulative impacts analysis is from 2019 to 2030, which 40 encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license amendment could be granted and the 41 proposed duration of the project activities and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 42 future actions as described in EIS Section 5.1.1.
43 5.7.1      Non-Greenhouse Gas Emissions 44 As described in EIS Section 4.7.1.1, the NRC staff determined that the impacts on air quality 45 from the peak year emissions for the proposed action would be MODERATE. This determination 5-32
 
1 was based on the NRC staffs consideration of the following key factors: (i) the existing air 2 quality, (ii) the proposed actions emissions levels, and (iii) the proximity of the proposed actions 3 emissions sources to receptors. If Alternative 1A or Alternative 1B were used, the impacts on air 4 quality from the peak year emissions would also be MODERATE based on these same three 5 factors (EIS Section 4.7.2).
6 The NRC staff evaluated the impacts of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 7 actions (EIS Section 5.1.1) on the air quality within the 80-km [50-mi] study area. All of the 8 activities described in EIS Section 5.1.1 generate gaseous emissions at some level. The effects 9 of past and present activities on the study areas air quality are represented in the EPAs 10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) compliance status within the same 11 geographical region. As described in EIS Section 3.7.2.1, the EPA currently designates the 12 entire air quality study area as an attainment area for all pollutants. Based on this attainment 13 status, the NRC staff considers the air quality in the study area to be good. The NRC staff 14 expects the air quality in the study area would remain good during the duration of the proposed 15 action based on (i) the short duration of the proposed project, (ii) the types of activities described 16 in EIS Section 5.1.1 (and discussed further next) and (iii) continued EPA oversight and 17 monitoring of projects in the area.
18 The NRC staff examines two key factors when assessing the impacts of combining the proposed 19 projects emission levels to the overall emission levels within the air quality study area: the 20 emission levels of the project relative to the emissions in the air quality in the study area, and the 21 potential for the overlap of proposed projects impacts with the impacts from the other actions 22 emissions (e.g., proximity of the emission sources to one another). At the county level 23 (i.e., McKinley County), EIS Table 3.7-3 describes the emission levels generated by the other 24 actions within part of the air quality study area. EIS Table 2.2-1 describes the emission levels 25 generated by the proposed action. EIS Table 5.7-1 describes the contribution (i.e., percent) of 26 the proposed action estimated annual emission levels compared to emission levels in McKinley 27 County. The proposed action emission levels would be under one percent of the emission levels 28 in the county.
29 However, within the context of the proposed project area, the NRC staff considered the 30 licensees air modeling dispersion results for the ambient air quality analysis, which combines the 31 background pollutant concentrations with the proposed project pollutant concentrations. The 32 estimated 1-hour nitrogen oxide levels would be 99.4 percent of the standard (EIS Table 4.7-2) 33 and both Alternatives 1A and 1B would be at 98.7 percent of the standard (EIS Table 4.7-4 and 34 Table 4.7-5). Because the combined nitrogen dioxide modeling results would be high relative to 35 the ambient air standards, the NRC staff considers that the short-term nitrogen oxide impacts 36 would be noticeable but not destabilizing (which contributed to the MODERATE finding in EIS 37 Section 4.7).
Table 5.7-1        The Contribution (i.e., Percentage) of the Proposed Actions Estimated Peak Year Annual Emissions Compared to McKinley Countys Estimated Annual Emission Levels Carbon            Nitrogen          Particulate Matter        Particulate Monoxide            Oxides                PM2.5                Matter PM10  Sulfur Dioxide 0.08 percent      0.15 percent          0.08 percent          0.05 percent    0.01 percent Source: Generated from the information in EIS Tables 2.2-1, and 3.7-3 5-33
 
1 The potential for the proposed actions impacts to overlap with the impacts from the other 2 actions emission sources (identified in EIS Section 5.1.1) is in large part determined by the 3 proximity of the proposed action to the other actions sources. Many of the mines and mills 4 identified in EIS Figure 5.1-1 are located along the eastern perimeter or boundary of the air 5 quality study area, between about 48.3 km [30 mi] to 80 km [50 mi] from the proposed project 6 area. Because pollutants disperse as they travel, the distance between the proposed project 7 area and the mines and mill to the east reduces the potential for overlapping impacts. As 8 described in EIS Section 3.7.1.1, the predominant wind direction at the proposed project area is 9 from the southwest to south-southwest. Because of the predominant wind direction, air 10 emissions would travel from the proposed project area to these other sites in the east. In terms 11 of overlapping effects, the air quality at these other mines and mills would experience the 12 additional emissions from the proposed action rather than the air quality at the proposed project 13 area experiencing the additional emissions from the multiple mines and mills.
14 EIS Figure 5.1-1 portrays emission sources located in closer proximity to the proposed project 15 area. For example, the Quivira Mine Site is located about 0.4 km [0.25 mi] from the proposed 16 project area (EIS Figure 2.2-2). The cleanup activities of these former uranium mines could 17 occur at the same time as the proposed action. In addition, PTW at the NECR Mine Site would 18 be stockpiled, loaded, and transported for offsite disposal. These activities are not part of the 19 proposed action as defined in this EIS and would occur at the same time the NECR mine waste 20 at the NECR Mine Site would be stockpiled, loaded, and transported for disposal at the UNC Mill 21 Site tailings disposal area.
22 As part of the EPA oversight under CERCLA of the UNC site, UNC would conduct nuisance 23 (i.e., nonradiological) dust monitoring at several locations around the perimeter of the proposed 24 project area as part of the proposed action. UNC would compare monitoring results to the 25 NAAQS 24-hour standards for PM2.5 and PM10. This dust monitoring represents the cumulative 26 air quality in the area because (i) the sampling would collect particulate matter from all sources 27 (rather than just the proposed action), and (ii) the sampling results would be compared to 28 NAAQS, which are designed to assess the overall air quality for an area from all sources (rather 29 than the Prevention of Significant Deterioration increments, which define allowable emission 30 increments for a single emission source). If air monitoring results indicate unacceptable dust 31 levels, then existing mitigation would be modified, or new mitigation would be implemented until 32 acceptable monitoring results are achieved. Because the Quivira site is also under EPA 33 oversight under CERCLA, the NRC staff expect that similar nuisance dust monitoring and action 34 plans would be required at the Quivira site.
35 The NRC staff determines that the cumulative impacts on air quality within the air quality study 36 area resulting from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be 37 SMALL because of the current and expected future attainment status of the air quality study area 38 and because of EPA oversight and monitoring at the site. As described in EIS Section 4.7.1.1, 39 the air quality impacts from the proposed action peak year would be MODERATE. Therefore, 40 the NRC staff concludes that the incremental impacts of the proposed action, impacts associated 41 with using the conveyor to transfer waste (Alternative 1A), or impacts from sourcing cover 42 material from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B), when combined with MODERATE impacts from 43 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in MODERATE 44 cumulative impacts to air quality.
5-34
 
1 5.7.2    Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 2 5.7.2.1      Proposed Action Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3 The impact magnitude resulting from a single source or a combination of greenhouse gas 4 emission sources over a larger region must be placed in geographic context for the following 5 reasons: (i) the environmental impact is global rather than local or regional; (ii) the effect is not 6 particularly sensitive to the location of the release point; (iii) the magnitude of individual 7 greenhouse gas sources related to human activity, no matter how large compared to other 8 sources, are small when compared to the total mass of greenhouse gases resident in the 9 atmosphere; and (iv) the total number and variety of greenhouse gas emission sources is 10 extremely large, and the sources are ubiquitous.
11 Consequently, the NRC staff determined that an appropriate approach to address the cumulative 12 impacts of greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon dioxide) is to recognize that:
13 (i) greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change; (ii) climate change is best 14 characterized as the result of numerous and varied sources, each of which might seem to make 15 a relatively small addition to global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations; (iii) the extent of 16 the analyses should be commensurate with the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions generated 17 by the proposed action; and (iv) carbon footprint is a relevant factor in evaluating distinctions 18 between alternatives.
19 Based primarily on the scientific assessments of the U.S. Global Climate Research Program 20 (GCRP) and National Research Council, the EPA Administrator issued a determination in 2009 21 (74 FR 66496) that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to 22 endanger public health and welfare, based on observed and projected effects of greenhouse 23 gases, their effect on climate change, and the public health and welfare risks and effects 24 associated with such climate change. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the national 25 cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing 26 (i.e., MODERATE).
27 As described in EIS Table 2.2-1, the proposed action would generate an estimated annual peak 28 level of 2,423 metric tons [2,670.9 short tons] of carbon dioxide. Alternative 1A (use of a 29 conveyor) and Alternative 1B (sourcing material from the Jetty Area) would generate carbon 30 dioxide emission levels similar to the proposed action (Trinity Consultants, 2020). As described 31 in EIS Section 3.7.2.2, the EPA established thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions that 32 define whether sources are subject to EPA air permitting. For new sources, the threshold is 33 90,718 metric tons [100,000 short tons] of carbon dioxide equivalents per year, and for modified 34 existing sources, the threshold is 68,039 metric tons [75,000 short tons] of carbon dioxide 35 equivalents per year. Because emission estimates for the proposed project and both secondary 36 alternatives are below the EPA thresholds, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action, as 37 well as both secondary alternatives, would generate low levels of greenhouse gases relative to 38 other sources and would have a SMALL impact on air quality in terms of greenhouse gas 39 emissions. The NRC staff further concludes that the cumulative impacts to greenhouse gas 40 levels would be noticeable but not destabilizing (i.e., MODERATE), with or without the 41 greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed action.
42 To provide additional context, the proposed action generates about 8 x 103 percent of the total 43 estimated greenhouse gas emissions in New Mexico of 31.3 million metric tons [34.5 million 44 short tons] of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2017 (EPA, 2018f). This also equates to about 5-35
 
1 4 x 105 percent of the total United States annual emission rate of 6.5 billion metric tons 2 [7.2 billion short tons] of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2017 (EPA, 2019f).
3 Carbon footprint is a relevant factor in evaluating distinctions between alternatives. Under the 4 no-action alternative, the NRC staff assumes the NECR mine waste would remain in place at the 5 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow for EPA to select and implement a 6 different CERCLA remedy. Therefore, generation of greenhouse gases associated with 7 construction, transfer, and closure of the proposed action (and the two secondary alternatives) 8 from combustion emissions from mobile sources would not occur. The NRC staff expects that 9 delay in selecting a remedy for the disposition of the mine waste under the no-action alternative 10 would not result in the generation of additional greenhouse gases. The new remedy selected by 11 EPA could generate additional greenhouse gas emissions; however, the amount of those 12 emissions, as well as the relative value in comparison to the proposed actions emissions, would 13 depend on the specific remedy that is selected.
14 5.7.2.2      Overlapping Impacts of the Proposed Action and Climate Change 15 Climate change impacts could overlap with impacts from the proposed action. As described in 16 EIS Section 3.7.1.2, climate change is expected to increase drought intensity in New Mexico.
17 Droughts can cause increased competition for limited water resources. Although some aspects 18 of the proposed action require water, the overall amount of water needed is minimal and water 19 use for the proposed action is not expected to cause water-use conflicts, even under the 20 changed conditions that could be caused by climate change. Furthermore, the proposed 21 schedule to complete the disposal of the NECR mine waste is approximately 4 years, and, after 22 closure, the proposed disposal site essentially becomes a passive facility in terms of air 23 emissions and water usage. The short project timeframe limits the opportunity for the proposed 24 actions impacts to overlap with any climate change impacts.
25 5.7.2.3      Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the Proposed Action 26 Climate change could potentially impact the proposed action with regard to long-term 27 performance (isolation of tailings and waste) during the post-closure period (EIS Section 4.1).
28 The NRC safety review considers the effects of credible natural hazards and phenomena, 29 including severe weather events, on the design and performance of the tailings impoundment, 30 including the proposed disposal site, over the 1,000-year performance period. This section of 31 the EIS describes how climate was addressed with regard to severe weather events within the 32 safety analyses and how the approach is conservative.
33 For the design of the ET cover, the NRC safety review evaluated UNCs analyses of long-term 34 erosion stability and flux (i.e., water infiltration in the cover). The UNC erosion stability analyses 35 evaluated the ability of the cover to withstand a Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event 36 (i.e., a conservatively derived rainfall intensity event) of 15.6 cm [6.14 in] in 1 hour and the 37 associated probable maximum flood (Stantec, 2019). This design value is more conservative 38 than the 7.52 cm [2.96 in] 1-hour site-specific precipitation value (Dwyer Engineering, 2019).
39 As described in the Cover System Design Report (Dwyer Engineering, 2019), UNC conducted a 40 series of computer simulations assessing flux which evaluated variables that the cover could be 41 exposed to over the 1,000-year performance period. This computer sensitivity analysis included 42 three variables that evaluated possible climate change over this time period: cover soil texture 43 (i.e., soil hydraulic properties), vegetation cover types, and climate conditions (i.e., precipitation 44 levels). The two climate conditions included in the sensitivity analyses were typical and extreme.
5-36
 
1 The rainfall rate for the typical climate condition was 29.74 cm [11.71 in] per year with a monthly 2 maximum of 6.35 cm [2.5 in]. These values were based on historical, local levels over the time 3 period 1897 to 2016. The extreme climate condition assumed two consecutive years of 60.4 cm 4 [23.8 in] per year with a monthly maximum of about 12.1 cm [4.75 in]. These values were based 5 on the single wettest year on record for the area (1906) over that same time period. The PMP 6 design value assessed in the NRCs safety analyses for long term erosion protection 7 {i.e., 15.6 cm [6.14 in] per hour)} (Stantec, 2019) bounds the extreme climate conditions in the 8 UNC flux sensitivity analyses {i.e., 60.4 cm [23.8 in] per year with a monthly maximum value of 9 12.1 cm [4.75 in]} (Dwyer Engineering, 2019), which considers possible climate change over the 10 1,000-year performance period.
11 Although increases in future precipitation event intensity are possible considering current climate 12 projections, the PMP design value used in the safety analyses to evaluate the effect of severe 13 weather events on the long-term performance of the proposed tailings impoundment and 14 disposal site is conservatively derived based on methods accepted by the NRC. Limitations and 15 challenges currently exist in predicting climate change and related weather events at specific 16 locations far into the future (e.g., beyond 100 years). Based on these considerations, the NRC 17 staff expects that the potential impacts of future climate evolution on the proposed action are 18 implicitly addressed with respect to severe weather events in the evaluation of long-term 19 performance in the safety review by the application of a conservative PMP value.
20 5.8      Noise 21 The NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts on noise resources within a 10-km [6-mi] radius of 22 the proposed project area because noise from the proposed action would not propagate beyond 23 this radius. The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts of noise is 2019 to 2030, which 24 encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license amendment could be granted and the 25 proposed duration of the project activities and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 26 future actions as described in EIS Section 5.1.1.
27 Within the noise study area, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 28 assessed include activities associated with NECR Mine Site remediation, the reclamation and 29 long-term surveillance of the UNC Mill Site, the Quivira Mine Site remediation, and operations 30 at the NRC licensed, but not constructed, Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility. All 31 additional activities identified in EIS Section 5.1.1 fall outside of the noise study area and are not 32 anticipated to have cumulative noise impacts with the proposed action.
33 As described in EIS Section 4.8.1, based on the estimated increase in noise above background 34 noise characteristic of a quiet rural area and evaluation of various construction scenarios, the 35 noise impacts from the construction, transfer of NECR mine waste, and closure of the proposed 36 disposal site at the UNC Mill Site would be noticeable and MODERATE. The transfer of mine 37 waste using a conveyor (Alternative 1A) and the use of a different source material for the site 38 cover (Alternative 1B) would involve similar activities to those for the proposed action, and 39 similarly the noise impact would be MODERATE (EIS Section 4.8.2).
40 Within the 10-km [6-mi] study area for noise impacts, the land is sparsely populated and primarily 41 used for livestock grazing. The closest noise receptors to the proposed action are the residents 42 of the Red Water Pond Road Community. The nearest resident is approximately 0.22 km 43 [0.14 mi] north of the NECR Mine Site property boundary (in the Red Water Pond Road 44 Community) and therefore would be the most impacted by noise associated with the NECR Mine 45 Site remediation and reclamation. Noise-producing activities from remediation and reclamation 5-37
 
1 would include earthmoving activities to regrade and recontour the NECR Mine Site and minor 2 noise contributions from personnel conducting radiological surveys to confirm site compliance 3 with applicable EPA regulations. The NRC staff anticipates that these noise impacts would be 4 above estimated baseline noise levels (approximately 30 dBA) but less than those evaluated as 5 part of the proposed action and would not exceed the threshold of acceptable noise in a 6 residential setting [65 decibels (dBA)].
7 Following the closure phase of the UNC Mill Site, UNC is required to complete site reclamation in 8 accordance with an NRC-approved reclamation plan (EIS Section 2.2.1.8). Reclamation 9 activities would involve less earthmoving equipment and result in less traffic on the roadways 10 than the proposed action. Therefore, noise impacts from UNC Mill Site reclamation activities 11 would be significantly less than those of the proposed action and would likely not be noticeable 12 to the Red Water Pond Road Community. Additionally, because the area would continue to have 13 land access restrictions, it is unlikely that a noise receptor would be closer than the current 14 nearest resident.
15 Currently, the EPA is administering the cleanup of the Quivira Mine Site located immediately 16 north of the Red Water Pond Road Community (INTERA, 2018). Future site remediation actions 17 at the nearby Quivira Mine Site have the potential to generate additional noise, depending on the 18 removal action alternatives that are selected once EPA completes their engineering and cost 19 analysis. However, until that occurs, the remediation plans for that site, and therefore the 20 potential noise impacts, remain uncertain. Potential sources of noise during cleanup activities at 21 the Quivira Mine Site include earthmoving activities to remove contaminated soil, vehicles, small 22 equipment used to repair fencing, and construction equipment used for infrastructure repair.
23 These activities may occur during the same time as the proposed action and, depending on the 24 timing, may have noticeable impacts on the Red Water Pond Road Community, who are located 25 within 1.6 km [1 mi] south-southeast of the Quivira Mine Site.
26 Noise impacts, primarily from construction activities and additional traffic on NM 566, could also 27 occur from the site of the licensed (but not constructed) Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite 28 facility located approximately 4.0 km [2.5 mi] southwest of the UNC Mill Site, if the proposed 29 facility were constructed and operated within the timeframe of the proposed action. Based on 30 the dissipation of sound with increasing distance and on the NRCs evaluation in its 1997 EIS for 31 the licensing of the Crownpoint facility, impacts on noise from construction and operation of the 32 Crownpoint satellite facility could, but are unlikely to, exceed the threshold for outside noise 33 during construction that the EPA considers a potential nuisance to the nearest residents (NRC, 34 1997). As stated in Section 5.3 of the Crownpoint EIS, during operations, approximately 35 100 slurry shipments per year are expected from the proposed satellite operations site (NRC, 36 1997). This would amount to a shipment every 3 or 4 days and would not significantly add to the 37 existing noise impacts in the study area (EIS Section 4.8.1). Therefore, if the Crownpoint facility 38 is constructed, short-term noise impacts from the construction and operation of the facility would 39 likely not be noticeable at the proposed project area.
40 Overall, for all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the noise impact 41 study area, the NRC staff has determined that it is unlikely that all of the operations would occur 42 at exactly the same time, and each of the present and future activities would have a smaller 43 noise impact compared to the proposed action. However, noise from the activities are 44 anticipated to be above estimated baseline noise levels (approximately 30 dBA). In the unlikely 45 event that future activities for each of the present and future projects occur at the same time, the 46 NRC staff determines that the potential cumulative noise impacts from other actions would be 47 MODERATE. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the MODERATE incremental impacts of 5-38
 
1 the proposed action, or impacts associated with Alternative 1A or Alternative 1B, when added to 2 the MODERATE cumulative noise impacts resulting from other past, present, and reasonably 3 foreseeable future actions in the cumulative noise study area, would result in an overall 4 MODERATE cumulative impact.
5 5.9      Historic and Cultural 6 Cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources were assessed within the indirect area of 7 potential effect (APE) {i.e., a 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer around the proposed areas of disturbance}.
8 The timeframe for this analysis is 2019 to 2030, which encompasses the estimated timeframe 9 when the license amendment could be granted and the proposed duration of the project activities 10 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as described in EIS 11 Section 5.1.1.
12 As discussed in EIS Section 4.9.1, five resources (five archaeological sites with prehistoric 13 Anasazi-period remains) fall within or in immediate proximity to the proposed project APE where 14 ground-disturbing activities would occur. All five sites have been recommended as eligible for 15 the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), although the present condition of Site 16 NM-Q-20-70 was assessed during the Tribal consultation site visit as lacking significant deposits.
17 For four sites, avoidance and monitoring measures have been recommended in consultation with 18 the Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (NNTHPO) that would mitigate adverse 19 effects on the sites. For one site (NM-Q-20-71), the NRC staff recommended that the site is 20 eligible for listing on the NRHP, and the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office 21 (NMSHPO) and NNTHPO concurred. The NNTHPO recommends monitoring measures for site 22 NM-Q-20-71 and noted that several nearby historic-period remains, including several concrete 23 trailer pads, should be documented and added to the site description. The NRC staff therefore 24 determined that historic and cultural resource impacts from the construction, transfer, and 25 closure of the proposed disposal site would be SMALL to LARGE for the proposed action, and 26 the two secondary alternatives, but would be reduced to SMALL if recommended mitigations 27 described in EIS Section 4.9.1.1 are implemented.
28 Most of the cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources from ongoing present and 29 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area for historical and cultural resources 30 (indirect APE) are associated with the proposed action such as the reclamation and long-term 31 surveillance of the UNC Mill Site and other activities within the vicinity of the proposed project 32 area such as the remediation of the Quivira Mine Site. Impacts from these activities would result 33 primarily from the loss of or damage to historic, cultural, and archaeological resources; 34 temporary restrictions on access to these resources; or erosion and destabilization of land 35 surfaces. Land within the indirect APE is owned by UNC, BLM, and the Navajo Nation (EIS 36 Figure 3.2-2). The NRC staff anticipates that activities associated with the EPA CERLA process 37 or located on Federally owned land or Navajo Nation land would be surveyed for historic and 38 cultural resources, as appropriate. All applicants or licensees for Federally licensed or funded 39 facilities and facilities on Federally or Navajo-owned land would conduct appropriate historic and 40 cultural resource surveys as part of standard regulatory processes. The NRC staff therefore 41 concludes that historic properties would not be affected by ongoing, present, and reasonably 42 foreseeable future projects in the geographic scope of the analysis, and impacts to historic and 43 cultural resources resulting from ongoing, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 44 this area would be minor.
45 Based on information available to the NRC staff from review of historical surveys such as the 46 bisection of site LA11617 (EIS Section 4.9) and information received during the scoping period, 5-39
 
