DRC-2019-007505 - 0901a06880ac1b41

Div of Waste Management and Radiation Control
mw
Uranium Watch
JUL 2 6 2019
101 9-001 505
P.O. Box 1306
Monticello, Utah 84535
435-260-8384
July 26, 2019
via electronic mail
Dr. Chris Merritt
Deputy SHPO - Archaeology
Division of State History
300 Rio Grande
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
[e-mail]
Ty Howard
Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4880
[e-mail]
RE: White Mesa Uranium Mill. Radioactive Material License Number UT 1900479:
License Condition 9.7
Dear Dr. Merritt and Mr. Howard:
This is a followup of my letter of July 3, 2019, regarding License Condition 9.7 of the
White Mesa Uranium Mill Radioactive Material License. My July 3 letter references a
May 17, 2019, letter from Ty Howard, Director of the Utah Division of Waste
Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) to Dr. Merritt, Deputy SHPO -
Archaeology, State of Utah.
I would like to provide additional comments on LC 9.7.
Attached1 is a September 19, 1980, Memorandum from the Moab District Manager,
1 I apologize for the page in the Attached document that is sideways. I am currently not where I
have access to the paper copy and can rescan. Will rescan and send in mid-August.
Chris Merritt, SHPO, and Ty Howard, DWMRC 2
July 26, 2019
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), to the BLM Area Manager, San Juan, forwarding
the original copy of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (ACHP's)
concurrence with the Energy Fuels Exchange Proposal (without letter attachments). The
ACHP's September 15, 1980, concurrence is stamped on a September 4, 1980, letter from
the Moab District Manger, BLM, to Louis Wall, ACHP, regarding a Land Exchange
between the BLM and Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., for 2,600 acres of land on White Mesa,
San Juan County, Utah. The land would be incorporated into the White Mesa Uranium
Mill. The September 4 letter discusses the cultural impacts of the proposed land
exchange and made a Determination of No Adverse Effect. The letter states:
Accordingly, we have analyzed the cultural impacts of the proposed land
exchange and have made a Determination of No Adverse Effect (see
Enclosure 1 for documentation). This finding is based on the inclusion of
the enclosed cultural preservation covenant in the deed to be binding on
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., and its successors in interest (Enclosure 2).
Since the Utah State Historical Preservation Office helped us construct the
cultural preservation stipulation, we are confident of their concurrence and
are seeking such documentation concurrently with this letter.
Therefore, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concurred with the
determination that the Land Exchange would have no Adverse Effect, based on the deed
covenant; that is, the Cultural Resources Easement Agreement (Easement), signed by the
BLM and Energy Fuels Ltd. on August 26, 1985. The Easement required, among other
things, that "Periodic inspections of [archaeological] sites shall be performed by Bureau
of Land Management personnel by prior arrangement with the patentee to assure
compliance with these provisions at intervals not greater than three (3) years."
This Easement is attached to my July 3 letter. The Utah State Historical Preservation
Office helped craft the deed covenant and was asked to concur with the Determination of
No Adverse Effect. I do not have the letter documenting their concurrence, but assume
that they concurred with the BLM's finding, based on the Easement.
But, as it turned out, neither the BLM, Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. and their predecessors
of interest, Utah State Historical Preservation Office, nor the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation saw to it that the BLM actually complied with the provisions of the
Cultural Resources Easement Agreement. The BLM failed to conduct the required
inspections until 2016, a period of 30 years. That inspection only happened because I
again brought it to the attention of the BLM Monticello Office. By 2019, the time for
another Cultural Resources Inspection, the Monticello BLM Office was no longer aware
of the Easement and its requirements—a very short institutional memory.
If it had not been for me, there would have been no compliance with the Easement since
1985. The Utah State Historical Preservation Office and the U.S. Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation had assumed that the BLM and Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., would
Chris Merritt, SHPO, and Ty Howard, DWMRC 2
July 26, 2019
fulfill their Easement responsibilities and did not check up on how the Easement had been
implemented. How foolish of them to do so.
Therefore, I request that:
The Division, SHPO, Ute Mt. Ute Tribe and other affected parties should make sure that
the BLM fulfills their responsibilities as outlined in the 1985 Easement. The Easement
should be referenced in LC 9.7. The BLM and Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
should be required to submit reports, at least every 3 years, to the DWMRC and the Utah
State Historical Preservation Office regarding the BLM's Periodic Inspections of
Archaeological Sites and related matters associated with BLM oversight of the
archeological sites in the area of the Land Exchange.
Given the BLM's failures to implement the Cultural Resource Easement over 3 decades
and the failure of other agencies to assure BLM compliance, there must be additional
oversight requirements related to the BLM Land Exchange portion of the White Mesa
Archaeological District and the White Mesa Uranium Mill.
Sincerely,
/s/
Sarah Fields
[e-mail]
Attachment: As stated
cc (electronic mail):
Nichol Shurack, Ute Mt. Ute Tribe THPO
Phil Gobel, DWMRC
Ryan Johnson, DWMRC
John Chmelir, BLM Monticello Office
Scott Clow, Ute Mt. Ute Tribe
David Frydenlund, Energy Fuels
Peter Ortego, Ute Mt. Ute Tribe
Kirk Benge, SJ Public Health Dept.
Rick Meyer, SJ Public Health Dept.
Scott Hacking, DEQ
To
FROM
SUBJECT :
1.141TED STATES GOVERN NT
Memorandum DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Moab District PIREPLYREFERTO:
U-45312
8143
(U-060)
Area Manager, San Juan
listrict Manager, Moab
Advisory Council Concurrence on the
Energy Fuels Exchange Proposal
Date:
SEP 1 9
Attached is the original copy of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
concurrence with the Energy Fuels Exchange Proposal.
Please place this in the official case file to document the completion of the
Section 106 comment process.
Enclosure:
Advisory Council letter
with stamped concurrence (2)
cc:
Rich Fike, (U-931)
James Dykman, SHPO Office
George Glasier, Energy Fuels
10.-Monticeiio
ij
AM.
1:!AM
1%.
N:TM
tAran:
oz-r
I cis
1:*-1-U543-4
ktstr. I'S
sty 0 4 '1530
AO sPIsIge
ArioN

