U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–964 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 112–961 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FEDERAL ACTIONS TO 

CLEAN UP CONTAMINATION FROM LEGACY 

URANIUM MINING AND MILLING OPERATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN’S HEALTH 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 6, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN’S HEALTH

AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Chairman 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OCTOBER 6, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 1 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Weber, Michael, Deputy Executive Director For Materials, Waste, Research, 

State, Tribal and Compliance Programs, United States Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Udall ................................. 16 

Geiser, David , Director, Office of Legacy Management, Department of Energy ........................................................................................................................ 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 25 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Udall ................................. 31 

Woolford, James, Director, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 

Innovation, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Udall ................................. 52 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

Uranium Producers of America ....................................................................... 75 

Cibola County Commission .............................................................................. 87 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FEDERAL ACTIONS 

TO CLEAN UPCONTAMINATION FROM LEGACY URANIUM MINING AND MILLING OPERATIONS 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Udall (chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Udall and Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

I told the witnesses, but I will tell everybody that is here, we are 

expecting a vote at 10:30. It looks like it is going to be right in that 

range. So what we will try to do here is get through the opening 

statements, your opening statements. Any other members of the 

Committee that show up, and then we will have to take a short 

break for that. 

My understanding is that it is only one vote, so we will be able 

to go over and come back quickly and then proceed into the questioning. I hope that we can get you back to your jobs at your offices 

quickly. 

So hello and welcome to the Subcommittee on Children’s Health 

and Environmental Responsibility’s Oversight Hearing on Federal 

Actions to Clean Up Contamination from Legacy Uranium Mining 

and Milling Operations. We will begin with some brief opening remarks and then we will hear from our witnesses. 

This hearing is needed to focus attention on the long legacy of 

contamination left by the rapid development of uranium in the 

Southwest during the cold war. We must not forget who paid the 

price for our national defense. I appreciate the participation of the 

three Federal agencies here today. They share a responsibility for 

the cleanup and monitoring of uranium legacy sites. 

I also appreciate the participation of communities, groups and 

tribes in preparation for this hearing. Some of these communities 

have submitted valuable written testimony for the record and the 

record will be open for 2 weeks for other stakeholders who would 

like to submit testimony. 

2 

Here is what I hope this hearing will accomplish. First, maintain 

the focus of these agencies at the headquarters level about the obligation to clean up these abandoned uranium mine and mill sites. 

Second, meet those obligations with funding of the current 5-year 

plans and develop and fund followup plans where necessary. Third, 

ensure Federal agency cooperation, not only with each other, but 

also with the tribes and affected communities. And finally, ensure 

regulatory agencies make sure that this type of contamination 

never happens again, especially at or near existing legacy sites. 

The story of uranium development in the United States is a 

human story, and I must say, a tragic human story. During the 

early phase of uranium development, miners and mill workers were 

largely unaware of the dangers of radiation exposure. Even as the 

understanding of the dangers grew, the Federal Government failed 

to ensure that uranium workers and their families were safe from 

the hazards of exposure to radioactive materials. 

As a result, numerous illnesses and cancers began to emerge in 

the men and women who worked and lived near the mines and 

mills. Communities and families lost their water wells because of 

unsafe levels of radiation. Wives lost their husbands to cancer and 

developed their own sicknesses after years of washing clothes covered in yellow cake. Children played on uranium tailings piles and 

lived in radioactive homes. 

Thousands of individuals unwittingly gave their health and 

many gave their lives to national efforts to develop uranium for our 

cold war nuclear arsenal during the mid–20th century. While the 

cold war is over, the communities continue to struggle with contamination. Much of New Mexico’s northwestern area is scattered 

with hundreds of uranium mines that were left abandoned and contaminated as the cold war was won and the uranium boom faded 

away. 

The Pueblo of Laguna was home to the Nation’s largest open pit 

uranium mine. And many mines and mills were opened within the 

Navajo Nation. There has been so little realization of the uranium 

legacy outside the Southwest that even the largest release of radioactive material in U.S. history, in 1979, is not widely known outside the Navajo Nation. The catastrophic collapse of the United Nuclear Corporation uranium mill tailings facility near Church Rock, 

New Mexico, ranks second only to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor 

accident in total radiation released. The spill of contaminated materials released over 1,000 tons of radioactive tailings and 90 million gallons of toxic wastewater into the Rio Puerco, contaminating 

about 80 miles of the river. People and livestock were burned by 

the flowing acidic water. 

Finally, in 2008, Federal agencies responsible for the cleanup of 

legacy uranium on the Navajo Nation created a 5-year plan for 

cleanup. EPA has followed with an additional 5-year plan for the 

nearby Grants Mining District in 2010. 

While cleanup is moving decades after the initial contamination, 

some of these communities are faced with new proposals to restart 

uranium mining for energy purposes, opening up old wounds and 

arousing new passions. Regardless of our personal beliefs about nuclear weapons, nuclear power or future uranium mining, everyone 

should agree the Nation and the companies that profited from uraVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Oct 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\24964.TXT VERN
3 

nium development owe a debt to communities with legacy contamination and that can only be paid in full with a complete cleanup. 

Before I turn to our witnesses, I want to make one further connection to a related issue at the Judiciary Committee. In this Congress, I am working on a bipartisan basis to update the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act to better cover individuals exposed to 

radiation at mines, mills and downwind of nuclear test sites. I encourage my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee to take up this 

bill and ensure that compensation is fair for those who lost their 

health and lives to uranium development. 

And now let me turn to Senator Barrasso, who I welcome for any 

opening statements he may want to give. I very much appreciate 

his participation and involvement in this hearing today. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I too 

want to thank the witnesses for being here. 

Today’s hearing is focused on the cleanup and legacy of cold war 

uranium mining. As many here may not know, Wyoming actually 

played an important part in the history of the defense of this Country, because nuclear missile silos have been in Wyoming since the 

early days of the cold war. Wyoming residents are proud of this legacy. 

We also believe that Washington has a responsibility to leave 

Wyoming as clean as when they found it. I have remained vigilant 

in ensuring that progress continues to be made in addressing the 

cleanup of cold war sites in my State. That includes having the 

Army Corps of Engineers cleanup our TCE contamination in the 

city of Cheyenne’s water wells. TCE was used to degrease the rocket motors of our nuclear missiles to keep them ready during the 

Cuban missile crisis. 

In addition, Wyoming also has two cold war Legacy uranium 

mines, one in Riverton and the other about 32 miles north of 

Glenrock. Both have undergone environmental remediation by the 

Department of Energy. The Department continues to monitor those 

sites. 

As Ranking Member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, I 

understand the concerns of the tribes regarding the legacy of cold 

war uranium mines. I believe it is a fair question to ask: is the Department of Energy doing all that it can for the tribes and tribal 

members affected by this legacy? 

We must also not forget uranium mining today is much different 

than it was in what occurred years ago. It would be a mistake to 

compare cold war uranium mining decades ago with the modern 

uranium mining today. Wyoming residents understand this because we are an energy producing State with an abundance of uranium. There are people that work at the mines and they see the 

uranium production process first-hand. They know the importance 

of developing clean domestic energy for our Nation. 

The Department of Energy projects that U.S. energy demand will 

increase 21 percent between now and 2035. World energy consumption is estimated to grow by 49 percent in that same period of time 

between now and 2035. Meeting this increased demand is a major 

4 

challenge. Access to affordable power is crucial for economic development. Our Country was built on inexpensive power. For our 

economy to remain competitive, we need cheap power. 

Families struggling to balance their budgets deserve access to affordable power. That is why when it comes to American energy, we 

need it all, nuclear, coal, natural gas and all the renewable sources. 

Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of our electricity. It generates roughly 70 percent of America’s carbon-free 

power. 

Other nations are moving forward quickly on nuclear power. On 

the floor this week, we have been debating the China currency bill. 

China is currently building 25 new nuclear reactors. They know 

that nuclear power is essential to their economic engine. 

A key part of the overall issue of providing affordable energy is 

a nuclear fuel supply. We must have a stable and secure supply of 

nuclear fuel. We currently import nearly 90 percent of uranium 

used in the United States nuclear reactors. Building new nuclear 

capacity without increasing domestic uranium production will 

make us more dependent on foreign sources for our electricity. 

The Administration must do more to support American uranium 

development, which will help our economy, will strengthen our job 

security and will create new jobs. I believe we can achieve this in 

a responsible and environmentally safe way. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Barrasso, for that opening 

statement. 

At this point, we will proceed with our three witnesses. Why 

don’t we start on the right here, with Mr. Michael Weber, with the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and then just proceed down 

the row here. You each will have 5 minutes and your full statement 

will be put in the record. So that will be there for people to read 

so that you know that is in there. 

Mr. Weber, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WEBER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR MATERIALS, WASTE, RESEARCH, STATE, TRIBAL 

AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR 

REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. WEBER. Good morning, Chairman Udall, Senator Barrasso. 

It is a pleasure for me to appear before you today to discuss the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s regulation of uranium recovery facilities to protect public health and safety and the environment. 

In my testimony I will focus on several key points. First, most 

of the environmental contamination associated with uranium production activities in the United States occurred before Congress 

clarified the authority in this area in 1978, and certainly well before the current regulatory framework was put into place following 

that clarification. Second, today’s conventional uranium mills and 

in situ recovery facilities are operating safely and in a manner that 

is protective of the environment. And third, NRC regulates these 

facilities in close coordination with other Federal agencies as well 

as State and tribal governments. 

5 

Uranium mining and milling in the United States expanded considerably in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s, driven by an increased 

demand for uranium to support both our national military uses and 

commercial nuclear power. Concerns about potential environmental 

and health hazards associated with mill tailings led the Congress 

to hold hearings in the late 1970’s. These concerns compelled the 

Congress to enact what is referred to as the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act, or otherwise known as UMTRCA, as an 

amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. 

With the enactment of UMTRCA, mill tailings and other associated wastes generated after 1978 became subject to NRC regulation. Contamination associated with hard rock and open pit mines 

that produced uranium ore was not addressed by this legislation. 

For facilities that were licensed on or after November 8th, 1978, 

the NRC has jurisdiction over mill tailings under Title II of 

UMTRCA and implements standards issued by the Environmental 

Protection Agency through a comprehensive regulatory program. 

NRC is also cooperating with other Federal agencies in a coordinated effort to address uranium contamination at legacy mine sites 

in the Navajo Nation under the 5-year plan. Similarly, we are 

working with EPA and the State of New Mexico to address uranium contamination in and around Grants, New Mexico. 

UMTRCA authorized the inclusion of uranium recovery facilities 

within the framework established under the Atomic Energy Act, 

thus allowing NRC to enter into agreements with States to regulate uranium recovery facilities in lieu of Federal regulation. NRC 

has established agreements with Texas, Colorado, Utah and Washington to regulate uranium recovery facilities in those States. 

The State of New Mexico’s agreement with the NRC included 

uranium recovery facilities until this part of the program was withdrawn by the State in 1986. NRC evaluates State regulatory activities through an integrated materials performance evaluation program to ensure that State regulatory activities remain both adequate to protect public health and safety and compatible with 

NRC’s requirements. Under Title II of UMTRCA, NRC and agreement States regulate uranium waste generated during the operation to ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment. Our comprehensive regulatory framework ensures safe 

operation and decommission of both existing facilities and planned 

facilities. This includes comprehensive safety and environmental 

review of new applications for uranium recovery. 

After a license is issued for a new facility, the NRC or agreement 

State provides continued oversight of operations through periodic 

licensing reviews, inspections, assessment, enforcement and investigation. 

NRC works closely with other Federal agencies, State agencies 

and tribal governments. NRC recently issued three new licenses for 

uranium recovery facilities in Wyoming. The licensing process required extensive coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, with EPA, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. 

As part of our review on both the National Environmental Policy 

Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, we consulted with 

State agencies and tribal governments that expressed interest in 

6 

protecting environmental and cultural sites near these facilities. 

We are currently conducting additional licensing reviews for three 

new facilities or expansions of new facilities. 

Based on the letters of intent from uranium recovery companies, 

more applications for new facilities, possibly as many as up to 19 

applications, could be submitted in the next several years. With 

this projected workload, we certainly expect extensive coordination 

and consultation with our Federal partners as well as State agencies and tribal governments. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before you today to describe NRC’s regulatory program for uranium recovery. I would be pleased to respond 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weber follows:] 

7 


24964.025

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF 

MR. MICHAEL WEBER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR MATERIALS, 

WASTE, RESEARCH, STATE, TRIBAL AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS 

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

TO THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESPONSIBILITY 

October 6, 2011 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning, Chairman Udall, Ranking Member Alexander, and Members of the SubCommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission's (NRC) regulation of uranium recovery facilities to protect 

public health and safety and the environment. 

In my testimony, I will focus on several key points. First, most of the environmental 

contamination associated with uranium production activities in the United States 

occurred before Congress clarified authority in this area in 1978, and well before the 

current regulatory framework was put in place. The NRC does not regulate uranium 
8 


24964.026

mining, but does have authority over milling of mined materials or in situ processes used 

to recover uranium, as well as mill tailings. Second, today's conventional uranium mills 

and in-situ recovery (ISR) facilities are operating safely and in a manner that is 

protective of the environment. Third, NRC regulates these facilities in close coordination 

with other Federal agencies and State and Tribal governments and provides technical 

support and guidance to those Agreement States that have authority over uranium 

recovery activities under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended. 

Legacy Contamination 

Uranium mining and milling in the U.S. expanded considerably in the 1950s, 60s, and 

70s, driven by expanded demand for uranium to support both military uses and 

commercial nuclear power. Concerns about the potential health and environmental 

hazards associated with uranium mill tailings led to Congressional hearings in the late 

1970s. At that time, the Atomic Energy Commission (and later the NRC) regulated the 

mills because they possessed source material, but the government's authority to 

regulate the tailings that resulted remained somewhat uncertain. The uranium mill 

tailings contain both radioactive and chemical wastes left over from the processing of 

uranium ore to recover uranium and other valuable elements. Lax controls over the mill 

tailings allowed their use as backfill in thousands of locations, including building 

foundations, water and sewer lines, roadbeds, and baseball infields, exposing members 

of the public to elevated radiation dose rates and radon. These concerns compelled 
9 


24964.027

Congress to enact the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) as 

an amendment to the AEA. 

With the enactment of UMTRCA, mill tailings and other associated wastes generated 

after 1978 became subject to NRC regulation. Contamination associated with hard rock 

and open pit mines that produced uranium ore was not addressed by UMTRCA. The 

statute established a remedial action program operated by the Department of Energy 

under Title I of UMTRCA for uranium mills that were not licensed and largely abandoned 

at the time the law was enacted. For facilities licensed on or after November 8, 1978, 

the NRC has jurisdiction over mill tailings under Title II of the law. Consistent with 

UMTRCA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated standards for both 

the "inactive" and the "active" tailings sites in 1983, which the NRC has since been 

implementing and enforcing through our comprehensive regulatory program. 

NRC is cooperating with other Federal Agencies in a coordinated effort to address 

uranium contamination at legacy mine sites in the Navajo Nation under a Five-Year 

Plan. Similarly, we are working with EPA and the State of New Mexico to address 

uranium contamination in the Grants Mineral Belt in and around Grants, New Mexico. 

Regulation of Operating Facilities 

When Congress clarified the NRC's authority to regulate uranium mill tailings and 

associated wastes, it focused the agency's activities on the radioactive and non-
10 


24964.028

radioactive wastes produced by uranium recovery facilities. UMTRCA also authorized 

the inclusion of uranium recovery facilities within the framework established in the 

Atomic Energy Act, allowing NRC to enter into agreements with States to regulate 

uranium recovery facilities in lieu of NRC regulation. Through these agreements, the 

NRC works with the Agreement States to protect public health and safety and the 

environment. The NRC has established agreements with Texas, Colorado, Utah, and 

Washington to regulate uranium recovery facilities in those states. The State of New 

Mexico's agreement with the NRC included uranium recovery facilities until this part of 

the program was withdrawn by the state in 1986. NRC evaluates State regulatory 

activities through the Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program to ensure 

that State regulatory activities remain adequate to protect public health and safety and 

are compatible with NRC requirements. 

The NRC and Agreement States regulate conventional mills and ISR facilities. A 

conventional mill processes uranium ore that has been removed from the earth by either 

surface or underground mining. The ore is then crushed and sent through a mill, where 

extraction processes concentrate the uranium. Conventional milling produces a 

substantial amount of mill tailings, which poses a potential hazard to public health and 

safety due to its radioactive and chemical content. NRC regulates the recovery process 

to ensure the safety of operations, storage, and disposal of mill tailings. 

In the ISR process, wells are drilled into rock formations containing uranium ore. A 

solution -- groundwater, usually fortified with oxygen and sodium bicarbonate-- is 
11 


24964.029

injected into the we lis to dissolve the uranium in the rock. The uranium-bearing solution 

is then pumped to the surface through recovery wells to a central processing plant, 

where the uranium is extracted from the solution. Although these ISR facilities are often 

referred to as "mines,'' the entire uranium extraction process, below and above ground, 

is considered "processing" and is under NRC jurisdiction. Solid waste from this process, 

such as piping and other equipment, is relatively small in volume and can be disposed of 

in a tailings impoundment at a conventional mill site or at a licensed disposal facility. 