1 the NRC staff concludes that historical properties within the indirect APE of the proposed project 2 area have been adversely affected from past actions, and therefore impacts to historic and 3 cultural resources from past actions are noticeable. The impacts on historic and cultural 4 resources from present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minor because 5 impacts can be minimized for proposed projects located on Federal or Tribal lands or that are 6 part of a Federal action, and such projects are subject to the National Historic Preservation Act 7 (NHPA), the Section 106 consultation process, and other applicable statutes.
8 The NHPA Section 106 process is ongoing, and a Programmatic Agreement between the 9 NMSHPO, NNTHPO, and NRC is being developed to address the management of historical sites 10 during the project. The potential historic and cultural resource impacts from the construction, 11 transfer, and closure phases of the proposed action and two secondary alternatives 12 (MODERATE to LARGE) could be reduced to SMALL if recommended mitigations described in 13 EIS Section 4.9.1.1 are implemented. The NRC staff concludes that there have been LARGE 14 impacts to historical and cultural resources in the past, although the NRC staff anticipates that 15 the Programmatic Agreement will ensure that mitigation measures are followed to limit potential 16 future impacts to historic sites. The NRC staff concludes that the SMALL (with mitigations) and 17 MODERATE to LARGE (without mitigations) impacts from the proposed action, and impacts 18 associated with the two secondary alternatives, when added to the LARGE impacts to historic 19 and cultural resources resulting from other past actions, would result in a LARGE cumulative 20 impact.
21 5.10    Visual and Scenic 22 The NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts to visual and scenic resources within a 10-km [6-mi]
23 radius of the proposed project area. Visual and scenic resources beyond a 10 km [6 mi] radius 24 were not evaluated because they would not likely influence or be influenced by the proposed 25 action. The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts is 2019 to 2030, which 26 encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license amendment could be granted and the 27 proposed duration of the project activities and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 28 future actions as described in EIS Section 5.1.1.
29 For the purpose of analyzing the cumulative impacts on visual and scenic resources for the 30 proposed action, the only past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the 31 10 km [6 mi] visual and scenic study area are activities associated with NECR Mine Site 32 remediation and reclamation, the reclamation and long-term surveillance of the UNC Mill Site, 33 the Quivira Mine Site remediation, and the site of the NRC-licensed (but not constructed) 34 Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility. These sites are within the visual and scenic 35 cumulative study area and would have overlapping impacts on visual resources.
36 Visual and scenic resources in the vicinity of the proposed project area, as described in EIS 37 Section 3.10, are classified as Class IV by the BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) 38 evaluation (BLM, 2003). Class IV land can have significant modification of the landscape that 39 may dominate the view and become the focus of viewer attention. Although the BLM has 40 identified that there are no high-quality scenic views in the area, the surrounding visual and 41 scenic landscape may have cultural and religious significance to the Navajo Nation that is not 42 considered in the BLM VRM evaluation. Visual and scenic impacts are analyzed in detail in EIS 43 Section 4.10, and the results of the analysis are summarized here. The construction and transfer 44 phases of the proposed action would alter the landscape noticeably, particularly for the Red 45 Water Pond Road Community, and therefore the NRC staff concluded that the visual and scenic 46 impacts due to construction and transfer of NECR mine waste would be MODERATE.
5-40
 
1 Permanent changes to the landscape made during the construction phase would remain during 2 the closure phase. This change in landscape could be significant to the Red Water Pond Road 3 Community due to their proximity, the nature of the Navajo Nations cultural and religious 4 connection with the land, and the potential loss of culturally or religiously significant visual and 5 scenic resources. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded in EIS Section 4.10.1 that the visual and 6 scenic impacts associated with the closure of the proposed action are MODERATE. Overall, the 7 visual and scenic impacts from the construction, transfer, and closure of the proposed disposal 8 site would be MODERATE. The NRC staff also determined that the addition of a conveyor 9 system to transfer mine waste (Alternative 1A) would be a temporary (3.5 year) strong contrast to 10 the existing landscape (INTERA, 2018) but would disturb 0.8 ha [2 ac] less than the proposed 11 action; therefore, the visual and scenic impacts associated with Alternative 1A would be 12 MODERATE during construction and would be MODERATE when considering the impacts on 13 the transfer of waste alone (EIS Section 4.10.2). The use of an alternate source for the cover 14 material (Alternative 1B) would be similar to the proposed action activities, but would be 15 temporary, minimal, and only visible in areas immediately adjacent to the Jetty Area. Therefore, 16 the NRC staff determined that the overall impacts to visual and scenic resources from 17 Alternative 1B would remain MODERATE.
18 As part of the reclamation process of the NECR Mine Site following the closure phase of the 19 proposed project, radiological surveys would be conducted to ensure compliance with all 20 applicable EPA regulations, the ground surface would be recontoured to minimize soil erosion 21 and encourage establishment of native vegetation, and the land would be released for 22 unrestricted use. These activities would all have fewer visual and scenic impacts than the 23 proposed action due to the use of fewer vehicles and heavy equipment. The reclamation of the 24 NECR Mine Site would result in the release of 24 ha [60 ac] of Navajo land and would thereby 25 increase the land available for grazing or site occupation (i.e., habitation). The proposed action 26 would return the NECR Mine Site land surface closer to its pre-mining elevation. This would 27 have a notable impact on visual and scenic resources for the nearby residents of Red Water 28 Pond Road but minimal for the casual observer.
29 Reclamation and long-term surveillance activities at the UNC Mill Site following the closure 30 phase of the proposed project would include activities identified in UNCs reclamation plan and 31 the continuation of groundwater restoration. Additional activities included in site reclamation 32 would include revegetation of disturbed areas with a seeding mix similar to the native vegetation 33 community (Stantec, 2019). The NRC staff anticipates that the reclamation and long-term 34 surveillance activities at the UNC Mill Site following the closure phase of proposed action as 35 described in EIS Section 2.2.1.8 would have minimal visual and scenic resource impacts 36 compared to the proposed action because there would be less use of heavy equipment and less 37 traffic. Over the longer term, UNC would complete remaining reclamation activities and 38 ultimately transfer the facility to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government (DOE) or the 39 State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance. This means that residential and industrial use 40 of the UNC Mill Site would be prohibited, and grazing uses would be restricted. The visual and 41 scenic impacts associated with the reclamation and long-term surveillance at the UNC Mill site 42 would have negligible impacts to the casual observer but might have a more notable impact on 43 the Red Water Pond Road Community due to their proximity and the nature of the Navajo 44 Nations cultural and religious connection to the land.
45 At the Quivira Mine Site, located immediately north of the Red Water Pond Road Community and 46 the NECR Mine Site, the EPA is administering site cleanup. As described in EIS Section 5.1.1, 47 cleanup efforts have included the removal of over 18,144 metric tons [20,000 tons] of 48 contaminated soil from residential areas and 7,650 m3 [10,000 yd3] from grazing areas. This 5-41
 
1 material was placed back on the Quivira Mine Site waste pile and stabilized (EPA, 2018d).
2 Additional activities included the repair of fencing to maintain access restrictions and 3 infrastructure repair. These activities were visible to the residents of the Red Water Pond Road 4 Community; however, the activities were temporary and have been completed. EPA is currently 5 evaluating cleanup options and anticipates beginning additional efforts in 2022. The NRC staff 6 assume that any additional cleanup at the Quivira Mine Site would include activities similar to 7 those of the proposed action. Depending on what activities are implemented and during what 8 timeframe, cleanup activities and the proposed action may overlap. For the nearby residents of 9 the Red Water Pond Road Community, the remediation at the Quivira Mine Site might have a 10 notable impact on visual and scenic resources.
11 The site of the NRC-licensed (but not constructed) Crownpoint satellite facility is approximately 12 4 km [2.5 mi] southwest of the proposed UNC Mill Site. The NRC staff anticipates that, should 13 the facility begin construction and operation, the buildings and facilities constructed for the 14 project would generally be minor in scale, temporary, and if proposed mitigations were 15 implemented (such as not disturbing juniper or pinion pine trees), visual impacts would be 16 minimal (NRC, 1997; NRC, 2016). Furthermore, the site of the Crownpoint satellite facility 17 currently has surface disturbances but no associated facilities.
18 Due to the BLM VRM Class IV classification, the potential for temporary yet moderately-scaled 19 activities directly next to the nearest residents, the nature of the Din&#xe9; peoples cultural and 20 religious connection to the land, and the potential for overlapping earthmoving activities among 21 various projects, the NRC staff concludes that the incremental MODERATE impact from the 22 proposed action, or impacts associated with Alternatives 1A or 1B, when added to the 23 MODERATE impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 24 result in a MODERATE overall cumulative impact to visual and scenic resources.
25 5.11    Socioeconomics 26 The description of the affected environment in EIS Section 3.11 serves as a baseline for the 27 cumulative impacts assessment in this resource area. The region of influence (ROI) for the 28 cumulative socioeconomic analysis is the same as that described in EIS Chapters 3 and 4, which 29 is McKinley County, New Mexico. This geographic study area was chosen because the NRC 30 staff does not expect socioeconomic impacts from the proposed action or cumulative impacts to 31 occur outside of this area. The same socioeconomic indicators that were considered in the 32 NRCs analysis in EIS Chapter 4 are considered as part of this analysis: (i) demography 33 (i.e., population characteristics), (ii) employment structure and personal income, (iii) housing, 34 (iv) local finance, and (v) community services. The NRC staffs assessment of the projects 35 effect on socioeconomics in McKinley County concluded that the project would have a SMALL 36 impact on socioeconomics. The timeframe for this cumulative impacts analysis for 37 socioeconomics resources is from 2019 to 2030, which encompasses the estimated timeframe 38 when the license amendment could be granted and the proposed duration of the project activities 39 and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as described in EIS 40 Section 5.1.1.
41 As discussed in EIS Section 5.1.1, there are a number of legacy uranium mining and milling 42 sites, active and inactive coal and scoria mining, numerous active and abandoned (i.e., plugged) 43 oil and gas wells, increased housing developments and urbanization near Gallup, infrastructure 44 improvements, and recreational activities, all within 80 km [50 mi] of the UNC Mill Site. All of the 45 activity types discussed in EIS Section 5.1.1 occur within McKinley County; however, there is 46 one active oil well in Arizona; two coal mines in San Juan County that have been permanently 5-42
 
1 closed, reclaimed, and released (EMNRD, 2019); and two former uranium mines and a planned 2 wastewater facility in Cibola County, all of which occur outside of McKinley County and, 3 therefore, these are not evaluated as part of this socioeconomic analysis.
4 If the reasonably foreseeable future actions described in EIS Section 5.1.1 are implemented 5 within the ROI (McKinley County), workers would be needed to build and operate these facilities.
6 Cumulative impacts that could result from activities described in EIS Section 5.1.1 include an 7 increased population, changes in demographics, an increase in income and tax revenues, a 8 higher employment rate, and a higher demand on housing, education, and health and social 9 services. It is likely that any additional workers that would be hired as a result of reasonably 10 foreseeable future actions, such as construction of housing and utilities or cleanup of mines, 11 would desire to live closer to their places of employment and become active in their communities.
12 Impacts to socioeconomic and community resources are primarily associated with workers who 13 might move into an area and generate tax revenues, which would influence resource availability 14 for the community (EIS Section 4.11.1.1). The NRC staff anticipates that the communities of 15 Gallup and Church Rock, New Mexico would experience the largest growth in the future due to 16 commercial presence, housing availability, and the location of major transportation routes in 17 those communities (i.e., I-40 and NM 566). The NRC staff reported in EIS Section 3.11.1 that 18 between 2000 and 2010, the population of McKinley County declined by approximately 19 0.5 percent or about 3,300 people (NNMCG, 2012). However, based on data that most closely 20 represents the cumulative analysis timeframe from 2019 to 2030, the population in McKinley 21 County is projected to grow by approximately 8,000 (2019 population estimate and 3030 22 population projections) (USCB, 2019; Architectural Research Consultants, 2016). Based on the 23 current estimates, the NRC staff assumes that the civilian labor force would be about 44 percent 24 of the population in McKinley County (USCB, 2018). The NRC staff considered the past and 25 future population trends within McKinley County and concludes that past population fluctuations 26 are similar in scale to near-term future population estimates. Based on the similarity of future 27 projections to past trends, the NRC staff determines that impacts from ongoing and reasonably 28 foreseeable future actions on population in the ROI would be SMALL.
29 Housing would be required to accommodate workers needed for the ongoing and reasonably 30 foreseeable future actions. Smaller communities in the ROI, such as Church Rock, could 31 experience limited housing availability. Assuming, however, that new employees and their 32 families relocate to a larger community such as Gallup, there would be adequate housing to 33 absorb the influx of facility workers from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
34 Between the period of 2014 to 2018, the housing vacancy in McKinley County was approximately 35 22.6 percent (Economic Profile System, 2020). The NRC staff assumes that, based on the 36 activities described in EIS Section 5.1.1 and the overall population projections for the county 37 described above, the number of workers and their families that move into the McKinley County 38 would be less than the vacant housing units available in McKinley County (Economic Profile 39 System, 2020). Therefore, the cumulative impact on housing from ongoing and reasonably 40 foreseeable future actions in the ROI would be SMALL.
41 Tax revenue from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would accrue mainly 42 on the State level, then the State distributes the counties and municipalities portions to them 43 (EIS Section 3.11.4). Because of the structure of the tax system, taxes may not accrue or be 44 distributed to the localities proportionately to their population or public service needs. The tax 45 system in place helps capture tax revenue during construction, operation, and decommissioning 46 of industrial facilities. Indirectly, counties and municipalities would benefit from increased sales 47 and property tax revenue resulting from increases in population and the associated demand for 48 goods, services, and housing. Most present or reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as 5-43
 
1 solar energy, mining and oil and gas projects, and urbanization projects described in EIS 2 Section 5.1.1, are similar to activities that have occurred in McKinley County for decades.
3 Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that if the projects described in EIS Section 5.1.1 within the 4 ROI (McKinley County) are constructed and operated, there would be a SMALL and beneficial 5 cumulative impact on local finance.
6 In McKinley County, there may be incremental impacts to local government facilities and public 7 services as population increases in communities where new county residents choose to live.
8 This could result in across-the-board increases in the demand on services such as law 9 enforcement, fire protection, schools, and health care. The NRC staff assumes that the 10 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area would require additional employees to 11 complete those projects. An increase of employees projected for reasonably foreseeable future 12 actions in the study area could result in additional service needs, and thus impacts, on local 13 government facilities, schools, and public services. The existing medical and emergency 14 facilities, schools, and public utilities, as described in EIS Section 3.11.5, are sufficient for the 15 present population, taking into account recent and projected fluctuations. EIS Section 5.1.1.5 16 states that McKinley County was awarded over $41.5 million by the New Mexico Legislature 17 in April 2019 for planned projects, including the construction of the Din&#xe9; College, road 18 improvements, veteran and senior centers, and police stations, which would adequately support 19 population increases (EIS Section 5.1.1.5). The NRC staff determines that the local 20 governments and municipalities within the study area would be capable of providing support for a 21 modest increase in population in the ROI (McKinley County) as a result of ongoing and future 22 actions. The NRC staff concludes that the associated cumulative impacts on services, such as 23 law enforcement, fire protection, schools, and health care, would be SMALL.
24 EIS Section 1.1.3 states that, for many generations, members of the Navajo Nation and the Red 25 Water Pond Road Community raised livestock and have used native plants for food, medicinal 26 and ceremonial use, and livestock grazing (Bell et al., 2019). The Navajo people relied on 27 livestock herds for economic benefit, including marketing of the wool from livestock both as a raw 28 material and as woven goods. In the proposed project areas, grazing occurred on the NECR 29 Mine Site and the UNC Mill Site before mining and milling activities started. Changes in grazing 30 imposed by the U.S. government in 1937 restricted the number of animals the Navajo could 31 cultivate (Bell et al., 2019). These past actions led to significant reduction in the economic 32 activity of the Navajo Nation and altered the socioeconomic structure of the Tribe.
33 As described in EIS Section 4.11.1, the NRC staff determined that socioeconomic impacts from 34 the proposed action (i.e., construction, transfer of mine waste, and closure of the proposed 35 disposal site) would include the addition of up to 40 workers, and that up to 12 of the 40 workers 36 that would move into the Gallup area would bring 4-person families (a total of 48 new people),
37 including 12 school-aged children, to reside in McKinley County. The NRC staff concluded that 38 an increase of 48 people in McKinley County would change the population of the county by less 39 than 0.1 percent, which would have a SMALL impact on employment and income within the ROI 40 and a SMALL and beneficial impact on local finances, based on EPAs cost estimates. The NRC 41 staff also determined that the impacts on housing, education, health, and other community 42 services from the proposed action, or from Alternatives 1A and 1B, would be SMALL.
43 Based on the analysis above, the NRC staff anticipates that there would be a rise and fall of 44 population in the ROI in the future, and these population changes would result in SMALL 45 socioeconomic impacts to employment and income, population, local finance, housing, school 46 enrollment, and utilities and public services. Although the degree of financial impacts from past, 47 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions depends on local economic activity, which 5-44
 
1 the NRC staff cannot predict with certainty, the NRC staff anticipates that the past, present and 2 reasonably foreseeable future actions would not appreciably affect the overall socioeconomic 3 characteristics of the area (i.e., expenditures, tax revenues, demand for housing, public utilities, 4 and public services). However, some past actions led to significant reduction in the economic 5 activity of the Navajo Nation and altered the socioeconomic structure of the Tribe. For example, 6 some members of the Navajo nation relied on livestock herds for economic benefit before mining 7 and milling started. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the SMALL incremental impacts of 8 the proposed action, or impacts associated with the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) or 9 sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B), when combined with the SMALL to 10 MODERATE impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 11 result in overall MODERATE cumulative impacts to socioeconomics.
12 5.12    Environmental Justice 13 EIS Section 3.11.1.2 explains that the NRC staff anticipates that the majority of workers and their 14 families would live in or near Gallup, New Mexico, which is within 32.2 km [20 mi] of the 15 proposed project area. Thus, the NRC staff considers a radius of approximately 32.2 km [20 mi]
16 from the center of the project area to be an adequate area for assessment of environmental 17 justice impacts from the proposed project. However, for consistency with the socioeconomic 18 study area established in EIS Section 3.11, the NRC staff determined that the environmental 19 justice study area should include all of McKinley County, New Mexico. For this cumulative 20 impact analysis on environmental justice, the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 21 actions within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the UNC Mill Site described in EIS Section 5.1 are 22 considered, as well as the demographics of the 53 block groups within McKinley County. The 23 timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to environmental justice is 2019 to 2030, 24 which encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license amendment could be granted 25 and the proposed duration of the project activities and other past, present, and reasonably 26 foreseeable future actions as described in EIS Section 5.1.1.
27 Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 28 impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 29 when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 30 population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 31 another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental effects refer to 32 impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a minority or low-income 33 community that are significant and appreciably exceed the environmental impact on the larger 34 community. Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts, and these 35 potential effects have been evaluated in resource areas presented in EIS Chapter 4.
36 The majority of the block groups in McKinley County (48 out of 53) have significant populations 37 of American Indians and Alaskan Natives, in addition to a smaller percentage of block groups 38 (9 out of 53) with significant populations of Hispanic ethnicity (EIS Table 3.11-2). Just under half 39 of the block groups in McKinley County have populations identified by the NRC staff as 40 low-income families and individuals (EIS Table 3.11-3). Because the areas outside McKinley 41 County include portions of the Navajo Nation and Zuni Reservations, and the communities are 42 no larger than Gallup, the block groups within the 80 km [50-mi] study area of the UNC Mill Site 43 that are outside McKinley County are similar to populations within McKinley County. As 44 described in EIS Section 4.12.1, after reviewing the information presented in the license 45 amendment request and associated documentation, considering the information presented 46 throughout EIS Chapters 1 through 4, and considering any special pathways through which 47 environmental justice populations could be more affected or affected differently from other 5-45
 
1 segments of the general population, the NRC staff identified high and adverse environmental 2 impacts and concluded that disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts (but not 3 human health impacts) on environmental justice populations would occur as a result of the 4 proposed action (modification of the UNC Mill Site tailings impoundment, transfer of NECR mine 5 waste, and closure of the proposed disposal site). The same minority and low-income 6 populations would be affected if UNC used the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) or used the 7 alternate source material from the Jetty Area for the ET cover (Alternative 1B) compared to the 8 proposed action; thus, there would also be disproportionately high and adverse environmental 9 impacts (but not human health impacts) on environmental justice populations from the use of 10 Alternative 1A or Alternative 1B (EIS Section 4.12.2).
11 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in EIS Section 5.1.1 could 12 potentially contribute to cumulative disproportionately high and adverse human health or 13 environmental effects in McKinley County, the environmental justice study area. Actions within 14 this area that could contribute additional environmental justice impacts during the cumulative 15 impacts timeframe include the UNC Mill Site reclamation, the NECR Mine Site remediation, and 16 the potential construction or operation activities at the nearby Crownpoint uranium recovery 17 satellite site. Future site remediation actions at the nearby Quivira Mine Site have the potential 18 to generate additional impacts depending on the removal action alternatives that are selected 19 once EPA completes their engineering and cost analysis. In the past, these facilities have 20 deposited radiologically contaminated soil and groundwater in the region and are in various 21 stages of remediation. NRC-licensed sites have undergone license reviews, are required to 22 meet NRC safety regulations under 10 CFR Part 20 and technical criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, 23 Appendix A, and in some cases, are involved with EPA-required CERCLA actions. However, it is 24 possible an individual that routinely spends time at different locations within the region could be 25 exposed to low levels of radiation from more than one facility over the course of a year. As 26 described in EIS Section 5.13, the NRC staff found that, because of the distance of uranium 27 mines from the UNC Church Rock project, these projects would not add to the radiation in the 28 immediate vicinity of the proposed project area, with the exception of the NECR Mine and the 29 Quivira Mines. Dose estimates for the Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility (licensed 30 but not constructed) were evaluated in EIS Section 5.13 and were low. The NECR Mine and 31 Quivira Mine are less than 3.2 km [2 mi] from the UNC Mill Site and therefore could have 32 site-specific impacts on environmental justice populations. As described in EIS Section 5.13, 33 these sites have included contaminated areas in the past where the threat to public health and 34 safety would have been characterized as a LARGE environmental impact, but that was reduced 35 to a MODERATE impact after EPA completed time-critical removal actions under CERCLA.
36 Further impacts from each of these sites is discussed next.
37 For the current remediation of the NECR Mine Site, the UNC Radiation Protection Plan was 38 found to comply with NRC standards for protection against radiation at 10 CFR Part 20, 39 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements at 29 CFR 1910.1096 40 for exposure to ionizing radiation, and New Mexico standards for protection against radiation at 41 New Mexico Administrative Code 20.3.4. UNCs proposed revision to its Radiation Protection 42 Plan is currently undergoing NRC review, and it will be approved if it meets applicable 43 requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the radiological exposures to workers 44 and the public from the NECR Mine Site remediation activities would be maintained as low as 45 reasonably achievable (ALARA) and within NRC standards in 10 CFR Part 20 and the EPA 46 health, safety, and environmental protection requirements applicable to a CERCLA removal 47 action. Therefore, the impacts would be similar to the proposed action impacts evaluated in this 48 EIS because many of the activities associated with the remediation of the NECR Mine Site have 49 been included in the proposed action impact analyses (e.g., excavation, stockpiling, loading, and 5-46
 
