URANIUM MINE WASTE ON 

THE NAVAJO RFSERVATION 

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

S[BCOlVIlVIITTEE OK 

OVERSIGHT AXD Il\'lES1'IGATIOXS 

AND THE 

S(BCOlVIlVIITTEE ON 

XATIVE At\iERICAX A}lFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMl\fiTrrEE ON 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

CLEANUP OF ABANDONED URANIUM MINES AND MINE WASTE ON THE 

NAVAJO RESERVATION 

77-989 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC 

NOVEMBER 4, 1993 

Serial No. 103-58 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1994 

1-'or sale hy the U.S. Government Printing Ofli cc 

Supe rintendent of Documenh. Congression al Sales Office, a~ hington . DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16-044122-6 
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

AUSTIN J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

NICK JOE RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

LARRY LAROCCO, Idaho 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

CARLOS ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto Rico 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM F ARR, California 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii 

THOMAS J. BARLOW, III, Kentucky 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

SCOTT MciNNIS, Colorado 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

RICHARD MELTZER, General Counsel 

DANIEL VAL KISH, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

PHILIP R. SHARP, Indiana 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

RICHARD H. LEHMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah . 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon 

Ranking Republican Member 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

JAY DICKEY, Arkansas 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Staff Director 

LINDA J. CHASE, Counsel 

ELIZABETH McMILLAN, Clerk 

(Jl) 
III 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico, Chairman 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut Ranking Republican Member 

EN! F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American DON YOUNG, Alaska 

Samoa RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota KEN CALVERT, California 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

KARAN ENGLISH, Arizona 

TADD JOHNSON, Staff Director 

MARIE J. HOWARD, Professional Staff Member 

BARBARA ROBLES, Clerk 

RICHARD HouGHTON, Republican Counsel on Natiue American Affairs 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held: November 4, 1993 ............................ ................................................ 1 

Member statements: 

Hon. George Miller . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . 1 

Hon. Bill Richardson . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . 2 

Hon. Karan English . .... ........................................................................... .. ... ..... 6 

Witness statements: 

Panel consisting of: 

Faith Roessel, Executive Director, Navajo National Washington Office ........................................................................................................... 6 

Sadie Hoskie, Director, Navajo Environmental Protection Agency, 

accompanied by Perry Charlie, Navajo Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Department, and Dr. Gaurav Rajen, Mission Research 

Corporation and formerly with Navajo EPA ....................................... 8 

Panel consisting of: 

W. Hord Tipton, Acting Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, accom- panied by Brent Wahlquist, Ph.D., Assistant Director, Reclamation 

and Regulatory Policy............................................................................ 40 

Larry G. Reed, Director, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Office 

of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accompanied by Keith Takata, Deputy Director, 

Superfund Programs, Region IX .......... ......... ...... .................. ...... ...... .... 48 

R. Pat Whitfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Environmental Restoration, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy........................................................ 81 

Additional material submitted for the hearing record from Larry G. Reed, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: 

1. Memorandum from Division of Natural Resources, Navajo Nation, 

to Bernardine Martin, Director, Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Department, and Sadie Hoskie, Director, Navajo Environmental Protection Administration, dated April 6, 1993 ......................... 51 

2. Letter from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, to Dr. 

Jonathan P. Deason, Director, Office of Environmental Affairs, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, dated January 30, 1992 ............................. 54 

(V) 

URANIUM MINE WASTE ON THE NAVAJO 

RESERVATION 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1993 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, JOINT WITH SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

1324, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. George Miller (chair of 

the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. The combined Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigations and Native American Affairs will come to order for the 

purposes of a joint hearing on the cleanup of abandoned uranium 

mines and mine waste on the Navajo reservation. 

From the mid-1940s to the late 1970s, the Federal Government 

contracted with private mining companies to produce uranium 

needed to sustain this country's nuclear weapons development program. AB a result, thousands of mines, located mostly in the West 

and Southwest, were blasted into the earth to attract uranium-rich 

ore. The high-grade ore was sent to one of twenty-six uranium 

mills for processing and refinement. Lesser quality uranium was 

left to the mine sites along with the waste and the huge tailings 

piles. 

When the Government's need for uranium diminished, the mining companies walked away from the mines without sealing the 

tunnel openings, filling the gaping pits, sometimes hundreds of feet 

deep, or removing the piles of radioactive uranium ore and mine 

waste. 

These abandoned mines remain a source of potential danger to 

anyone coming into contact with them. Over 1,000 of these unsealed tunnels, unfilled pits and radioactive waste piles still remain on the Navajo reservation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. 

Some of the Navajo families live within a hundred feet of the mine 

sites, graze their livestock among the mine tailings, and have used 

radioactive mine tailings to build their homes. Navajo children play 

in the mines and climb on the tailings piles. Uranium mine tailings 

have turned up in school playgrounds. 

Recently, some effort has been made by the Federal Government 

to begin dealing with the radioactive mess left on the reservation. 

DOE is in the process of reclaiming the uranium mill sites, including the four which are on the Navajo reservation, where tons of radioactive wastes were abandoned. The Department of the Interior 

(1) 
2 

has provided some assistance to the tribes in sealing some of the 

mine openings and filling in the deep pits. EPA reclaimed one 

abandoned uranium mine site near Bluewater, New Mexico, after 

a public health advisory was issued declaring it an imminent radiation health hazard. 

However laudable these efforts, such a piecemeal and uncoordinated approach to removing the uranium blight from Navajo lands 

fails to eliminate the radiation health hazard to all those Navajo 

families living with open uranium mines and radioactive waste in 

their backyards, their homes, and their children's playgrounds. 

It is our intention at this hearing to focus attention on the resources which are available to deal with this problem and to encourage the appropriate government agencies to find creative ways 

to coordinate their efforts and to meet this important health need. 

At this point, I would like to recognize the chair of the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs, Bill Richardson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join 

you this morning to focus on an issue that is very important to the 

Navajo Nation, and that is the cleaning up of abandoned uranium 

mines which dot their huge reservation. I am also pleased to be 

here with the other champion of the Navajo Nation, Representative 

Karan English. 

In order to fill the huge demands for uranium to fuel the nuclear 

weapons program of the 1940s through the 1970s, many Indian 

tribes were encouraged to mine the rich uranium which lay beneath the surface of their land. The Navajo Nation saw mining 

uranium ore as an act of patriotism and a means for economic development and jobs. 

Before long, the Navajo reservation was a sea of underground 

and open pit mines. High-grade ore was sent on to uranium mills 

for processing, while lower grade ore was simply dumped near 

mine openings. 

As the Federal Government's need for uranium dried up, so did 

the operations of the mines and mills. At that point most mining 

companies just walked away, leaving the mines and mine waste behind. Decades later, over 1,000 unreclaimed mine sites still exist. 

Multiple health issues arise from these mines. Blocks of uranium 

ore sit piled outside of mines releasing gamma radiation into the 

air. Children see these piles, open tunnels, and deep shafts, as an 

inviting place to play and explore. Campers and those seeking shelter from the elements, ironically, use open mines as a place of protection. 

The configuration of mined ore resulted in large rectangular 

chunks of rock. Many Navajos used discarded rocks to build homes 

and ceremonial sweat lodges, thus surrounding themselves and 

their families with constant radiation in an enclosed area. 

Most of the pit mines have high walls which are now used in inclement weather to house livestock. These animals are then slaughtered and eaten. 

I believe that the Navajo Nation has done a commendable job of 

educating its people of the dangers of radiation, but it is very dif-
3 

ficult to convince many of the older, traditional Navajo that anything which comes out of Mother Earth will harm them. Three Federal agencies have some responsibilities to address the 

problems on the Navajo reservation. Currently, the Department of 

Energy is cleaning up the last of the uranium mill sites on the 

Navajo reservation, and the tribe, with its authority and resources 

through SMCRA, is attempting to deal with some of the mine sites. 

I am also aware that EPA has completed emergency cleanup of 

the area around Bluewater, after it found the region to be an "imminent radiation health hazard." This is all well and good, but 

there must be a final and complete way to address the problems 

of cleanup. 

Driving through parts of the Navajo Nation, which I represent on 

the New Mexico side, one will, I dare say, see some of the most 

beautiful sites on Earth. Monument Valley is awe inspiring, but 

once you know what abandoned mines with waste piles look like 

dotting the horizon and understand the potential for danger which 

exists, it is difficult to look at the area again with the same innocent eyes. 

I look forward to hearing from my friends of the Navajo Nation 

as well as the federal witnesses here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I think we also need to look at the radiation exposure compensation program. This is not working well within the 

Department of Justice. Addressing claims is slow. There is an inefficient bureaucratic process. While that is not the subject of this 

hearing, I hope with your Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee you join again with our Native American Affairs Subcommittee 

to try to deal with that problem in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Richardson follows:] 
4 

STATEMENT OP REPRESENTATrvB BXLL RXCBARDSON 

J_oi11t oversiqht Heari11g 

CleiUlup of AbiUldoned UraJliWII Kines IUld 

Mi11e waste 011 Navajo Reservatiol1 

Subcommittee 011 oversight IUld X11vestigations 

Subcommittee 011 Native AmericaJl Affairs 

November 4, 1993 

.- I am pleased to join Chairman Milier this morning to focus on an issue of great importance to the Navajo Nation - that of cleaning 

up abandoned uranium mines which dot the reservation. 

In order to fill the huge demand for uranium to fuel the nuclear 

weapons program of the 1940's through the 1970's, many Indian 

tribes were encouraged to mine the -rich uranium which lay beneath 

the surface of their land. The Navajo Nation saw mining uranium ore as act of patriotism and a means for economic development and 

jobs. Before long Navajo was a sea of underground and open pit 

mines. High grade ore was sent on to uranium mills for processing 

while lower grade ore was simply dumped near mine openings. As the 

Federal government's need for uranium dried up so did the 

operations of the mines and mills. At that point most mining 

companies just walked away leaving the mines and mine waste behind. 

Decades later ~ver 1,000 unreclaimed mine sites still exist. 

Multiple health issues arise from these mines. Blocks of uranium ore sit piled outside of mines, releasing gamma radiation into the 

air. Children see these piles as well as the open tunnels and deep 

shafts as an inviting place to play and explore. Campers and those 

seeking shelter from the elements ironically use open mines as a place of protection. The configuration of mined ore resulted in 

large rectangular chunks of rock. Many Navajos used discarded 

rocks to build homes and ceremonial sweat lodges, thus surrounding 

themselves and their families with constant radiation in an enclosed area. Most of the pit mines have high walls which are used in inclement weather to house livestock. These animals are then slaughtered and eaten. I believe that the Navajo Nation has 

done a commendable job of educating its people to the dangers of 

radiation but it is quite difficult to convince many of the older 

traditional Navajos that anything which comes out of Mother Earth 

will harm them. 

Three Federal agencies have some responsibilities to address the 

problems at Navajo. currently, the Department of Energy is 

cleaning up the last of the uranium mill sites on Navajo and the 

tribe with its authority and resources through SMCRA is attempting 

to deal with some of the mine sites. I am also aware that EPA has 

completed emergency cleanup of the area around Bluewater after it 

found the region to be an "imminent radiation health hazard." 
5 

This is all well and good but there must be a final and complete 

way to address the problems of cleanup. 

Driving through parts of the Navajo Nation one will, I dare say, 

see some of the most beautiful sights on earth - Monument Valley is 

awe inspiring. But once you know what abandoned mines with waste 

piles look like dotting the horizon, and understand the potential 

for danger that exists, it is difficult to look at the area again 

with the same innocent eyes. 

I look forward to hearing from my friends of the Navajo Nation as 

well as the Federal witnesses. I hope that the testimony will lead 

to the successful cleanup once and for all of these mine sites. 
6 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Now, I would like to recognize Ms. English. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KARAN ENGLISH 

Ms. ENGLISH. Just a brief statement. I would like to thank both 

chairmen for having this hearing on an issue that has been relevant for at least a decade. Long ago, when we first became familiar with the hazards of uranium near a landfill in the Tuba City area, we couldn't get the Federal Government to do anything about it. It is surprising to me 

that a decade later we are still working on these problems. 

I am delighted to be here today, and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I also look forward to implementing a program of resolution. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. With that, our first panel will be made up of Sadie 

Hoskie, who is the director of the Navajo Environmental Protection 

Agency, accompanied by Faith Roessel, who is the executive director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office, Perry Charlie, Navajo 

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Department, and Dr. Rajen, 

who was formerly with the Navajo EPA. 

If you will come forward, we will recognize you in the order in 

which-Mr. Richardson? 

Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, before we begin I would like to 

take a moment to extend on behalf of our Subcommittee on Native 

American Affairs a very hearty congratulations to one of our witnesses, Faith Roessel. It has just been announced that she will be 

appointed the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at 

the Department of the Interior. 

Basically, she will be Assistant Secretary Ada Deer's right-hand 

person. And, Mr. Chairman, it is a big loss because we have been 

dealing with her on Navajo issues for many years. Now, she will 

assume a wider role. Mr. Chairman, Navajo Nation's loss will be 

all of Indian country's gain. 

I am delighted to just state that for the record. 

Mr. MILLER. Congratulations. 

Ms. ROESSEL. Thank you. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF FAITH ROESSEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NAVAJO NATION WASHINGTON OFFICE; AND SADIE 

HOSKIE, DIRECTOR, NAVAJO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY PERRY CHARLIE, NAVAJO 

ABANDONED MINE LAND RECLAMATION DEPARTMENT, AND 

DR. GAURAV RAJEN, MISSION RESEARCH CORPORATION 

AND FORMERLY WITH NAVAJO EPA 

STATEMENT OF FAITH ROESSEL 

Ms. ROESSEL. Good morning, Chairman Miller and Chairman 

Richardson, Congresswoman English and other staff members. 

My name is Faith Roessel. I am the director of the Navajo Nation, Washington office, and on behalf of Peterson Zah, President 

of the Navajo Nation, who sends his regrets he cannot be here, I 

would like to thank both subcommittees and their staff for displaying extraordinary commitment to addressing the abandoned ura-
7 

nium mines problem on the Navajo Nation by organizing this hearing today. 

This is a critical issue to the Navajo Nation because the hazards 

of radioactive uranium waste from abandoned uranium mines continue to affect the lives and health of our Navajo people and contaminate our lands, and one thing that we are struck with, being 

Navajos sitting up here before you, is just how much this issue of 

the abandoned mines has become a part of our lands and a part 

of our landscape that it becomes invisible. 

So the fact that we are having this hearing today really will be 

sending a signal to our own people back home that the status quo 

cannot continue as it has and that really Washington does care in 

terms of the lives and health of our people. Because what we will 

hear is that this is not normal, the hazards of these wastes are 

high, and we all must work together to combat the problems. 

From the 1920s to the early 1970s uranium ore was mined on 

the Navajo reservation for the U.S. Atomic Energy Program. The 

primary purchaser and beneficiary of this mining activity was the 

United States Government, and the development of uranium resources was entrusted to the Atomic Energy Commission. As a result of this mining, the Navajo Nation has been left with at least 

1,104 known abandoned uranium mines and tons of hazardous radioactive uranium mine wastes scattered across our lands. 

Many Navajo people live and work in close proximity to highly 

contaminated soil and breathe and drink contaminated air and 

water. Some residents, as our chairmen have noted, live within a 

few hundred feet of highly radioactive waste. Sheep and livestock, 

which are the basis for our subsistence, graze on contaminated 

vegetation and drink contaminated water, and as has been noted 

previously, Navajo homes are built with radioactive mine waste 

rocks and our children play daily in the vicinity of the mines and 

on mill tailing sites. We desperately need these sites remediated. 

During this hearing you will hear testimony from Sadie Hoskie, 

who is the director of the Navajo Environmental Protection Administration, under which the Navajo Superfund program is administered. Sadie is accompanied by Dr. Gaurav Ragen, formerly of the 

Navajo Superfund program, who is knowledgeable of the long history of the abandoned uranium mines cleanup and Federal involvement in these efforts, and he is available to the committee for questions. 

You will also hear from Perry Charlie, program manager from 

the Shiprock Office of the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Program, and it was Perry who took your staff around Navajo 

country to witness the abandoned sites. 

These witnesses will describe the Navajo Nation's programs that 

are designed to oversee and manage the cleanup of abandoned 

mines on Navajo lands. They will describe the problems, the health 

risks, and why these risks are higher at Navajo sites than others. 

They will describe the policies and the roles of the Federal agencies 

and will offer recommendations, because there really must be a 

more satisfactory way of handling this situation. 

The Navajo Nation cannot begin to express to this committee the 

appreciation that we feel for having this hearing. We are continuing to pay an enormous price. The United States Government set 
8 

the policy for extraction of uranium ore and it is only right and reasonable that it take responsibility and leadership in cleaning up 

our lands and our environment. All we ask here, sitting at this 

table, is to be a partner in that effort. 

We look forward to working with the committee. We can no 

longer afford to have our children think that an abandoned uranium mill tailings site is their sandbox or their playground. Otherwise, another generation of Navajo people will be debilitated like 

their forefathers who extracted ore and who are no longer with us. 

I would like to turn it over to the next witness. 

Sadie? 

STATEMENT OF SADIE HOSKIE 

Ms. HOSKIE. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Chairman Richardson, and Congresswoman English. I appreciate the opportunity 

to present testimony here this morning. 

As mentioned, my name is Sadie Hoskie, and I am the director 

of the Navajo Environmental Protection Administration. 

As mentioned before, the Navajo Nation contains at least 1,104 

known abandoned uranium mines. The waste volumes, radon gas 

emissions, concentrations of radionuclides in the soil, levels of 

gamma radiation, and bioaccumulation in the food chain are 

present, and far greater at the abandoned uranium sites than what 

had previously been assumed in studies mandated by the U.S. Congress. 

In these representative scenarios, a maximally exposed individual was assumed to live one mile from the site. At many of our 

Navajo sites, residents live within a few hundred feet of these radioactive wastes. In some cases, uranium tailings were used as 

housing construction fill because it was free and good-sized material. 

The scenarios assumed that the major path for human ingestion 

of uranium mine water and contaminated foods is by eating livestock and vegetables grown at some distance from the mine sites, 

but at the Navajo sites free-range sheep and cows commonly graze 

upon vegetation growing on the radioactive wastes. For these reasons, the cumulative risk to human health at the Navajo abandoned mine sites is much greater than that estimated at similar 

sites in other regions. 

At many Navajo sites, we believe that the excess fatal cancer 

risk to the nearby population is greater than 1 in 10,000 for a twoyear exposure. A risk level of 1 in 10,000 is generally considered 

unacceptable by the U.S. EPA at a contaminated site, and 

Superfund emergency response and removal actions are therefore 

appropriate. 

For the committee's background, a paper is attached to our testimony that discusses some of the major health concerns related to 

abandoned uranium mines and problems with these earlier studies. 

Superfund pre-remedial assessment actions at abandoned uranium mine sites are currently on hold because of a decision by EPA 

Region IX to allow the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation 

Department to reclaim even some of the more critical sites first. 

We do not have a problem with sites being remediated by the Navajo AML when they are best qualified to do so, such as when the 
9 

sites do not have an active responsible party, they do not pose an 

imminent danger to human health, and are not likely to score very 

high on the Hazard Ranking System. 

However, other critical sites should be assessed and rapidly 

moved through the Superfund process using, for instance, the 

Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model. 

Such sites, for example, are the abandoned uranium mines on 

King Tutt mesa and the Carrizo mountains where the Navajo 

Superfund program has conducted Superfund site inspections at 

considerable cost and expense to the Federal Government, collected 

and analyzed on-site and off-site environmental samples all using 

U.S. EPA protocols and certified laboratories, and proven through 

factual data that the sites score very high on the Hazard Ranking 

System. 

The U.S. EPA has determined that these sites do not need to be 

listed on the Superfund National Priorities List. Such decisions 

whether to proceed with Superfund actions at a potential 

Superfund site are under the sole authority of the U.S. EPA. 

Although the EPA consults with its cooperative agency, such as 

tribal and State Superfund programs, the determination of whether 

a site moves forward within the Superfund process is EPA's decision. 

The decision not to move some critical sites along the Superfund 

process and to defer them to a Navajo AML reclamation is a decision that has been made by the U.S. EPA and not at the request 

of the Navajo Nation. This decision is detrimental to the interests 

of the Navajo Nation and we believe contrary to the intent of the 

Congress in framing SMCRA under which the Navajo AML Reclamation Department operates, and CERCLA, or Superfund, under 

which the authority of the Navajo Superfund program of the Navajo EPA operates. 

Other U.S. EPA regions, such as Region VI, do not hesitate to 

process abandoned uranium mines through Superfund assessments 

and aggressively pursue Superfund actions at abandoned uranium 

mine sites. 

In October 1988, the Navajo Nation was granted "Treatment As 

State" status and awarded U.S. EPA grant funds through a 

Superfund Memorandum of Agreement with EPA Region VI. The 

Navajo Superfund program was created to assess and respond to 

potential or actual hazardous releases and to ensure that adequate 

action through public participation is undertaken to protect public 

health, welfare, and the environment on the Navajo Nation. 

Under the authority of CERCLA, the responsibilities of the Navajo Superfund program include site discovery, inventory, and 

prioritization; preliminary assessments for threats to public health 

and the environment; site inspections to determine site placement 

on the National Priorities List; emergency response to releases or 

threatened releases of hazardous substances at sites such as abandoned mines, herbicide storage area, sheep dip vats, oilfield pits, 

and gasoline service stations; compliance monitoring of work at existing Superfund sites on or adjacent to Navajo Nation boundaries; 

and cost recovery for cleanup costs from any or all of the responsible parties. 
10 

Federal oversight from the EPA was originally provided by EPA 

Region VI in Dallas, Region VIII out of Denver, and Region IX out 

of San Francisco. 

However, in 1991, jurisdiction over the entire Navajo Nation's 

lands was transferred over to EPA Region IX in San Francisco to 

be the sole and lead region that the Navajo Nation will work with 

through a formal Memorandum of Agreement. 

