46042 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

1Alternatives are analyzed in the EA in the order 

that they are addressed in the HMC Environmental 

Report (Bridges and Meyer, 2007) for consistency. 

Alternative A is the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative B is the Proposed Action, and 

Alternatives C and D are alternate evaporative pond 

locations. 

The petitioners have requested that 

the petition be withdrawn. 

Consequently, the investigation has 

been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of 

August 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–18162 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 40–8903; License No. 

SUA–1471] 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Related to the Issuance of a License 

Amendment for Construction of a 

Third Evaporation Pond, Homestake 

Mining Company of California Grants, 

New Mexico Project 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Summary of environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Buckley, Division of Waste Management 

and Environmental Protection, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Mail Stop: T8F5, Washington, DC 

20555–0001. Telephone: (301) 415–

6607; e-mail: john.buckley@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1.0 Introduction 

Below is a summary of the 

Environmental Assessment (EA). The 

complete EA is available in Agencywide Documents Access Management 

System (ADAMS), at Accession No.: 

ML080920594. 

1.1 Background 

Homestake Mining Corporation 

(HMC), through a variety of partnerships 

and joint venture associations, operated 

a uranium milling operation in Cibola 

County, New Mexico, beginning in 

1958, and continuing through 1990. The 

site is north of the City of Grants in 

Section 26, Township 12 North, Range 

10 West. Since 1990, the site has been 

in reclamation. Site reclamation 

includes facility decommissioning, 

tailings impoundment area restoration, 

groundwater restoration and 

monitoring, and post-closure care and 

monitoring. The site is licensed under 

NRC License SUA–1471. During 

operations, approximately 22 million 

tons of ore were milled at the site, using 

a conventional alkaline leach process 

(NRC, 1993). From 1993 to 1995, the 

mill was decommissioned and 

demolished. After the mill was 

demolished, final surface reclamation 

commenced in accordance with the 

amended U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) requirements (NRC, 

2006). Surface reclamation is nearly 

complete, with final reclamation and 

stabilization to be completed after 

groundwater restoration is completed. 

Groundwater contamination from past 

mill activities remains, and groundwater 

restoration is the primary activity 

occurring at the site. Once groundwater 

quality restoration is complete and 

approved, the site will be transferred to 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 

which will have the responsibility for 

long-term site care and maintenance. 

HMC currently manages a 

groundwater restoration program, as 

defined by NRC License SUA–1471, and 

New Mexico Environment Department 

(NMED) Discharge Plan (DP), DP–200 

and DP–725 (HMC, 2007b). The current 

groundwater restoration program is also 

under the oversight of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region VI Superfund Program. The 

restoration program is a dynamic 

ongoing strategy based on a 

groundwater reclamation plan, which 

began in 1977. Additional evaluation of 

the groundwater restoration program 

recently has identified the need to 

extend the program, by approximately 

four years, to 2017 to finish cleanup 

objectives. HMC’s long-term goal is to 

restore the groundwater aquifer system 

in the area, as close as practicable, to the 

up-gradient groundwater quality 

background levels. The restoration 

program is designed to remove target 

contaminants from the groundwater 

through use of injection and collection 

systems, utilizing deep-well supplied 

fresh water or water produced from the 

reverse osmosis (RO) plant. A 

groundwater collection area has been 

established and is hydraulically 

bounded by a down-gradient perimeter 

of injection and infiltration systems 

comprising groundwater wells and 

infiltration lines (NRC, 2007b). The RO 

plant has operated at the site since late 

1999 to augment groundwater clean-up 

activities. A series of collection wells is 

used to collect the contaminated water, 

which is pumped to the RO plant for 

treatment or, alternatively, pumped to a 

series of evaporation ponds. 

HMC seeks NRC approval to increase 

its evaporation and storage capacity to 

increase the rate of groundwater 

restoration by constructing a third 

evaporation pond (EP3). To construct 

EP3, an amendment to the NRC License 

SUA–1471 is required. The amendment 

request addresses the construction of 

EP3 and site boundary expansion 

associated with locating EP3 north of 

the mill tailings impoundment and 

north of County Road 63. The site is 

regulated by the NRC pursuant to the 

requirements of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations part 40 (10 CFR part 

40), ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Source 

Material.’’ The EA was prepared in 

accordance with NRC requirements in 

10 CFR 51 and with the associated 

guidance in NRC report NUREG–1748, 

‘‘Environmental Review Guidance for 

Licensing Actions Associated with 

NMSS Programs.’’ The EA assesses the 

likely impacts to the environment from 

HMC’s proposal to expand the current 

licensed boundary and to construct EP3 

for groundwater reclamation. 

1.2 The Proposed Action (Alternative 

B) 1

The proposed action is to amend 

Source Material License SUA–1471 to 

permit the expansion of the permitted 

operations boundary and to permit 

construction of EP3 for groundwater 

reclamation activities. The NRClicensed boundary would be expanded 

by approximately 185 acres (HMC, 

2006b). 

The proposed amendment to 

SUA–1471 would allow HMC to 

construct EP3 on HMC property north of 

the large tailings impoundment at a 

location in sections 22 and 23, 

approximately 1,800 feet north of 

County Road 63. A 50-foot wide access 

corridor would be constructed to access 

the proposed pond and to locate piping 

and associated infrastructures to the 

proposed pond area. The proposed area 

of impact for EP3 is approximately 33 

acres, including the service corridor and 

earthen containment dike. The 

evaporative surface area of the proposed 

pond is approximately 26.5 acres. The 

pond would be constructed as an atgrade facility, with cut and fill designed 

to be in rough balance. Therefore, no 

significant quantities of soil would be 

imported or exported from the site. The 

pond would have a double High Density 

Polyethylene (HDPE) liner with a leak 

detection/collection system. After 

groundwater remediation is complete, 

the pond would be removed and the 

area reclaimed (HMC, 2006b). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 46043 

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action 

Additional evaporation pond capacity 

is needed to enhance groundwater 

restoration and complete the approved 

groundwater restoration program (HMC, 

1991; NRC, 1993). Additional 

evaporation pond capacity would allow 

HMC to pump approximately 33 percent 

more contaminated groundwater than 

can be currently pumped under existing 

conditions. Further, additional 

evaporative capacity would allow the 

groundwater restoration to be completed 

by 2017, although this date may change 

based on the performance of the 

restoration program (HMC, 2006b). 

Construction of an additional 

evaporation pond would result in 

increased initial costs for HMC, but 

would shorten the time required to 

implement the groundwater corrective 

action plan (CAP). Additional benefits 

would include increased hydraulic 

control of the contaminant plume and 

faster restoration of contaminated 

groundwater. Faster completion of the 

groundwater CAP would result in 

earlier completion of surface 

reclamation and the placement of a final 

cover on the large tailings 

impoundment. Many of the 

groundwater reclamation wells are on 

the large tailings impoundment which 

will not have a final cover until the 

groundwater restoration is complete. 

As discussed in section 2, HMC has 

analyzed the impacts of placing EP3 at 

two additional locations on HMC 

property. The Alternative B location is 

preferred because it minimizes the dust 

and noise impacts to the local residents 

during construction and the evaporative 

odors during operation of EP3. 

2.0 Alternatives to the Proposed 

Action 

HMC’s objective is to increase its 

evaporation and storage capacities to aid 

in groundwater restoration. To meet this 

objective, HMC would like to add an 

additional evaporation pond. HMC has 

three available location alternatives for 

EP3. HMC is the property owner of 

lands associated with each of the three 

siting alternatives. Construction details 

and evaporation pond designs are the 

same for each of the siting alternatives. 

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 

A) and Alternatives C and D are 

described below. 

2.1 No Action Alternative (Alternative 

A) 

The no action alternative would be 

continued groundwater reclamation at 

the HMC facility under current 

capacities. No changes to the NRC 

license or site boundary expansion 

would occur. All current operations and 

maintenance programs would continue 

as planned according to the general 

provisions of the HMC Closure Plan 

approved May 12, 1993 (NRC, 1993). 

2.2 Alternative Evaporative Pond 

Location (Alternative C) 

Alternative C: This alternative 

involves constructing EP3 within the SE 

quarter of section 23 along County Road 

63 and within 1,800 feet of NM 605. The 

NRC-licensed boundary would be 

expanded by approximately 68 acres. 

The pond is proposed to be square in 

shape and disturb approximately 33 

acres of land, including the access 

corridor and earthen containment dike. 

The pond is anticipated to provide 26.5 

acres of surface area for the evaporation 

and water storage purposes. The pond 

would be constructed as an at-grade 

facility, with cut and fill designed to be 

in rough balance. Therefore, no 

significant quantities of soil would be 

imported or exported from the site. The 

pond would have a double HDPE liner 

with a leak detection/collection system. 

2.3 Alterative Evaporative Pond 

Location (Alternative D) 

Alternative D: This alternative 

involves constructing EP3 on the 

southwest side of Evaporation Pond # 2 

(EP2) located south of the large tailings 

pile impoundment in the SW quarter of 

section 26. Under this alternative, EP3 

would share the southwest dike wall of 

EP2 within the existing licensed 

boundary. The pond would be sized and 

constructed as described in Alternative 

C. This alternative would not require an 

NRC-licensed boundary expansion, as 

EP3 would be within the boundary of 

the present NRC-licensed area. 

3.0 Affected Environment 

The affected environment is very 

similar for Alternatives B, C, and D. 

Alternatives B, C, and D are relatively 

close to one another, each separated by 

approximately two miles or less. 

3.1 Land Use 

3.1.1 Site Location 

The HMC Mill is located in Cibola 

County, about five and one-half miles 

(8.8 kilometers, km) north of the City of 

Grants and the Village of Milan, New 

Mexico. The site is situated in the San 

Mateo drainage at an elevation of 6,600 

feet (1980 meters) above Mean Sea Level 

(MSL). The project area is surrounded 

by mesas ranging in elevation from 

7,000 to 8,600 feet (2100 to 2580 meters) 

above MSL. The mesas define a roughly 

circular valley about 10 miles (16 km) 

in diameter. The San Mateo drainage is 

an ephemeral arroyo, which drains an 

area of approximately 291 square miles 

(75,369 hectares) and connects with the 

Rio San Jose near the Village of Milan. 