Liquid wastes are generally disposed of in deep disposal wells permitted by the State. 

Unlike conventional mining, the ISR process does not generate tailings. 

Under Title II of UMTRCA, NRC and the Agreement States regulate uranium wastes 

generated during operation to ensure protection of public health and safety and the 

environment. The NRC's comprehensive regulatory framework ensures safe operation 

and decommissioning of the existing facilities, as well as any planned facilities. The 

Agency's standards conform to standards promulgated by EPA. The NRC or Agreement 

State conducts a comprehensive safety and environmental review of any new 

application for a uranium recovery facility. After a license is issued for a new uranium 

recovery facility, the NRC or Agreement State provides continued oversight of the 

operations through periodic licensing reviews, inspections, assessment, enforcement 

and investigations. 

During operation of conventional mills and ISR facilities, monitoring wells are required to 

help assure that fluids used to extract uranium do not leave the facility and contaminate 
12 


24964.030

groundwater above acceptable levels. In-situ recovery licensees are required to 

decommission well fields when those wells are no longer producing uranium. 

Decommissioning of the well fields includes restoration of the groundwater to meet NRC 

or Agreement State requirements. 

In-situ recovery facilities and conventional mills must be decommissioned at the end of 

operations. Licensees are required to remove contaminated structures, decontaminate 

soil, stabilize sites, and safely dispose of radioactive waste. These steps must be 

completed in accordance with NRC or Agreement State requirements. In all 

circumstances, NRC terminates a license for uranium recovery only after it has been 

determined that the site has been remediated and stabilized in accordance with the 

applicable requirements. After license termination, UMTRCA allows sites that contain 

tailings and other wastes that have been stabilized to be transferred to the Federal 

government or a State government. Under agency regulations, the NRC continues to 

regulate these sites during the long-term care period under a general license. 

Cooperation with Agencies and Tribal Governments 

The NRC works closely with other Federal agencies, State agencies, and Tribal 

governments to ensure protection of public health and safety and the environment 

throughout the licensing, operation, and decommissioning process. The NRC has 

recently licensed three new uranium recovery facilities in Wyoming. The licensing 

review process required extensive coordination with the Bureau of Land Management, 
13 


24964.031

EPA, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and the Wyoming State 

Historic Preservation Office, as there are some overlapping responsibilities. As part of 

our review under the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic 

Preservation Act, we also consulted with State agencies and Tribal governments that 

expressed interest in protecting environmental and cultural sites near these facilities. 

We are currently conducting licensing reviews for an additional three new facilities or 

expansions of existing facilities. Based on letters of intent from uranium recovery 

companies, more applications for new uranium recovery facilities, or restarts and 

expansions of existing facilities - possibly as many as 19 applications - could be 

submitted in the next several years. This projected workload suggests that we will be 

conducting extensive consultation and coordination with Federal and State agencies, 

and Tribal governments for the foreseeable future. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today to describe NRC's role with regard to uranium recovery regulation. 

would be pleased to respond to your questions. 
14 


24964.032
15 


24964.033

Locations of IIIRC-Ucensed Uranium Recovery Facility Sites 

• NRC -licensed uranium recovery facility sites 

II States with authority to license uranium rocovety focility sites 

States where the NRC has retained authority to license 

uranium recovery facilities 
16 


24964.034

Senator Tom Udall 

QUESTION 1. 

ANSWER: 

In-Situ Recovery: 

• Has groundwater quality been restored to its pre-mining state 

in every case of in-situ uranium recovery that has been 

regulated by the NRC and EPA? If not, what is the 

groundwater restoration record? 

No site has been restored to baseline (pre-mining) conditions for all groundwater quality 

constituents, but the groundwater has been restored to levels that are protective of public health 

and the environment It is important to note that, before beginning in-situ recovery operations, 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must "exempt" the aquifer being used for in-situ 

uranium recovery. This means that the groundwater must not be a source of drinking water or of 

a quality that would allow it to be used as a public water supply system in the future. Operators 

of uranium in-situ recovery facilities are required to restore groundwater quality to meet one of 

the following three options: (1) baseline conditions (pre-mining state): (2) drinking water 

maximum concentration limits (MCLs); or (3) alternate concentration limits (ACLs). 

NRC's goal for groundwater restoration at uranium recovery facilities is to ensure protection of 

potential sources of drinking water outside of the exempted aquifer in which uranium is 

extracted. NRC accomplishes this goal by ensuring that radionuclide and chemical constituents 

are returned to agency standards - baseline condition, MCLs, or ACLs. NRC staff has 

approved 11 wellfield restorations at the three existing NRC licensed in-situ recovery (ISR) 

facilities: Uranium One's Willow Creek Project 0JVY); Power Resources, Inc.'s Smith RanchHighlands Uranium Project (WY); and Crow Butte Resources' ISR facility (NE). Each of the 

approved restorations had one or more groundwater quality "constituents of concern"-

radionuclides and chemicals associated with uranium recovery above baseline levels in portions 
17 


24964.035

of the aquifers exempted by EPA. The restoration data from these three facilities have shown 

that baseline is attainable for many constituents, but is not always attainable for others. The 

most difficult constituents to restore to baseline levels have been iron, manganese, arsenic, 

selenium, uranium, vanadium and radium-226. The constituents are elevated as a result of the 

uranium recovery process in the groundwater. After uranium extraction is completed, these 

constituents must be restored. 

Currently. in those cases where baseline levels or MCLs cannot be met within specified time 

periods, a site operator or licensee must request from its regulator (NRC or Agreement State) 

approval to continue restoration in an attempt to achieve these levels, or approval of ACLs. The 

NRC groundwater protection standards include criteria that incorporate the groundwater 

protection standards imposed by EPA regulations, which apply during site operations prior to 

the end of closure. The criteria also include the bases for the NRC staff to agree to ACLs for a 

site. Before approving an ACL for a constituent, the regulatory agency must conclude that 

these levels are as low as reasonably achievable and protect human health and the 

environment 

On July 10, 2009, an NRC "Staff Assessment of Groundwater Impacts from Previously Licensed 

In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facilities" concluded thai, for the 11 NRC-approved groundwater 

restorations at three facilities, more than 60 percent of the constituents were restored to their 

pre-operational concentrations. Although the remaining constituents were restored to 

concentrations that were above baseline levels, they were all restored to levels that NRC staff 

found to be protective of public health and the environment 
18 


24964.036

ANSWER: 

Does the NRC and/or EPA track the performance in restoring 

groundwater quality at in-situ recovery sites in agreement 

states, and if so, have they restored groundwater to premining levels? If not, what is the groundwater restoration 

record? 

Under provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, NRC can relinquish 

certain portions of its authority to the Agreement State. As such, NRC does not track the ISR 

restoration performance record in an Agreement State that has such authority. Records are 

retained at the state level and not provided to the NRC. The NRC reviews ISR restoration 

activities as part of its periodic review of the Agreement State regulatory program in the 

Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program review. As required by the AEA, NRC 

also must make a determination that all applicable standards and requirements have been met 

prior to the Agreement State terminating a uranium milling license following completion of 

restoration. The only Agreement State to license and approve the restoration of an ISR facility 

is the State of Texas. NRC is unaware if EPA tracks the restoration record in Agreement 

States. 
19 


24964.037

QUESTION 2. 

ANSWER: 

Homestake Superfund Site: It is my understanding that EPA and 

NRC have overlapping jurisdiction of the Homestake site, and work 

under an MOU. In June of this year the EPA sent a letter to the NRC 

outlining several instances where NRC is failing to comply with 

Superfund standards and are thus preventing EPA from ensuring 

compliance. 

• Mr. Weber, has NRC responded to that letter and what was 

the response? 

Yes, on October 3, 2011, NRC responded to the July 8, 2011, letter from EPA Region VI 

pertaining to a June 8, 2011, teleconference call. In our response, the agency took exception to 

the EPA's finding that" ... NRC activities may not comply with [the] Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act." The NRC responded specifically to 

each of the six EPA-identified issues: (1) exceedance of the standard published in NRC 

regulations; (2) noncompliance with EPA's Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation and Control Act 

regulations; (3) noncompliance with potential applicable or relevant and appropriate 

requirements under 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart 8; (4) exceedance of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan risk range; (5) administrative record for 

rulemaking requirements; and (6) community relations requirements. We explained why the 

NRC believed itself to be in compliance with each of these requirements. The NRC also 

recommended that the Homestake Executive Steering Committee meet to discuss the path 

forward for regulating the remediation of the Homestake Mining Company (HMC) site. This 

Executive Steering Committee, consisting of the NRC, EPA Region VI, and the New Mexico 

Environment Department, was established in 2008 to provide a forum for senior managers from 

each agency to address regulatory differences of opinion. The overall goal of the Executive 
20 


24964.038

Steering Committee is to ensure the HMC site will be remediated in a manner that is compliant 

with all of the three agencies' requirements. 

On October 19, 2011, the Director of the NRC Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection led an Executive Steering Committee meeting with the EPA Region VI 

Division Director and the State of New Mexico Environment Department Secretary to discuss 

regulatory roles associated with the oversight of the HMC uranium tailings pile remediation. The 

outcomes of the meeting were: (1) NRC would continue as the lead agency, (2) EPA would 

continue its monitoring role by reviewing and providing comments directly to NRC, and (3) New 

Mexico would continue its role by providing permits and working with the community on indoor 

radon issues. In addition, all parties agreed that the revised HMC Corrective Action Plan (CAP) 

was the critical licensing action to be completed for closure of the site. NRC emphasized that 

requirements placed on HMC must have a firm regulatory basis. There also was general 

agreement to send one letter signed by all three agencies to HMC that identified those 

deficiencies that would need to be addressed in the HMC CAP. Furthermore, all parties agreed 

that there would be a technical staff meeting in November or December 2011, for EPA and NRC 

to discuss their respective approaches to ensuring that the radon standards would be met at 

HMC, and that the NRC would hold a facilitated public meeting in the first quarter of calendar 

year 2012 to reinforce the agencies' roles, to discuss the HMC technical issues, to discuss the 

revised CAP as a path forward to closure, and to listen to comments and concerns of the public. 

All three agencies will participate in the public meeting and will continue to work together on 

remediation of the site. 
21 


24964.039

ANSWER: 

Does there continue to be groundwater contamination at the 

Homestake site and in the surrounding communities? 

Groundwater contamination from legacy mining and milling and naturally occurring radioactive 

material in the Grants Mining District. in which the Homestake site is located, is widespread. 

Groundwater in the area is contaminated from many sources, including the Homestake site. 

Federal and State agencies have a five-year plan to assess the broad health and environmental 

impacts of uranium mining and milling in the Grants Mining District. With respect to Homestake, 

seepage from the Homestake tailings impoundment was identified in 1975 when the facility was 

under the regulatory authority of the State of New Mexico. The site, which is currently in 

decommissioning, began its restoration program in 1977. In 1986, at its request, the State of 

New Mexico returned its uranium recovery licensing program back to the NRC. Consequently, 

the NRC assumed regulatory authority over the Homestake site. Remediation of the 

groundwater contamination is ongoing under the existing CAP. Part of the corrective action 

program has been to flush the tailings and collect and treat the recovered fluid. The purpose of 

this flushing is to isolate the contaminants within the tailings pile and then stabilize it for the 

foreseeable future. In addition, a major revised groundwater CAP is under consideration by 

NRC, EPA, and the New Mexico Environment Department If approved by the NRC through a 

license amendment, the revised CAP would provide the basis for further remediation of that part 

of the contamination that resulted from Homestake mill operations. In the interim, local citizens 

are being protected by actions required in the existing CAP that ensures remediation activities 

are conducted in accordance with NRC regulations. 
22 


24964.040

ANSWER: 

What is the potential timeline for full cleanup of groundwater 

at the site? 

The original HMC schedule projected that the remediation would be complete in 2014. Although 

significant tailings pile cleanup has been completed at the site over the last decade, HMC 

recognized the need for additional remediation capacity. In the spring of 2010, HMC received a 

New Mexico Environment Department permit to add a third water processing pond, constructed 

the new pond later that year, and placed the pond into operation in December 2010. With the 

addition of the third pond to allow a higher rate of remediation, HMC is projecting that the 

tailings pile remediation will be completed in 2017. The length oftime required for completion is 

a reflection of the complexity and difficulty of the task. 

HMC is working to reduce contamination levels in the tailings pile while at the same time 

preventing the spread of existing contamination and restoring aquifers in the area. All of these 

activities will take time to complete. Upon completion of remediation of the tailings pile, the 

HMC tailings pile will no longer be a source of contamination for the upper groundwater 

aquifers. Thus, contamination due to licensed activities will be remediated to approved 

standards. Due to the high concentration of uranium in the area, natural contaminants (e.g., 

iron, manganese, arsenic, selenium, vanadium, radium-226), and many years of uranium 

recovery activities in the area, it is difficult to define background level for the mill activities: 

however, EPA and the New Mexico Environment Department previously agreed to background 

levels that are being used as the cleanup standard for groundwater at the Homestake mill. 

These standards are protective of public health and safety. 
23 


24964.041

ANSWER: 

Is the current system of groundwater treatment extensive 

enough to fully address the problem? 

Once the NRC approves the revised CAP, these remediation activities are expected to result in 

the cleanup of the Homestake tailings pile and associated groundwater contamination with the 

potential to impact health and safety. The EPA Remedial System Evaluation (RSE) Report in 

2011 confirmed that the remediation process is effective and made several recommendations 

for improving the efficiency of the HMC process. HMC is evaluating the RSE recommendations 

for inclusion in the revised CAP, which is required by the NRC to ensure the remediation 

activities will result in the cleanup of the site to the standards established under 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A. As noted earlier, the current goal is for the CAP to address the regulatory 

concerns of the NRC, EPA Region VI, and the State of New Mexico. 
24 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Geiser, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GEISER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Mr. GEISER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Energy’s activities related to uranium mining and milling. 

The Department has four primary responsibilities associated 

with uranium mining and milling. First is long-term surveillance 

and maintenance of former uranium mill sites. The second is the 

cleanup of the Atlas site in Moab, Utah. The third is reimbursements for uranium and thorium cleanup that is ongoing. And the 

fourth is the management of the uranium leasing program in Western Colorado. 

The Department’s authority related to uranium mill sites is provided by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, or 

UMTRCA. UMTRCA originally passed in 1978 and has two major 

sections, Title I, which addresses the uranium mill sites that were 

inactive when the law was passed, and Title II, which addresses 

the mill sites licensed as of 1978. 

The Department of Energy currently manages 21 Title I sites 

and 6 Title II sites. An additional 17 Title II sites are expected to 

be transferred to DOE by 2020. Title II sites are cleaned up by the 

commercial site owners. 

Funding for long-term surveillance and maintenance of our 27 

UMTRCA sites in 2011 was almost $8 million. In Moab, Utah, the 

Department is excavating and shipping more than 12 million cubic 

yards of mill tailings to a new disposal cell near Crescent Junction, 

Utah. DOE began moving the tailings in 2009 and more than 4.6 

million tons have been relocated to Crescent Junction. 

Title 10 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE to reimburse certain licensees of uranium and thorium mill sites for the 

portion of their cleanup costs attributed to sale of material to the 

Atomic Energy Commission. Licensee claims for reimbursement are 

audited and eligible costs are reimbursed by DOE on an annual 

basis. Since 1994, DOE has reimbursed $628 million under that 

program. 

Last, the Department manages 31 uranium lease tracks, covering 

approximately 25,000 acres in Southwestern Colorado. The leasing 

program began in 1948 when Congress authorized the Atomic Energy Commission to withdraw lands from the public domain for the 

purposes of exploring, developing and mining uranium and vanadium ore bodies. 

In closing, DOE has and will continue to work with other Federal 

agencies, tribal nations, State and local governments to ensure that 

our actions are protective of human health and the environment. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Geiser follows:] 

25 


24964.018

STATEMENT OF 

DAVID GEISER 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESPONSIBILITY 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

October 6, 2011 
26 


24964.019

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Alexander, and distinguished members of the 

Committee. My name is David Geiser and I am the Director of the Office of Legacy 

Management (LM) at the Department of Energy (DOE). LM is responsible for ensuring that 

DOE's post-closure responsibilities are met by providing: long-term surveillance and 

maintenance of environmental remedies; access to historical records and information; contractor 

benefits continuity; and beneficial reuse of Federal property no longer needed for Departmental 

missions. 

LEGACY MANAGEMENT MISSION AND PROGRAM GOALS 

The mission of the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) is to manage the Department's 

post-closure responsibilities at remediated sites and ensure that they continue to protect human 

health and the environment in the future. LM currently has responsibility tor 87 remediated 

sites. Post-closure site management is the primary activity in support of Goal 1 of LM: protecting 

human health and the environment. This first goal assures that DOE's environmental remedies 

continue to perform in a manner that is protective for the long tenn. LM continually evaluates 

the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the remedies. Other LM strategic goals are to preserve, 

protect, and share records and information; meet commitments to the contractor work force; 

optimize the use ofland assets; and sustain management excellence. More information on LM, 

including fact sheets on each of the sites it manages, is available at www.lm.doe.gov. 