United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
IN REPLY REFER TO
U-45312
8143
(U-060)

46*

CD Moab District
P. O. Box 970
Moab, Utah 84532

Mr. Louis Wall
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Lake Plaza South, Suite 616
44 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Re: Energy Fuels Land Exchange
Dear Mr. Wall:
On August 15, 1980, we requested from the Keeper of the National Register a de er-
mination of eligibility for the Energy Fuels Parcel as an addition to the already
eligible White Mesa archeological district. A carbon copy of that documentation
minus the 194 site forms was sent to you at that time.
Accordingly, we have analyzed the cultural impacts of the proposed land exchange
and have made a Determination of No Adverse Effect (see Enclosure 1 for documen-
tation). This finding is based on the inclusion of the enclosed cultural pres'er-
vation covenant in the deed to be binding on Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., and its
successors in interest (Enclosure 2). Since the Utah State Historical Preservation
Office helped us construct the cultural preservation stipulation, we are confident
of their concurrence and are seeking such documentation concurrently with this
letter.
Your earlier letter of June 22, 1979 (see Enclosure 3), shows an appreciation
of the nature of the cultural resources of the area. The Utah SHPO concurrence
that the parcel is eligible is also attached for your information (Enclosure 4).
These should help you expedite your finding in this matter.
Please note that the boundaries of the proposed exchange are not identical with
the proposed addition to the White Mesa Archeological District (eligible). Com-
pare Appendix B, outlining the exchange, with Enclosure 5, which shows the pro-
posed addition to the National Register District.
We believe you now have sufficient documentation to comment on the proposed
Energy Fuels exchange. We therefore request your formal concurrence in this
action at the earliest possible date, but in no case later that 30 days after
Distri t Manager
receipt of this letter per 36 CFR 800.6. If documentation is inadequate,
please inform us within 15 days of specific deficiencies so that we can remedy
these problems.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our district
archeologist, Bruce D. Louthan, at [phone].
Sincerely yours,
Enclosures (5) 1-No Adverse Effect Documentation (4)
2-Cu1tura1 Stipulation (7) 3-Advisory Council Letter (1)
4-SHP0 Eligibility Concurrment (1) 5-NR District Map (1)
cc: Rich Fike (U-931) (w/o encl.)
James Dykman, SHPO Office
George Glasier, Energy Fuels
Opal Redshaw (U-604)