Funding for the Navajo Superfund program was then transferred 

from EPA Region VI over to Region IX, and the summary of the 

funding is summarized in table 2. 

Between 1989 and 1993, the Navajo Superfund program completed the preliminary assessment step of the Superfund process 

for 42 abandoned uranium mine sites. Most of these site assessments were done under a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement 

with EPA Region VI. 

These sites were then assigned a score using the Superfund Hazard Ranking System. Eleven sites, based on their low score, were 

deemed to require no further remedial action. Out of the 42 sites, 

28 scored over 28.5 on the Hazard Ranking System; 23 of these 

sites qualified for the site inspection stage of the Superfund process 

which further refines the Hazard Ranking System score to determine whether the sites qualify for placement on the Superfund National Priorities List; 7 site inspections were completed through 

field collection of environmental data. Other sites were completed 

using existing data. Many of these sites that should have had site 

inspections conducted are still waiting to be evaluated for possible 

placement on the National Priorities List. 

The Navajo Nation recommends that the abandoned uranium 

mine sites should be properly apportioned between the Navajo 

Superfund program and the Navajo AML so that the sites can be 

addressed as expediently, completely, and permanently as possible. 

This cooperative effort is necessary because the environmental 

problems posed by such sites and the natural resource damages 

suffered by the Navajo Nation are too great for one tribal department, the Navajo AML, to contend with without other support. 

According to the draft strategy developed at the interagency 

meeting, January 22, 1992, any sites ineligible for SMCRA post1977 sites, are to be either funded by the Navajo Nation through 

enactment of a Navajo Nation environmental response law, which 

has not been formulated yet, or referred to EPA Region IX for hazard ranking evaluation or emergency removal assessment. 

A cooperative agreement between Navajo AML and Navajo EPA 

was developed and entered into April 1993. This agreement serves 

as a mechanism to address all abandoned uranium mines; sites 

which are not eligible for reclamation by either one of the departments are referred to the other department and vice versa. 

The agreement formalizes the exchange of pertinent information 

related to mine sites between the two departments. Sites which are 

potentially eligible for the National Priorities List should be handled by Navajo Superfund program and must be considered ineligible for remediation by Navajo AML. 

I am sorry? 

Mr. MILLER. Which agreement did you just refer to? 
11 

Ms. HOSKIE. The internal Navajo Nation Memorandum of Agreement. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Ms. HOSKIE. Although the Navajo AML does excellent work, 

there are limitations on the extent of remediation that can be performed under the authorization of SMCRA. All of these problems 

can be remedied through the use of CERCLA or the Superfund law, 

which is designed to address exactly those problems that SMCRA 

cannot. 

CERCLA can address the threats to human health and the environment by ensuring that the many complex environmental issues 

that exist at the abandoned uranium mine sites are treated and 

that full public participation takes place. Such Superfund action 

has been taken by the Navajo Nation in Region IX at the 

Bluewater uranium mine site where the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry had issued a public health advisory. 

An emergency response action was taken at this site. 

The full range of off-site contamination problems at Bluewater 

still needs to be addressed, however, through remedial action, and 

this has not occurred as of today. 

Since the Bluewater project, however, conducting further preliminary assessments or proceeding on to the site inspection stage for 

the uranium mine sites has been stalled. 

EPA Region IX provides all Federal oversight for the Navajo 

Superfund program with the exception of monitoring duties at two 

National Priorities List Superfund sites contiguous to the Navajo 

Nation in New Mexico. These are the Church Rock UNC site and 

the Pruitt site in eastern Navajo. Those are still handled through 

Region VI. 

At the Bluewater site, which underwent a Superfund removal action, a private mining company was found to bear responsibility for 

a segment of the contaminated area and to have an active lease for 

that area. The U.S. EPA was able to compel this responsible party 

to remediate its area to the same standards adopted for the remainder of the site. 

Another part of this Bluewater site was found to be under active 

land withdrawal status by the U.S. Department of Energy. The 

DOE accepted responsibility for this section and committed to a full 

cleanup of this area. 

We believe that a similar situation exists at many other sites and 

that a Superfund-led action can identify the responsible parties and 

compel them to take the appropriate action and cleanup. 

The role of the U.S. EPA, working cooperatively with the Navajo 

Nation, should be expanded in relation to the problem of addressing abandoned uranium mines. 

Aside from the Bluewater site, the involvement of the DOE in 

the cleanup of abandoned uranium mines has been minimal. On 

the Navajo Nation, the DOE is primarily involved in the remediation of four uranium mill tailings sites under the authority of the 

Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Act. At the Navajo Nation's request, the DOE has recently invited 

Navajo Nation to join the Department of Energy's Statefl'ribal Government Working Group. We believe that this is a first step in the 

77-989 0 - 94 - 2 
12 

Navajo Nation's attempt to increase the level of DOE involvement 

in the cleanup of radioactive waste sites on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation intends to develop its technical, financial, and 

legal capabilities to be able to independently monitor and review 

the environmental restoration and waste management activities 

being undertaken by the DOE on Navajo Nation lands. At this 

time, our capabilities are extremely limited. 

We are in the process of submitting several proposals to the Department of Energy to help develop this capability. Any assistance 

that the subcommittees can provide would be greatly appreciated. The DOE is charged with the administration of the UMTRA program. One percent Federal funding is authorized for work at affected sites on tribal lands. The Navajo Nation has four UMTRA 

sites. Shiprock and Tuba City have been remediated, while Monument Valley and Mexican Hat UMTRA sites are ongoing. As authorized by Congress, none of this funding, however, is approvable for cleaning up abandoned uranium mine sites. Therefore, 

no funding is available for mine reclamation from the DOE. We have several recommendations that we would like to present 

to the subcommittees this morning. Our first recommendation is 

that sites which have already proven eligible for the National Priorities List through site inspections and for which potentially responsible parties exist should be placed as quickly as possible on 

the National Priorities List. 

Number two, sites that are not currently under consideration for 

the National Priorities List must be allowed back into the 

Superfund pre-remedial site assessment process. Using the 

Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, quick action should be 

taken at the worst sites, especially those for which site inspections 

have been recommended some years ago but no progress has been 

made. These sites scored under the old Hazard Ranking System 

should be rescored. 

Number three, the Navajo Superfund program and the Navajo 

AML and OSM-Office of Surface Mining-and U.S. EPA should 

work together to determine which abandoned uranium mine sites 

would qualify for and benefit most from a Superfund or CERCLA 

response. The Navajo Superfund program would then work with 

EPA Region IX to place these sites on the National Priorities List 

and to coordinate a Navajo Nation-led Superfund response action. 

Number four, we believe the U.S. EPA, DOE, and Office of Surface Mining should fund a series of special studies led by the Navajo Nation which can begin to address the many complex issues related to abandoned uranium mine sites which may include: One, 

studies of the health effects on nearby residents in cooperation 

with the Navajo Uranium Mine Workers Office; studies on water 

quality in mining areas to determine and differentiate the impacts 

of mining from naturally occurring ore bodies; third, studies on 

radon emissions from mine wastes and in homes built with the 

mine wastes; four, to determine natural resource damage assessments; and, fifth, studies on volume reduction and refining of the 

mine wastes so that a complete cleanup of the sites is possible. 

Our fifth recommendation is that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, NRC, is active on the Navajo Nation through its licensing authority for uranium mill tailings sites and currently is 
13 

looking at an in situ uranium mining proposal. The NRC, however, 

does not have an Indian policy. We recommend that a tribally led 

working group be established along with representation from the 

U.S. EPA, the U.S. DOE, and the NRC to create, amend, and help 

implement the Indian policies of these three agencies, especially as 

they relate to the issue of radioactive waste disposal on Indian 

lands. 

The Navajo Nation understands that Superfund monies must be 

used as the fund of last resort. However, certain types of complex 

abandoned sites, especially one for which responsible parties are 

still available, can best be handled under CERCLA or Superfund 

authority. We believe that the companies that operated many of 

the abandoned uranium mines within the Navajo Nation are still 

in existence and should be made to return and clean up the wastes. 

We are not asking for any special dispensation. We are only saying that there must be equity and the environmental statutes of 

the United States must be applied equally on the Navajo Nation 

as elsewhere. 

The uranium mine policy implemented by EPA Region IX for the 

Navajo Nation may have been a good-faith effort to try and conserve Superfund monies, but it has proven a failure and must be 

changed. 

The Navajo Nation itself is best qualified to determine the efficacy of Federal policy that affects its lands. We know that EPA Region IX's uranium mine policy is not working. When responsible 

parties are available to pay for remediation, Superfund monies are 

not conserved by avoiding enforcement and cost recovery. Sites that 

pose considerable threats to human health and the environment 

need detailed remedial investigations and risk assessments as well 

as feasibility studies of alternative remediation options. These can 

only be obtained through the use of Superfund money. SMCRA or 

the surface mining law cannot provide funding for the detailed 

studies needed only not to remove the immediate hazards but to alleviate future impacts not currently discernible. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of the Navajo Nation follows:] 
PETERSON ZAH 

PRESIDENT 

THE 

NAVAJO 

NATION 

14 

P. 0. DRAWER 308 • WINDOW ROCK, ARIZONA 86515 • (602 ) 871 - 6352-55 

Testimony of the Navajo Nation 

Before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

and the 

Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Regarding the 

MARSHALL PLUMMER 

VICE PRESIDENT 

Cleanup of Abandoned Uranium Mines and Mine Waste 

on the Navajo Nation 

November 4, 1993 

Introduction 

Chairman Miller, Chairman Richardson and Subcommittee Members, the Navajo 

Nation appreciates the opportunity to present our concerns regarding the abandoned 

uranium mines on the Navajo Nation. We thank the two Subcommittees of the House 

Natural Resources Committee for their extraordinary commitment in addressing the 

Navajo Nation's abandoned uranium mine issues and the federal government's 

response. 

The Navajo Nation 

The Navajo Nation is the largest and most populous Indian tribe in America with 

over 219,000 members. The Navajo Nation encompasses almost one-third of all 

Indian lands in the lower-48 states, with jurisdiction over 17.5 million acres (as large 

as the state of West Virginia) within the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. 

The Navajo Nation is a sovereign nation with a sophisticated three branch 

government: executive, judicial and legislative. The Navajo Nation has a President, 

Vice-President and Council elected by the people. The Navajo Nation government 

structure operates four executive offices and ten divisions, analogous to state and 

federal departments and/or agencies. The Division of Natural Resources is the tribal 

division that is responsible for the management and protection of Navajo lands, its 

resources and the environment. The problem we are seeking your assistance on is 

that the Navajo Nation's natural resources - - our earth, air and water-- have been 

contaminated by radioactive and heavy metal-bearing mine wastes. We want these 

sites remediated. 
15 

The scope of the abandoned uranium mine problem; 

The associated health risks, and why these risks are higher at Navajo sites than 

others; 

• What the current policy is on reclamation of the abandoned uranium mines; 

• The limitations of SMCRA's policy; 

What are the roles of federal agencies such as the U.S. EPA, the U.S. DOE, and 

OSM; 

Recommendations for more satisfactory handling of this situation by the Navajo 

Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Department and the Navajo Superfund 

Program of the Navajo Environmental Protection Administration. 

It is important to remember that while we debate the extent of oversight and 

responsibility of these agencies, the wastes at the sites continue to contaminate the 

air, land, and water of the Navajo Nation, and continue to pose an immediate threat 

to Navajo Nation residents. 

I. THE NAVAJO NATION AML PROGRAM 

A. Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Program 

The Navajo AML Reclamation Department was established and the Reclamation 

Code promulgated in November 1987. The AML main administrative office is located 

in Window Rock, Arizona, with two field offices in Shiprock, New Mexico and Tuba 

City, Arizona. The primary goals and responsibilities of the Navajo AML Department 

of the Navajo Nation are to 1) reclaim mine lands left abandoned or inadequately 

reclaimed on the Navajo reservation J!LiQr to August 3, 1977 and 2) reclaim those 

mines where there is no continuing reclamation responsibilities under federal or tribal 

laws. (Note: a site for which a responsible party exists as defined under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), or the Superfund statute, does have a continuing reclamation responsibility 

under federal law). The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 

1977, Public Law 95-87, vested this authority and responsibility with the Navajo AML 

Reclamation Department, wherein Section 409(a) of SMCRA states: 

"voids, and open and abandoned tunnels, shafts, and entryways resulting 

from any previous mining operation, constitute a hazard to the public 

health or safety and that surface impacts of any underground or surface 

mining operations may degrade the environment. The Secretary, at the 

request of the Governor or any state, or the governing body of an Indian 
16 

From the 1920s to the early 1970s, uranium ore was mined on the Navajo 

reservation for the U.S. atomic energy program. The primary purchaser and 

beneficiary of this mining activity was the U.S. government and the development of 

uranium resources was entrusted to the Atomic Energy Commission. As a result of 

this mining, the Navajo Nation has been left with at least 1,104 known abandoned 

uranium mines and tons of hazardous radioactive uranium mine waste scattered across 

our lands. Many Navajo people live and work in close proximity to highly 

contaminated soil, and breathe and drink contaminated air and water. Some residents 

live within a few hundred feet of highly radioactive wastes. Sheep and livestock- the 

basis for our subsistence- graze on contaminated vegetation and drink contaminated 

water. Often, Navajo homes are built with radioactive mine waste rocks and children 

play daily in the vicinity of mines and on mill tailing piles. 

The hazards to human health and the environment associated with these 

abandoned mines are great. These include: 

direct exposure to ionizing radiation; 

direct ingestion of contaminants through on-site exposure; 

inhalation of radon gas and radon daughters emanating from the sites; 

• inhalation and ingestion of airborne particulate; 

ingestion of surface water and ground water contaminated with wastes; 

ingestion of contaminated foods produced in areas polluted by the wastes; and, 

physical hazards associated with shafts, boreholes, open pits, and unsafe 

structures. 

The waste piles left behind after uranium mining operations closed consist of 

waste rock, overburden sub-ore, and ore-grade material. Contaminants in these waste 

piles include radionuclides such as uranium, along with elevated levels of various 

heavy metals, such as arsenic, lead, selenium, molybdenum, and vanadium. 

While various federal agencies- the U.S. Department of Energy (U .S. DOE). the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the Office of Surface Mining 

(OSM) of the U.S. Department of Interior (DOll- have made efforts to address various 

hazards at these sites, no satisfactory solution has been developed that will assure the 

speedy, thorough and permanent remediation of all sites. 

In this testimony, the Navajo Nation will address: 

2 
17 

Tribe, is authorized to fill such voids, seal such abandoned tunnels, 

shafts and entryways, and reclaim surface impacts of underground or 

surface mines which the Secretary determines could endanger life and 

property, constitute a hazard to the public and safety, or degrade the 

environment. State regulatory authorities are authorized to carry out 

such work pursuant to an approved abandoned mine reclamation 

program." 

Following the Navajo Nation Tribal Council's and the Secretary of Interior's 

approval of the Navajoland Reclamation Plan in May 1988, the Navajo Nation received 

its first federal grant from the Navajo Reclamation Share of the AML Reclamation Fund 

of SMCRA in October, 1988. The Navajo Reclamation Share of the Reclamation Fund 

is obtained through the authority of Section 402(a) of SMCRA, "[a]ll operators of coal 

mining operations ... shall pay to the Secretary of Interior, for deposit in the fund, a 

reclamation fee of 35 cents per ton of coal produced by surface coal mining and 15 

cents per ton of coal produced by underground mining.· Based on these contributions, 

the Navajo AML Program has received yearly federal grants from the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). The Navajo Reclamation Share stands 

at a balance of $14,112,164 as of September 1, 1993. Since 1988, our annual 

administrative funding has averaged at approximately $1.2 million. In addition, our 

annual construction funding has averaged at $3 million. SMCRA has been and 

remains to be the sole source of funding for reclamation of coal and non-coal 

abandoned mine sites. With proper justifications, OSM has approved Navajo Nation 

construction grant applications with minimal delays. 

B. Coal and Non-coal Activities 

The Navajo AML Reclamation Department has been addressing its abandoned 

coal mine sites since 1991. Additional sites were identified and reclaimed by the 

Navajo Coal Commission (predecessor to Navajo AML) from 1985 through 1990, after 

which the Navajo AML assumed responsibility. With a total of 51 abandoned coal 

mines identified, Navajo AML has reclaimed 30 coal mines, impacting 46.5 acres at 

a total cost of $412,917. These coal mine sites ceased operations prior to August 3, 

1977, a SMCRA eligibility requirement. With the assistance of OSMRE, we have been 

able to construe the law to include reclamation of "interim" coal mine sites abandoned 

prior to September 28, 1984 since the Navajo Nation does not operate a formal and 

approved Title V Regulatory Program. This exception to the law only applies to coal 

mine sites and not to abandoned uranium and other non-coal sites. The funding 

approval of these "interim sites• are subject to the revision of the Navajoland 

Reclamation Plan and Reclamation Code. 

Five large mining areas on the Navajo Nation (AML Mining Districts! are located 

in Arizona, Cameron, Monument Valley, Black Mesa, in New Mexico, Shiprock and 

Eastern Navajo. (see Attachment AI 
18 

The Navajo Nation, through the Navajo AML Reclamation Department, initiated 

a two year inventory and assessment of all abandoned non-coal mine sites from 

August 1988 to August 1990 (see Attachment 8). These non-coal sites, mostly 

abandoned uranium and copper mines, are located throughout Navajo lands. The 

Eastern Agency/Crownpoint Mining District has not been inventoried yet. The results 

of this two year inventory and assessment are presented in Table 1. 

Table 1 . Inventory of Mining Districts 

AML MINING DISTRICT NUMBER OF MINES TYPE 

1. Cameron & Coppermine 127 uranium/copper 

2. Black Mesa 29 uranium 

3. Monument Valley 62 uranium 

4. Shiprock 786/2 copper uranium/copper 

5. Eastern Agency +100 uranium 

Total # of sites 1104 sites (approx.) 

The number of non-coal sites exceeds the coal sites in terms of number of sites 

and degree of associated hazards. In conformance with Section 403(a) of SMCRA, 

Navajo AML prioritized its abandoned non-coal sites. SMCRA does not allow 

reclamation funding of lower priority non-coal sites (Priority II and Ill) until the Navajo 

Nation has certified completion of all its known coal problems. 

The SMCRA priority system is focused on the problems at the mine site and 

does not take into account off-site problems, such as environmental hazards to nearby 

residents from contaminated housing materials and soils, or contaminating surface (or 

ground) water. Nor does this priority system include impacts to off-site sensitive 

habitats of plant or animals. Therefore, it is possible that sites with a low SMCRAbased priority could yet pose a significant threat to human health and the environment. 

The Hazard Ranking System developed by the U.S. EPA for use with the Superfund 

process does, however, attempt to take into account such off-site contamination 

problems. In fact, the Hazard Ranking System accounts for releases into surface 

water at downstream distances of up to fifteen miles and more. The Navajo AML 

anticipates completion of reclamation of all its known coal problems by fall 1994 and 

to initiate its certification process through the Federal Registry. This certification 

process entails at least a year of intensive work and the Navajo Nation can then 

proceed with its Priority II and Ill non-coal sites. This means that some uranium mine 

sites, with many known radiological hazards, and off-site impacts, cannot be 

addressed by the Navajo AML on an emergency basis. 

5 
19 

At the present time, all completed and proposed AML projects have been 

Priority I projects that have been funded entirely by OSM (see Attachment C). The 

Navajo AML is reclaiming, or proposing to reclaim, solely uranium mines after the 

Certification of Completion of our coal sites. An in-house radiological cleanup 

standard specific to Navajo AML needs has been developed prior to commencement 

of any of our non-coal projects. This cleanup standard is driven primarily by the 

gamma radiation levels at a site, and may not be entirely consistent with all Applicable 

Regulations and Appropriate Requirements that must be complied with in a Superfunddriven site remediation. An example is that the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action 

Project (UMTRAI specifies allowable concentrations of radium-226 In surface soil at 

given depths below the surface. The amount of subsurface soil sampling that the 

Navajo AML conducts during a site reclamation is limited by the authority vested in 

SMCRA. 

C. Problems and Recommendations Specific to the Navajo AML 

The current plan by OSM is to fund "minimum AML programs," using "state 

share" set asides for full AML programs. "State Share" refers to the original 

structuring of the 1977 SMCRA Act, where half of the proceeds of the tax on ongoing 

coal operations (currently about $240 million annually) were to be earmarked for 

reclamation projects in the state/tribe where the tax was collected. The other half, 

the federal share, is used for specific program responsibilities as determined by the 

Secretary. An amendment to SMCRA in 1990 stipulated that minimum program 

states could be funded from either the state, tribal or federal share. The 1992 Energy 

Policy Act, upon passage, approved the usage of the unappropriated AML balance, 

about $722 million, to replenish the failing health benefit fund for retired coal miners. 

This will also have a greater impact on future levels of funding for AML projects. A 

lesser amount of available funding will only exacerbate the problems we currently 

face. 

Another serious problem we face is that at many mine sites homes are built 

with mine waste rocks. The Navajo Superfund Program is one of the tribal programs 

that could begin to address this problem, but their assistance to the Navajo AML is 

currently hampered. A complete survey needs to be performed to identify and assess 

this problem. Each mined area is suspected to contain residences that are built with 

radioactive mine waste. One good example is at Tse-Tah, a small area in northeastern 

Arizona that has over 170 AML sites, and has about a dozen residences that have 

mine waste rock used for home construction. Some of these homes are still occupied. 