Background Information on UMTRCA 

Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (Public Law 95-604) or 

UMTRCA, in 1978. UMTRCA has two major sections: Title I, which addresses uranium milling 

sites that were inactive when the law was passed; and Title II, which addresses milling sites 

licensed as of 1978. 

Pursuant to Title I, DOE completed remediation of inactive uranium milling sites as well as 

vicinity properties in 1998. UMTRCA also required all disposal cells that were created as part of 

milling site remediation to remain the responsibility of DOE in perpetuity. UMTRCA specified 

that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would establish the standards to be used 

during remedial action. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was directed to concur on 

the type of remedial action that would be performed. 

Title II ofUMTRCA amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to address the eventual 

remediation and closure of uranium milling sites that had active licenses as of 1978. All Title II 

sites must be transferred to either a state (who has first choice of ownership), or DOE. To date, 

all Title II sites have been transferred to DOE. 

LM Management of UMTRCA Title I and Title II Sites 

LM took over the long-term surveillance and maintenance of Title I sites, upon its establishment 

in 2003. LM currently manages 21 Title I sites and 6 Title II sites. An additional 17 Title II sites 

are expected to be transferred to LM by 2020 (see attached map). UMTRCA Title II sites are 
27 


24964.020

cleaned up by the commercial site owners who hold a NRC license or a license issued by an 

"Agreement State" that implements NRC regulations. After site remediation is approved by the 

regulator, the site is transferred to DOE and then regulated by NRC under DOE's General 

License. In addition to the cost of remediation, the licensee is responsible for a one-time 

payment to the U.S. Department of the Treasury to offset LM's long-term care costs for the site. 

LM funding for long-term surveillance and maintenance ofUMTRCA sites in fiscal year (FY) 

2011 is $6.6M for Title I sites and $1.1M for Title II sites and is projected to be $6.3M for Title I 

sites and $1.4M for Title II sites in FY2012. 

DOE UMTRCA Vicinity Property (VP) Program 

The VP program was established to clean up sites where mill tailings were used for construction, 

including many residences. Mill tailings were removed from over 4,000 vicinity properties in the 

City of Grand Junction, Colorado. Although DOE's UMTRCA Title I surface cleanup authority 

expired in 1998, as required by the UMTRCA extension in 1996, DOE must keep the Grand 

Junction Disposal Cell open for receipt of tailings discovered in the community 

In 2011, DOE received at the Grand Junction Disposal Cell 7,200 cubic yards (yd3

) oftailings 

materials from the City of Grand Junction, primarily excavated from city streets and sidewalks. 

Ongoing UMTRCA Remediation by the DOE Office of Environmental Management 

EM is conducting additional remediation under UMTRCA standards or authority. During the 

summer of2011, mill-related contaminated soil at the "Highway 160 Site" near the Tuba City 

UMTRCA Title I was characterized, excavated, and shipped by truck to the Grand Junction 

Disposal Cell in Colorado. On August 29, 2011 the last shipment of more than 4,500 yd3 of 

contaminated soil was delivered to the cell. The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 funded 

DOE to remediate the site, and DOE established a cooperative agreement with the Navajo Nation 

to perform the work. 

A larger effort is the Moab Project, where more than 16 million tons ( 12 million yd3

) of mill 

tailings and other contaminated material is being excavated and shipped by train from the former 

Moab mill site to a new disposal cell near Crescent Junction, Utah. The project was authorized 

under UMTRCA Title I by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for 

FY2001. EM began moving the tailings in 2009, and by the end ofFY201 1 approximately 29 

percent (more than 4.6 millions tons) of the total material at the mill site has been relocated to 

Crescent Junction. EM is also characterizing groundwater contamination associated with the 

Moab tailings which are located adjacent to the Colorado River. As with other UMTRCA sites, 

the Crescent Junction disposal cell and any groundwater remediation systems in Moab will 

eventually be transferred to LM for long-term surveillance and maintenance. 
28 


24964.021

Groundwater Program 

EM's groundwater work at Moab is consistent with amendments to UMTRCA in 1998 that 

authorized DOE to remediate groundwater exceeding EPA standards at former uranium milling 

sites. Groundwater restoration by LM is ongoing at nine Title I sites and one Title II site. 

Groundwater cleanup strategies include natural flushing, which must be completed within I 00 

years. Other "active" remediation being performed at some sites include a pump and treatment 

system at Tuba City, AZ; a pump and evaporation system at Shiprock, NM; a phytoremediation 

system at Monument Valley, AZ; and a nutrient enhancement/ biological remediation system at 

Rifle, CO. 

LM UMTRCA Long-Term Surveillance Plans 

LM uses NRC-approved Long-Term Surveillance Plans (LTSPs) to manage UMTRCA sites. 

The LTSPs are a condition of the NRC license issued to DOE for the long-term care and 

maintenance ofUMTRCA disposal cells. As part of the LTSPs, LM performs annual site 

management activities, including inspections and maintenance. The primary objective of L TSPs 

is to ensure that the management ofUMTRCA sites continues to protect public health and the 

environment. L TSP activities can include: inspecting disposal cells for subsidence, erosion, and 

other damage; performing cell maintenance, erosion control, weed control, fence repair, and 

property management; evaluating the adequacy of institutional controls; and conducting 

groundwater monitoring. 

LM UMTRCA Activities in New Mexico 

LM manages four former uranium milling sites in the State of New Mexico, three of which are 

located in the Grants Mineral Belt: Ambrosia Lake, L-Bar, and Bluewater. Two additional sites 

in the region (Homestake and Rio Algom) are being remediated by private firms under 

UMTRCA Title II and will be transferred to DOE after remediation is complete. In 2009, the 

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) initiated the Five-year plan, Grants Mining 

District, New Mexico, (2010-2014): Assessment of Health and Environmental Impacts of 

Uranium Mining and Milling (Five-year Plan). DOE, EPA and NRC are participants in the plan. 

DOE has committed to continue all long term surveillance, maintenance and groundwater 

monitoring at its UMTRCA sites. In addition, DOE is working with the State of New Mexico to 

better understand groundwater quality in the region. 

Recent activities in response to concerns raised by NMED under the Five-year Plan include 

drilling additional groundwater wells at the Ambrosia Lake and Bluewater disposal cells, 

increasing groundwater sampling from once to twice a year, and monitoring additional analytes. 

In FY2012, another well will be drilled at Bluewater. 

Title X Uranium and Thorium Reimbursement Program 

Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed DOE to reimburse certain licensees of uranium 

and thorium milling sites for the portion of their cleanup costs attributed to sale of material to the 

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the predecessor agency to DOE. Licensee claims for 

reimbursement are audited by LM and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and eligible costs are 

reimbursed by EM annually, subject to the availability of appropriations. 
29 


24964.022

Two New Mexico sites in the Title X Program are UMTRCA Title II sites (Rio Algom and 

Homestake) will become the responsibility of LM for conducting long term surveillance and 

maintenance and groundwater remediation. The Bluewater site, already managed by LM, also 

received Title X funds prior to closure. Since 1994, DOE has reimbursed $628M under the 

program. Total federal payments under Title X are capped. The maximum remaining authorized 

payments are approximately $210M. 

LM Uranium Leasing Program 

Other LM activities include the Uranium Leasing Program (ULP) and its 31 uranium lease tracts 

located in the Uravan Mineral Belt of southwestern Colorado (approximately 25,000 acres). The 

ULP began in 1948 when Congress authorized the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission to withdraw 

lands from the public domain for the sole purpose of exploring for, developing, and mining 

uranium-vanadium ore bodies for national defense purposes. 

In 1994, DOE recognized the lack of regulations pertaining to the reclamation oflegacy mine 

sites, and collaborated with BLM to develop reclamation criteria tailored to abandoned uranium 

mines. From 1995 through 2001, DOE reclaimed 161 mine sites on the DOE lease tracts. 

During that time, DOE negotiated contracts with its lessees to perform reclamation at these 

legacy sites in lieu of annual royalty payments owed to the Government pursuant to I 0 CFR 

760.1. 

By the late 1990s, various Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field offices began to recognize 

DOE's experience and expertise in reclaiming legacy mine sites and in 2000, BLM executed an 

interagency agreement with DOE, requesting DOE's assistance in performing mine closures and 

reclamation on ELM-administered public lands throughout the Uravan Mineral Belt. During an 

8-year span, BLM funded DOE to perform reclamation activities at 182 mine sites. 

Closing 

DOE will continue to work with other Federal agencies, tribal nations, and state and local 

governments to ensure that the legacy of uranium milling and processing sites is one that is 

protective of human health and the environment. It will also continue to be respectful of the 

concerns and values of stakeholders that live near the sites or on whose land the former milling 

sites arc located. 

24964.023
31 


24964.024

QUESTION FROM SENATOR UDALL 

Tuba City 

Q 1. I understand that DOE is responsible for two sites near Tuba City the Highway 160 site and the 

disposal cell nearby. DOE was allocated $5 million through the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act for cleanup of these sites. 

Q I a. How much of those funds have been spent and what has been accomplished? 

(Highway J 60 site should be complete.) 

Ala. As of October 18,2011,$3.7 million of the $5 million obligated to the Tuba City Highway 160 

Project has been costed. Final shipment of remediated waste and materials was sent to the Grand 

Junction Disposal Site on August 26, 20 II and completed backfill activities at the site on October 

3, 20 II. Remaining work includes the finalization of project closeout reporting and invoicing. 

Q I b. Is there any statutory or other obstacle to transferring any remaining funds to cleanup of the Tuba 

City Dump, or is there any other funding available? 

Alb. The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act statutory language states: " ... ofthe amounts provided, 

$5,000,000 is available for necessary expenses for the purpose of carrying out remedial actions 

under this title at real property in the vicinity of the Tuba City processing site designated in section 

102(a)(l), of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-604, as 

amended; 42 U.S.C. 7901, et seq.), notwithstanding section 112 of the Act, at a dump site 

immediately adjacent to the north-northwest section of the Tuba City processing site, and on the 

north side of Highway 160 ... " 

That statutory text is specific and limited to the Highway 160 site, an area distinct from the Tuba 

City Dump. Because the statutory language is so specific, the Department may only use those 

funds for the Highway 160 site, and has. no ability to reprogram the funds to any other cleanup 

efforts. There are no other DOE funds available for cleanup of the Tuba City Dump. 
32 


24964.042

COMMITIEE: SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY 

HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 6, 2011 

WITNESS: DAVID GEISER 

Page 26, Lines 6-24 

Page 27, Lines 1-7 

msERTFORTHERECORD 

Status of Wyoming (WY) Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act sites in response to 

Senator Barrasso's request: 

As I stated in my testimony on October 6, 2011, the Department has four primary responsibilities 

associated with uranium mining and milling. The first is long-term surveillance and maintenance 

of former uranium milling sites. The second is the cleanup of the former Atlas milling site in 

Moab, Utah. The third is reimbursements for a portion of certain uranium and thorium cleanups 

that is ongoing at licensed uranium milling sites. And the fourth is the management of the 

uranium leasing program in Western Colorado. 

The Department's authority related to uranium milling sites is provided by the Uranium Mill 

Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended. 

Site Acquisition 

Riverton, WY, Processing Site 1991 

Spook, WY, Disposal Site 1993 

Shirley Basin South, WY, 2005 

Disposal Site 

Legacy Management (LM) is conducting 

Monitoring & Maintenance in accordance with 

the LM Long-Term Surveillance Plan (L TSP). 

LM is conducting Inspection & Maintenance in 

accordance with the LM LTSP. 

LM is conducting Monitoring & Maintenance in 

accordance with the LM LTSP. 
33 


24964.043

§i!!; Acquisition ~ 

Bear Creek, WY, Disposal Site Pending Transfer of the site from the licensee to LM 

should be completed in FYI2. 

Gas Hills North, WY, Disposal Pending Transfer of the site from the licensee to LM, 

Site should be completed in FYI2. 

Split Rock, WY, Disposal Site Pending Transfer of the site from the licensee to LM, 

should be completed in FYI2. 

Gas Hills East, WY, Disposal Pending Transfer of the site from the licensee to LM, 

Site should be completed in FYI3. 

Gas Hills West, WY, Disposal Future The State of WY is conducting remediation in 

Site consultation with NRC. DOE acquisition of the 

site is anticipated by 2015. 

Highland, WY, Disposal Site Future The licensee is perfonning remediation under 

NRC license. DOE acquisition of the site is 

anticipated by 2015. 

Shirley Basin North, WY, Future The licensee is operating the disposal cell under 

Disposal Site NRC license. DOE acquisition of the site is 

anticipated by 2047. 

Sweetwater, WY, Disposal Future The mill is on standby with a five-year 

Site postponement of decommissioning. DOE 

acquisition of the site is anticipated by 2047. 

(See attached for additional infonnation) 
34 


24964.044

and uranium, and thorium in 

sails and construction debris< The tailings pile covered 

about 72 acres of the 140-acre site to an average depth 

of 4 feet In 1988, about 1 <8 million cubic yards of the 

contaminated materials were removed from the site and 

relocated to the Gas Hills East Disposal Site 45 miles 

The U<S< Department of completed 

remediation of the Riverton 

at t11e site caused both surface and 

onJurmvJa«ar contamination< Three umlerHe 

site: an unconfined surficial an 

semiconfined sandstone aquifer, and a 

sandstone Only ar<mrrd~mtre. 

aquifer has 

operations at the site< 

Location of the Riverton Procassing Site 

Pr•t:ICE!ss:ing Site 

The slto is on alluvial 

1 mile north, and 

feet south< 

between the Wind 

Little Wind River, about 

of 15 to 20 feet of alluvial 

depth to groundwater 

below ground surface< Grourld>vater 

to the southeast toward the Little 

Wind Concentrations 

molybdenum and uranium in samples from 

the surficial aquifer havo been 10 to 40 times 

than their respective maximum concentration 

40CFR 192< 

Tho semiconflned aquifer consists of sandstone 15 to 

30 feet thick and is continuous the Riverton 

site< A layer of shale 5 to 10 feet partially 
35 


24964.045

separates the surficial and semiconfined aquifers. 

Concentrations of molybdenum and uranium in the 

semiconfined aquifer typically have been low and 

within the range of background concentrations. 

Compliance Strategy 

""'""',;"'"''" comioli:;nc:e strategy for the Riverton 

conjunction with institutional 

controls and monitoring. Groundwater modeling predicts 

that site-related molybdenum and uranium in the 

surfcial aquiler will flush naturally to levels below their 

maximum concentration limits within the ·100-year time 

frame allowed in 40 CFR 192. DOE will collect samples 

surface water 

to track the progress of natural 

flushing to verily that contaminant concentrations 

are decreasing as predicted. 

contaminated groundwater is assumed 

to to the Little Wind River, m<,nnidiAmt<•r 

contamin<Jnts have had no effect on river 

water quality, An oxbow lake formed by a shift in the 

river path in 1994 receives inflow from <::ontamlnated 

groundwater, and concentrations of uranium in the 

oxbow are elevated but variable. The variability is 

a!tributed to inflow from the river during river stage, 

which causes dilution of uranium conc<>nir!1!r'nn" 

Institutional Controls 

Institutional controls at the Riverton sife consist of three 

alternate drinking 

restrictions on new wells 

restriction on state-owned property 

progress). 

DOE is working with the Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes 

and the State of Wyoming to obtain enforceable 

institutional controls at the site. DOE funded an 

alternate drinking water supply system In 1998 to 

provide potable water to residents within the 

institutional controls boundary. However, elevated 

concentrations of radionuclides were detected in the 

in 2002 and were confirmed In samples 

in May 2004. In response to elevated 

concentrations of radionuclides in the system. DOE 

conducted a 2-year flushing and monitoring program. 

Results or tho flushing and monitoring program 

that a unidirectional flushing program is effective 

controlling radionuclide build-up within the system. A 

perpetual deed restriction is being developed for the 

former millsite property owned by the state that will 

restrict land development and prohibit well drilling. 
36 


24964.046

Legacy Management Activities 

DOE will manage the Riverton Processing Site according to 

a site-specific Long-Term Management Plan that is currently 

being developed. Monitoring during the natural flushing 

period is referred to as verification monitoring because its 

purpose is to verify that the strategy is progressing as 

predicted and that institutional controls are in place and 

functioning as intended. DOE will collect groundwater and 

surface water samples semiannually once in June when the 

water table and river flow are typically highest and once in 

October when the water table and river flow nre typically 

lowest. Data from these sampling events will be used to 

assess variations in contaminant concentrations attributable 

to seasonal tiuctuations and to track contaminant 

concentrations over time. 

Contacts 

Documents related to the Riverton Processing Site are 

available on the DOE Office of Legacy Management 

website at hHp:llwww.lrn.doe.gov/riverton/Siles.aspx. 

For more information about DOE Office of Legacy 

Management activities at the Riverton Processing Site, 

contact 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Legacy Management 

2597 Legacy Way, Grand Junction. CO 81503 

(970) 248-6070 (monitored continuously), or 

(877) 695-5322 (toll-free) 

1010512011 
37 


24964.047

conform 

standards 

DOE's 

Surveillance Plan for the site in June 2005. 

site was included under NRC's gonorallicense 

t.ocntion of fflo S11tfloy Das~n South Disposal Site 

and reclamation at the mil!site consisted o! 

de:rnnli"h'inc site structures and contaminated 

soils. Mill components that were not and sold 

were buried in a mine pit, the tailings pile, or on-sHe 

disposal trenches. 