1 transfer operations). The NRC staff also assumes that because the Quivira Mine Site is part of 2 the EPAs CERCLA program, similar radiation protection plans and mitigations described for the 3 NECR Mine Site would be implemented at the Quivira Mine Site when EPAs selected remedy is 4 implemented. Therefore, the environmental justice population surrounding the Quivira Mine, 5 which is essentially the same as for the proposed action, would be similarly affected 6 (i.e., disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on any environmental justice 7 populations would exist from the construction-like activities of an EPA CERCLA remedy at the 8 Quivira Mine Site).
9 Another foreseeable future action is the reclamation and long-term surveillance of the UNC Mill 10 Site. After the closure phase of the proposed action evaluated in EIS Chapter 4, the NECR mine 11 waste would be contained in the proposed disposal site, thereby mitigating the associated 12 hazards to workers and the public during the long-term surveillance period. Remaining activities 13 to be completed, primarily monitoring and continued corrective action activities, would continue 14 to be conducted safely in accordance with UNCs modified NRC license. The NRC staff expects 15 that the public and occupational health hazards associated with long-term surveillance at the 16 UNC mill tailings impoundment would further diminish until the NRC license is terminated and, 17 therefore, the NRC staff expects that there would not be disproportionately high and adverse 18 human health or environmental effects to any population, including low-income or minority 19 populations, after the closure phase of the proposed action.
20 Several other activities outlined in EIS Section 5.1.1 were considered regarding environmental 21 justice cumulative impacts. Housing and urban development projects would occur near 22 populated areas where land disturbances and man-made impacts on environmental resources 23 are present. Development of solar energy projects are associated with long-term disturbances 24 such as access roads, support facilities, and panel foundations. The NRC staff anticipates that 25 all of these activities would continue to operate according to their Federal, State, and local 26 license requirements and would not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health or 27 environmental effects on minority or low-income populations compared to other segments of the 28 general population. Other existing and reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as 29 recreational activities, are not expected to contribute to cumulative disproportionately high and 30 adverse human health or environmental effects to any population, including low-income or 31 minority populations.
32 The Navajo Nation is concerned with the human health effects of long-term exposure to radiation 33 from mine wastes. While certain Tribal groups, especially the local communities of the Navajo 34 Nation, have a heightened interest in cultural resources potentially affected by the proposed 35 project and other nuclear facilities in the study area, the impacts to tangible cultural resources in 36 this and other areas is not expected to be disproportionately high or adverse. The licensee 37 would adhere to an inadvertent discovery plan regarding the discovery of previously 38 undocumented historic and cultural resources during the project lifetime. These procedures 39 would entail the stoppage of work and the notification of appropriate parties (Federal, Tribal, and 40 State agencies). As stated in EIS Sections 1.1.3, 4.1, and 4.12, the NRC staff recognizes that 41 there may also be intangible impacts felt by the Navajo Nation and the Red Water Pond Road 42 Community that may not be fully captured in this EIS, and that there are mitigative actions that 43 could limit environmental justice impacts.
44 The NRC staff determined in the Public and Occupational Health and Safety sections of this EIS 45 (Sections 3.12 and 4.13) that the level of potential nonradiological impacts and radiological 46 doses to the public from the proposed action would be within NRC regulatory limits and 47 applicable Federal, State, and local regulatory limits. Different segments of the population, 5-47
 
1 including minority or low-income populations, would not be affected differently by accident events 2 associated with design failures, storm events, or other natural phenomenon. In addition, 3 accident events do not yield any pathways that could lead to adverse impacts on human health 4 to minority or low-income populations. The NRC staff determined in EIS Section 5.13 that other 5 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would have temporary LARGE 6 cumulative impacts to public health, which would decrease to SMALL overall cumulative impacts 7 to public and occupational health once the remaining EPA CERCLA actions in the study area 8 have been completed.
9 In summary, the environmental justice cumulative impact analysis assesses the potential for 10 disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and 11 low-income populations that could result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 12 actions, including the proposed action, or impacts associated with the conveyor alternative 13 (Alternative 1A) and sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B). As 14 summarized in EIS Table 5.1-1, the NRC staff finds that the impacts from the proposed action, or 15 impacts associated with the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) or sourcing cover material from 16 the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B), when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 17 future actions, would result in MODERATE cumulative impacts for most resources evaluated in 18 this EIS, SMALL for waste management, and LARGE for historical and cultural resources and 19 groundwater. There would be temporary LARGE impacts to public health that would decrease to 20 SMALL once the remaining EPA CERCLA actions in the area have been completed. Based on 21 the analysis in this section and throughout this EIS, the NRC staff determines that there would be 22 disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts (but not human health impacts) on 23 environmental justice populations from the proposed action or the conveyor alternative 24 (Alternative 1A) or sourcing cover material from the Jetty Area (Alternative 1B); and that there 25 are and would most likely continue to be disproportionately high and adverse cumulative impacts 26 on environmental justice communities from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 27 actions in McKinley County evaluated as part of this analysis.
28 5.13    Public and Occupational Health 29 Cumulative impacts to public and occupational health were evaluated within a 5-km [3.1-mi]
30 radius of the proposed project area. This region was chosen based on the limited extent of 31 potential health hazards associated with the proposed action as well as other actions in the area 32 and to include areas close to the proposed project area that could be most directly impacted by 33 proposed activities. This encompasses the neighborhoods to the north of and downwind from 34 the proposed project area and that would be close to proposed activities. The study area also 35 includes other nearby sites or activities that could contribute to cumulative effects. The 36 short-term timeframe for the analysis is 2019 to 2030, which encompasses the estimated 37 timeframe when the license amendment could be granted and the proposed duration of the 38 project activities and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as described 39 in EIS Section 5.1.1. An additional consideration of the potential for long-term cumulative 40 impacts to public health over a timeframe of 1,000 years (EIS Section 5.1.2) is included in this 41 impact analysis. The cumulative impacts on transportation and air quality that include impacts 42 related to public health are addressed in EIS Sections 5.3 and 5.7, respectively.
43 The public and occupational health impacts from the proposed action for all phases and 44 alternatives were evaluated by the NRC staff in EIS Section 4.13 and found to be SMALL.
45 Proposed activities would be conducted in accordance with the UNC Health and Safety Plan and 46 associated Radiation Protection Plan described in EIS Section 4.13.1.1, which apply to both 47 normal and off-normal conditions. The UNC Radiation Protection Plan was developed to 5-48
 
1 address the potential pathways for exposure to radiation applicable to the proposed action and 2 maintain radiological exposures to workers and the public from the proposed action ALARA and 3 within NRC standards in 10 CFR Part 20. The potential nonradiological impacts to workers 4 would be associated with typical construction hazards and the potential for exposures to 5 hazardous substances. The aforementioned UNC Health and Safety Plan was developed to 6 address applicable OSHA standards for worker safety as well as the potential nonradiological 7 impacts to public health and safety from proposed activities. Based on the post-closure 8 considerations provided in EIS Section 4.13.1.3, the NRC staff concluded that the potential 9 environmental impacts to public health associated with the modified tailings impoundments 10 long-term performance would be SMALL.
11 Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including other uranium mining 12 and milling related projects or actions within the region, are described in EIS Section 5.1.1.1.
13 Actions within the 5-km [3.1-mi] radius that could contribute additional public health impacts 14 during the cumulative impacts timeframe include the UNC Mill Site reclamation, the NECR Mine 15 Site remediation, and the potential construction or operation activities at the nearby Crownpoint 16 uranium recovery satellite site. Future site remediation actions at the nearby Quivira Mine Site 17 have the potential to generate additional public health impacts depending on the removal action 18 alternatives that are selected once EPA completes their engineering and cost analysis.
19 However, until that occurs, the remediation plans for that site and the associated potential 20 impacts remain uncertain. No other activities in the region were identified that could cause public 21 health impacts that would overlap and accumulate with the proposed action impacts. Based on 22 their proximity to the proposed activities or their magnitude, the other actions occurring in the 23 region (i.e., the uranium milling projects in the Grants area, other mining or oil and gas 24 production, housing and infrastructure developments, energy projects, or recreational activities) 25 are not expected to significantly affect public health impacts at the same locations where project 26 impacts were identified due to the geographic distance of these other actions from the proposed 27 project area. Occupational safety-related impacts (e.g., injuries and fatalities) pertain to 28 individual worker and workplace risks that are not considered to be cumulative in nature, 29 whereas annual occupational radiation exposures are cumulative but are monitored and limited 30 by regulation, regardless of workplace. Therefore, the focus of the remaining analysis of the 31 impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is on the public health 32 impacts from the UNC Mill Site reclamation, the Quivira Mine Site and NECR Mine Site 33 remediations, and the potential Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility.
34 Completing the remaining actions associated with the reclamation of the UNC Mill Site would 35 have potential impacts to public health. This includes completing the reclamation of the two 36 evaporation ponds and closing out the groundwater corrective actions at the UNC Mill Site.
37 These activities would be conducted under NRC and EPA oversight and in accordance with an 38 approved reclamation plan and therefore would not be expected to lead to any adverse public 39 health impacts. Because these activities are associated with reclamation, upon completion, they 40 would be expected to have beneficial impacts to public health by satisfactorily addressing a 41 potential threat to public health in accordance with existing safety and environmental standards.
42 Therefore, the potential incremental contribution of completing the remaining UNC Mill Site 43 reclamation to public health impacts would be minor.
44 Concerning the NECR Mine Site and the Quivira Mine Site, EPA had made determinations that 45 some areas of onsite contamination from historic mining operations were an immediate threat 46 to public health and safety under CERCLA, requiring time-critical (prompt) removal of 47 contamination. These areas have since been addressed. For other areas, the EPA determined 48 that a potential long-term threat to public health and safety exists under CERCLA, and these 5-49
 
1 areas require non-time-critical removal of contamination (EPA, 2011). The NRC staff concludes 2 that the threat to public health and safety is a major environmental impact (i.e., an exceedance of 3 a health-based standard) based on the continued presence of long-term (non-time-critical) health 4 and safety concerns. Completing the EPA non-time-critical CERCLA removal action and 5 associated remediation of the NECR Mine Site, as well as the pending CERCLA action at the 6 Quivira Mine Site, could result in potential temporary adverse impacts to public and occupational 7 health (e.g., proximity to radioactive materials or resuspension of dust). These impacts would be 8 mitigated by following the documented health and safety plans described in EIS Section 4.13 for 9 the NECR Mine Site and health and safety plans acceptable to EPA for the Quivira Mine Site.
10 The future completion of the NECR Mine Site and Quivira Mine Site remediations would have 11 long-term beneficial impacts from applying the EPA CERCLA process to address the identified 12 threats to public health and the environment.
13 Public health impacts could also occur from the licensed but not constructed Crownpoint uranium 14 recovery satellite facility located approximately 4.0 km [2.5 mi] southwest of the UNC Mill Site if 15 the proposed facility were constructed and operated within the timeframe of the cumulative 16 effects analysis. Because the facility has not been constructed since NRC granted the license in 17 1998, there is uncertainty whether the status would change within the period of analysis.
18 However, the potential public health impacts are evaluated here for completeness. The 19 environmental impacts of the previously proposed Crownpoint facilities were documented in a 20 1997 NRC EIS (NRC, 1997). That EIS included a modeling analysis of potential air releases for 21 operations at the proposed Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility. Airborne 22 concentrations of radon and decay products and the associated public doses at the site 23 boundary and nearest downwind residence were calculated and found to be well below NRC 24 standards. The nearest resident dose was 0.5 percent and 7.6 percent of the NRC limit, with 25 and without the emissions controls, respectively, or 2.5 and 38 &#xb5;Sv [0.25 and 3.8 mrem],
26 respectively. Because the nearest resident to the Crownpoint satellite was approximately 0.5 km 27 [0.3 mi] downwind of that site, the doses near the proposed UNC Mill Site project area (an 28 additional 3.5 km away) would be much lower, and therefore would not add significantly to the 29 cumulative impacts for this proposed action. Therefore, the overlapping public health impact 30 from operating the Crownpoint uranium recovery satellite facility, if the licensee acts to construct 31 and operate the facility within the timeframe of the cumulative impact analysis, would be minor.
32 Beyond closure of the disposal site, the potential for long-term impacts to public health would be 33 addressed by the combined effect of the NRC and EPA approvals of those aspects of the 34 proposed action that fall within their respective authorities that are important to long-term 35 performance of the tailings impoundment and the added disposal site (EIS Section 4.1, 36 Post-Closure Considerations). After reclamation of the UNC Mill Site is completed and the 37 license is terminated, the UNC Mill Site would be maintained and managed by the custodial 38 agency pursuant to an NRC general license in 10 CFR 40.28 to provide for the continued safe 39 isolation of the tailings (EIS Section 2.2.1.8) and EPA oversight under CERCLA to maintain 40 long-term effectiveness of the remedy (EPA, 2013). Based on the post-closure considerations 41 provided in EIS Section 4.5.1.3, the NRC staff concluded that the potential environmental 42 impacts to public health associated with the modified tailings impoundments long-term 43 performance would be SMALL. While no comparable tailings or disposal sites exist within the 44 geographic area of interest, should additional sites be developed in the future during the 45 long-term timeframe, the NRC staff expect that the sites would be subject to similar regulatory 46 controls, thereby limiting the potential for long-term cumulative impacts.
47 As described in the preceding analysis, the estimates of the public health impacts from other 48 actions in the study area represent a small contribution to the public health impacts in the study 5-50
 
1 area. Considering the potential impacts to public and occupational health for the proposed 2 action and the estimated public health impacts from other past, present, and reasonably 3 foreseeable future actions, the cumulative public and occupational health impacts would not 4 significantly change from the impacts already evaluated for the proposed action and would not 5 change the NRC staff impact conclusions that were evaluated for the proposed action.
6 Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the incremental SMALL impact of the proposed action 7 during all phases, or impacts associated with Alternatives 1A or 1B, when added to the 8 temporary LARGE impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 9 would result in an overall LARGE cumulative impact. These LARGE impacts would decrease to 10 SMALL impacts to public and occupational health once the remaining EPA CERCLA actions in 11 the area have been completed, resulting in an overall SMALL cumulative impact.
12 5.14 Waste Management 13 This section evaluates the effects of the proposed project on the capacity and operating lifespan 14 of waste-management facilities when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and 15 reasonably foreseeable future actions. The NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts for waste 16 management resources within a geographic scope of analysis of an 80-km [50-mi] radius around 17 the proposed project area. This geographic scope includes the projects and activities discussed 18 in EIS Section 5.1.1 that are anticipated to dispose of waste at the same waste management 19 facilities identified in EIS Sections 3.13 and 4.14, or other nearby facilities. The timeframe for the 20 analysis is 2019 to 2030, which encompasses the estimated timeframe when the license 21 amendment could be granted and the proposed duration of the proposed project activities and 22 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions as described in EIS Section 5.1.1.
23 As discussed in EIS Section 4.14.1, the NRC staff considers the amount of nonhazardous solid 24 waste, hazardous waste, and liquid sanitary waste to be negligible based on the nature of the 25 proposed project, the waste volumes relative to typical generators of these wastes, and the 26 capacity of the available facilities to dispose of such wastes. As discussed in EIS Section 4.14, 27 for the construction, transfer, and closure phases of the proposed action, including under 28 Alternatives 1A (conveyor) and 1B (material sourcing), due to limited amounts of waste 29 generated for all waste types anticipated from the project activities, the NRC staff determined 30 that the impact to waste management facilities would be SMALL.
31 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the region of the proposed project are 32 described in EIS Section 5.1.1. Activities within this area that could contribute additional waste 33 management impacts during the cumulative impacts timeframe include the UNC Mill Site 34 reclamation and long-term surveillance, the NECR Mine Site remediation, and the potential 35 construction or operation activities at the nearby Crownpoint uranium recovery project, as well as 36 ongoing and planned mining and oil and gas projects. Additional activities that could contribute 37 to cumulative waste generated within the geographic scope of analysis include possible future 38 remediation actions at the nearby Quivira Mine Site, ongoing housing development and 39 urbanization, potential wind and solar power projects, and recreation. Because many of these 40 types of projects and activities are either passive facilities without significant waste streams 41 (e.g., solar and wind facilities and recreational areas) or do not typically involve significant 42 demolition or a large influx of workers, the NRC staff does not anticipate that these activities 43 would contribute significant quantities of waste (i.e., nonhazardous, hazardous, and sanitary) 44 such that disposal capacity within the geographic scope would diminish. Cleanup activities 45 related to the NECR Mine Site, reclamation of the UNC Mill Site, and potential future 46 development of the licensed (but not constructed) Crownpoint uranium recovery project would be 47 subject to appropriate oversight and applicable Federal and State regulations for waste streams.
5-51
 
1 If the past and present actions described in EIS Section 5.1.1 continue, waste streams produced 2 as a result of these ongoing activities would continue to be disposed at facilities within and 3 beyond the region of the proposed project. As described in EIS Section 4.14, the existing landfill 4 (i.e. Northwest New Mexico Regional Solid Waste Authoritys Red Rock Landfill) and the City of 5 Gallup Wastewater Treatment Plant have ample capacity for nonhazardous, hazardous, and 6 sanitary waste management. Based on the aforementioned characteristics of activities within the 7 geographic scope of analysis, the limited quantities of nonhazardous waste, hazardous waste, 8 and sanitary waste generated as a result of these activities, and the capacity for waste 9 management in the area, the NRC staff determines that the cumulative impacts of other past, 10 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geographic scope of the analysis 11 are minor.
12 Based on the preceding assessment, the NRC staff has determined that the cumulative impacts 13 on waste management facilities in the geographic scope of the analysis resulting from other past, 14 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be SMALL. Negligible quantities of 15 nonhazardous waste, hazardous waste, and sanitary waste that would be produced from the 16 proposed action would not significantly add to the quantities of wastes generated by the past, 17 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the geographic area of analysis. Thus, the 18 NRC staff concludes that the incremental SMALL impacts from the proposed action on waste 19 management resources within the geographic scope of analysis, or impacts associated with 20 Alternatives 1A or 1B, when added to the SMALL cumulative impacts on waste management 21 resources resulting from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would 22 result in an overall SMALL cumulative impact.
23 5.15    References 24 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. Standards for 25 Protection Against Radiation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
26 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 27 Appendix A. Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 28 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 29 Processed Primarily for their Source Material Content. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 30 Printing Office.
31 10 CFR 40.28. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, &sect; 40.28. General license for 32 custody and long-term care of uranium or thorium byproduct materials disposal sites.
33 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
34 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. Environmental 35 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions. Washington, 36 DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
37 29 CFR 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910. Occupational Safety 38 and Health Standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
39 40 CFR 1508.7. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, &sect; 1508.7.
40 Chapter V - Council on Environmental Quality Part 1508 - Terminology and Index.
41 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5-52
 
1 74 FR 66496. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 239, p 66,496-66,546. Endangerment and Cause 2 or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
3 December 2009.
4 Architectural Research Consultants. City of Gallup Growth Management Master Plan Update.
5 Gallup, New Mexico: Architectural Research Consultants, Incorporated. 9 February 2016.
6 <https://www.gallupnm.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1211/2016-Growth-Management-Master-7 Plan-Update-Final?bidId=> (Accessed 19 June 2019) 8 AWEA. New Mexico Takes Bold Step Toward a Cleaner, Stronger 21st Century Economy.
9 Press Release. American Wind Energy Association. March 22, 2019.
10 <https://www.awea.org/resources/news/2018/wind-powers-forward-to-reach-30-percent-in-four-11 st> (Accessed 31 May 2019) 12 AWEA. Wind Powers Forward to Reach 30 Percent in Four States. Press Release. American 13 Wind Energy Association. April 17, 2018. <https://www.awea.org/resources/news/2018/wind-14 powers-forward-to-reach-30-percent-in-four-st> (Accessed 31 May 2019) 15 AZGS. Mining in Arizona. Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona, College of Science, 16 The Arizona Geological Survey. 2019. <https://azgs.arizona.edu/minerals/mining-arizona>
17 (Accessed 26 June 2019) 18 AZOGCC. Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Oil & Gas Viewer.
19 Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2019.
20 <http://welldata.azogcc.az.gov/> (Accessed 4 June 2020) 21 Bell, P., B. Bell, and E. Hood. Living with Uranium Wastes for 50 Years and Four Generations 22  A Navajo Communitys Perspective. Church Rock, New Mexico: Red Water Pond Road 23 Community Association. 2019.
24 BIA. Fluid Minerals/Oil & Gas. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian 25 Affairs, Indian Energy and Economic Development. 2019. <https://www.bia.gov/as-26 ia/ieed/division-energy-and-mineral-development/oil-natural-gas> (Accessed 4 June 2020) 27 BLM. Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness. Farmington, New Mexico: U.S. Department of the Interior, 28 Bureau of Land Management, Farmington Field Office. 2019.
29 <https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-conservation-lands/new-mexico/bisti-de-na-zin-30 wilderness> (Accessed 4 June 2020) 31 BLM. Farmington RMP: Mancos-Gallup Amendment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 32 of Land Management. June 2017. <https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-33 office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=renderDefaultPlanOrProjectSite&projectId 34 =68107> (Accessed 17 June 2019) 35 BLM. The Farmington Mancos-Gallup RMP Amendment/EIS Newsletter. Issue I. Farmington, 36 New Mexico: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. March 2014.
37 <https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-38 office/projects/lup/68107/133030/162635/Farmington_Mancos-39 Gallup_RMPA_EIS_Newsletter,_Issue_1.pdf> (Accessed 26 June 2019) 5-53
 
1 BLM. Farmington Resource Management Plan with Record of Decision. Farmington, 2 New Mexico: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. December 2003.
3 <https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/lup/64524/96667/116772/FDO_-_FFO_-
4 _2003_-_Farmington_RMP_and_ROD.pdf> (Accessed 3 June 2019) 5 CEQ. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. ADAMS 6 Accession No. ML12199A438. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
7 December 1997.
8 City of Gallup. Red Rock Park. Gallup, New Mexico: City of Gallup. 2019.
9 <https://www.gallupnm.gov/207/Red-Rock-Park-and-Museum> (Accessed 4 June 2020) 10 Department of Interior. Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, Planning Report and Final 11 Environmental Impact Statement. Grand Junction, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, 12 Bureau of Reclamation Western Colorado Area Office. July 2009.
13 <https://www.usbr.gov/uc/envdocs/eis/navgallup/FEIS/> (Accessed 29 July 2019) 14 DOE. United States - Wind Resource Map. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 15 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. May 6, 2009.
16 <https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/pdfs/windsmodel4pub1-1-9base200904enh.pdf>
17 (Accessed 18 June 2019) 18 Dwyer Engineering. Cover System Design Report, Northeast Church Rock Site Closure.
19 ADAMS Accession No. ML19315A009. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Dwyer Engineering, LLC.
20 October 13, 2019.
21 Economic Profile System. A Demographic Profile. Bozeman, Montana: Headwaters 22 Economics. May 2020.
23 EIA. Electric Power Monthly with Data for April 2019. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 24 Energy, U.S. Energy Information Administration. June 2019a.
25 <https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf> (Accessed 19 June 2019) 26 EIA. U.S. Energy Mapping System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 27 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2019b.
28 <https://www.eia.gov/state/maps.php?v=Renewable> (Accessed 22 June 2019) 29 EMNRD. Registered Mines in New Mexico. Santa Fe, New Mexico: State of New Mexico 30 Energy Conservation and Management Division, Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources 31 Department. 2019.
32 <http://nmemnrd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=6d4b64a5752f4b4bb5300 33 0e999ff6a24> (Accessed 21 June 2019) 34 EMNRD. New Mexico Clean Energy Map. Santa Fe, New Mexico: State of New Mexico 35 Energy Conservation and Management Division, Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources 36 Department. January 2017.
37 <http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ECMD/images/Clean%20Energy%20Project%20Map%202017C.
38 png> (Accessed 31 May 2019) 39 Energy Fuels. Roca Honda, New Mexico. Lakewood, Colorado: Energy Fuels Incorporated.
40 2019. <http://www.energyfuels.com/project/roca-honda/> (Accessed 26 June 2019) 5-54
 