D. Limitations of SMCRA 

Although, the Navajo AML Reclamation Department is fulfilling the duties and 

responsibilities it has been entrusted with, certain limitations under SMCRA prevent 

the Navajo Nation from achieving the complete remediation of these sites through a 

6 
20 

solely SMCRA-driven effort. SMCRA's limitations are the following: 

SMCRA was written primarily to address the physical hazards at abandoned 

coal mine sites, such as shafts, pits, highwalls created by mining, acid mine 

drainage, and waste piles; 

SMCRA was not designed to address the problems of uranium and other noncoal mines, such as water contamination (groundwater and surface), sampling 

and monitoring needs, off-site migration of contaminants through wind and 

water, and the severe health risks on nearby residents; 

SMCRA has limited capability to compel the responsible party to pay; 

A SMCRA cleanup will not give the Navajo Nation the abi!ity to file a natural 

resource damage claim, despite the fact that the Navajo Nation will have 

suffered grave damages to its natural resources; 

SMCRA does not assess the effects of pollutants on sensitive environments 

such as wetlands and habitats of endangered species. 

All of these problems can be remedied through the use of CERCLA, which is 

designed to address exactly those problems that SMCRA cannot. Use of the 

Superfund statute will allow the Navajo Nation to address the many complex 

environmental issues that exist at the sites, and ensure that the responsible parties 

pay for their actions. 

II. l'lAVAJO SUPERFUND PROGRAM 

A. Scope of the Problem 

As mentioned before, the Navajo Nation contains at least 1, 1 04 known 

abandoned uranium mines. The waste volumes, radon gas emissions, concentrations 

of radionuclides in the soil, levels of gamma radiation, and the bioaccumulation in the 

food chain are present and far greater at the abandoned uranium sites than what had 

previously been assumed in studies mandated by the U.S. Congress. In these 

representative "scenarios, • a maximally exposed individual was assumed to live one 

mile from the site. At many Navajo sites, residents live within a few hundred feet of 

highly radioactive wastes. (In some cases, uranium tailings were used as housing 

construction fill, because it was free, good-sized material!. The "scenarios• assume 

that the major path for human ingestion of uranium mine water and contaminated 

foods is by eating livestock and vegetables grown at some distance from the mine 

sites. But, at the Navajo sites, free-range sheep and cows commonly graze upon 

vegetation growing on the radioactive wastes. 

7 
21 

For these reasons, the cumulative risk to human health at the Navajo abandoned 

mine sites is much greater than that estimated at similar sites in other regions. At 

many Navajo sites, we believe that the excess fatal cancer risk to the nearby 

population is greater than one in ten thousand for a two-year exposure.' A risk level 

of one in ten thousand is generally considered unacceptable by the U.S. EPA at a 

contaminated site, and Superfund emergency response and removal actions are 

therefore appropriate. For the Subcommittee's background, a paper is attached that 

discusses some of the major health concerns related to abandoned uranium mines, and 

problems with earlier studies (see Attachment C). 

Superfund pre-remedial assessment actions at abandoned uranium mine sites 

are currently on hold because of a decision by Region IX to allow the Navajo AML 

Reclamation Department to reclaim even some of the more critical sites first. We do 

not have a problem with sites being remediated by the Navajo AML, when they are 

best qualified to do so - such as, when the sites do not have active responsible 

parties, do not pose an imminent danger to human health, and are likely to not score 

very high on the Hazard Ranking System. However, other critical sites should be 

assessed and rapidly moved through the Superfund process using, for instance, the 

Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model. 

Such sites, for example, are the abandoned uranium mines on King Tutt mesa 

in the Carrizo mountains where the Navajo Superfund has conducted Superfund Site 

Inspections at considerable cost and expense to the federal government, collected and 

analyzed on-site and off-site environmental samples using all U.S. EPA protocols and 

certified laboratories, and proven through factual data that the sites score very high 

on the Hazard Ranking System. The U.S. EPA has determined that these sites do not 

need to be listed on the Superfund National Priorities List. Such decisions on whether 

to proceed with Superfund actions at a potential Superfund site is under the sole 

authority of the U.S. EPA. Although, the U.S. EPA consults with its cooperative 

agencies, such as tribal and state Superfund programs, the determination on whether 

a site moves forward within the Superfund process and to defer the site to a Navajo 

AML reclamation is a decision that has been made by the U.S. EPA, and not at the 

request of the Navajo Nation. This decision is detrimental to the interests of the 

Navajo Nation and we believe, contrary to the intent of the Congress, in framing 

SMCRA (under which the Navajo AML Reclamation Department operates) and CERCLA 

(or Superfund, under which the authority the Navajo Superfund Program of the Navajo 

EPA operates). Other U.S. EPA Regions, such as Region VI, do not hesitate to process 

abandoned uranium mines through Superfund assessments, and aggressively pursue 

Superfund actions at abandoned uranium mine sites. 

1

Risks at sites containing hazardous substances are estimated as a chance of excess. or 

additional, fatal cancers contracted by humans due to exposure to toxic materials at the site. An 

excess risk of one in ten thousand means that if ten thousand people were exposed to the hazard, 

there is a great likelihood that one would contract fatal cancer. 

8 
22 

B. Navajo Superfund Responsibilities 

In October, 1988, the Navajo Nation was granted "Treatment as State" {TAS) 

status and awarded U.S. EPA grant funds through a Superfund Memorandum of 

Agreement from U.S. EPA Region VI. The Navajo Superfund Program was created to 

"assess and respond to potential or actual hazardous releases and to ensure that 

adequate action, through public participation, is undertaken to protect public health, 

welfare, and the environment on the Navajo Nation. Under the aU1hority of CERCLA, 

the responsibilities of Navajo Superfund include: 

Site discovery, inventory, and prioritization; 

Preliminary Assessments for threats to public health and the environment; 

Site inspections to determine site placement on the National Priorities List; 

Emergency response to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances 

at sites such as abandoned mines, herbicide storage areas, sheep dip vats, oil 

field pits, and gasoline service stations; 

Compliance monitoring of work at existing Superfund sites on or adjacent to 

Navajo Nation boundaries; and, 

cost recovery for clean up costs from any or all of the responsible parties. 

Federal oversight was originally provided by EPA Regions VI, Region VIII and IX; 

however, in 1991, jurisdiction over the entire Navajo Nation was transferred to U.S. 

EPA Region IX through a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement. Funding for the 

Navajo Superfund Program for the current year is summarized in Table 2. 

Table 2. Navajo Superfund Program Current Funding Levels 

Agency Funding Level Fiscal Year 

U.S. EPA Region IX 750,700.00 FY 93-94 

U.S. EPA Region VI 40,000.00 FY 94 

Navajo Nation 87,781.00 FY94 

Total Funding 878,481.00 /:· •· :.:: ,. 

C. Current Policy 

9 
23 

Between 1989 and 1993, Navajo Superfund completed the Preliminary 

Assessment step of the Superfund process for forty-two abandoned uranium mine 

sites. Most of the Site Assessments were done under a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOUI with Region VI. These sites were then assigned a score using 

the Superfund Hazard Ranking System. Eleven sites (based on their low score) were 

deemed to require No Further Remedial AC1ion Planned. 

Twenty-eight out of the forty-two sites scored over 28.5 on the Hazard Ranking 

System'. Twenty-three of these sites qualified for the "Site Inspection" stage of the 

Superfund process, which further refines the Hazard Ranking System score to 

determine whether the sites qualify for placement on the Superfund National Priorities 

List. Seven site inspections were completed through field collection of environmental 

data. Other site inspections were completed using existing data. Many sites that 

should have had site inspections conducted still need to be evaluated for placement 

on the NPL. 

D. Need for Policy Change 

The Navajo Nation recommends that the abandoned uranium mine sites should 

be apportioned between Navajo Superfund and Navajo AML, so that the sites can be 

addressed expediently, completely and permanently as possible. This cooperative 

effort is necessary because the environmental problems posed by such sites, and the 

natural resource damages suffered by the Navajo Nation,are too great for Navajo AML 

to manage without other support. 

According to the Draft Strategy developed at the Interagency Meeting, January 

22, 1992 (see Attachment E), any sites ineligible for SMCRA (post-1977 sites) are to 

be either funded by the Navajo Nation through enactment of a Navajo Nation 

Environmental Response Law, which has not been formulated yet, or referred to EPA 

Region IX for hazard ranking evaluation or emergency removal assessment. 

A Cooperative Agreement between Navajo AML and Navajo EPA was developed 

and entered into April 1993 (Attachment Fl. This agreement serves as a mechanism 

to address all abandoned uranium mines. Sites which are not eligible for reclamation 

by any one of the departments are referred to the other deoartment and vice versa. 

The agreement formalizes the exchange of pertinent information related to mine sites 

between the two departments. 

Sites which are potentially eligible for the National Priorities List should be 

2

Sites ranked under the old Hazard Ranking System which scored less that 28.5- the 

threshold value for being placed on the National Priorities List--but greater that 25 points were 

included. This was based on the fact that the new Hazard Ranking System yields higher scores 

than the old for equivalent sites. 

10 
24 

handled by Navajo Superfund, and must be considered ineligible for remediation by 

Navajo AML. Although the Navajo AML does excellent work, there are limitations on 

the extent of remediation that can be performed under the authorization of SMCRA. 

All of these problems can be remedied through the use of CERCLA, which is 

designed to address exactly those problems that SMCRA cannot. CERCLA can 

address the threats to human health and the environment by ensuring that the many 

complex environmental issues that exist at the abandoned uranium mine sites are 

treated, and that full public participation takes place. Such Superfund action has been 

taken by the Navajo Nation and Region IX, at the Bluewater uranium mine site, where 

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry had issued a Public Health 

Advisory. An emergency response action was taken at this site. The full range of offsite contamination problems at Bluewater still have to be addressed through remedial 

action. Since the Bluewater project, however, conducting further Preliminary 

Assessments or proceeding onto the Site Inspection stage for the uranium mine sites 

has been stalled. 

E. Roles of Federal Agencies 

1. Involvement of the U. S. EPA 

Region IX provides all federal oversight for the Navajo Superfund Program, with 

the exception of monitoring duties at two National Priority List Superfund sites 

contiguous to the Navajo Nation in New Mexico. At the Bluewater site, which 

underwent a Superfund removal action, a private mining company was found to bear 

responsibility for a segment of the contaminated area. and to have an active lease for 

that area. The U.S. EPA was able to compel this responsible party to remediate its 

area to the same standards adopted for the remainder of the site. Another part of the 

site was found to be under active land withdrawal status by the U.S. Department of 

Energy (U.S. DOE). The U.S. DOE accepted responsibility for this section, and 

committed to a full cleanup of this area. 

We believe that a similar situation probably exists at many other sites, and that 

a Superfund-led action can identify the responsible parties and compel them to take 

appropriate actions. The role of the U.S. EPA, working cooperatively with the Navajo 

Nation, should be expanded in relation to the problem of abandoned uranium mines. 

2. Involvement of the U.S. DOE 

Aside from the Bluewater site, the involvement of the U.S. DOE in the cleanup 

of abandoned uranium mines has been minimal. On the Navajo Nation, the U.S. DOE 

is primarily involved in the remediation of four uranium mill tailings sites, under the 

aut hority of the Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation Act. At the Navajo Nation's 

request, the U.S. DOE had recently invited the Navajo Nation to join the Department 

11 
25 

of Energy's StatefTribal Government Working Group. We believe that this Is a first 

step in the Navajo Nation's attempt to increase the level of U.S. DOE involvement in 

the cleanup of radioactive waste sites on the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation 

intends to develop its technical, financial, and legal capabilities to be able to 

independently monitor and review the environmental restoration and waste 

management activities being undertaken by the U.S. DOE on Navajo lands. At this 

time, our capabilities are extremely limited. We are in the process of submitting 

several proposals to the Department of Energy to help build our capability. Any 

assistance the Committee can provide will be greatly appreciated. 

The U.S. DOE is charged with the administration of the UMTRA. One hundred 

percent federal funding is authorized for work at affected sites on tribal lands. The 

Navajo Nation has four UMTRA sites. Shiprock and Tuba City have been remediated 

while Monument Valley and Mexican Hat UMTRA sites are ongoing. As authorized by 

Congress, none of the funding are approvable for cleaning up abandoned uranium mine 

sites. Therefore, no funding is available for mine reclamation from the U.S. DOE. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The recommendations of the Navajo Nation with regard to its abandoned 

uranium mine sites are the following: 

1. Sites which have already proven eligible for the National Priorities list, through 

Site Inspections and for which potentially responsible parties (PRP) exist, should be 

placed as quickly as possible on the National Priorities list. 

2. Sites that are not currently under consideration for the National Priorities List 

must be allowed back into the Superfund pre-remedial site assessment process . Using 

the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, quick action should be taken at the worst 

sites, especially those for which Site Inspections have been recommended some years 

ago, but no progress has been made. Those sites scored under the old Hazard 

Ranking System should be rescored, which could result in higher scores. 

3. Navajo Superfund and Navajo AML, and OSM and U.S. EPA, should work 

toget her to determine which abandoned uranium mine sites would qualify for and 

benefit most from a Superfund response. Navajo Superfund would then work with 

U.S. EPA Region IX to place these sites on the National Priorities List, and to 

coordinate a Navajo Nation-led Superfund response action. 

4. The U.S. EPA/DOE/OSM should fund a series of special studies led by the 

Navajo Nation which can begin to address the many complex issues related to 

abandoned uranium mine sites. which may include: 

Studies of health effects on nearby residents, in cooperation w ith the 
26 

Navajo Uranium Mine Workers Office; 

• Studies on water quality in mining areas, to determine and differentiate 

the impacts of mining from naturally occurring ore bodies; 

Studies on radon emissions from mine wastes and in homes built with 

mine wastes; 

Natural resource damage assessments; 

Studies on volume reduction and refining of the mine wastes so that a 

complete cleanup of the sites is possible. 

5. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is active on the Navajo Nation 

through its licensing authority for uranium mill tailings sites and in-situ uranium mining 

sites. The NRC, however, does not have an Indian policy. We recommend that a 

tribally-led working group be established, along with representation from the U.S. EPA, 

the U.S. DOE, and the NRC. to create, amend and help implement the Indian policies 

of these three agencies, especially as they relate to the issue of radioactive waste 

disposal on Indian lands. 

We understand that Superfund monies must be used as a fund of last resort; 

however, certain types of complex abandoned sites, especially one for which 

responsible parties are still available, can best be handled under CERCLA authority. 

We believe that the companies that operated many of the abandoned uranium mines 

within the Navajo Nation are still in existence and available to return and clean up the 

waste. 

We are not asking for any special dispensation; we are only saying that there 

must be equity, and the environmental statutes of the United States must be applied 

equally on the Navajo Nation as elsewhere. The uranium mine policy implemented by 

Region IX for the Navajo Nation may have been a good faith effort to try and conserve 

Superfund monies, but it has proven a failure and must be changed. 

The Navajo Nation is best qualified to determine the efficacy of Federal policy 

that affects its land. We know that Region IX's uranium mine policy is not working. 

When responsible parties are available to pay for remediation. Superfund monies are 

not conserved by avoiding enforcement and cost recovery. Sites that pose 

considerable threats to human health and the environment need detailed remedial 

investigations and risk assessments, as well as feasibility studies of alternative 

remediation options. These can only be obtained through the use of Superfund. 

SMCRA cannot provide funding for the detailed types of studies needed to not only 

remove the immediate hazard but to alleviate future impacts not currently 

discernable. 

13 
27 

CONCLUSION 

The Navajo Nation greatly appreciates the interest and work of this Committee 

to investigate the abuse of our environment and people that has gone on for over half 

a century. We are continuing to pay an enormous price. The United States 

government set the policy for extraction of uranium ore and it is only right and 

reasonable that it take responsibility and leadership in cleaning up our lands and 

environment. All we ask is to be a partner in this effort. 

We look forward to working with the Subcommittees and various federal 

agencies on this important matter in the coming months. We can no longer afford to 

have our children think an abandoned uranium mill tailing site is their sandbox or 

playground. Otherwise, another generation of Navajo people will be debilitated like 

their fore fathers who extracted the ore and who are no longer with us. 

14 

77-989 0 - 94 - 3 

29 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Let me ask you a couple of technical questions so I can get a 

handle on where we are at the moment: 

Of the roughly a little over 1,000 mines you testified to, Ms. 

Roessel, that are on the Navajo reservation, how do you rank those 

in terms of their danger and the hazard that they pose and the priority? Have you gone through that process, Ms. Hoskie? 

Ms. HosKIE. Yes, we have. Out of the 1,104 sites, we have looked 

at 42 of these sites, and we have ranked them using the EPA Hazard Ranking System. 

Mr. MILLER. That is 28 of those. 

Ms. HOSKIE. Right. The 28 scored above the 28.5 necessary tothat is what EPA considers one of the worst sites in the country 

and is eligible for placement on the NPL. 

Mr. MILLER. And in some cases well above the 28.5, right? 

Ms. HOSKIE. Yes, very much well above the 28.5. 

Mr. MILLER. And that theoretically makes them eligible for 

CERCLA funding? 

Ms. HOSKIE. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. And the remaining sites, what source of potential 

funding is available to those sites that are still believed to be a 

hazard but don't qualify under the rating system? 

Ms. HOSKIE. The AML program? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. HOSKIE. Abandoned mine lands program? 

Mr. MILLER. That would take in the remainder of those sites, correct? 

Ms. HOSKIE. That could be used as one option. The other option 

would be for the Navajo Nation itself to begin to address some of 

those. 

Mr. MILLER. As I understand the AML funding, that comes 

through SMCRA, correct? 

Ms. HOSKIE. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. Now to get the full availability of SMCRA money for 

this purpose, you are in the process of completing your certification 

program, winding up the coal reclamation part. Is that correct? 

Ms. HosKIE. That is correct. I believe my colleague, Mr. Charlie, 

will address that issue. Mr. MILLER. If you could, please, where are you in the process? 

Because once you get the certification, then you will be able to use 

the full allocation for the AML program here. Is that correct? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. Could you tell me where you are in that process? 

Mr. CHARLIE. The Office of Surface Mining recently funded the 

last 16 projects that are proposed under the coal cleanup projects. 

Once that is completed, the time frame allowed under that is approximately six months. Thereafter, we can start the certification 

process, and I believe that takes about a year. So we figure around 

a year and a half of-well, six months of work and a year of certification process before we complete our certification process. 

Mr. MILLER. That would allow what revenues from SMCRA to be 

available to clean up these mines then after certification, do you 

anticipate? 
30 

Mr. CHARLIE. We can actually go into reclamation of our Priority 

II and III non-coal sites, as SMCRA calls them. 

Mr. MILLER. You would have money after certification? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Right. Right now we are limited to priority one, those sites that pose extreme hazard. Mr. MILLER. But that would make available to you what amount 

of money for that purpose from SMCRA clo you anticipate? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Currently, we have around $14 million in our 

share, so we can have access to a greater percentage of that portion. 

Mr. MILLER. Now, you have addressed this in your testimony, 

but in the case where you have an AML site but you have external 

hazards and problems from that site, as I understand the SMCRA 

source of funding, you cannot deal with problems off-site. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Yes. During the process of our prioritization 

scheme and the determination of the project area boundary, those 

physical hazards that are directly associated with the AML site are 

addressed. They are abated. But if it is off-site, we cannot basically 

touch those. 

Mr. MILLER. So what do you do? You negotiate with the Federal 

Government over the project site, the definition and the description 

of the project site? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Those hazards, basically, will have to be addressed 

once we complete our certification process, when we complete all of 

our non-coal problems. That is where it stands right now, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. So what funding would be available to you to address those hazards that exist off of the project sites where you 

want to engage in cleanups, but AML funds are not available to go 

off the project site? What funding source would be available then? 

Would that have to come from the Nation's treasury? 

Mr. CHARLIE. From the Superfund program. 

Mr. MILLER. So then you would meld that into the Superfund 

program? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. Does that require that that project site be qualified 

as a Superfund site? 

Mr. CHARLIE. If it meets the criteria, yes. Mr. MILLER. What about the ones that don't but still have external hazards, whether it is dust blowing or--

Mr. CHARLIE. That is an area that, hopefully, will be resolved 

through this hearing here. There may be other funding sources 

that can be made available. We do have sites like that out on the 

Navajo reservations where a parcel of land that may have been 

used as dumping areas, dumping grounds from the mining days. Those sites basically we cannot touch because they are not directly 

associated with the abandoned mine sites. 

Mr. MILLER. Can you explain that a little bit more for me? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Okay. The companies that were out in the abandoned mine sites, a lot of them when their trucks broke down or 

for preventive maintenance measures would set aside a certain 

area outside of the mine areas and use that area for dumping of 

the radiological ore. 
31 

These sites cannot be addressed. We have no avenues. We have 

no funds available to address those. So essentially these will have 

to remain until such time monies are appropriated. Mr. MILLER. So those are sort of orphans within any program? 

I mean they would not qualify either under SMCRA or under 

CERCLA? They would not qualify either way? 

Mr. CHARLIE. In my opinion, no. 

Mr. MILLER. Where are you with reclaiming the Priority I sites? 

Mr. CHARLIE. I believe I have a table attached to my statement 

here. We have done quite a bit of work. Out of the approximately 

1,100 mines, Navajo AML has reclaimed 171 Priority I non-coal 

mines on the Navajo reservation. This is between November 1991 

and August of 1993. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. To put this in perspective, including the 

last 10 years, when you give a report to the tribal government with 

respect to the 42 sites, what is the time line that you anticipate 

in terms of when the cleanup of these would be accomplished as 

things proceed now? 

Ms. HOSKIE. The 42 sites that we mentioned? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. HOSKIE. I would like to defer that question to Dr. Rajen. 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Rajen? 

Dr. R.AJEN. Thank you very much. I would like to thank the Navajo Nation for giving me this opportunity to be here, and also to 

the subcommittees for their interest in the subject. 

I would like to say, you know, I have a personal interest in this. 

My wife is Navajo, our son is Navajo, and I feel responsible in some 

sense to ensure a clean environment for my family. And I would 

just like to say that I have learned an enormous amount through 

having worked with the Navajo Nation. 

Of the 42 sites that you mentioned, they are at some very preliminary stages of the Superfund process, but essentially the 

Superfund site assessment work is on hold. 