Past 

shallow 

Sand 
38 


24964.048

Further studies 

of the Main Sand aquifer 

not contaminant conc-entrations 

established standards. 

Compliance Strategy 

Legacy Management Activities 

human health and environment. 

Disposal Cell Design 

Contacts 

contaln 97 4 curies 
39 


24964.049

Site ls a former uraniurn~ore 

Converse Wyoming, about 

north The site located on a 

14,ocro tract of land surrounded by large, privately 

owned sheep and cattle ranches, 
40 


24964.050

w 

Compliance Strategy 

Disposal Cell Design 

prQtect the site from erosion. 

successfully reveg\ltated with 

and shrubs. 

Legacy Management Activities 

DOE manages the disposal site 

Surveillance 

Contacts 
41 


24964.051

July 29, 2011 

Jeff Bingaman 

703 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Tom Udall 

110 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Martin Heinrich 

1505 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Ben R. Lujan 

502 Cannon HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Steve Pearce 

1007 Longworth HOB 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Lisa Jackson, Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Buildings}~] 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.G}~j 

Washington, DC 20460[~1~] 

Sai Appaji 

USEPA Region 6 

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200 

Mail Code 6SF-L T 

Dallas TX 75202-2733 

David Martin, Secretary 

New Mexico Environment Department 

Harold Runnels Building 

P.O. Box 26110 

Santa Fe, NM 87502 

Jerry Schoeppner, Angelo Ortelli, Dana 

Bahar 

New Mexico Environment Department, 

Superfund Oversight, Groundwater Bureau 

1190 St. Francis Dr. Suite N2350 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

Dear New Mexico Congressional Delegation and H/BG Regulators: 

On behalf of the Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance, a community impacted by the 

Homestake/Barrick Gold Corporation's Uranium Mill Tailings Superfund site near 

Milan, New Mexico, I am writing to update you on our latest meeting with the US 

Environmental Protection Agency, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the New 

Mexico Environment Department. We are also submitting this letter as testimony in the 

hearings before Senator Udall's Subcommittee on Children's Health and 

Environmental Responsibility of the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee. Again, we look to you, our official representatives, to help us solve this 

problem. 

Senator Udall's hearings are a good example of why our community relies on you. Word 

of these hearings came to us suddenly and unexpectedly. We have organized to the point 

that, financially, we might now be able to send representatives to present our testimony to 

you in person. However, because we are working class citizens, we have jobs and need 

notice of these hearings or need your help when sufficient notice is not given. 
42 


24964.052

History. To remind you what has been taken from us: 

• Our wells-Homestake/Barrick Gold contaminated our drinking water. Who 

knows how long families were exposed to the contaminated water before they 

were connected to a cleaner community water supply. We now pay for water we 

used to have for the cost of pumping. Some families were not connected to clean 

water until just recently, when BVDA finally forced the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New Mexico Environment 

Department (NMED) to test area wells again and prove what we knew-that the 

contamination had spread. Again, who knows how long these additional families 

were exposed to contaminated water. Remember, too, that New Mexico has lost 

over a million acre feet of water as a result of uranium mining in our area. These 

are critical resources that must be restored to our state for future generations. 

• Radon-Because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has colluded with 

Homestake/Barrick Gold and has allowed the company to simply pretend to 

remediate this site for over 30 years now, our community has been exposed to 

much higher levels of radon under NRC guidelines than would have been allowed 

under EPA regulations. Recently, many of us received reports from the EPA that 

our houses are contaminated with radon and we need to hire contractors to 

remediate this situation. One of the recommended EPA contractors estimated the 

price of remediation for my home would be over $5,000. Many in our community 

will not be able to afford this. My husband and I plan to do the work ourselves, 

and hope for the best. Again, who knows how long our families have been 

exposed to these dangerous radon levels and how much longer they will have to 

be exposed due to a lack of financial resources. 

• Health effects-Despite the clear risks to our health, there have been no 

epidemiological studies conducted in our community. BVDA did an informal 

health survey and found high incidences of cancer and other diseases. After over 

30 years of exposure, the EPA is finally conducting a risk assessment of our 

community, but this is not a health study. In the past, we have been told a health 

study would be impossible because many in our community worked in the 

uranium mines and there would be no way to tell if the health effects were from 

exposure from the tailings pile or past worker exposure. We believe no one wants 

to know what the health effects have been for our community because then 

someone would be expected to take responsibility. Ours is a history of regulatory 

agencies making excuses for the responsible parties and each agency trying to 

pass the responsibility to another agency. 

Moving forward. Currently, there may be a window of opportunity. We recently met 

with officials from the NMED and EPA. These officials verbally committed to two 

things: 

I. Finding a mechanism for studying how to move the tailings pile to a safe, 

permanent location. One or several regional repositories are needed for removal 

of our waste (EPA Region 6) and for removal of the Red Water Pond Road 

contamination (EPA Region 9) and possibly other sites. This would keep the 

tailings pond from leaking in our community and continuing to contaminate 
43 


24964.053

groundwater for hundreds of years and would eliminate radon risks. It would also 

provide much-needed jobs for the communities. 

2. Meeting with BVDA and our Congressional Delegation to explain what 

prevents them, as regulators, from forcing full cleanup. Full cleanup would 

not bring back our health, but it would bring peace of mind for the future. It could 

bring much-needed jobs and would allow our elders to die knowing future 

generations might be able to carry on the traditions we hold dear in this rural 

community. If you, as our elected officials, understood what was holding the 

regulators back, we feel certain you could and would help us solve this incredible 

injustice. 

Our community's problems with toxic waste seem technically complicated. However, 

we believe there is a very simple solution. The uranium tailings pile should be slurried, 

conveyed, or otherwise moved out of our community to a safe, permanent location that 

could be perpetually maintained. The currently contaminated groundwater would then be 

cleaned to pre-mining and milling conditions. It really is as simple as that. With the 

current price of gold, this multi-billion dollar company can afford this solution. You 

could begin this process by planning a meeting between all of you, us, NMED, and 

USEPA. We are reasonable people, but waiting over 30 years for a cleanup is 

unacceptable. 

BVDA, in alliance with MASE (Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment) and other 

regional environmental groups, implores this committee and the recipients of this letter to 

help our community attain justice and protect our health. We have no way of knowing 

how our own health, the health of our children, and the health of future generations may 

have been affected by over 30 years of exposure to radon and contaminated water. We 

are willing to simply move forward and seek a permanent solution to this injustice. Once 

more, we are asking for our government's help. Please do not deny us again. 

Sincerely, 

Candace Head-Dylla, President 

Bluewater Valley Downstream Alliance 

# 6 Ridgerunner Rd. 

Grants, NM 87020 

cheaddy!la@gmail.com 

505-401-4349 
44 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Woolford, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES WOOLFORD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

SUPERFUND REMEDIATION AND TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Mr. Chairman, Senator Barrasso, my name is 

James Woolford. I am Director of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide an overview of the status of EPA’s efforts in addressing legacy uranium mining contamination on Navajo and other lands, and EPA’s efforts related to uranium in situ recovery operations. I am accompanied today by my 

colleagues from EPA’s Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water 

and from EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, who will be 

available to answer questions related to the agency’s air and water 

programs referenced in my testimony. 

Decades of uranium mining in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, 

primarily on Navajo Nation land, have left a legacy of uranium 

contamination, including more than 600 abandoned uranium 

mines, dozens of homes built with contaminated mine waste rock 

and contaminated groundwater wells. EPA has led the development and implementation of a coordinated Federal plan to address 

the uranium legacy on the Navajo Nation. 

The 5-year plan was developed in 2008 in conjunction with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, Centers for 

Disease Control, Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission and the Navajo Nation. We are now in the fourth year 

of implementing that plan. The 5-year plan outlines, among other 

items, the Federal commitments to address contaminated homes, 

water sources and abandoned uranium mines. 

EPA maintains a strong partnership with the Navajo Nation, 

and since 1994, EPA has provided technical assistance and funding 

to assess potentially contaminated sites and develop and implement response actions. Since October 2007, USEPA and Navajo 

EPA have assessed 683 structures, 240 unregulated water sources 

and 452 abandoned uranium mines. The agencies plan to complete 

the screening of the remaining mines by the end of 2011 and identify and prioritize response actions for the highest risk mines sites. 

In addition, 33 contaminated homes and other structures have 

been demolished, and 14 replacement homes have been constructed. We have identified 28 uranium contaminated wells and 

water systems have been built for more than 300 residents to replace contaminated water supplies. 

Last week, EPA released its cleanup plan for the Northeast 

Church Rock Mine in Northwestern New Mexico, which is the largest abandoned uranium mine site in the Navajo Nation. EPA also 

uses its enforcement authorities to address contaminated sites, and 

we have taken enforcement actions against five responsible parties 

and cleanup work has begun at four sites. Additional actions are 

planned. 

45 

In addition to the Federal 5-year plan to address uranium legacy 

mining on Navajo lands, EPA and other Federal agencies developed 

a 5-year plan with New Mexico in 2010 to address releases from 

legacy uranium mining and milling operations in the Grants Mining District in New Mexico. 

I would like to quickly mention the USEPA’s efforts related to in 

situ uranium recovery. There is growing interest in developing uranium mining sites in several States due to significant increases in 

the price of uranium. In situ leaching, or ISL, uses injection wells 

to introduce alkaline fluids into underground formations to mobilize uranium in the groundwater. Production wells subsequently 

bring the uranium-bearing fluids to the surface where they are 

processed for use by the nuclear industry. The Office of Radiation 

and Indoor Air is the lead EP office for this effort. 

EPA shares authority with the NRC and with States in overseeing operations at ISL leaching facilities. However, if the operation is occurring on Federal lands, the Federal Land Management 

Agency will also have a role. NRC and agreement States regulate 

ISL operations, including the injection of fluids using environmental radiation and groundwater protection standards developed 

by EPA in accordance with the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act. 

In 2010, the agency began an effort to review our regulations for 

uranium and thorium to determine if they should be updated. In 

the meantime, NRC has deferred its own regulatory effort while 

EPA continues its regulatory review. 

EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air requested the agency’s 

science advisory board conduct an advisory review to provide scientific and technical advice on ISL post-closure groundwater monitoring issues. Those efforts are ongoing. EPA, NRC, States and as 

appropriate Federal land management agencies, will continue to 

work together to coordinate our regulatory efforts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my remarks. I or one 

of my EPA colleagues would be pleased to answer any questions regarding EPA’s efforts related to uranium legacy mining or recovery 

issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Woolford follows:] 

46 


24964.001

Testimony of James Woolford 

Director 

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Children's Health and Environmental Responsibility 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

October 6, 2011 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is James Woolford. I am 

Director of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thank you for the opportunity to provide an overview 

of the status of the EPA's efforts in addressing legacy uranium mining contamination on Navajo 

and other lands, and Agency efforts related to uranium in-situ recovery operations. 

BACKGROUND- URANIUM MINING LEGACY ON NAVAJO LANDS 

From 1944 to 1986, nearly four million tons ofuranium ore were extracted from lands in 

Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, primarily on Navajo Nation land. Today the mines are closed, 

but a legacy of uranium contamination remains from more than 600 abandoned uranium mines, 

homes built with contaminated mine waste rock, and contaminated water wells. Chronic human 

exposure to these contaminants could pose a variety of health risks, including lung cancer, bone 

cancer, and impaired kidney function. 
47 


24964.002

FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR NAVAJO NATION LANDS 

EPA has led the development an'd implementation of a coordinated Federal plan to 

address the uranium legacy on the Navajo Nation. This federal Five-Year Plan was developed in 

2008 in conjunction with the Bureau oflndian Affairs, Indian Health Service, the Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC), and the Navajo Nation. We are now in the federal Five-Year Plan's fourth year of 

implementation. A map identifying legacy uranium mining sites on the Navajo Nation is 

included as an attachment to my testimony. The federal Five-Year Plan outlines the federal 

commitments to address contaminated homes, water sources, and abandoned uranium mines, and 

lays out a framework for addressing the highest risks while gaining a solid understanding of 

longer-term problems. 

EPA maintains a strong partnership with the Navajo EPA, and, since 1994, EPA has 

provided technical assistance and funding to assess potentially contaminated sites and develop a 

response, including demolition and replacement of contaminated homes. Since October 2007, 

U.S. EPA and Navajo EPA have assessed 854 structures, 240 wells, and 452 abandoned uranium 

mines to determine threats to residents. In addition, 34 contaminated homes and other structures 

have been demolished, and 28 uranium-contaminated water sources have been identified. The 

EPA is building water systems for more than 300 residents living near contaminated water 

supplies. The EPA and has also built 14 replacement homes and expects to complete three more 

in fall2011. U.S. EPA Region 9 has issued enforcement actions against five responsible parties, 

and has begun cleanup work at four of the highest risk abandoned uranium mines. The Agencies 

plan to complete the screening of remaining mines by the end of 2011, identify and prioritize 
48 


24964.003

response actions for the highest risk mines, and continue to identify additional parties responsible 

for site cleanup. 

FIVE-YEAR PLAN FORNON-TRIBAL LANDS 

In addition to the federal Five-Year Plan to address legacy uranium mining on tribal 

lands, EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Department of Energy, 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Department of the Interior, and the State of New 

Mexico developed a Five-Year Plan in 2010 that lays out the goals, objectives, and tasks for 

multiple agencies to assess and address health risks and environmental impacts resulting from 

the extraction, processing, disposal, and releases from legacy uranium mining and milling 

activities in the Grants Mining District in New Mexico. While the Grants Mining District has 

been the primary location of uranium mining historically, there are additional legacy uranium 

mines located throughout New Mexico. In deciding which uranium mines to investigate and 

prioritize, the New Mexico Five-Year plan focuses on legacy uranium mines with reportable 

production and mining activities with surface disturbances. There are 97 legacy uranium mines 

in the district with the potential for physical hazards such as open adits and shafts, and for 

potential releases to soil, surface water, and ground water. 

Within the Grants Mining District, there are also five legacy uranium milling sites. Four 

are located in the Ambrosia Lake sub-district and one in the Laguna sub-district. The Homestake 

Mining Company site and the Ambrosia Lake-Rio Algom Mill sites are currently under the 

jurisdiction of the NRC until reclamation is complete. The Department of Energy is responsible 

for the long-term surveillance, maintenance and ground water monitoring at the Ambrosia LakePhillips Mill site, the Anaconda Bluewater Mill site, and the L-Bar Mill site since reclamation 

activities have been completed. 
49 


24964.004

Agencies have completed 66 site screenings of legacy uranium mines, completed an 

Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis for the San Mateo Mine located on U.S. Forest 

Service land and created a technical workgroup with representatives from state and federal 

agencies to develop a characterization protocol for legacy uranium mine sites and cleanup 

criteria. Site screenings for the remaining 31 legacy uranium mines are scheduled for completion 

in fall20ll. 

The agencies also plan to complete more detailed assessments on at least seven 

previously screened mines to determine the impact from mining activities, assess radiation levels 

at two mine sites located on Bureau of Land Management property, conduct emergency action at 

mine sites when warranted due to releases to the environment or physical hazards, and prioritize 

all remaining sites and determine appropriate action. 

IN-SITU RECOVERY OF URANIUM 

There is growing interest in developing uranium mining sites in several states due to 

significant increases in the price of uranium. In the U.S., uranium has been mined through 

conventional open pit and underground mining practices. However, most of the uranium 

extracted in the U.S. is now produced by in-situ leaching. This practice uses injection wells to 

introduce alkaline fluids into underground formations to mobilize uranium into the ground water. 

Production wells subsequently bring the uranium-bearing fluids to the surface, where they are 

processed into "yellowcake" for use by the nuclear industry. EPA understands that there arc 

states, tribes and communities concerned about the potential development of new uranium in-situ 

leaching mining operations. EPA will work with our federal partners and state co-regulators to 

ensure that these practices do not adversely impact ground water resources. 
50 


24964.005

EPA shares authority with NRC and with the states in overseeing operations at in-situ 

leaching facilities. However, if the operation is occurring on federal lands, the federal land 

management agency will also have a role. NRC and Agreement States regulate in-situ leaching 

facility operations, including the injection of fluids, using environmental, radiation, and ground 

water protection standards developed by EPA in accordance with the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). In addition to NRC requirements, operators of injection 

wells used at in-situ leaching facilities also must apply for and receive a Class III well permit and 

if needed, a Class I well permit for disposal of fluids, under the authority of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program requirements. Permits for Class III 

solution mining wells are issued either by EPA or the authorized state UIC agency in those states 

that have been granted primary enforcement responsibility for the UIC program, which in New 

Mexico is the New Mexico Environment Department. State UIC programs may have 

requirements that are more stringent than EPA requirements. 