1 EPA. Northeast Church Rock Mine Site Update. San Francisco, California: Environmental 2 Protection Agency Region 9. January 2020a. <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-3 01/documents/northeast_church_rock_mine_fact_sheet-2020-01-13.pdf> (Accessed 4 21 August 2020) 5 EPA. Eastern Abandoned Uranium Mine (AUM) Region. Factsheet. San Francisco, 6 California: Environmental Protection Agency Region 9. August 2020b.
7 <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-8 08/documents/eastern_aum_regional_factsheet-2020-08-27.pdf> (Accessed 9 18 September 2020) 10 EPA. Grants Mining District in New Mexico. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 11 Agency. March 2019a. <https://www.epa.gov/grants-mining-district> (Accessed 4 June 2019) 12 EPA. Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Remedial 13 Investigation/Feasibility Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14 Region 6. November 2019b. <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-15 11/documents/san_mateo_-_central_area_aoc.pdf> (Accessed 9 May 2020) 16 EPA. Superfund Site: Homestake Mining Co. Milan, NM Cleanup Activities.
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2019c.
18 <https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0600 19 816#bkground> (Accessed 26 June 2019) 20 EPA. Cleaning Up Abandoned Uranium Mines. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 21 Protection Agency. April 2019d. <https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-cleanup/cleaning-22 abandoned-uranium-mines> (Accessed 18 June 2019) 23 EPA. Eastern Abandoned Uranium Mine Region. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 24 Protection Agency. May 2019e. <https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-cleanup/eastern-25 abandoned-uranium-mine-region> (Accessed 18 June 2019) 26 EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017.
27 EPA 430-R-19-001. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019f.
28 EPA. Grants Mining District Geographical Subareas, Ambrosia Lake. Washington, DC:
29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 2018a. <https://www.epa.gov/grants-mining-30 district/grants-mining-district-geographical-subareas#AmbrosiaLake> (Accessed 17 June 2019) 31 EPA. San Mateo Creek Basin. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
32 May 2018b. <https://www.epa.gov/grants-mining-district/san-mateo-creek-basin> (Accessed 33 4 June 2019) 34 EPA. Grants Mining District Community Cleanups. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 35 Protection Agency. May 2018c. <https://www.epa.gov/grants-mining-district/grants-mining-36 district-community-cleanups> (Accessed 4 June 2019) 37 EPA. Kerr - McGee Quivira Mines Site Update. SEMS-RM DOCID #100014599.
38 San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. December 2018d.
39 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100014599.pdf> (Accessed 5 March 2020).
5-55
 
1 EPA. Case Summary: Settlement Agreement in Anadarko Fraud Case Results in Billions for 2 Environmental Cleanups Across the Country. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 3 Agency. July 2018e. <https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-settlement-agreement-4 anadarko-fraud-case-results-billions-environmental> (Accessed 20 June 2019) 5 EPA. 2017 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities. Washington, DC:
6 Environmental Protection Agency, Facility Level Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool 7 (FLIGHT). 2018f. <https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#> (Accessed 15 July 2019) 8 EPA. Addressing Uranium Contaminated Structures. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 9 Protection Agency. August 2017. <https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-10 cleanup/addressing-uranium-contaminated-structures> (Accessed 23 June 2019) 11 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, McKinley County, New Mexico.
12 USEPA ID NMD030443303; Operable Unit: OU 02, Surface Soil Operable Unit. March 2013.
13 Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.
14 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/681353.pdf> (Accessed 21 January 2019).
15 EPA. Action Memorandum: Request for a Non-Time Critical Removal Action at the Northeast 16 Church Rock Mine Site, McKinley County, New Mexico, Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation.
17 ADAMS Accession No. ML12003A095. Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 18 Region 6 and San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
19 September 29, 2011.
20 EPA. Considerations of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents.
21 Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999.
22 <https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-08/documents/cumulative.pdf>
23 (Accessed 24 June 2019).
24 Farmington. Bisti Badlands/De-na-zin Wilderness. Farmington, New Mexico: Farmington 25 Convention & Visitors Bureau. 2019. <https://farmingtonnm.org/listings/bisti-de-na-zin-26 wilderness> (Accessed 4 June 2020) 27 Forest Service. Mount Taylor RD. Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 28 Forest Service, Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands. 2019a.
29 <https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/cibola/recarea/?recid=64044> (Accessed 4 June 2020) 30 Forest Service. Mt. Taylor Ranger District. Albuquerque, New Mexico: U.S. Department of 31 Agriculture, Forest Service, Cibola National Forest and National Grasslands. 2019b.
32 <https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/cibola/about-forest/districts/?cid=fsbdev3_065705>
33 (Accessed 4 June 2020) 34 FracTracker Alliance. Arizona Oil and Gas Viewer. Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: FracTracker 35 Alliance. 2019.
36 <https://maps.fractracker.org/latest/?appid=79a91d1d8bc2415bb4889761e82cbc31>
37 (Accessed 4 June 2020) 38 Gallup Inter-Tribal Indian Ceremonial. Home. Gallup, New Mexico: Gallup Inter-Tribal Indian 39 Ceremonial. 2018. <https://gallupceremonial.com/home> (Accessed 4 June 2020) 5-56
 
1 Grover, H. Heres How Capital Outlay Funds Will be Used in San Juan County, Farmington 2 Daily Times, Farmington, New Mexico. April 2019. <https://www.daily-3 times.com/story/news/2019/04/08/capital-outlay-san-juan-county-navajo-nation-4 projects/3401774002/> (Accessed 22 June 2019) 5 HRI. Crownpoint Uranium Project, USNRC License SUA-1580 Renewal, McKinley County, 6 New Mexico, Consolidated Operations Plan, Revision 3.0. Lewisville, Texas: Hydro Resources 7 Inc. ADAMS Accession No. ML13098A267. 2013.
8 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 9 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 10 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 11 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
12 Intermountain Oil and Gas. Navajo Nation Laws. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado at 13 Boulder. 2019. <https://www.oilandgasbmps.org/laws/tribal/navajonation.php>
14 (Accessed 25 March 2020) 15 Mangan Renewables. Solar Energy Facility, City of Gallup, NM, Ground Breaking Ceremony.
16 Long Beach, California: Mangan Incorporated, Mangan Renewables. August 2017.
17 <https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/509322_2d1b3f3c233742cbb74c0f6efbbe6f0f.pdf>
18 (Accessed 19 June 2019) 19 McCarn, D.W. The Crownpoint and Churchrock Uranium Deposits, San Juan Basin, 20 New Mexico: An ISL Mining Perspective. International Atomic Energy Association:
21 International Nuclear Information System. 2001.
22 <https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/003/33003353.pdf?r=1&r=1>
23 (Accessed 17 July 2019) 24 Misbrener, K. Standard Solar completes 9.8-MW solar farm in Gallup, New Mexico.
25 Cleveland, Ohio: Solar Power World. July 2018.
26 <https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2018/07/standard-solar-farm-gallup-new-mexico/>
27 (Accessed 17 June 2019) 28 MWH. Northeast Church Rock 95% Design Report. Fort Collins, Colorado: MWH, now part of 29 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018. <https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium-30 cleanup/northeast-church-rock-mine-technical-reports> (Accessed 9 May 2020).
31 MWH. Northeast Church Rock Mine Interim Removal Action Completion Report. Steamboat 32 Springs, Colorado: MWH. June 2010. <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/2220236.pdf>
33 (Accessed 21 August 2020) 34 MWH. Final Removal Site Evaluation Report Northeast Church Rock Mine Site. Steamboat 35 Springs, Colorado: MWH. October 2007. <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/1178256.pdf>
36 (Accessed 21 August 2020) 37 Nations, J.D. Oil and Gas Occurrence and Potential in Arizona. Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona 38 Department of Environmental Quality, Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
39 March 2008. <http://static.azdeq.gov/ogcc/nations_presentation.pdf> (Accessed 25 June 2019) 5-57
 
1 New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources. Uranium Resources in New Mexico.
2 Socorro, New Mexico: New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, New Mexico Bureau of 3 Geology and Mineral Resources. June 2019.
4 <https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/resources/uranium/nmresources.html> Accessed 19 June 2019.
5 New Mexico Legislature. Senate Bill 280 with Governors Actions, 54th Legislature, 1st 6 Session, 2019. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Legislature. April 8, 2019a.
7 <https://nmlegis.gov/Publications/Capital_Outlay/SB%20280%20Funded%20Projects%20by%20 8 County%203A%20with%20Gov%20Actions%202019.pdf> (Accessed 26 June 2019) 9 New Mexico Legislature. House Bill 568 with Governors Actions, 54th Legislature, 1st Session, 10 2019. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Legislature. April 2019b.
11 <https://nmlegis.gov/Publications/Capital_Outlay/HB%20568%20Funded%20Projects%20by%20 12 County%20w%20Governors%20Actions%202019.pdf> (Accessed 26 June 2019) 13 NMOCD. NMOCD Well Database. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Energy, Minerals, 14 and Natural Resources Department, New Mexico Oil Conservation Division. 2019a.
15 <ftp://164.64.106.6/Public/OCD/OCD%20GIS%20Data/Geodatabase/> (Accessed 16 26 June 2019) 17 NMOCD. County Production and Injection by Month. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico 18 Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, New Mexico Oil Conservation Division.
19 May 2019b.
20 <https://wwwapps.emnrd.state.nm.us/ocd/ocdpermitting//Reporting/Production/ProductionInjectio 21 nSummaryReport.aspx> (Accessed 26 June 2019) 22 NMOCD. Natural Gas and Oil Production. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico Energy, 23 Minerals, and Natural Resources Department, New Mexico Oil Conservation Division.
24 May 2019c.
25 <https://wwwapps.emnrd.state.nm.us/ocd/ocdpermitting//Reporting/Production/ProductionInjectio 26 nSummaryReport.aspx> (Accessed 26 June 2019) 27 NMDOT. Email to NRC (June 4, 2019) Nuclear Regulatory Commissions EIS review request 28 for information from J. Niclas, NMDOT. ADAMS Accession No. ML20098F775. Santa Fe, 29 New Mexico: Department of Transportation. 2019.
30 NNMCG. McKinley County, New Mexico, Comprehensive Plan Update. Final Plan. Northwest 31 New Mexico Council of Governments. September 2012.
32 Nott, R. New Mexico Official Pulls Plug on New Oil, Gas Drilling on State Land Near Chaco, 33 Santa Fe New Mexican, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 30 April 2019.
34 <https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/new-mexico-official-pulls-plug-on-new-35 oil-gas-drilling/article_0b50d525-7395-5b37-83d9-69d2c4397d29.html> (Accessed 36 18 June 2019) 37 NPS. El Malpais National Monument New Mexico. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 38 Interior, National Park Service. 2019a. <https://www.nps.gov/elma/index.htm>
39 (Accessed 25 March 2020) 5-58
 
1 NPS. Stats Report Viewer, Visitation By State and by Park for Year. Washington, DC:
2 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Public Use Statistics Office. 2019b.
3 <https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Visitation%20By%20State%20 4 and%20By%20Park%20(2017%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year)> (Accessed 8 June 2020) 5 NPS. El Morro National Monument New Mexico. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 6 Interior, National Park Service. 2019c. <https://www.nps.gov/elmo/index.htm>
7 (Accessed 25 March 2020) 8 NPS. Chaco Culture National Historical Park New Mexico. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 9 of Interior, National Park Service. 2018. <https://www.nps.gov/chcu/index.htm>
10 (Accessed 25 March 2020) 11 NRC. Safety Evaluation Report of License Amendment Request. Docket No. 040-08907.
12 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ADAMS Accession No.
13 ML20210M050. 2020.
14 NRC. HRI-Crownpoint Uranium Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 15 Commission. April 2019. <https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/licensed-16 facilities/is-crown-point.pdf> (Accessed 17 July 2019) 17 NRC. NUREG-1910, Environmental Impact Statement for the Reno Creek In Situ Recovery 18 Project in Campbell County, Wyoming Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 19 Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Final Report. ADAMS Accession 20 No. ML16342A973. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December 2016.
21 NRC. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 22 NMSS Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 2003.
23 NRC. NUREG-1508, Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 24 Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mine Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico. ADAMS Accession 25 No. ML082170248. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 1997.
26 ONeal, N. 4 Investigates: The Battle Over Oil & Gas Development Near Chaco Canyon.
27 (KOB TV 4) Hubbard Broadcasting Company. June 25, 2019. <https://www.kob.com/new-28 mexico-news/4-investigates-the-battle-over-oil-and-gas-development-near-new-mexicos-chaco-29 canyon/5401329/> (Accessed 26 June 2019) 30 Roberts, B.J. Global Horizontal Solar Irradiance Map. U.S. Department of Energy, Office 31 of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
32 February 2018. <https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/solar/solar_ghi_2018_usa_scale_01.jpg>
33 (Accessed 2 June 2019) 34 Smith, N.L. Financial Agreement Advances Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project, Farmington 35 Daily Times, Farmington, New Mexico. September 2018. <https://www.daily-36 times.com/story/news/local/navajo-nation/2018/08/31/bureau-reclamation-agreement-advances-37 navajo-gallup-water-supply-project/1160751002/> (Accessed 12 July 2019) 38 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475. ADAMS 39 Accession No. ML19287A009. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
40 October 2019.
5-59
 
1 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 2 Appendix K: Removal Action Schedule; Appendix L: Health and Safety Plan; 3 Appendix R: Release Contingency and Prevention Plan; Appendix U: Revegetation Plans.
4 ADAMS Accession No. ML18267A276. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
5 July 2018.
6 Trinity Consultants. Modeling Addendum, Supplemental Environmental Report for the United 7 Nuclear Corporation Source Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession No.
8 ML20245E178. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Trinity Consultants. May 2020.
9 USCB. State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010-2019. Datasets.
10 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2019.
11 <https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-total.html>
12 (Accessed 13 April 2020) 13 USCB. 2014-2018 5-year American Community Survey; Table S2301, Employment Status.
14 2018. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
15 <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/>
16 USDA. Roca Honda LLC Project - Exploration and Mine Development. Washington, DC:
17 U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 28 June 2019.
18 <https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=18431&exp=detail> (Accessed 8 July 2019) 19 USGS, Berkeley Labs, and AWEA. U.S. Wind Turbine Database. U.S. Department of the 20 Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Energy Resources Program. April 2019.
21 <https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#7.39/35.342/-108.258> (Accessed 18 June 2019) 5-60
 
1                                          6 MITIGATION 2 6.1    Introduction 3 This chapter summarizes mitigation measures that would reduce adverse impacts from 4 construction of the proposed disposal site, Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine waste 5 excavation and transfer and supporting activities, and closure (restoration and revegetation of 6 disturbed areas) at the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Church Rock Mill Site (UNC Mill Site).
7 Under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.20, the Council on 8 Environmental Quality defines mitigation to include activities that 9
* avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of a certain action; 10
* minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and 11        its implementation; 12
* rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 13
* reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 14        during the life of the action; and 15
* compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 16        environments.
17 Mitigation measures are those actions or processes that would be implemented to control and 18 minimize potential adverse impacts from the proposed action at the UNC Mill Site and NECR 19 Mine Site, as described in Chapter 2 of this environmental impact statement (EIS). Potential 20 mitigation measures can include general best management practices (BMPs) and more 21 site-specific management actions.
22 BMPs are processes, techniques, procedures, or considerations that can be used to effectively 23 avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. While BMPs are not regulatory requirements, 24 they can overlap with and support such requirements. BMPs will not replace any U.S. Nuclear 25 Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements or other Federal, State, Tribal, or local regulations.
26 In general, management actions are active measures that an applicant or a licensee seeking a 27 license or license amendment specifically implements to reduce potential adverse impacts to a 28 specific resource area. For this proposed action, these actions include compliance with EPA 29 stipulations or specific guidance under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 30 Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), coordination with governmental agencies or 31 interested parties, and monitoring of relevant ongoing and future activities. If appropriate, 32 corrective actions could be implemented to either limit the degree or magnitude of a specific 33 action leading to an adverse impact (e.g., reducing or eliminating the impact over time by 34 preservation and maintenance operations), or to repair, rehabilitate, or restore the affected 35 environment. The licensee may also minimize potential adverse impacts by implementing 36 specific management actions, such as programs, procedures, and controls for monitoring, 37 measuring, and documenting specific goals or targets and, if appropriate, instituting corrective 38 actions. The management actions may be established through standard operating procedures 39 consistent with the requirements of local, Tribal, State, and Federal agencies (including NRC).
40 The NRC may also establish requirements for management actions by identifying license 6-1
 
1 conditions. These conditions are written specifically into the NRC license and then become 2 requirements that are enforced through periodic NRC inspections. For the UNC Mill Site, 3 ongoing management actions not related to the proposed action are discussed in EIS 4 Sections 1.1.1 and 2.2.1.2. Activities related to the proposed action are discussed in the 5 next subsections.
6 As described in greater detail in EIS Section 4.1, CERCLA process applies a unique Federal 7 regulatory framework to response actions, including those addressed by the proposed action.
8 This EIS is therefore informed by those aspects of the CERCLA process as it has been applied 9 at this site for any aspects that are related to the NRC staffs independent evaluation of the 10 potential environmental impacts. This has resulted in some additional consideration and 11 evaluation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) CERCLA process-related 12 documentation and incorporating aspects of the CERCLA process or terminology, where 13 applicable. For example, EIS Section 4.1 describes EPAs process for identifying applicable 14 other agency requirements as Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) 15 to ensure that the substantive aspects of the ARARs are met by the response action. As a 16 result, the mitigation referred to in this chapter that relies on compliance with regulations to 17 mitigate potential impacts may involve references to requirements that are ARARs under the 18 EPA CERCLA process instead of referring to the typical implementing agencies or associated 19 permitting processes.
20 EIS Section 6.2 and Table 6.3-1 summarize the mitigation measures that UNC proposed to 21 reduce and minimize adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
22 Based on the potential impacts identified in EIS Chapter 4, the NRC staff has identified 23 additional potential mitigation measures for the proposed action. These mitigation measures 24 are summarized in EIS Section 6.3 and Table 6.3-2. In addition, the Navajo Nation 25 Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) identified additional potential mitigation measures 26 for the proposed action that are summarized in EIS Table 6.4-1. The proposed mitigation 27 measures provided in this chapter do not include environmental monitoring activities, which are 28 described in EIS Chapter 7.
29 6.2      Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC 30 UNC identified mitigation measures in its Environmental Report (ER) (INTERA, 2018) and a 31 license application report (LAR) (Stantec, 2019), as revised in several subsequent submittals, 32 as well as in response to the NRC staffs requests for additional information (RAIs) (INTERA, 33 2019; Trinity Consultants, 2020). EIS Table 6.3-1 lists the mitigation measures that the licensee 34 has proposed for each resource area. Unless otherwise identified, mitigation measures 35 provided in EIS Table 6.3-1 are those that UNC proposes under the proposed action and both 36 secondary alternatives. Because these are proposed by UNC, these were included as 37 appropriate in the NRC staffs resource area impact determinations in EIS Chapter 4.
38 6.3      Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC 39 The NRC staff has reviewed the mitigation measures that UNC proposed and identified 40 additional mitigation measures that could potentially reduce impacts (EIS Table 6.3-2). The 41 NRC has the authority to address unique site-specific characteristics by identifying license 42 conditions, based on conclusions reached in the safety and environmental reviews. These 43 license conditions could include additional mitigation measures, such as modifications to 44 required monitoring programs. While the NRC cannot impose mitigation outside its regulatory 45 authority under the Atomic Energy Act, NRCs Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 6-2
 
1 1978 (UMTRCA), and its other authorities, the NRC staff has identified mitigation measures in 2 EIS Table 6.3-2 that could potentially reduce the impacts from the proposed project. Unless 3 otherwise identified, mitigation measures recommended in EIS Tables 6.3-2 are those that the 4 NRC proposes for the proposed action and both secondary alternatives. These additional 5 mitigation measures are not requirements imposed upon the licensee. For the purpose of the 6 National Environmental Policy Act, and consistent with 10 CFR 51.71(d) and 51.80(a), the NRC 7 is disclosing measures that could potentially reduce or avoid environmental impacts of the 8 proposed project. Because these have not been firmly proposed by the licensee, they are not 9 credited in the NRC staffs resource area impact determinations in EIS Chapter 4.
Table 6.3-1      Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC Resource Area      Impact Type                      Proposed Mitigation Measures Land Use        Land            Revegetate disturbed areas in accordance with UNCs Disturbance      Revegetation Plan, including soil amendments or composted material that meets an EPA-approved revegetation plan to promote vegetation growth Develop and implement an EPA-approved Release Contingency and Prevention Plan (RCPP), which could impose additional land use restrictions if offsite contaminated soils required cleanup due to a release during the proposed action Develop and implement the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) (a part of the RCPP) for spill prevention and control of any release of hazardous material related to construction activity Access          Use of signage to clearly indicate restricted areas Restrictions Transportation  Offsite          Add a traffic control system in accordance with New Mexico Transportation  Department of Transportation (NMDOT) standard and additional signage at the proposed New Mexico Highway 566 (NM 566) haul road crossing to regulate public traffic during crossing operations Implement a contamination control system at the NM 566 crossing to limit potential impacts from fugitive NECR mine waste Prevent accumulation of mud on NM 566 from haul traffic at the NM 566 crossing by regularly checking for contamination and sweeping any uncontaminated sediment or soils to the shoulder Upon construction completion, inspect impacted areas of NM 566 for structural damage. Correct any damage to the pavement or underlying road prism resulting from haul operations to the satisfaction of NMDOT 6-3
 
Table 6.3-1  Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC (cont.)
Resource Area    Impact Type                    Proposed Mitigation Measures Geology and    Soil          Grade excavated areas to provide positive drainage into existing Soils          Disturbance    drainages and Excavation Maintain excavated fill slopes at a horizontal to vertical ratio of 3:1 or shallower Minimize excavated slope lengths Reduce speed limits for haul and access roads to minimize soil loss impacts from dust generation Use soil amendments or composted material that meet an EPA-approved revegetation plan and place to final grade in excavated areas to promote growth of vegetation Avoid stockpiling soil to be used as growth media for restoring disturbed areas any longer than is necessary to complete project Implement UNCs EPA-approved Revegetation Plan, which includes (i) topsoil management practices and erosion control measures (such as mulching), (ii) revegetation of disturbed areas with a seeding mix that emulates native vegetation to maximize resilience and sustainability, and (iii) use of soil amendments such as composted cow manure or biosolids to promote growth of vegetation on disturbed areas Develop and implement an EPA-approved Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP) (Stantec, 2018) that would address applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program requirements administered by the EPA, including BMPs for erosion and sediment control Develop and implement an EPA-approved RCPP, which would address cleanup of accidentally released hazardous materials Surface Water  Erosion,      Develop and implement an EPA-approved CSWPPP that would Resources      Runoff, and    address applicable NPDES program requirements administered Sedimentation  by the EPA, including BMPs for erosion and sediment control Minimize site grading, where possible Regrade and revegetate disturbed areas in accordance with UNCs Revegetation Plan Use silt fencing and/or stormwater basins near sloped areas Divert stormwater away from construction activities Isolate and capture surface water and stormwater that has potentially contacted mine waste Install permanent stormwater controls near existing roadways when possible Integrate drainage in disturbed areas with existing drainage patterns to the extent possible Avoid stockpiling soil any longer than necessary 6-4
 