The U.S. Census estimated the total 

population of Cibola County for 2000 at 

25,595, and the Northwest New Mexico 

Council of Governments estimated the 

County population to increase to 26,509 

by 2010. The adjacent incorporated 

areas of Grants and Milan contain the 

largest population in the area. The 2000 

U.S. Census estimated the population of 

the Grants-Milan community to be about 

11,000, with about 2000 of these people 

located near the site in Milan. There are 

several subdivisions located 

approximately one-half-mile (0.8 km) 

south and southwest of the site. There 

are currently nearby residences located 

to the south and west of the facility. The 

majority of the land in the vicinity of 

the current mill site is undeveloped 

rangeland. The ARCO Bluewater 

uranium mill site is located 

approximately five miles (8.05 km) west 

of the HMC site (Bridges and Meyer, 

2007). 

Residential areas are estimated to 

account for approximately three percent 

of the area. The only surface water 

bodies in the vicinity of the site are 

several stock ponds and some small 

ephemeral ponds. Drinking water for the 

Grants-Milan area is obtained from deep 

wells drilled into the San Andres 

aquifer. Domestic water for the 

subdivisions south and west of the site 

is also obtained primarily, but not 

exclusively, from the Grants-Milan 

public water system. 

3.1.2 On-Site Land Use—HMC 

Properties 

Uranium milling operations at the 

Grants site began in 1958, and was 

terminated in February 1990. Two 

separate mills were originally located at 

the site. The smaller mill operated until 

January 1962, after which all milling 

activities were conducted in the larger 

facility. Both mills utilized alkaline 

leach circuits, with a nominal capacity 

for the two mills of 3,400 tons of ore per 

day. The alkaline leach circuit 

employed at the Grants Mill required a 

finer grind of the material to be leached 

than does an acid leach circuit. As a 

result, up to 60 percent of the tailings 

solids are finer than a No. 200 sieve size 

(NRC, 1993). Finer materials are more 

susceptible to migration or transport 

through natural mechanisms such as 

wind and water erosion (Bridges and 

Meyer, 2007). 

Following extraction of the uranium, 

the tailings were discharged to either 

the small or the large tailings 

impoundment. Both impoundments 

were constructed using an earth fill 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
46044 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

containment dike into which the 

tailings were discharged. The small 

impoundment contains approximately 

1.8 million tons of tailings, while the 

large impoundment contains 

approximately 21 million tons. HMC 

owns and controls a sizeable land area 

in and around the Grants Reclamation 

Project. Over the years, additional lands 

have been acquired as opportunity has 

arisen and acquisition of such lands is 

deemed appropriate in relation to 

ongoing groundwater remediation, 

restoration activities and final 

reclamation of the site. 

The windblown tailings clean-up 

project began in 1995 and involved 

mechanical disturbance and the removal 

of tailings imported by wind for 

placement within the sites tailings pile 

area. During the 35 years of milling and 

processing operations at the site, 

windblown tailings were deposited over 

approximately 1200 acres immediately 

surrounding the tailings pile. Deposition 

of windblown tailings over the HMC 

property occurred during high wind 

conditions. 

Heavy machinery was used in 

removing the contaminated deposits, 

which sometimes reached a depth of 

more than three feet (one meter). After 

removal of the contaminated deposits, 

seed and mulch were spread on the 

remaining soils to assist in revegetation 

efforts (Byszewski, 2006). HMC lands 

owned in the area that are not within 

the immediate proximity of the tailings 

pile complex have been, and are 

continuing to be, utilized for livestock 

grazing on a lessor/lessee tenant 

arrangement. Most of the current land 

area within the present site boundary 

has been excluded from livestock 

grazing and other land use, except those 

areas that are not directly related to the 

ongoing groundwater restoration 

activities. As such, livestock grazing is 

not currently allowed in the immediate 

tailings pile areas, evaporation pond 

areas, or the office/maintenance shop 

locations. However, certain small areas 

in the southern and western portions of 

land within the site boundary are 

utilized for livestock grazing. 

Several residential lots held by HMC 

in the surrounding subdivisions and in 

the general area of the reclamation site 

are idle and are essentially not in use, 

except in certain instances where fresh 

water injection and water collection are 

underway as part of the ongoing 

groundwater restoration program. 

3.1.3 Off-Site Land Use—Pleasant 

Valley Estates, Murray Acres, Broadview 

Acres, Felice Acres and Valle Verde 

Residential Subdivisions 

A large portion of land around the 

HMC-owned properties is used for 

grazing. The other major land use 

immediately proximal to the site 

consists of residential development 

located in the Pleasant Valley Estates, 

Murray Acres, Broadview Acres, Valle 

Verde, and Felice Acres residential 

subdivisions. Into the mid-1970s, 

monitoring wells showed no increase in 

the levels of radioactive materials, but 

did show elevated levels of selenium in 

the domestic water supply. As a result 

of the elevated selenium levels, HMC 

provided subdivision residents with 

potable water and eventually entered 

into an agreement with the EPA to 

extend the Village of Milan water 

system to the four residential 

subdivisions near the mill. The Village 

of Milan water supply extension was 

completed in the mid-1980s and HMC 

agreed to pay the basic water service 

charges for the residents of the Pleasant 

Valley Estates, Murray Acres, 

Broadview Acres, and Felice Acres 

subdivisions, for a period of 10 years. 

The Village of Milan water supply was 

extended out to the Valle Verde 

subdivision and immediately adjacent 

area at a later date. However, current 

information indicates that some 

residents in the area are using water 

wells for drinking water supplies. 

An assessment of current land use in 

these residential subdivision areas was 

completed by Hydro-Engineering, LLC 

of Casper, Wyoming, in late 2005 and 

early 2006, to provide an annual review 

of the present uses, occupancy, and 

status for the various lots within these 

subdivisions (HMC, 2006b). A review of 

land use for HMC properties and the 

residential subdivision areas to the 

immediate south and west of the Grants 

Reclamation Project site indicates that 

present land uses in the area have not 

changed significantly over the past five 

years. Over the years, permanent 

residential homes, modular homes and 

mobile homes have been established in 

the subdivision areas, and immediate 

adjacent areas, as would typify a rural 

residential neighborhood. A number of 

lots remain vacant, or are utilized for 

horse barns, corrals, and/or equipment 

storage. In some cases, dwellings are 

present on several lots throughout the 

subdivisions, but are currently vacant or 

have been permanently abandoned. 

Field review of the five subdivision 

areas, along with follow-up inquiries as 

required to confirm the status of water 

use at each property, indicates that, at 

present, all occupied residential sites in, 

or immediately adjacent to the Felice 

Acres, Broadview Acres, Murray Acres, 

and Pleasant Valley subdivisions are on 

metered water service with the Village 

of Milan. In the Valle Verde residential 

area and immediately adjacent to the 

subdivision, 12 residences were 

identified that are not on the Village of 

Milan water supply system and 

therefore are obtaining domestic-use 

water from private well supplies. One of 

these 12 is a residence on a private well 

supply about one-quarter mile west of 

the Valle Verde subdivision. Current 

information indicates that all other 

occupied residential lots in the Valle 

Verde area are on the Village of Milan 

water supply system (Bridges and 

Meyer, 2007). 

3.2 Transportation 

Interstate-40 and State Highway 605 

are the principal highway access routes 

near the project area. Public highways 

or railroads do not cross the NRClicensed area of the HMC property. 

County Road 63 bisects the proposed 

boundary expansion of Alternatives B 

and C to the north. Normal access to the 

HMC site is from the south via State 

Highway 605 then traveling west on 

County Road 63. The NRC-licensed area 

is fenced and posted by HMC. 

Currently, County Road 63 is not within 

the NRC-licensed site boundary. 

3.3 Geology and Seismology 

The HMC Site is located on the 

northeast flank of the Zuni Uplift, a 

tectonic feature, which is characterized 

by Precambrian crystalline basement 

rocks overlain by Permian and Triassic 

sedimentary rocks (D’Appolonia,1982). 

Major faults occur along the southwest 

flank of the Zuni Uplift, with only 

minor faults mapped in the region 

surrounding the site. Faults associated 

with the Zuni Uplift are generally 

northwest trending, steeply dipping 

reverse faults. However, the minor, 

steeply dipping normal and reverse 

faults in the vicinity of the site generally 

trend northeast. A number of geologic 

faults pass near the site; however, they 

are considered to be inactive since they 

do not displace nearby lava flows of 

Quaternary age (less than 1.8 million 

years) or express youthful geomorphic 

features indicative of active faults 

(Bridges and Meyer, 2007). None of the 

local faults are considered to be active 

(D’Appolonia, 1982). 

Earthquakes, which have occurred 

within 60 miles (96 km) of the site, have 

typically been of low intensity 

(D’Appolonia, 1982). Based on an 

analysis conducted in 1981 of the 

number of earthquakes and their 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 46045 

magnitudes, the maximum earthquake 

in the area is estimated to be a 

magnitude 4.9 (Richter Scale) during a 

100-year period. By comparison, the 

largest historical earthquake recorded in 

the region is a magnitude 4.1 (Richter 

Scale) (D’Appolonia, 1982; Bridges and 

Meyer, 2007). 

Slope gradients in the area generally 

range from zero to five percent in 

valleys and mesa tops, and from five-toover 100 percent on the flanks of the 

mesas and on the nearby volcanic peaks. 

Where the gradient is steep in the 

northern San Mateo drainage, 

intersecting arroyos are commonly 

incised from 10 to 30 feet (three to nine 

meters). Where the gradient decreases, 

such as in the Site vicinity, incision is 

minimal and flow occurs in wide, 

shallow, poorly defined, or practically 

nonexistent channels. 

The majority of the project area 

contains soils of the Sparank-San Mateo 

complex. Sparank and San Mateo soils 

are well drained and moderately 

alkaline. Sparank soils are comprised of 

clay loam overlying silty clay loam; San 

Mateo soils are loams. Both soils are 

conducive to agriculture (Bridges and 

Meyer, 2007; Byszewski, 2006). 