In 2009, NRC started to develop ground water regulations for in-situ leaching operations 

to improve the current guidance and licensing approach. EPA worked with NRC to help ensure 

that revisions would incorporate EPA regulatory requirements developed under UMTRCA and 

be consistent with EPA regulations for RCRA and Class III injection wells. In 2010, EPA began 

an effort to review our own regulations regarding uranium recovery operations. NRC has 

deferred its regulatory effort while EPA continues our regulatory review. In addition, the EPA 

has convened the Agency's Science Advisory Board to request scientific and technical advice on 

in-situ leaching post-closure ground water monitoring issues. EPA, NRC, states, and if relevant, 

federal land management agencies, will continue to work together and coordinate our regulatory 

efforts. 
51 


24964.006

EPA or state UIC programs will continue to maintain responsibility for permitting in-situ 

leaching injection wells. Permits include requirements based on the siting of wells, construction 

standards, operational practices, monitoring and reporting, closure, financial responsibility, and 

cleanup. Current NRC guidance and licenses require operators to take action to prevent off-site 

excursions of fluids used in uranium production into ground water aquifers during operations, 

and to restore ground water after operations are completed. 

CONCLUSION 

EPA will continue to work with its federal, state, and tribal partners in addressing sites 

contaminated from abandoned uranium mines and will continue to identify parties responsible 

for site cleanup. Efforts are underway under both the Five-Year Plan for Navajo Lands and Fiveyear Plan for non-tribal lands. EPA will continue its regulatory work with NRC to help ensure 

that in-situ leaching injection and recovery operations are protective of groundwater resources. 

EPA remains firmly committed to protecting public health and the environment by addressing 

the environmental effects oflegacy uranium mines. We will continue to work closely with our 

Navajo and other federal, state and local partners on this important matter. 
52 


24964.007

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Post Hearing Questions and Answers for the Record from the 

Oversight Hearing on Federal Actions to Clean up Contamination from 

Uranium Mining and Milling Operations 

1. Homes 

Q la: How many homes have been screened for radioactive contamination in both the 

Navajo Nation and the Grants Mineral Belt? 

Ala: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) Region 9 and 

the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency have screened 683 homes 

for radioactive contamination on Navajo Nation land. EPA Region 6 has screened 

451 homes for radioactive contamination in the Grants Mineral Belt. 

Q 1 b: How many more homes do you expect to screen during the current five-year 

plans? 

Alb: In the current Five-Year Plan, EPA Region 9 and the Navajo Nation 

Environmental Protection Agency expect to screen at least 100 more homes on 

Navajo land. EPA Region 6 plans to screen 250 structures during the current Fiveyear Plan in the Grants Mineral Belt. 

Q lc: How many homes have been demolished due to contamination in areas covered 

by the Navajo Nation and the Grants Mining District Five-Year Plans? 

A lc: Due to radioactive contamination, 34 homes have been demolished on Navajo 

Nation land. EPA Region 9 has rebuiltlO homes in that area. EPA Region 6 has 

not demolished any homes in the Grants Mineral Belt. 

2. Water 

Q 2a: How many wells have been screened for radioactive contamination in both the 

Navajo Nation and the Grants Mineral Belt? 

A 2a: EPA Region 9 screened 250 wells on the Navajo Nation land for radioactive 

contamination. EPA Region 6 has screened 123 wells in the Grants Mineral Belt 

for radioactive contamination. 
53 


24964.008

Q 2b: How many more wells do you expect to screen during the five-year plans? 

A 2b: Neither EPA Region 9 nor Region 6 expect to screen additional wells as part of 

the Five-Year Plan. However, Regions 6 and 9 will respond to requests as needed. 

Q 2c: How many wells have been closed in both the Navajo Nation and the Grants 

Mineral Belt? 

A 2c: EPA Region 9 has permanently closed 3 contaminated wells on the Navajo Nation 

land. Regarding wells located on non-Navajo land, the State of New Mexico has 

sent letters to the owners of all wells that exceed drinking water standards 

providing precautionary information and recommendations for using public water 

supplies or bottled water for consumption. No owner of private wells in the 

Grants Mineral Belt has requested that EPA close wells that exceed drinking 

water standards. 

Q 2d: It is my understanding that some of these contaminated wells are still open for use 

for livestock at the request of local residents. Is the health of these animals being 

monitored and what has any monitoring shown about risk? 

A 2d: The use of water sources on Navajo Nation land is generally addressed by local 

chapters. EPA is not monitoring animals at this time on the Navajo Nation land or 

in the Grants Mineral Belt. Studies in other locations have indicated that health 

risk to animals or humans consuming animals is not a concern at the levels of 

uranium present in the associated wells. 

3. Abandoned Mines 

It is my understanding that there are at least 500 abandoned uranium mining sites in the 

Navajo Nation and potentially as many in the State of New Mexico and surrounding 

states. 

Q 3a: Does the federal government have a complete understanding of the number and 

location of all abandoned uranium mines nationwide? 

A 3a: EPA has compiled mine location information from Federal, state and tribal 

agencies into a single national database as part of its investigation into the 

potential environmental hazards of wastes from abandoned uranium mines. The 

information in this database primarily focuses on uranium mines in the western 
54 


24964.009

continental United States, where most of the abandoned uranium mines are 

located. From this dataset, the Agency found that about 75% ofthe uranium 

mines and mills are located on Federal or tribal lands. This Uranium Location 

Database Compilation, designed for use with geographic information system 

(GIS) software, is available to the public. To download the database and 

supporting documentation, please visit our website at: 

http://epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/pubs.html 

Q 3b: What is the range in size, contamination level, and threat to public health of these 

mines? 

A 3b: The Superfund program has listed two abandoned uranium mines on the National 

Priority List (NPL). The site name, size, and contaminants posing potential threats 

to public health at these sites are provided in the attached Table l.as follows: 

Table 1: Uranium Minin~;t Sites on the National Priorities List 1 

SITE NAME State Site Size Contaminants of Concern 

MlDNITE MINE Washington 140 acres uranium~ radium, radon~ arsenic 

FREMONT NATIONAL. Oregon 350 acres uranium, radium, radon, lead 

FOREST/WHITE KING AND LUCKY 

LASSURAN!UM MINES (USDA) 

Federal land management and regulatory agencies such as the Department of the 

Interior and Department of Agriculture are responsible for assessing and 

addressing abandoned uranium mines and mills under their jurisdiction and not 

listed on the NPL. 

Q 3c: What is the EPA's long-termplanjor ensuring safe closure of the hundreds of 

abandoned uranium mines? 

A 3c: The safe closure of abandoned mines in general and uranium mines in particular 

is a national problem. Solving the issues associated with abandoned uranium 

mines will involve the collaboration of Federal, state and tribal agencies, with 

multiple authorities and resources. EPA intends to use its available tools, 

including statutory authorities under CERCLA and the Clean Water Act, as well 

as policy and guidance documents developed by EPA's Abandoned Mine Lands 

1 The table does not include the six uranium mill sites that have been listed on the NPL. 
55 


24964.010

Program to address some of the highest priority problems associated with 

abandoned uranium mines. For example, EPA Region 6 and 9 have Five-Year 

Plan strategies to assess and, if needed, address uranium contamination from 

mining operations on public, private and tribal lands. Additional information on 

the Region 6 Five-Year Plan can be found at: 

http://www .epa.gov/region6//6sflnewmexico/ grants/run _grants_ 5yr _plan. pdf 

For details regarding EPA Region 9's current work on the Navajo Nation as part 

of the 5-Year Plan, please see the attached link. 

http://·www.epa.gov/region9/superfundlnavajo-nation!index.html . 

Q 3d: Does the EPA have a long-term or comprehensive plan to address the thousands 

ofabandoned mines and contaminated mill sites in the United States? 

A 3d: In general, EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) addresses contaminated mining sites 

in the same manner as other contaminated sites. If EPA becomes aware of 

concerns related to a mining site, through citizen complaints, state requests or 

federal land manager information, EPA will assess that site and take action when 

necessary. EPA addresses the highest priority sites as those posing the greatest 

risks or potential risks, regardless of the type of site. 

4. Responsible Parties 

The Superfund law provides authority for EPA to seek cleanup costs from responsible 

parties and the successor companies to those responsible parties. 

Q 4a: When did EPA begin seeking responsible parties to ensure the cleanup of 

abandoned uranium mines? 

A 4a: The Agency has been identifying potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for a 

number of years. EPA Region 9 began identifying PRPs in 2001. More recently, 

in 2008, Region 9 sent CERCLA l04(e) letters to 10 companies requesting 

information, such as leases, maps, and disposition of waste that could establish 

when and where they may have mined on the Navajo Nation. To date, the region 

is working with four PRPs through administrative orders to clean up abandoned 

uranium mines. Region 9 is currently also evaluating information on mine leases 

and supplementary information to help identify additional PRPs. Region 6 began 

a process to identify PRPs in the Grants Mineral Belt in late 2009. Region 6 

researched the operational histories of mines in its jurisdiction in 2010, which led 
56 


24964.011

to the issuance of CERCLA 104( e) letters requesting information on ownership 

history of the mine, historical mining operations, and corporate history of the 

owners and operators to 5 PRPs in 2011. The efforts to identify additional parties 

throughout the mining district will continue. 

Q 4b: How many responsible parties are involved and how much are they contributing 

to cleanup? 

A 4b: Currently, EPA Region 6 is working with one responsible party for the cleanup of 

a uranium mine, but no PRP work or monetary contributions have yet been made. 

EPA Region 6 will continue its enforcement process of collecting information 

from PRPs regarding ownership, mine operations, and related data to identify 

responsible parties. This information will determine whether PRPs have liability 

for an abandoned mine and responsibility for any cleanup. 

EPA Region 9 is currently working with three PRPs on mine sites (Rio Algom, 

Chevron, and United Nuclear Corporation/General Electric (UNC/GE)) and with 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs on the Tuba City Dump . The PRPs have expended 

approximately $12 million for work at contaminated sites to address cleanup and 

assessment activities. The work conducted at this point, has included site 

assessment efforts for Rio Algom, Chevron and the BIA. UNC/GE expended the 

majority of the $12 million, which was used to clean up contaminated areas near 

residences at the Northeast Church Rock site (NECR). In addition, a bankruptcy 

settlement with Tronox/Kerr McGee provided $13.2 million for the cleanup of 

abandoned mine sites. 

Q 4c: Is the EPA investigating any additional potentially responsible parties for further 

contribution to cleanup? 

A 4c: Yes, EPA is actively working to pursue additional responsible parties to pay for 

cleanup at abandoned mines. 

5. Tuba City 

It is my understanding that there is significant groundwater contamination at the site of 

the Tuba City Dump, and since 1995 there have been more than 35 studies conducted on 

the Tuba City Open Dump. I further understand that t"'P A Region 9 did a study of one 
57 


24964.012

area of the dump, looking for waste that could be contributing to high levels of uranium 

in groundwater. 

Q Sa: Can you provide the committee with a copy of the EPA Region 9 study and 

findings on the Tuba City Open Dump? 

A Sa: Please find enclosed, the Draft Data Summary Report: Soil Core 

Characterization, Tuba City Open Dump and the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act Eriforcement, Permitting and Assistance Contract report. 

Q Sb: What does the EPA believe is the source of contamination at the Tuba City 

Dump? 

A Sb: The Agency has not yet determined· the source of uranium or other contaminants 

in groundwater near the Tuba City Open Dump. 

Q Sc: What is the plan for remediation of the dump, and are cleanup efforts underway 

at this point? What are the remaining hurdles to such action? 

A Sc: As of 2010, EPA is investigating and evaluating cleanup options for the Tuba City 

Dump using Superfund authorities. EPA is overseeing work by the BIA under an 

enforceable agreement to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study 

(RI/FS), after which EPA plans to select a cleanup remedy. The Agency and BIA 

are performing this process, which will involve opportunities for public comment 

as well as input and coordination from representatives of the Hopi Tribe and the 

Navajo Nation, which are especially affected by this site. It is of primary concern 

to EPA to protect the health of residents using groundwater in this area, and to 

preserve the scarce water resources. 

6. Northeast Church Rock 

Q 6a: Is there a responsible party engaged with EPA on cleanup of the Northeast 

Church Rock site? 

A 6a: Yes, United Nuclear Corporation is the responsible party working with EPA on 

the cleanup of the Northeast Church Rock site (NECR). 
58 


24964.013

Q 6b: What kind of a cost share was established between the responsible party and the 

federal government? 

A 6b: The cost share recently agreed to by the federal government and United Nuclear 

Corporation is apportioned at 33% and 67%, respectively, except if the Federal 

government conducts long-term operation and maintenance, the federal share will 

be reduced to 30%. 

Q 6d: Where are these families currently located, and what are the other options 

available for where they can move given that this is a very rural area with limited 

road and water infrastructure? 

A 6d: Families in the NECR area are currently located within 5 miles of the mine. While 

options in this area are limited, EPA is working with the residents, the Navajo 

Nation Environmental Protection Agency and the Navajo Nation Department of 

Justice, to develop housing options that are consistent with EPA's relocation 

guidance and the relevant relocation Jaws. 

Q 6e: Do you expect that waste from other sites will be stored in the Northeast Church 

Rock disposal cell as well? 

A 6e: EPA Region 9 plans to discuss the option of storing waste from other nearby sites 

at the NECR Mill site disposal cell with EPA Region 6, the Navajo Nation 

Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Energy, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the United Nuclear Corporation. 

7. Homestake Superfund site 

It is my understanding that EPA and NRC have overlappingjurisdiction of the 

Homestake site, and work under an MOU. In June of this year the EPA sent a letter to the 

NRC outlining several instances where NRC is failing to comply with Superfund 

standards and are thus preventing EPA from ensuring compliance. One of the concerns 

expressed in the letter was regarding public consultation. 

Q 7a: Mr. Woolford, are the statutory requirements under the Superfund law for 

consultation with communities impacted by contamination and cleanup? 

A 7a: Section 117 of CERCLA, titled "Public Participation" requires before adoption of 

any plan for remedial action: 
59 


24964.014

1) Publication of a notice of the proposed plan and making the plan available 

to the public; and 

2) An opportunity for submission of written and oral comments and an 

opportunity for a public meeting. 

Section 117 also requires publication of a notice of the final remedial action plan, 

and making the plan available to the public prior to beginning any remedial 

action. The final plan must include a discussion of any significant changes in the 

proposed plan, and a response to each of the significant comments received on the 

proposed plan. After adoption of the final remedial action plan, if there are any 

significant differences between the final plan and the actions taken, publication of 

an explanation of the significant differences and the reasons such changes are 

made is required. 

Finally, Section 117 provides the authority for grants to any group of individuals, 

which may be affected by a release or threatened release at any facility listed on 

the NPL. The grants may be used to obtain technical assistance in interpreting 

information with regard to the nature of the hazard, RI/FS, record of decision, 

remedial design, selection and construction of remedial action, operation and 

maintenance, or removal at the facility. 

Q 7b: Does there continue to be groundwater contamination at the Homes take site and 

in the surrounding communities? 

A 7b: Yes, the private groundwater wells in the community near the Homestake site 

have contaminant concentrations above drinking water standards. However, in a 

settlement with the EPA, the Homestake Mining Company paid for infrastructure 

development that connected 86 affected homes in Broadview Acres, Felice Acres, 

Murray Acres and Pleasant Valley Estates to the Village of Milan's public 

drinking water system in 1985. In 2006, the EPA discovered more groundwater 

contamination in the neighboring community. As a result, under an agreement 

with the New Mexico Environment Department, the Homestake Mining Company 

connected an additionall3 homes to the Village of Milan's public drinking water 

system in 2010. There are approximately five remaining properties that require 

resolution of drinking water issue. 

Q 7c: What is the potential timeline for full cleanup of groundwater at the site? 
60 


24964.015

A 7c: The completion of the groundwater remedy is currently expected to occur by 

2022. 

Q 7d: Is the current system of groundwater treatment extensive enough to fully address 

the problem? 

A 7d: While, the current remediation system is extensive, it will require additional 

enhancements to achieve the final cleanup goals. Homestake Mining Company is 

currently evaluating pilot studies to evaluate these enhancements. The EPA will 

continue to work with Homestake to ensure the most effective groundwater 

treatment. To ensure the long-term protectiveness of the remedy, EPA will review 

the site every 5 years. 

8. Homestake Superfund site 

Q 8a: I believe the EPA is tracking indoor and outdoor radon at the Homestake 

Superfund site. 

A 8a: In November 2011, the EPA will complete a year-long sampling plan of indoor 

and outdoor radon at the Homestake site. The EPA will evaluate the data as part 

of the risk assessment for the nearby neighborhood. 

Q 8b: What is the status o.fradon in homes? 

A 8b: To date, EPA has identified 11 homes that exceed the EPA radon guidance for 

indoor air of 4 pi co curie per liter. 

Q 8c: What is the source of elevated radon levels? 

A 8c: The source of elevated radon in indoor air has not been determined. Pinpointing 

the source of radon in indoor air is complex due to naturally occurring deposits of 

uranium. The EPA risk assessment will evaluate the extensive data collected in 

the neighborhood to ascertain the source of the elevated levels. 

Q 8d: How will elevated radon levels be addressed? 