Table 6.3-1  Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC (cont.)
Resource Area  Impact Type                  Proposed Mitigation Measures Spills and    Develop and implement an EPA-approved RCPP, which would Leaks        protect surface water from releases Develop and implement the SPCCP (a part of the RCPP) for spill prevention and control of any release of hazardous material related to construction activity Groundwater    Water Use    Use drought-resistant plants in revegetation Resources Use non-water-based techniques for dust suppression where possible, as would be described in the Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan Contamination Develop and implement an EPA-approved CSWPPP that would address applicable NPDES program requirements administered by the EPA, including BMPs for erosion and sediment control Spills and    Develop and implement an EPA-approved RCPP, which would Leaks        protect surface water from releases Develop and implement the SPCCP (a part of the RCPP) for spill prevention and control of any release of hazardous material related to construction activity 6-5
 
Table 6.3-1  Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC (cont.)
Resource Area  Impact Type                      Proposed Mitigation Measures Ecology        Reduce Human  Reduce speed limits for haul and access roads to minimize the Disturbances  possibility of wildlife collisions Conduct bird nest surveys prior to the commencement of vegetation and mine waste removal and consult with New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) and Navajo Nation Department of Fish and Wildlife (NNDFW) if any nests are found Implement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)- and Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department (NNHP)-recommended spatial protection buffers for raptor nests and eagle roost sites Develop and implement an EPA-approved Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan to reduce fugitive dust that may settle on plants and reduce wildlife palatability Implement UNCs EPA-approved Revegetation Plan, which obligates UNC to (i) avoid excessive disruption to soil, especially after precipitation events, to avoid compaction; (ii) implement weed control management measures that include the use of chemical herbicides applied by a licensed contractor; (iii) use a seed mix of native species; (iv) fence revegetated areas to exclude grazing livestock and wildlife; and (v) implement amendments to the revegetation plans to meet future field requirements such as adding organic matter to increase the fertility of the soils, adjusting seed species ,and using supplemental irrigation in response to future climate conditions, if necessary Develop and implement a CSWPPP to reduce impacts of stormwater and sediment runoff during precipitation events, which would improve revegetation efforts, limit impacts to downstream habitats from sedimentation, and protect wildlife from accidental releases of hydrocarbons or other fluids used in project machinery Develop and implement a RCPP to mitigate the impacts of an accidental release of hazardous materials, which would limit overall exposure of contaminants to vegetation and wildlife 6-6
 
Table 6.3-1  Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC (cont.)
Resource Area  Impact Type                      Proposed Mitigation Measures Air Quality    Fugitive Dust  Impose a maximum speed limit of 32.2 kph [20 mph] on haul and access roads (lower speed limits may be necessary to control dust, depending on actual day-to-day site conditions)
Surface the haul and access roads with gravel Suppress fugitive dust with water at haul roads, excavation areas, placement areas, borrow areas, stockpiles, and screening areas Suppress fugitive dust at stockpiles by covering them Develop and implement an EPA-approved Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan to reduce fugitive dust emissions and control dust. Monitor for respirable dust for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 24-hour standards for particulate matter (PM) PM2.5 and PM10 to determine the effectiveness of dust control measures. If air monitoring results indicate unacceptable dust levels, modify existing mitigation or implement new mitigation until acceptable monitoring results are achieved Use diesel construction equipment with tier 3 engines and conveyor belt generators with tier 4 engines Use diesel fuel with no more than 15 parts per million sulfur Implement a vehicle and equipment no-idling policy Ensure that equipment (e.g., construction equipment and generators) are properly tuned and maintained Help coordinate and support employee carpooling and ridesharing Noise          Exposure of    Limit construction to 7 hours a day, during the daytime only, and Workers and    to weekdays whenever possible Public to Noise Historic and  Disturbance of  Prepare an inadvertent discovery plan to manage UNCs Cultural      Prehistoric    activities in the event of a discovery of historic and cultural Resources      Archaeological  resources during any point in the project Sites and Sites Eligible for    Prepare an internal cultural resources management plan, if Listing on the  historic and cultural resources are identified in the area of National        potential effect or if areas with a high potential to contain cultural Register of    material are identified Historic Places Cease any work upon the inadvertent discovery of historic and (NRHP)          cultural resources during any phase of the project until the resources can be evaluated by a professional archaeologist Use existing roads, to the maximum extent feasible, to avoid additional surface disturbance 6-7
 
Table 6.3-1  Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by UNC (cont.)
Resource Area    Impact Type                      Proposed Mitigation Measures Visual and      Potential Visual Develop and implement an EPA-approved Dust Control and Air Scenic          Intrusions in    Monitoring Plan to reduce fugitive dust the Existing Landscape        Conduct dust suppression along access and haul roads Character        Minimize site disturbance, where possible Remove access and haul roads, staging areas, and debris Regrade and revegetate disturbed areas with locally sourced soils and native plants Cap the maximum height of the proposed disposal site at 13.1 meters (m) [43 feet (ft)] above the existing ground level Cap the maximum excavation depth of the NECR Mine Site at 15.8 m [52 ft] below the existing ground level Socioeconomics  Effects on      Seek every opportunity to employ and give first preference to Surrounding      qualified, local Navajo labor, to the extent consistent with the law Communities Environmental  Employment      Give first preference to qualified, local Navajo labor, to the extent Justice                          consistent with the law Public and      Construction,    Conduct proposed activities in accordance with the UNC Health Occupational    Transfer, and    and Safety Plan that addresses applicable U.S. Occupational Health and      Closure          Safety and Health Administration requirements to limit Safety                          nonradiological hazards and includes an NRC-Approved Radiation Protection Plan that addresses NRC radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 that limit worker and public radiation exposures Conduct radiation surveys, monitoring, and sampling to evaluate public and occupational health hazards and take applicable safety measures Reduce speed limits to control and contain NECR mine waste during transfer operations Apply dust control measures to limit potential releases and worker and public exposures to NECR mine waste Use covered haul trucks to transfer NECR mine waste to address containment during proposed hauling operations Use daily checks of NM 566 at haul road crossing to verify no residual contamination exists on the road Waste          Waste            Develop and implement a SPCCP, which would include pollution Management      Reduction        removal and prevention, and other solid and hazardous material management programs and regulations Develop and implement an EPA-approved CSWPPP that would address applicable NPDES program requirements administered by the EPA, including stormwater and truck washdown water management 6-8
 
Table 6.3-2    Summary of Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC Resource Area    Impact Type                    Proposed Mitigation Measures Land Use      Land          Minimize the construction activity footprint to the extent Disturbance    practicable Transportation Offsite        No additional mitigations identified Transportation Geology and    Mineral        Avoid disturbing bedrock geologic units when excavating soil Soils          Extraction    materials in the borrow areas Stockpile soil using techniques to reduce erosion Use BMPs acceptable by industry standards to stabilize disturbed soils Surface Water  Spills and    Maintain construction equipment to prevent leaks of oil, greases, Resources      Leaks          or hydraulic fluids Erosion,      Stabilize stockpiles and other disturbed areas to protect against Runoff, and    wind and water erosion Sedimentation Groundwater    Water Use      Develop and implement a water conservation plan Resources Ecology        Reduce Human  Follow FWS and NMDGF recommendations that UNC conduct Disturbance    ground disturbances and vegetation removal activities outside of the primary breeding season for migratory songbirds and raptors (March 1 through September 1)
Follow the NMDGF recommendation and that buffers be established around bird nests during the construction phase Air Quality    Fugitive Dust  Impose weight limits for vehicles traveling on unpaved roads and Combustions    Restrict the number of vehicles that operate on unpaved roads Emissions from and minimize unnecessary travel Construction  Minimize the number of disturbances at stockpiles Equipment and Mobile Sources Limit the number of hours a day that effluent-generating activities can be conducted Reduce the total throughput of material per hour at the stockpiles Stagger dust-generating activities to reduce maximum dust levels Consider using electric vehicles or other alternative fuels to reduce emissions of NAAQS pollutants and greenhouse gases Noise          Exposure of    As applicable, conduct activities on schedules that do not Workers and    significantly coincide with other noise-producing activities in the the Public to  area Noise 6-9
 
Table 6.3-2    Summary of Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC (cont.)
Resource Area      Impact Type                      Proposed Mitigation Measures Historic and      Disturbance of  Mitigate impacts to Navajo culture by holding culturally important Cultural          Prehistoric      or sacred ceremonies (e.g., blessings by medicine men) prior to Resources          Archaeological  land disturbance Sites and Sites Eligible for    Follow Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office Listing on the  (NNTHPO) recommendation that several nearby historic-period National        remains, including several concrete trailer pads, should be Register of      documented and added to the site description Historic Places  Follow NNTHPO recommendation that an archaeological monitor (NRHP)          be present to thoroughly inspect and record the site during initial ground disturbing activities Mark the boundaries for Sites LA 11617, NM-Q-20-69, NM-Q-20-70, NM-Q-20-71, and NM-Q-20-72, and have an archaeological monitor present during ground-disturbing activities within 15 m [50 ft] of these sites, as recommended in Martin et al.
(2019)
Visual and        Potential Visual Coordinate with Navajo Nation on revegetation of any areas of Scenic            Intrusions in    cultural or religious significance the Existing Landscape        Reclaim disturbed areas and remove debris after construction is Character        complete Remove and reclaim project-related haul roads after proposed action is complete Socioeconomics    Effects on      No additional mitigations identified Surrounding Communities Environmental      Preserving      Relocate nearby residents Justice            Navajo Culture Mitigate impacts to Navajo culture as recommended by NNEPA or the Navajo Nation, such as holding culturally important or sacred ceremonies (e.g., blessings by medicine men) prior to land disturbance Public and        Effects from    No additional mitigations identified Occupational      Facility and Health and    Construction Safety            and Operation Waste              None            No additional mitigations identified Management 1 6.4    Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the Navajo Nation 2 Based on the interest of the Navajo Nation in this proposed action and the proximity of the 3 proposed action to Navajo Nation land and the Red Water Pond Road Community, the NRC 4 staff provides mitigation measures in Table 6.4-1 that the NNEPA has proposed and identified 5 that could potentially reduce impacts.
6-10
 
Table 6.4-1      Summary of Additional Mitigation Measures Identified by the Navajo Nation Resource Area    Impact Type                      Proposed Mitigation Measures Land Use          Land            Dispose all mining-related buildings at the NECR Mine Site Ownership        properly at licensed facilities Transportation                    No additional mitigations identified Geology and                        No additional mitigations identified Soils Surface Water                      No additional mitigations identified Resources Groundwater                        No additional mitigations identified Resources Ecology                            No additional mitigations identified Air Quality                        No additional mitigations identified Noise                              No additional mitigations identified Historic and      Disturbance of  Mitigate impacts to Navajo culture by allowing communities near Cultural          Prehistoric      the project area to hold culturally important or sacred ceremonies Resources        Archaeological  by their medicine men prior to land disturbance Sites, Cultural Sites, and Sites Eligible for Listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
Visual and                        No additional mitigations identified Scenic Socioeconomics                    No additional mitigations identified Environmental                      No additional mitigations identified Justice Public and        Health Effects  Complete removal of all mine waste and tailings off the Navajo Occupational                      Nation and away from the Navajo Nation permanently and Health and Safety Waste                              No additional mitigations identified Management 1 6.5    References 2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. Standards for 3 Protection Against Radiation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
4 10 CFR 51.71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, &sect; 51.71(d). Draft environmental 5 impact statement-contents. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
6 10 CFR 51.80. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, &sect; 51.80(a). Draft environmental 7 impact statement-materials license. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
8 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 9 Part 1508. Terminology and Index. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
6-11
 
1 INTERA. Response to August 6, 2019 Environmental Request for Additional Information (RAI),
2 United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) License Amendment Request to Move Mine Waste from the 3 Northeast Church Rock Mine to the Church Rock Mill Site, McKinley County, NM (Docket 4 No. 040-8907). ADAMS Accession No. ML19248D035 Package. Albuquerque, New Mexico:
5 INTERA Geosciences and Engineering Solutions. September 2019.
6 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 7 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 8 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 9 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
10 Martin, R., S. Wero, and A. Werito. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed INTERA 11 Church Rock 17 Additional Areas AUM Cleanup in Church Rock and Coyote Canyon Chapters, 12 McKinley County, New Mexico. Farmington, New Mexico: Din&#xe9;tahd&#xf3;&#xf3; Cultural Resources 13 Management. 2019.
14 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475. ADAMS 15 Accession No. ML19287A009. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
16 October 2019.
17 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 18 Appendix B: Construction Support Facilities; Appendix C: Mine Site Removal Excavations 19 and Demolition; Appendix E: Stormwater Management Plan. ADAMS Accession 20 No. ML18267A239. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018.
21 Trinity Consultants. Modeling Addendum, Supplemental Environmental Report for the United 22 Nuclear Corporation Source Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession No.
23 ML20245E178. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Trinity Consultants. May 2020.
6-12
 
1                    7 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND 2                                  MONITORING PROGRAMS 3 7.1    Introduction 4 This chapter describes the measurements, surveys, and monitoring programs that would be 5 conducted as part of the proposed action. The proposed action is to amend United Nuclear 6 Corporation (UNCs) Source Material License SUA-1475 to allow UNC to transfer and dispose 7 approximately 765,000 cubic meters (m3) [1,000,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of Northeast Church Rock 8 (NECR) mine waste on top of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed tailings 9 impoundment. UNC proposes modifying a portion of the existing tailings impoundment 10 (hereafter, the proposed disposal site) within the tailings disposal area to allow disposal of the 11 NECR mine waste. The amendments would also revise the NRC-approved reclamation plan and 12 schedule for the NRC-licensed UNC Mill Site. This chapter includes a summary of UNCs 13 continued monitoring program to comply with regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 14 Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 40 regarding radiological effluent release limits, 15 public and occupational dose limits, and reporting. Monitoring programs provide data on 16 operational and environmental conditions so that prompt corrective actions can be implemented 17 when adverse conditions are detected. Thus, these programs help to limit potential 18 environmental impacts at NRC-licensed facilities and the surrounding areas.
19 Required monitoring programs, or those proposed in the license amendment request, can be 20 modified to address unique site-specific characteristics by adding license conditions to address 21 findings from the NRC safety and environmental reviews. The NRC staff has conducted a safety 22 review of the proposed action which is documented in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) (NRC, 23 2020). License conditions resulting from the safety review will be discussed in the final 24 environmental impact statement (EIS), as appropriate. The description of the proposed 25 monitoring programs for the proposed action is organized as follows:
26
* Radiological Monitoring and Reporting (EIS Section 7.2) 27
* Physiochemical Monitoring (EIS Section 7.3) 28
* Other Monitoring (EIS Section 7.4) 29 7.2    Radiological Monitoring and Reporting 30 Radiological (and nonradiological) worker safety during all activities associated with the 31 proposed action is addressed by the UNC Health and Safety Plan, which also incorporates a 32 Radiation Protection Plan and information from the Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan, as 33 revised to incorporate applicable NRC requests for additional information (RAIs) (Stantec, 2018; 34 Stantec, 2019a,b).
35 The Radiation Protection Plan incorporates radiation monitoring protocols and procedures 36 designed to comply with NRC standards for protection against radiation at 10 CFR Part 20, 37 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements at 29 CFR 1910.1096 38 for exposure to ionizing radiation, and New Mexico standards for protection against radiation at 39 New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) 20.3.4. The Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan 40 establishes air monitoring, sampling and analysis protocol during construction activities to 41 demonstrate protection of individual members of the public that meets the dose limits defined in 42 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2.
7-1
 
1 The Radiation Protection Plan addresses radiation safety training, organization and 2 responsibilities; occupational and public health physics monitoring for internal and external 3 exposure assessment; and administrative and engineering exposure control measures and 4 protection. In particular, the Radiation Protection Plan describes worker and public protections 5 that address the potential exposure pathways applicable to the proposed action as described in 6 EIS Section 3.13.2.
7 The Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) is responsible for implementing the Radiation Protection 8 Plan in accordance with the NRC license SUA-1475 at the UNC Mill Site. UNCs Radiation 9 Protection Plan indicates that the same RSO would implement the Radiation Protection Plan at 10 the UNC Mill Site and at the NECR Mine Site (Stantec, 2019a). NRC regulatory oversight of 11 radiation safety under the Radiation Protection Plan is limited to the licensed material (tailings) 12 and related activities at the UNC Mill Site. In implementing the Radiation Protection Plan, the 13 RSO would conduct general work area monitoring to assess potential radiation exposures to 14 workers and for planning purposes to verify that radiation exposures are as low as reasonably 15 achievable (ALARA). The two principal radiation exposure pathways are inhalation of airborne 16 particulate radionuclides and direct gamma radiation from impacted soil and material. Airborne 17 radon and the particulate radon progeny should not present a significant hazard because of the 18 low levels of radionuclides in soil and because all activities would be performed outdoors 19 (Stantec, 2019a). Nonetheless, UNC is including radon monitoring at site perimeter monitoring 20 stations to verify that air concentrations are within NRC limits for radon in air effluents at 21 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2 (Stantec, 2019b).
22 Radiation monitoring instruments such as alpha scintillometers, gamma scintillometers, gamma 23 radiation exposure rate meters and Geiger-Mueller detectors would be used onsite, and the site 24 RSO would annually calibrate radiation monitoring equipment, including air samplers, unless 25 damaged, in which case the equipment would be sent for repair and replaced with another 26 calibrated meter. Radiological field and laboratory analysis equipment would be calibrated using 27 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable standards. All procedures used 28 for radiation surveys and health physics monitoring would meet appropriate Lower Limits of 29 Detection and quality assurance program requirements as defined in the NRC Regulatory 30 Guide 8.30, Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Recovery Facilities, (NRC, 2002) and 31 Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring (NRC, 2007).
32 Both the Radiation Protection Plan and the Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan, as revised to 33 incorporate applicable NRC requests for additional information (Stantec, 2019a,b), address the 34 monitoring of fugitive NECR mine waste dust to protect workers and the public from inhalation 35 hazards and from direct exposure to external radiation from being in close proximity to NECR 36 mine waste. This includes conducting area radiation surveys, air sampling for radioactive 37 materials, and radiation monitoring to allow UNC to evaluate the potential hazards during various 38 work activities and determine appropriate safety measures or corrective actions. Additionally, 39 UNC would issue personal dosimeters to all workers to monitor their external exposure 40 to radiation.
41 The Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan considers that members of the public at or near the 42 proposed project could potentially be exposed to any unmitigated airborne NECR mine waste 43 dust and radon gas that could be generated during the proposed action activities and inhaled by 44 downwind receptors. As part of the Dust and Air Monitoring Plan, UNC proposes to conduct 45 perimeter airborne particulate sampling at locations downwind of site activities, including at the 46 downwind controlled area boundary at the UNC Mill Site, to address potential public exposure to 47 radiation and compliance with applicable NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 and to evaluate 7-2
 
1 airborne dust concentrations (Stantec, 2019b). The air monitoring stations would be located 2 as follows:
3
* Two NECR Mine Site downwind air monitoring stations would be placed to account for 4          occasional shifts in the wind direction throughout the day (one near each residence 5          downwind of the NECR Mine Site, which are located generally northeast of the 6          excavation areas) 7
* One downwind air monitoring station would be placed northeast of the UNC Mill Site 8          tailings impoundment 9
* One downwind air monitoring station for dust monitoring would be placed northeast of the 10          UNC Mill Site borrow area 11
* One upwind (background) air monitoring station would be placed south of the NECR Mine 12          Site and UNC Mill Site 13 To evaluate the potential internal radiation exposure to the public at these locations, air 14 particulates would be collected on a 47-mm Type A/E glass fiber air filters using air samplers 15 (e.g., RAS-2 or equivalent). The loaded filter would be counted onsite for gross alpha activity 16 after allowing at least 72 hours for decay of the alpha-emitting radon progeny collected on filters 17 from ambient air. Individual airborne concentrations would be determined for uranium-234, 18 U-238, radium (Ra)-226, and thorium-230 from their activity fraction of the gross alpha activity of 19 dust material, which has the potential for becoming airborne. Since the quantity of each 20 radioactive isotope in uranium ore dust remains constant because of a property of the uranium 21 radioactive decay chain known as secular equilibrium, the individual radionuclide airborne 22 concentration would be determined by multiplying the airborne gross alpha activity by 0.25. The 23 net airborne concentrations (downwind concentrations minus the background concentrations) 24 would be compared to the air concentration values specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, 25 Table 2, and 20 percent of those values to address the 10 CFR 20.1101(d) ALARA constraint on 26 air emissions of 0.1 mSv [10 mrem] per year to members of the public likely to receive the 27 highest dose. An initial 24-hour decayed count of the loaded filters may be performed for 28 informational purposes only to facilitate any operational adjustments needed at the beginning of 29 the removal action. Final analysis would be performed after 72 hours. For the purpose of 30 demonstrating compliance with the airborne effluent concentration limits, net concentrations 31 would be averaged annually. The effluent concentration limits for assessment and control of 32 dose to the public are based on annual dose limit as specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, 33 Table 2; thus, compliance with the limit can be demonstrated by an annual average 34 concentration. The quarterly average would be used for the exposure control measure, which 35 would be a conservative approach (Stantec, 2019b).
36 To evaluate potential internal airborne radon and radon progeny concentrations, track etch radon 37 monitors would be continuously exposed at the perimeter air monitoring stations and submitted 38 for laboratory analysis on a quarterly basis. The track etch monitors would be analyzed by the 39 manufacturer quarterly or at the end of the project. To evaluate potential external radiation 40 exposure, environmental thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) would be exposed continuously 41 at the perimeter air monitoring stations and would be submitted for laboratory analysis on a 42 quarterly basis. Until the TLD results have been received from the laboratory, external exposure 43 from gamma radiation would be estimated based on area exposure rate field measurements 44 using a calibrated micro-R-meter. This would be done weekly, or less frequently, based on 45 changes in the gamma radiation source as determined by the RSO (Stantec, 2019b).
7-3
 