In general, the nature of the flat valley 

exposes it to high winds and shifting 

aeolian sands. Documentation of 

mechanical disturbance of one meter of 

accumulated Aeolian sediments, and 

the presence of sand sage (deep sand 

indicator species) suggests the presence 

of deep Aeolian overburden in the area, 

especially areas that have not been 

subjected to mechanical disturbance 

(Byszewski, 2006). 

3.4 Water Resources and Hydrology 

The HMC Site is located east of the 

continental divide in the Rio Grande 

drainage system of west-central New 

Mexico. The surface water regime 

surrounding the HMC Site is influenced 

by the arid-to-semiarid climate of the 

region, the relatively medium-to-high 

permeability of the soils, and the 

exposed bedrocks of the watersheds. 

The HMC Site is in the San Mateo 

drainage. Down gradient from the site 

the Lobo Canyon drainage flows into the 

San Mateo drainage from the southeast, 

and the San Mateo drainage flows 

westward into the Rio San Jose 

drainage, which flows to the southeast. 

The San Mateo drainage basin above the 

site has a drainage area of 

approximately 291 square miles. Its 

shape is roughly circular and it contains 

a dendritic drainage pattern 

(D’Appolonia 1982). Maximum relief is 

4,724 feet with elevations ranging from 

6,576 feet above MSL at the outlet to 

11,300 feet above MSL at Mount Taylor. 

North of the site, the San Mateo is an 

ephemeral arroyo and flows in direct 

response to precipitation or snow melt 

events. There is no distinct channel near 

the site. A very large precipitation event 

could result in flow from the San Mateo 

drainage entering the Rio San Jose 

drainage. The Rio San Jose is itself 

ephemeral and flows only in direct 

response to local rainstorms or snow 

melt. The Rio San Jose discharges to the 

Rio Puerco drainage, which is a 

tributary of the Rio Grande River. San 

Mateo Creek reaches from the northeast 

to the southwest through the HMC 

property. Other surface water bodies in 

the general vicinity of the HMC Site 

include several stock ponds, some small 

ephemeral ponds, and an undetermined 

number of springs on the flanks of 

Mount Taylor. 

At and nearby the HMC site, the 

saturated drainages are the saturated 

alluviums or shallow water-bearing 

units. In the immediate vicinity of the 

site, the saturated thickness of the San 

Mateo alluvium varies from 10-to-60 

feet (3-to-20 meters). The Chinle 

formation, comprised mainly of massive 

shale interspersed with some sandstone 

(approximately 800 feet thick), exists 

below the alluvium. The Chinle 

formation acts as an effective barrier 

between the aquifer bearing portion of 

the alluvium and the underlying San 

Andres formation, which is the 

principal water-bearing formation in the 

vicinity of the mill (Bridges and Meyer, 

2007) and the primary groundwater 

source for the municipalities in the area. 

Milling activities at the site have 

resulted in impacts to the San Mateo 

alluvial aquifer and Chinle aquifers, 

which underlie the Grants Mill. A 

groundwater corrective action program 

has been implemented at the site since 

1977. The corrective action includes the 

injection of fresh water from the San 

Andres aquifer into the alluvial aquifer 

near an HMC property boundary to form 

a hydraulic barrier to the seepage and 

reverse the local groundwater gradient 

so contaminated water can be retrieved 

by a series of collection wells located 

near the tailings impoundment. The 

captured water is treated currently 

through the RO plant or sent directly to 

synthetically-lined evaporation ponds. 

The corrective action program appears 

to be successful in mitigating the 

negative impacts of seepage from the 

tailings ponds (Bridges and Meyer, 

2007). 

Under the HMC groundwater 

restoration plan, water collected from 

the alluvial and Chinle aquifers 

underlying the site would continue to 

be collected where there are relatively 

low levels of selenium and uranium and 

be used for re-injection in the initial 

phase of restoration of some areas. Reinjection would occur in the alluvium 

where concentrations are greater than 

those of the injected water until such 

time as injection with San Andres fresh 

water or RO product water would better 

complete the restoration. 

3.5 Ecology 

3.5.1 Vegetation 

Vegetation in the vicinity of the site 

consists primarily of desert grassland of 

the Colorado Plateau (NRC, 1993). The 

project area is semi-arid grassland 

characterized by shrubs and mixed 

grama-gelleta steppe grasses. A large 

area in west-central New Mexico is 

classified as Desert Grassland and is 

thought to be a new successiondisturbance desert grassland, 

characterized by galleta and blue grama 

grasses consisting of high shrub and forb 

densities, with low grass densities 

(Byszewski, 2006). 

Common plants found include fourwing saltbrush, greasewood, sand sage, 

and broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia 

Sarothrae). Grasses include blue grama 

(Bouteloua gracilis), sand dropseed 

(Sporobolus cryptandrus), Indian 

ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), 

and bunch grass species. Some 

narrowleaf yucca (Yucca angustissima) 

was also observed. Salt cedar (Tamarix 

spp.), an invasive species, is beginning 

to establish itself in isolated areas along 

the shallow San Mateo Creek. 

Earthen stock tanks within the project 

area are supporting wetland plants such 

as Cattail (Typha lantifolia). The 

establishment of wet areas provides 

water and food for a variety of wildlife, 

including red-winged black birds and 

coyotes. 

Most of the area located around the 

site was bladed in 1995 and re-seeded 

with shrubs, forbs, and grasses. 

Groundcover varies from 79 percent to 

99 percent. No plant species currently 

listed as rare, endangered, or threatened 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) or the State of New Mexico, 

were observed within the project area 

(Byszewski, 2006). 

3.5.2 Wildlife 

Wildlife in the area is generally 

limited to small mammals and bird 

species. Characteristic species include 

mule deer, coyote, rattlesnakes, and 

many species of birds, small rodents, 

and lizards. During the Cultural 

Resource inventory survey in June 2006, 

cottontail rabbits and black tailed 

jackrabbits, ravens, rattlesnakes, horned 

lizards, blackbirds, and prairie dogs 

were observed (Byszewski, 2006). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
46046 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

3.5.3 Rare, Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Table 1 identifies the Federal 

threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern known to occur in 

Cibola County, New Mexico, according 

to the New Mexico Game and Fish 

(NMGF) (Bridges and Meyer, 2007; 

NMGF, 2007). 

The occurrence of endangered or 

threatened plant species is unlikely to 

occur within the project area due to the 

surface being significantly altered by 

mechanical disturbance that had 

occurred as part of HMC’s windblown 

contamination clean-up project. 

TABLE 1—FEDERAL RARE, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Common name Scientific name Status 

Zuni Bluehead Sucker ........................................ Catostomus discobolus yarrowi ....................... Candidate. 

Bald Eagle .......................................................... Haliaeetus leucocephalus ................................ Threatened. 

Northern Goshawk ............................................. Accipiter gentilis ............................................... Species of Concern. 

American Peregrine Falcon ................................ Falco peregrinus anatum ................................. Species of Concern. 

Mountain Plover ................................................. Charadrius montanus ....................................... Species of Concern. 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo .......................................... Coccyzus americanus ...................................... Candidate. 

Mexican Spotted Owl ......................................... Strix occidentalis lucida ................................... Threatened. 

Burrowing Owl .................................................... Athene cunicularia ........................................... Species of Concern. 

Southwest Willow Flycatcher .............................. Empidonax trailii extimus ................................. Endangered. 

Cebolleta Pocket Gopher ................................... Thomomys bottae paguatae ............................ Species of Concern. 

Mtn Silverspot Butterfly ...................................... Speyeria nokomis nitocris ................................ Species of Concern. 

Pecos sunflower ................................................. Helianthus paradoxus ...................................... Threatened. 

Zuni fleabane ...................................................... Erigeron rhizomatus ......................................... Threatened. 

Acoma fleabane ................................................. Erigeron acomanus .......................................... Species of Concern. 

Cinder phacelia .................................................. Phacelia serrata ............................................... Species of Concern. 

Gypsum phacelia ................................................ Phacelia sp. nov .............................................. Species of Concern. 

Black Footed Ferret ............................................ Mustela nigripes ............................................... Endangered. 

3.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air 

Quality 

3.6.1 Meteorology and Climatology 

Climatology and meteorology data are 

based on data summaries acquired from 

the National Climatology Data Center 

(NCDC) and the New Mexico Climate 

Center (NMCC) within the proximity of 

the project location and include 

National Weather Service data from the 

City of Grants (approximately 5.5 miles 

southeast of the project area (Bridges 

and Meyer, 2007). 

Monthly average temperatures in 

Grants, New Mexico, range from the 

low-thirties (degrees Fahrenheit) during 

the winter, to the low seventies in the 

summer. Maximum summer 

temperatures reach into the low 

nineties, while minimum winter 

temperatures fall in the low-teens. 

Precipitation received in the area 

averages approximately 12 inches per 

year with the maximum monthly totals 

received during the summer months 

accounting for nearly half of the annual 

total. Summer precipitation is usually 

associated with thunderstorms, which 

form with the arrival of warm, moist air 

from the Gulf of Mexico. Winter 

precipitation is derived mainly from 

storms from the Pacific Ocean, although 

the amounts received are much less 

than during summer months. 

Relative humidity in the area averages 

near 60 percent with the highest 

monthly average in December and the 

lowest in May. Annual evaporation for 

the area, estimated using equations 

outlined by NRC (1993), is 

approximately 78-to-94 percent of the 

annual precipitation, or 9-to-11 inches 

per year. 

HMC (2007d) reports the predominant 

wind direction is from the southwest. 

Average wind speed is estimated to be 

five miles per hour with a prevailing 

wind speed of five miles per hour. 

However, surface winds in the project 

area are reported by Bridges and Meyer 

(2007) as predominantly from the northnorthwest. The Bridges and Meyer wind 

data is from the Grants/Milan airport. 

Wind direction at the local airport is 

thought to be influenced by local 

landforms that are absent at the site. 

Data showing the predominant wind 

direction from the southwest is reported 

from HMC’s onsite weather station and 

is consistent with older weather 

information from the nearby Arco/ 

Bluewater site. While the prevailing 

wind direction is from the southwest, 

the Arco/Bluewater data wind rose 

shows a very significant westerly and 

northwesterly component (Cox, 2007). 