However, we believe through an initial survey of the mine sites, 

through a site prioritization effort in which we tried to earmark the 

worst sites first by looking at their proximity to populations, to surface water drainages, to sensitive environments, that we were trying to address some of the worst sites first. We found that many 

of these sites are actually in the same geographical area, have 

principally the same company that operated the mines, impact the 

same people, the same sensitive environments, impact the same aquifer, which means in a sense that some of these sites could be aggregated into one site, and the U.S. EPA has done this at several 

Superfund sites around the country. In fact, they have sites that 

can span hundreds of miles. You know, some in the Pacific Ocean. 

So we feel that actually we may be talking about a few key aggregated sites which ought to belong on the Superfund list. I have 

personally walked at many of these sites, taken radiation measurements. We have collected samples, and what we have found is that 

under SMCRA, essentially, the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Program can do gamma radiation surveys. They cannot really take 

adequate soil samples, subsurface samples, water samples. 

When Perry says that they have reclaimed sites, they might very 

well have--even though they want to do more, close some of the 
32 

shafts, take care oi' some of the physical hazards, but they haven't 

been allowed to fully a-;;sess the sites. 

And I did a prelimin..:.ry assessment of a site that had a State 

abandoned mine lands reclamation done. The State abandoned 

mine lands program at one time used to reclaim allotted land sites 

where there were Navajo allottees. Well, they had reclaimed the 

site, and we did a preliminary assessment under Superfund, and 

Region VI recommended a site inspection, which means they moved 

it forward one step farther. So it had been reclaimed, but it went 

into the next stage. . And of those 42 sites, they are essentially on hold, and I think 

we should focus on the two groups of sites that you very well 

brought out. That there are sites that would rank on the Superfund 

list and some that would drop out. But I think we should focus primarily now on those sites that could make it to the NPL, that 

ought to have been on the NPL, that have gone through the first 

two assessment stages, have ranked very high, and are now essentially at a stage that is called the HRS-the Hazard Ranking System-package preparation. 

And sites that drop out of the system could be addressed through 

a Navajo Superfund law. States have their own Superfund statutes 

to step in when the Federal statute drops out. 

So, essentially, to be more to the point, and I am sorry if I have 

been longwinded, those 42 sites are really on hold. You know, there 

isn't much happening at those sites. 

Mr. MILLER. Why is that? 

Dr. R.AJEN. Well, I think essentially because they are supposed 

to be addressed by the Navajo AML first, and this is a problem of, 

perhaps, misinterpretation or, you know, misperception of what 

reclamation means and what cleanup means. 

Also I would venture to say these are complex sites, you know. 

These aren't sites that are as clearly identifiable such as a pool of 

bubbling black chemicals near a schoolyard. You go out to one of 

these sites, and if you come from a region that doesn't have many 

radioactive waste problems, it is easy to walk on the site and see 

a nice rural, spectacularly beautiful setting, which many of these 

sites are in. 

So I think there has been a problem of recognition amongst agencies responsible for the cleanup. You know, you have to really walk 

out there with a radiation counter, take the samples, run the risk 

assessments to see kind of risks are at these sites. 

So I think that this hearing will play the useful role to see how 

we can move forward. I don't want to dwell on the past but--

Mr. MILLER. I am not that familiar with how the Superfund law 

or CERCLA have evolved over the years, but what are the rights 

of the Navajo Nation and what would the rights be of the States 

to push that process? Are you essentially standing in line waiting 

for allocations of funds for characterization and that is the position 

you are in, or how is that done? 

Dr. RAJEN. Sadie, would you like to answer that? 

Mr. MILLER. The characterization of funds, do you have to drive 

that with your funds also? 

Dr. RAJEN. Yes, there are some matching funds that the Navajo 

Nation applies toward such Superfund site assessments. I will re-
33 

strict my answer to the Superfund issue and perhaps Perry could 

handle the other questions. 

But essentially you're right. You have to stand in line. You know, 

the EPA, of course, have to deal with the fact that they have a 

large universe of sites, and not enough funds for all sites. So essentially I would say they enter into cooperative agreements with 

tribes, just as they do with States, and come up with a certain 

amount of money that is available and then estimate a number of 

sites that could be addressed. 

At this time, the Navajo Superfund program is not proposing any 

more abandoned mines to be assessed. That is on hold. They don't 

put up any more uranium mines to he assessed. All of these mines 

that were assessed were done in the past, primarily through Region VI. 

Mr. MILLER. Ms. English? Thank you. 

Ms. ENGLISH. I have a few questions, maybe they are semantic 

more than anything else. When we are talking about the Navajo 

Superfund site or Navajo Superfund, is that basically the same 

thing as EPA Superfund or are we talking about two different 

things? 

Ms. HOSKIE. Let me try to answer that. We are funded by the 

EPA to develop our own Superfund program, modeled very much 

like the Federal Superfund program, and we have received this 

funding since 1988. 

We are not at the same stage as the Federal Superfund program. 

So it is a cooperative arrangement during this period where we do 

the site discoveries. We go out and look at what sites need to be 

assessed. We do all of that. We negotiate with EPA up front, I 

should say, how many preliminary assessments we will do in a 

given year depending on the funding that we get. Say this year we 

will do maybe 45 preliminary assessments and 10 site inspections. 

They are very arbitrary numbers that are given, and those are 

the targets that we meet during that year under our grant. And at 

the same time, we have two sources of grant. One is the preliminary assessment, site inspection money. The other one is a core 

grant which is to develop an administrative body or system like the 

Federal EPA that would begin to develop a cost recovery program 

where, when we go out and address sites for cleanup, we can seek 

payment from the responsible parties. 

This would mean developing our own laws, our own Superfund 

laws, hazardous waste laws which we are in the very beginning 

stages of doing. We don't have a Navajo Nation Superfund law yet, 

and we don't have a cleanup fund, a revolving fund. So we are relying for a large part of the assistance from EPA during this developmental mode. 

Ms. ENGLISH. If EPA had to do the assessments and related process without the Navajo Superfund, would it be faster or slower 

than the Navajo Nation developing a duplication of the process? 

Ms. HosKIE. I think it would probably be slower, because we are 

more familiar with the sites and where development took place on 

the Navajo Nation, and we kind of know where all of the sites are. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Is there a limit on the expertise that the Navajo 

Nation has been able to put together or pull together to develop the 

Superfund? I am not thinking of just the assessments, but develop-
34 

ing the laws which I know for a fact are very comprehensive, very 

complicated. You mentioned going after the folks that may have 

caused the problem in the beginning. Do you have the resources to 

develop all of the support folks that you need to do this in a comprehensive way? 

Ms. HosKIE. We have a real deficiency of technical expertise at 

the Navajo Superfund program. We have some excellent workers, 

but the learning curve is very steep. 

What we have been able to do is negotiate intermittent IPA assignments from EPA Region IX, people to come out from the regional office to work with our staff on a short-term, or in some 

cases long-term, basis to render this assistance, and one of the 

ways that the internal Navajo Nation Memorandum of Agreement 

carne into being that says any abandoned uranium mine sites will 

be sent over to the Navajo AML department to reclaim was actu" 

ally done by one of these IPAs from EPA Region IX. 

So in a sense the perception is almost that we know how best 

to do your program for you, so we will do it for you you, but not 

with you. It is been a year or so now that that happened, and now 

we are saying, "Well, wait a minute. These sites, even though we 

defer them, they are not being cleaned up as completely as we 

would like and as we think should be handled under the CERCLA 

program where there is a wider, more comprehensive cleanup." So 

we don't really agree sometimes with the technical assistance that 

we get. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Charlie, you mentioned that it takes a year 

and a half to certify. Why does it take that long? Does this go back 

to the question of expertise that Ms. Hoskie was talking about or 

is it a result of working with EPA? 

Mr. CHARLIE. I anticipated about a year and a half of work left; 

I mean activities left before we can certify completion. That year 

and a half includes the reclamation of the remaining 14-16 coal 

mine sites. So I am including that. 

So I figure about a year of intensive work, PR work, getting the 

certification through the Federal Registry before we can see the 

certification. 

Ms. ENGLISH. And when a site is certified, it then will be added 

to this list along with these other 40 sites that are just kind of in 

a holding pattern? Do I understand that correctly, or have I confused this? 

Mr. CHARLIE. The certification process would essentially tell the 

Federal Government that the Navajo Nation has certified completion of all of its non-coal problems. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Coal. I am sorry. Okay. 

Mr. CHARLIE. Right. And then it can start going to the other, 

what SMCRA calls, non-coal problems which we are talking about, 

the 42 sites that Sadie is referencing and all of the other abandoned uranium mines on the reservation. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Do you feel that the certification process could be 

faster if you had additional help? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Definitely yes. 

Ms. ENGLISH. What kind of help would you request? 

Mr. CHARLIE. If we can handle a lot, the Navajo Nation can handle a lot of the requirements at our level in terms of public meet-
35 

ings. We have already started that process where we are going to 

the impacted areas and having them come forward to identify any 

other remaining sites that may be necessary. 

When it gets to the Washington, DC, level I don't know how 

many processes or how many layers of bureaucratic acknowledgments or approval it has to go through. If those can be lessened 

or expedited, then we would have the certification process performed in a more timely manner. 

Ms. ENGLISH. In the areas of coal and uranium, what happens 

when a site is either identified or certified for reclamation and the 

money isn't there to reclaim it or to cap it or whatever is going to 

happen with that site? 

Is there some protection on those sites for the public while the 

sites have been certified or documented on paper but nothing has 

been done yet because of funding. Is there some way where there 

is protection on those sites? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Are you referencing our abandoned uranium mines 

or--

Ms. ENGLISH. In either case. Wherever there might be a hazard. 

Mr. CHARLIE. Okay. With the certification process being completed on coal, the coal problems, essentially the Navajo Nation 

would say that we have completed. 

Ms. ENGLISH. So certification means you have done the reclamation? 

Mr. CHARLIE. On all non-coal problems. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Okay. Then on the uranium sites, are there sites 

that are pending that need some protection while the funding process is implemented? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Yes. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Yes. 

Mr. CHARLIE. We have sites that pose various degrees of physical 

hazards, high walls, open adits, open shafts. Access is readily available to youngsters or children, the Navajo sheepherders, or livestock. We have no waming signs out there in these mine areas to 

wam the general public and also the local residents. In addition to 

these obvious physical hazards, we do have a tremendous amount 

of radiological hazards associated with these mines. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Once the sites are indentified, how soon are safety 

precautions taken? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Once we identify and determine that an abandoned 

mine, or uranium mine in this case, is a Priority I mine, it usually 

takes once we develop our construction grant application approximately 6-10 months to get it funded. And for the in-house construction crew or the contractor to get out into the project area it 

usually takes about another month. So around 11-12 months before we can actually start doing the project. 

Ms. ENGLISH. How successful is the Navajo Nation on recouping 

revenue from the companies that did the original mining, either 

coal or uranium? Has there been much success in the legal area? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Not through SMCRA-that is part of my testimony-where SMCRA has very limited capability to compel the responsible parties, in this case mining companies, to pay for damages unless we can demonstrate and prove that there is a contin-
36 

ually responsible party under tribal or Federal laws that can do the 

reclamation. 

Keep in mind some of our mine sites here, especially the abandoned uranium mine sites, the companies were very small, I guess 

mom-and-pop-operation-type thing. It has basically gone under. 

They are no longer in existence. Some of the major companies like 

Kerr-McGee or VCA are still in existence, but at the time they 

were doing the mining they were not really required to do a fullscale reclamation. So it wasn't until the passage of SMCRA where 

we started going in. 

The companies, most of them are out. The majority of the 1,100 

mines that we have identified, abandoned uranium mines, we have 

documented that these mine lands are left inadequately reclaimed 

and we have demonstrated that there are no continuing reclamation responsibilities of any party. 

So SMCRA basically allows us to demonstrate that first, and 

then they allow funding of these AML sites. To date, we have not 

had an opportunity to tell one particular company to go back and 

to do any reclamation on any of our AML sites. 

Ms. HOSKIE. Can I also add to that? One of our recommendations 

or one of the things we want to raise in this hearing, is that compelling a responsible party to pay is allowable under the Superfund 

statute and is a limitation under SMCRA. 

And I would like Dr. Rajen to further comment on our experience, Navajo Nation's Superfund's experience, with that concept. 

Dr. RAJEN. Thank you, Sadie. I would just like to point out that 

under SMCRA, if the company is no longer in operation, they can't 

really compel the mining company to return. But under Superfund 

there is joint and several liability and also historic liability. So we 

have found some sites where the company has been acquired by a 

larger company which has merged with a multinational. So we believe that there are very large corporations which have bought up 

some of these leases and acquired them with the intention of future 

profits. So under Superfund there is liability. 

And at the Bluewater site we found, actually the U.S. EPA Region IX found at least three potentially responsible parties. One 

was a private company, one they found was the Department of Energy, and the other, I think they are trying to recover some cost 

from the Department of the Interior, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. So we believe actually that the type of responsible party search 

that is done under Superfund hasn't yet been done for all the sites. 

But our preliminary investigations have shown that many of these 

companies are still in existence, have been acquired by others, and 

have merged into large corporations. So we believe there are responsible parties. 

And I would like to say my own feeling is that if even one of 

these sites, perhaps an aggregated site, became a Superfund site, 

I believe there would be a line of companies ready to do voluntary 

cleanup and avoid being on the Superfund list. So actually, if we 

could get one site, even one site on the Superfund list, we could 

then talk to the other companies from a position of strength and 

say, "Look. Let's clean it up, we won't put you on the list." 
37 

And States do this all the time. Many States have taken the lead 

to work through voluntary cleanup, and I think that has been the 

good part of Superfund. That companies don't want to pollute. They 

want to come back in and clean house. 

And I feel that could be the key that they are looking for. Let's 

put a few sites on the list and see who turns up, comes out of the 

woodwork. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Just one last question, and Ms. Roessel might be 

able to answer this. What has been the relationship between the 

Navajo Nation and the BIA? Has the BIA offered any assistance? 

Ms. ROESSEL. As far as I know there's not been, really, any assistance, and perhaps Perry or Sadie might be able to disagree or 

agree with me. I think that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has very 

different responsibilities and perhaps does not get into the area. Because when you talk about reclamation activity, for example, 

that is under the Office of Surface Mining. 

So the Department of the Interior, obviously, is where the Bureau of Indian Affairs is as well, but it is another agency within 

that Department. 

I don't know if Sadie or Perry have any other comments. 

Ms. HOSKIE. Raj, I think--

Ms. ENGLISH. Dr. Rajen. 

Ms. HOSKIE. At the Bluewater site I believe there was BIA involvement. Maybe you can expand on that. 

Dr. RAJEN. Yes. In a sense, the Bureau of Indian Affairs signs 

off on the leases for such activities on Indian reservations, and 

then bears responsibility because they, in a sense, allowed the company to leave. 

And I think that could be questionable, you know, because my 

understanding is that it is still being debated by attorneys, but 

there is responsibility because essentially the Bureau of Indian Affairs signs off on the leases. 

Ms. ENGLISH. One last question. Has the Navajo Nation thought 

about or talked about mining reclamation policies on Navajo lands? 

Or developing a policy? 

Mr. CHARLIE. The Navajo AML Reclamation Department is in 

the process of revising its reclamation code and a reclamation plan, 

and the reclamation portion will be done. That is part of the requirement of the certification process. Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Charlie, is that site-specific or is it an overall 

policy for Navajo lands? For instance, the State of Arizona right 

now is developing some reclamation policies for the first time ever. Does the Navajo Nation's code address an overall reclamation 

policy or is it a policy that is site-specific for cleanup or a particular 

problem? 

Mr. CHARLIE. It covers the Navajo Nation as a whole. It is not 

site-specific where we have to do certain things within the site. It 

basically follows the general outline of SMCRA. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Okay. Thanks very much. 

Mr. MILLER. If I can go back to these 42 sites and the 28 that 

you say meet the requirements of CERCLA. Why is it again that 

none of these have made the National Priorities List? 

Ms. HOSKIE. We don't really know. What we do from the Navajo 

Superfund program is we look at the site, and we put forth our 
38 

best recommendation on a score, which is in these cases well above 

the 28.5. We send those over to EPA and that is where that decision gets made on whether to put them on the NPL or to just leave 

them. Mr. MILLER. That was sent when? 

Ms. HosKIE. Dr. Rajen? 

Dr. RAJEN. Several years. You know, at least 2 years ago. 

Ms. HOSKIE. I should point out here that perhaps some of the 

delay was because we changed regions. The Navajo was, prior to 

1991, working with three EPA regions, and a lot of these preliminary assessments on these 42 sites were done under Region VI. That was before my time at Navajo EPA, and from what I am told 

Region VI was willing to place the sites on the NPL. Unfortunately, at that time we made the shift over to Region IX, and that willingness to place the sites on the NPL did not follow through with that 

move. Mr. MILLER. Well, that is an interesting discussion. I am not 

sure that is a valid reason. 

What is it you have been told coming back the other way from 

EPA as to why? I assume you have pursued over the last couple 

of years some determination as to whether or not some of these 

sites, either combined or in their current state, would qualify for 

the National Priorities List. What have you been told coming back 

the other way from EPA? I don't care what region. 

Ms. HOSKIE. Well, right. That they should be handled by AML. They should be reclaimed by our Abandoned Mine Lands department. Mr. MILLER. But as I read the material, and as I read your testimony this morning, AML will not let you deal with these sites in 

a comprehensive manner in which to clean them up. And, in fact, 

you have dealt with some Priority I sites, have you not, that you 

have described as Priority I sites, and under AML, you still have 

all kinds of additional problems related to those sites because of 

the restrictions of AML; is that correct? 

Ms. HosKIE. That is correct. Mr. MILLER. So that is kind of a non-answer. 

Ms. HOSKIE. Right. Mr. MILLER. And that has been going on for two years? 

Ms. HOSKIE. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. And my limited understanding of the CERCLA process is if you are not on the National Priorities List then you don't 

get in line for national monies? 

Ms. HOSKIE. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. When they tell you that you belong on AML is that 

a verbal; is that a written? Do they outline where the deficiencies 

are or what the information is that is lacking or the characterization of the site that is necessary that these sites don't meet? How 

is this process engaged in? 

Ms. HoSKIE. It is articulated in the internal Navajo Nation 

Memorandum of Agreement that says any abandoned uranium 

mine sites that are eligible under SMCRA-they were abandoned 

before 1977-will be handled by the Navajo mine lands program, 

period. I mean no assessments, no "Well let's see what else we can 
39 

do," "Could there be an apportionment of responsibility and cleanup." 

But basically, I think the thought was that there is a duplication 

of effort here, so why not just let one department handle it, restrictions, limitations, regardless. Let's just refer that to one tribal department. And that is what we are trying to change here today. 

Mr. MILLER. If EPA were successful in that effort, they also not 

only would refer you to one department, they would also keep from 

having to spend Superfund money on these sites. 

Ms. HosKIE. Correct. 

Mr. MILLER. So that money would then be available for off-reservation sites elsewhere in the region. 

Ms. HOSKIE. Yes. 

Mr .. MILLER. Okay. 

Mr. Charlie, let me ask you just kind of an aside here, but I believe cleanup is being done by Department of Energy, on Monument Valley and the Mexican Hat mill tailings sites. It appeared 

to the staff, if I have this correct, that the tailings were being 

taken from Monument Valley to Mexican Hat where they were 

being treated in accordance with whatever the plan was for remediation, of spreading the tailings out and covering them. 

The question, Wasn't Mexican Hat closer to a population center 

than Monument Valley, and why was it decided that this would be 

done, the tailings would be taken to Mexican Hat? 

Mr. CHARLIE. The amount of groundwater contamination at the 

Monument Valley site was much greater in detail than the Mexican Hat site. 

Mr. MILLER. So, in terms of the aquifers that was a better site? 

Mr. CHARLIE. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. What about the proximity to the population? 

Mr. CHARLIE. That may have had a determination on it, but the 

project site is down gradient and upwind of the Mexican Hat community, or the Hachita community there. 

Mr. MILLER. So the tribe was involved in that and you are comfortable with that decision? 

Mr. CHARLIE. As long as it means the final disposal criteria, yes, 

and it meets the minimum years for stability. 

Mr. MILLER. On the question of radon and the homes that were 

built with the tailings, my understanding is that in a number of 

these homes readings are above the levels that are considered safe. 

What, if anything, has been done with regard to those homes? Are 

people still living in those homes now that we know those levels? 

Are replacement homes being provided? 

Mr. CHARLIE. The homes that were currently identified as having 

mine wastes used in the construction are still out there. The Navajo Nation has not addressed that yet, simply because of the level 

of funding needed. 

The Navajo Nation in consultation with HUD under the emergency block grant back in the early 1980s had a chance to replace 

approximately 17 homes within another area; that is, in the Oak 

Springs-Red Valley area. Those were done through a long process 

and the homes, I believe, with the exception of one which was renovated, were all completely rebuilt. 
40 

Now, again, that was a long, drawn-out process where outside 

consultants were used, various federal corporations were mandated. Now, we are coming out with some other problems, similar 

problems in other mine areas, and we have not had the chance to 

go into these areas. Of course, SMCRA has its limitations, and we 

cannot do these things. But as a courtesy to a lot of the impacted areas whenever our 

projects are in that area, when we suspect that a home is contaminated it's just a matter of running down there and performing 

some very preliminary radiological scans, and it takes no more 

than 15 or 20 minutes. 

These homes require detailed radiological characterizations for 

gamma, for alpha, for radon-222 assessments, and all these things 

are involved. I remember the Oak Springs project entailing at least 

1-2 years of study before they were determined to be eligible for 

replacement. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony and for your help. Do you have any further questions, Karen? 

Go ahead. No? Thanks for your testimony this morning, and we will obviously stay in touch with you as we try to work our way through 

this problem. Thank you. 

The next panel that the committee will hear from is made up of 

W. Hord Tipton, who is the Acting Director of the Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation Enforcement, from the U.S. Department of the 

Interior; and Larry Reed, who is the Director of Hazardous Site 

Evaluation Division, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Mr. R. Pat Whitfield, 

who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration, U.S. Department of Energy. Welcome to the committee, and we will take your testimony in 

the order in which you were recognized. And, Mr. Tipton, we will 

start with you. 