1 UNC also proposes to take direct gamma radiation exposure rate measurements at the 2 perimeter sampling locations of the NECR Mine Site upwind and downwind boundaries to 3 determine external radiation exposure to the public. Additionally, they propose performing 4 periodic direct gamma radiation exposure rate measurements at the mine waste haul road and 5 the NM highway 566 crossing for radiation protection of the public (Stantec, 2019a).
6 In evaluating monitoring results, if exceedances of the limits are observed, construction would 7 stop, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be notified, and construction would 8 not resume until the cause(s) for the exceedances are identified and rectified. The results of 9 these monitoring activities would be transmitted to the EPA with the monthly status reports 10 (Stantec, 2019b). Additionally, in accordance with the Radiation Protection Plan, the site RSO 11 would thoroughly document all incidents and report to the NRC as required by 10 CFR Part 20.
12 7.3      Physiochemical Monitoring 13 The potential exists for nonradiological exposures to workers to hazardous substances. OSHA 14 standards for protection of workers who may be exposed to hazardous substances at Resource 15 Conservation and Recovery Act or Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 16 Liability Act sites are at 29 CRF 1910.120 and 1926.65. The aforementioned UNC Health and 17 Safety Plan was developed to address these requirements. The EPA requires compliance with 18 OSHA standards under National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 19 requirements at 40 CFR 300.150; therefore, EPA ensures that these requirements are 20 addressed during the removal action (EPA, 2013).
21 UNCs ER incorporates information from previous site-characterization surveys that identified the 22 following non-radiological hazards associated with the contaminated onsite soil: arsenic, total 23 dust, respirable dust, diesel fuel, naphthalene total petroleum hydrocarbons, and uranium 24 (metal). As a result of the proposed action, construction workers would be exposed to the 25 release of non-radiological contaminants to the atmosphere by: (i) fugitive dusts that would be 26 generated by heavy equipment during the excavation process, (ii) transfer of NECR mine waste, 27 (iii) construction and loading of the proposed disposal site, and (iv) combustion emissions 28 resulting from exhaust of diesel-powered heavy construction equipment (INTERA, 2018). As 29 previously described, real-time air monitoring would be conducted for particulate levels as part of 30 the Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan to ensure the activities comply with the State and 31 Federal air quality regulations. The Site Safety Officer who is responsible for implementing the 32 UNC Health and Safety Plan would review air monitoring data and would have the authority to 33 upgrade and downgrade levels of protection based that information (Stantec, 2018).
34 7.4      Other Monitoring 35 UNC proposes other monitoring that addresses nonradiological air quality, ecological conditions, 36 and groundwater quality as described in the following sections.
37 Nonradiological Air Quality 38 The Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan specifies that the proposed action includes 39 nonradiological fugitive dust monitoring for particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10 (Stantec, 2019b).
40 This plan specifies that the 24-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for these two 41 pollutants would serve as the action levels associated with this monitoring (EIS Table 3.7-2).
42 The fugitive dust monitoring results would be reviewed by the RSO, and if air monitoring results 43 indicate unacceptable dust levels (e.g., at or above action levels), then existing mitigation would 7-4
 
1 be modified, or new mitigation would be implemented until acceptable monitoring results 2 are achieved.
3 Ecological Monitoring 4 As part of the Revegetation Plan, UNC would implement best management practices, such as 5 topsoil management practices and erosion control measures (e.g., mulching), as well as 6 revegetation monitoring requirements to ensure revegetation success at the UNC Mill Site 7 (Stantec, 2018). Monitoring methodology established in the Revegetation Plan uses a 8 systematic grid approach for sample site location to determine ground cover and woody plant 9 density, along with photo monitoring to visually catalog the vegetation progress. Following the 10 first growing season after seeding, each reclaimed unit would be subjected to a one-time 11 evaluation by a qualified revegetation specialist to document plant establishment as well as 12 record any other pertinent reclamation considerations. The evaluation would consist of a 13 qualified revegetation specialist traversing the reclamation areas and evaluating vegetation 14 establishment and related physical and biotic conditions. The specialist would document 15 (i) areas of poor seedling emergence, (ii) pervasively weak or stressed seedlings, (iii) indicators 16 of soil fertility problems, (iv) noxious weeds or invasive plant infestation, (v) evidence of 17 unintended livestock grazing, and (vi) excessive erosion (Stantec, 2018). An annual review of 18 collected data by a qualified revegetation specialist would capture any developing problems 19 early. The NRC would define the vegetation monitoring period as part of the amended NRC 20 license. Final year information would be collected and verified to provide evidence of 21 revegetation success for the proposed disposal site.
22 Groundwater Monitoring 23 As part of the ongoing groundwater corrective actions, remediation is ongoing for three shallow 24 hydrostratigraphic units beneath the UNC Mill Site: Zone 1 and Zone 3 of the Upper Gallup 25 Sandstone, and the Southwest Alluvium (EIS Figure 2.2-1). These areas received significant 26 amounts of NECR mine water that discharged into Pipeline Arroyo before and during milling 27 operations. In addition, these units were impacted by tailings seepage from the tailings disposal 28 area, and to a lesser extent, the 1979 tailings dam failure. UNCs Source Material License 29 Condition 30 provides details of the groundwater corrective action plan including: (i) wells and 30 constituents to be sampled; (ii) sample frequency; (iii) compliance standards; and (iv) reporting 31 frequency. The groundwater corrective action plan is also under EPA oversight through the 32 Superfund program. UNC groundwater remediation activities included a pump-and-treat 33 groundwater extraction system and evaporation ponds for disposal of treated water. With the 34 approval of NRC and EPA, the extraction systems for Zone 1 and the Southwest Alluvium were 35 shut down in 1999 and 2000, respectively, because both groundwater remediation systems had 36 reached the limits of their effectiveness and would be unable to further reduce the contaminant 37 concentrations due to the reduction of saturated thickness in the water-bearing units. A 38 small-scale pump-and-treat system is currently operating and being evaluated in Zone 3 in an 39 effort to continue to prevent groundwater migration towards the northern boundary of Zone 3 40 (EIS Section 2.2.1.2).
41 7.5      References 42 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. Standards for 43 Protection Against Radiation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
7-5
 
1 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. Domestic Licensing of 2 Source Material. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
3 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910.120. Hazardous 4 Waste Operations and Emergency Response. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing 5 Office.
6 29 CFR Part 1926. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1926.65. Hazardous 7 Waste Operations and Emergency Response. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing 8 Office.
9 40 CFR Part 300. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, 10 Part 300.150. Worker Health and Safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing 11 Office.
12 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, McKinley County, New Mexico.
13 EPA ID NMD030443303; Operable Unit: OU 02, Surface Soil Operable Unit. Dallas, Texas:
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. 2013.
15 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/681353.pdf> (Accessed 21 January 2019).
16 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 17 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 18 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 19 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
20 NMAC 20.3.4. New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 20, Environmental Protection. Standards 21 for Protection Against Radiation. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Mexico State.
22 NRC. Safety Evaluation Report of License Amendment Request. Docket No. 040-08907.
23 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ADAMS Accession No.
24 ML20210M050. 2020.
25 NRC. Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs 26 (Inception Through Normal Operations to License Termination)Effluent Streams and the 27 Environment. Revision 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. July 2007.
28 NRC. Regulatory Guide 8.30, Health Physics Surveys in Uranium Recovery Facilities.
29 Revision 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. May 2002.
30 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 31 Attachment L-1 Radiation Protection Plan. ADAMS Accession No. ML19305D530.
32 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. October 2019a.
33 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 34 Appendix Q: Dust Control and Air Monitoring Plan. ADAMS Accession No. ML19305D532.
35 Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. October 2019b.
36 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 37 Appendix L: Health and Safety Plan; Appendix U: Revegetation Plans. ADAMS Accession 38 No. ML18267A276. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018.
7-6
 
1                                8 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS 2 8.1      Introduction 3 This chapter summarizes benefits and costs associated with the proposed action and the 4 no-action alternative. The proposed action is to amend the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) 5 Source Material License SUA-1475 to allow UNC to transfer and dispose approximately 6 765,000 cubic meters (m3) [1,000,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine 7 waste on top of the UNC Mill Site tailings impoundment. The proposed action is being requested 8 to allow the licensee to comply with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) response 9 action under its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 10 (CERCLA) authority to protect human health and the environment from actual or threatened 11 releases of residual mining materials from the NECR Mine Site, as documented in a 2013 EPA 12 Record of Decision (ROD) (EPA, 2013) that is cited in the UNC license amendment request.
13 EPA previously evaluated several alternatives for the removal of NECR mine waste (EPA, 2009).
14 The EPA determined that the alternatives that satisfied the selection criteria included the 15 proposed action evaluated in this environmental impact statement (EIS).
16 This cost benefit analysis considers factors that may not have a directly quantifiable cost, such 17 as returning the NECR Mine Site to the Navajo Nation for grazing livestock and growing plants 18 for traditional uses, but do influence the effectiveness, feasibility, and ease of implementation for 19 both (i) the proposed action (Alternative 1), as well as two secondary alternatives [Transfer Mine 20 Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor (Alternative 1A), and Material Sourcing 21 for Proposed Disposal Site Cover (Alternative 1B)] that are described in EIS Section 2.2.1, and 22 (ii) the no-action alternative (Alternative 2), described in EIS Section 2.2.2. This analysis 23 considers environmental and economic costs and benefits resulting from implementation of the 24 proposed action or the no-action alternative. Implementation of either the proposed action or the 25 no-action alternative would generate regional and local economic benefits and costs. The 26 regional and local benefits from the proposed action would generally include increases in 27 employment, economic activity, and tax revenues. Environmental costs and benefits would also 28 be generated as a result of implementing the proposed action. EIS Chapter 4 discusses 29 potential environmental impacts from the proposed action and the no-action alternative.
30 8.2      Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and Secondary Alternatives 1A and 1B 31 UNC proposes to transfer the NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal site using dump trucks 32 on local roads that connect the two sites. UNC proposes to obtain cover material for the disposal 33 site from four borrow areas: the West Borrow Area {68,000 m3 [89,000 yd3]}, the East Borrow 34 Area {42,000 m3 [55,000 yd3]}, the South Borrow Area {122,000 m3 [160,000 yd3]}, and the North 35 Borrow Area {54,000 m3 [71,000 yd3]} (EIS Section 2.2.1). Additionally, as part of the proposed 36 action, UNC considered two secondary alternatives which, as discussed in EIS Chapter 4, have 37 different effects on the costs and benefits of the proposed action. Under Alternative 1A, UNC 38 would convey the NECR mine waste from the NECR Mine Site to the UNC Mill Site with an 39 above-grade, covered conveyor system. Under Alternative 1B, cover material for the proposed 40 disposal site would be obtained from the Jetty Area rather than from the four borrow areas.
41 8.2.1      Economic Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and 42            Secondary Alternatives 1A and 1B 43 The proposed action would offer regional and local benefits, including potential additional tax 44 revenue in the local economy if new workers move to the area, purchase goods and services, 8-1
 
1 and contribute to county and State tax revenues (EIS Section 4.11.1). Construction activities 2 would result in an influx of approximately 12 new workers in the Church Rock and Gallup, 3 New Mexico area, all of whom would likely seek local housing, which would additionally have a 4 net positive impact on the local economy. If all 12 workers bring 3 family members with them, 5 then a total of up to 48 new people may be moving into the Church Rock and Gallup area as a 6 result of the proposed action. For the proposed action, the expected population increase of 7 about 48 new people (EIS Section 4.11.1) would not measurably increase the demand for public 8 resources such as schools, hospitals, physician services, law enforcement, or fire protection. If 9 UNC were to transfer mine waste to the proposed disposal site using the conveyor alternative 10 (Alternative 1A), the employment of specialized workers may increase the average annual salary 11 of project workers compared to the proposed action (INTERA, 2018). If cover material is 12 obtained from the Jetty Area rather than the four borrow areas (Alternative 1B), the NRC staff 13 determined in EIS Section 4.11.2 that this alternative would not measurably affect population, 14 employment and income, housing, local finances, and community services compared to the 15 proposed action. The NRC staff also determined that, based on the NRC staffs experience in 16 evaluating the potential effects on community resources, the proposed action would change the 17 population in the communities of Gallup and Church Rock by approximately 0.2 percent; 18 therefore, regional and local benefits from the proposed action would be minimal.
19 The NRC staff reviewed UNCs license amendment request and their Financial Surety 20 Rebaselining Report (Stantec, 2020), which provides estimated costs for the remaining 21 reclamation at the UNC Mill Site, short-term surveillance activities, and the long-term surveillance 22 fee surety. The EPA estimated that the total cost of the proposed action (including obtaining 23 cover material for the disposal site from four borrow areas) is approximately $41.6 million (M) 24 (EPA, 2009). As part of the proposed project, Pipeline Arroyo also would be stabilized with a 25 reconstructed rock jetty with a riprap chute to account for a range of flood events (Stantec, 2019; 26 EIS Section 2.2.1.3).
27 The licensee estimates that implementing the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A) would cost an 28 additional $1M, and that implementing the cover material alternative (Alternative 1B) would result 29 in saving approximately $3M. Under Alternative 1B, restoration of Pipeline Arroyo would 30 generate materials that would be used as cover material in place of material sourced from the 31 four borrow areas under the proposed action, reducing the overall land disturbance associated 32 with the proposed action by approximately 19 ha [48 ac] (INTERA, 2018). In addition, the time 33 (labor), seed mix, and revegetation equipment needed to reseed the four borrow areas would not 34 be needed for Alternative 1B, reducing overall costs compared to the proposed action.
35 8.2.2    Environmental Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and 36          Secondary Alternatives 1A and 1B 37 The proposed action would result in environmental benefits, including the removal of NECR mine 38 wastes from the NECR Mine Site and enhanced stormwater controls in Pipeline Arroyo. The 39 EPA identified environmental benefits of the proposed action as a reduction in the mobility of 40 waste contaminants that could affect the air, surface water, and groundwater at the NECR Mine 41 Site through the isolation of waste within the proposed tailings impoundment at the UNC Mine 42 Site (EPA, 2009). However, some members of local Tribes have expressed that, while they want 43 the mine waste moved off the NECR Mine Site, moving the mine waste to the UNC Mill Site is 44 not an acceptable alternative to them (NRC, 2019).
45 There are several other possible environmental benefits from the proposed action and 46 alternatives under the proposed action. Soil amendments or composted material that meet the 8-2
 
1 EPA-approved revegetation plan specifications would be placed to final grade in excavated 2 areas at the NECR Mine Site to promote growth of native vegetation, which is environmentally 3 favorable. If UNC were to transfer mine waste using the conveyor alternative (Alternative 1A),
4 fewer impacts on traffic would occur because the traffic on New Mexico Highway 566 (NM 566) 5 would cross beneath the conveyor and would not be delayed due to the presence of haul trucks.
6 The NRC staff determined in EIS Section 4.6.2 that, if UNC obtains cover material (soil) from the 7 Jetty Area rather than exclusively from the four borrow areas (Alternative 1B), this alternative 8 would cost approximately $3M less and would reduce the overall amount of land disturbed by 9 approximately 20 hectares (ha) [48 acres (ac)] (INTERA, 2018). Under Alternative 1B, the 10 potential adverse impacts to the vegetative communities and wildlife habitats in the proposed 11 project area would also be reduced by approximately 20 ha [48 ac].
12 In EIS Chapter 4, the NRC staff determined that for several of the resource areas considered, 13 the environmental effects from the proposed action, or Alternative 1A or 1B, would not be 14 detectable or would not destabilize or noticeably alter important attributes of the resources 15 considered (EIS Table 5.1-1). However, the NRC staff determined that the environmental effects 16 from the proposed action, or Alternative 1A or Alternative 1B, on transportation, surface water, 17 air quality, noise, historic and cultural resources, and visual and scenic resources would be 18 sufficient to noticeably alter, but not destabilize, important attributes of these resources. The 19 NRC staff concluded in EIS Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 that, because the traffic delays from the 20 crossing would be frequent, unavoidable, and noticeable to users of NM 566, the additional traffic 21 flow impacts and the proposed traffic modifications would be SMALL to MODERATE.
22 Additionally, the NRC staff determined in EIS Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 that, because the 23 proposed action and secondary alternatives would alter the floodplains in the immediate vicinity 24 of the proposed project area and impact the floodplain and downstream drainage in Jetty Area, 25 the potential environmental impacts to the surface waters would be SMALL to MODERATE. The 26 NRC staff concluded in EIS Sections 4.7.1 and 4.7.2 that, because the air emissions would be 27 noticeable but not destabilizing when compared to ambient air standards, the impacts on air 28 quality from the peak year emissions would be MODERATE. The NRC staff concluded in EIS 29 Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 that the impacts resulting from noise would be noticeable to the local 30 community and would therefore be MODERATE. The NRC staff concluded in EIS Sections 4.9.1 31 and 4.9.2 that, because historic and cultural resources could potentially be disturbed by the 32 proposed project and secondary alternatives, and because consultations under Section 106 of 33 the National Historic Preservation Act are not yet complete, the potential environmental impacts 34 to historical and cultural resources would be SMALL if recommended mitigation measures are 35 followed, and MODERATE to LARGE if recommended mitigation measures are not followed and 36 cultural and historic resources are damaged. When considering the overall disturbance to land 37 area, the proposed action would alter the landscape noticeably, particularly for the nearby 38 residents. Therefore, the NRC staff determined in EIS Sections 4.10.1 and 4.10.2 that the visual 39 and scenic impacts would be MODERATE.
40 8.3    No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 41 Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not amend the UNC license and the EPA would 42 pursue a different remedy under CERCLA involving a different final disposal alternative for the 43 NECR mine waste. Under this alternative, the NECR mine waste could remain in place at the 44 NECR Mine Site for another estimated 10 years to allow EPA to select and implement a different 45 CERCLA remedy. Additionally, ongoing site reclamation and closure of the UNC Mill Site in 46 accordance with existing license conditions and applicable regulations at the UNC Mill Site would 47 continue to proceed under NRC oversight until the license is terminated, at which time the 8-3
 
1 tailings impoundment would be transferred to a custodial agency [e.g., the Federal government 2 (U.S. Department of Energy) or the State of New Mexico] for long-term surveillance.
3 8.3.1      Economic Benefits and Costs of the No-Action Alternative 4 Once EPA selects and implements an alternative CERCLA remedy, many of the work activities 5 (e.g., site preparation, excavation, waste transportation and disposal, and post-excavation/site 6 restoration activities) and costs needed to complete the selected remedy may be similar in scale 7 to those under the proposed action, and therefore, the regional and local economic benefits 8 would be similar to those determined for the proposed action discussed in EIS Section 8.2.1.
9 These economic benefits include potential additional tax revenue in the local economy if new 10 workers move to the area and purchase goods and services and increases in county and State 11 tax revenues through an increased tax base. However, because activities under the no-action 12 alternative associated with removal of the mine waste from the NECR Mine Site would not occur 13 for another estimated 10 years, any economic benefits resulting from activities associated with 14 implementing the no-action alternative would not occur until the time those activities commence.
15 8.3.2      Environmental Benefits and Costs of the No-Action Alternative 16 Under the no-action alternative, impacts associated with construction, waste transfer, and 17 closure of the proposed action (and its two secondary alternatives), including removal of the 18 NECR mine waste to the proposed disposal facility at the UNC Mill Site, would not occur. Until 19 the selection and implementation of a CERCLA remedy (taking another estimated 10 years), the 20 environmental benefits from the no-action alternative would result in no disturbances to the land, 21 soil, and ecological resources; no air quality or dust impacts on local residents; no increase in 22 background noise; no surface water flow alteration and surface water quality degradation from 23 the Jetty Area improvements; and no further disturbances to existing cultural and historic 24 resource sites. If the selection and implementation of an alternative CERCLA remedy involves 25 activities similar to the proposed action (e.g., site preparation, excavation, waste transportation 26 and disposal, and post-excavation/site restoration activities), then environmental benefits would 27 likely be similar to those for the proposed action described in EIS Section 8.2.2.
28 For the no-action alternative, potential environmental costs would continue, including the ongoing 29 existing site-specific impacts at the NECR Mine Site; specifically, the EPA determination of an 30 imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment as 31 described in the EPA ROD (EPA, 2013). In addition, the NECR Mine Site would remain 32 inaccessible by members of the Navajo Nation; therefore, the economic benefits of returning the 33 NECR Mine Site to the Navajo Nation for grazing livestock and growing plants for traditional uses 34 would not be realized.
35 8.4      References 36 EPA. Record of Decision, United Nuclear Corporation Site, McKinley County, New Mexico.
37 USEPA ID NMD030443303; Operable Unit: OU 02, Surface Soil Operable Unit. March 2013.
38 Dallas, Texas: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6.
39 <https://semspub.epa.gov/work/06/681353.pdf> (Accessed 21 January 2019) 40 EPA. Engineering Evaluation/Cost AnalysisNortheast Church Rock (NECR) Mine Site, 41 Gallup, New Mexico. SDMS DOCID# 2183626. San Francisco, California: U.S. Environmental 42 Protection Agency, Region 9. May 2009.
8-4
 
1 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 2 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 3 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 4 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
5 NRC. Summary Report for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste 6 at the United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Mill Site in McKinley County, New Mexico.
7 ADAMS Accession No. ML19338E254. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
8 December 2019.
9 Stantec. United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock Mill Site Financial Surety Cost Estimate.
10 ADAMS Accession No. ML20091J373. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
11 March 2020.Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License 12 SUA-1475. ADAMS Accession No. ML19287A009. Edmonton, Canada: Stantec Consulting 13 Services Inc. October 2019.
8-5
 
1            9
 
==SUMMARY==
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 2 This chapter summarizes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, two 3 secondary alternatives, and the no-action alternative, as fully described in the environmental 4 impact statement (EIS) Chapter 2. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) 5 regulations under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 implement the 6 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1966 requirements. Section 102(2)(C) of the 7 NEPA requires that EISs contain the following information: (i) any adverse environmental 8 effects that cannot be avoided, should the licensing action be implemented, (ii) any irreversible 9 and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the licensing action should 10 it be implemented, and (iii) the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment 11 and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The potential impacts are 12 presented in this form for each of the resource areas that may be affected by the proposed 13 action. The specific impacts are described in EIS Table 9.1-1.
14 The following terms are described in NUREG-1748 (NRC, 2003). The NRC staff have applied 15 the concepts in this guidance to address the specific timeframes associated with the proposed 16 action and the impact analysis approach of this EIS.
17
* Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts: applies to impacts that cannot be avoided 18        and for which no practical means of mitigation are available. These impacts are 19        evaluated in Chapter 4 of this EIS.
20
* Irreversible: involves commitments of environmental resources that cannot be restored.
21
* Irretrievable: applies to material resources and will involve commitments of materials 22        that, when used, cannot be recycled or restored for other uses by practical means.
23
* Short-term: represents the duration of the proposed action activities and associated 24        impacts from construction to closure of the proposed disposal site. Therefore, impacts 25        during this period generally affect the present quality of life for the public.
26
* Long-term: represents the period of time following the completion of proposed action 27        activities including persistent or delayed impacts that may occur after closure of the 28        proposed disposal site, with the potential to affect the quality of life for future 29        generations.
30 As discussed in EIS Chapter 4, the significance of potential environmental impacts is 31 categorized as follows:
32 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would neither 33 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource.
34 MODERATE: The environmental effects would be sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 35 destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
36 LARGE: The environmental effects would be clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 37 important attributes of the resource.
9-1
 