3.6.2 Air Quality 

Air quality status of the project area 

is considered to be unclassifiable or in 

attainment with the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the 

regulated criteria air pollutants, 

including particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter (PM–10), Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Ozone. No 

known monitoring data for the HMC site 

area were found through a review of 

New Mexico ambient air monitoring 

data within the past five years (Bridges 

and Meyer, 2007). The nearest 

monitoring sites are located in 

Albuquerque. 

Total suspended particulate matter 

(TSP) is an additional regulated air 

pollutant in New Mexico. TSP refers to 

small, solid particles or liquid droplets 

suspended in the air and having 

diameters of 25-to-45 microns. The 

major industrial point source of TSP is 

the coal-fired Coronado Generating 

Station, approximately 60 miles 

southwest of the project site. 

Peabody Energy’s Mustang project is a 

proposed 300-megawatt project to be 

located north of Grants, New Mexico, 

using coal from the existing Lee Ranch 

Mine operated by Peabody. An air 

quality permit application has already 

been filed and accepted as complete. 

Peabody recently received approval for 

a DOE grant (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). 

The permit application will likely be 

revised to reflect changes proposed in 

the grant application. 

Local area TSP sources are windblown dust, vehicular traffic on 

unpaved roads, and wind-blown liquid 

droplets from the aeration activities in 

the HMC evaporation ponds 

Evaporation Pond #1 (EP1) and EP2. 

3.7 Noise 

The HMC Site is located 

approximately one-half to three-quarters 

of a mile from the nearest subdivision. 

The operational noises generated at the 

HMC site are related to reclamation 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 46047 

activities. Reclamation activities include 

vehicle traffic, heavy equipment 

operation, pump operation, and 

monitoring well drilling activities. 

3.8 Cultural Resources 

Taschek Environmental Consulting 

personnel conducted an intensive (100- 

percent) cultural resource survey on 

approximately 350 acres in Sections 22 

and 23 of Township 12 North, Range 10 

West, for the proposed project. The field 

survey was conducted from June 5 to 

June 15, 2006. The New Mexico Cultural 

Resource Inventory System (NMCRIS) 

Project Activity Number for the survey 

is 100406. 

Eleven new sites, one previously 

recorded site, and 53 isolated 

occurrences (IOs) were identified during 

the survey. Of the twelve documented 

archaeological sites, three sites are 

recommended eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) under Criterion D for their 

information potential, based on the high 

probability of intact buried cultural 

deposits at these sites. An undetermined 

eligibility status is recommended for 

three sites pending a testing program 

that would determine the presence or 

absence of intact subsurface cultural 

deposits. The remaining six sites are 

recommended ineligible for inclusion in 

the NRHP due to their lack of integrity 

(Byszewski, 2006). 

3.9 Visual Resources 

Visual resources and recreational 

areas found within Cibola County 

include: San Mateo Mountains 

(including Mt. Taylor), Cibola National 

Forest, Acoma Village, San Estaban Del 

Ray Mission, El Malpais National 

Monument, El Morro National 

Monument, El Morro National 

Monument Inscription Rock Historical 

Marker, Old Fort Wingate-Zuni Wagon 

Road Historic Site, Pueblo Revolt 

Tricentennial Historical Marker, Petaca 

Plata Wilderness Study Area, Long Park, 

San Rafael Historical Marker, and 

Pueblo of Acoma Historical Marker. 

Facility buildings and mill tailings 

impoundments associated with the 

HMC site are visible from State Highway 

NM 605 and surrounding residential 

areas to the south and west of the 

property boundary. The HMC site can 

be seen from the following residential 

areas: Pleasant Valley Estates, Murray 

Acres, Broadview Acres, Felice Acres, 

and Valle Verde, Subdivisions. 

3.10 Socioeconomic 

3.10.1 Cibola County 

Cibola County was created by a 

division of Valencia County in 1981 

therefore, population data for the new 

county before 1981 are estimated. In 

1970, the county’s population was 

20,125, rising to 30,109 in 1980 and 

falling to 23,794 in 1990. These 

population changes were mainly related 

to uranium mining activity in the area. 

In 2000 the Cibola County population 

was estimated to be 25,595. The county 

encompasses a land area of 4,539 square 

miles. Industries providing employment 

include: Educational, health and social 

services (27.4 percent), Arts, 

entertainment, recreation, 

accommodation and food services (12.8 

percent), public administration (12.3 

percent), and retail trade (10.5 percent). 

Types of workers within Cibola County 

include, private wage or salary—58 

percent, government—35 percent, selfemployed, not incorporated 6 percent, 

and unpaid family work—1 percent. 

Cibola County population, by ethnic 

background, includes: American 

Indian—41.8 percent, Hispanic—33.4 

percent, White Non-Hispanic—24.7 

percent, Other race—15.4 percent, two 

or more races—3.2 percent, and African 

American—1 percent. The total can be 

greater than 100 percent because some 

Hispanics could be counted as other 

races. A mix of rural and industrial 

activities has characterized the Cibola 

County economy with uranium mining 

as the biggest factor in both the ‘‘boom’’

cycles of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and the 

‘‘bust’’ cycle of the 1980s. The location 

of federal and state prisons in the 

county has helped buffer some of the 

consequences of the economic 

downturn, and the County is currently 

on an economic upturn, as evidenced by 

the recent location of a major retail 

center and the construction of an interagency ‘‘gateway to the region’’ Visitor 

Center (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). 

3.10.2 City of Grants 

The City of Grants is the largest 

incorporated area near the proposed 

project site. The population of Grants, in 

November of 2005, was estimated at 

15,232. Between 2000 and 2005, the 

population of Grants has increased 2.7 

percent. The City of Grants encompasses 

approximately 13.7 square miles. The 

next nearest city is Rio Rancho, located 

approximately 80 miles east of the HMC 

site, with a population of 51,765. The 

City of Albuquerque is located 

approximately 85 miles east, with a 

population of 448,607 (Bridges and 

Meyer, 2007). 

3.11 Public and Occupational Health 

3.11.1 Air Particulate Monitoring 

HMC continuously samples 

suspended particulates at six locations 

around the reclamation site (HMC, 

2007b, HMC, 2007d). Three of the six 

locations are downwind from the 

reclamation activities. Two of the six 

locations are located close to the nearest 

residence, and the remaining location is 

located upwind from the reclamation 

site. The upwind location is used for 

background sampling. Energy 

Laboratories, Inc., analyzes the collected 

samples quarterly for Natural Uranium 

(Unat), Radium-226, and Thorium-230. 

3.11.2 Radon Gas Monitoring 

Radon gas is monitored on a 

continuous basis at eight locations, with 

one location located northwest of the 

site to record background levels (HMC, 

2007b, HMC, 2007d). Semiannually 

HMC personnel place new track-etch 

passive radon monitors (PRMs) at the 

monitoring locations, and the exposed 

detectors are retrieved and returned to 

Landauer Corporation for analysis 

(HMC, 2007d). 

3.11.3 Direct Radiation 

Gamma exposure rates are 

continuously monitored through the use 

of optically stimulated luminescence 

(OSL) dosimeter badges at each of seven 

locations (HMC, 2007b, HMC, 2007d). 

One location northwest of the site is 

considered the background location for 

direct radiation. The OSLs are 

exchanged semiannually and analyzed 

by an approved independent laboratory 

(currently Landauer). The levels of 

direct environmental radiation are 

recorded for each of the seven locations 

(HMC, 2007d). 

3.11.4 Surface Contamination 

3.11.4.1 Personnel Skin and Clothing 

The monitoring of personnel for alpha 

contamination is required as part of all 

radiation work permits using standard 

operating procedures. No releases of 

personnel or clothing above 

administrative limits were reported 

during the January–June 2007 period 

(HMC 2007d). Previous project SemiAnnual Environmental Monitoring 

Reports, filed with NRC pursuant to 

requirements of the project Radioactive 

Materials License, also document nonrelease of contaminated materials. 

3.11.4.2 Survey of Equipment Prior to 

Release for Unrestricted Use 

Equipment surveys are required for all 

equipment that is to be removed from 

contaminated areas as specified in 

radiation work permits. Standard 

operating procedures are used for these 

surveys. No releases of contaminated 

material above NRC release criteria were 

reported during the January–June 2007 

period (HMC, 2007d). Previous project 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
46048 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

Semi-Annual Environmental Monitoring 

Reports, filed with NRC pursuant to 

requirements of the project radioactive 

materials license, also document nonrelease of contaminated materials. 

3.12 Waste Management 

Upon completion of reclamation and 

groundwater cleanup activities, EP3 

would be decommissioned and the area 

reclaimed to allow return of the land to 

present unrestricted use. At present, the 

proposed EP3 pond site area is utilized 

for livestock grazing. 

All evaporation concentrates 

remaining within the EP3 pond liner at 

the end of the EP3 use period, would be 

removed and relocated to EP1 for 

incorporation with final reclamation of 

EP1 and the small tailings pile. The 

pond liner, piping, and other related 

infrastructure associated with EP3 

would also be relocated to EP1, 

incorporated with other project 

demolition and decommissioning waste, 

and reclaimed with the small tailings 

pile that presently underlies EP1. 

The area occupied by EP3, along with 

the access corridor, piping and utility 

corridors would be seeded and 

revegetated. The security fencing would 

be removed to allow agricultural grazing 

land use. Upon completion of the 

reclamation and decommissioning, the 

permitted license boundary associated 

with the EP3 pond location would be 

adjusted back to the present project site 

boundary. 

4.0 Environmental Impacts, 

Mitigation Measures and Monitoring 

4.1 Environmental Impacts 

The environmental impacts associated 

with the possible locations for EP3 are 

discussed below. 

4.1.1 Land Use 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the affected environment as described 

in Section 3. However, there are shortterm positive impacts associated with 

the no action alternative because land 

use changes resulting from construction 

and operation of EP3 would be avoided. 

The short-term positive land use 

impacts are offset by the benefits 

associated with operation of EP3. 

Operation of EP3 is expected to shorten 

the reclamation time at the HMC site by 

10 years, at which time the large tailings 

impoundment would receive its final 

cover, and the HMC site would be 

returned to its original land use. 