A 8d: The EPA is currently evaluating options to mitigate the 11 homes identified 

affected by radon contamination. 
61 


24964.016

9. Groundwater Protection Rules 

Q 9a: Please describe current state of the EPA process to update its groundwater 

protection rules under UMTRCAfor in-situ uranium recovery? When do you 

expect to issue draft and final rules? 

A 9a: In May 2010, EPA began an effort to review the regulations for uranium 

extraction facilities (40 CFR Part 192), particularly in light of new uranium 

recovery technologies (i.e., in-situ uranium recovery). EPA continues to review, 

and will potentially revise, the regulations for these facilities. Earlier this year the 

Agency's Science Advisory Board convened and was asked to supply expert 

knowledge on post-closure monitoring issues for in-situ uranium recovery. The 

expected date of release of the final Advisory Report is November 2011. EPA will 

take the Science Advisory Board's conclusions into account in assessing whether 

further rulemakings are necessary. 

Q 9b: Please describe the scope and nature of the aquifer exemption(s) granted by EPA 

for the HRIISL project and how EPA and other regulatory agencies will ensure 

the maintenance and restoration of groundwater quality under that exemption? 

A 9b: The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), implements the EPA 

approved Underground Injection Control (UIC) program that grants temporary 

aquifer designations for approved in-situ uranium mining operations. However, 

before a designation may take effect, NMED must submit to EPA a request for an 

aquifer exemption approval as a revision to its approved UIC program. In the case 

of Hydro Resources Inc.'s (HRI) proposed Church Rock in-situ uranium mining 

project, EPA approved a program revision request for an aquifer exemption on 

June 21, 1989, based on criteria found at 40 CFR 146.4. 

The approved 1989 aquifer exemption covers a portion of the Westwater Canyon 

Aquifer. Based on the information now in its possession, EPA Region 6 

understands that the exempted area is coextensive with the Southeast Quarter of 

Section 8 of Township 16N, Range 16W. That understanding is consistent with 

the views ofHRI and NMED, and is the basis on which NMED is relying on in its 

current consideration of HRI's application for renewal of a Class III UIC permits 

that relate to in-situ uranium mining 

NMED's Class III UIC permits require operational controls during mining, such 

as maintaining a monitoring well ring around the production area to prevent 
62 


24964.017

offsite excursions. Post-mining restoration of an exempted aquifer is not a 

requirement of EPA's or the state's Class III UIC program. However, approved 

state programs, including NMED, commonly require any restoration actions to 

comply with the minimum federal plugging and abandonment requirements 

standard at 40 CFR 146.10(a)(4). At this site, NRC also requires restoration in 

accordance with corrective action standards at 10 CFR Part 40, which are NRC's 

conforming regulations to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 192. 
63 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, and thanks to all three of you for 

your testimony today. 

I don’t know whether you all were involved or at the agencies 

when Congressman Waxman held his hearings back in 2007 over 

at the House. But the thing that was apparent then was that we 

had these massive cleanup problems and contamination problems, 

and there wasn’t much coordination with the agencies. I think 

what grew out of those hearings that was very positive was the 5- 

year plan, all of your agencies including other agencies like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, came forward and participated in the development of those plans. 

As we have seen, we have made some real progress. I think that 

has been noted in your testimony. 

My first question really to each of you is, from your level in the 

agency, will you make the commitment to continue to do this until 

the job is done, until we get this cleanup done? Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. We will certainly continue coordinating with our 

Federal colleagues as well as with the State of New Mexico and the 

Navajo Nation, within the scope of our authority. As you know, 

NRC is a regulatory agency. So we have specific authorization from 

the Congress to regulate the uranium recovery activities. 

Mr. UDALL. We appreciate that, and we understand each of your 

agencies have overlapping responsibilities. But I think the important thing about this hearing is to have an understanding that you 

are going to work together and that we are going to move forward 

to get the job done as far as cleanup. 

Mr. Geiser. 

Mr. GEISER. Yes, sir, I actually had the opportunity to testify before Congressman Waxman on behalf of the Department. I totally 

agree with your statement, it really helped get all the agencies together in a coordinated manner. 

The Department of Energy established the Office of Legacy Management in 2003 with the express purpose of having a long-term, 

sustainable management of closed sites. So today we have 87 sites 

around the Country that legacy Management is responsible for. 

Those include the former uranium mill sites that have been remediated and put in the Department’s responsibility. 

So the Department set up the office explicitly for that long-term 

purpose. 

Senator UDALL. And you all are committed to move forward to 

get the job done on cleanup, and to work with the other agencies? 

Mr. GEISER. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Woolford, same question. 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Thank you, Senator. 

Recently, the Navajo Nation informed EPA that they intend to 

request a second 5-year review plan. I think we all are in agreement that those plans help us organize and prioritize our work. 

The agency plans to work with the Navajo Nation and our colleagues to put together that plan over the next year. 

So yes, you have our commitment, Senator, that we will continue 

to do what is necessary here. 

Senator UDALL. And for your agency perspectives, all three of 

you believe that an additional 5-year plan is probably going to be 

needed to get the job done out there? Mr. Weber? 

64 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Why is that? 

Mr. WEBER. There is a lot of work that remains to be done. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Geiser. 

Mr. GEISER. I think another 5-year plan would be helpful to get 

all the different agencies’ activities in one place. I don’t anticipate 

it would actually change what we will do with respect to the Navajo Nation. But it helps to see what the other agencies are doing 

and making sure that we have the time and planning to coordinate. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Mr. Woolford. 

Mr. WOOLFORD. As Mr. Weber indicated, there is still a lot more 

work to be done. We think the next 5-year plan will help us identify the mining sites that need additional work, and work to coordinate among the Federal agencies and with the Navajo Nation. So 

yes, there is a lot more to be done, and I think we all see the necessity of having an additional 5-year plan. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Senator Barrasso, I am going to turn to you now for your questioning. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Geiser, you may not know the specifics, but with regard to 

the legacy uranium mill sites that I had mentioned, I don’t know 

if you can explain how things are at the sites now, or if not, if you 

could get that information to me. 

Mr. GEISER. Sir, I am somewhat familiar with the sites in Wyoming. I know we have three at this point, Riverton, Shirley Basin 

South and Spook. We have, I think the site that has risen to my 

attention in particular in Wyoming is the Rivertonsite. We have 

had a fairly long relationship with the Wind River Environmental 

Quality Council and the individual tribes of the Northern Arapaho 

and the Shoshone. 

We recently put a new cooperative agreement in place with the 

Northern Arapaho for activities at Riverton. Unfortunately, the cooperative agreement we had with the Wind River Council was extended twice and has currently expired. Our intention is to continue to work with them and get a new cooperative agreement in 

place as soon as we can work through the remaining issue with 

them. 

The primary institutional control that we installed was a drinking water supply system for the local population. We have had 

some problems with that we have worked on with the tribes. We 

currently believe that we are being protective of human health and 

the environment and we do have a commitment to continue to work 

with those tribes. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. If I could perhaps get in writing 

some of the followup on the other side. Thank you. 

Mr. Weber, when I was making my opening statement, I saw you 

nodding in agreement. Could you describe for me some of the differences between today’s uranium mining and mining that occurred 

back during the cold war? 

Mr. WEBER. Certainly, sir. As I alluded to in my testimony, we 

learned the lessons from the early experiences with the legacy 

sites, primarily from the uranium recovery facility perspective. So 

if you look at the requirements that we have in place today and 

65 

that we actively enforce, they are in place to ensure protection of 

people and the environment. 

If you take, for example, the 1979 failure of the embankment at 

the Church Rock site that Senator Udall referred to, our regulations today ensure that you are not going to see the same kind of 

dam failure that occurred back then. So we have made substantial 

progress, not only in ensuring the protection of people that work 

at the mills or that work in the nearby or live in the nearby area, 

but also more stringent groundwater protection requirements, more 

stringent long-term isolation requirements for the mill tailings and 

the other wastes that are generated through the uranium recovery 

process. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Mr. Weber, and Mr. Woolford, I will start with you. Mr. 

Woolford, you stated in your testimony that the EPA will continue 

to maintain responsibility for permitting the in situ leading injection wells.’> I note in your testimony, Mr. Weber, that the NRC 

regulates the uranium recovery. It sound a bit like dual regulations 

to me. I am just wondering if you two would please clarify your respective authorities with regard to the in situ recovery. Mr. 

Woolford, do you want to start? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Senator, I would need to defer that to my colleague who is here, from the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. It 

is not within my purview. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, if we 

could get that answered? 

Senator UDALL. That would be just fine. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Please State your name and the division that 

you are with within the agency. 

Mr. SIMON. Thank you. It is Roy Simon, I am with the Office of 

Groundwater and Drinking Water in the Office of Water in EPA. 

We spend a lot of time working with NRC on uranium mining 

sites, and we have cooperated. I have been involved for 4 years in 

working with NRC. We don’t see it as duplicating, we see it as complementary. We both deal with the injection wells, we deal with the 

injection wells in EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and we 

regulate the injection wells. But they perfectly in tune with the licensing processes. 

Mr. WEBER. Just to build on that, NRC regulates the in situ recovery process in toto. The purpose of that is to ensure that the operations, if they are conducted, are conducted in accordance with 

our requirements. We consider all the way from the injection of the 

lixiviant into the reservoir or into the aquifer where the mining 

takes place all the way through to the extraction and concentration 

of the uranium and the production of the yellow cake product as 

constituting processing. Therefore, it meets out authority under the 

Atomic Energy Act. 

But I agree with my colleague from EPA, both colleagues, that 

we are working together collaboratively. There was a point last 

decade where NRC actively considered whether we should give up 

the regulation of groundwater and yield to EPA in order to avoid 

any apparently duplication. Based on a lot of analysis and involvement from the Commission, the Commission ultimately decided 

66 

that was not the way to go, and that in fact the two programs are 

complementary. By close coordination with each other, we can 

carry out our respective jurisdictions in a way that makes sense 

and accomplishes both human and environmental protection. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have additional questions I could submit in writing. I know we 

have already started a roll call vote, and I wanted to provide additional time for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Barrasso, did you have any more specifics you wanted to get out on that particular issue? OK. 

Senator Barrasso is correct, at about 10:31, a 15-minute roll call 

vote went off. So my intention is to go to about 10:41 and then adjourn and go over and vote and come back right afterwards. My understanding, it is still only one vote. So if that is acceptable we will 

go ahead and proceed here for another 7 minutes or so, and then 

take a break. I would guess we will be back in 15 to 20 minutes, 

something like that, from the time we adjourn. 

Mr. Woolford, could you talk a little bit about the basic heath 

issues that we deal with when somebody lives near a contaminated, 

abandoned uranium mine? There are children and families in these 

areas exposed to contamination from abandoned mines. Has the 

legacy uranium mining and milling contamination impacted drinking water? Some of those kinds of questions. I think it is important 

to just lay the general groundwater of what has happened here on 

the health side. 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Thank you, Senator. The exposure could occur 

via several routes. First, there could be wind-blown contamination 

that could affect individuals living nearby. There is also erosion 

that occurs on many of these tailing sites, which transports the 

contamination to other areas. Then we have seen that people will, 

children especially, will sometimes play in the contaminated 

tailings that are there. 

In addition, as you mentioned, there is the groundwater contamination that can occur at the site. So I think it is important for us 

to look at, examine really all three exposure routes, from the wind, 

from the erosion and then from the potential exposure to groundwater. 

Senator UDALL. Is it also the case that we have had homes where 

they have built the homes out of material that has come from the 

tailings, and therefore we have had, when I said in my opening 

statement, radioactive homes, what you are talking about, I think, 

is the release of radon daughters that create radon gas. That can, 

if in a contained area, that would usually disperse, but in a contained area like a home or a closed mine without ventilation, you 

can have the buildup of that gas. It is a known carcinogen, causing 

lung cancer. That I think has happened in some circumstances at 

these sites, has it not? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Yes, sir, precisely. In fact, EPA has gone in and 

sampled several homes in the Navajo Nation. We have demolished 

34 of their homes due to the unacceptable risks that those home 

pose. 

Senator UDALL. Was that an unacceptable risk in terms of too 

high of a radiation level from the radon? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Yes. And we have replaced 14 homes. 

67 

So yes, we have heard, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, 

there are homes, hogans, et cetera, that are built with the waste 

rock. We have been working with the Navajo Nation to assess 

those properties, and where they do pose a risk, then demolish 

those homes and replace them. 

Senator UDALL. And the families that have lived in those homes 

for a period of time, what has been done there in terms of evaluation of the impact on their health in these kinds of circumstances? 

It takes, as I understand it, I am no expert or anything, but if you 

have exposure to radon over a certain period of time, it raises, the 

more exposure you get, the higher cancer risk, lung cancer risk you 

have. What happens there as far as the families and their health 

impacts? What is recommended? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Our first recommendation is obviously disassociation from the facility. So we provided alternate living quarters. 

But then we would have to monitor their health. Precisely what is 

happening with respect to the individual families, I would have to 

get back to you on those, Senator, to find out what monitoring and 

health assessments have been done. 

Senator UDALL. But it is clear that after a period of exposure 

that some kind of monitoring and health inquiry should be done to 

see where they are in terms of their health? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. We have reached the point where I think it is 

probably best to just terminate the questioning here, and temporarily recess while we do the vote. Then we will be back. I apologize for that. I know that all of you are very busy in the responsibilities that you have. But I will get over and back as quickly as 

I can and look forward to continuing. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much for being patient with us 

on the break there. We will get going again. I think I have been 

given permission by the minority staff to proceed until Senator 

Barrasso either gets back here or we get other members of the 

Committee here. 

So we will come back into session. The Committee comes back 

into session. 

Let me ask a few questions here about the 5-year plans and 

funding questions. I think these are basically directed to all three 

witnesses. What I want to try to get at is the feel for the funding. 

Where does the funding for the 5-year plans come from in your 

agency budgets? What is the funding status for the two 5-year 

plans in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 agency budgeting? Why don’t 

we just start with Mr. Woolford and move to your left. 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Thank you, Senator. 

As to the source of the funding for the 5-year plan within EPA, 

EPA has been obligating approximately $12 million a year for the 

5-year plan. This is done through our Region IX office, which is located in San Francisco, which has responsibility for the Navajo Nation. 

The funding comes from several line items in our budget. We 

have a removal line item and an enforcement line item. Those are 

the principal ones that we have. We also provide grant dollars to 

the Navajo Nation as well. 

68 

For 2012, as you know, Senator, the EPA does not have a budget 

yet. And so at this point in time, we cannot commit to a particular 

dollar figure until we have the budget. The President’s budget has 

not been submitted to the Hill and won’t be until February. So 

there is a great deal of uncertainty, obviously, with our budget levels and our budget authority. 

Having said that, the Administration and our Administrator 

within EPA has made this one of the highest priorities within our 

program. So while I can’t provide you a particular dollar level at 

this time, I can tell you that we will do our best to fund the work 

at the maximum level we can. But I just can’t commit to a particular dollar figure at this time. 

Senator UDALL. You are under now, just so people understand, 

this 6-week continuing resolution. Do you have any sense of, are 

we going to be close to the $12 million level during the 6-week period for this, pro-rated out and all that? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. The $12 million figure is obviously for the entire 

year. Our regional office has not indicated to myself, I am one of 

the funding managers in the program at EPA, they have not indicated any funding needs during this timeframe. They will be using 

dollars that were appropriated in prior fiscal years to carry them 

through the first quarter of this year. 

Senator UDALL. OK, thank you. Mr. Geiser? 

Mr. GEISER. The funding for both the 5-year plan for the Navajo 

Nation and the 5-year plan for grants all comes from the legacy 

management budget within the Department of Energy, which is 

other defense appropriations. Historically that has been averaging 

about $4 million a year for the four sites we have on the Navajo 

Nation. And that would be about half of the total of about $8 million a year we spend on all the UMTRCA sites together. 

There was one exception to this. In the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations, there was $5 million put in that appropriations for the remediation of the Highway 160 site outside Tuba City, Arizona. That 

work was just completed in August of this year. 

Senator UDALL. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Senator. The NRC has a relatively modest involvement in the implementation of the 5-year plans because 

of the sphere of our responsibilities. So we don’t have a specific account set aside to support the implementation of those. When I say 

modest, it really involves staff involvement in coordination with the 

other agencies, and then implementation of review activities associated with the licensed activities that we do have responsibilities 

for. So it is nowhere near as large as my colleagues have described. 

But at the present time, provided the Congress enacts the budget 

that the Administration has requested, we are fine with resources. 

As the workload increases or decreases, if there is more work to 

be done, then provided sufficient priority, we would use those resources and draw that away from other activities that we conduct 

in the uranium recovery area. 

Senator UDALL. And I assume if it grew large enough then you 

would just make an additional request for additional funding to try 

to make sure that we got the job done on this. 

69 

Mr. WEBER. NRC seldom does that. There are some unique situations. But usually we try to make do with the resources we have 

to meet the needs of the Nation. 

Senator UDALL. OK. Thank you all very much. 

I want to ask a question about Crown Point to Mr. Weber. Crown 

Point is the location of a proposed in situ leach uranium recovery 

operation near the Church Rock legacy site. I understand the NRC 

has set up a license for HRI at the Crown Point site that is dependent on several conditions, including legacy cleanup. Can you clarify 

the status and content of HRI’s permit at these sites and how the 

permitting for the four sites is interconnected with legacy cleanup? 