1 EIS Section 9.1 describes the environmental impacts from implementing the proposed action 2 and the two secondary alternatives considered, and Section 9.2 describes the environmental 3 impacts from implementing the no-action alternative.
4 9.1      Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 5 The proposed action is to amend United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Source Material License 6 SUA-1475 to allow UNC to transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 cubic meters (m3) 7 [1,000,000 cubic yards (yd3)] of Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine waste on top of a portion 8 of the UNC Mill Site tailings impoundment in northwestern New Mexico. The proposed UNC 9 schedule to complete disposal of the NECR mine waste is approximately 4 years (Stantec, 10 2018). As part of the proposed action, this EIS includes activities that would occur outside the 11 NRC-regulated UNC Mill Site boundary but that are necessary to conduct the proposed disposal 12 activities at the UNC Mill Site. This includes NECR mine waste excavation and transfer and 13 related supporting activities. A detailed description of the proposed action is provided in EIS 14 Section 2.2.1.
15 Under Alternative 1A (Transfer Mine Waste to the Proposed Disposal Site Using a Conveyor),
16 rather than haul the NECR mine waste to the UNC Mill Site by truck, UNC would convey the 17 mine waste from the NECR Mine Site with an above-grade, covered conveyor system to the 18 UNC Mill Site (INTERA, 2018). This alternative would avoid crossing New Mexico Highway 566 19 (NM 566) at grade to reduce the potential transportation-related impacts. East of the one-lane 20 haul road, the conveyor system would be placed within the same access road and would cross 21 NM 566 at the same location as under UNCs proposed action described above. West of the 22 one-lane haul road, the conveyor would be oriented northwest-southeast from the NECR mine 23 site to the UNC mill site. UNC estimates that this alternative would disturb 0.8 hectares (ha) 24 [2 acres (ac)] less than the proposed haul and access roads under the proposed action. The 25 system would include a bridge to protect passing traffic from any spills or debris falls.
26 Construction would require temporary lane closures and interruptions to transportation.
27 Under Alternative 1B (Material Sourcing for Proposed Disposal Site Cover), cover material for 28 the proposed disposal area would be sourced from the Jetty Area rather than from the four 29 preferred borrow areas as described under UNCs proposed action (INTERA, 2018).
30 Excavation for proposed jetty improvements would require 381,100 m3 [498,500 yd3] of soil 31 excavation and approximately 37,000 m3 [49,000 yd3] of sandstone excavation on the west 32 side of Pipeline Arroyo (INTERA, 2018; Stantec, 2019). From the estimated 381,100 m3 33 [498,500 yd3] of soil to be removed, approximately 9,200 m3 [12,000 yd3] is excluded from use 34 as a borrow source for construction (Stantec, 2019). The use of the remaining 372,000 m3 35 [486,500 yd3] of soil from the Jetty Area excavation would replace the need for the four original 36 borrow sources (EIS Section 4.4.1.1). The four proposed borrow sources for the proposed 37 action provide an estimated cumulative total available volume of 287,000 m3 [375,000 yd3]. The 38 area of disturbance of the Jetty Area under this alternative would be the same as under UNCs 39 proposed action. However, sourcing cover material from the 9.3-ha [23-ac] area disturbed for 40 construction of the Jetty Area in place of the proposed borrow areas would reduce the overall 41 area of land disturbance associated with the cleanup and stabilization at the UNC Mill Site by 42 19 ha [48 ac] (the amount of disturbance estimated for the borrow areas inclusive of the 43 disturbance with associated proposed haul roads).
44 The potential environmental impacts from the proposed action and the two secondary 45 alternatives considered (Alternatives 1A and 1B) are summarized in EIS Table 9.1-1. The 46 potential environmental impacts during construction-related activities, transferring NECR mine 9-2
 
1 waste to and placing the mine waste on the proposed disposal site, and proposed disposal site 2 closure activities for each resource are discussed in detail in EIS Chapter 4.
9-3
 
Table 9.1-1      Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Impact      Unavoidable Adverse Environmental                  Irreversible and Irretrievable                Enhancement of Long-Term Category                      Impacts                            Commitment of Resources                              Productivity Land Use  For the proposed action, there would be a    No impact. There would be no irreversible      The existing land use restrictions at the SMALL impact to land use. A total of 138      and irretrievable commitment of land          NECR Mine Site and the UNC Mill Site hectares (ha) [340 acres (ac)] of land        resources from implementing the proposed      would remain until remediation is would be disturbed by excavation of mine      action or Alternatives 1A and 1B. The          complete. There would be a long-term waste, construction of the proposed          duration of the project would be the 4 years  (beneficial) impact on land use disposal site, and construction of haul and  after which land use for the UNC Mill Site    associated with the release of the access roads. Under Alternative 1A, total    would remain restricted from uses other        NECR Mine Site for unrestricted use land disturbance would be reduced by          than long-term oversight and surveillance      after successful completion of the approximately 0.8 ha [2 ac], and under        under implementing regulations from the        proposed project and subsequent Alternative 1B, total land disturbance        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency          completion of the remaining activities would be reduced by approximately 19 ha      (EPA) Comprehensive Environmental              associated with the EPA removal action
[48 ac]. Restricted access and grazing        Response, Compensation and Liability Act      under CERCLA. The NRC staff restrictions at the Northeast Church Rock    (CERCLA) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory      expects that the UNC Mill site would (NECR) Mine Site and United Nuclear          Commissions (NRCs) Uranium Mill              remain inaccessible indefinitely. UNC 9-4                                                            Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA)        would complete any remaining Mill Site Corporation (UNC) Mill Site would remain in place. During closure, disturbed areas    of 1978.                                      reclamation activities, terminate UNCs and the evapotranspiration cover (ET)                                                        license, and transfer the UNC Mill Site would be reclaimed and revegetated.                                                          to a custodial agency [e.g. the U.S.
Department of Energys (DOEs)
Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Program or the State of New Mexico] for continued containment and protectiveness.
 
Table 9.1-1      Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Impact        Unavoidable Adverse Environmental              Irreversible and Irretrievable          Enhancement of Long-Term Category                      Impacts                          Commitment of Resources                          Productivity Transportation  During construction, there would be a      Some road surface degradation would      There would be some long-term MODERATE increase in project-related      occur from the increase in traffic from  impacts to transportation following traffic on New Mexico Highway 566          the proposed action. Otherwise, there    completion of the proposed project (NM 566) for the proposed action and      would be no irreversible and              from road surface degradation due to Alternatives 1A and 1B.                    irretrievable commitment of resources    the additional project traffic. No long-except for fuel resources consumed by    term impacts to traffic would occur During transfer of NECR mine waste for    vehicles and equipment operation,        because traffic volume and flow would the proposed action and Alternative 1A,    heating, commuter traffic, and regional  return to pre-construction levels there would be no impact on traffic flow  transport. Use of transportation          following completion of the proposed on NM 566 because a conveyor system        corridors would return to pre-project    activities.
would be used to transfer NECR mine        usage.
waste rather than haul trucks; however, worker commuting traffic impacts would likewise be MODERATE. For 9-5                    Alternative 1B, there would be a MODERATE impact on traffic flow (i.e., delays) from haul trucks crossing NM 566.
During closure, there would be a SMALL impact on transportation for the proposed action and Alternatives 1A and 1B because transfer of mine waste would be complete and project-related traffic on NM 566 would diminish and return to pre-construction levels.
 
Table 9.1-1  Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Impact    Unavoidable Adverse Environmental            Irreversible and Irretrievable            Enhancement of Long-Term Category                  Impacts                        Commitment of Resources                          Productivity Geology and  Bedrock geology would not be impacted  Soil layers would be irreversibly          There would be no long-term impacts Soils        by the proposed project. There would    disturbed by the proposed action and      to geology and soils following be a SMALL impact on soils from the    Alternatives 1A and 1B; however,          completion of the proposed project.
proposed action and Alternatives 1A    topsoil would be replaced during site and 1B. Soils would be disturbed        closure; therefore, the potential impact during construction activities and      would be SMALL. Reclamation and transfer of NECR mine waste to the      reseeding would mitigate the impact to proposed disposal site. These impacts  topsoil.
would be temporary and during site closure soils would be replaced and surfaces revegetated.
9-6
 
Table 9.1-1      Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Impact        Unavoidable Adverse Environmental                Irreversible and Irretrievable          Enhancement of Long-Term Category                      Impacts                          Commitment of Resources                          Productivity Surface Waters  There would be a SMALL to                  There would be no irreversible and        The proposed action would stop and Wetlands    MODERATE impact to surface water            irretrievable commitment of surface      Pipeline Arroyos eastward migration from the construction of the proposed      water from conducting the proposed        and potential undercutting of the action, as well as the transfer of the      action, as well as Alternatives 1A and    existing tailings impoundment. The waste and Alternatives 1A and 1B. The      1B. No drainage would be diverted,        proposed action would not divert any closure of the proposed project would      and undercutting caused by flow in        surface water from Pipeline Arroyo.
have a MODERATE impact on surface          Pipeline Arroyo would be mitigated.
water resources. Erosion of Pipeline                                                  The long-term impact of placing the Arroyo could result in drainage diversion  There are no wetlands in the proposed    mine waste on the existing tailings and undercutting.                          project area so there are no impacts to  impoundment is MODERATE due to wetlands.                                the alteration of the floodplain.
The licensee would use erosion control and stormwater pollution mitigation                                                  There are no wetlands in the proposed measures, as directed by the EPA, to                                                  project area so there are no impacts to 9-7                    ensure that surface water runoff from                                                wetlands.
disturbed areas does not degrade surface water resources.                                                              Potential surface water impacts associated with the long-term There are no wetlands in the proposed                                                performance of the tailings project area so there are no impacts to                                              impoundment with the added disposal wetlands.                                                                            site would be addressed by the satisfactory completion of the safety review and long-term surveillance by a custodial agency.
 
Table 9.1-1  Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Impact    Unavoidable Adverse Environmental              Irreversible and Irretrievable              Enhancement of Long-Term Category                    Impacts                        Commitment of Resources                            Productivity Groundwater  There would be a SMALL impact on          There would be a SMALL impact on            No long-term impacts to groundwater groundwater from the proposed action,      groundwater resources due to                resources are expected.
or Alternatives 1A and 1B, due to          consumptive use of groundwater.
consumptive use of groundwater.                                                        Potential impacts to groundwater associated with the long-term performance of the tailings impoundment with the added disposal site would be addressed by the satisfactory completion of the safety review and long-term surveillance by a custodial agency.
Ecological    For the proposed action there would be    Vegetative communities directly            Vegetation and wildlife species could Resources    SMALL impacts to wildlife and              impacted (i.e., removed) by                experience SMALL long-term impacts 9-8 MODERATE impacts to vegetation. A          earthmoving activities and wildlife        even if the composition and abundance short-term loss of 138 ha [340 ac] of      injuries and mortalities would be          of both plant and wildlife species in the vegetation and habitat would be            irreversible. However, the                  proposed project area are altered or disturbed by excavation of mine waste,    implementation of mitigation measures      reduced in number. After 3.5-years of construction of the proposed disposal      could reduce impacts. These include        construction of the proposed disposal site, haul roads and access roads, and    the use of speed limits to reduce          site and transfer of NECR mine waste, excavation of the material at the borrow  potential impacts to wildlife, conducting  the disturbed area within the proposed areas. The short-term loss of              bird nest surveys prior to land            disposal area would be revegetated vegetation could stimulate the            disturbances, and use of dust              with native species to maximize introduction and spread of undesirable    suppression measures to mitigate dust      resilience and sustainability, and and invasive, nonnative species, and      generation that may settle on forage        impacts would be SMALL.
displacement of wildlife species.          and edible vegetation. Areas impacted by earthmoving activities would be Alternatives 1A and 1B would disturb a    reclaimed and reseeded in accordance smaller surface area and would also        with the licensees revegetation plans have SMALL to MODERATE impacts.            during project closure.
 
Table 9.1-1      Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Impact        Unavoidable Adverse Environmental              Irreversible and Irretrievable        Enhancement of Long-Term Category                        Impacts                        Commitment of Resources                        Productivity Meteorology,      There would be a MODERATE impact          There would be no irreversible or      There would be no long-term effects to Climatology,      on air quality from nongreenhouse        irretrievable commitment of air        air quality following license termination.
and Air Quality  gases during the construction and        resources from the proposed project.
transfer phases for the proposed action as well as Alternatives 1A and 1B because of the levels of nitrogen dioxides and PM10 generated over the 1-hour and 24-hour time periods, respectively The closure phase generates lower levels of these pollutants, so the impacts would be SMALL. The low levels of greenhouse gases generated by the proposed action, Alternative 1A, and 9-9                    Alternative 1B result in a SMALL impact on air quality.
Noise            For the proposed action, there would be  Not applicable.                        No impact. There would be no noise a MODERATE noise impact. The                                                    impact following the closure of the closest receptor is approximately                                                proposed action.
0.22 km [0.14 mi] from the proposed project area. Any noise impacts would be short term, intermittent, and would dissipate due to the topography and with distance, however due to the proximity and the existing conditions, these changes would be noticeable.
Under Alternatives 1A and 1B, noise levels would not be substantially changed and would have a MODERATE noise impact.
 
Table 9.1-1    Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Impact    Unavoidable Adverse Environmental                Irreversible and Irretrievable              Enhancement of Long-Term Category                      Impacts                          Commitment of Resources                              Productivity Historic and  There would be adverse effects to            If mitigation measures to avoid known        LARGE impact if historic and cultural Cultural      historic and cultural resources during all  sites are not implemented, or if historic    sites are adversely affected; SMALL Resources      phases and Alternatives 1A and 1B            and cultural sites are discovered as part    impact if no historic and cultural sites (MODERATE to LARGE impacts) if              of an inadvertent discovery plan but          are adversely affected. There would UNC does not implement recommended          cannot be avoided, or the impacts to          be no potential impact following the 4-mitigation measures. With mitigation,        these sites cannot be mitigated, this        year proposed project.
historic and cultural resources would not    could result in an irreversible and be adversely affected (SMALL impacts)        irretrievable loss of historic and cultural for the proposed action and                  resources.
Alternatives 1A and 1B. UNC would adhere to an inadvertent discovery plan regarding the discovery of previously undocumented historic and cultural resources during the estimated 4-year 9-10                  project. These procedures would entail the stoppage of work and the notification of appropriate parties (Federal, Tribal, and State agencies).
 
Table 9.1-1    Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment Impact      Unavoidable Adverse Environmental            Irreversible and Irretrievable      and the Maintenance and Enhancement Category                    Impacts                      Commitment of Resources                    of Long-Term Productivity Visual and    During construction, there would be a        There would be a MODERATE            MODERATE impact. There would be a Scenic        MODERATE change to the landscape due        permanent change in the              permanent change in the landscape which Resources      to the introduction of heavy equipment and  topography of the proposed          would not be noticeable to the casual additional roads.                            project area. However,              observer due to the existing topography of depending on the cultural and        the area and the revegetation with native There would be a MODERATE impact on          religious significance of the land  plants that would occur. However, the the visual landscape from the transfer of    to the Navajo people, there          alteration to the landscape could be mine waste with haul trucks (the proposed    could be an irreversible and        significant to the Red Water Pond Road action) from the continuation of            irretrievable loss of resources. Community due to their proximity and the infrastructure and equipment present at                                          potential cultural and religious significance the proposed project area.                                                        of the land.
During closure, there would be a MODERATE impact on visual resources because of the permanent change in the 9-11                  landscape and the potential cultural and religious significance of the land to the Navajo Nation.
Alternative 1A would have a MODERATE impact on the landscape due to the introduction of the conveyance system.
Impacts would be temporary, and the disturbed area would be revegetated with native plants.
The impact to the visual landscape due to Alternative 1B would likewise be MODERATE because the Jetty Area is below grade and only visible from immediately adjacent areas. The introduction of heavy equipment would be temporary, and debris would be removed after construction activities.
 
Table 9.1-1      Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment Impact        Unavoidable Adverse Environmental          Irreversible and Irretrievable      and the Maintenance and Enhancement Category                        Impacts                      Commitment of Resources                  of Long-Term Productivity Socioeconomics  The proposed project would have a            No irreversible socioeconomic      Following the closure activities at the SMALL and beneficial impact on local          commitments would be made          proposed disposal site, up to 40 workers finances (i.e., increased taxes and          because resources would be          would need to find other employment.
revenue), and a SMALL impact on              reallocated for other purposes      There would be a loss of tax revenue to population, employment, housing, school      once the project is completed.      nearby communities and a reduction in enrollment, and utilities and public                                              economic activity where direct and indirect services due to the influx of workers and                                        workers that supported the project reside.
their families. No additional workers                                            However, because the number of would be needed for Alternatives 1A and                                          employees that would need to find other 1B; therefore, impacts would be similar to                                        work is so small, the possible decrease in the proposed action.                                                              population would not create detectable changes in the potential socioeconomic impacts following closure activities.
Environmental    There would be disproportionately high        If the impacts to cultural values  Disproportionately high or adverse 9-12  Justice          and adverse environmental impacts (but        of the Navajo Nation resulting      environmental impacts (but not human not human health impacts) to minority and    from the disturbance of sacred      health impacts) on minority and low-income populations from the              sites within the proposed project  low-income populations following the construction of the proposed disposal site,  area and the environment            closure phase are not expected. The transfer of NECR mine waste, and closure      cannot be mitigated, this could    existing threat to public health at the activities, including from Alternatives 1A    result in an irreversible and      NECR Mine Site identified by EPA under or 1B.                                        irretrievable loss of cultural      CERCLA would be reduced after values.                            completion of the removal of mine waste associated with the proposed action. The proposed action would allow the Navajo Nation to use the land at the NECR Mine Site, enhancing long-term maintenance and productivity.
 
Table 9.1-1    Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment Impact      Unavoidable Adverse Environmental            Irreversible and Irretrievable    and the Maintenance and Enhancement Category                    Impacts                        Commitment of Resources                of Long-Term Productivity Public and    There would be a SMALL impact on public      Not applicable.                  The SMALL public and occupational health Occupational  and occupational health. Construction                                          hazards associated with the proposed Health        and transfer of NECR mine waste for the                                        action would further diminish as proposed action and Alternatives 1A and                                        reclamation activities are completed, 1B would involve potential radiological and                                    including termination of UNCs NRC nonradiological hazards to workers and                                          license, and transfer of the Mill Site to a the public. These hazards would be                                              custodial agency [e.g. the Federal addressed by adherence to UNCs Health                                          government (DOE) or the State of New and Safety Plan, NRC-approved Radiation                                        Mexico] for long-term surveillance. The Protection Plan, and Dust Control and Air                                      existing threat to public health at the Monitoring Plan that were developed in                                          NECR Mine Site identified by EPA under accordance with relevant Federal and                                            CERCLA would be reduced after State safety regulations.                                                      completion of the removal of mine waste associated with the proposed action and then would be fully addressed after EPA 9-13                                                                                                  completes the related CERCLA removal action. Potential public health impacts associated with the long-term performance of the tailings impoundment with the added disposal site would be addressed by the satisfactory completion of the safety review and long-term surveillance by a custodial agency.
 
Table 9.1-1  Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Secondary Alternatives (Modifications to the Proposed Action) (cont.)
Short-Term Uses of the Environment Impact      Unavoidable Adverse Environmental            Irreversible and Irretrievable    and the Maintenance and Enhancement Category                      Impacts                        Commitment of Resources                of Long-Term Productivity Waste        Nonhazardous solid waste and liquid            The energy consumed, the          No impact. There would be no long-term Management    waste generation and disposal                  construction materials used that  impact to waste management following (e.g., sanitary waste and materials            could not be reused or recycled,  completion of the proposed action.
resulting from construction equipment          and the resources used to maintenance) from activities implemented      properly handle and dispose of during the construction, transfer, and        all waste streams would closure phases of the proposed project,        represent an irretrievable including during Alternatives 1A and 1B,      commitment of resources, would result in SMALL impacts on              resulting in a SMALL impact.
available disposal capacity because permitted facilities are available to accept the wastes.
9-14
 
1 9.2    References 2 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. Environmental 3 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.
4 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
5 INTERA. Supplemental Environmental Report for the United Nuclear Corporation Site Source 6 Material License Amendment Request. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML18267A387, 7 ML18267A388, and ML18267A389. Albuquerque, New Mexico: INTERA Geosciences and 8 Engineering Solutions. September 2018.
9 NRC. NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 10 NMSS Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 2003.
11 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 12 Appendix A: General Design Information; Appendix G: Mine Waste Repository Design; 13 Appendix H: Borrow Areas. ADAMS Accession No. ML19322D019. Edmonton, Canada:
14 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. November 2019.
15 Stantec. Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Material License SUA-1475, 16 Appendix L: Health and Safety Plan; Appendix R: Release Contingency and Prevention Plan; 17 Appendix U: Revegetation Plans. ADAMS Accession No. ML18267A276. Edmonton, Canada:
18 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. July 2018.
9-15
 
1                                10 LIST OF PREPARERS 2 This section documents all individuals who were involved with the preparation of this 3 environmental impact statement (EIS). Contributors include staff from the U.S. Nuclear 4 Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its contractor, the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory 5 Analyses (CNWRA). Each individuals role, education, and experience are outlined next.
6 10.1    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors 7 Christine Pineda: Alternate Environmental Project Manager 8        B.A., 1993, Dickinson College, 1993 9        Certificate, Environmental Studies, Dickinson College, 1993 10        M.S., Environmental Sciences and Policy, Johns Hopkins University, 2000 11        Years of Experience: 20 12 James Smith: Safety Project Manager, Senior Health Physicist 13        B.S., Physics, the College of Charleston, 1986 14        M.S., Physics, the American University, 1991 15        Years of Experience: 33 16 Ashley Waldron: Environmental Project Manager 17        B.S., Biology, Frostburg State University, 2009 18        Years of Experience: 11 19 10.2 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) Contributors 20 Nathan B. Hall: Waste Management, Cost Benefit 21        B.S., Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland, 2006 22        M.B.A., Business Administration, Johns Hopkins University, 2012 23        Years of Experience: 13 24 Taylor Holt: Water Resources, Cumulative Impacts 25        B.S., Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University 2014 26        M.E., Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University 2017 27        Years of Experience: 2 28 Miriam Juckett: Senior Program Manager, NEPA Reviewer, Public Outreach 29        B.S., Chemistry, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2003 30        M.S., Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2006 31        Years of Experience: 17 32 Patrick LaPlante: Principal Investigator, Transportation, Public and Occupational Health 33        B.S., Environmental Studies, Western Washington University, 1988 34        M.S., Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Georgetown University, 1994 35        Years of Experience: 31 10-1
 
1 Amy Hester Minor: Principal Investigator, Ecological Resources, Socioeconomics, 2 Environmental Justice 3        B.A., Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, 1998 4        Years of Experience: 21 5 Marla Morales: Land Use, Cumulative Impacts 6        B.A., Geology, Vanderbilt University, 2001 7        M.S., Geology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2007 8        Years of Experience: 18 9 James Prikryl: Geology and Soils, Water Resources 10        B.S., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1984 11        M.A., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1989 12        Years of Experience: 34 13 Bradley Werling: Meteorology, Climatology, Air Quality 14        B.A., Engineering Physics, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, 1985 15        B.S., Chemistry, Southwest Texas State University, 1999 16        M.S., Environmental Science, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2000 17        Years of Experience: 33 18 10.3 CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors 19 Hope Luhman: National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Support 20        B.A., Anthropology, Muhlenberg College, 1980 21        M.A., Social Relations, Lehigh University, 1982 22        M.A., Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, 1988 23        Ph.D., Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, 1991 24        Years of Experience: 32 25 Andrew Wilkins: Cultural and Historic Resources 26        B.A., Historic Preservation, University of Mary Washington, 2006 27        M.A., Historical Archaeology, University of Massachusetts Boston, 2009 28        Ph.D., Anthropology, University of Tennessee, 2017 29        Years of Experience: 13 10-2
 
1                                  11 DISTRIBUTION LIST 2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing copies of this environmental 3 impact statement (EIS) to the organizations and individuals listed as follows. The NRC will 4 provide copies to other interested organizations and individuals upon request.
5 11.1    Federal Agencies 6 Bureau of Indian Affairs 7 Navajo Region Regional Office 8 301 West Hill Street 9 Gallup, NM 87301 10 U.S. Department of Energy 11 Office of Legacy Management 12 2597 Legacy Way 13 Grand Junction, CO 81503 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 15 Region 6 16 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500 17 Dallas, TX 75270 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 19 Region 9 20 75 Hawthorne St. (SFD-6-2) 21 San Francisco, CA 94105 22 11.2 Tribal Governments 23 Navajo Nation 24 Jonathan Nez, President 25 100 Parkway 26 P.O. Box 7440 27 Window Rock, AZ 86515 28 Richard Begay, THPO 29 Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office 30 P.O. Box 4950 31 Window Rock, AZ 86515 32 Oliver Whaley, Executive Director 33 Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency 34 P.O. Box 339 35 Window Rock, AZ 86515 11-1
 
1 Navajo Nation Navajo Superfund Office 2 43 Crest Road, 3 St. Michaels, AZ 86511 4 Hopi Tribe 5 Timothy L. Nuvangyaoma, Chairman 6 P.O. Box 123 7 Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039 8 Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director 9 Hopi Cultural Preservation Office 10 P.O. Box 123 11 Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039 12 11.3    State Agencies 13 New Mexico Environment Department 14 Superfund Oversight Section 15 1190 St. Francis Drive, 16 Santa Fe, NM 87505 17 New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office 18 407 Galisteo St., Suite 236 19 Santa Fe, NM 87501 20 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 21 One Wildlife Way 22 P.O. Box 25112 23 Santa Fe, NM 87507 24 11.4 Local Agency Officials 25 The Honorable Louie Bonaguidi, Mayor 26 City of Gallup 27 110 West Aztec Avenue 28 Gallup, NM 87301 29 McKinley County Commissioners 30 P.O. Box 70 31 Gallup, NM 87305 32 11.5    Other Organizations and Individuals 33 Red Water Pond Road Community Association 34 Multicultural Alliance For A Safe Environment 35 P.O. Box 4524 36 Albuquerque, NM 87196 11-2
 
1 Southwest Research and Information Center 2 105 Stanford SE 3 P.O. Box 4524 4 Albuquerque, NM 87196 5 New Mexico Environmental Law Center 6 1405 Luisa Street, Suite 5 7 Santa Fe, NM 87505 8 University of New Mexico - Gallup Zollinger Library 9 705 Gurley Avenue 10 Gallup, NM 87301 11 Octavia Fellin Public Library 12 115 W Hill Avenue 13 Gallup, NM 87301 11-3
 
12 INDEX 1                        A                        40 Environmental Justice, xxiv, 1-6, 3-75, 41  3-76, 3-78, 4-4, 4-60, 4-65, 4-67, 5-46, 2 Accident, Accidents, 3-7, 3-89, 4-7, 4-69, 42  5-47, 5-48, 5-49 3  4-71, 5-18, 5-48 43 Evaporation Ponds, xvii, 1-2, 1-3, 2-8, 2-9, 4 American Indian, 1-12, 3-63, 3-64, 3-75, 44  2-10, 3-4, 3-17, 3-24, 3-28, 3-37, 3-85, 5  3-76, 3-82, 4-65, 5-9, 5-11 45  3-91, 5-32, 5-50, 7-5 6 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate 46 Evapotranspiration Cover, ET Cover, 7  Requirements, ARARs, 1-11, 1-12, 47  2-13, 2-15, 2-17, 4-6, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 8  2-24, 4-3, 6-2 48  4-18, 4-20, 4-26, 4-28, 4-34, 4-35, 4-46, 9 Aquifer, Aquifers 3-29, 3-30, 3-36, 4-25, 49  4-58, 4-63, 4-79, 5-37, 5-46, 9-4 10  4-26, 4-27, 5-27, 5-28 50 Evapotranspiration, 2-13, 4-6, 4-26, 9-4 11 Atomic Energy Act, AEA, 1-11, 2-4, 2-21, 12  3-83, 6-3 51                          F 13                        C                        52 Flood, 2-6, 2-8, 2-9, 2-15, 3-15, 3-17, 53  3-28, 4-20, 5-37, 8-2 14 Climate Change, 3-48, 4-45, 5-12, 5-35, 54 Floodplain, xxii, 2-8, 3-28, 3-67, 4-19, 15  5-36, 5-37 55  4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 8-3, 9-7 16 Corrective Action Plan, xvii, 1-2, 1-3, 2-9, 56 Fugitive Dust, xxii, xxiii, 2-15, 2-18, 4-37, 17  2-10, 3-24, 7-5 57  4-38, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-57, 18 Cost, Costs xxiv, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 2-23, 2-24, 58  4-58, 4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 19  3-80, 3-86, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64, 5-4, 5-5, 59  4-73, 4-76, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 7-5 20  5-15, 5-17, 5-38, 5-45, 5-47, 5-50, 8-1, 21  8-2, 8-3, 8-4 60                          G 22 Covered Conveyor System, xix, 2-1, 2-7, 23  4-6, 4-9, 4-15, 4-23, 4-28, 4-35, 4-42,        61 Greenhouse, 2-18, 3-52, 4-37, 4-45, 5-35, 24  4-48, 4-56, 4-59, 4-63, 4-68, 4-75, 4-79,      62  5-36, 6-10, 9-9 25  8-1, 9-2                                        63 Groundwater, xvii, xxiii, 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 2-8, 26 Critical Habitat, Critical Habitats, 1-12,        64  2-9, 2-10, 2-21, 2-22, 2-24, 3-23, 3-24, 27  1-13, 3-46, 3-47, 4-31, 5-31                    65  3-27, 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 66  3-85, 3-88, 3-91, 4-1, 4-3, 4-17, 4-21, 28                        D                        67  4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 68  4-31, 5-3, 5-7, 5-15, 5-22, 5-23, 5-26, 29 Dam Failure, 2-9, 3-26, 5-27, 7-5 69  5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-32, 5-42, 5-47, 30 Decommissioning, xvii, 1-2, 1-8, 2-9, 70  5-49, 5-50, 7-4, 7-5, 8-3, 9-8 31  2-21, 3-85, 5-44 32 Dose, Doses, 1-7, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 71                          J 33  4-72, 4-74, 5-48, 5-51, 7-1, 7-3 72 Jetty, xix, xxii, 2-1, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-13, 34                        E                        73  2-15, 3-1, 3-4, 3-42, 3-59, 4-4, 4-5, 4-7, 74  4-10, 4-16, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-23, 35 Earthquake, Earhquakes, 3-18, 3-20, 75  4-26, 4-29, 4-36, 4-37, 4-43, 4-46, 4-49, 36  3-104, 5-19 76  4-56, 4-59, 4-63, 4-64, 4-68, 4-76, 4-79, 37 Emergency, 1-10, 2-8, 2-22, 3-82, 3-84, 77  5-14, 5-16, 5-20, 5-22, 5-23, 5-27, 5-31, 38  4-46, 4-47, 4-50, 4-62, 4-71, 5-3, 5-5, 78  5-33, 5-35, 5-36, 5-41, 5-45, 5-46, 5-49, 39  5-45 79  8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 9-2, 9-11 12-1
 
1                        M                      47 New Mexico Department of Game and 48  Fish, NMDGF, 1-13, 1-14, 3-38, 4-31, 4-2 Monitor, Monitored, 1-10, 2-10, 2-20, 3-7, 49  32, 4-33, 4-36, 6-6, 6-9, 11-2 3  3-37, 3-45, 3-50, 3-58, 4-8, 4-21, 4-30, 50 New Mexico Environment Department, 4  4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-71, 5-28, 5-50 6-10, 51  NMED, 1-14, 1-16, 3-26, 3-28, 3-37, 3-5  7-2 52  38, 3-50, 3-90, 4-39, 4-43, 4-44, 4-83, 6 Monitoring, xxii, 1-7, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 53  5-3, 5-4, 5-24, 5-25, 5-29 7  2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 3-37, 3-50, 3-53, 3-89, 54 New Mexico State Historic Preservation 8  3-90, 4-25, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-40, 55  Office, NMSHPO, xxiii, 1-13, 1-14, 3-55, 9  4-52, 4-54, 4-66, 4-67, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 56  3-58, 3-64, 4-51, 4-54, 5-40, 11-2, A-1, 10  5-6, 5-21, 5-33, 5-35, 5-39, 5-48, 6-1, 57  A-2 11  6-2, 6-3, 6-7, 6-8, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5 58 Nongreenhouse, xix, 2-18, 4-37, 4-44, 9-9 12                        N 59                        P 13 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 60 Particulate Matter, xxii, 2-18, 3-48, 4-37, 14  NAAQS, 3-48, 3-50, 4-38, 4-40, 5-33, 5-61  5-35, 6-7, 7-5 15  35, 6-7, 6-10, 7-5 62 Pipeline Arroyo, xvii, xxii, 1-1, 2-6, 2-7, 16 National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, 63  2-8, 2-9, 2-13, 2-15, 3-1, 3-14, 3-23, 17  xvii, xxiv, 1-1, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13, 64  3-24, 3-25, 3-26, 3-27, 3-28, 3-30, 3-35, 18  1-16, 1-18, 2-1, 2-22, 2-27, 3-75, 3-94, 65  3-41, 3-42, 3-84, 4-5, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 19  4-1, 4-2, 4-34, 4-64, 4-70, 5-1, 5-11, 66  4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 20  6-3, 9-1 67  4-26, 4-29, 4-31, 4-46, 4-64, 5-5, 5-24, 21 National Historic Preservation Act, NHPA, 68  5-25, 5-27, 7-5, 8-2, 9-2, 9-7 22  xxiii, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 3-54, 3-59, 69 Probable Maximum Precipitation, PMP, 23  4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 4-67, 5-40, 8-3, 10-2, 70  4-21, 5-37 24  A-1 71 Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 25 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 72  PSD, xxii, 2-5, 3-52, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 26  System, NPDES, 1-17, 2-20, 4-12, 73  4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 5-35 27  4-18, 4-26, 4-78, 5-20, 5-24, 5-25, 5-29, 74 Principal Threat Waste, PTW, 2-5, 2-10, 28  5-32, 6-4, 6-5, 6-9 75  2-11, 2-12, 2-16, 2-23, 4-11, 4-17, 5-5, 29 Native American Graves Protection and 76  5-17, 5-34 30  Repatriation Act, NAGPRA, 1-12, 3-63, 77 Puerco River, xvii, 1-1, 2-8, 3-23, 3-26, 31  3-64 78  3-27, 3-28, 32 Navajo Nation Department of Fish and 79  3-84, 3-89, 3-90, 3-104, 4-17, 4-31, 5-5, 33  Wildlife, NNDFW, 3-38, 3-45, 3-46, 80  5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26 34  3-47, 4-31, 4-32, 4-36, 4-83, 6-6 35 Navajo Nation Environmental Protection 81                        Q 36  Agency, NNEPA, xviii, 1-3, 1-12, 1-14, 37  1-15, 3-4, 3-38, 3-43, 3-49, 3-54, 3-86,      82 Quivira, xviii, 1-5, 2-10, 3-3, 3-23, 3-37, 38  4-4, 4-31, 4-64, 4-65, 5-4, 6-2, 6-11,        83  3-86, 5-4, 5-6, 5-14, 5-15, 5-16, 5-17, 39  11-1                                          84  5-20, 5-22, 5-23, 5-26, 5-28, 5-30, 5-31, 40 Navajo Nation Historic Preservation            85  5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-38, 5-40, 5-41, 41  Department, NNHPD, 3-58, 3-64, 4-32,          86  5-42, 5-47, 5-50, 5-52 42  4-36, 6-6 43 Navajo Nation Tribal Historic Preservation      87                        R 44  Office, NNTHPO, xxiii, 1-13, 1-14, 1-19,      88 Record of Decision, ROD, xviii, 1-6, 1-12, 45  3-55, 3-58, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 5-40, 6-10,    89  1-16, 2-6, 2-23, 2-24, 2-28, 3-35, 3-37, 46  11-1, 2                                      90  3-86, 4-17, 4-24, 4-26, 4-66, 4-69, 4-76, 91  5-6, 5-55, 7-6, 8-1, 8-4 12-2
 
1 Red Water Pond Road, xviii, xxiii, xxiv,      41                            T 2  1-5, 1-10, 1-15, 3-28, 3-53, 3-68, 3-69, 42 Tax, Taxes, xxiv, 3-81, 4-62, 4-64, 5-43, 3  3-70, 3-78, 3-86, 4-4, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 43  5-44, 5-45, 8-1, 8-2, 8-4, 9-12 4  4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 44 Threatened and Endangered Species, A-1 5  4-69, 5-6, 5-15, 5-38, 5-41, 5-42, 5-45, 45 Traditional Cultural Property, TCP, 3-60, 6  5-48, 5-54, 6-11, 9-11, 11-2 46  3-64, 3-68 7 Release, 1-7, 1-9, 2-8, 2-9, 2-13, 2-20, 47 Traffic, xxii, xxiii, 2-7, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 8  3-45, 3-84, 3-85, 4-3, 4-5, 4-12, 4-13, 48  2-16, 2-20, 3-7, 3-53, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 9  4-14, 4-27, 4-34, 4-78, 5-5, 5-7, 5-15, 49  4-10, 4-12, 4-36, 4-47, 4-58, 4-62, 4-63, 10  5-27, 5-35, 5-42, 6-3, 6-5, 6-6, 7-1, 7-4, 50  4-66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-74, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 11  9-4 51  5-19, 5-21, 5-25, 5-38, 5-39, 5-42, 6-3, 12 Releases, xviii, xxiii, 1-4, 1-6, 1-16, 2-6, 52  8-3, 9-2, 9-5 13  2-9, 2-20, 2-23, 2-24, 3-37, 3-84, 4-13, 53 Transportation, xix, xxii, xxiv, 1-6, 2-7, 14  4-14, 4-29, 4-32, 5-5, 5-20, 5-27, 5-51, 54  2-17, 2-20, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7, 3-72, 3-83, 15  6-5, 6-6, 6-8, 8-1 55  3-89, 4-2, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 16 Revegetation, 1-3, 1-7, 1-9, 2-17, 3-38, 56  4-14, 4-19, 4-24, 4-33, 4-49, 4-56, 4-57, 17  4-3, 4-6, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-20, 4-23, 57  4-62, 4-66, 4-68, 4-75, 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 18  4-28, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-48, 4-49, 58  5-19, 5-25, 5-44, 5-49, 8-3, 8-4, 9-2, 9-5 19  4-55, 4-58, 4-60, 4-63, 4-64, 4-67, 4-74, 59 Tribal, iii, xxiii, xxv, 1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, 20  4-79, 5-20, 5-23, 5-25, 5-27, 5-29, 5-32, 60  1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-18, 2-27, 3-3, 3-5, 21  5-42, 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-10, 7-5, 61  3-36, 3-43, 3-46, 3-55, 3-64, 3-65, 4-30, 22  8-2, 8-3, 9-8, 9-11 62  4-51, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-65, 4-68, 5-3, 23 Revegetation Plan, Revegetation Plans, 63  5-11, 5-25, 5-30, 5-32, 5-39, 5-40, 5-48, 24  2-17, 3-38, 4-6, 4-15, 4-16, 4-20, 4-23, 64  6-1, 6-2, 6-10, 9-10, 11-1, A-1, A-2 25  4-28, 4-35, 4-36, 4-48, 4-55, 4-58, 4-68, 26  5-20, 5-32, 6-3, 6-4, 6-6, 8-3, 9-8          65                          U 27                        S                      66 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 67  Act, UMTRCA, 1-11, 1-12, 1-16, 2-21, 28 Seismic, Seismicity, 3-18, 3-20, 5-19, 5-22 68  2-22, 3-83, 4-2, 4-5, 4-6, 4-67, 5-15, 29 Species of Concern, 3-42, 3-45 69  5-32, 6-3, 9-4 30 Stormwater, xxii, 1-12, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 31  2-11, 2-12, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-20,    70                          W 32  3-91, 4-3, 4-12, 4-13, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 33  4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-32,    71 Waters of the United States, WOTUS, 34  4-34, 4-57, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 5-20, 5-21,    72  3-28, 3-29, 3-93 35  5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 6-5, 6-6, 6-9, 8-2, 9-7    73 Wetland, Wetlands, 3-28, 3-29, 4-17, 36 Surface Water, xix, xxii, 1-6, 2-9, 2-10,      74  4-18, 4-19, 9-7 37  2-11, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 3-27, 3-29, 4-17,    75 White Mesa, 2-5, 2-11, 2-23, 4-2, 5-6, 38  4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25,    76  5-18 39  4-26, 4-31, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 40  5-26, 5-30, 6-5, 8-3, 8-4, 9-7 12-3
 
APPENDIX A CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE
 
1                APPENDIX A CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 2 The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act 3 of 1966 require that Federal agencies consult with applicable State and Federal agencies and 4 groups (including Tribal governments) prior to taking action that may affect threatened and 5 endangered species, essential fish habitat, or historic and archaeological resources. This 6 appendix contains consultation documentation related to these Federal laws.
Table A-1        Chronology of Consultation Correspondence ADAMS Accession Author                    Recipient              Date of Letter          Number U.S. Nuclear            Navajo Nation (J. Nez)        April 30, 2019          ML19094B487 Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear            Laguna Pueblo                April 30, 2019          ML19119A241 Regulatory              (W. Herrera)
Commission U.S. Nuclear            Isleta Pueblo (M. Zuni)      April 30, 2019          ML19119A242 Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear            Hopi Tribe                    April 30, 2019          ML19119A243 Regulatory              (T. Nuvangyaoma)
Commission U.S. Nuclear            Acoma Pueblo (B. Vallo)      April 30, 2019          ML19119A244 Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear            Zuni Tribe (V. Panteah)      April 30, 2019          ML19119A245 Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear            White Mountain Apache        April 30, 2019          ML19119A246 Regulatory              Tribe (G. Lee-Gatewood)
Commission U.S. Nuclear            Tesuque Pueblo                April 30, 2019          ML19119A247 Regulatory              (M. Herrera)
Commission U.S. Department of      U.S. Nuclear Regulatory      October 16, 2019        ML19277E628 the Interior Bureau of  Commission Indian Affairs U.S. Nuclear            New Mexico State              November 26, 2019      ML19329A103 Regulatory              Historic Preservation Commission              Office U.S. Nuclear            Tribal Historic              November 26, 2019      ML19329B438 Regulatory              Preservation Officer, The Commission              Navajo Nation U.S. Nuclear            Tribal Cultural              November 26, 2019      ML19329B440 Regulatory              Preservation Office, Hopi Commission              Tribe of Arizona A-1
 
Table A-1        Chronology of Consultation Correspondence (cont.)
ADAMS Accession Author                Recipient          Date of Letter    Number Tribal Cultural        U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  December 23, 2019  ML20066K544 Preservation Office,    Commission Hopi Tribe of Arizona Advisory Council on    U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  March 25, 2020    ML20079D928 Historic Preservation  Commission U.S. Nuclear            New Mexico State        April 6, 2020      ML20087K947 Regulatory              Historic Preservation Commission              Office New Mexico State        U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  April 15, 2020    ML20107F771 Historic Preservation  Commission Office Email from Navajo      U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  May 26, 2020      ML20167A115 Nation Tribal Historic  Commission Preservation Office re:
concurrence of site eligibility U.S. Fish and Wildlife  U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  June 4, 2020      ML20156A413 Service                Commission U.S. Nuclear            Email to U.S.            July 7, 2020      ML20202A507 Regulatory              Environmental Protection Commission              Agency (EPA) and EPAs Response Regarding Church Rock Programmatic Agreement A-2
 
NRC FORM 335                                                                          U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER (12-2010)                                                                                                                    (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,
NRCMD 3.7                                                                                                                    and Adde ndum Numbers, if any.)
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET
( See instructions on the re verse)                                              NUREG-2243
: 2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE                                                                                                          3. DATE REPORT PUBLISH ED Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste at the United                                                  MONTH                    YEAR Nuclear Corporation Mill Site in McKinley County, New Mexico                                                              October                  2020
: 4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER Draft Report for Comment
: 5. AUTHOR(S)                                                                                                            6. TYPE O F REPORT
: 7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)
Technical
: 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (lfNRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor, provide name and mailing address.)
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
: 9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (lfNRC, type "Same as above", if contractor, provide NRG Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address.)
Same as above.
: 10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 11 . ABSTRACT (200 words or less)
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of its environmental review of the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) request to amend its Source Material License No. SUA-1475 for the former UNC Church Rock uranium mill site located northeast of Gallup, New Mexico. This EIS includes the NRC staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, two secondary alternatives, and the no-action alternative. The proposed action is to amend UNCs Source Material License SUA-1475 to allow UNC to transfer and dispose approximately 765,000 cubic meters [1,000,000 cubic yards] of Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine waste on top of the North and Central Cells of the tailings impoundment at the UNC Mill Site. The amendment also would revise the NRC-approved reclamation plan. The proposed UNC schedule to complete the disposal of the NECR mine waste is approximately 4 years. As part of the proposed action, this EIS analysis includes activities that would occur outside the NRC-regulated UNC Mill Site boundary but that are necessary to conduct the proposed disposal activities at the UNC Mill Site. These activities include NECR mine waste excavation and transfer and related supporting activities.
: 12. KEY WORDS/ DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)                              13 . AVAILAEILITY STATEMENT Material Control and Accounting                                                                                                            unlimited Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System (NMMSS)                                                                    14 SECUR ITY CLASSIFICATION Form 741                                                                                                                        (This Page) unclassified Form 740M Nuclear Material Transaction Reports (This Report) unclassified
: 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
: 16. PRICE NRC FORM 335 (1 2- 2010)
 
Federal Recycling Program
        '-~J>.fl REG(/
    -~?                  {-1 UNITED STATES
[/~
<(
          -_              -- "011
                                  .L.
()
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"'~ *.
I-0
                                    ;:    WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001
                    .*            ~
v-1'1;)
      .                .      o'f            OFFICIAL BUSINESS
              ****1("'
You f        -I
                                        @NRCgov  OD ** 1n
                                                                    ~
 
NUREG-2243 Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Mine Waste at the October 2020 Draft      United Nuclear Corporation Mill Site in McKinley County, New Mexico}}

Latest revision as of 23:58, 20 January 2023

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=NUREG-2243,_-_Environmental_Impact_Statement_for_the_Disposal_of_Mine_Waste_at_the_United_Nuclear_Corporation_Mill_Site_in_Mckinley_County,_New_Mexico_-_Draft_for_Comment&oldid=3524414"