For Alternatives B and C, land use 

would be changed in the area, as the 

existing mill boundary would need to be 

increased to accommodate new 

construction of an evaporation pond. 

Alternative B would require a license 

boundary expansion of 185 acres. 

Alternative C would require a license 

boundary expansion of 68 acres. Under 

Alternatives B and C, land that is 

currently used for cattle grazing would 

be used as an evaporation pond for 

groundwater remedial activities and 

therefore unavailable for cattle grazing. 

The EP3 area will be reclaimed and 

returned to the desert grassland land use 

that exists today after completion of 

remediation activities in 2017. 

Approximately the top three feet of 

natural soil was removed or disturbed 

during the past removal of surface 

radioactive contamination over the 

entire Alternative C proposed licensed 

boundary location (Byszewski, 2006). 

Approximately the top three feet of 

natural soil was removed or disturbed 

during the past removal of surface 

radioactive contamination over 

approximately two thirds of the 

Alternative B proposed licensed 

boundary location. Only natural soil 

remains in the northern third of the 

Alternative B proposed boundary 

expansion location. However, the 

footprint of the proposed location of 

EP3 would disturb approximately 90 

percent of the remaining natural soil 

area. 

For Alternative D, land use would be 

little changed under this alternative. 

This location is within the existing 

licensed boundary that is currently an 

industrial site undergoing reclamation. 

This alternative site is immediately 

adjacent to EP1 and EP2. 

Under Alternatives B and C, adverse 

environmental impacts to land use 

would be present in the short term, for 

approximately the next 10 years, until 

EP3 is reclaimed and the land is 

returned to its prior use. Under 

Alternative D, adverse environmental 

impacts would be minimal. 

4.1.2 Transportation 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the current transportation system. 

However, there are short-term positive 

impacts associated with the no action 

alternative because transportation 

impacts resulting from construction and 

operation of EP3 would be avoided. 

For Alternatives B and C, the sitelicensed boundary would be expanded 

and be located across County Road 63. 

County Road 63 would not be within 

the licensed boundary, and access to 

County Road 63 would not be restricted. 

However, during construction of the 

evaporation pond at either location B or 

C, the road would have to be crossed 

occasionally by equipment or workers 

accessing the site. The road may also be 

disturbed by construction during the 

installation of pipes to carry reclamation 

water to the ponds for evaporation. Any 

construction may involve a temporary 

closure of the road. Any lane or road 

closure would need to be coordinated 

with Cibola County. During 

construction, the other County or State 

roads in the vicinity may be used by 

workers or equipment accessing the site. 

This would only be for the period of 

EP3 construction and reclamation. 

County Road 63 is very lightly traveled, 

so the impact would be very small. 

For Alternative D, this location is 

within the existing licensed boundary. 

During construction, County or State 

roads in the vicinity may be used by 

workers or equipment accessing the site. 

This would only be for the period of 

construction. 

Under Alternatives B, C and D, 

adverse environmental impacts to 

transportation would be small. 

4.1.3 Geology and Soils 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the affected environment as described 

in Section 3. However, there are shortterm positive impacts associated with 

the no action alternative because 

impacts to geology and soils resulting 

from construction and operation of EP3 

would be avoided. 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, soils 

would be disturbed during construction 

of EP3 and the associated roads and 

underground utilities leading to EP3. 

Disturbed soil would be more 

vulnerable to wind and water erosion. 

Soil disturbance would be greater for 

Alternative B, less for C, and even less 

for D. Alternative B is located furthest 

away from the groundwater remedial 

system and would require a longer 

access road and more distance to run 

utilities to reach the pond and, 

therefore, more soil disturbance. 

Alternative D is located closest to 

groundwater remedial system and 

would require the least amount of 

disturbance for the same reasons. Much 

of the area around the HMC site, 

including Alternatives C and D, has had 

several feet of soil removed when 

windblown tailings were identified and 

removed for placement in the large 

tailings impoundment. Windblown 

tailings over approximately 40 percent 

of Alternative B have been removed. 

More native soil would be disturbed 

under Alternative B than Alternative C 

or D. Under Alternatives C and D, very 

little native soil would be disturbed 

since the entire area had been 

previously disturbed when windblown 

tailings were removed. Disturbance of 

the native soil would have a short-term 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 46049 

negative impact on the natural 

vegetation. However, after remediation 

is finished, the EP3 area would be 

restored. 

EP3 would be constructed as at grade 

facilities, with cut and fill designed to 

be in rough balance. No significant 

quantities of soil would be imported or 

exported from the site. Soil impacts 

would be limited to the site. 

Under all three alternatives, there 

would be minimal changes in geology, 

since construction would be limited to 

the near surface. 

Under Alternatives B, C and D, 

adverse environmental impacts to 

geology and soils would be small. 

4.1.4 Water Resources 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the current water resources. However, 

there are short-term positive impacts 

associated with the no action alternative 

because there would be no loss of 

precipitation infiltration or the 

possibility of additional groundwater 

and/or soil contamination that would 

result from construction of EP3. Since 

operation of EP3 would significantly 

speed up reclamation of the HMC site, 

the short-term positive impacts would 

be outweighed by the negative impacts 

associated with a longer reclamation 

period. 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the 

construction of each pond would cover 

approximately 33 acres. The pond 

would be designed to evaporate water 

and be double lined with a synthetic 

liner to prevent water infiltration. This 

would result in the loss of a minor 

amount of precipitation that would not 

be available for infiltration. 

Additionally, construction of the access 

road would likely lead to increased 

compaction and loss of the ability for 

precipitation to infiltrate. These losses 

are considered to be minor. Additional 

runoff from the pond area would be 

minor as a majority of the water would 

drain into the pond and eventually 

evaporate. Additional runoff from the 

access road would be minor. 

The only surface water bodies in the 

vicinity of the site are several stock 

ponds and some small ephemeral 

ponds, which would not be affected by 

site activities or the proposed EP3 

construction. 

Construction of EP3 has positive 

impacts under all three alternatives. 

Operation of EP3 would allow HMC to 

pump 33% more contaminated 

groundwater which would increase the 

rate of groundwater remediation and 

ultimately speed up the reclamation of 

the entire site. In addition, the increase 

in groundwater pumping would allow 

HMC to more effectively control the 

contaminant plume at the site. These 

benefits outweigh the negative impact of 

increased water usage during operation 

of EP3. HMC is currently permitted to 

use the additional groundwater needed 

for operation of EP3, and would not be 

required to obtain additional permit(s) 

for increased water consumption for this 

action from the New Mexico Office of 

the State Engineer (OSE). The OSE is the 

permitting authority for groundwater 

consumption and groundwater 

diversions. HMC has been granted 

permit 1605 and B–28 to consume and 

divert approximately 1175 acre-feet of 

water per year and to temporarily divert 

4500 acre-feet of water per year by the 

OSE (OSE, 2005). HMC’s temporary 

diversion permit will expire on 

December 31, 2008, and HMC may be 

required to seek an extension of their 

temporary diversion at that time (OSE, 

2002). The OSE determined the 

approval of the permit for consumption 

and diversion of water is not 

detrimental to the public welfare of the 

state (OSE, 2005). 

There is a risk that the EP3 

impoundment could fail, or the pond 

liner could fail, which could lead to 

contamination of San Mateo Creek. EP3 

is engineered to withstand the 

maximum probable flood which should 

ensure failure of the EP3 is an unlikely 

event. The perimeter berm of EP3 is 

above grade and storm water runoff does 

not drain into the pond. EP3 has been 

designed to maintain enough freeboard 

above the probable maximum 

precipitation that overtopping of the 

berm by precipitation events should not 

occur. EP3 construction specifications 

have been approved by the State of New 

Mexico, Office of the State Engineer, 

Dam Safety Section, and reviewed by 

the NRC. The NRC review would be 

documented in a Technical Evaluation 

Report. Engineering controls and 

frequent inspections would be 

employed to ensure the pond does not 

fail or leak. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

adverse environmental impacts to water 

resources would be moderate as 

additional groundwater may be used by 

HMC. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

beneficial environmental impacts to 

water resources would be moderate, 

since the site may be cleaned up at a 

faster rate. 

4.1.5 Ecology 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the current ecology. However, there 

may be short-term positive impacts 

associated with the no action alternative 

because the loss of land for plants and 

animals resulting from construction and 

operation of EP3 would be avoided. 

Birds and fowl may use EP3 after it is 

constructed. The NMGF noted that 

methods may have to be used to keep 

birds and fowl from using EP3 (NMGF 

letter in section 6.0, Bridges and Meyer, 

2007). While the methods discussed by 

NMGF were not prescriptive, they may 

need to be employed in the future if 

adverse effects to birds and fowl are 

observed. HMC currently operates two 

evaporation ponds, EP1 and EP2, and 

has stated that to its knowledge birds 

and fowl have not been impacted or 

adversely affected. EP1 began operating 

in 1990. EP2 began operating in 1994. 

Although migratory birds and waterfowl 

visit the ponds frequently (especially 

during migration seasons), no mortality 

has been observed in or around either 

pond. Site operation crews are onsite 

during the day, and pond operations are 

among their primary duties. Water 

chemistry varies over time as the crews 

move water around between ponds, 

operate different wells, and run or shut 

off the reverse osmosis plant. The 

absence of bird mortality in or around 

the ponds over the years indicates that 

the water in the evaporation ponds does 

not contain contaminants at levels 

acutely toxic to birds. This is based on 

many years of observation of EP1 and 

EP2 (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). 

Construction of EP3 would result in 

the loss of some land available for plant 

and small animal life. The NMGF also 

noted that wildlife fencing may be 

appropriate for the pond. The NMGF 

discussed the potential for wildlife 

trapping hazards of the pond and 

suggested methods that may be used to 

minimize the risk of trapping. EP3 

would be fenced to keep humans and 

wildlife away from the pond and 

frequent inspections would include 

wildlife observation to ensure impacts 

are minimized. NMGF also suggested 

that its trenching guidelines be used 

when installing pipe to minimize 

ground disturbance (Bridges and Meyer, 

2007). 

A list of endangered and threatened 

plant and animal species was obtained 

from both the USFWS, as well as the 

NMGF, that may be found in the project 

area. This list of species is published in 

the HMC ER and can be found online as 

published by the NMGF (NMGF, 2007). 