PANEL CONSISTING OF W. HORD TIPTON, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ACCOMPANIED 

BY BRENT WAHLQillST, PH.D., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

RECLAMATION AND REGULATORY POLICY; LARRY G. REED, 

DIRECTOR, HAZARDOUS SITE EVALUATION DIVISION, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ACCOMPANIED BY 

KEITH TAKATA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SUPERFUND PROGRAMS, REGION IX; AND R. PAT WHITFIELD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, OFFICE 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

STATEMENT OF W. HORD TIPTON 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and distin- guished members of the committee. I am here today to discuss how 

funds from the Abandoned Mine Land Program can be used to reclaim abandoned uranium mine lands on Navajo lands. 
41 

In addition to my brief remarks today, I would like to submit my 

written testimony for the record. Thank you. 

As you know, the primary purpose of the AML Program is to reclaim abandoned coal mines. That is because all proceeds for the 

fund are paid by coal producers. However, the Surface Mining Act 

does allow AML funds to be used to address problems caused by 

other types of mining under certain circumstances. 

Funds can be used to reclaim abandoned non-coal problems 

which would present an extreme danger to health, safety, general 

welfare or property. Such projects must be approved on a projectby-project basis following a request from a State Governor or tribal 

governing body. 

The Navajo already have been granted $7.5 million in AML 

funds for reclamation of extremely dangerous abandoned uranium 

mines. 

This avenue of AML funding to reclaim the remaining uranium 

mines is still available, provided they meet the extreme danger 

standard and the proper request and approval occurs. 

It should be noted, however, that the dangers that make many 

such sites eligible for AML funding are generally related to hazardous open shafts, pits and adits, and to steep, unreclaimed high 

walls rather than dangers from low-grade radiation. 

The second circumstance under which AML funds can be used to 

address non-coal problems is when all of a State's or tribe's known 

eligible coal-related problems have been completed or funded. 

Recently, the Navajo have submitted a grant application for 

$460,000 to fund the known remaining abandoned coal sites including about $56,000 to reclaim sites on our inventory of problem 

areas. 

In addition, the application covers sites now in the process of 

being added to the inventory. These are generally lower priority, 

less serious problems. The tribe has adequate funds available to 

address all of those sites. 

This means that the Navajo may be close to obtaining the required certification that all coal-related reclamation has been funded so that they could begin to use AML funds to address a wide 

variety of non-coal reclamation needs. They are anxious to obtain 

the required certification and will be soon submitting documentation to the OSM Albuquerque field office. This includes revising the 

tribe's reclamation plan and requesting the necessary certification 

that would allow them to begin to address additional non-coal problems. 

There is one proviso, however. The Surface Mining Act does not 

allow the use of AML money for non-coal sites that are designated 

for remedial action under two other statutes: The Uranium Mine 

Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. 

However, to our knowledge, there are no uranium sites on the 

Navajo reservation on the CERCLA list, nor are there any remaining to be funded under the Uranium Mill Tailings Act. 

As far as available money is concerned, the Navajo have a sizable 

amount-$11 million-already appropriated but not yet requested 

by the tribe. In addition, there is $24 million in unappropriated 
42 

tribal share funds that could be available to the tribe subject to appropriations. 

AML fees collected on coal mined on Navajo lands in 1993 total 

$7.7 million. Assuming the same amount is collected through the 

year 2004, the year the current allocation collection expires, an additional $39 million would be available to the tribe. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, consistent with our mission we are 

already eager to see coal-related problems taken care of first, and 

we have been working closely with the Navajo in preparation of the 

necessary AML paperwork. However, there is money and there are 

provisions in the Surface Mining Act that authorize the use of 

funds for non-coal reclamation under certain circumstances. I assure you that we are ready to do whatever we can to assist 

the tribe in their effort to reclaim abandoned mines that meet the 

eligibility requirements of the Act, both coal and non-coal. 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this important issue. This concludes my remarks. Ms. ENGLISH [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Tipton. [Prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:] 
W. Hord Tipton 

Acting Director 

43 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

1951 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

202-208-2565 

Summary of Comments 

I. Describes how Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program funds may be used to 

reclaim non-coal problems. 

A. Prior to reclaiming all of its coal problems, the Governor of a State or 

the governing body of a Tribe responsible for managing its own AML 

program may request approval to use State/Tribal share AML funds, on a 

project by project basis, to reclaim extreme danger non-coal mine related 

problems under section 409 of the Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 

B. After States or Tribes have been certified that all eligible known coal 

related problems have been completed or funded, they may address a wide 

range of non-coal related problems under section 411. 

C. The Navajo Tribe has been granted $7.5 million to reclaim Priority 1 

problems (extreme danger) related to abandoned uranium mines under 

section 409 of SMCRA. 

II. Certification process of completion of all coal mine related problems described. 

A. It is noted that section 4ll(d) of SMCRA states that sites and areas 

designated for remedial action pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act of 1978 and the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) are not 

[emphasis added] eligible for AML funding. 

B. The cost of reclaiming coal related AML problems on Navajo lands as 

recorded in OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System is 

approximately $56,000. Some additional coal work is in the process of 

being identified. 

C. OSM is assisting the Navajo Tribe carry out the steps as set out in 

SMCRA to certify that all known eligible coal related problems are 

reclaimed or funded. 

77-989 0 - 94 - 4 
44 

ill. As of September 30, 1993, the Navajo had approximately $11 million in 

appropriated AML funds available but not yet requested by the Tribe. In 

addition, there is $24 million in unappropriated Tribal share AML funds that will 

be available to the Tribe subject to appropriations. AML fees collected on coal 

mined on Navajo lands in Fiscal Year 1993 totaled $7.7 million. Assuming the 

same amount of fees are collected annually between Fiscal Year 1994 and 2004, 

when the current fee collection authorization expires, an additional $39 million 

would be available to the Navajo Tribe. 
45 

Testimony of 

W. Hord Tipton 

Acting Director 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

before the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

and the Subcommittee on Native American Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

November 4, 1993 

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee: 

I am here today to outline how the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's 

(OSM) Abandoned Mine Land Program (AML) can be used to reclaim abandoned uranium 

mines on Navajo lands. The primary purpose of the AML program, which is funded by a 

fee collected on coal mined in the U.S. , is the reclamation and restoration of land and water 

resources adversely affected by past coal mining. The program can, though, in certain cases 

also be used to reclaim noncoal mining related problems. 

AML program funds may be used to reclaim noncoal problems when: 

o Prior to reclaiming all of its coal problems, the Governor of a State or the 

governing body of a Tribe responsible for managing its own AML program 

requests approval to use State/Tribal share AML funds, on a project by project 

basis, to reclaim extreme danger noncoal mine related problems under section 

409 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1997 (SMCRA) 

o After all eligible known coal related problems have been completed or funded, 

States or Tribes may address a wide range of noncoal related problems under 

section 411. 

Congress declared in section 409(a) of SMCRA that voids, open and abandoned tunnels, 

shafts, and entryways resulting from any [emphasis added] previous mining operation 

constitute a hazard to the public health or safety. Congress therefore provided under section 

409 of SMCRA a mechanism that, at the request of the State Governor or the governing 

body of a Tribe and with the concurrence of OSM, allows AML funds to be spent to fill 

such voids, seal such abandoned tunnels, shafts, and entryways, and reclaim surface impacts 
46 

of underground or surface mines which could present an extreme danger to public health, 

safety, general welfare, or property. Funds available for use in carrying out such 

reclamation are those granted to the State or Tribe under the provisions of paragraphs ( 1) 

(State/Tribe share) and (5) (historic coal production) of section 402(g) of SMCRA. 

While the Navajo Tribe do have some remaining unfunded coal problems, the Tribe has used 

this provision of SMCRA to address dangerous situations at abandoned uranium mines. To 

date the Navajo have been granted $7.5 million under section 409 of SMCRA to reclaim 

abandoned uranium mines. 

When a State or Tribe has addressed all of its known coal problems relating to eligible lands 

and waters, it may certify to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior that it has done 

so. After notice in the Federal Register and opportunity for public comment, OSM concurs 

with such certification if we determine that it is correct. After certification, a State or Tribe 

may use State/Tribe share funds granted to it to reclaim eligible noncoal AML problems. It 

is, however, important to note that section 4ll(d) of SMCRA states that sites and areas 

designated for remedial action pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

of 1978 and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 

1980 (CERCLA) are not [emphasis added] eligible for AML funding. To the best of our 

knowledge, there are no uranium sites on the Navajo Reservation on the CERCLA list, nor 

are there any remaining to be funded under the Uranium Mill Tailings Act. 

The Navajo nation began managing its own AML projects in 1988. The cost of reclaiming 

coal related AML problems on Navajo lands as recorded in our Abandoned Mine Land 

Inventory System is: 

Completed 

Funded 

Unfunded 

TOTAL 

$2,281,373 

413,692 

~ 

$2,751,247 

Open portals accounted for slightly over two thirds of the high priority (that is, dangerous 

and extremely dangerous) coal related AML problems that were on the Navajo lands. 

Dangerous slides and subsidence problems were the two other major high priority coal 

related problems. Reclamation of almost all of these high priority coal related problems has 

either been completed or funded. Only $51,000 of lower priority problems already on the 

inventory have yet to be funded. In addition, a few relatively small eligible coal related 

AML problems not yet on the inventory may warrant reclamation. 

2 
47 

The Navajo Tribe is anxious to address all coal problems so that they can use their AML 

monies to fund reclamation of other problems created by uranium and other noncoal mining 

and to address the community impacts of coal development. The Tribe is preparing to 

submit the following documents to OSM's Albuquerque Field Office. 

• A reclamation plan amendment allowing the Navajo to reclaim eligible "interim sites. • 

• A grant application to fund the reclamation of all known remaining coal related 

problems. 

• Certification to the Secretary that all of the coal priorities for eligible lands and waters 

have been achieved. This would include a statement that a grant application is pending 

for the known remaining coal related problems. 

As of September 30, 1993, the Navajo Tribe had approximately $11 million in appropriated 

funds available but not yet requested by the Tribe. In addition, there is $24 million in 

unappropriated Tribal share funds that will be available to the Tribe subject to 

appropriations. Fees collected on coal mined on Navajo lands in Fiscal Year 1993 totaled 

$7.7 million. Assuming the same amount of fees are collected annually between Fiscal Year 

1994 and 2004, when the current fee collection authorization expires, an additional $39 

million would be available to the Navajo. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss how the 

OSM's Abandoned Mine Land Program is used to reclaim abandoned uranium mines on 

Navajo lands. This concludes my prepared testimony. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions at this time. 

3 
48 

Ms. ENGLISH. Mr. Reed? 

STATEMENT OF LARRY G. REED 

Mr. REED. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Chairman Richardson, Congresswoman English. I thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. My name is Larry Reed. I am Director of 

the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division in the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. It is 

more commonly known as Superfund. 

With me today is Keith Takata, who is the Deputy Director of 

the Office of Superfund Programs in our San Francisco Region IX 

office, who will also be addressing site-specific concerns that may 

be raised today. 

As we all are here gathered to discuss the problems of uranium 

mining waste on Navajo lands, I would like to start with some 

background on EPA's Superfund program. The Superfund program 

is intended to address both short- and long-term threats both to the 

public health and the environment of uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. Uranium mining sites would be a subset of the 

overall category that we look at. 

When we come to addressing hazardous waste sites, we have to 

look at a variety of different authorities, statutes, different standards that we address when we are remediating a site that has been 

raised to our attention. One thing I wanted to discuss briefly with 

you this morning before turning it over to Mr. Takata is our overall 

site assessment process, how we go about screening and identifying 

priority sites for action in the Superfund program. 

We basically have three major parts of the program I would like 

to briefly highlight. Our removal program, which is intended to address immediate, imminent acute threats. Usually it is defined by 

statute of less than a year in length to clean up, less than $2 million in total costs. That can be waived under certain circumstances. 

Then we have another long-term remedial program, which the 

Navajo Nation was discussing this morning somewhat, the National Priorities List, which usually are much more complicated 

sites, much more extensive cleanup being required, on the average 

of $25 million per cleanup, looking at all the sites that we have. 

The third part of the program is our enforcement program, 

which, again, was referred to this morning, where we can use our 

authority to have potential responsible parties step up and address 

cleanup at sites, or if they don't, go about recovering funds for the 

cleanup of sites that we have taken action on. 

Briefly, the first step in our overall assessment process is the discovery of sites that are brought to our attention by either State, 

tribal, Federal or the general public that call in, and we receive 

over 1,000 such notifications per year. 

We screen through those first for potential removal actions that 

would be necessary for acute public health protection. For those 

that do not fit the removal criteria, we put into an automated inventory tracking system that we have. That system has about 

37,000 sites that have been brought to our attention since the program was passed in 1980, and the intent of that inventory is for 

us to be able to track progress on those sites and to notify the public of the status. 
49 

The first stage when those sites have been in the inventory, we 

do an initial assessment, which is generally using existing information and a visit to the site. That is done within a year. It is a published document that could be done on the site. It is as the 42 sites 

that were being described earlier, a preliminary assessment. 

Sites are screened out all the way through the process as we are 

trying to identify the worst. The second stage, for example, the site 

inspection, is actually going to the site, gathering environmental 

samples and all the various media-soil, groundwater, surface 

water, air-that might be of concern for us to further evaluate if 

that is among the worst sites in the country. We, again, screen out a large number of sites at each stage in 

this process. To date, we have screened out about two-thirds of the 

sites on that inventory. Of the 37,000 sites, we have screened out 

over 22,000 of them. 

The final stage in the remedial site assessment process is the 

preparation of a hazard ranking system package. It is a formal regulatory process, has to go through rulemaking, and has to be able 

to withstand comment and legal challenge. It is a very intensive effort, perhaps gathering additional sampling. It follows the site inspection. Not all sites that pass the SI stage can meet the threshold, the score that was discussed earlier, and that we can substantiate and put into the public record to withstand legal criticism. For those sites what we do evaluate is for the various pathways, 

both health and ecological concerns, surface water, groundwater, 

air and soil, and we put higher priority on actual exposures as compared to potential exposures. A lot of the sites can be scored on 

that basis. 

We work closely with the Indian nations and States, trying to encourage them to conduct these initial stages of the assessment 

process. Just from what you heard earlier today, they are closer to 

the problems and can provide us the information. 

I will stop at this point and come back for a conclusion, but turn 

it over to Mr. Takata. 

Mr. TAKATA. Thank you, Larry. Members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear today. 

I would like to talk about what we did at the Bluewater uranium 

sites and the overall strategy that we set up to deal with the mining problems on the Navajo Nation. But before I do that I would like to briefly touch on how we have 

tried to support the Navajo Superfund program, since Region IX accepted lead responsibility for Navajo issues. 

We have awarded over $2 million in grants to the Navajo both 

to help them develop their own Superfund program and to conduct 

inspections at sites that are potential problems, like the uranium 

sites. We have used Superfund money to clean up over a half dozen 

sites, including the $500,000 that we spent at the Bluewater sites 

that I will discuss later. In fact, as we speak, we are responding 

to an emergency right now at the Fleet Maintenance site in Window Rock. 

We have also facilitated bringing in other agencies who can help 

both the Navajo and EPA. For example, we give grant funds to the 

State of Arizona, who can respond to emergencies on Navajo lands 

much quicker than we can from San Francisco. 
50 

We also work with other Federal agencies on problems that cut 

across agency lines like we are doing on the uranium mine sites. 

Our involvement with the uranium mine problems started soon 

after we took over as lead for Navajo issues. In November of 1990, as was stated earlier, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry issued a public health assessment on the Bluewater sites. We conducted a site assessment. We found that the radiation levels 

exceeded many times background and we decided that an emergency response should be taken. 

Who would do the work and who would pay for that work differed based on the parcel, who owned the parcel and who operated 

it. Let me spend a little bit of time on that, because I think it illustrates the different ways that Superfund can work. 

DOE took the responsibility for one of the parcels. They tried to 

get their lessee to do the cleanup. The lessee refused, so DOE paid 

EPA $275,000 and EPA did the cleanup. That is one way. 

Another way was there was a parcel that was owned by several 

private parties. We issued Superfund orders to those parties, and 

the companies cleaned up the parcel under our oversight. 

On three of the parcels we were unable to find responsible parties, so we cleaned up the parcels using Superfund money. It cost 

over a half million dollars. We did it with the understanding that 

the Department of the Interior would seek funds to pay for half of 

it. 

Having taken the actions at Bluewater, we realized that the uranium mine problem was much more widespread than we originally 

thought and that Superfund alone couldn't take care of all of the 

problem. So in January of 1992, we tried to pull together all the 

agencies that are involved with the problem. 

We got EPA, the Navajo, Department of the Interior, BLM, BIA, 

the Office of Surface Mining together in a room and we developed 

a strategy which is expressed in these two documents--if I can 

hand these around here to the members. One of them is a letter 

from EPA to DOl, and the other is an agreement among the Navajo 

programs. I think some of them were attached to Sadie's testimony. 

[The letters follow:] 
PETERSON ZAH 

PRESIDEN T 

THE 

NAVAJO 

NATION 

P 0 BOX JOB 

M E M 0 R A N D U M 

51 

\lii"DOW ROCK. ARIZONA 86\ I 5 (601) 811·4941 

MARSHAll PLUMMER 

VICE PRESIDEN T 

TO Bernad i ne Mar tin , Director 

FROM 

RE 

Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Depa rtment 

Sadie 

THE NAVAJO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

D THE NAVAJO ABANDONED MINE LAND 

ENT 

The Navajo Environmental Protection Administration (Navajo 

EPA) and the Navajo Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Department (Navajo AMLRD) have responsibilities to and interests in the 

protection of the public health and the environment . It is the 

purpose of this memo to identify areas of mutual concern, and to ensure cooperation and coordination between the two departments. 

I. BACKGROUND 

There are over 300 in-active leases for coal, copper, and 

uranium mining activities on the Navajo Nation. Each lease can have 

up to four mine sites; and each site can include more than one feature' that is hazardous to the public health and the 

environment. In addition to physical hazards, the uranium mine 

sites have elevated gamma radiation and concentrations of 

radionuclides that pose a significant long-term threat to adjacent 

populations, livestock, and wildlife. The goal of this memo is to insure that all the abandoned mine sites are addressed, according 

to the needs of the Navajo Na tion. 

II. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND INFORMATION EXCHANGE 

The parties agree as follows : 

1A feature is a descriptive component of a site that 

constitutes a hazard: ·a n open shaft, crumbling trench walls, 

abandoned explosives, etc. 
52 

1 ) The Na va jo AMLRD will refer to Navajo EPA all si t es t hat a r e i nel igible f or act i on under the Surface Mining cont rol 

Recl amation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) for assessment. The Navajo EPA will use the U.S. EPA's Preliminary Assessment and site Investigation Grant to conduct assessments on sites that are ineligible for SMCRA 

fu ndi ng. The Navajo EPA will refer additional abandoned mine 

sites, not recorded on the Mine Site Inventory, to NAMLRD for 

listing. The Na vajo AMLRD will use funds authorized by the 

Depa r tment of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, to prioritize 

and reclaim referral site s that are SMCRA-eligible . Pending the 

establ i shment of an Emergency Progr am within Navajo AMLRD, a mine 

site requ i ring immediate attention as an imminent threat to the 

public health and the environment, which Navajo AMLRD can not rec l a i m expeditiously, wi ll be assessed by the Navajo EPA and 

referr ed to the U. S. EPA Emergency Respon s e for r emoval action. 

2) Both departments will provide or exchange information re l ated to speciUC;; projects which require coordination . The 

information will be requested using the following format: 1) 

stating the name of the requestor 1 2) the geographic locations 

(specific Navajo AMLRD or Navajo EPA sites), 3) the purpose(s) of 

the request, and 4) the type of site-specific data requested. 

III. UNIFORM ASSESSMENT AND RECLAMATION STANDARDS 

During mine site assessments and reclamation actions, the 

following techniques will be employed: 

l) Site-specific grids, not to exceed 50 foot intervals, will 

be utilized to characterize the mine sites. The measurement techni ques for each survey point will require the following: 

a) True exposure rate assessments will be ~urveyed at one (l) meter above ground level and recorded in 

microRoentgen per hour (uRfhr); 

b) Equivalent Radium-226 soil concentration assessments will survey the point of interest on contact in counts per minute (cpm) or uR/hr, and converted to picoCuries 

pe r gram of soil (pCi/g) using the appropriate conversion 

equations; 

c) In the event that radioactive shine influences the contact reading, delta measurements will be implemented using a lead collimator2 to correct and interpret the 

readings in pCi/g. 

2) The assessment of natural and site background levels will 

be conducted for each site and/or cluster of mine sites 

2 or lead shield. 
53 

3) The Na va j o EPA and Na vajo AMLRD shall foll ow t heir o·• n guide lines and procedures. NAMLRD guidelines a nd procedures 'Wi l l 

consider elements such as relative r isk or danger to popu l ati on, the potential f or contamination of domestic water supplies, t he potential for direct human contact, and any adverse impact(s) to sensitive ecological and environme~tal settings. 

IV. FUTURE AGREEMENTS AND ISSUES 

1) on a yearly basis, the Navajo EPA and Navajo AMLRD shall meet to discuss reclamation progress and various issues that relate 

to t his Divisi on of Natural Resources memo, and make such ame ndments as may be deemed necessary. 

It i s hereby determined that this Division of Natura l 

Resources memo be adhered to on~~~~~· 

CONCURR ENCE : 

~iectOr, N;'vaJo~noed ~1ne 

Dn~lt~~fJ~~~&\t1n;fr;w 

Land Reclamat1on Department 

Protect1on Admin1stration 
54 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTA~ PROTECTION AGENCY 

IIEQION IX 

January 30, 1992 

Or. Jonathan P. Deason 

Director 

75 Hawthorne StrHt 

San Francisco. Ca. 941 OS.3901 

Office of Environmental Affairs u.s. Department of the Interior 

1849 C. Street NW PEA (MS2340) 

Washington DC 20240 

RE: Abandoned Uranium Mine Issues on the Navaio Nation 

Dear or. Deason: 

Thank you for the participation of your staff at the January 

22, 1992, meeting in Albuquerque to discuss the Federal Agencies 

role in the reclamation of abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo 

Nation. Present at the meeting were representatives of the 

Department of the Interior's Office of Environmental Affairs (OEA), 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

Office of .surface Mining (OSM), and Solicitor's Office. EPA was represented by members of my Site Evaluation Section and Emergency 

Response Section. A representative from Region's 9 ATSDR staff was also present, along with representatives from the Navajo Abandoned 

Mine Land Program (NAMLP) and Navajo Superfund Program (NSP). 

It was concluded that there exist numerous abandoned uranium 

mine sites on the Navajo Nation that pose significant safety, 

health and environmental hazards. It was agreed upon in principle, 

that the OSM, under the authority of the Surface Mine Control 

Reclamation Act of 1977, will continue to authorize the Navajo 

Abandoned Mine Land Program to prioritize and reclaim abandoned 

uranium mine sites on the Navajo Nation. The NSP will assist the 

NAMLP in developing radiation and reclamation standards. 

The NSP through the use of EPA's Preliminary Assessment/Site 

Investigations (PA/SI) grant will conduct preliminary assessments on sites that are ineligible for SMCRA funding. In addition, the 

NSP may conduct PA's on sites that the NAMLP has not been able to 

adequately address in a timely fashion and on sites that have 

additional hazards that NAMLP can not address. These efforts will 

be coordinated between the two Navajo agencies in consultation with 

EPA and OSM. 

It was also agreed that EPA, OSM, NAMLP and NSP will work 

together to review the progress of reclamation actions on the 

Navajo Nation. The NAMLP and the NSP will coordinate activities in 
55 

order to avoid duplication of efforts and costs. 

The EPA looks fon.rard to working with your staff and the 

Navajo Nation in developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

formalizing the proposed strategy. Attached is the draft outline 

of the strategy which describes the procedures and roles of each 

organizational agency. It vas agreed in the meeting by all 

participants that this draft strategy should be implemented by the 

appropriate offices pending development of the formalized MOU. 

Thank you for your consideration on this issue. If you have any 

questions or concerns, please contact Robert Bornstein of my staff 

at FTS 484-2298 (415-744-2298). 

enclosure: 

cc: Raymond Churan, DOI-OEA, Alb. 

William Allen, DOI-OEA, SF. 

John Craydon, DOI-OEA, HQ 

George Farris, DOI-BIA 

Philip Thompson, DOI-BIA 

Sincerely, 

~a:::::: Hazardous Waste Division 

Walt Mills, DOI-BIA, Navajo Office 

Thomas O'Hare, DOl-Office of Solicitor 

D.on White, EPA-FOB, Reg. 9 

Tom Mix, EPA-SES, Reg. 9 

Terry Brubaker, EPA-ERS, Reg. 9 

Robert Bornstein, EPA-ERS, Reg. 9 

Linda Wandres, EPA-ORC 

David Sitzler, DOI-BLM, Alb. 

Ron Sassaman, DOI-OSM, Alb. 

Joanne Manygoats, NSP 

Director, NAML 

Peterson Zah, President, Navajo Nation 

Bill Nelson, ATSDR 
DRAFT STRATEGY 

SCHEME TO ADDRESS URANIUM 

NSP/NAML 

COORDINATION/PRIORITIZATION 

\ 

\ 

; 

\ , 

' 

',\ 

~ 

SITES INELIGIBLE FOR SMCRA SITE E

NSP NAVAJO SUPERFUND PROGRAM 

NAML NAVAJO ABANDONED MINE LANDS 

SMCRA SURFACE MINE CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 
DRAFT STR

SITES ELIGIBLE F

~ NAML CONDUCTS ACT

NSP ASSISTS WITH CL

NAML REFERS POTENTIAL EMERGENCIES 

TONSP 
DRAFT STRATEGY 

SITES INELIGIBLE FOR SMCR

I 

NAVAJO SUPERFUND ENFORCEM

+ 

NAVAJO 

I 

..,... _ Nav

__ ..,... Nava

EPA REGION IX ~ --- -· . ! 

i 

EMERGENCY CONDITIONS 

HAZARD RANKING EVALUATION REMOVAL ASSESSMENT 

+ 

NPL LISTING NOT NPL ELIGIBLE 

j 

\ _ EPA ~~T-~ v:L ~~ EP~ REMO A

' ..- \_ ..... NAVAJO SUPERFUND REFERRAL 

EPA NPL SITE 

Edited on 1 / 
59 

URANIUM MINE STRATEGY PROPOSAL 

NSPJNAML PRIORITIZATION 

o The Navajo Superfund and Navajo Abandoned Mine Land Program 

work together and prioritize sites; 

SMCRA ELIGIBLE 

o Sites ELIGIBLE to be addressed by SMCRA will: 

A) Be A.::..;ressed with SMCRA Funds by the NAML, NSP will 

assist in determining clean-up goals and specifications. 

SMCRA INELIGIBLE 

o SITES INELIGIBLE FOR SMCRA WILL BE: 

A) ADDRESSED BY THE NSP THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF 

A NAVAJO NATION ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE LAW. 

NAVAJO NATION FUNDED ACTIONS 

*NAVAJO NATION ORDERJPRP RESPONSE 

*NAVAJO NATION FUNDED RESPONSE ACTION 

With the use of the EPA CORE Grant, the NSP will draft and develop 

legislation and regulations to enact a Navajo Nation Environmental 

Response Law. This legislation will be consistent with CERCLA and act 

as the Navajo Nation Superfund regulation. A Navajo Nation Superfund 

will be created to fund Navajo Nation actions. Potential sources of fund: 

oil, chemical, timber and transportation industries. 

B) NSP Will refer sites that can not be addressed at a local level 

to EPA for CERCLA evaluation: 
60 

SITES REFERRED TO EPA WILL BE ASSESSED FOR: 

A) REMOVAL CRITERIA FOR EMERGENCIES 

EPA REMOVAL ASSESSMENT 

REMOVAL ACTION -- NO REMOVAL ACTION 

B) HAZARD RANKING EVALUATION FOR POTENTIAL NPL SITES: 

NPL LISTING ·····- NOT ELIGIBLE 

C) SITES INELIGIBLE FOR EPA NPL LIST AND/OR REMCVAL 

ACTIONS WILL BE REFERRED BACK TO NSP FOR ENFORCEMENT. 
61 

f1 £ 12 .,, r--.: <t.. .I:. "' .22, 1 "! 1 2.. r. ,._ ALB~ "< t-J.Jv.' 

a~/t=I'A/ r rJAVAJc. UiL-'"'''"'"', !-1,".,;- LI)An-E tv/4.7,'. 

f..)AN£ 0{'<..0."' I Z."'I'IuN i rlioNC 
62 

Mr. TAKATA. The strategy had a couple components. For sites 

that were eligible under the Surface Mining Act, the Office of Surface Mines would work with the Navajo Abandoned Mine Land program. They would prioritize those sites and then they would reclaim them as funds were available under the Surface Mining Act, 

and as you heard earlier, there are still funds available. The second component was that for sites that were not eligible 

for the Surface Mining Act or more serious sites whether or not 

they were eligible EPA would work with the Navajo Superfund program. The Navajo Superfund program would use the grant funds 

that we gave them to do inspections and then the worse sites would 

be candidates for either emergency action or listing on the National 

Priorities List. 

We developed a strategy not to avoid our responsibilities under 

Superfund, but what we were trying to do is maximize everybody's 

resources to address the problems. DOl had some money. We were 

short on money. We tried to save Superfund money for what we 

call the cream of the crop-the worst sites. 

Having talked to Sadie last week, and listening to the Navajo 

panel today, I realize the strategy may not be working as well as 

it should. First, it appears that the Surface Mining Act may not 

cover all parts of the problem. The Surface Mining Act focuses 

more on physical safety and less on the public health aspects of radiation. It appears as though it doesn't cover all the off-site aspects, 

and I think we are just beginning to realize that now. 

I note, based on the agreement that I passed around, that we 

haven't been operating under this agreement that long. The initial 

concept was in early 1992 and the agreement between the two Navajo programs was signed in 1993. Second, it appears that the agencies need to do a better job in 

coordinating with each other. In particular, there appears to be a 

very large misunderstanding between the Navajo and EPA in San 

Francisco about how sites could be eligible for Superfund and what 

steps need to be taken next on those sites that are a priority to the 

Navajo. For example, we have not determined that King Tutt should not 

be listed on the NPL. That is a very large misunderstanding. We 

were working on the concept of aggregating sites as was discussed, but they used the term "on hold." We did put the concept on hold 

because we honestly believed that the Abandoned Mine Land program was addressing most of those sites under the Surface Mining 

Act. 

If the Navajo now feel that that program won't work for the bulk 

of those sites, we need to take the next step, which is to collect a 

little bit more data. We may need to expand our site inspection, develop one of these hazard ranking packages that Larry mentioned, 

and see if it is eligible for listing. That is something that is eligible 

under the grant that we give to the Navajo, and we are willing to 

do that. 

You can see it in the letter from EPA to DOl, and in the MOA 

it talks about how sites can drop out and become eligible for 

Superfund. 

Also, we agree in concept with most of the recommendations that 

were made in Sadie's testimony, especially number three. I think 
63 

what it comes down to is what sites we are going to work on and 

what sites the Office of Surface Mining is going to work on and 

how do we determine what the lead is her recommendation number 

three is that we all need to get together and sit down with the list 

of sites, divide them up and figure out whose got what, I agree 

with that the most. 

AB a follow-up to this hearing, I plan to visit the Navajo Nation 

fairly soon, sit down with Sadie and her staff and try to do that 

sorting out. But clarifying all of those misunderstandings I don't 

think will be enough to take care of all the uranium mine problems 

right away. It's likely that a small number of sites will have high 

enough radiation levels or populations exposed to be eligible for 

Superfund cleanup, and even if they all were, Superfund alone 

couldn't afford to clean up all of the thousand sites. So I think one 

of the solutions that you might want to look at is whether or not 

the Surface Mining Act could be broadened to cover some of the 

public health issues, some of the radiation issues, some of the offsite issues. That is it. Thank you. And I would be happy to answer questions 

later. Mr. REED. I would just like, perhaps, to conclude with overall remarks about the outreach that the Superfund and EPA is having 

on Indian lands issues. We have about 500 potential sites on Indian lands in our overall inventory, sites that we are screening 

through. Ten have been proposed or put final on our National Priorities List, and we have completed over 30 removals on Indian 

lands sites. 

Our total commitment of funding, I believe, to the Indian tribes 

through last year is about $6 million that we have been able to do 

either through core grants to build up State programs or to assist 

in conducting actual preliminary assessments and site inspections 

at sites. 

We also provide technical assistance training nationwide where 

we invite the Navajo tribe to participate, and this one question 

came up, there is a possibility of up to $50,000 in grants available 

for those sites on the National Priorities List for the public to participate in the decision-making at those sites. We have invited and the Navajo have participated in, and we 

have appreciated it, at our last two National Site Assessment Conferences, and we hope they will be participating in our conference 

this year. We are trying to establish a broader joint National Hazardous Waste Tribal Conference for this upcoming year in the 

spring, and to be able to refine our policies for working with tribes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:] 
64 

STATEMENT OF 

LARRY G. REED 

DIRECTOR, HAZARDOUS SITE EVALUATION DIVISION 

OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE 

AND 

KEITH TAKATA 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SUPERFUND PROGRAMS 

REGION 9 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

-- AND THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 4, 1993 

Chairman Miller, Chairman Richardson, and Members of the 

Subcommittees: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. I am Larry G. Reed , Director of the Hazardous Site 

Evaluation Division within the Env ironmenta l Protection Agency's 

(EPA's) Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. With me today 

is Keith Takata, Deputy Director of Superfund Programs within 

EPA's Region 9. We are here today to discuss the problems caused 

by uranium wastes on the lands of the Navajo Nation. Although 

EPA oversees the response to s hort-term a nd l ong -term threats to 

public health and the environment from uncontrolle d releases of 

hazardous substances, a complex set of Federal, State and Tri bal 

regulations governs uranium extraction and beneficiation 

activities. 

The statutes (and associated r e gulations) include the Cl ea n 

Water Act, the Clean Air Act , the Safe Drinking Water Ac t, and 

the Atomic Energy Act as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). The primary Federal agenc ies 
65 

2 

responsible for implementing these statutes are EPA, the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Department of Energy (DOE). 

The Clea n Air Act gives EPA the authority to establish 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for "conventional" 

pollutants, like particulates, and to regu_late emission of 

hazardous pollutants, such as radon . Both of these air 

polluta nts are emitted by uranium extraction and beneficia tion 

activities. 

The Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to impose 

effluent limits, via permits, on point-source discharges of 

pollutants in process wastewaters or stormwaters to waters of the 

United States from inactive and active mine sites, including 

uranium extraction and beneficiation operations . 

EPA established an Underground Injection Control {UIC) 

program unde r the a uthority of the Safe Drinking Water Act . 

Through the program, EPA established a permit system to ensure 

underground sources of drinking water are protected from the 

inj ection of process fluids and liquid wastes, including those 

produced during uranium extraction and beneficiation, into the 

subs urface via wells . 

Under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

(UMTRCA), EPA h a s the authority, to establish standards of general 

applica tion that protect the public health, safety and the 

environme nt f r om radiologica l and non-radiological hazar d s 

associated with r esidual radioactive materials at uranium 

millings sites, associated vicinity properties, and at disposal 
J 

sites. It also authorized EPA to establish standards for 

managing uranium tailings and wastes at active sites. Also under 

UMTRCA, DOE's role is to actually clean up and control designated 

inactive uranium tailings piles to comply with EPA standards. 

UMTRCA requires t~at.the Department of Energy (DOE) obtain 

NRC concurrence for the remedies DOE selects for cleaning up and 

controlling inactive sites. Under UMTRCA, the NRC is also 

responsible for licensing active uranium mills and licensing 

inactive uranium tailings sites that have undergone remediation. 

Although the NRC has promulgated radiation protection standards 

that regulate active and inactive uranium milling sites, the NRC 

has no regulatory authority over uranium mines, except the 

aboveground activities of solution mines. 

The authority of State agencies to regulate uranium 

extraction and beneficiation activities comes from two sources, 

federally authorized programs and State statutory authority. The 

Federal programs applicable to uranium extraction and 

b e n e ficiation activities tha t can b e transferred to the S tates 

include the Underground Injection Control program, the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, and NRC 

licensing and radiation protection standards. For a State to be 

able to administer any or all of the se Federal programs, the 

State must have requirements that are at least as stringent as 

the respective Federal programs. 

We will now explain the system EPA uses in the Superfund 

program to ensure the most hazardous sites are addressed first. 
67 

4 

EPA has developed a detailed system to evaluate and prioritize 

sites. We call this the site assessment process. An 

understanding of this process will guide the Congress in helping 

EPA deal appropriately with the issues concerning the Navajo 

Nation. 

To implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), Congress 

mandated the creation of the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution contingency Plan, or NCP. The NCP addresses 

three authorities of Superfund: the removal, remedial, and 

enforcement programs. In general, the removal program is tasked 

to respond to emergencies, while the remedial program addresses 

long-term risk and environmental remediation or restoration. The 

enforcement program oversees the response by potentially 

responsible parties or seeks to recover expended funds. 

When EPA learns of sites, it refers them to either the 

removal or remedial program for investigation, depending on the 

immediacy of the reported threat. Sites directed to the remedial 

program are entered into the Superfund Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information 

System (CERCLIS). CERCLIS is EPA's tracking database for all 

Superfund sites. Inclusion on ~ERCLIS is not an indicator of 

documented contamination or determination of threat, but is a way 

to track all EPA response activities. After CERCLIS entry, EPA 

schedules a preliminary assessment (PA) within 12 months. The 

Site Assessment Branch of the remedial program characterizes 
68 

5 

threats posed by sites and identifies the nation's highest longterm r emediation priorities. The primary objec tive of site 

assessment is to evaluate sites using the Hazard Ranking System 

(HRS) and identify which sites should be on the National 

Priorities List (NPL) for long-term remediation. 

The NPL is EPA's list of those sites with the highest 

prior ity for long-term remediation. With few exceptions, sites 

listed on the NPL have had a remedial PA, site inspection, a nd 

HRS eva luation. Sites on the NPL include privately and publicly 

owned l a nds and facil i ties. currently there are 1,266 sites on 

or proposed for the NPL. Sites are organized by State and Indian 

Tribe a nd categorized by HRS score. Score alone may not 

correlate with threat , although the score can be an indic ation of 

rela t ive risk. As we stated before, scoring is done using the 

Haz ard Ranking Syste m: The HRS eva luates threats posed to human 

and environmental populations via four pathways: ground wate r, 

surface water, so il e xposure, and air. The HRS considers actual 

and potential releases and exposure s of hazardous substances 

toge ther with the population that has been or might be affected . 

Evaluati ng the four pathways includes considering the likeli hood 

o f r e l ease or exposure, waste characteristics, and the targets or 

receptors that might be affect ~. Likelihood of release 

considers an observe d (actual) release or the potential for 

release. Observed release may be based on visual evide nce (~, 

outfall pipe discharging into s urface water) or analytical 

results (~, soil contamination significantly above background 
69 

6 

levels). Potential for release considers such fac tors as depth 

to aquifer, waste containment, overland flow distance, flood 

frequency and containment, observed soil contamination, and gas 

and particulate air migration potential. Evaluating waste 

characte ristics includes human and ecosystem toxicity, ground 

water and air mobility, sediment persistence, and aqueous food 

chain bioaccumulation of contaminants, as well as hazardous waste 

quantity. Targets include the nearby population, populations 

served by ground water and surface water within designated 

dis tance limits, consumer-related industries that might use water 

(such as agriculture and food preparation) , human food chain 

production (such as fisheri e s), wellhead protection areas, and 

sensitjve e nvironments (such as wetlands and habitats for 

endangered and threatened species). The HRS also evaluates 

actual or potential surface water releases in ground water 

discharge areas. The HRS weighs heavily the evaluation of 

hazardous waste quantity and waste containment; the lower the 

waste quantity and the more reliable the containment, the lower 

the risk. 

Data collection for HRS evaluation begins with the 

preliminary assessment . The PA is a screening assessment that 

distinguishes sites posing lit~e or no potential threat to human 

health and the e n vironment from sites that may pose a significant 

threat and warrant further investigation . The PA is a 

compilation of readily available information about the site and 

its surroundings. It identifies populations and other targets 
70 

7 

that might be affected by the site. It includes a reconnaissance 

of the site and its surrounding environment but does not include 

sampling. The PA examines key HRS factors such as targets that 

can indicate a preliminary HRS score greater than the minimum 

score for NPL eligibility (28.5) and that can be evaluated within 

the investigation's limited scope. The PA identifies historical 

waste generation and disposal practices, hazardous substances 

associated with the site, potential sources of hazardous 

substances, important migration pathways, and affected targets. 

The PA sets priorities for conducting site inspections (Sis) and 

gathers existing data t o facilitate later evaluation of the 

release pursuant to the HRS, if warranted. 

Data important to the HRS evaluation-for example, analytical 

data indicating hazardous substance releases and targets exposed 

to actual contamination-may not be available during the PA. In 

these situations, the PA investigator applies his or her 

professional judgme nt in a reasonable and consiste nt manner to 

form hypotheses regarding the likelihood of r e l ease of h azardous 

subs t a n ces and their migration to targets. 

If the PA indicates that the site poses a significant threat 

with the need for p ossible long-term remediation, samples must be 

collected and a site inspection, ( SI) performed. Th e purpose of 

the SI is to eliminate from further NPL consideration those 

releases that pose no significant threat to public health and the 

environment; to collect or develop additional data to evaluate 

the release pursuant to the HRS, if appropriate ; a nd to support 
71 

8 

remedial investigations or response actions under other 

authorities. Specifically, the SI investigates the release and 

migration (or potential release) of a hazardous substance to 

drinking water wells and intakes; the release and migration of a 

hazardous substance to surface water sensitive environme~ts or 

fisheries; the presence of a hazardous substance on residential, 

school, or day care properties or in terrestrial sensitive 

environments; and the release of a hazardous s ubstance to the 

air. 

The scope of an sr can often be limited to sampling to 

confirm whether the site is a potential NPL candidate. A few 

strategically located samples may indicate that no further action 

is needed, and collecting all the information required for NPL 

documentation is unnecessary . 

If it appears that the site will qualify for the NPL, an 

expanded SI will collect all data necessary to prepare an HRS 

scoring package to propose the site to the NPL. Expanded SI 

activities include collecting s amples to attribute hazardous 

substances to site operations, establishing representative 

background levels, and obtaining any missing HRS data to document 

pathways of concern. The expanded SI may require extensive field 

activities such as monitoring w~ll installation , air sampling, 

geophysical studies, and complex background sampling studies. 

The expanded SI typically requires 25 to 35 samples and 600 to 

650 (additional) technical hours. The complexity of the site and 
72 

9 

the need for special procedures determine the scope of the 

investigation. 

At the end of the SI, EPA decides whether the site should 

undergo further investigation (resulting in possible NPL 

placement and remedi~tion) or be remqved from further Superfund 

consideration. An HRS score of 28.5 or higher qualifies a site 

for NPL proposal. However, the decision to propose a site to the 

NPL is based on other factors as well. EPA has developed 

detailed guidelines for prioritizing sites for NPL proposal. The 

guidelines identify factors to help EPA regions decide the order 

in which they should consider sites with completed Sis for 

proposal to the NPL, including whether a potentially responsible 

party (PRP) has completed, scheduled, or undertaken a response 

action. 

The site assessment process we have just described comprises 

the first steps in putting sites on the NPL; however, where we 

find acute and immediate threats, the Agency wi11 take emergency 

or short-term removal actions to stabilize the threat. To date, 

we have done an initial assessment or a PA at 35 , 568 sites--94.48 

percent of the total in our inventory. 

NAVAJO NATION LANDS 

EPA's Region 9 has been i~yolved in addressing abandoned 

uranium mine sites located on Navajo Nation lands. Our 

discussion will focus on the following areas: Re gion 9's site 

assessment strategy for addressing other uranium mine sites; an 
73 

10 

overview of Region 9's response action at the Bluewater Uranium 

Mine Sites; and Navajo Superfund Program development. 

The Navajo Nation lands are geographically located in the 

states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. These states fall 

within three difLerent EPA Regions: Regions 6, B, and 9. 

Although each region has worked with the Navajo Nation, beginning 

in october 1990, Region 9 assumed the lead for environmental 

issues on the Navajo Nation lands. The Superfund Program in 

Region 9 has been actively assisting the Navajo Environme ntal 

Protection Administration to address potential uncontrolled 

hazardous waste sites and to develop the capability to address 

those sites that cannot be remediated through the Superfund 

process. 

SITE ASSESSMENT STRATEGY FOR OTHER URANIUM MINE SITES 

Region 9 recognized that the large number of abandoned 

uranium mine sites located on the Navajo lands was more than the 

Age ncy could handle by itself and that other Federal Agenc ies 

involved may have an applicable regulatory authority. Therefore, 

a meeting was convened in New Mexico on January 22, 1992, to 

discuss the Federal Agencies role in the reclamation of abandoned 

uranium mines on the Navajo Nation. Present at the meeting were 

representatives of the Department of Interior ' s Office of 

Environmental Affairs (OEA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Office of Surface Mining (OSM), 

and Solicitor's Office; EPA Region 9; ATSDR; and representatives 
74 

11 

from the Navajo Abandoned Mine Land Program (NAMLP) and Navajo 

Superfund Program (NSP). 

At the January 22 meeting, it was concluded that there exist 

numerous abandoned uranium mine sites on the Navajo Nation that 

pose significant safety, health and environmental hazards. It 

was agreed upon in principle that the OSM, under the authority of 

the Surface Mine Control Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), would 

continue to authorize the NAMLP to prioritize and reclaim 

abandoned uranium mine sites on the Navajo Nation. The NSP will 

assist the NAMLP in developing radiation and reclamation 

standards. It was also concluded that, through the use of EPA's 

Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection grant, NSP would conduct 

preliminary assessments on sites that the NAMLP has not been able 

to adequately address in a timely fashion and on sites that have 

additional hazards that NAMLP can not address. Also, all 

agencies agreed to work together to review the progress of 

reclamation actions on the Navajo Nation. Therefore, in order to 

avoid duplication of efforts and costs, NAMLP and the NSP are 

coordinating their activities in consultation with EPA and OSM. 

Since the January 22 meeting, the NAMLP (under the Navajo 

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Department, or "NAMLRD") and the 

NSP (unde r the Navajo Environmental Protection Administration, or 

"NEPA") have formalized a memorandum of understanding which 

identifies areas of cooperation and coordination for the two 

programs, since both programs have the responsibility for 

protecting the environment and pu?lic health from mining 
75 

1 2 

pollution and other relate d hazards. The NAMLP will ref er to the 

NSP all sites that are ineligible for action unde r the SMCRA for 

a sse s sment, while the NSP will refer additional abandoned mine 

sites, not recorded on the Mine Site Inventory, to NAMLP for 

lis ting. The NAMLP will use funds authorized by OSM to 

prioritize and reclaim referral sites that are eligible for 

r e clamation under SMCRA. Pending the establishment of an 

Emergency Program within NAMLRD, mine sites requiring imme diate 

attention as an imminent threat to the public health and the 

environment that AMLRD cannot reclaim expeditiously will be 

assessed by the NSP and referred to the EPA for further action if 

necessary. There are approximately 1104 sites where mining 

activities took place that g e nerally need to be reclaime d but 

they are not. The sites of conce rn involve open pits, portals, 

wa ste rock, waste piles, equipment etc. Generally, the se s ites 

present physical and safety hazards. 

One limitation on the "reclamation" actions at thes e sites 

is that SMCRA does not norma lly allow the NAMLP to conduct 

activities off-site, to monitor groundwater, or c onduct sampling, 

among other things. Federal agencies and the Navajo Nation 

o rig i nally believed tha t SMCRA rec lamation wa s all that wo uld be 

needed for most of the 110 4 si~s; however, Region 9 understands 

the Navajo Nation now be li eve s that s ome of these s ites may have 

groundwater contaminatio n that need additional study to 

characterize fully. 
76 

13 

These sites may need remediation that SMCRA cannot address. 

For those sites that need further study, the NSP will conduct 

furthe r assessments under a PA/SI grant. If a site proves to be 

a NPL-c3liber site, the NPL listing process will be continued. 

If a site does not score, we will refer the site back to the NSP. 

If a response action should be taken at sites that are ineligible 

for listing on the NPL, Region 9 will work with the appropriate 

Federa l and Tribal agencies to look at alternate methods of 

clea ning up the sites. 

STATUS OF ABANDONED URANIUM MINE SITES 

To date, 47 abandoned uranium mine sites have been e ntered 

into the CERCLIS database by the EPA and the NSP. Forty-three 

have been evaluated with 17 being screened out as not requiring 

further action under CERCLA. Twenty-six sites were recommended 

as low priority fo r further work because these sites would be the 

subject of future site reclamation activities. If these sites 

are successfully reclaimed and required no additional cleanup, 

they wi ll be screened out as not requiring further action under 

CERCLA. If, however , there are problems tha t cannot be addressed 

und er SMCRA, we will continue the site assessment process to 

determine if the site conditions are serious enough to be cleaned 

up by EPA . 

OVERVIEW OF RESPONSE ACTION AT THE BLUEWATER URANIUM MINE 

SITES 

EPA Region 9 became aware o f the Bluewater Uranium Mine 

Sites (Bluewater) in October c39 0 after a notification from the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that 
77 

14 

pot e ntial health hazards might be associated with the abandoned 

uranium mines. The Bluewater Uranium Mine Sites are composed of 

the Brown-Vandever, Brown-Nanabah and Navajo-Desiderio Mines. 

The sites are located approximately five miles west of Prewitt, 

New Mexico and lie within the Grants Uranium Mining District. 

The Brown-Vandever and Brown-Nanabah mines are located on four 

parce ls of land which includes two Native American allotment 

parcels, one Federal parcel administered by the Department of 

Energy and one private ly owned parcel. At the request of the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the 

Navajo Superfund Program, EPA Region 9 conducted a site 

assessment of the property to determine the radiological 

conditions at the sites and to evaluate if a removal action was 

warranted. The radiological assessment was conducted in November 

199 0. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation in La s Vegas, NV 

assisted Region 9. Elevated gamma emissions (exceeding fifty 

times background in certain locations) were detected during the 

a ssessment. In addition, elevated concentrations of 

radionuclides were d e t ected within on-site soil. 

After review by Region 9, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, 

a nd ATSDR, it was determined that a response actio n was warranted 

at the Sites. After several co~rdination meetings with the 

Depa rtme nt of Ene rgy (DOE), De partment of Inte rior's Bureaus of 

Ind ian Affairs and Land Management, it was decided that EPA 

should proceed with a response. DOE, which owns portions of the 
78 

15 

Brown-Vandever Site , would conduct its own response on its lands 

pursuant to Executive Order 12580. 

To reduce the immediate potential radiological hazards 

associated with the mines, the following response would be taken: 

1) apply an earthen cover to effectively reduce .gamma 

radiation emissions and potential for radionuclide 

migration; 

2 ) fill, seal, and camp mine adits, inclines and ventilation 

shafts to r educe the migration of radon gas emissions ; a nd 

3) revegetate reclaimed areas and post warning signs. 

The response actions for the Bluewater sites began in August 1991 

and were completed in october 1991. Post response gamma surveys 

revealed that the gamma radiation levels have been actively 

reduced to natural conditions. EPA and ATSDR concur that the 

s ites have been adequate l y reclaimed to leve ls that are 

protecti ve of huma n health and the environme nt. The response 

actions were done at a cost of $856,521 to the Federal 

government. Reg ion 9 and DOl agreed to share the cost ($581,521) 

for the two Native Ame rican allotted parcels . EPA has requested 

DOI to pay 1/2 o f EPA's expense. DOE's cost was $275,000. 

TRIBAL SUPERFUND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 

Region 9 ha s supported the NSP by providing funds to develop 

capabilities (including writing new laws, developing t axes , and 

developing revenue to clean up sites) so that the Navajo Na t ion 

can address these problems itself and make itself 

self-sufficient. S ince October, 1990 , Region 9's Superfund 

Program has invested approximately $2,000,000 in financia l 

assis tance to the Navajo Superfund Program for site assessments 
79 

16 

and for non-site specific (administrative related) activities 

under a Core Program cooperative agreement. PA/SI funds have 

been used for site discovery and to conduct preliminary 

assessments and site inspections at some of the abandoned uranium 

mine sites. The Core Program qooperative agreement is being used 

by NSP to develop the capability to take on the responsibility 

for more sites, to write environmental regulations and 

procedures, to develop a tax structure and/or a plan to develop 

revenue to support response activities that currently do not have 

a funding source . 

More specifically, the NSP has completed a study which 

identifies the present governmental mechanis ms available to 

address environmental hazardous releases on Navajo Nation lands. 

This study revealed that, although the Federal government has 

many established programs to address sites containing hazardous 

substances on the Navajo Nation land, these programs do not 

address all of the sites which are priorities for the Navajo 

Nation. The study concluded that since many Federa lly ineligible 

sites will continue to be potential environmental hazards on the 

Navajo Nation, one potential solution is for the Navajo Nation to 

develop its own response mechanisms to address these sites. The 

NSP is now looking at options to develop their own hazardous 

waste program. 

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, we would like to tell you briefly about the 

overall Superfund program's involvement with the Navajo Nation. 
80 

17 

Under the authority of CERCLA as amended by SARA, EPA provides 

financial and techni cal assistance to Indian tribal governments 

nationwide in an effort to build Indian tribal capacity to 

develop environmental regulations and participate in hazardous 

waste ea~ups on Indian lands. 

In addition to financial assistance, Superfund provides 

technical assistance to Indian tribal governments in many areas: 

conducting removal and remedial actions on tribal lands; 

impleme nting SARA Title III Community Right-to-Know Emergency 

Planning; administering CAs and SACAs; training response and 

planning personnel for tribal emergencies;- conducting preliminary 

assessments and site investigations; as well as providing 

outreach to Indian tribal governments on a regular basis. 

The Agency's Superfund program is working to realize its 

l ong- term strategy of facilitating Indian tribal participation by 

providing financial and technical assistance and encouraging 

Indian tribes to identify, assess, and implement remedies at 

hazardou s waste sites. 

Again, We thank you for your time and the opportunity to 

appear before you. We will be happy to answer your questions. 

******* 
81 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Whitfield? 

STATEMENT OF R. PAT WHITFIELD 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chainnan, I appreciate the opportunity to 

appear before this joint hearing to discuss the activities of the U.S. 

Department of Energy in dealing with contamination resulting 

from uranium mining and processing activities conducted on Navajo Nation lands. 

I respectfully request that my written statement be entered into 

the record, and on that basis I will briefly review the statement. 

At issue in today's hearings are abandoned mines on Navajo Nation lands. The Navajo Nation has expressed a grave concern about 

the potential health and environmental impacts from these abandoned mines. The Department of Energy shares their concerns and 

is pleased to have the opportunity to discuss our efforts in remediating mining and processing sites. 

In this testimony I would like to discuss our substantial progress 

in remediating those sites and explain the current authority that 

the Department has to deal with this important issue on Navajo 

lands. 

I will first discuss the two uranium mine reclamation and remediation programs within the purview of the Department. They are 

the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project, and the Uranium Leasing Program. These activities were the direct result of 

mining and milling operations conducted for the purpose of obtaining uranium for commercial use and for the Department of Energy 

nuclear weapons program. Additionally, in response to the expressed interest of this committee, I will provide you with infonnation concerning the activities 

of the fonnerly utilized sites remedial action program which does 

not include any sites on Navajo Nation lands. 

Finally, I will discuss the Department's currently limited authority to remediate abandoned mines on the Navajo lands. 

In 1978, Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act, Public Law 95-604, known as UMTRCA. This Act 

tasked the DOE with remediation of mill tailings at 24 inactive 

uranium mill processing sites. These sites are located, with the exception of one in Pennsylvania, in the western half of the United 

States. It is important to note that this Act was established to 

clean up processing sites, not actual mining sites. 

The DOE established the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action 

Project to execute this program. Four of the 24 inactive mill 

tailings sites are located on the Navajo Nation lands. The Depart- ment has completed remediation on two of these sites and will complete remediation on the other two by 1994. You have already identified those four sites. Remedial actions at the Shiprock and Tuba City sites were completed in 1986 and 1990, respectively. The Monument Valley and 

Mexican Hat sites are currently undergoing remediation with 

Monument Valley tailings being codisposed at Mexican Hat. These 

sites are scheduled to be completed in March of 1994 and December of 1994, respectively. 

A total of 31 vicinity properties were identified for remedial action on the Navajo Nation lands. Remedial action has been com-
82 

pleted at 28 of these properties. Remediation of the remammg 

properties is under way and should be completed in 1993. These 

properties are located near the Mexican Hat and Monument Valley 

sites and consist of a small wetland, a steep canyon, and a private 

residence. 

The Navajo Nation participates in the remedial action through a 

cooperative agreement which has been executed by the Department, the Navajo Nation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Under the cooperative agreement the Department provides full 

funding for the active participation of the Nation in remedial action 

concurrence and oversight of remedial action execution. 

Although the Department has authority to remediate uranium 

mill processing sites on Navajo lands under UMTRCA, it has limited authority to address uranium mines. Only one mine on Navajo 

lands has fallen under the responsibility of the Department 

through the uranium leasing program, and remediation of this site 

is already completed. 

Today's hearing raises a key issue. The Navajo Nation has been 

left with numerous abandoned uranium mines resulting from mining operations conducted to provide uranium for the Nation's nuclear weapons program. As I have stated, other than the reclamation work conducted at the Haystack Mine under the Uranium 

Leasing Program, the Department of Energy has not carried out 

any other reclamation efforts on abandoned uranium mines within 

the boundaries of the Navajo Nation. 

As stewards of similarly contaminated lands, the Department is 

acutely aware of the profoundly troubled legacy left by these mining activities. However, we must respectfully indicate that the Department has neither the legal authority nor the appropriated 

funding and associated budget caps to carry out the same kind of 

reclamation at abandoned mines within the boundaries of the Navajo Nation. 

The Department of Energy's cleanup authority is currently limited under UMTRCA and the Uranium Leasing Program to the 24 

designated mill processing sites and the 43 uranium lease sites. Although there is a connection between the mining operations and 

the needs of the nuclear weapons program, Congress has not assigned the Department of Energy with responsibility for executing 

reclamation or remedial action of abandoned uranium mines. 

In conclusion, the environmental and health affects of the materials handled under the programs I have been discussing are of key 

importance to the U.S. Department of Energy. All three programs-the mill tailings, the Uranium Leasing Program, and the 

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program-are managed 

under the Environmental Management Program and executed in 

accordance with a mandate to protect the health and environment 

of the community. 

I would like to acknowledge that, through our efforts in remediating uranium mining and mill sites, our Department has developed significant experience in this area and would be pleased to 

share any information with other Federal agencies, States, and the 

Navajo Nation that would be helpful. 
83 

Thank you for the opportunity to address this committee regarding the Department's experience in conducting remedial actions on 

Navajo lands. I will be glad to answer questions as you desire. Mr. MILLER. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 
84 

STATEMENT OF 

R. PAT WHITFIELD 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

AND 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIVE AMERICAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

November 4, 1993 
85 

Mr. Chairmen, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee to 

discuss the activities of the U. S. Department of Energy in dealing with 

contamination resulting from uranium mining and processing activities 

conducted on Navajo Nation lands. 

SUMMARY 

At issue in today ' s hearing are abandoned mines on Navajo Nation lands. The 

Navajo Nation has expressed a grave concern about the potential health and 

environmental impacts from these abandoned mines. The Department of Energy 

shares their concerns and is pleased to have the opportunity to discuss our 

efforts in remediating uranium mining and processing sites . Only a few 

uranium mill processing sites and one uranium mining site on Navajo lands 

currently actually fall under the Department ' s authority . In this testimony, 

I would like to discuss our substantial progress in remediating those sites, 

and explain the current authority that DOE has to deal with this important 

issue on Navajo lands. 

In my testimony today, I will first discuss the two uranium mine reclamation 

and remediation programs within the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy: 

the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project and the Uranium 

Leasing Program. These activities were the direct result of mining and 

milling operations conducted for the purpose of obtaining uranium for 

commercial use and for the Department of Energy nuclear weapons program , 

respectively. Additionally, in response to the expressed interest of this 

Committee, I will provide you with information concerning the activities of 
86 

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), which doe s not 

include any sites on Navajo Nation lands. Finally , will discuss the 

Department ' s currently limited authority to remediate abandoned mines on the 

Navajo Nation lands. 

I. URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REMEDIAL ACTION PROJECT 

In 1978, Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

(Public Law 95-604), known as UMTRCA . The UMTRCA ta sked the DOE with 

remediation of mill tailings at twenty-four inactive uranium mill processing 

sites. These sites are located, with the exception of one in Pennsylvania, in 

the western half of the United States. It is important to note that UMTRCA 

was established to clean up processing sites, not actual mining site s, and 

were often centralized facilitie s located away from the mines. The purpose of 

UMTRCA as stated in Section 7901(b)(l) of the Act was to provide "a program of 

assessment and remedial action at such sites ... in order to stabilize and 

control such tailing s in a safe and environmentally sound manner and to 

minimize or eliminate radiation health hazards to the public . . . " 

The DOE established the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project 

to execute this program . Under the UMTRA, DOE is required to: 

• Conduct remedial action at the processing sites; and 

• Remediate off-site properties contaminated with uranium mill tailing s 

that originated from the designated processing sites. These "vicinity 

properties" are a mixture of re sidences, commercial structures and open 

lands where tailings have been dispersed from the processing site by 
87 

wind or water, or removed by individuals for construction purposes 

before potentially harmful effects were recognized. 

Three of the twenty-four inactive mill tailings sites are located on the 

Navajo Nation lands. The Department has already completed remed i ation on two 

of these sites and will complete remediation on the other two by 1994 . These 

sites are: 

(1) Shiprock , New Mexico; 

(2) Monument Valley , Arizona ; 

(3) Mexi can Hat, Utah ; and 

(4) Tuba City , Arizona . Tuba City is on disputed lands in the Bennett 

freeze zone, which by latest court decision is within the de signated 

boundaries of the Navajo Nation . 

Remedial actions at the Shiprock and Tuba City sites were completed in 1986 

and 1990, re spectively . The UMTRA Project is currentl y negotiating a 

custodial agreement for the long term surveillance and maintenance of the 

disposal cells. 

The Monument Valley and Mexi can Hat sites are currently undergoing remediation 

with Monument Valley tailings being codisposed at Me xican Hat . The se sites 

are scheduled to be completed in March of 1994 and De cember of 1994 

respectively . Surface remedial action includes the demolition of mill 

equipment and the consolidation and stabilization of mill tailings. The DOE 

is al so conducting a groundwater program to addre ss groundwater contamination 

issue s at these sites. 

3 
88 

A total of thirty-one vicinity properties were identified for remedial action 

on the Navajo Nation lands. Remedial action has been completed at twentyeight of these properties. Remediation of the remaining properties is 

underway and should be completed in 1993 . These properties are located near 

the Mexican Hat and Monument Valley sites and consist of a small wetland, a 

steep canyon, and a private residence . 

The Navajo Nation participates in the remedial action through a cooperative 

agreement which has been executed by the DOE, the Navajo Nation, and the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A separate cooperative agreement was 

negotiated for the Tuba City site to include the participation of the Hopi 

Tribe, which also has an interest in the Bennett freeze land dispute. Under 

the cooperative agreements, the DOE provides full funding for the active 

participation of the Nation in remedial action concurrence and oversight of 

remedial action execution. 

II. URANIUM LEASING PROGRAM 

Al though the Departmeni ha s authority to remediate uranium mill processing 

sites on Navajo lands under UMTRCA, it has limited authority to address 

uranium mines. Only one mine on Navajo lands has fallen und er the 

responsibility of the DOE, through the Uranium Leasing Program, and 

remediation of this site is already completed. 

The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), predecessor to the U. S. Department of 

Energy , wa s charged with the responsibility for developing an adequate supply 

4 
89 

of uranium for nuclear weapons production. Part of this responsibility was 

reflected in the Uranium Leasing Program, which gave the AEC authority for 

leasing federal lands for exploration and development of a viable domestic 

uranium source carried forward into the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The 

original lease program was terminated in April of 1962. A subsequent leasing 

program was initiated in 1974 under Circular 8 Revised (1973). This 

constitutes the present leasing authority of the U. S. Department of Energy . 

The U. S. Department of Energy administers forty-three uranium leases 

nationwide. One such lease is located on allotted Navajo Nation lands and is 

known as the Haystack mine . This mine is located in McKinley County , New 

Mexico. Reclamation work was conducted on this lease site in November of 1992 

under an agreement between the U. S. Department of Energy and the U. S. 

Environmental Protection Agency with the involvement of the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. The reclamation work on this lease site was 

performed by the Laguna Construction Company (a Native American owned company) 

under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency . The Agency for 

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found that the response actions were 

protective of public health and the environment. By letter dated February 5, 

1993, DOE requested that the Public Land Order be withdrawn so the land could 

revert back to the Navajo Nation . The Haystack mine is the only mine under 

the Uranium Leasing Program located on Navajo Nation lands . 
90 

III. FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM 

Another program executed by the Department of Energy , under the authority of 

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is the Formerly Utilized Sites 

Remedial Action Program, commonly referred to as FUSRAP. The FUSRAP includes 

forty-four sites located in fourteen states, none of which are on Navajo 

Nation lands. To date remedial action has been completed at thirteen of these 

sites. 

Under the authority of FUSRAP, sites are usually designated and remediated 

where radioactive contamination remains from uranium and thorium assaying , 

processing, and storage operations during the nation's early nuclear 

development program. Thirty-nine sites were designated under this protocol, 

while an additional five sites have been assigned through congressional 

action. 

IV. ABANDONED URANIUM MINES 

Today ' s hearing rai se s a key issue: the Navajo Nation has been left with 

numerous abandoned uranium mines resulting from mining operations conducted to 

provide uranium for the nation ' s nuclear weapons program . As I have stated, 

other than the reclamation work conducted at the Haystack mine under the 

Uranium Leasing Program, the Department of Energy has not carried out any 

other reclamation efforts on abandoned uranium mines within the boundaries of 

the Navajo Nation. As stewards of similarly contaminated land s, the 

Department and its individual public servants are acutely aware of the 

6 
91 

profoundly troubled legacy left by these mining activities. This is not a 

theoretical matter for us; we see it in our work and have moved aggressively 

to reduce the very real risks to people at those sites where the department 

has responsibility. However, we must respectfully indicate that the 

Department has ne ither the legal authority nor the appropriated funding to 

carry out the same kind of reclamation at abandoned mines within the 

boundaries of the Navajo Nation . 

The Department of Energy' s clean-up authority is currently limited under 

UMTRCA and the Uranium Lea si ng Program to the twenty-four de si gnated mill 

processing sites and the forty-three uranium l ease sites. Although there is a 

connection between the mining operations and the needs of the nuclear weapons 

program, Congress ha s not assigned the Department of Energy with 

responsibility for executing reclamation or remedial action of abandoned 

uranium mines . 

V. CONCLUSION 

The environmental and health effects of the ma teri als handled under the 

programs I have been discussing are of key importance to the · U. S. Department 

of Energy. All three programs, UMTRA , Uranium Leasing Program, and FUSRAP , 

are managed under the Environmental Management Program and executed in 

accordance with the mandate to protect the heal th and environment of the 

community . 

7 
92 

The Department recognizes the concerns expressed by members of the Navajo 

Nation who live adjacent to these abandoned mines as these are similar to 

concerns expressed by individuals across the nation living near other 

contaminated sites. However, as I stated above, the Department of Energy has 

not been directed to conduct remedial actions on abandoned mines located on 

Navajo Nation lands, except as they fall under our current programs of UMTRCA 

and the Uranium Leasing Program. Therefore, the Department lacks the 

statutory authority and funding levels necessary to implement such a program. 

However , we would like to acknowledge that through our efforts in remediating 

uranium mining and mill sites, our Department has developed significant 

experience in this area , and would be pleased to share any information with 

other federal agencies, states, and the Navajo Nation that would be helpful. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee regarding the DOE ' s 

experience in conducting remedial action s on Navajo land s. I look forward to 

working with both subcommittees in developing an effective approach to the 

concerns raised by the people of the Navajo Nation. 

8 
93 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you all for your testimony. 

AB we knit this problem together here, what is the problem with 

the remaining mine sites? Let's move the coal reclamation sites. 

Let's assume certification and they are off the table here for the 

moment. 

What is the problem with the remaining mine sites that between 

the three agencies here you cannot address because of legal impediments or, you know, statutory? What is the problem you could not 

address that exists out there with respect to hazards? 

Mr. TAKATA. I can speak to what EPA could address and not address, and maybe the other agencies can do the same. 

If a site either qualifies for the National Priorities List or if it 

qualifies for an emergency response, then EPA could take care of 

the problem and we could probably take care of the complete scope 

of the problem. I mean not just the safety hazard aspects, but the 

radiation off-site problems and groundwater problems. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Mr. TAKATA. But not all 1,000 are likely to qualify--

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Mr. TAKATA [continuing]. For the NPL. I can't tell you exactly 

how many would. There ought to be some that qualify. We already 

know the Bluewater site qualified as an emergency response. So 

there is going to be a whole other list of sites, several hundred or 

more, that I hope will--

Mr. MILLER. And at that point, then, your jurisdiction ends. 

Mr. TAKATA. Right. And I hope at that point--

Mr. MILLER. Let's move to those sites. Potentially, what are the 

problems that are raised on those sites that cannot now be dealt 

with out of the Office of Surface Mining or DOE? 

Mr. TIPTON. With respect to use of the Office of Surface Mining 

Abandoned Mine Land funds, after certification there is considerable flexibility for use of the tribal funds. The essential requirement is that it basically be mine-related, and once that determination and link can be established, then there is lots of flexibility. 

Mr. MILLER. So when they get done with certification for those 

mines that do not end up on the National Priorities List or are 

emergency treatments, you are telling us what, that Office of Surface Mining funds could be used for both the cleanup and the remediation of the mine, including the tailings? 

Mr. TIPTON. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. And including off-site impacts from the tailings? 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes, sir, as long as they can be determined to be 

mine-related or connected with the operation. 

Mr. MILLER. Is that a problem? 

Mr. TIPTON. I can't foresee one with that since most of these 

seem to be fairly clearcut. 

Mr. MILLER. We have created so much background radiation, I 

guess you could argue. But we wouldn't want to argue that, would 

we? 

Now, let's get to DOE. What is it that you bring to the table in 

terms of dealing with the processing or the mines? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I believe under our current authorizations we 

would not bring anything to the table toward the remediation of 

those mines as I now understand the issue. 
94 

Mr. MILLER. And including the tailings or any results of processing? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I believe that is correct in that the processing 

sites have been identified for us and those are within the current 

program. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. What has been done-! believe this is 

within the jurisdiction of EPA. 

Well, let me ask you this. Let me go back to the status of the 

42 mines that was outlined by the previous panel and the 28 that 

they believe meet the threshold for EPA treatment. What is the 

status of those? 

Those are now in Region IX, right? We agreed that that is the 

line of authority. 

Mr. TAKATA. They are in Region IX. Actually, the number we 

have is 47. But at any rate, there are 40-some-odd sites, and 17 

of them fell into our no further action category. In other words, sites that didn't rise to a level high enough for Superfund to work 

on. Three of them we haven't yet assessed. The ones in the middle-my count is 27, but it is about that number-are in this active 

status. Those were the ones that we were holding off on believing 

they were being handled under the Office of Surface Mines program to reclaim abandoned mines. · That is what the agreement was all about that we tried to negotiate amongst the agencies and the agreement that is expressed in 

the memo between the two Navajo programs. My understanding is now, listening to the Navajo testimony, that 

they don't feel that all of those sites are being adequately handled 

under the Office of Surface Mines programs, and so what we need 

to do is to move those sites that are a priority to the Navajo 

through the Superfund process. We need one more step here. We need to do a little more data 

collection in order to put together one of these scoring packages 

that Larry mentioned in order to place it on the NPL. 

Before we do that it would be interesting to explore a little bit 

of what I heard from Mr. Tipton's testimony. He doesn't feel that 

there are any restrictions on what you can do under their program 

once they have them. We should probably take a minute to explore 

that, and then if there are restrictions that are holding up cleanup 

or reclamation, then we could go forward with NPL listing, if the 

sites will score. 

Mr. MILLER. The current impediment, Mr. Tipton, is certification; 

is that correct? 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes, sir. Certification, and there does need to be an 

amendment to the tribe's AML Program consistent with the 

changes made in reauthorization in 1990. We think that can be 

done concurrently with the certification process. I guess I should mention that there are certain restrictions with 

respect to housing and construction work with the Abandoned Mine 

Land monies, and the only other one would be we aren't allowed 

to fund those projects that would be designated for funding under 

either the EPA program or the DOE program. Mr. MILLER. Do that again for me. Mr. TIPTON. If they have already been designated and made a 

listing or met the criteria of EPA or the DOE program, then they 
95 

would not be eligible for the funding. But those that fall out from 

that, then they would be. 

Mr. MILLER. If they have already been nominated by the tribe for 

EPA funding will that later be an impediment if EPA doesn't accept them or believes that they are not eligible? 

Mr. TIPTON. If they determined that they are not eligible, I don't 

believe that presents a problem. But if they determine that they 

are eligible and they are so designated for that listing, then that 

does present a problem. 

Mr. MILLER. But for the moment, these 28 sites or 42 sites, they 

are off the table for you until EPA makes a decision about them? 

Mr. TIPTON. We would have to determine which of those sites 

EPA has made their decisions on. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. What if they have been presented? 

Mr. TIPTON. We deal with those on a case-by-case as they come 

to us currently. 

Mr. MILLER. What is the status of tailings under SMCRA? 

Mr. TIPTON. Again, tailings, as long as they are part of the mine 

and the project problem, they can be dealt with. To the extent they 

present an extreme danger or hazard and right now don't meet the 

Priority I considerations, then they are not eligible under SMCRA. 

Mr. MILLER. But after certification, Priority I won't be an impediment; is that right? 

Mr. TIPTON. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. Is there anything that prevents you and EPA getting together between now and the time of certification to divvy up 

this work, so to speak? Can we properly assume that certification 

will, in fact, take place, that it is a matter of running the gauntlet 

here in terms of the Department signing off? 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes, sir. We anticipate--

Mr. MILLER. There is nothing that you see out there that is a 

major in terms of physical work or whatever they have to do? 

Mr. TIPTON. Not at this time. It is only necessary that they submit the known remaining coal projects in their grant application. They really don't have to have all the reclamation work completed 

on those. 

Mr. MILLER. But that wouldn't be an impediment to doing as 

EPA has suggested here, getting together and sorting this out? 

Mr. TIPTON. No, not at all. 

Mr. MILLER. Recognizing that there is enough jurisdiction and 

authority here to address these sites. There appears to be enough 

jurisdiction authority sitting at the table there to address all these 

sites. I am just trying to determine if in fact that is true. 

Mr. TIPTON. I think that would be a good idea. We would need 

to sit down and work out a strategy. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Reed, is that correct? 

Mr. REED. Certainly. 

Mr. MILLER. You know, it is hard for me to understand what has 

happened here over the last decade or so. But, you know, when was 

it? In 1983 or so we transmitted a report from EPA outlining some 

of the hazards on these lands, and I think Dr. Rajen or somebody 

referred to that before, and yet not a lot has happened here. 

I am assuming that we are in a new era here and the goal of 

this Administration is that Departments work together to solve 
96 

problems, and I think that Mr. Takata has suggested that there is 

a real possibility of doing that. That there is a willingness of EPA 

to shoulder some of these sites that meet the criteria, and you are 

saying that those that don't, after certification monies are available 

to do that, and we all recognize the constraints of resources. 

You know on this committee I think I have five members of the 

Commerce Committee-they have jurisdiction over EPA, is that 

correct? I mean somehow if there is an impediment here we need 

to know that. And I think that can be dealt with. But I don't get a sense that that is the case. It is not the law 

that is preventing this from happening. I am sure you are trying 

to husband your resources, and I am sure we haven't been generous enough with the resources to get this done, and there is a lot 

of criticism of how either we allocate them or you spend them or 

whatever. I understand all that. 

But if we wanted to provide additional resources, either through 

any one of these agencies in the appropriations process, what we 

don't have is a comprehensive plan to address these lands on a systematic basis. 

I am sure that nobody wants to take on more than they are already taking on in this problem of hazardous wastes, but somehow 

it seems to me that given the history of this program, the involvement of the Government, that we have some obligation for the combined agencies to say this is the plan worked out with the Navajo 

Nation that we think will address these lands to the best of our 

ability. And that goes back to appropriations and the rest of us. 

But to the best of our ability, this is how we can handle this problem. 

I really think that is where we are. If I read through all of the 

evidence and the past communications, and the acknowledgment as 

early as in 1983 by Mr.-who was it then? Ruckelshaus-you 

know, saying that this problem doesn't need congressional response, that they do have the authority. In their study they recognized the authority to regulate these materials. 

They also recognized a rather high level of potential cancer 

deaths for people living in these houses and elsewhere, and the potential problem of people mixing in and around the rather substantial waste product out there in the form of tailings and other material as they have identified, and you have heard enough about the 

billion tons of material out there. The stage is set to get on with 

the resolution of this. 

And I am fully sympathetic and I think the members of this committee and certainly the people that represent this area, we can appreciate if resources become the problem. That is then our obligation. But we don't have a plan that we could come to and say this 

is what needs to be funded to get this done in a comprehensive 

fashion, and that just, obviously, can't continue. 

And clearly, the expertise exists within the agencies. Hopefully, 

there is a new mandate with this Administration to start resolving 

these problems, and I think it requires-your suggestion, Mr. 

Takata-that you sit down and do it. I mean I think it is quite correct. 

It was said by the previous panel and throughout the literature 

it says it is very difficult to recognize this hazard on a casual basis. 
97 

You know, I think it would be wise for you to go to the reservation. 

I think it would be wise to see the extent to this, the intenningling 

of the population and the impacts of this on the lands, and to recognize that in some cases you can't see the danger, but it is still 

present and it is an obligation of ours. If I could pursue one more avenue, if you don't mind. I think 

again this goes to the question of EPA under CERCLA. Has there 

been any study to determine the ability to reach and the availability of responsible parties with respect to this, or were these mining 

operations indemnified under the contracting arrangements with 

DOE and BIA and others? Do we know their status and their presence for the potential candidates of the Superfund sites? 

I am sure this was a little bit of an unusual arrangement in 

tenns of how this land was worked at that time. 

Mr. TAKATA. Yes. You know, I can only tell you what I know in 

tenns of the sites we have dealt with, at Bluewater and some of 

the other ones. This isn't like mining in Arizona, where you have 

huge mines owned by huge companies that still exist. What we 

have here is thousands of different sites, a lot of them mined by 

small operators, probably most of them no longer existing. 

There are going to be circumstances, and there was in the one 

parcel that we did in the Bluewater cleanup, where there were successor corporations and in the end we went after, I can't remember, 

three or four companies. One of them was Santa Fe-Pacific Railroad Company. That was a successor, and they provided for the 

cleanup funds. 

So there are going to be some sites where companies existing 

today are liable under Superfund, and they will have to do the 

cleanup. At other sites, we will just have to use Superfund money. Mr. MILLER. And we can assume that that is in the ordinary 

course of business. 

Mr. TAKATA. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. That you do that legal examination and search to 

detennine whether or not there will be responsible parties available for these sites? 

Mr. TAKATA. Right. We always look for responsible parties first 

to try to get them to clean up. If they can't, then we spend fund 

money. 

Mr. MILLER. Do you know what the status of that search is with 

respect to these sites? 

Mr. TAKATA. No. Most of them probably haven't been started because most of them aren't far enough through the process that we 

are actually working on responsible party searches. 

Mr. MILLER. With respect to that process, what is it again that 

needs to be done to detennine whether or not the 27 sites or the 

28 sites or whatever the number is are or are not candidates for 

the National Priorities List or emergency actions? 

Mr. TAKATA. It differs by site, so I can't generalize. You would 

have to go through each one. But I will try to generalize anyway 

because I think you are looking for a general answer. Mr. MILLER. Does the tribe have to develop additional infonnation? 

Mr. TAKATA. Right. 

Mr. MILLER. Or do you have to verify the infonnation? 
98 

Mr. TAKATA. It is probably a little of both. Most of these sites 

have gone through part of the process, where they have done some 

of the preliminary work towards listing. As a matter of fact, several 

of them have these draft scores that the Navajo mentioned, the 

28.5. 

What we now need to do is verify the data that backs up all 

those scores. Some of that can be done by the Navajo under the 

grant, and the rest of that we have to do as we put together these 

packages. We use these packages to support putting them on the 

list. So it is a combined effort. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. Ms. English? 

Ms. ENGLISH. You asked a lot of my questions, but I have a couple that--

Mr. MILLER. I got a couple more, if you want to try for all of 

them. 

Ms. ENGLISH. No. [Laughter.] 

Ms. ENGLISH. It might happen. 

Mr. Tipton, when you were testifying, in your comments you 

stated that the certification process was completed after proper requests. How often are the requests improper? 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, instead of improper, probably better stated 

would be incomplete. There is normally some give and take when 

information is exchanged and requests are presented, but it is normally not a very cumbersome process. 

Ms. ENGLISH. So that hasn't been a holdup as far as you are concerned? 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, yes. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Or a delay? 

Mr. TIPTON. It has been a holdup in getting the projects that we 

know about, first of all, described and entered into the national inventory. Before the projects can be accepted and approved in a 

grant application, we do have to have accurate information on 

them to extend the test for eligibility. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Does the agency supply appropriate assistance in 

submitting those requests? And before you answer, what I am getting at here is whether tribes have access to any of the technical 

assistance that is available to States when they make similar requests. 

Mr. TIPTON. The process is essentially the same. We take care 

not to appear to be trying to force States or tribes to certify when 

they don't think that they are ready. But on the other hand, we do have assistance available, and it 

is my understanding that we are providing as much assistance as 

the tribe needs or has requested at this point. We have made that 

a point with our field operations to make sure that the tribes get 

what they need to complete this. 

Ms. ENGLISH. Okay. And one other question. It has to do with 

one of the paragraphs here in your testimony which states that as 

of September 30, 1993, the Navajo Nation had approximately $11 

million in appropriated funds available but not yet requested by 

the tribe, and an additional $24 million in unappropriated tribal 

share funds that will be available to the tribe subject to appropriations. 

Can you tell me why the money is not being requested? 
99 

Mr. TIPTON. I am not sure I have all the reasons for that, but 

I think part of it is that the remaining coal problems are at this 

point very small in comparison to the non-coal, to the uranium issues, as pointed out by the tribe's estimate of 1,104 projects. 

That is a considerable amount of money and I really don't know 

why the requests haven't come in quicker. That is something we 

can work with the tribes on again. 

Ms. ENGLISH. I think that would be a question to pursue, because I think it might uncover some of the reasons that the process 

has slowed down. If the money is there and all the agencies are 

agreeing to work together, I think it would be important to pursue 

the answer to that question. 

I, as a matter of fact, have to leave for another meeting or I 

would pursue it further on the record. But I certainly will pursue 

it after the meeting is closed. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Tipton, let me ask you, in the case under the current process 

where you are able to go in under SMCRA for Priority I sites, you 

have sealed the mine or you have done other things, in some cases 

the tailings remain; is that correct? 

Mr. TIPTON. That would not be unusual. In addressing Priority 

I projects you are trying to deal with the immediate effects of that. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. Are those tailings eligible after certification 

to be reworked and to be dealt with, because in some cases those 

tailings themselves are now the hazard? The mine has been sealed. 

It has been remediated or what have you, but the tailings still exist 

out there. 

Mr. TIPTON. It would depend upon to what extent the tribe determines how important they are or how much of a priority. 

But, as far as eligibility, I think yes, they would be eligible. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. So legally they would be eligible if that is a 

priority that the tribe set. 

Mr. TIPTON. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. Somewhere in the testimony there is reference to 

one or more of the major problem sites being associated with a 

company that used to be VCA, which stands for Vanadium Corporation of America, that now is part of some other corporation? 

Are you familiar with that, Mr. Takata? 

Mr. TAKATA. I know that several of our sites have the designation VCA-1, -2, -3, -4, and -5, so they are associated with a whole 

bunch of them. 

Mr. MILLER. So they are on your screen? 

Mr. TAKATA. Yes. I am not sure what their successor history is, 

though. Let me see. I have something here. 

[Pause.] _ 

Mr. TAKATA. Okay. The site was operated by VCA, which stands 

for Vanadium Corporation of America. In 1967, VCA merged with 

Foote Mineral Company. Foote Mineral Company changed its name 

to Cyrus Foote Mineral Company in 1989, and that company maintains its headquarters in Exton, Pennsylvania, so I guess there is 

a successor. But we haven't pursued it any further than that 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony. What 

would obviously be helpful to us is that-if you are going to get to-
100 

gether, and I assume you are from your testimony, on an interagency basis here to sort this out, and to sit down with the Navajos 

to work out a plan-we would like to be kept informed as to your 

progress and what the time lines are on that. 

We would hope that that could certainly be done prior to certification, so that we don't lose that time, because we are going on the 

assumption that certification is going to, in fact, take place, and in 

the meantime that will allow for some apportionment of the burden 

here in terms of what you think you can do and what the Navajos 

have to do. Then either that plan is workable or it isn't, and it has 

a reasonable time line in terms of remediating these sites and/or 

it has to come back to us because it is far more expensive than people had anticipated or were willing to discuss. 

I really don't think that the plan ought to encompass the problem. If the problem is greater than your combined ability and resources, or if you allocated what you anticipate you would allocate 

over the next number of years and it still doesn't meet that, then 

that is a problem that this committee, Commerce Committee or the 

Appropriations Committee or somebody will have to try and address. We either will be able to do that or not do that. 

But I think what we need is a defining of the plans and the responsibilities between the agencies, and it would be most helpful 

to us if we could be kept informed of that process so we can anticipate what problems you may or may not be running into that affect 

mainly the members of this committee and of the Commerce Committee, and because of the fact that Commerce is going to be dealing with some of these issues. Yes, under Superfund. So we would 

like to see if we can get some transition going here between the 

various responsibilities. And I throw ourselves in the pot in terms 

of being a responsible party here. 

So, if you could work out something with the staff of the committee to keep us informed, I would appreciate it. And I appreciate the 

candor with which you have addressed the need for this to be done, 

and I hope I properly detect your willingness to do that, and I appreciate that effort to do that. 

For those who have sat through the hearing and think maybe 

that is not a proper assessment, the record of the hearing will be 

open for two weeks, and people are certainly entitled to submit information , testimony, rebuttals or additions, however they see fit. 

Thank you very much for your time and for your help on this 

problem. 

With that the subcommittees stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the subcommittees were recessed, to 

reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

0 

77-989 (108) 

ISBN 0-16-044122-6 

90000