Mr. WEBER. Certainly. The NRC ha issued the license to HRI. 

They are in the process of completing some preparatory activities 

that they need to conduct. So I would expect that in the near future we would issue letter to HRI authorizing them to proceed 

under their license, which had been issued some time ago. 

It is important to point out that the first activities will take place 

at some distance from the local residences that could ultimately be 

affected down the road, if those other well fields are eventually developed. But at this point, they haven’t even started on their first 

well field that they intend to develop. So it will be likely years before they would be in a situation where they would operate under 

those conditions which would require closure of some existing wells 

and providing a suitable alternative water supply for the community that would be most directly near where that other development would occur. 

Senator UDALL. And really what we are talking about is a community, a Navajo community of some size, for the Navajo Nation, 

pulling groundwater from the aquifer there right near Crown 

Point, which is fairly good water, is my understanding. And this 

community has relied on that for a long time. What HRI has done 

is propose to come in and do mining in that aquifer. So you and 

your permit have put a number of conditions as to status and content in their permit. 

And my next question really goes to, if the requirements of the 

permit were fulfilled, could the NRC and the EPA guarantee a safe 

and consistent water source for the Crown Point community? Because that is the key to them. I think that is the big concern the 

Crown Point community has. 

Mr. WEBER. That is the requirement that is in our license condition that applies to providing alternative water for the local community. I would point out that in the history of in situ recovery 

regulation that we have not seen a situation where a local supply 

well has been adversely impacted by the mining. We monitor those 

sites quite carefully. There are very rigorous requirements that are 

imposed on the operators of the in situ recovery operations. 

They have seen excursions. An excursion is where an elevated 

level has been detected in either a monitoring well laterally, distant from the mine field, or above or below the aquifer that is being 

mined. But then if those excursions are detected, the licensee has 

to take action to correct that situation and at the end of active mining, has to restore the aquifer back to suitable water quality standards. 

70 

So in the situation with HRI Crown Point, the objective is really 

two-fold, that before they start doing any mining, they would have 

to provide that alternative water supply for the local community. 

And that is a large requirement in and of itself. But even beyond 

that, there would be requirements in place to ensure that the 

groundwater is protected outside of the mining zone and that when 

the mining, if it is conducted, when it is completed, the aquifer is 

then restored to a suitable quality. 

Senator UDALL. Is that what you have done at other sites over 

the years, is require that, and you have been able to establish, to 

some kind of scientific certainty, that can be done? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. We have approved restoration of mine fields 

that are no longer in use. I would say the provision by the licensee 

of an alternative water supply is unique. Typically, the in situ recovery facilities are located at some distance from communities. So 

that doesn’t present itself. 

But in this situation, because of the unique circumstances involving HRI Crown Point, that was a provision in the licensing of the 

facility. 

Senator UDALL. And I think that is one that has been greatly appreciated by the local community that you put that in there and 

that you are going to aggressively protect their groundwater supply. 

A question now to Mr. Woolford on Church Rock. Let me first say 

that I applaud the EPA’s recent announcement of an improved plan 

to clean up the Northeast Church Rock Mine, the largest and highest priority uranium mine on the Navajo Nation. I would like first 

to get a little more information from you on the details of this plan 

and the potential time line for completion. 

Could you please describe the high points of the approved cleanup plan? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Thank you, Senator. I would be happy to do 

that. 

This plan is the culmination of many years of efforts between the 

EPA and the Navajo Nation and the Redwater Pond Road community living near the site. We have held extensive meetings with the 

community to come up with a remedy that we have selected. And 

we believe the plan has the general support of the Navajo Nation 

and the local community. 

We considered 14 disposal sites. Ultimately we chose what in 

concept is a pretty simple remedy to move the contaminated waste 

rock and contaminated soils from the Northeast Church Rock Mine 

site literally almost across the street to the UNC site. But it is over 

870,000 cubic yards of contaminated waste rock and over 100,000 

cubic yards of contaminated soil. 

The cleanup will involve first and foremost working with the 

community to ascertain whether the work we are going to be doing 

will impact them. We will offer the community members relocation 

opportunities. We will then, and that will be the first thing that we 

do. So we are going to start that activity this fall. 

We then have to design the repository for the final mine cleanup. 

We will be doing that in conjunction with the Navajo Nation, New 

Mexico DP, the NRC, the Department of Energy and General ElecVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:48 Oct 23, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\24964.TXT VERN
71 

tric. This will probably take about a year. So we are looking at, 

that will probably take 2012 into 2013. 

The NRC and the Department of Energy, DOE will be the ultimate overseer of this remedy. So we have to work with my colleagues from the Department of Energy to ensure that what we are 

doing is consistent with their requirement and with the NRC requirements. 

We also, because this is going to a separate Superfund site, we 

are working on a remedy there. That remedy has to be selected before we can do all that? 

Then we have to go through the licensing amendment process, 

with the NRC. All told, we are thinking that will probably take 

into 2014. At that time, assuming there are no glitches, we will 

begin the cleanup process. And then we think we will complete the 

cleanup actions by 2018 or 2019. 

Senator UDALL. I think you have said this here, but there are 

two separate areas that the contaminated mine waste goes to. I 

think one is offsite, which will be trucked to a licensed disposal 

site. Then there will also be a disposal cell designed. 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. I want to ask a question about, to what extent 

has the disposal cell been designed and how has or will the surrounding community be involved in that decision and be able to 

comment on that? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. The disposal cell has yet to be designed. That is 

what we will need to work on with my colleagues to my left, the 

State of New Mexico and the Navajo Nation. When the design is 

completed, we will offer an opportunity for public comment on that 

disposal cell. So there will be extensive, as we committed to with 

our prior actions, there will be extensive community interaction 

and an opportunity for community comment on that disposal cell. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Geiser, do you have any comment on what you just heard, 

or anything to add to that? Is that your understanding as to how 

the agencies are proceeding on this, and specifically your agency? 

Mr. GEISER. Yes, sir. EPA approached us about 2 years ago with 

the idea of combining the mining waste with the mill waste. For 

the last 10 to 12 years, the Department has agreed to accept nonmill waste in the disposal cells under certain conditions. 

So this has a precedent that we have been able to do this in the 

past. This is the single largest volume of non–11(e)(2) material that 

would be put in the disposal cell. We appreciate EPA inviting us 

to be on the design team for the disposal cell. We feel we have a 

lot of expertise to offer in that area. And particularly since we 

would be the long-term manager for the disposal cell, we are interested in making sure that design works for the long term. 

So it seems like a practical solution, and we will continue to 

work with EPA and NRC on how to accomplish that. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Weber, do you have anything else to add to 

that? 

Mr. WEBER. Sure thing, thanks, Senator. As Jim talked about, 

there will be a license amendment that will be required, because 

it will require a revision to the reclamation plan for UNC’s tailings 

enpanelment. You asked about public involvement, just like under 

72 

the EPA Superfund process, there will be the complementary process that we conduct where there will be an opportunity for public 

comment. We anticipate preparing an environmental assessment to 

support this revision. That would be going out for public comment. 

There would be opportunities for parties to request an opportunity 

for a hearing associated with reclamation plan revision. 

So there are numerous opportunities. I think it behooves all of 

us to work together to do that in a collaborative way so that we 

don’t confuse the public and involve them and give them more opportunities. I think we want to give them meaningful opportunities 

to be involved early on in the process, as they already have had 

under the EPA Superfund process. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you very much. 

A question now on the Tuba City site. And this is to Mr. 

Woolford, but if any of the other witnesses have any comment, we 

are happy to hear that. It is my understanding there is a significant groundwater contamination problem at the site of the Tuba 

City dump. Since 1995, there have been more than 35 studies conducted on the Tuba City open dump. 

I further understand that an EPA study did not find evidence of 

tailings in the dump. Can you describe the findings of EPA’s recently completed study of the Tuba City open dump and what does 

the EPA believe is the source of contamination at the Tuba City 

dump? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Senator, I am not familiar with any recent EPA 

study. I am familiar with a study that was conducted by the Hopi 

Tribe, which they submitted to EPA in August. And that study concluded that there was groundwater contamination adjacent to the 

dump. 

Senator UDALL. Do you all agree with that? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. We received it in August. We are currently reviewing it, and we have plans to meet with the tribe at the end 

of October to go over the study. 

We have an enforceable agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to actually conduct a comprehensive investigation and feasibility study to ascertain whether or not the dump is actually contaminating the groundwater. The groundwater is contaminated. 

Everyone knows that. We are not 100 percent sure of the source. 

That is what the RFS that we are working on is designed to accomplish. 

However, if it turns out that there is good information in this 

Hopi study, we would certainly use it to accelerate our process. 

Senator UDALL. Does the Tuba City open dump site pose a threat 

to drinking water of the Navajo Nation or the Hopi Tribe? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. Yes, we believe it does. 

Senator UDALL. And what is the plan for the remediation of the 

dump, and are efforts underway at this point? What are the remaining hurdles? 

Mr. WOOLFORD. It would be premature, we haven’t selected a 

remedy as yet. That is what would be the outcome of the RFS process that we are currently engaged in with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So it would be premature for me to say what the remedy 

would be without the completion of that study. 

73 

Senator UDALL. I fully understand. Mr. Geiser or Mr. Weber, do 

you have any comment on that? 

Mr. GEISER. There is, both the Navajo and Hopi believe that 

there was mill tailing material dumped in the Tuba City open 

dump and that is the source of the uranium contamination. There 

have been over 200 borings taken of the open dump. None of them 

found mill material. EPA recently led an effort, about a year ago, 

to excavate areas near the highest recorded uranium in the open 

dump and again found no evidence of mill material. 

Our belief is that the mill that operated near Tuba City, about 

four miles out of town, dumped all the mill material at the mill 

site, and that is now in our Title I disposal cell there. There was 

also some discussion about the disposal cell site, that contamination was migrating in the subsurface from the disposal cell site to 

the Moenkopi Village wells. At the request of the Navajo Nation, 

we installed additional wells, or actually worked with the Navajo, 

who installed the additional wells. 

All those wells came up clean for uranium. So we don’t believe 

there is a hydrological connection between our disposal cell and the 

Moenkopi Village wells. There is no evidence to date that there is 

mill tailing waste in the Tuba City open dump, which is closer to 

the town. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

One final question here, and this is a little bit different direction, 

but I think it helps address the overall issue, and that is the issue 

of 1872 mining law reform and potential abandoned mine funding. 

The President’s Fiscal Year budget for 2012 includes a proposal for 

fees and royalties for hard rock mining leasing and production, 

similar to the process we have for oil, gas and coal leasing. In the 

President’s proposal, part of the revenue would be used for an 

abandoned mine land cleanup fund. 

In your experience, is there a need for a reliable source of funding for abandoned uranium mine cleanup? Mr. Woolford? And you 

can answer that just yes or no if you want. 

Mr. WOOLFORD. I would say, yes, it would be nice to have, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Geiser. 

Mr. GEISER. Senator, I had the opportunity to testify before the 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in March 2008 

on the Department’s uranium leasing program. In that program, 

we do collect royalties, both a base fee and any kind of production 

related royalties. The companies also have, in lieu of payments, 

done mine waste reclamation on those lease tracks. So there seems 

to be value in collecting those royalties, and also other forms, financial mechanisms such as bonds, to make sure that as the company completes their mining activity, there is money available to 

do the reclamation immediately following the end of the mining. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Mr. Weber, do you have a yes or no answer on that? 

Mr. WEBER. Your question falls well outside of NRC’s scope of 

authority, so I would not offer a response. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Let me just once again thank all of our witnesses. I am at this 

point going to conclude the hearing. We will keep the record open 

74 

for 14 days and will submit any further questions in writing to our 

witnesses. We hope that you will diligently work on those. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

75 


24964.054

Ll URANIUM PRODUCERS OF AMERICA 141 EAST PAL\CE AHN!'E, POST OFFICE BOX 669, SANTA n:, NEW MEXIC087504-0669 

n:u:I'IIONE (505) 982-4611; FAX (505) 988-2987; \\'WW.l RANIIJMPI<OilllCERSA~II-:RIC.\.COM 

OVERSIGHT HEARIN(; ON FEDERAL ACTIONS TO CLEAN llP 

CONTAMINATION FROM URANilJM MINING AND MILLING OPERATIONS 

Children's Health and Environment Health Subcommittee of the 

Environment and Pnblic Works Committee 

United States Senate 

October 13, 20 I I 

The Uranium Producers of America ("UPA") is a group of domestic uranium 

mining and conversion companies whose mission is to promote the viability of the t!·ont 

end of the nation's nuclear fuel industry. UPA members are conducting uranium 

exploration. development and mining operations in Arizona, Colorado. Nebraska. New 

Mexico, South Dakota. Texas. Utah, and Wyoming. The sole domestic conversion 

company operates in Illinois. UPA members operate and are developing valuable. 

uranium deposits that provide high paying jobs and tax revenues and produce clean 

energy for the citizens of the United States. Growth in domestic uranium mining and 

conversion will be required to support the U.S. government's plans to increase use of 

nuclear power and f(rster new domestic uranium enrichment plants as evidenced by multibillion dollar loan guarantee programs underway. The UPA appreciates the opportunity 

to offer a written statement on the advances made in assuring in the area of mining and 

milling uranium ores in a manner that will protect the environment, its workers and the 

public. 
76 


24964.055

I. lnt•·oduction 

Uranium producers 111 the United States currently employs two methods for 

extracting uranium; in situ recovery (lSR) and conventional underground mining. In 

2010. there were four underground mines in production located in Utah. Colorado and 

Arizona. 1 The ore produced in these mines was milled at the Denison White Mesa Mill 

in Blanding Utah. Other conventional mines are in the permitting or development stage. 

These projects are located in the ahove-mentioncd states. New Mexico and Wyoming. 

ISR mining is currently occurring in Wyoming. Nebraska nnd Texas. The Nuclenr 

Regulatory Commission has recently licensed three ISR projects in \Vyoming. Other ISR 

projects in New Mexico. N01th Dakota. Texas and Wyoming are in the licensing or 

licensing rene\val process. The method of uranium extraction is dictated by the type and 

depth of the ore resource. the grade of the ore and whether the ore is located in an aquifer. 

2. Undc•·ground Mining 

Underground mining of uranium evolved from small scale operations in the 

rugged and remote rimrock and canyon land country of the Colorado Plateau region of 

southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado. Vanadium deposits were mined in this 

region for decades. and uranium mining later toe>k place at many of these same deposits. 

which contain both vanadium and uranium mineralization. The growth of the uranium 

industry in the 1960's and 1970's resulted in lnrger scale underground mining operations. 

and mines were opened across the West in Colorado. Utah. New Mexico, Arizona. 

Wyoming. Washington. and South Dakota. 

1 See Energy lntormation Administration 2010 Uranium Production Report. June 2011. 
77 


24964.056

The majority of the commercially viable uranium deposits in the U.S. occur in 

sandstone host rocks. These sands were deposited by anck,nt meandering rivers carrying 

sediment derived from weathering of distant highlands. Over time, natural ground water 

flowing through these sands, under the right conditions, transported dissolved uranium. 

The uranium mineralization stayed in solution until changing chemical or hydrologic 

conditions resulted in precipitation of uranium in bodies large enough and with adequate 

uranium content to be commercially mined. Given this geologic environment, the mining 

methods used to exploit these types of uranium deposits need to be flexible to follow the 

laternlly sinuous and variably thick uranium mineralization. 

Underground uranium mining requires the same basic sequence of development 

steps as required for any other type of underground mining. The ore deposits must be 

accessed, the mineralized material must be "developed" by constructing workings to 

provide access to the ore, the ore must be extracted (usually through drilling small 

diameters holes and blasting the ore). the broken ore must be transported to the surface, 

and finally the ore must be sent to an ore processing mill to extract the contained metals. 

Aside from designing and developing a mining operation spccitically suited to the 

physical properties of the ore deposit, underground uranium mining is not unique within 

the industry. 

Uranium deposits today are typically outlined by drilling fl·om the surface. 

Access into ore deposits is through vertical shafts or inclined openings. In the U.S .. shaft 

mines typically range tl'om a few hundred feet deep to more than 3,000 feet deep. 

In sandstone uranium mining, the ore is typically extracted using a "room and 

pillar" method where pillars of unbroken rock are left in place to support adjoining 

K ~fJP/\ • tfR 205.1 I ~2-50\0ther D<)Cs\Mt~.;'O\~rsigh Hearing on Federal Adtons to t'lctm ur Conlalllinatmn 08-01-1 I _doc 
78 


24964.057

openings where ore is removed. Mine workings are also suppotied by insertion of steel 

bolts into overlying strata to stabilize the ground. and in high trafl1c areas, mine openings 

are ollen lined with concrete, steel Ji·ames. or wood to ensure long tem1 stability. 

Each mining region is unique. and underground conditions arc variable. The 

presence or absence of ground water, the quantity of ground water, the strength of the ore 

and surrounding rock, the geometry and orientation of mineral bodies all must be 

considered in mine design. When accessing ore bodies through shafts or declines. the 

surface '"footprint'" of underground uranium mines is small. Typical surface installations 

include offices, warehouse. maintenance and repair shops. power facilities. air 

compressor stations. pumping facilities if required. and stockpile areas. Waste rock from 

the initial development of a mine is deposited on the surface. This rock volume is small 

compared to open pit operations where all overburden layers must be removed to access 

the ore. There are currently no open pit operations active or being developed in the 

United States. As underground mines are developed and ore is removed. common 

pmctice involves placing development w<tste rock into mined-out areas to avoid moving 

it to the surface and to minimize surface disturbance. 

Underground uranium mining has very stringent regulatory requirements for 

ventilation. The presence of radon gas in uranium mines. resulting from the natural 

radioactive decay of uranium. dictates that large volumes of air must be moved through 

mines to reduce the gas concentrations. The control of radon in mines is monitored 

closely to ensure that radon concentrations met all Mine Safety and Health 

Administration ("MSHA'") requirements. The legacy of health impacts to uranium 

miners in the early years of underground uranium mining has led to today's very tight 
79 


24964.058

controls. In historical mining operations. the combination of radon gas, silica dust fi·om 

the sandstone ore. and cigarette smoking combined to result in high incidences of lung 

cancers and related ailments.2 All of these factors have been eliminated or are strictly 

regulated (no smoking allowed) in the modern mining environment. All underground 

mines have extensive ventilation systems. incorporating multiple vertical shafts and f!ms, 

to supply fresh air into the mines. 

Mining operations are authorized under operating permits issued by state 

agencies:1 State mining laws and regulations require extensive pre-mining sampling to 

assure baseline goals for reclamation. Closure plans are established to return mined areas 

to selt-:.sustaining ecosystems and pre-existing mine uses. If mines are on U.S. public 

domain lands, federal agencies are also extensively involved in the permitting process. A 

modern mine permit requires that the mine operator provide financial surety to cover all 

costs required to decommission a mine site. tttlly reclaim such a site, and return it to its 

pre-mining beneficial use. 

Upon completion of mining operations. mine reclamation is generally 

straightforward for an underground operation. Following removal of underground 

equipment and service facilities, all mine openings are permanently sealed (although 

there have been interesting developments in recent years where mine openings are 

'A recent cohort mortality study of uranium miners and millers near Grants, New Mexico during the 

period ft·om 1955 to 1990 reports that previous studies of underground uranium miners exposed to high 

levels of radon and radon decay products were at increased risk tor lung cancer but apparently no other 

cancer. Uranium mill workers have not been found to be at increased risk for cancer. See John D. Boice. 

Sarah S. Cohen, Michael Mumma, Bandana Chadda and William J. Blot; lntemational Epidemiology 

Institute, Rochville. MD. "A Cohort Study of Uranium Millers and Miners of Grants, New Mexico, 1979-

2005." Journal ojRadio/ogica/ Protection. Vol. 208 p. 303-325 (2008). Similar results ofnom1al cancer 

rates were found tor populations living near uranium milling operations. See John D. Boice, Jr., Michael T. 

Mumma and William J. Blot; International Epidemiology Institute, Rockville, MD. "Cancer Incidence and 

Mortality in Populations Living Near Uranium Milling and Mining Operations in Grants. New Mexico 

1950-2004." Radiation Res. 174(5) p. 624-636, November 2010. 

; See for example, the New Mexico Mining Act. 69-36-1 ct. seq. NMSA 1978. 
80 


24964.059

barricaded. but left accessible to provide excellent "bat habitat" as requested by 

regulatory agencies). Surface facilities are removed. and the mine site and waste rock 

dumps can be regarded and reclaimed. with the land surtace being returned to its tormer 

productive use. Typical underground uranium mine sites range from 10 to 25 acres. 

3. Uranium Ore Milling/Processing 

After uranium ore is removed from the ground. it must be processed to extract the 

contained uranium. This process. "milling." involves a sequence of physical and 

chemical treatment steps to extract the uranium from the native rock. The final product 

of milling is yellowcake. which is the commercial product sold by uranium producers to 

nuclear utility customers. During the peak U.S. uranium production period of the early 

1980's. a total of 26 uranium mills were operating. and the U.S. was the world's leading 

uranium producer. Today. there is one uranium mill operating in the U.S. The State of 

Colorado has licensed a mill in Westeru Colorado but it l1its not been constructed. Other 

operators have begun discussions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the 

licensing of new mills in New Mexico and Wyoming. 

Uranium milling employs equipment and metallurgical processes. adapted from 

other extractive industries. speciiically tailored to uranium recovery. The uranium mills 

of past decades and the mills in existence today have capacitales ranging from 500 ore 

tons per day up to 3.000 tons per day. At average historical ore grades. annual uranium 

concentrate production normally ranged from around 1.000.000 pounds of yellowcake up 

to more than 7.000.000 pounds of yellowcake for the largest U.S. operations. Mills arc of 

two basic designs -employing either acid leach or carbonate leach. 
81 


24964.060

Uranium milling starts with the delivery of mined ore to the mill, where the ore is 

weighed and sampled to determine the uranium content and to prepare samples for 

process testing. Ore stockpiles are constructed to store sutlicient ore volume to run the 

mill f(w a continuous period and to provide a ''blend" of ore to ensure consistent feed to 

the mill. The first stage is crushing and grinding where the ore is reduced down to 

individual grains to ensure that the uranium mineralization is exposed to the leaching 

agents. 

Pulped ore is ted to a multi-stage leaching circuit. Here to the pulp is typically 

heated to enhance chemical reactivity, and leaching is initiated by addition of sulfuric 

acid or bicarbonate, depending on the basic mill design and ore amenability. The ore 

passes through several stages of leaching as leach agent and oxidizer concentrations are 

adjusted to achieve optimum dissolution of uranium (and also vanadium if present in the 

ore.) With most of the uranium in solution, the ore slurry passes to a solid/liquid 

separation circuit, or CCD circuit, which is a series of large vessels where the slurry is 

mixed with wash water to remove as much uranium as possible and also separate the 

uranium-bearing liquor t1·om the leached solids. At the completion of the CCD circuit, all 

recoverable uranium (typically in excess of 95% of the original uranium content) is in 

solution. The leached solids arc pumped to the uranium mill tailings disposal cells. 

The uranium-bearing liquor proceeds to a solvent extraction ("SX") or ion 

exchange (''IX") circuit. The SX or IX circuit selectively removes uranium from the 

uranium-bearing aqueous solution. uranium is preferentially collected by the organic 

solvent in SX or by resin beads in an IX circuit. This stage of uranium processing also 

K 'IJP/\ • IIR 105·1 1 :12~5o·t Hh~r f)oes·.Ml"t.:'{hersigh lle<lnug ~m l·cdcral Actwns to Clean up Cm11mmnatmn 08-01·1 1 doe 
82 


24964.061

concentrates the uranium into a smaller solution volume. The barren aqueous solution 

can be returned to the processing circuit or disposed in the tailings system. 

In either SX or IX circuits. the affinity of the selective organic solvent or resin. as 

the case may be. for uranium is the key stage in removing uranium fi·01n a water-based 

solution. Uranium is stripped fi·om the SX solvent or IX resin by a saline solution. This 

saline solution is the culmination of several steps to increase the concemration of 

uranium. and this solution is now ready to yield the tina! product. Uranium is 

precipitated tl·om this strip solution by addition of ammonia or peroxide. The 

precipitated uranium is now a yellow slmry (hence '"yellowcake'·'.) 

The yellowcake slurry is washed to remove contaminants and dewaterecl to form a 

thick puste. Final product preparation involves drying the yellowcake paste to remove 

ti·ee water. Drying is typically conducted in a high temperature Jim1acc -.vhich bakes the 

cake. or it can also be dried in a rotary clrurn dryer. Yellowcake dryers are typically tired 

by propane or natural gas. 

Dried yellowcake is puckaged in steel 55-gallon drums. each containing about SOO 

to l ,000 pounds of yellowcake. Y dlowcakc is the final product of uranium mining and 

milling. and this is the product sold by producers to utility customers. Y ellowcakc 

subsequently goes through a number of complex processing steps (conversion. 

enrichment. fuel fabrication) on its way to becoming fuelf()r a nuclear power plaut. 

4, Regulatory and Environmcnt;tl Rcquil·emcnts for llt·anium Mills 

Uranium processing facilities are subject to some of the most stringent 

environmental and regulatory controls of any industrial complex. To recover uranium by 

any process, a Source Material License (or equivalent) is required. Uranium mill 
83 


24964.062

licensing and regulatory oversight is normally the purview of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission: Utah. Colorado. and Texas are "Agreement States" and in 

charge of licensing and regulatory oversight; however. these states must meet or exceed 

the requirements of the NRC to attain Agreement State status.5 

Uranium processing mills must be sited in areas that can meet stringent criteria to 

ensure that uranium mill tailings can be isolated from the environment. All possible 

contaminant transport pathways are exhaustively studied to ensure mill tailings can be 

isolated. Appendix A Criteria l sets for the Technical Criteria for new mills. The general 

goal or objective stated in Criteria I in siting and design decisions lor mills is "pennanent 

isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbances and 

dispersion by natural forces. and to do so without ongoing maintenance.,. This goal is 

achieved by reviewing and selecting from alternative or current sites proposed by a 

prospective licensee according to the following criteria: 

Remoteness fi·om populated areas; 

Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued 

immobilization and isolation of contaminants fi·om ground-water sources: 

and 

Potential for minimizing erosion. disturbance. and dispersion by natural 

f(wces over the long term. 

Modern regulations require that uranium mill tailings can only be stored in specially 

designed and constructed cells. with multiple synthetic and clay liners and leak detection 

mechanisms to prevent any leakage of spent mill solutions. These arc zero discharge 

4 

(See 10 CFR Pmt40 Appendix A for NRC Regulations.) Appendix A establishes technical, financial, 

ownership and long-term site surveillance criteria relating to the sitting operation. decontamination, 

decommissioning and reclamation of uranium mills and tailings or waste systems and sites at which such 

mills and systems are located. 

'ISR operations are considered by NRC to be uranium processing operations and are therefore subject to 

the same regulations as uranium milling operations. 

K UPA · I!R 20.'i.l I J2.50 i)thcr l}(!t;$'Misc·(hel'sigll lk•<~ring on Federal Actions to Clean up Conlllmmalmn 01MII~II dnc 
84 


24964.063

facilities. During operations. mill tailings must be stable and in a strictly controlled area 

to prevent transport of tailings materials otT licensed sites. A plan for final mill 

decommissioning and closure of the tailing cells. in a manner to ensure isolation of the 

tailings t!·om the surrounding environment. must be approved by the appropriate 

regulatory authorities. Prior to the start of milling operations. operators must provide 

linancial surety adequate to fully decommission the mill and reclaim the mill site and 

tailings cells. This surety is reviewed annually and updated as necessary." 

Operators of uranium processing mills arc required to own the land on which the 

mill and tailings ntcilities me located. Upon completion of milling operations and final 

closure and reclamations. the reclaimed site is then deeded to the U.S. Department of 

Energy for perpetual care. Mill operators must fund a perpetual care account prior to 

stm1ing operations- these Hmds are in addition to the closure and reclamation surety. 

During active operations, uranium recovery li.tcilities adhere to rigorous radiation 

monitoring and safety programs. These programs cover all workers as well as the 

surrounding air. soils. vegetation. wildlife. surface water. and ground water systems. 

These programs include extensive employee indoctrination. employee scans and 

bioassays. the use of Personal Protective Equipment when required. comprehensive 

sampling and reporting of all results to appropriate regulatory agencies. extemal audits 

and surveys. and dil'ect corporate managerial involvement in all radiation control 

programs. 

" 1 o CFR Pm1 40 Appendix A. Criterion 9 requires sufl1cicnt funds be available as a surety to allow for 

reclamation to be pert<mned by an independent contractor in the event the licensee is unable to ~:onduct or 

complete tinal reclamation at a Htcility. 
85 


24964.064

5. Conclusion 

Recognition of the advances in mining technologies and standards has created 

widespread support for uranium mining and milling in the United States. Examples of 

such support is shown by local government resolutions attached as Exhibits l to 3. 

Standards and regulations in place at state and federal levels will assure that current and 

fl.tture uranium mining and milling conducted in the United States will be conducted in 

such a manner as to protect the workers. the environment and the public. 

Respectfully submitted, 

~~-~~OJU Jon .f.ll1dail 

Counsel for Uranium Producers of America 

Post Ollicc Box 669 

Santa Fe. New Mexico 87504-0669 

505-982-4611 

K tWA~ HR 20_'q 1:)2~50 (l!IK'r l)()c_:.:·Mi!'(c Ov-ersigh lfcarmg on Federal /\ctum~ to Ckan U!)ContmlHnallnn (18.01-ll dnc 
86 


24964.065

ST ATB OF NEW :MEXICO 

Mci<I.:NLEY CO'ON'I"Y RESOLUTION NO. DEC-06-088 

Support:ing tbe exploration and mining o( coal and uranium within the confines or 

MdGn.ley Cou.nty 

WHEREAS, lvfc.K.inlcy County hu been endowed with natural resourc<'.s such as 

coal ancl uranium wh~ch .nm aftemarlve sources of energy 1hat can help n::duce the 

dependence. on foreiEn oil and alleviate the energy crisis; and, 

WI-IER.EAS, ··t i9 the desire of the McKinley County Board of Comm.isalo-rts to 

protect the economic bnao of'MoKinl~;y County':J naturf.tl resources iu a. responsible fnshion.; 

and, 

\V'HE.RBAS, the economic ha..~ ofMcKin1ey County will be enhanced through the 

de-,..'(':IOpment to offsc t the loss. of tho Pittsburgh & lvfidway Mine in 2008 and the create new 

jobs for the people of this County; and, 

WHEREAS, the economic base ofMcK.intey County wHl b~ enhanced through the 

development of' coal aud uranium. resources to a11owtbe County to coutinue t.o provide 

efficient and critical servlce!l nod pmgrams for its citizens; and, 

WHEREAS, the energy needs, of our Cow1t.ry are dependeut upon u. <::Ontlru1ed 

supply of coal and UJ"UUium; and. 

WHEREAS. it is th(! desire of the Mc.IGnley County Board ofCoutlty Commissioners to 

support businesses that employ local citizens and utlli.zc proven tccbno1ogi.e3 that provide 

c,ommunity sa:feguo.rds and balance environmental stewardtdUp with energy production. 

NOW TiffiREFORE, BE. IT RESOLVED that the McKinley County Board of 

County Commissioners supports and eneoutnges the granting of state af'ld fcdernl permits 

needed to :fuciHt.nte 1he operation of coal and unm.iurn mines within the County of McKinley. 

PASSED. ADOPTED AND APPROVED tbi3 ;m":_day of~ 2006. 

E c t . B cerrti, Jr.~ ommissioner 

/a e .a~~ 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO } ss McK!NtEYCOUNlY • lhorebycart! tho.t1htGatrue pyofthllt 

In 

day 

w""""' dB.Yof 

EXHIBIT 
87 

Æ 


24964.066

Cibola County Commission 

Betmie Cohoe, Chairman 

Elmer Chavez, 1 $t Vice Chair 

Jane Pitts, 2'' Vice Chair 

Frank Emerson, Commissioner 

Fred J. Scott, Commissioner 

Cibola County 

515 West High Street 

Grants, New Mexico 87020 Phone (505) 287-9431 

Fax(S05)28S·S434 

RESOLUTION 06-35 

David Ulibarri 

County MAnager 

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CIBOLA 

COUNTY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO SUPPORTING THE EXPLORATION AND 

MINING OJ!' COAL AND URANIUM WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CIBOLA COUNTY. 

WHEREAS, Cibola Cmmty is blessed with natural resources such as uranium and coal 

which are alternative sources of energy that help reduce the existing oil crisis, and; 

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Cibola County Board of Commissioners to encourage 

and support the strategic use of Cibola County's natural resources for natural security purposes, 

and; 

WHEREAS, Cibola County is economically depressed and it is the desire of the Board 

of County Commissioners to encourage economic development within the County, and; 

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Cibola County Board of County Commissioners to 

protect the economic base of Cibola County and insure a continued supply of electricity to New 

Mexico and the Southwest, and; 

WHEREAS, the economic base of Cibola County will be enhanced through the 

development of coal and uranium resources and the continued operation and expansion of 

electrical generating facilities that exist within the County, and; 

WHEREAS, the energy needs of our country are dependent upon a continued supply of 

high grade uranium and coal, and; 

WHEREAS, the New Mexico sources of coal have been identified as a valuable source 

of high grade coal that is needed to replace other rapidly depleting sources of energy necessary 

for the continued operation and expansion of electrical generating facilities and the growing 

energy needs of the nation, and; 

WHEREAS, the development of uranium and coal mining within tbe County will 

provide a significant tax base and additional jobs for Cibola County providing for an increased 

quality of life. 

NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cibola County Board of County 

Commissioners supports and encourages the granting of state and federal permits needed to 

facilitate the operation of coal and uranium mines within the County of Cibola 

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this Ji..!!J_ day of September, 2006. 

THE CIBOLA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: 

Attest: ~· Bennie Cohoe, Chairman EXHIBIT