Species listed by the NMGF are the 

same as those listed by the USFWS for 

threatened and endangered species. 

None of these species is known to be at 

the site and HMC has determined that 

there is a lack of a suitable habitat for 

the 16 plant and animal species listed 

as threatened or endangered (Bridges 

and Meyer, 2007). A survey by biologist 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
46050 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

Louis Bridges, who has extensive 

experience with western threatened and 

endangered species evaluations, 

confirmed the lack of suitable habitat for 

plant and animal species listed (Bridges, 

2007a, 2007b). 

There are no anticipated effects on 

threatened or endangered species from 

the proposed action. The USFWS has 

indicated that where a determination of 

no effects is concluded, no further 

consultation is required (Hein, 2007). 

For Alternatives B, C and D, 

environmental impacts would be similar 

for each pond location, and adverse 

environmental impacts to ecological 

resources would be small. 

4.1.6 Meteorology, Climatology, and 

Air Quality 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the current air quality. However, 

there are short-term positive impacts 

associated with the no action alternative 

because additional dust, TSP, and 

evaporative odors resulting from 

construction and operation of EP3, 

respectively, would be avoided. 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, there 

would be increased impacts to air 

quality during construction and 

reclamation of the pond which would 

be in the form of fugitive dust. HMC has 

proposed to use construction best 

management practices (BMPs) (see 

section 4.2.1) to control fugitive dust 

and emissions from construction 

equipment (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). 

Increases in radon emissions from EP3 

are expected to be minimal based on 

observations from current ponds EP1 

and EP2 as shown in HMC’s SemiAnnual Report (HMC, 2007d). There 

would be no expected changes in 

meteorology or climatology. 

For Alternatives B and C, a boundary 

expansion would be required. 

Additional air monitoring for 

radioactive dust and material may be 

required in the expanded boundary area 

to ensure radiological impacts to 

adjacent properties do not occur. 

Placement of EP3 at Alternative D, 

south of the mill tailings impoundment, 

would have the greatest potential to 

contribute to the evaporative odors in 

the residential areas to the south of the 

site that would be associated with the 

reclamation activities. Odors from EP1 

and EP2 have been a source of concern 

of nearby residences in the past. 

Alternative B and C locations would 

lessen odors and concern of water spray 

leaving the licensed boundary. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

adverse environmental impacts to air 

quality would be small. 

4.1.7 Noise 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the levels of operational noises 

coming from the HMC facility. 

The current HMC site is one-half to 

three-quarters of a mile from the nearest 

residential community. Operational 

noises are routinely generated from the 

HMC site, including heavy machinery. 

For Alternative D, construction of the 

pond would likely result in increased 

noise from heavy machinery during 

construction and reclamation activities, 

but would last only a few months while 

construction or reclamation activities 

occurred. 

For Alternatives B and C, noise 

impacts would be limited, since these 

sites are approximately one-mile from 

the nearest residential community. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

adverse environmental impacts from 

noise would be small. 

4.1.8 Historical and Cultural 

Resources 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no 

additional impacts to the historical and 

cultural resources surrounding the HMC 

site. However, there are minor positive 

impacts associated with the no action 

alternative because the potential for 

impact to cultural sites resulting from 

construction and operation of EP3 at 

Alternative B and C locations, would be 

avoided. 

A cultural resources inventory was 

performed by Taschek Environmental 

and was documented in a July 2006 

report (Byszewski, 2006). The report 

identified six sites that should be 

avoided by construction activities. 

There are no historic structures, 

buildings, or museum collections within 

the HMC project area. No ethnographic 

and traditional cultural properties or 

landscapes have been formally 

identified within or adjacent to the 

project area. 

Under Alternative B, there are two 

cultural sites that were identified in the 

cultural resources survey that should be 

avoided within the area proposed to be 

added to the site-licensed boundary. 

The two areas would not be impacted by 

the construction of the pond within the 

adjusted site boundary. The pond 

footprint is about one-third the size of 

the increased boundary for the pond. 

All areas that should be avoided would 

be avoided by using simple mitigation 

measures of putting a fence around the 

sensitive areas. In 1995, mechanical 

disturbance of up to three feet (one 

meter) of aeolian sediments exposed a 

number of new archaeological sites in 

the immediate area. The undisturbed 

portions of Alternative B contain older 

aeolian sediments that appear to be 

stabilized by increased vegetative cover. 

Given the high density of sites in the 

bladed portion of the survey area, and 

the lack of sites in the non-bladed 

portion, except for one, it is likely that 

aeolian deposits are covering intact 

subsurface archaeological remains in the 

undisturbed portions of the survey area 

(Byszewski, 2006). 

For Alternative C, there are four 

cultural sites that were identified in the 

cultural resources survey that should be 

avoided within the area proposed to be 

added to the site-licensed boundary. 

The footprint of the pond would avoid 

these areas, but would be much closer 

than that of Alternative B. 

Alternative D is located within the 

footprint of the existing facility and is 

heavily disturbed by prior construction 

and industrial activities at the site. 

There are no known cultural resources 

that may be impacted from this 

alternative. 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, the New 

Mexico Historic Preservation Office 

included a discovery clause in the event 

bones or prehistoric or historic 

archeological materials are discovered. 

The discovery clause is contained in 

section 4.2, Mitigation Measures. The 

office also determined that, ‘‘This 

undertaking will not have an adverse 

effect on registered or eligible 

properties.’’ (Meyer, 2007). 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

adverse environmental impacts to 

cultural resources would be small. 

4.1.9 Visual and Scenic Resources 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no impacts 

to the current visual and scenic 

resources. 

The construction of EP3 would 

require the movement of heavy 

machinery which may cause some 

additional dust to be observed at the 

site. The design of the pond for each of 

the alternatives is the same, with the 

pond berm having a maximum height 

above the natural ground surface of 

approximately 10 feet. This profile is 

much lower than that of existing 

features at the site such as the large 

tailings impoundment. The HMC site 

has not been determined to be a cultural 

landscape. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, the 

impact to visual and scenic resources 

would be small. 

4.1.10 Socioeconomic 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the current socioeconomics of the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 46051 

area. However, there are short-term 

negative impacts associated with the no 

action alternative because jobs for local 

residents resulting from construction of 

EP3 would not be available. 

The construction of an additional 

evaporation pond may add a few short 

term jobs to the area for the contractor 

constructing the pond and the 

contractor decommissioning the pond at 

the end of its service life. The need for 

maintenance and inspection of the pond 

would likely add to job duties already 

performed by on-site personnel. 

For Alternatives B, C, and D, 

socioeconomic impacts are expected to 

be small. 

4.1.11 Public and Occupational Health 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no 

additional impacts to public or 

occupational health. However, there 

may be short-term positive impacts 

associated with the no action alternative 

because potential impacts to the public 

from dust due to construction of EP3 

would be avoided. 

HMC conducts an air quality 

monitoring program at the site for 

particulates, radon, and gamma 

radiation. Continuous particulate 

monitoring occurs at six locations, 

continuous radon monitoring occurs at 

eight locations, and continuous gamma 

radiation occurs at seven locations. 

Construction of EP3 would cause an 

increase of dust particles and fossil fuel 

emissions during the approximately two 

month construction period. 

HMC currently operates two 

evaporation ponds at the site, EP1 and 

EP2. Both of these ponds use spray 

misters to aid in their evaporative 

capacity. HMC’s air sampling at various 

locations around the licensed boundary 

has not identified potential problems 

with the operation of EP1 or EP2. The 

air sampling test results indicate that 

airborne contaminants are below 

regulatory levels. Increases in 

contaminants from EP3 would be 

minimal and not expected to be any 

different from those occurring from EP1 

and EP2, and the total contaminants 

from all three ponds would be minimal, 

cumulatively. 

Local residences have been concerned 

about odors and contaminants from the 

evaporation ponds and pond misters 

that are currently on the site. HMC 

currently has been attempting to control 

odors by using a combination of copper 

sulfate and citric acid to control algal 

growth in the ponds (Cox, 2007). Dying 

and decaying algae is thought to be the 

primary source of the nuisance odors, 

although the high total dissolved solid 

may also be a source of odors. The issue 

of odors and possible contamination 

from the evaporation ponds were 

studied in 2001. Air monitoring for 

additional constituents in 2001, found 

that contaminant levels were similar to 

levels found before misters were 

installed. Contaminant levels were 

below regulatory limits and no health 

threat existed (NMED, 2001). 

No additional air monitoring would 

be required for Alternative D since 

Alternative D is located within the 

existing site boundary. No additional air 

monitoring would be required for 

Alternative C since Hi-Vol #2 sampling 

station is located directly to the east of 

the pond location. 

An additional Hi-Vol air monitoring 

station would be required for 

construction of the pond at Alternative 

B. Hi-Vol #1 sampler is located to the 

east, southeast of Alternative B and 

HMC has confirmed the predominant 

and prevailing wind direction is from 

the southwest. There is a lack of 

sampling coverage for the Alternative B 

location to the northwest of proposed 

Alternative B pond location. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

adverse environmental impacts to 

public and occupational health would 

be small. 

4.1.12 Waste Management 

For Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, there would be no 

additional waste generated. However, 

there may be short-term positive 

impacts associated with the no action 

alternative because there would be no 

EP3 evaporation concentrates, and no 

dust or noise from the removal of the 

pond liner at the end of 

decommissioning activities. 

Under each Alternative B, C, or D, the 

ponds would be decommissioned when 

the corrective action plan is completed 

and approved. Decommissioning 

involves removing EP3 and returning 

the land to unrestricted use. All 

evaporation concentrates remaining 

within the evaporation pond liner, the 

pond liner, piping, and other related 

infrastructure would be removed and 

relocated to EP1, which would 

eventually be incorporated into the 

small tailings pile at final reclamation. 

Environmental impacts during 

decommissioning would include 

increased noise and dust from heavy 

earth moving machinery, removing the 

pond embankment and liner to the 

small tailings impoundment. These 

impacts would only be for a short 

period of time during EP3 removal. 

Additional waste would also be 

generated from the operation of EP3. All 

evaporation concentrates remaining 

within the EP3 pond liner at the end of 

the EP3 use period, would be removed 

and relocated to EP1 for incorporation 

with final reclamation of EP1 and the 

small tailings pile. The pond liner, 

piping, and other related infrastructure 

associated with EP3 would also be 

relocated to EP1, incorporated with 

other project demolition and 

decommissioning waste, and reclaimed 

with the small tailings pile that 

presently underlies EP1. However, since 

the additional volume of waste from 

EP3 would be incorporated with other 

project demolition and 

decommissioning waste, the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the additional waste would be small. 

Under Alternatives B, C, and D, 

adverse environmental impacts to 

decommissioning and management of 

waste would be small. 

4.2 Mitigation Measures 

Mitigation measures that could reduce 

adverse impacts or enhance beneficial 

impacts have been proposed in the HMC 

ER (Bridges and Meyer, 2007). 

The mitigation measures identified in 

the ER and those identified by the NRC 

have been incorporated into this EA as 

discussed below. 

4.2.1 Construction Best Managements 

Practices 

HMC would use construction BMPs to 

reduce the associated adverse impacts of 

the construction of EP3. 

BMPs and storm water control 

practices are to be inspected before and 

after storm events to ensure that each 

BMP or control is functioning properly. 

Project BMPs would be constructed 

such that sediment and other pollutants 

are contained within the project site. 

Erosion and sediment control 

measures, such as silt fences, sediment 

traps, or straw bale dikes would be 

constructed around all areas with 

disturbed or exposed soil. A silt fence 

sediment barrier is required at a 

distance of 30 feet around the perimeter 

of all jurisdictional wetlands, in order to 

create an impact buffer zone. Erosion 

and sediment control measures would 

be designed and constructed in 

accordance with state and/or local 

specifications. 

Construction equipment would be 

stored at the off-site staging areas at the 

end of each work period. Storm water 

runoff would be routed around 

equipment, vehicles, and materials 

storage areas. Diversion of concentrated 

runoff would be accomplished through 

shallow earthen swales or similar 

methods in accordance with state or 

local specifications. 

Areas of the site would be designated 

for the delivery and removal of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
46052 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

construction materials. Construction 

materials would not be stored beyond 

the site perimeter silt fence. 

Construction materials, such as 

concrete, would be used in a manner 

that would not allow discharges into 

jurisdictional wetlands and drainage 

channels. Equipment used to make and 

pour concrete would be washed at an 

off-site location. Concrete fine material 

or aggregate would not be washed into 

the jurisdictional wetlands or other 

associated drainage channels. Concrete 

application equipment must be parked 

over drip pans or absorbent material at 

all times. The discharge or creation of 

potential discharge of any soil material, 

including concrete, cement, silts, clay, 

sand, or any other materials, to the 

Waters of the United States is 

prohibited. 

Secondary containment areas would 

be utilized for chemicals, drums, or 

bagged materials. Should material spills 

occur, materials and/or contaminants 

would be cleaned from the project site 

and recycled or disposed to the 

satisfaction of NMED. 

Waste dumpsters would be covered 

with plastic sheeting at the end of each 

workday and during storm events. All 

sheeting would be carefully secured to 

withstand weather conditions. 

On-site personnel would be trained in 

spill prevention and countermeasure 

practices. Spill containment materials 

would be provided near all storage 

areas. HMC contractors would be 

responsible for familiarizing their 

personnel with the information 

contained in the Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan. 

Non-radiological and radiological 

wastes would be recycled or disposed of 

in compliance with federal, state, and 

local regulations. 

Water would be sprayed on earth fill 

and disturbed ground surfaces as 

necessary to minimize wind-blown 

dust. 

NMGF, in a letter dated August 7, 

2006, to Kleinfelder Inc., suggested the 

use of trenching guidelines that should 

be used when installing pipe to 

minimize disturbance. These guidelines 

are to be transmitted by HMC to the 

contractor in the plan of work and used 

whenever possible. 

All construction equipment and 

vehicles would be maintained and 

inspected regularly to prevent oil or 

fluid leaks, and use drip pans or other 

secondary containment measures as 

necessary beneath vehicles during 

storage. 

Vehicles and equipment would be 

fueled and washed at an off-site 

location. 

4.2.2 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources have been 

identified within the project area and 

documented in the Cultural Resources 

Inventory completed by TEC for HMC in 

June 2006 (Byszewski, 2006). The sites 

that were addressed from the TEC 

survey would be monitored to confirm 

that these sites are not being impacted. 

If these sites are avoided, little impact 

should occur to on-site cultural 

resources. Furthermore, if any 

additional cultural resources are 

uncovered during excavation activities, 

the New Mexico Historical Society 

would be notified immediately to 

evaluate and initiate appropriate 

mitigation measures. 

The New Mexico Historic 

Preservation Division has requested that 

the following discovery clause be 

attached to the construction of EP3: 

Discovery Clause 

In the event that bones or prehistoric or 

historic archaeological materials are 

uncovered during construction or earthdisturbing activities, cease work immediately 

and protect the remains from further 

disturbance. If bones are found, immediately 

notify local law enforcement and the Office 

of the Medical Investigator pursuant to 18–

6–11.2C (Cultural Properties Act NMSA 

1978). 

In accordance with 18–6–11.2C and/or 36 

CFR 800.13(b) (Protection of Historic 

Properties), notify the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) or the State 

Archaeologist, immediately. 

In either case, the Agency and the SHPO, 

in consultation with an archaeologist who 

holds state unmarked human burial 

excavation and survey permits, would 

determine the necessary steps to evaluate 

significance, document, protect or remove 

the material or remains, in compliance with 

law. Call the SHPO or State Archaeologist at 

(505) 827–6320. 

4.2.3 Wildlife 

The proposed EP3 would be operated 

like EP1 and EP2 and would receive the 

same water quality. No measures to 

prevent birds from landing on EP3 are 

anticipated. EP3 would be inspected 

daily by on site personnel and would 

include observing wildlife in and 

around the pond. Mitigation measures 

would be implemented if it is 

determined that wildlife or migratory 

bird mortality is occurring. Mitigation 

measures would be similar to those 

suggested by the NMGF in an August 7, 

2006, letter to Klienfelder Inc., (Bridges 

and Meyer, 2007). 

A fence would be constructed around 

evaporation pond 3 in order to prevent 

unwanted access. This security fence 

would also be part of a fencing system 

that would be used to deter wildlife 

from entering the ponds. 

4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered 

Species 

Based upon site observation and 

information collected from current 

scientific literature, no threatened or 

endangered species or their habitat is 

present within the project area (Bridges 

and Meyer, 2007; Bridges, 2007). 

Therefore, no effects on threatened or 

endangered species or their habitat are 

anticipated and no mitigation measures 

are required at this time in order to 

prevent impacts to threatened and 

endangered species. However, if 

threatened or endangered species are 

identified within the project area during 

on-site activities, the NMGF would be 

notified immediately to initiate and 

evaluate mitigation measures. 

4.3 Monitoring 

An archaeological monitoring plan 

has been developed to be used during 

EP3 construction (HMC, 2007c). If 

buried cultural deposits are encountered 

at any point during construction 

activities, work would be ceased 

immediately and the New Mexico SHPO 

would be contacted. During ground 

disturbing activities, monitoring for 

archaeological artifacts should be 

completed in the undisturbed portions 

of Alternative B. 

The Discovery Clause requested by 

the New Mexico State Historic 

Preservation Office in section 4.2.2 of 

this EA will be included in the 

Archaeological Monitoring Plan. 

A groundwater-monitoring program 

for EP3 at Alternatives B or C would be 

implemented. Baseline water quality 

would be established from samples 

collected prior to completion of EP3. 

Groundwater monitoring wells are 

currently located down gradient of the 

EP3 Alternate C location and additional 

monitoring wells would not be required. 

Existing groundwater monitoring well 

DD is located to the west of the EP3 

Alternative B location. A second 

groundwater well is proposed by HMC 

to be located near the middle of the 

southeast side of Alternative B EP3 

location (HMC, 2007c). The additional 

well should adequately monitor the 

alluvial aquifer down gradient of the 

EP3 Alternative B location and should 

provide additional data, along with the 

EP3 liner leak detection system, that 

pond EP3 is functioning as designed. 

EP3 would be double lined and contain 

a leak detection system that would be 

monitored on a regular basis. 

The collected samples would be 

analyzed for the parameters listed in 

HMC’s current groundwater protection 

standards in their License SUA–1471, 

License Condition No. 35. The 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 46053 

monitoring well(s) would provide the 

capability to help detect pond liner 

failure that could lead to the 

contamination of local groundwater. 

Additional groundwater monitoring 

would not be required for Alternative D, 

since it is within the current site 

boundary. 

HMC’s monitoring and surveillance 

program for radioactive effluent releases 

has been designed to ensure the project 

compliance with 10 CFR 40, Part 20, 

U.S. NRC Standards for Protection 

Against Radiation and closely 

approximates programs as described in 

NRC’s Regulatory Guide 4.14, 

Radiological Effluent and 

Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 

Mills (NRC, 1980; HMC, 2006). Some 

effluent monitoring activities differ from 

those presented in Regulatory Guide 

4.14, as specified and required by 

HMC’s Radioactive Material License 

(SUA–1471). An additional particulate, 

radon, and gamma radiation air 

monitoring station needs to be sited in 

the primary downwind direction of the 

Alternative B location. The licensee 

would need to evaluate the need for 

additional monitoring as required by 10 

CFR Part 20 and Regulatory Guide 4.20 

(NRC, 1996). 

Land use survey reviews are 

completed on an annual basis to meet 

annual reporting requirements under 

NRC License SUA–1471. This would 

help in assuring that land use activities 

in the immediate area surrounding EP3 

are regularly reviewed to determine that 

those uses do not present a new concern 

for EP3. 

5.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted 

5.1 National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 Consultations 

HMC sent pre-consultation letters to 

the seven Native American Tribes 

identified by the State of New Mexico, 

Department of Cultural Affairs, Historic 

Preservation Office on July 6 and July 7, 

2006 (HMC, 2006a). Comments received 

by HMC can be found in the HMC 

Environmental Report (HMC, 2007a). 

NRC sent consultation letters May 11, 

2007, to seven Native American Indian 

Tribes and the New Mexico Historic 

Preservation Office (NRC, 2007b). The 

Native American Tribes were identified 

by the State of New Mexico, Department 

of Cultural Affairs, Historic Preservation 

Division website as requiring 

consultation in Cibola County, New 

Mexico. 

Reponses by Native American Tribes 

and Pueblos primarily centered on the 

discovery of remains and cultural 

artifacts and that the State Historic 

Preservation Office should be notified 

and work stopped until the remains or 

site can be further assessed. The Hopi 

Tribe was also supporting comments 

made by the Pueblo of Acoma. 

5.1.1 Consultations With the Pueblo of 

Acoma 

The Pueblo of Acoma outlined several 

concerns in a letter to the NRC dated 

June 4, 2007 (Pueblo of Acoma, 2007). 

NRC and the New Mexico Office of the 

State Engineer (OSE) held a 

teleconference with the Pueblo of 

Acoma on October 22, 2007, and 

November 5, 2007 (NRC, 2007d). In 

addition, the Pueblo of Acoma 

submitted comments on the draft EA in 

a letter dated April 25, 2008. The Pueblo 

of Acoma’s concerns as expressed in 

correspondence and in meetings with 

the NRC, and the NRC responses are 

provided in the EA. 

5.2 Endangered Species Act Section 7 

Consultations 

HMC and NRC consulted with the 

NMGF and the USFWS to determine 

which, if any, threatened and 

endangered may be found in Cibola 

County, New Mexico. Threatened and 

endangered species are not known to be 

located at the site. Mr. Louis Bridges, a 

biologist with NMGF, who has extensive 

experience in threatened and 

endangered species in western states, 

has verified that threatened and 

endangered species are not known at the 

site. Therefore, a determination of no 

effects to threatened and endangered 

species is reasonable for this proposed 

action. 

The USFWS has indicated that 

consultations are not required when a 

Federal agency has made a 

determination of no effects on 

threatened and endangered species 

(Hein, 2007). 

5.3 NMED and EPA Review of Draft 

EA 

NRC provided the draft EA to NMED 

and EPA for review and comment. 

Comments from the two agencies were 

considered in the development of the 

final EA. 

5.4 Public Meetings and Comments 

NRC held public meetings in Milan 

and Grants, New Mexico, to discuss the 

proposed action. The first meeting was 

on April 24, 2007, at the HMC site, and 

the second was held on September 18, 

2007, at the Cibola County Center (NRC, 

2007a, 2007c). Citizens and 

representatives of the Pueblo of Acoma 

attended both meetings. 

Local residents have been concerned 

for many years about the timeliness of 

overall cleanup at the site and the 

availability of clean potable water. 

These concerns were raised again at 

both meetings. Pertaining to EP3, local 

residents were concerned that the pond 

may not be big enough to clean up the 

site in a timely manner. Also, local 

residents were concerned about odors 

and contaminants that may come form 

EP3 and were generally supportive of 

the location of EP3 to the north of the 

site versus adjacent to EP1 and EP2. 

However, local residents are skeptical 

that the proposed size of the 

evaporation pond is adequate to address 

the volume of contaminants at the site 

(Bluewater Valley Downstream 

Alliance, 2007). 

6.0 Conclusion 

The NRC staff has concluded that site 

boundary expansion and construction of 

EP3, as proposed in the license 

amendment application dated October 

25, 2006, and January 30, 2007, 

complies with NRC regulations and will 

be protective of health, safety and the 

environment. The proposed action will 

be protective of groundwater resources, 

since EP3 will be double lined and 

monitored for leakage, and will enhance 

the groundwater reclamation currently 

ongoing at the site. EP3 will be 

decommissioned after it is no longer 

needed for groundwater reclamation 

purposes and the area will be returned 

to its current condition. 

The NRC staff has prepared the EA in 

support of the proposed action to amend 

License SUA–1471 to allow the 

construction of EP3 at the proposed 

location and allow expansion of the site 

boundary as outlined in the license 

amendment application. On the basis of 

the EA, NRC has concluded that there 

are no significant environmental 

impacts and the license amendment 

does not warrant the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Accordingly, it has been determined 

that a Finding of No Significant Impact 

is appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Buckley, Decommissioning and 

Uranium Recovery Licensing 

Directorate, Division of Waste 

Management and Environmental 

Protection, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental Protection 

Programs. Telephone: 301–415–6607, email: john.buckley@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day 

of July 2008. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
46054 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Rebecca Tadesse, 

Acting Deputy Director, Decommissioning 

and Uranium Recovery, Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management, and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials, and Environmental 

Protection Programs. 

[FR Doc. E8–18186 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. 50–423] 

Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; 

Millstone Power Station, Unit 3; Final 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

Related to the Proposed License 

Amendment To Increase the Maximum 

Reactor Power Level 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

SUMMARY: The NRC has prepared a final 

Environmental Assessment (EA) as its 

evaluation of a request by the Dominion 

Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., (DNC or the 

licensee), for a license amendment to 

increase the maximum thermal power at 

the Millstone Power Station, Unit 3 

(Millstone 3), from 3,411 megawatts 

thermal (MWt) to 3,650 MWt. The NRC 

staff did not identify any significant 

impact from the information provided 

in the licensee’s stretch power uprate 

(SPU) application for Millstone 3 or 

from the NRC staff’s independent 

review. Therefore, the NRC staff is 

documenting its environmental review 

in a final EA. The final EA and Finding 

of No Significant Impact are being 

published in the Federal Register. 

The NRC published a draft EA and 

finding of no significant impact on the 

proposed action for public comment in 

the Federal Register on June 4, 2008 (73 

FR 31894). There were no comments 

received by the comment period 

expiration date of July 7, 2008. 

Environmental Assessment 

The NRC is considering issuance of an 

amendment to Renewed Facility 

Operating License No. NPF–49, issued 

to DNC for operation of Millstone 3, 

located in New London County, 

Connecticut. Therefore, as required by 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Section 51.21, the 

NRC is issuing this final environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact. 

Plant Site and Environs 

Millstone 3 is located in the Town of 

Waterford, Connecticut, about 40 miles 

east of New Haven and 40 miles 

southeast of Hartford, Connecticut. 

Millstone 3 is located on Millstone 

Point between the Niantic and Thames 

Rivers. The site sits on the edge of the 

Long Island Sound and Niantic Bay and 

is approximately 20 miles west of Rhode 

Island. 

The site is approximately 525 acres 

including the developed portion of the 

site, which is approximately 220 acres 

in size. In addition to Millstone 3, the 

site includes the shutdown Millstone 

Power Station, Unit 1 reactor and the 

operating Millstone Power Station, Unit 

2 reactor. 

The site includes approximately 50 

acres of natural area and approximately 

30 acres of recreational playing fields 

licensed to the Town of Waterford. 

Approximately 300 acres of the site are 

outside the land developed for the 

power station. The transmission lines 

that connect the Millstone Power 

Station to the New England grid along 

with the switchyard equipment are 

owned and maintained by the 

Connecticut Light and Power Company. 

The exclusion area coincides with the 

site property boundary. The nearest 

residences are approximately 2,400 feet 

from the reactors. The region, within 6 

miles of the site, includes parts of the 

towns of Waterford, New London, 

Groton, East Lyme, and Old Lyme. 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would revise the 

Millstone 3 renewed facility operating 

license and technical specifications to 

increase the licensed rated power by 

approximately 7 percent from 3,411 

MWt to 3,650 MWt. The proposed 

action is in accordance with the 

licensee’s application dated July 13, 

2007, as supplemented by letters dated 

July 13, September 12, November 19, 

December 13 and 17, 2007, January 10, 

11, 14, 18, and 31, February 25, March 

5, 10, 25, and 27, April 4, 24, and 29, 

May 15, 20, and 21, and July 10, and 16, 

2008. The proposed SPU would be 

implemented during the scheduled fall 

2008 refueling outage. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

The proposed action permits an 

increase in the licensed core thermal 

power from 3,411 MWt to 3,650 MWt 

for Millstone 3, providing the flexibility 

to obtain a higher electrical output from 

the Millstone Power Station. The 

proposed action is intended to provide 

an additional supply of electric 

generation in the State of Connecticut 

without the need to site and construct 

new facilities or to impose new sources 

of air or water discharges to the 

environment. The proposed action is 

intended to supply approximately 85 

megawatts of additional electric 

capacity in a region of the New England 

Independent System Operator (ISO–NE) 

system where peak loads generally 

exceed local generation capacity. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The licensee has submitted an 

environmental evaluation supporting 

the proposed SPU and provided a 

summary of its conclusions concerning 

the radiological and non-radiological 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action. 

Non-Radiological Impacts 

Land Use Impacts 

The proposed SPU would not affect 

land use at the site. No new 

construction is planned outside of the 

existing facilities, and no expansion of 

buildings, roads, parking lots, 

equipment storage areas, or 

transmission facilities would be 

required to support the proposed SPU. 

The proposed SPU would not require 

the storage of additional industrial 

chemicals or storage tanks on the site. 

Transmission Facilities 

The proposed SPU would not require 

any new transmission lines, 

transmission line conductor 

modifications, or new equipment to 

support SPU operation and would not 

require changes in the maintenance and 

operation of existing transmission lines, 

switchyards, or substations. 

The licensee did not provide an 

estimate of the increase in the operating 

voltage due to the proposed SPU. Based 

on experience from SPUs at other 

plants, the NRC staff concludes that the 

increase in the operating voltage would 

be negligible. Because the voltage would 

not change significantly, there would be 

no significant change in the potential for 

electric shock. 

The proposed SPU would increase the 

current. The National Electric Safety 

Code (NESC) provides design criteria 

that limit hazards from steady-state 

currents. The NESC limits the shortcircuit current to the ground to less than 

5 milliamperes. The transmission lines 

meet the applicable shock prevention 

provision of the NESC. Therefore, even 

with the slight increase in current 

attributable to the SPU, adequate 

protection is provided against hazards 

from electrical shock. 

There would be an increase in current 

passing through the transmission lines 

associated with the increased power 

level of the proposed SPU. The 

increased electrical current passing 

through the transmission lines would 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES