Download Date 09/10/2021 02:36:10

Effects of Climate and Ecological Processes on Engineered Uranium Disposal Cell Performance with Respect to Nearby Subsistence-Based Indigenous Communities

Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation

Authors Joseph, Carrie Nuva

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.

Download date 09/10/2021 02:36:10

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/631953

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE AND ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES ON ENGINEERED URANIUM DISPOSAL CELL PERFORMANCE WITH RESPECT TO NEARBY SUBSISTENCE-BASED INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

Carrie Nuva Joseph

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF SOIL, WATER, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

2019

Acknowledgments

First, I would like to thank my parents, Charlene (Pakwamana) and Harold (Dawahefvaya) Joseph Jr., for their immense understanding, patience, love, guidance, knowledge, and never-ending support during this dissertation journey. Asquali for providing the strong cultural and spiritual foundation that remains strong, so we can continue to carry on our ancestors’ teachings as you continue to maintain your responsibilities to our clan ii’iisyam (mom), to our Hopi wiimi, and to our family’s villages. We learn to live in a respectable way, work hard, and have humility, while maintaining light-heartedness through laughter and humor by watching the both of you. I would also like to thank my grandparents, the late Bessie niipu and Harmon niipu Kewenvoyouma (maternal), Louella, and the late Harold niipu Joseph Sr., Vivian So’o niipu, Ila So’o, and Connie So’o niipu. It is because of all of you that we are strong- spirited, rooted in where we come from, and continue to learn the ways of our hiisatsinom, ways that a majority of people will never understand. Our ancestral knowledge is valid and has gone through the ultimate scientific review process because we are still here. All of you taught me that we must remain strong with who we are because this knowledge will become pivotal when life becomes challenging.

In addition, I would like to thank my brothers, Garrett and Darold Joseph, for their support and encouragement to my daughter Kara and me. You are the best Tahas to Kara and fulfill both cultural and family roles that I would never be able to. Asquali! Also, thank you to Darold for sharing this dissertation journey with me, or me with you. It was truly an experience to get our PhDs together and will add to the stories we can tell our grandchildren. Thank you for giving me my beautiful, kind, and intelligent mowi Alisse (Dr.) and my nieces and nephews: Deja, Duwala, Dillion, Homma, and Chulla.

I would also like to thank my dissertation committee for providing unwavering support by sharing their expertise and experience with me: William Jody Waugh, the late Edward Glenn, Karletta Chief, Michael Crimmins, and Cecilia Rosales. When I made the decision to begin Graduate School, Ed was there to welcome me as his student. Later, he introduced me to Jody, who always taught with passion and patience. Thank you to Karletta to reaffirming in me that there is a place for Indigenous Science in higher education.

The research presented in this dissertation would not be possible without the following funding sources, to whom I am forever indebted: The University of Arizona (UA) / Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Indigenous Partnership, The Department of Energy – Legacy Management contractor to Navarro Research and Engineering, The Hopi Tribe Grants and Scholarships Program, The Hopi Education Endowment Fund, The Marshall Foundation, the UA/UNESCO Research Assistantship, the Intertribal Timber Council/USDA, Helen Roberti Fund, the American Indian Science and Engineering Society’s (AISES) Lighting the Pathway to Careers for Native in STEM, AISES A.T. Anderson Memorial Fund, UA Superfund Program Training Core Program, UA Native Nations Institute Graduate Award, American Indian Education Fund, The UA American Indian Alumni Club, and The First Nations Development Institute. 4

Thank you to the amazing staff, faculty, and affiliates of UA: Donna Treloar, Maria Teresa Velez, Ron Trosper, Frans Tax, Ryan Emmanuel, Sheilah Nicholas, Kathleen Thomas, Christopher Scott, Jim Washburne, and Robert Cote. I also must thank the village members of Moencopi and the Hopi Tribe for supporting my research efforts. This dissertation would not be complete without them.

Asquali, family and friends for encouraging me through love, laughter, and support. Thank you to my moms: Ann, Annette, Jay, Ber, and Ellen; my sisters, brothers, nieces, and nephews; my uncles: Harrison, Cloudy, and Bradford. To my snow clan fathers: Eli niipu, Mark, Harlan, and Darren, all who continue to show me what hard work is. My other father, Junior, and his family. To my aunties: Lorna, Marjorie, Carrie, Ada, Rita niipu, Barbie, Hongs, Teresa, and the snow clan aunties/family for always being there and showing love. Asquali. To my Tucson family, friends, and labmates: Xiaobo, Schuyler, Quinton B., Quinton A., Shivanna, Pat, Kim, Rebecca, Norma, Martha, Pamela, Melodie, Lydia, Chris, Desi, and Yadi.

Most importantly, thank you to the special man in my life, Gary Leslie Sakwahongva for your immense support, patience, understanding, and love. From making sure I remained active to holding down our home when I was a mess, listening to my struggles, and most importantly, instilling laughter and happiness in our home through your infectious energy and silly ways. Thank you for also giving me another beautiful and caring family: Bernie, So’so’, Pa’pah, Delfred, Marissa, Mike, Sirai, Laiklynn, and the rest of the Navakuku’s and Leslie’s.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my beautiful baby whom I started this higher education journey with many years ago, my one and only daughter, Kuuywisnom Kara Kewenvoyouma Joseph. You continue to amaze me with your resilience, bravery, talent, thoughtful heart, and love. Every day, you were the constant encouragement to keep me moving. I know it wasn’t always easy, but we did it! Wherever your path leads, I know the creator, higher powers, and caretakers have you destined to do amazing things; always carry them in your heart. Nahongvita, always! I love you.

Dedication

To our ancestors, Hopi leaders, and matriarch: the keepers of knowledge, identity, and connection to other dimensions of life, you keep our foundation strong.

To the 19 Hopi men who were sent to Alcatraz in 1895, imprisoned for resisting to give up Hopi identity and culture for your children. Your voice lives on through me.

To the Moencopi Village, Hopi villages, and Hopi and indigenous youth around the globe: I am driven by the need to protect our future and to increase recognition by restoring the respect for our ancestral ways of life.

Lastly, to my daughter Kara, my nieces Lorae, Rainy, Wunsi, Paamana, and Karmon:

You have the immense role of becoming the future fire keepers for our family. You drive and inspire me to become a better person every day. Asquali!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... 8

INTRODUCTION ...... 11

Intellectual merit and research context ...... 11 Literature Review...... 14 Explanation of dissertation format and collaborative contributions ...... 26

PRESENT STUDY ...... 27

REFERENCES ...... 31

APPENDIX A: UPTAKE OF ELEMENTS OF CONCERN BY PLANTS GROWING

ON URANIUM MILL TAILINGS DISPOSAL CELLS NEAR NATIVE AMERICAN

COMMUNIITES ...... 37

Abstract ...... 38

1. Introduction ...... 39

2. Methods ...... 45

3. Results ...... 47

4. Discussion ...... 56

5. Summary ...... 62

6. Acknowledgement ...... 63

7. Figures and Tables ...... 64

8. References ...... 71

APPENDIX B: THE EFFECTS OF OBSERVED AND FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS DISPOSAL COVERS

LOCATED IN THE U.S. SOUTHWEST...... 75

Abstract ...... 76

1. Introduction ...... 77

2. Methods ...... 82

3. Results ...... 85

4. Discussion ...... 87

5. Summary ...... 91

6. References ...... 92

7. Figures and Tables ...... 95

APPENDIX C: HOPI VILLAGERS RISK PERCEPTIONS TO DEFENSE-RELATED

URANIUM SITES LOCATED IN THE U.S. SOUTHWEST ...... 103

Abstract ...... 104

1. Introduction ...... 105

2. Methods...... 113

3. Results ...... 117

4. Discussion ...... 132

5. Conclusion ...... 136

6. Acknowledgements ...... 136

7. Conflicts of Interest...... 137

8. References ...... 138

9. Figures and Tables ...... 141

10. Supplementary Information ...... 144 8

ABSTRACT

Near-surface earthen-engineered disposal covers are used to consolidate uranium mill tailings waste generated from defense-related uranium mines located across the

United States. Disposal covers made from compacted soil layers stabilize waste consisting of a mixture of chemical and radiological constituents to limit air, soil, and water contamination above and below ground. However, 20 to 30 years post- construction, vegetative succession, dust deposition, and soil development are changing the as-built engineering design, clearly notwithstanding the longevity standard of 200-

1,000 years. Little is known about how natural ecological succession will impact the performance of earthen-engineered covers. Furthermore, there is a dearth of information about how subsistence-dependent Indigenous communities located nearby inactive uranium disposal facilities are impacted by past, present, and future operations of legacy sites. The Department of Energy – Legacy Management (DOE-LM) is evaluating whether natural ecological processes occurring above disposal covers are sustainable and alternate long-term remedies that could reduce maintenance costs and exposures to humans and the environment. Using quantitative and qualitative methodologies, three interdisciplinary studies were completed to address key knowledge gaps for uranium legacy sites. The overall research objectives are:

(1) to investigate how natural ecological succession above engineered covers,

specifically plant establishment and root intrusion, may be a potential benefit or

potential detriment to disposal cover performance;

(2) to provide climatological data and future climate trajectories to understand

whether engineered cell covers are vulnerable to climate impacts; and 9

(3) to understand community risk perceptions from the unheard voices of

indigenous people and the impacts to their livelihoods from uranium legacy sites.

In the first study, 144 samples of various vegetation types were analyzed for metal and radiological uptake collected from a broad range of climates and disposal cover designs, where soil development, dust deposition, and moisture provided a favorable habitat for plant growth. The goal was to determine if vegetation was compromising the performance of disposal cell covers by creating an exposure pathway for uranium tailing constituents. It was also important to determine exposure levels because twelve

Indigenous tribes living near the study sites have ethnobotanic uses of plants. The results of this research indicate that plant concentrations are not accumulating to toxic levels with the exception of two site locations, where exceedances can be attributed to background soil characteristics.

The second study addresses the vulnerability of uranium disposal cell covers to climate change in the U.S. Southwest. We extract monthly precipitation, daily minimum, and daily maximum temperatures to determine climate trends (mean annual temperatures, extreme conditions, and seasonal variation) of the recent past from high-resolution data sets. We also determine future climate by documenting projections from CMIP5 models under two representative concentration pathways (RCP). It was found that there are yearly and seasonal differences in climate outputs compared to historical data. While one site in the southwest experiences a trend towards wet/hot conditions, another site will experience hot/drier conditions under RCP 8.5 projections. From this study, it is hypothesized that allowing plants to grow in regions (Tuba City) that will experience 10 wetter conditions, in normally arid regions, could be an alternative to controlling the water-balance.

The third study used indigenous research methodologies to determine the community risk perceptions of two Hopi villages located 7 kilometers (km) downstream from an inactive uranium mill tailings site. Five focus groups were held using the conversational method in which open-ended, broad overview descriptive questions were used as a guide. The results from this study can address broader questions about a needs assessment, exposure and risk assessment, and risk communication, that are unique to the

Hopi population but also useful to other tribes.

Given the scope of the problem, this dissertation research confirms how natural ecological processes via climate-plant interactions on disposal covers may pose risks to performance, and in other cases it may not. The results will help to prioritize sites that may be good candidates for disposal cell renovations that embraces a sustainable design.

Further, the qualitative study provides vital information, not documented in the literature than can be prioritized to bridge partnerships and reduce environmental and health risks.

INTRODUCTION

Intellectual merit and research context

Uranium extraction and processing for defense-related purposes was common during the Cold War era (1948-1980), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) estimates that there are 15,000 abandoned uranium locations (open pit and underground mines) that span 14 states with an estimated 75% on federal and tribal lands

(USEPA, 2006) . Of those locations, over 500 open, abandoned mines and 1,100 features are found in the Four Corners region (Orescanin, 2011; Hoover et al, 2017). Uranium mill tailings, often referred to as legacy waste, compromise the largest volume of any category of radioactive waste in the nation (Abdelouas, 2006). Today, the Department of

Energy Legacy Management (DOE-LM) is responsible for long-term stewardship and maintenance of 100+ uranium processing sites (DOE, 2015). Reclamation and remediation of defense-related uranium processing sites often include using a near- surface earthen engineered disposal cell cover to contain uranium tailings, which otherwise would be a source of environmental contamination and pose risks to human health.

Most disposal covers use multiple layers of compacted soil to enforce the Nuclear

Regularly Commission’s (NRC) clean-up measures to slow radon flux to a standard less than 20pCi m-2s-1(NRC, 1989), control water percolation by limiting saturated hydraulic

-9 -1 conductivity (Ks) to less than 1.0 x 10 m s , with the ability to function as designed for

1,000 years (DOE, 1989). Abiding to these standards assures that disposal cover systems are designed to immobilize radioactive waste in soils for thousands of years while 12 considering the radiological and chemical mechanism of uranium waste transformation and the environment in which they reside. However, 20 to 30 years post-construction,

DOE-LM uncovered unanticipated changes in the engineered designs as natural ecological processes took place. This included how abiotic and biotic processes accelerated soil development and inadvertent vegetation growth above the disposal cell

(Waugh et al., 1994), which led to cracking and fissures with the potential to compromise cover performance. The science and technology of natural ecological processes on the performance standards of the cover are not well understood, so short-term maintenance strategies are being implemented to resist natural ecological processes. For example, herbicide spray is applied to the surface of covers to prevent plant establishment.

Long-term maintenance strategies are shifting towards embracing natural processes to improve the chemical and physical stability of cell covers, thereby limiting costs. Cell cover renovation by accelerating already occurring natural ecological processes may be a desirable alternative for engineered disposal cell covers. Alternative designs for uranium waste containment incorporate sustainable remedies that mimic the local environment by using vegetation to control the water balance at one semi-arid site.

These designs are constructed with a thick sponge-like soil layer that holds moisture until it is lost through evapotranspiration, thus maintaining unsaturated conditions in the disposal cell profile, which help to immobilize underlying waste (Gee and Tyler, 1994;

Scanlon et al., 2005). This alternative design is currently being monitored at a DOE-LM site in Monticello, UT, to determine whether the water-balance cover will perform as well as or better than conventional disposal cells of the late 1980’s and 1990’s. Although this design shift is relatively new, studies of natural analogues suggest that the cover 13 performance is likely to improve over the 1,000-year design life (Albright, 2010). If this is the case, water-balance covers may be the preferred remedy to encapsulate uranium waste for semi-arid to arid regions.

Significant investment is being made to use the latest science and technology to improve long-term strategies for uranium mill tailings sites; however, what often remains at the hindsight of long-term planning are the impacts to communities located in mill tailing site regions. For many years, uranium mill tailings were left uncovered and unregulated because radioactive waste did not fall under the legal definition of “source material” of the nuclear energy cycle; thus, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) insisted it did not have jurisdiction (LWVEF, 1993). Furthermore, with many of the study sites located on and within several Indigenous communities, construction and maintenance of disposal covers imposes unique challenges to nearby indigenous communities that is often overlooked by mainstream society.

Indigenous people near these sites have historically depended on their environmental knowledge to survive. This knowledge, often referred to as traditional knowledge, is a result of long-scale occupation of the land, where tribal communities alter their practices around the natural environment by using adaptive strategies to survive. One example is the use of traditional dry-farming techniques by Southwestern

Tribes that involves careful placement of field areas to capture precipitation, producing annual crop yields in harsh, arid to semi-arid climates. Most Indigenous communities rely on subsistence practices that include customary year-round traditional and herbal medicine gathering of local plants, raising of livestock, hunting, and farming. As a result, 14 these cultural practices magnify the need to identify effective and sustainable clean-up technologies to minimize exposure (Gochfeld and Burger, 2011) .

The research presented in this dissertation examines the impact of climate and community adaptation with respect to the long-term performance of engineered disposal cell covers for uranium mill tailing located in subsistence-dependent Indigenous communities. The results can add to an interdisciplinary mix of studies that seek to determine if natural processes should be enhanced or accommodated. Furthermore, it bridges the understanding between science and community by documenting the concerns, priorities, and recommendations of the unheard voices of an Indigenous population, particularly the Hopi Nation.

Literature Review

Uranium Mill Tailings in the Nuclear Energy Cycle

Nuclear energy cycle processes include mining uranium (ore), milling (physical and chemical extraction of U3O8), conversion, enrichment, fabrication, power generation, and storage of used fuel for reprocessing or underground disposal (Abdelouas, 2006).

Uranium mill tailings are the largest category of radioactive waste in the United States

(U.S.). When ore is processed to extract uranium, 99% of the ore’s mass remains as tailings, which contain 85% of radioactivity, as traces of thorium-230, a precursor to radon-226, with a half-life of 77,000 years (LWVEF, 1993). Radon-226 is the precursor to Rn-222, which has a half-life of 3.8 days. Consequently, the radioactive emissions from tailings will be a constant source of contamination to the environment and human health if not properly regulated.

Health Exposure Risks

Potential health exposures can come from radiation risks of decaying products, dispersion of radioactive dust by wind, radon gas emissions from the tailings pile, and leeching of mixed contaminants in groundwater and soil. Other hazardous substances found in tailings are toxic heavy metals, selenium, and other elements such as arsenic and molybdenum (Abdelouas, 2006; EPA, 2014). The health effects from exposures to these radiological and chemical agents are well-documented in the literature (Eggers et. al.,

2018; EPA, 2014; Lewis et al., 2017; Moore-Nall, 2017). For example, uranium contaminated groundwater and air particulate matter are known to target human tissue and bone, which increases cancer risks, liver damage, and kidney disease. Furthermore, uranium storage in the bone affects bone growth, causes DNA damage, and impairs brain development and reproductive health. Exposure studies are now beginning to find that fetuses, infants, and children, are especially susceptible (Eggers et al., 2018).

The majority of impacted communities exposed to the Cold War legacies of mining, milling, and above-ground nuclear testing are indigenous people and minority groups (Kyne, 2016). Uranium mining from mining and milling is considered a low-dose exposure, with health exposure effects predominately linked to the chemical toxicity of uranium rather than the radioactivity of uranium (Brugge and Buchner, 2011; Arnold,

2014). Approximately 30-50 years after extensive mining and milling on the Navajo

Nation a Navajo Birth Cohort study is finding high levels of uranium in urine samples for

27% of study samples. Additionally, a study conducted with 1,300 Navajo tribal members found an association between uranium exposure and the development of chronic disease, specifically hypertension and kidney disease (Hund et al., 2015). The 16 relationship was stronger for “active exposure” participants who worked or lived in the mine and mill area during the active mining and milling era (1940-1980), including reclamation workers, compared to “legacy mining exposure” participants, who lived near milling and mining sites post era. Nonetheless, the study found evidence that both legacy and mining exposures increase the likelihood of developing chronic disease. Furthermore, a subset of biological samples from the same study revealed that inflammatory potential in cellular bioassays were higher for individuals the closer they lived to a mill or mine site (range of 0-40 km), indicating a positive relationship to atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (Harmon et al., 2017).

Defense-Related Mining and Milling in the Four Corners

Much of the uranium ore that was mined during the World War II and Cold War era came from the Colorado Plateau Four Corners region, measured at one time to have the highest concentrations of uranium in the U.S. It was estimated that four million tons of ore were extracted between 1944 and 1986 to supply the federal government in the region. The leasing of land for uranium mining was largely done on the Navajo Nation with complex leasing agreements between the U.S. government and the Navajo Nation, which allowed Navajo members to prospect land to collect uranium royalties

(Chenoweth, 2011) and provided employment in uranium mines (Arnold, 2014). It wasn’t until the mid 80s that the environmental and health effects of uranium mining was realized, which led to the passage of Navajo Nation’s ban on uranium mining made in

1995 (EPA, 2013). Today, there are over 500 abandoned uranium mines (AUMs) and

1,110 features (pits, waste piles, portals, prospects, vertical shafts) in the Four Corners region as a result of the lease and mining permit history, located on the Navajo 17

Reservation, and very close to the Hopi Reservation in Arizona and Pueblo Reservations in New Mexico. Among the 500 plus sites, nine were former milling areas that processed uranium ore (EPA, 2013). Six of the nine sites are managed by the DOE-LM, who are responsible for providing long-term stewardship and maintenance of inactive milling sites to prevent further migration and exposure of tailings to the environment and surrounding communities.

Disposal Covers for Containment

Remedial post-closure activities for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act

(UMTRCA) sites included using disposal cell covers to contain tailings that were left- over from uranium processing and active groundwater treatment for contaminated subsurface groundwater. The first remediation efforts occurred in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, when the approach to encapsulate tailings was achieved using an engineered-cover made of compacted-soil from “borrow” areas, uncontaminated soil of the same soil type (Looney, 2014). Disposal cell cover systems are designed to limit the surface flux of radon to less than 20 pCi m-2s-1, control water percolation into tailings, and prevent wind erosion, water erosion, and frost cracking of cover soils (DOE, 2015;

Waugh et al., 2015; Waugh et al., 2008). Early engineered cell covers that were designed to satisfy regulatory standards consisted of a 3-layer system: 1) a compacted soil layer to control radon flux, 2) a durable rock rip-rap layer to prevent wind and water erosion, and

3) a bedding layer below the rock armor that consisted of course sand to aid in lateral movement of precipitation (IAEA, 2004). Initially, groundwater concerns were separate from the regulatory framework for disposal cells, until the 1987 EPA report released groundwater quality standards for environmental contamination. UMTRA responded by 18 adopting a standard for hydraulic conductivity to be less than 1.0 cm, to limit rainwater percolation into the tailings region. This new standard was determined to be met by using compacted native soil or bentonite-amended soil to reduce permeability in the disposal cell designs and prevent ponding in the tailings (IAEA, 2004).

Disposal Cover Flaws

Over time DOE-LM sites uncovered unanticipated changes in engineered designs as ecological succession took place. Soil development processes occurred over time, changing the as-built engineering properties of disposal cell covers. The rip rap rock armor on the covers, harvested water and trapped windblown dust, creating a habitat for shrubs and trees to grow and root into the cover. Most disposal covers were not designed for vegetation growth. Plant roots from vegetation began to penetrate compacted soil layers of the cell cover at various DOE-LM sites including Grand Junction, CO,

Lakerview, OR, Burrell, PA, Shiprock, NM, and Tuba City, AZ (Benson et al, 2011).

Furthermore, as windblown dust accumulated in the riprap layer it increased soil development processes. Root intrusion by vegetation paired with soil development processes were found to increase saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks) greater than the standard (1.0 x 10-9 m s-1) at investigated sites. Air entry permeameters were used to test for hydraulic conductivity and sites. In Burrell, PA where Japanese Knotweed penetrated

-7 the radon barrier, the Ks measured 3.0x10 m/s. In Shiprock NM, mean Ks value measured at 4.4 x 10-7m/s with higher values measured in areas where Russian thistle and tamarisk were growing. Lastly, Ks values at the Tuba City site ranged averaged at 8.7 x

10-8m/s to (Benson et al., 2011). Physical evidence of root penetration and increased Ks 19 values, were shown with the use of dyes, where seepage through fissures and macropores were noted.

Sustainable water-balance disposal covers

An alternative method was incorporated into covers that embrace natural processes by using a vegetated layer to improve physical and chemical stability. The ecological design serves as a water balance with its thick soil sponge-like layer that holds water until it is lost through evapotranspiration, thus maintaining unsaturated conditions in the subsoil and tailings. Ongoing studies at Monticello, UT, the first site to incorporate a sustainable design, are monitoring hydraulic conductivity and other environmental parameters. This large-scale project includes a built in 3-hecatre lysimeter, time-domain reflectometry probes, and meteorological parameters to understand water-balance (DOE,

2015). In 2014 data showed that no percolation was recorded by the lysimeter. A percolation rate of 0.4 mm/year, or 0.1% of annual precipitation, over a 14-year monitoring period shows convincing evidence that the cover is limiting percolation well below standards. (DOE, 2015).

Several other sustainable disposal covers (non-uranium disposal covers) with water balance designs were evaluated across the country, ranging from arid to humid climates (Apiwantragoon et al., 2015). The fine-textured soils used to make the sustainable covers, which have similar properties of silts and clays, can store infiltration during wet periods and transpire moisture during dry periods, maintaining water balance.

Of the twelve sites that were assessed, seven sites were located in semi-arid regions, with conditions somewhat similar to the DOE-LM selected sites presented in this dissertation.

Hydrologic performance of each land cover was measured using lysimetery in 20 combination with field methods and data analysis of the local plant community, soil properties, and weather events.

The rates of evapotranspiration (ET) is an important component of water balance therefore each parameter was recorded; annual ET (ETa), Precipitation (P), and (PET) energy available for evaporation. Estimates of ET were based on the equation:

0.913 ETa/PETa = 0.84 (Pa/ PETa)

This equation was used to determine ETa that showed that differences in the parameter when sites were categorized as: 1) grasses only, 2) grasses and shrubs or 3) grasses and trees. Efficiency in evapotranspiration was highest with sites that had a vegetation cover of grasses and shrubs and were all located in semiarid and arid regions that receive annual precipitation less than 400 mm/year (Figure x). In addition to evapotranspiration, percolation measurements were made to determine whether moisture was in fact penetrating water balance cover.

The study found that those areas with annual precipitation of >750 mm/yr, percolation rates exceed 100mm/yr, in contrast semiarid to arid environments with percolation <5mm/yr. Moderate precipitation environments (250-750 mm/yr) had minimal percolation of <1mm/yr to more than 100 mm/yr. While considering the percolation rates of each site in comparison to cover thickness and design it is possible to achieve low percolation rates when annual average precipitation is <250 mm/yr. For moderate environments (>250mm but less than 500mm/yr) low percolation is also possible however the study found that special design considerations should be applied.

Percolation rates are highly influenced by preferential flow in moist soils, which can be improved by using soils that are resistant to shrinking and cracking 21

(Apiwantragoon et al., 2015). Recent research by Waugh et al. 2015 are examining methods of soil placement and ripping techniques that could shed light on techniques to reduce macrofeatures from forming in soils, thereby improving percolation rates by limiting preferential flow. Seven-soil manipulation treatments were completed on soil cover test pad that simulated an engineered cover to examine how physical characteristics of soil changed with each method. Soil manipulation of soils consisted of 1) soil ripping by conventional shank (CS), wing-tipped shank (WTS), and parabolic oscillating shank with wings (POS), 2) ripping depths, and 3) number of passes of each soil layer. The test pad was designed to simulate a 3-layer engineered cover composed of a compacted-fine textured protection layer, a coarse-grained bedding layer, and the erosion protection

(riprap) layer. The study found that most treatments created large soil aggregates in the protection layer of the soil profile cover which could be favorable for macrofeature formation and preferential flow paths, limiting soil water storage capacity (Waugh et al.,

2015). Further test studies will be completed to examine vegetation techniques along with ripping methods to measure plant establishment.

Plant uptake of uranium constituents

Previous studies of plant uptake of uranium and associated elements were conducted in both natural and simulated environments. However, there are little to no studies on plant uptake growing above remediated uranium mill tailings. Most studies show that uptake varies depending on experimental and local environmental conditions, the isotope of the radionuclide, and the substrates where harvested plants are growing

(Baumgartner et al. 2000; Rumble et. al 1986; Petrescu et. al. 2003, Stojanovic et al.

2009; Ibrahim, et. al, 1988, Apps et al. 1988). 22

Uptake of metal and radionuclide contaminants by plants from soil is commonly expressed as the concentration ratio (CR) between the dry weights of plant tissues and rooting-zone soils. At a Wyoming uranium mine and mill site, Ibrahim and Whicker

(1988) found no major differences in CRs between different species of grasses and shrubs for alpha emitting isotopes of uranium (U) and thorium (Th), but found significant differences in CRs for plants growing in contaminated soil compared to nearby reference areas. CR values for 238U ranged from 0.04 in a remediated and revegetated area to 0.81 at the edge of a tailings impoundment.

Uptake of contaminants is distributed differently throughout a plant with higher concentrations generally found in the roots (Shahandeh et al., 2002). For example several studies found U and Th to be more concentrated in the roots than the leaves for plants such as wheat, pea, maize, grass, and clover. (Shtangeeva and Ayrault, 2005; Chen et al.,

2005). Distributions of U and Th in woody plants growing at a Canadian mill site were similar (Apps et. al., 1988) and U can be higher in smaller roots (< 2mm) than in large diameter roots (Thiry et al. 2005). Higher accumulation in and on roots can be attributed to the plant biology as roots provide a natural barrier to translocation of trace metals and radionuclides form roots to stems and leaves (Shtangeeva, 2010). Radionuclides that are not readily translocated tend to adhere to soil and root surfaces (IAEA, 2010).

Non-radioactive elements associated with U mining (Ni, Mo, Co, Pb, Cu, V, Se) can also exceed risk thresholds (Dreesen et al., 1982, Baumgartner, et al., 1999). In a greenhouse study, Dreesen et al., (1982) measured significantly higher concentration of

Se, Mo, and U in native shrubs and grasses grown in tailings soils than in control soils obtained at mill sites in New Mexico and Colorado that are similar to the sites in the 23 current study, and concentrations of Se and Mo exceeded toxicity levels for grazing animals (Se: 5 ug/g, Mo:5-20 ug/g). In a similar greenhouse study (Baumgartner, et al.,

1999), Se and U in stems and leaves of fourwing saltbush were higher when irrigated with contaminated groundwater from the Tuba City UMTRCA site than when irrigated with non-contaminated water, but were below levels in (Dreesen and Marple, 1979) and below toxicity thresholds (National Research Council, 2005). In the same study, levels of

Se, Mo, U, NO3 –N, and S were significantly higher in Sudan grass grown in irrigated water compared to a control, but also below toxicity thresholds.

Climate considerations for the Disposal Cell Designs

Engineered covers were designed around instrumental climate records that neglect to identify long-term climate related events, limited to historical and short-term climate conditions. For example, maximum rainfall events were considered to prevent flooding of the erosion protection layer (rock rip rap) (NRC, 2002) and average maximum-and- minimum daily temperature for one year’s duration to determine a freeze index was considered to construct the protection layer (DOE, 1989). Little is known about the influence that long-term climate will have on disposal cover performance, especially considering how natural processes have already changed design standards.

Overall global atmospheric warming has occurred since the 1950s, with climate characteristics that have not been seen over decades to millennia. The International Panel of Climate Change report that the number of cold days and nights have decreased with an increase in warm days and nights between 1951-2010 (Romero-Lankoa et al., 2014). In addition to atmospheric changes, oceans are warming, snow and ice are melting earlier in the season, and sea level has risen. The desert southwest, the most arid and hottest 24 compared to the rest of the nation, will be climatically challenged with hotter and significantly drier changes in climate leading to increasing occurrence of drought.

(Romero-Lankoa et al., 2014; Garfin et al., 2013). The regions 2001-2010 temperatures have already increased 2°F compared to historic averages. Southwest annual averages are projected to rise 2.5-5.5°F by 2041-2070, and between 5.5 -9.5°F before the end of the century (Figure 4).

Precipitation in the southwest is less predictable than air temperature because precipitation is highly affected by non-linear processes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation, which are not well represented in regional climate models (Cozetto et al.,

2011), yielding precipitation projections that are highly variable. For example, locations may experience episodes of storm-like events, in areas that have already drought-like conditions (Garfin et al., 2013). Regionally, southwestern Arizona has already experienced an annual average precipitation decrease of 5-10% from 1958-2008, while precipitation increases were observed in New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. These recorded events in annual average precipitation illustrates the high regional variability of precipitation events for the southwest. (CLIMAS, 2014).

Climate influence on SW ecology

Identifying site-specific climate characteristics at DOE-LM sites will increase understanding of how biological systems will respond to changes in climate. The literature states that the influence of climate on the redistribution of vegetation and soil destabilization leads to increased soil erosion and sand dune mobility Research conducted over a range of climate zones can confirm how climate change influences plant distribution and migration (Jiang et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 2008; Higgins and John, 2006). 25

These transitions of species loss from one eco-region to another can result in further vegetation losses, and can ultimately lead to feedback of loss of ecosystem function

(Gemer, 2015).

Other influences of plant redistribution can be attributed short-term disturbances of fire, livestock grazing, drought, and rodent activity (Garfin et.al 2014; Grover and

Musick, 1990). For example, the New Mexico southwest has already experienced widespread woody encroachment by creosote (Larrea tridentata) and mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) that was historically once grassland. One study documents how a 54, 468 ha study area of the southwestern portion went from 43% shrub occupied in 1915, to 100% shrub occupied at the time of the study (Grover and Musick, 1990). Currently the range of creosote bush has extended northward to the Central Rio Grande Valley in New

Mexico (Betancourt, 1996). The spatial and temporal changes of vegetation in this study were due to the combination of fire suppression, overgrazing by livestock, and climate change.

Redsteer et. al (2011), is currently investigating the impact of climate, drought, and sand dune mobility on vegetation cover in the 4-corners southwest. Dune mobility, a reliable measure of climate change, is high in the area with a movement rate of 115 feet/year. In addition to the movement, the overall number of active dunes (wind-driven with no stable vegetation) and size of dunes have also increased. This will have profound implications on vegetation stabilization in the area, with already documented changes of destabilized vegetation and native plant communities decreasing in other regions of the southwest (Betancourt, 1996).

Explanation of dissertation format and collaborative contributions

This dissertation consists of three original manuscripts presented in three appendices (A, B, and C) with the main findings summarized in the overview section in the “Present Study” chapter. All appended manuscripts were collaborative with the details of contributing co-authors listed on the title page of each appendix. The author

(Carrie Nuva Joseph) performed the field work, data collection, sample processing, statistical analyses, writing, and collaborative partnerships for this dissertation. This research is highly interdisciplinary and required expertise drawn from various members of the committee. The late Dr. Edward Glenn, Dr. Jody Waugh, and Dr. Karletta Chief made significant contributions to the development of the research framework, fieldwork, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and editing. Other collaborations include: Dr.

Michael Crimmins, who greatly contributed to the research design, methods, and interpretation of results for Appendix B, and Dr. Cecilia Rosales, who provided guidance on the research framework, contribution to the methods, data interpretation, and edits for

Appendix C.

The manuscript in Appendix A was submitted to the Journal of Arid

Environments and is now under review. The second manuscript is in preparation to be submitted to the International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, and the manuscript in Appendix C is being prepared for submission to the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 27

Supplementary information, such as raw data and approvals to conduct research, is provided after each respective manuscript and listed as a subsection of the Appendix to which it pertains.

PRESENT STUDY

Research methods, results, and conclusions of this dissertation are detailed in the appended manuscripts. The major findings are presented here.

UMTRCA mill tailings disposal covers continue to evolve with the interaction of varying climate conditions, with natural ecological processes occurring above

“engineered islands.” The biotic and abiotic feedbacks occurring above disposal covers were not well defined pre-disposal cell construction, causing managers to redefine the extent of uranium contamination and the nature in which they are managed. This need becomes magnified when considering fixed communities located in close proximity to mill tailing sites. The aims of this research were to provide a better understanding of the impacts of vegetation growth, current climate, and future climate trajectories on disposal cell cover evolution with respect to Indigenous people as well as how these dimensions will influence future management plans. The first study (Appendix A) addressed the benefits or detriments of vegetation growth above covers by assessing plant uptake of uranium tailings constituents. The second study (Appendix B) examined engineered disposal cell vulnerabilities to current and future climate conditions. The third study documented the risk perceptions of the Hopi Tribe to defense-related uranium waste.

The first study informed vegetation management plans by investigating the linkages between tailings-plant-soil interactions above uranium disposal cells. Plant uptake above disposal cell covers represented a broad range of cover designs, soil and 28 vegetation types, and climates. Plant concentrations of uranium tailing constituents (U,

Th, Ra, Se, Mo, As, and Pb) were compared to reference area samples of the same species. Exposure pathways were determined for animals by comparing concentrations to dietary tolerance levels for livestock. Additionally, bioaccumulation potential in plant litter and soil organic matter was assessed by reviewing the literature. For 14 of 46 comparisons, concentrations of uranium and other elements of concern were higher in plants growing on disposal cells compared to reference area plants of the same species.

This indicates a possible mobilization from tailings to plant tissue. However, all concentrations were below MTLs, except for Selenium, which was attributed to local seleniferous soil used to construct disposal cell covers. Results support the practice of allowing plants to grow on uranium mill tailings disposal cells. However, if vegetation is are allowed to grow on engineered disposal cell covers, long-term site management should include periodic element monitoring, particularly for uranium and selenium, in plants and underlying soil due to uncertainty regarding long-term bioaccumulation.

The second study examined regulatory frameworks that considered climate variables in the design of engineered disposal cell covers. In the appended study, climate variables were classified according to daily, annual, and seasonal trends, which can be used to infer scenarios for analog studies or water-balance modeling. The study sites are located in the Colorado Plateau, an area identified to be highly vulnerable to climate impacts. Using 20 global circulation models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model

Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), future scenarios indicated that climate states would change towards wet/hot conditions or dry/hot conditions. Seasonality differences for each year indicate that sites may experience an increase in within-year climate 29 variability. For example, summer and autumn are projected to get wetter and hotter, while winter and spring will be drier and hotter. The results of the detailed climate summary with respect to study region can be used to build upon the first study (Appendix A) and other DOE-LM research that is evaluating the tradeoffs of converting engineered covers into evapotranspiration covers.

The third study identified Hopi community perceptions, concerns, and priorities to defense-related uranium waste associated with abandoned and inactive mill tailing facilities located on their ancestral land. This was accomplished using the conversational method in five different focus groups, where culturally tailored semi-structured and open- ended questions were used as a guide. The results demonstrate that there is a spectrum of awareness among villagers resulting from childhood experiences, community membership, and/or employment during remediation of a mill tailing site. Hopi village participants were never consulted or compensated during the uranium era, but they were recruited for employment by U.S. agencies during the period of waste disposal and remediation. Hopi villagers have had long-standing concerns about uranium exposures in connection to their environmentally-dependent cultural practices, specifically their annual agricultural production, surface water streams, and spring sources.

Although the sample size was small, it allowed for in-depth conversations to take place, which was important for understanding their history and relationships as well as sociocultural and ecological perceptions of uranium contamination not found in the literature. Due to the absence of data regarding Hopi voices for uranium sites, the results will bridge the gap in communication with U.S. agencies and the Hopi government, both 30 responsible for long- term investment of the health and environment of the people they serve.

Natural ecological processes above uranium disposal covers are causing DOE-LM planners, operators, and managers to redefine the nature of remedial post-closure technology. This includes shifting the use of science and technology to accommodate, rather than work against, natural processes. The results of this dissertation improve the understanding of how natural ecological succession and future trajectories of climate change can be used to evaluate long-term performance scenarios for highly vulnerable sites. Furthermore, it provides key insights into how DOE-LM programs are impacting disenfranchised tribes to enhance communication, planning, and analytical frameworks for the protection of Indigenous people and their land base.

REFERENCES

Abdelouas, A., 2006. Uranium mill tailings: geochemistry, mineralogy, and environmental impact. Elements 2:335-341.

Albright, W.H., Benson, C.H., Waugh, W.J. 2010. Water balance covers for waste containment: principles and practice. ASCE Press, Reston, VA.

Apiwantragoon, P., Benson, C., and Albright, W. 2015. Field Hydrology of Water Balance Covers for Waste Containment. 2015. Journal of Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141, 1-20.

Apps, M.J., Duke, M.J.M., Stephens-Newsham, L.G., 1988. A study of radionuclides in vegetation on abandoned uranium tailings. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 123, 133– 147. Arnold, C. 2014. Once upon a mine: The legacy of uranium on the Navajo Nation. Envrion. Health Perspect. 122 (2): A44-A49.

Benson, C.H., Waugh, W.J., Albright, W.H., Smith, G.M., Bush, R.P., 2011. Design and Instillation of a Disposal Cell Cover Field Test. Waste Management 2011 Conference, Feb 27 – Mar. 3, Phoenix, AZ.

Baumgartner, D.J., Glenn, E.P., Moss, G., Thompson, T.L. Artiola, J.F., Kuehl, R.O., 1999. Effect of irrigation water contaminated with uranium mill tailings on sudan grass, Sorghum vulgare var. sudanese, and fourwing saltbush, Atriplex canescens. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation, 14: 43-57.

Baumgartner, D.J., Glenn, E.P., Moss, G., Thompson, T.L., Artiola, J.F., Kuehl, R.O., 2000. Effect of irrigation water contaminated with uranium mill tailings on sudan grass, Sorghum vulgare var. sudanese, and fourwing saltbush, Atriplex canescens. Arid Soil Res. Rehabil., 14:1, 43–57.

Betancourt, J. 1996. Long- and short-term climate influences on southwestern shrublands. Proceedings: Shrubland ecosystem dynamics in a changing environment conference, pp. 5-9. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Brugge, D. and Buchner, V. 2011. Health effects of uranium: new research findings. Rev. Environ. Health, 26: 231-49.

Chen, S. B., Y.G Zhu, and Q.H Hu, 2005. Soil to plant transfer of 238U, 226Ra and 232Th on a uranium mining-impacted soil from southeastern China. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 82 223–36.

Chenoweth, W.L. Navajo Indians were hired to assist the U.S. Atomic Energy 32

Commission in locating uranium deposits; Arizona Geological Survey Contributed Report; Tucson, AZ, USA, 2011.

Cozzeto, K., Rangwala, I., Lukas, J., 2011. Examining Regional Climate Model (RCM) projections: What do they add to our picture of future climate in the region? Intermountain West Climate Summary &:1-7.

DOE, 1989. Technical approach document, revision II. UMTRA-DOE/AL050425.0002, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Eggers, M.J., Doyle, J.T., Lefthand, M.J., Young, S.I., Moore-Nall, A.L., Kindness, L. et al. Community engaged cumulative risk assessment of exposure to inorganic well water contaminants, Crow Reservation, Montana. Int. J. Envrion. Res. Public Health, 15, 76.

DOE, 1989. Technical approach document, revision II. UMTRA-DOE/AL050425.0002, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

DOE. 2015. Long-Term Cover Performance Projects. Technical Task Plan. Doc. No S12624.

Dreesen, D.R., and M.L. Marple, 1979. Uptake of trace elements and radionuclides from uranium mill tailings by four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides). Symposium on uranium mill tailings management; Fort Collins, CO, USA; 19 - 20 Nov 1979.

Dreesen, D.R., Williams, J.M., Marple, M.L., Gladney, E.S., Perrin, D.R., 1982. Mobility and bioavailability of uranium mill tailings contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol., 16: 10

EPA, 2006. Uranium location database compilation. Office of Radiation & Indoor Air. Washington, DC, USA. pp. 1024.

EPA, 2013. Navajo Nation AUM Screening Assessment Report and Atlas with Geospatial Data. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo- nation/abandoned-uranium.html

EPA, 2014. Federal actions to address the impacts of uranium contamination in the Navajo Nation. Five-year Plan Report. EPA, Region 9: San Francisco, CA, USA.

Garfin, G., A. Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy, eds. 2013. Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment. A report by the Southwest Climate Alliance. Washington, DC: Island Press. 33

Garfin, G., G. Franco, H. Blanco, A. Comrie, P. Gonzalez, T. Piechota, R. Smyth, and R. Waskom, 2014: Ch. 20: Southwest.Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 462-486. doi:10.7930/J08G8HMN

Gee, G.W., and Tyler, S.W., Eds. 1994. Symposium: Recharge in arid and semiarid regions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 5–72.

Gochfeld, M., and Burger, J., 2011. Disproportionate exposures in environmental justice and other populations: The importance of outliers. Am. J. Public Health, 101 (S1), S53–S63.

Grover, H.D., Musick, B.H., 1990. Shrubland Encroachment in Southern New Mexico, U.S.A.: An Analysis of Desertification Processes in the American Southwest. Climate Change. 17: 305-330.

Harmon, M.E., J. Lewis, C. Miller, J. Hoover, A.S. Ali, C. Shuey, et al., 2017. Residential proximity to abandoned uranium mines and serum inflammatory potential in chronically exposed Navajo communities. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 28, 223-236.

Hund, L. 2015. A Bayesian framework for estimating disease risk due to exposure to uranium mine and mill waste Navajo Nation. J. R. Statist. Soc. A, 178.

Higgins, .A.T., John, H., 2006. Biophysical and Biogeochemical Responses to Climate Change Depend on Dispersal and Migration. BioScience. 56:5, 407-417.

Hoover, J., Gonzales, M., Shuey, C., Barney, Y., Lewis, J. 2017. Elevated arsenic and uranium concentration in unregulated water sources on the Navajo Nation, USA. Expo and Health 9:113.

Ibrahim, S.A., and Whicker, F.W., 1988. Comparative uptake of U and Th by native plants at a U production site. Health Phys. 54:4, 413–419.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 2004. The long-term stabilization of uranium mill tailings. Iaea, Vienna, IAEA-TECDOC-1403.

IAEA, 2010. Handbook of Parameter Values for the Prediction of Radionuclide Transfer in Terrestrial and Freshwater Environments. IAEA Technical Report Series No. 472. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. Kelly, A.E. and Goulden, M.L. 2008. Rapid shifts in plant distribution with recent climate change. PNAS. 105:33, 11823-11826.

Kyne, D and Bolin, B, 2016. Emerging environmental justice issues in nuclear power and radioactive contamination. Int. J. Environ Res. Public Health 13, 1-19.

Lewis, J., Hoover, J., MacKenzie, D. 2017. Mining and environmental health disparities in Native American communities. Curr Envir Health Rpt 2017, 4, 130-141.

Looney, B.B., Denham, M.E., Eddy-Dilek, C.A., Millings, M.R., et al. 2014 Evapotranspirtation and Geochemical Controls on Groundwater Plumes at Arid Sites: Towards Innovative Alternate End-States for Uranium Processing and Tailings Facilities. WM2014 Conference, March 2014, Phoenix, AZ.

Mehdawi, A.F., and Pilon-Smits, E.A.H., 2012. Ecological aspects of plant selenium hyperaccumulation. J. Plant Biol. 14, 1-10.

Moore-Nall, A. 2015. The legacy of uranium development on or near Indian Reservations and health implication rekindling public awareness. Geosci 5, 15-29.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1989. Calculation of radon flux attenuation by earthen uranium mill tailings covers. Regulatory Guide 3.64. USNRC, Washington, D.C.

NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Mineral Tolerance of Animals: Second Revised Edition, 2005. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2002. Design of erosion protection for long- term stabilization. NUREG-1623. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C.

Orescanin, V., Kollar, R., Nad, K., Mikelic, I.L., and Kollar, I. 2011. Characterization and treatment of water used for human consumption from six sources located in the Cameron/Tuba City abandoned uranium mining area. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 46:6, 627-63.

Petrescu, L., and Bilal, E., 2003. Plant availability of uranium in contaminated soil from Crucea Mine (Romania). Enviro. Geosci. 10(3), 123–135.

Pierotti, R. 2011. Indigenous Knowledge, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology, Taylor and Francis Group: New York, NY, USA.

Romero-Lankao, P., J.B. Smith, D.J. Davidson, N.S. Diffenbaugh, P.L. Kinney, P. Kirshen, P. Kovacs, and L. Villers Ruiz, 2014: North America. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J. Dokken, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi,Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. 35

Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1439-1498

Redsteer, M.H, Bogle, R.C., and Vogel, J.M., 2011, Monitoring and analysis of sand dune movement and growth on the Navajo Nation, Southwestern United States: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2011–3085, 2 p.,

Rumble, M.A. and Bjugstad, A,J., 1986. Uranium and radium concentration in plants growing on uranium mill tailings in South Dakota. Reclam. Reveg. Res., 4, 271– 277.

Scanlon, B.R., Levitt, D.G., Reedy, R.C., Keese, K.E., and Sully, M.J., 2005. Ecological controls on water-cycle response to climate variability in deserts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 6033–6038.

Shahandeh, H. and L.R. Hossner, 2002. Role of Soil Properties in Phytoaccumulation of Uranium. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 141: 165-180.

Shtangeeva, I., S. Ayrault, J. Jain, 2005. Thorium uptake by wheat in different stages of plant growth. J. Environ. Radioact., 81 pp. 283-293.

Shtangeeva, I. , 2010. Uptake of uranium and thorium by native and cultivated plants Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 101 pp. 458–63.

Stoffle, R.W., Halmo, D.B., Evans, M.J. 1999. Puchuxwavaats (To Know About Plants): Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Signficance of Southern Paiute Plants. Hum Organ 58, 416-429.

Stojanović, M., D. Stevanović, D. Iles, M. Grubišić, J. Milojković. 2009. The effect of the uranium content in the tailings on some cultivated plants. Water Air Soil Pollution. 200:101-108. doi: 10.1007/s11270-008-9896-4

Thiry, Y., P. Schmidt, M.V. Hees, J. Wannijn, P.V. Bree, G. Rufyikiri, et al., 2005 Uranium distribution and cycling in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) growing on a revegetated U-mining heap. J Environ Radioact, 81 (2005), pp. 201–219.

The League of Women Voters Education Fund (LWVEF), 1993. The Nuclear Waste Primer. N. Lyons Books, New York, NY

U.S. DOE. 2015. Long-Term Cover Performance Projects. Technical Task Plan. Doc. No S12624.

Waugh, W.J., Thiede, M.E., and Bates, D.J., 1994. Plant cover and water balance in gravel admixtures at an arid waste-burial site. J. Environ. Qual., 23, 676–685.

Waugh, W.J., Kastens, M.K., Sheader, L.R.L, Benson, C.H., Albright, W.H., Mushovic, 36

P.S., 2008. Monitoring the performance of an alternative landfill cover at the Monticello, Utah, uranium mill tailings disposal site. WM 2008 Conference, Feb 24-28, Phoenix, AZ.

Waugh, W.J., Benson, C.H., Albright W.H., Smith, G.M., Bush, R.P., 2015. Evaluation of Soil Manipulation Methods to Transform Engineered Earthen Cover for Long- Term Waste Containment. Journal of Environmental Quality. 44: 6. 1911-1922.

Wu, L., 2004. Review of 15 years of research on ecotoxicology and remediation of land contaminated by agricultural drainage sediment rich in selenium. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 57, 257–269.

APPENDIX A

UPTAKE OF ELEMENTS OF CONCERN BY PLANTS GROWING ON URANIUM

MILL TAILINGS DISPOSAL CELLS NEAR NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES

Carrie Nuva Joseph*, William Jody Waugh, Edward Glenn, and Karletta Chief

*Corresponding author

Department of Soil, Water, and Environmental Science, University of Arizona

1177 E. Fourth Street, P.O. Box 210028

Tucson, AZ 85721-0038, USA

[email protected]

Phone: 1 520 621 1646; Fax: 1 520 621 1647

In review, Journal of Arid Environments

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy is evaluating potential detrimental and beneficial effects of plants growing on engineered disposal cell covers for uranium mill tailings. Previous studies have shown that contaminant concentrations in plants growing directly on tailings are most often low, but that plant-to-soil concentration ratios can approach or exceed 1.

However, there is scant literature on plant uptake of tailings elements growing on remediated uranium mill tailings. To support long-term vegetation management policy, we studied uptake of elements of concern in deep-rooted plants growing on seven engineered disposal cells located near Native American communities and with different climates, soils, and vegetation types. We compared concentrations in plants growing on disposal cells and in reference areas with maximum tolerance levels (MTLs) set for animal diets. For 14 of 46 comparisons, concentrations of uranium and other elements of concern were higher in plants growing on disposal cells compared to reference area plants of the same species, indicating possible mobilization from tailings to plant tissue.

However, all concentrations were below MTLs, except for Selenium, which was attributable to local seleniferous soil used to construct disposal cell covers. Results support the practice of allowing plants to grow on uranium mill tailings disposal cells.

1. Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) directs the long-term monitoring and management of environmental remedies at sites cleaned up under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). DOE is currently evaluating ecological and soil-forming processes that are slowly changing engineered soil covers designed to contain uranium mill tailings in disposal cells at

UMTRCA sites, as well as options to enhance the long-term performance of engineered covers. Plants growing on engineered covers may have both detrimental and beneficial effects on cover performance.

Disposal cell covers for uranium mill tailings (Figure 1) typically include a layer of compacted, clayey soil designed to limit the surface flux of radon to less than

20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi m−2 s−1) (NRC, 1989), and to protect groundwater by controlling percolation (DOE, 1989). At some sites, this “low- permeability radon barrier” is overlain by a soil “protection layer” designed to prevent damage from freeze-thaw and wet-dry cycles and, in some cases, to serve as a plant growth medium (DOE, 1989). Most covers are also armored with a durable rock “riprap layer” designed to withstand water and wind erosion (NRC, 2002). A coarse-textured

“bedding layer” that also sheds rainwater often underlies the rock riprap. Engineered covers were designed to control radon flux, protect groundwater, and withstand erosion

“for a period of 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable” (Title 40 Code of

Federal Regulations Section 192 [40 CFR 192]).

Natural ecological and soil-forming processes can change the as-designed engineering properties of disposal cell covers over relatively short time periods and in ways that could alter their performance. The rock armor can reduce soil evaporation, increase soil water storage, and trap windblown dust, thereby creating habitat for woody plants (Waugh et al., 1994). Roots of woody plants can extend vertically through rock armor and bedding layers, and then spread as fibrous root mats following soil structure planes through compacted soil layers and into underlying waste (Bowerman and Redente,

1998; Waugh et al., 1999, 2007). Within 5–10 years of construction, plant roots and associated development of soil structure can increase macroporosity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and percolation flux in compacted soil layers, often by several orders of magnitude (NRC, 2011). Soil drying associated with plant transpiration may also increase radon flux (Benson et al., 2017). Finally, plants that establish on disposal cell covers and extend roots into buried tailings may take up and disseminate uranium and other metals in aboveground tissues.

Conversely, natural ecological and soil-forming processes may enhance the performance of engineered covers over time. In arid and semiarid ecosystems, where most UMTRCA sites occur, relatively low precipitation, high potential evapotranspiration, and thick unsaturated soils often limit percolation and recharge (Gee and Tyler, 1994; Scanlon et al., 2005). Allowing plants to grow may allow conventional

UMTRCA covers to function as evapotranspiration (or water balance) covers that are designed to provide hydraulic isolation of waste by storing precipitation in unsaturated soil and releasing it as evapotranspiration (Albright et al., 2010; Waugh et al., 2009;

Apiwantragoon et al., 2015). Hence, ecological and soil-forming processes that slowly 41 transform engineered compacted soil covers into vegetated soil profiles resembling water balance covers may provide long-term advantages compared with the original designs

(Waugh et al., 2015).

DOE is conducting a suite of studies to weigh these trade-offs of potential detrimental and beneficial effects of natural processes acting on engineered UMTRCA covers. Previous studies have shown that elements of concern can be elevated in plants growing on exposed tailings or irrigated with contaminated water (see Section 1.2 below). The present study addresses the dearth of data on levels of tailings elements in plants growing on remediated uranium mill tailings. Of concern is the potential risk to livestock and wildlife foraging on these plants and a buildup of contaminant levels over time. Also of concern are unique exposure pathways among Native Americans living near remediated uranium mill tailings who gather plant material for food, medicinal, and cultural uses.

We designed an empirical study to determine concentrations of elements of concern in above-ground tissues of plants growing on several uranium mill tailings disposal cells.

Our goal is to inform DOE’s long-term management of these evolving engineered systems. The study was designed to address three objectives:

1. Select disposal cells that are near tribal communities and encompass the range of

climates, cover designs, cover soil types, and vegetation types at UMTRCA sites in

the western United States.

2. Compare levels of tailings elements in plants growing on engineered covers with

plants growing in reference areas (undisturbed areas with soil and vegetation similar

to the disposal cell cover). 42

3. Assess an animal-foraging pathway for contaminant transport by comparing plant

levels to dietary tolerance levels set for animals by the National Research Council

(NRC) (2005).

Previous studies of plant uptake of uranium mill tailings elements were conducted in both natural and simulated environments. Most studies show that uptake is highly variable, depending on the experimental conditions, the element of concern, the isotope for radionuclides, soil chemical and physical properties, and plant species.

Uptake of metal and radionuclide contaminants by plants from soil is often expressed as the concentration ratio (CR) between the dry weights of plant tissues and rooting-zone soils. Differences in CRs were significant for plants growing in exposed tailings compared to plants growing in reference areas at a Wyoming uranium mine and mill site, with CR values decreasing as the distance from the tailings pile increased

(Ibrahim and Whicker, 1988). CR values for uranium-238 ranged from 0.04 in a remediated area to 0.81 in exposed tailings. CR values for thorium-230 were between

0.04 in a remediated area to 2.9 for plants growing on the tailings impoundment, and significantly lower CR values for thorium-232 than for thorium-230 and thorium-228 at both locations.

Although uranium and thorium have similar chemical properties, other plant-soil chemistry interactions may influence uptake. CR values for uranium tend to be higher for sandy soils and lower for clayey soils (Sheppard and Evenden, 1988; Mortvedt, 1994).

Conversely, soils high in organic matter may have a higher affinity for uranium compared to sandy soils with low organic matter, limiting bioavailability to plants (Mitchell et al.,

2013). Shtangeeva (2010) found significantly higher CR values for uranium than thorium 43 for plants grown in contaminated soil. A comprehensive review (IAEA, 2010) found that the mean CR value for thorium was almost an order of magnitude lower than the CR value for uranium.

Concentration ratios for radium were two orders of magnitude greater than uranium and thorium in grasses sampled near an inactive uranium mine (Tome et al.,

2003). At a remediated and revegetated uranium mine site, CR values for radium in eucalyptus and pines were higher in high radium tailings than in soils with low radium concentrations and CR values were highest in shrub species growing in high radium substrates (Madruga et al., 2000). Mitchell et al. (2013) reported that radium uptake was lower in soils high in organic matter and clay.

Uranium and thorium accumulation is generally higher in the roots compared to above-ground plant parts. Apps et al., (1988) recorded higher uranium and thorium concentrations in the roots of woody plants at a Canadian mill site, and higher in small- diameter roots (< 2 millimeters [mm]) than in large-diameter roots (Apps et al., 1988,

Thiry et al., 2005). Similar to uranium and thorium, radium levels were several orders of magnitude higher in roots than leaves and stems (Markose et al., 1993). Higher accumulation in and on roots can be attributed to the roots acting as a barrier to translocation of trace metals and radionuclides from roots to stems and leaves

(Shtangeeva, 2010). Petrescu and Bilal (2003) attributed higher translocation of thorium than uranium from roots to stems in Norway spruce and European silver fir to low absorption of thorium in soils. Formation of calcium-uranyl phosphates in roots, an insoluble compound, may limit translocation of uranium from roots (Petrescu and Bilal, 44

2003). Radionuclides that are not readily translocated tend to adhere to soil and root surfaces (IAEA, 2010).

Uptake of nonradioactive elements associated with uranium mining and milling

(nickel, molybdenum, cobalt, lead, copper, vanadium, selenium) can exceed risk thresholds. In a greenhouse study, Dreesen et al., (1982) measured significantly higher concentrations of selenium, molybdenum, and uranium metal in native shrubs and grasses grown in tailings than in control soils at mill sites in New Mexico and Colorado, and selenium and molybdenum concentrations exceeded toxicity levels for grazing animals (5 micrograms per gram [µg g-1] selenium and 5–20 µg g-1 molybdenum). A similar greenhouse study reported higher selenium and uranium in stems and leaves of fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) when irrigated with contaminated groundwater from the

Tuba City, Arizona, UMTRCA site than when irrigated with noncontaminated water

(Baumgartner et al., 2000), although levels were below those reported by Dreesen and

Marple (1979), and below animal toxicity thresholds (NRC, 2005). Baumgartner et al.

(2000) also reported significantly higher levels of selenium, molbydenum, uranium, nitrate, and sulfur in Sudan grass (Sorghum vulgare var. sudanense) grown in irrigated water compared to a control, but these levels were also below animal toxicity thresholds.

2. Methods

Seven arid and semi-arid UMTRCA sites near Native American communities in the western United States were selected for study. Potentially deep-rooted woody plants grow on all disposal cell covers at these sites. We selected sites near Native American communities because of unique exposure scenarios associated with traditional dietary, medicinal, and ceremonial uses of plants (Gochfeld and Burger, 2011). At each site, we harvested current-year stems and leaves for ten plants of each target species on disposal cell covers, and ten plants of the same species growing in relatively undisturbed reference areas near disposal cells. We selected reference areas that had soils similar to that used for construction of low-permeability radon barriers at each site. Tailings chemistry data was not available, so selection of analytes was based on contaminants of concern to DOE in shallow groundwater underlying the tailings piles at each site

(http://www.energy.gov/lm/sites/lm-sites). We also analyzed radium-226 in a subset of plant tissue samples for comparison with UMTRCA soil cleanup standards (Title 40

Code of Federal Regulations Section 192 [40 CFR 192]).

Current-year stem and leaf samples were combined and dried in a forced air oven at 55°C for 48–72 hours, weighed and ground the dried plant material in a Wiley Mill, and sieved it on a 40-mesh (0.419 mm) screen. Milled plant material was subjected to microwave acid digestion at the University of Arizona’s Water Quality Center

Laboratory (http://wet.arizona.edu/labs/labs.htm) and acid extracts were then analyzed for individual elements by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry at the Arizona

Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants (http://www.alec.arizona.edu). The carrier gas flow rate was 0.95 liters per minute (L/min) during the analyses and 15 L/min during the 46 cooling stage. Analyses included quality control checks before each plant sample and

National Institute for Science and Technology (NIST) samples (SRM 1643e). Trace metals in water were analyzed at the beginning and end of each sample set following the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 6020 (EPA, 1998). Selection of metals for analysis was based in part on DOE lists of metal contaminants of concern at each site (https://www.energy.gov/lm/sites/lm-sites). Radioactivity of radium-226 in milled plant material was analyzed in a subset of samples by Pace Analytical Services,

Inc., Greensburg, Pennsylvania, as the ingrowth of radon-222 counted as alpha activity in a scintillation cell using EPA Method 903.1 (EPA, 1980).

Dried material from each plant was analyzed separately, and mean values from plants growing on disposal cell covers and in reference areas were compared by one-way analysis of variance using SAS Institute Inc. (SAS) version 9.1. Differences were considered significant at P < 0.05. Metal concentrations in plants were also compared to the maximum tolerance levels (MTLs) for minerals in animals diets (NRC, 2005). Results are reported as µg g-1 (i.e., parts per million) or nanograms per gram (ng g 1) (i.e., parts per billion) for metals in plant material, and pCi g-1 for radium-226, all on a dry-weight basis.

3. Results Selected Sites

The seven sites selected for study span the ranges of engineered cover designs, climates, vegetation types, and soil types at UMTRCA disposal cells managed by DOE in the western United States (Table 1). Figure 2 shows locations of sites and associated

Native American tribes. The types of engineered covers (Figure 3) include (1) simple two-layer designs with a low-permeability radon barrier protected with either rock

(Bluewater, New Mexico, Disposal Site) or vegetation (L-Bar, New Mexico, Disposal

Site), (2) similar three-layer designs with the rock armor bedded in sand or gravel (Tuba

City, Arizona, Disposal Site, and Lowman, Idaho, Disposal Size), (3) a variation with topsoil placed to fill the rock armor (Lakeview, Oregon, Disposal Site), (4) a very thick fill soil over tailings (Sherwood, Washington, Disposal Site), and (5) a multi-layered clay, soil, and rock design (Split Rock, Wyoming, Disposal Site). Cover thicknesses ranged from 0.6 meters (m) at Bluewater to 6.2 m at Sherwood. Climate classes and vegetation types ranged from cold desert shrub with 17 centimeters (cm) annual precipitation at Tuba City to a temperate continental climate with pine-Douglas fir forest and 66 cm annual precipitation at Lowman (Peel et al., 2007; Schmidt et al., 2002;

Western Regional Climate Center at www.wrcc.dri.edu). The types of soils used to construct low-permeability radon barriers also varied among sites (Table 1). Soil textural classes ranged from sandy loam derived from sandstone or igneous rock to clay loam derived from Cretaceous shale. Soil temperature-moisture regimes ranged from mesic- typic aridic at Tuba City to cryic-udic at Lowman.

Disposal Cells, Plant Species, and Elements of Concern

Concentrations of metals of concern in plants growing on disposal cells and in nearby reference areas are presented for each of the seven UMTRCA sites. MTLs for all metals of concern except uranium were available for rodents, poultry, swine, horses, cattle (Table 2). The only uranium MTL available from the NRC was for rodents. We also analyzed thorium metal concentrations and radium-226 activity at some sites.

Uranium-238, the most common isotope of uranium found in nature, eventually decays to radium-226 which decays to release radon-222 gas. We compared radium-226 activity in plant samples to the surface soil clean-up standard (5 pCi g-1) for UMTRCA sites (40

CFR 192). Additional site information is available on the DOE LM website at https://www.energy.gov/lm/office-legacy-management.

Tuba City, Arizona

The Tuba City site is on Navajo Nation land and within the ancestral lands of the

Hopi Tribe, approximately 8 kilometers (km) east of Tuba City, and approximately 7 km hydraulically upgradient of irrigated Hopi farms near Moenkopi, Arizona. Additionally, sheep and horses graze along the perimeter of the site, Hopi cattle graze to the east and west of the site, plants and soil are gathered for cultural practices, and residential homes and recreation facilities occur within one km of the site boundary.

During 10 years of operations (1956 to 1966), the Tuba City mill processed about

725,000 dry metric tons of uranium ore. The tailings were slurried from the mill to tailings piles and ponds covering about 14 hectares. DOE began remedial actions in 1988.

All tailings, debris from demolished mill buildings, and windblown tailings were consolidated and covered onsite in the engineered disposal cell. The three-layer disposal cell cover includes a 107 cm radon barrier of compacted fine sandy loam, a 15–30 cm 49 basalt rock armor, and a 15 cm sandy gravel bedding layer (Figure 3). DOE completed construction of the disposal cell in 1990. Groundwater contaminants of concern are molybdenum, nitrate, selenium, and uranium. High levels of sulfate are also present in the groundwater.

We sampled fourwing saltbush and fireweed (Bassia scoparia) plants for selenium, molybdenum, uranium, arsenic, lead, and thorium. Fireweed was only sampled on the disposal cell. Selenium was higher from fourwing saltbush plants in the reference area than on the disposal cell (P < 0.05), but values were well below the MTL for animal diets (Table 3). Uranium and arsenic were higher in saltbush plants on the disposal cell but also did not exceed MTLs. Molybdenum and lead were not significantly different (P

> 0.05) in fourwing saltbush on or off the cell and did not exceed MTLs. Fireweed growing on the disposal cell did not exceed MTLs for any of the elements. Radium-226 activity was significantly higher in the reference area but well below the UMTRCA soil standard, and thorium was below detection levels in all samples.

Lowman, Idaho

The Lowman site is located on the ancestral lands of the Lemhi Shoshoni, 0.25 km northeast of the town of Lowman and approximately 117 km northeast of Boise,

Idaho. Shoshone, Paiute, and Nez Perce Tribes continue to exercise off-reservation treaty rights for fishing, hunting, and plant gathering in the surrounding Boise National Forest

(https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/boise/ learning/history-culture). The Lowman mill operated between 1955 and 1960. The mill was a mechanical concentrator for sands that contain the rare-earth elements uranium and thorium, which are highly resistant to physical and chemical weathering. The 3.2-hectare disposal cell, completed in 1992, has 50 a three-layer engineered cover with a 45 cm sandy loam radon barrier, a 15 cm sand bedding layer, and a 30 cm basalt rock armor (Figure 3). Ponderosa pine and other plants began growing on the cover in 1994.

We sampled leaf and stem tissues of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and redosier dogwood (Cornus sericea), a shrub, and analyzed tissues for uranium and thorium. Redosier dogwood was only sampled on the disposal cell. Uranium levels were not significantly different (P > 0.05) on or off the cell for ponderosa pine and were well below the MTL, as were redosier dogwood plants on the cell (Table 4). Thorium was below detection levels in all samples.

Bluewater, New Mexico

This site is located near the small town of Bluewater, New Mexico, 15 km northwest of Grants, New Mexico, and within the traditional homelands of the Navajo

Tribe and the Zuni, Laguna, and Acoma Pueblo Tribes. The site is about 12 km south of

Navajo allotment land, 30 km northeast of the Ramah Navajo Reservation, 50 km east of the Zuni Reservation, 30 km northwest of the Acoma Reservation, and 39 km west of the

Laguna Reservation. Tribal land uses include farming, soil and plant gathering, hunting, and grazing by cattle and sheep.

The Bluewater mill operated from 1953 to 1982 using both acid-leach and carbonate-leach processes that produced a combined 22 million metric tons of primarily sandy radioactive tailings that were conveyed in slurry from the mill to tailings piles. The acid-leach tailings were segregated from the carbonate-leach tailings to prevent chemical reactions from occurring. Over time, process water in the tailings seeped into underlying aquifers. The groundwater elements of concern include molybdenum, selenium, and 51 uranium. The 140-hectare disposal cell for the acid-leach tailings and the 21-hectare cell for the carbonate-leached tailings, both completed in 1995, have two-layer engineered covers with a silty clay loam radon barrier, varying in thickness from

50–80 cm, and armored with a 10–30 cm thick basalt riprap layer. Several woody, grass, and forb species grow on the covers.

We sampled fourwing saltbush and Siberian elm (Ulmus pamila) growing on the disposal cell and in nearby reference areas for selenium, uranium, molybdenum, and thorium (Tables 5 and 6). For fourwing saltbush on the acid-leached tailings cell, selenium was nearly twice as high on the cell compared to off the cell (P < 0.05), and also exceeded total-diet MTLs at both locations. Uranium was also higher in fourwing saltbush on the cell compared to off the cell (P < 0.05), but well within MTLs.

Molybdenum was not significantly different (P > 0.05) for plants on compared to off the cell and were below MTLs. Selenium in Siberian elm was not significantly different for plants on and off the cell, but both exceeded MTLs. Molybdenum was higher in reference area plants compared to plants on the cell (P < 0.05), but did not exceed the MTL. For fourwing saltbush on the carbonate-leached disposal cell, selenium was higher in plants on the cell than those off the cell (P < 0.05) and both exceed the MTL of 5.0 µg g-1.

Uranium was also higher in plants on compared to off the cell but was well within the

MTL for rodents. Molybdenum was not significantly different in plants on and off the cell and were within the MTL. Radium-226 activity was well below the UMTRCA soil standard and thorium was below detection levels in all samples.

L-Bar, New Mexico 52

This site is located on the former L-Bar Ranch about 80 km west of Albuquerque,

New Mexico about 3 km north of Laguna Pueblo land, 1 km east of Laguna off-

Reservation trust land, and 25 km northeast of Acoma land. The Pueblos irrigate and dryland farm, hunt, fish, and gather plants and soils in the area. The L-Bar mill operated from 1977 to 1981 and processed about 2 million metric tons of ore using a sulfuric acid- leach process. Tailings and processing fluids were pumped in a slurry to a nearby impoundment. Seepage of tailings fluid contaminated the aquifer underlying the impoundment. The main contaminants of concern in groundwater are chloride, nitrate, selenium, sulfate, and uranium. In 2000, the site owner completed a 40-hectare disposal cell at the site containing about 1.9 million metric tons of tailings. The two-layer disposal cell cover has a minimum 125 cm radon barrier constructed with compacted silty clay loam soil, and an overlying “protection” soil layer with an average thickness of 86 cm

(Figure 3).

We sampled fourwing saltbush and rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseousa), the most common woody plants species growing on the disposal cell, for selenium, molybdenum, uranium, arsenic, lead, and thorium (Table 7). For fourwing saltbush, molybdenum and uranium were higher in plants from the disposal cell than from the reference area (P < 0.05). However, levels were well below MTLs for animal diets.

Selenium was elevated above the MTL for plants from both the disposal cell and the reference area, and was higher in plants from the reference area (P < 0.05). For rubber rabbitbrush, selenium and molybdenum were both higher in plants from the disposal cell than from the reference area, but levels were well below MTLs. Uranium, arsenic, and lead were not significantly different for plants on and off the cell (P > 0.5), and were 53 below MTLs in all cases. Radium-226 activity was well below the UMTRCA soil standard and thorium was below detection levels in all fourwing saltbush and rubber rabbitbrush samples.

Lakeview, Oregon

The Lakeview disposal site is about 11 km northwest of the town of Lakeview,

Oregon, in Goose Lake Valley, 33 km north of the California-Oregon border. Goose Lake

Valley is within the ancestral homelands of the Klamath, Modoc, and Northern Paiute tribes who use their treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather plants. The 6.5-hectare

Lakeview disposal cell contains about 700,000 cubic meters of tailings that DOE hauled approximately 11 km to the disposal site from a former uranium mill just north the of the town of Lakeview. Between 1958 and 1961 the mill processed uranium ore, using both sodium chlorate and acid-leaching processes, that was mined in the mountains northwest of Lakeview. The three-layer disposal cell cover consists of a 45 cm thick, compacted loam, low-permeability radon barrier over the tailings, a 15 cm sand bedding layer, and a

45 cm basalt rock armor layer (Figure 3). The cover has a 15 cm layer of loam soil placed over the armor layer that designers expected to move into the rock interstices over time.

Since completion of the disposal cell in 1988, big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and rabbitbrush established on the cover and sent roots through the radon barrier (Waugh et al., 2007).

We sampled big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush and analyzed leaf and stem tissues for uranium and thorium content (Table 8). Note that concentrations in Table 8 are in ng g-1. Uranium was higher in big sagebrush plants from the disposal cell compared to plants in the reference area (P < 0.05), but were well below the MTL (100 µg g-1). 54

Uranium in antelope bitterbrush plants was not significantly different (P > 0.05) on or off the disposal cell cover and were well below the MTL. Thorium was below detection levels in all samples.

Sherwood, Washington

The Sherwood disposal site is a former uranium mill located on the Spokane

Indian Reservation, 8 km west of the town of Wellpinit, 20 km east of the Colville

Reservation, and about 60 km northwest of the City of Spokane. Tribal land uses include fishing, hunting, and plant gathering. Land adjacent to the site is also grazed by buffalo.

The Sherwood mill used an acid-leach process to extract uranium from ore mined in a nearby open pit. The mill operated from 1984 to 1996, processed about 1900 metric tons of ore per day at its peak, and produced over 2.6 million metric tons of tailings. The 40- hectare disposal cell, completed in 1996, has a 3.5–6.0 m thick cover of unconsolidated, fine sandy loam fill soil overlying the tailings, and a 15 cm topsoil layer that was planted with native trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs (Figure 3). Spokane tribal land surrounding the disposal site provides habitat for wildlife and forage for livestock.

We sampled two deeper-rooted plant species growing on the disposal cell cover, ponderosa pine and antelope bitterbrush, and analyzed current-year twig and leaf tissue for uranium and thorium (Table 9). Note that units are in ng g-1. Uranium was not significantly higher (P > 0.05) in plants on the disposal cell compared to plants in a nearby reference area, and levels were well below the MTL (100 µg g-1). Thorium was below detection levels in all samples.

Split Rock, Wyoming 55

The former Split Rock uranium processing site is 2 km northeast of the small town of Jeffrey City, Wyoming, about 93 km southeast of Lander, Wyoming, and lies within the ancestral homelands of the Eastern Shoshone. Wind River Reservation land, the present-day home of Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe, is located about 50 km northwest of the site. During its years of operation from 1956 to 1981, the Split Rock mill processed about 7 million metric tons of ore extracted from nearby open pit and underground mines. Tailings were placed in unlined impoundments, from which processing fluids seeped into and contaminated the underlying aquifer. In 1988, the mill owner began consolidating all contaminated materials in the tailings impoundment and completed construction of an engineered soil and rock cover in 2007. The multi-layered cover, installed in stages, has, from bottom to top, a 30–60 cm thick interim soil layer over the tailings, a 10 cm low-permeable clay layer, a 15–115 cm thick compacted clay loam radon barrier, a 20–38 cm coarse-grained layer to shed rainwater, and a 10–15 cm surface armor of either a rock mulch or a soil-rock matrix (Figure 3).

Rubber rabbitbrush shrubs and several cool season grasses have established on the cover since construction. We sampled rabbitbrush and analyzed current-year tissues for uranium and manganese, two elements of concern. Rabbitbrush plants growing on the disposal cell cover had higher levels of uranium than rabbitbrush growing in a nearby reference area (P < 0.05), but levels were below the MTL (Table 10). (Note that measurements are in ng g-1 whereas the MTL is 100 µg g-1). Manganese was not significantly different in rabbitbrush plants growing on and growing off the cell and were well below the MTL (2000 µg g-1 for cattle and sheep). Thorium was not analyzed. 56

4. Discussion

Of the 46 comparisons of elements of concern in plant tissues on and off disposal cells, 14 were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in plants on cells compared to reference areas and only one was significantly higher in plants from reference area soils. All other comparisons were nonsignificant (P > 0.05). Since an effort was made to sample plants from the same soil units off disposal cells as were used to construct disposal cell covers, it is reasonable to assume that, on average, soil levels were the same to start with on and off cells. Therefore, the higher plant tissue levels of uranium, molybdenum, and, in one case, arsenic in plants on disposal cells could indicate a potential exposure route from the underlying tailings to the surface at some of the sites via plant tissues. The route could be via roots penetrating through the engineered cover or from migration of elements of concern upward from the tailings into the cover. Nevertheless, except for selenium, no other element of concern approached dietary MTLs for animals (Table 2) at any of the sites. Also, except for selenium, all other elements in our study of plants growing on engineered tailings covers were well below levels reported for plants growing on exposed tailings (Section 2. Literature Review).

Uranium Decay Series Elements

Uranium and thorium concentrations were below levels of concern. Mean uranium values in current-year leaf and stem tissue for woody plants growing on seven remediated UMTRCA disposal cells ranged broadly (from 0.164 ng g-1 to 0.370 µg g-1).

These values are less than the mean for fourwing saltbush grown directly in uranium mill tailings (1.8 µg g-1 in Dreesen and Marple [1979]), and overlap results for fourwing 57 saltbush irrigated with contaminated groundwater water in a greenhouse study (0.04–0.81

µg g-1 in Baumgartner et al. [2000]). Our uranium uptake results are also well below the

MTLs for rodents (100 µg g-1), the only MTL established for uranium tolerance in animals (NRC, 2005), and less than uranium concentrations in livestock feed and supplements (2–180 µg g-1 in Reid et al. [1977]). Similar to results by Apps (1988), concentrations of thorium metal were below detection limits in all of our plant samples.

Radium activity and lead concentrations were also well below levels of concern in subsets of plant samples. Mean plant radium activities on remediated tailings (0.033–

0.094 pCi/g) were at least 10-1 below the UMTRCA surface soil cleanup standard (5 pCi/g), at least 10-1 below levels in plants growing directly in tailings in similar environments (Popa et al., 2008; Ibrahaim and Whicker, 1988). Except for Tuba City, radium activities on versus off of the disposal cells were nonsignificant (P > 0.05).

Higher off-cell radium activity at Tuba City may be attributable to residual windblown contamination in the reference area where postremediation surface soil radium activity ranged from 1.74–3.64 pCi/g (DOE, 1995). Our mean lead values for plants growing on remediated tailings (0.018–0.396 ug g-1) were similar to greenhouse results for plants growing directly in tailings (Dressen and Marple, 1979), and well below the MTLs for animal diets (10–100 µg g-1 in NRC [2005]).

Molybdenum, Arsenic, and Manganese

Molybdenum, arsenic, and manganese in leaves and stems were below levels of concern. Molybdenum in plants at the Tuba City, Bluewater, and L-Bar were five to ten times below the animal dietary toxicity thresholds (NRC, 2005), 10-3 below levels found in plant growing directly in tailings (Dreesen and Marple, 1979), and just below levels in 58 plants irrigated with contaminated groundwater (Baumgartner, 2000). Arsenic levels at

Lakeview and Tuba City were well below the animal toxicity threshold of 30 µg g-1

(NRC, 2005) and similar to results for plants grown directly in tailings (Dreesen and

Marple, 1979). Manganese in rabbitbrush at Split Rock was at least 10-2 below animal

MTLs (NRC, 2005).

Selenium

Selenium concentrations in plants exceeded dietary MTLs for livestock at

Bluewater and L-Bar. Long-term exposure of grazing animals to the concentrations observed (5.6–11.0 µg g-1) can lead to chronic selenosis, producing symptoms such as hoof deformations, loss of appetite, and reduced vitality (NRC, 2005).

Selenium in plants from the Bluewater and L-Bar disposal cells could have originated in soils used to construct engineered covers. Bluewater and L-Bar lie in the

San Mateo Basin (Grants Mineral Belt) in northwestern New Mexico (Otton, 2011). Soils used to construct disposal cell covers at these sites formed on Cretaceous sandstone and shale outcrops that frequently contain high levels of selenium, and selenium concentrations in forage plants growing in these soils can exceed 50 µg g-1 (Boon, 1989).

However, in the Grants Mineral Belt, selenium can be higher in uranium ore tailings than in surface soils derived from Cretaceous shale (Boon, 1989). Sedimentary uranium ore deposits in the area called “roll front formations” formed when soluble uranium compounds moving in oxidized groundwater precipitated in reduced zones, generally in contact with carbon-rich organic matter (McLemore et al., 2013). Selenium frequently co-precipitated with uranium in these formations, and the uranium ore can contain up to several thousand µg g-1 of selenium (Boon, 1989). 59

Considering that (1) selenium levels were similar in plants on disposal cell covers and in reference areas at Bluewater and L-Bar, (2) the soils used to construct disposal cell covers and soils in reference areas were similarly seleniferous at these sites, and (3) most roots of plants on disposal cells likely occur in the soil cover, we suggest that selenium in the plants primarily originated from soil and not tailings. This hypothesis could be tested by determining selenium concentrations in tailings, disposal cell covers, and reference area soils, and sampling root abundance profiles for fourwing saltbush and Siberian elm plants growing on the Bluewater and L-Bar disposal cells.

Bioaccumulation Potential

Our results indicate that, except for selenium, concentrations of tailings elements in leaves and stems of plants growing on remediated sites are currently well below levels of concern. However, an understanding of the potential for accumulation of uranium and selenium over time in plants, litter, surface soil, and higher trophic levels may be important for long-term management decisions. Although uranium concentrations were consistently higher on disposal cells than in reference areas, indicating that tailings were a likely source, long-term bioaccumulation is unlikely. Previous studies show that uranium remains primarily in roots with only a small fraction translocating to stems and leaves (Rumble and Bjugstad, 1986; Apps et al., 1988, Thiry et al. 2005; Petrescu and

Bilal, 2003), particularly in clayey soils (Sheppard and Evenden, 1988; Mortvedt, 1994).

Long-term bioaccumulation of selenium is of particular interest because of potentially toxic concentrations in plant stems and leaves at Bluewater and L-Bar.

Bioaccumulation and biomagnification of selenium occurs in anaerobic wetland environments. Selenium bioaccumulation has been studied for decades in the Kesterson 60

Wildlife Refuge in California’s San Joaquin Valley (Wu, 2004). Selenium accumulated in the lower wetland trophic levels (algae and plants) in the food chain and then biomagnified as it moved from one trophic level to the next. As a result, levels of selenium in livers of water birds feeding and nesting in the wetland were several thousand times higher than in the source water, and caused death, deformities, and reproductive failures to birds and other wildlife. However, filling the wetland with soil and planting upland grasses greatly reduced selenium to levels similar to the plants growing on the Bluewater and L-Bar disposal cells, even though the grass roots continued to access underlying selenium sources. Biomagnification in this aerobic environment was only 10% of values observed for the wetland soils, and did not reach levels of concern for wildlife in the grasslands. Furthermore, Wu (2004) reported that plant and microbial activity in the grassland caused a net dissipation of soil selenium over time through production of dimethylselenide and other volatile compounds.

A special class of plants called hyperaccumulators can accumulate selenium to very high levels. Species in the genera Stanleya, Astragalus, Xylorhiza, and Oonopsis can accumulate 1000–15,000 µg g-1 selenium in above-ground tissues without any plant toxicity symptoms (Mehdawi and Pilon-Smits, 2012). Plant litter from hyperaccumulators can be above 1000 µg g-1, representing a biomagnification route that affects soil microbiology and can be transferred up the food chain to insects and animals.

The unmanaged growth of hyperaccumulators on UMTRCA cells would not be desirable.

Ethnobotany

Some Native American are dependent on subsistence practices that are a result of centuries of living off the land. While tribes have many unique practices, in general, they 61 have similar medicinal, food, cultural, and spiritual links to plant material. Over time, tribes have lost many of their traditional plant gathering sites due to mining disturbance, in addition to land development, logging, overgrazing, and flooding.

Our study and past studies of plant uptake of tailings elements of concern focused on animal diets. However, cultural uses of plants on remediated uranium mill tailings near tribal communities could present a unique exposure pathway. For example, Hopi and

Pueblo tribes use fourwing saltbush, a common plant growing on uranium mill tailings disposal cells in the Southwest, as an ingredient in traditional foods, for medicinal purposes to help with skin irritation such as ant bites, and as a dye for basket making used in ceremonies (Whiting, 1938; Dumarie et al. 1995). Some Pacific Northwest tribes collect and grind seed from ponderosa pine for food and cultural uses including ointment and tea for treatment of tuberculosis and coughs (Bonday, 2011). Because traditional tribal knowledge is often kept confidential, complete lists of cultural uses may be difficult to compile. Nonetheless, future consideration of exposure risks should incorporate cultural uses of plants by nearby subsistence-dependent communities.

5. Summary

Our results suggest that plants growing on remediated uranium mill tailings disposal cells in arid and semiarid areas do not represent a significant exposure route for uranium, arsenic, molybdenum, lead, manganese, or thorium. Selenium in stems and leaves was elevated above maximum dietary tolerance levels both on and off the disposal cell covers at the L-Bar and Bluewater sites, which can be attributed to the high seleniferous soils used to construct the covers. Grazing by livestock should be avoided to limit selenium exposure at the L-Bar, Bluewater, and other UMTRCA sites with seleniferous soil. Overall, the study supports the premise of enhancing disposal cell cover performance by allowing plants to grow. However, because of uncertainty regarding long-term bioaccumulation, if plants are allowed to grow on engineered disposal cell covers, long-term management of sites should include periodic monitoring of elements of concern in plants and underlying soil with a focus on uranium and selenium. In the future, site stewards should also consider unique exposure pathways related to cultural uses of plants, in addition to grazing and other land uses, by nearby Native American communities.

6. Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the late Dr. Edward Glenn, an advisor and collaborator, who provided invaluable expertise and guidance on this project from inception to end. We also acknowledge Sarah Woods, Jeremy Joseph, Marilyn Kastens, and Steve Hall for their field support. Thank you to the Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants,

University of Arizona Environmental Research Laboratory, and Pace Analytical for preparing and analyzing plant samples. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of

Energy Office of Legacy Management.

7. Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Typical engineered cover cross section for uranium mill tailings disposal cells managed by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Table 1. Uranium mill tailings sites selected for study, stakeholder tribes, climate types, soil types used to construct the low-permeability radon barrier, plant species sampled, and elements of concern analyzed in stem and leaf tissues. Climate/ Soil Plant Species Site1 Tribes2 Vegetation3 Regime4 Borrow Soil5 Sampled6 EOCs7 Tuba City, Hopi Cold desert/ Mesic, Fine sandy loam: Atriplex As, Mo, Arizona Navajo desert shrub typic aridic Eolian sands and canescens Pb, alluvium derived Bassia scoparia 226Ra, from sandstone. Se, Th, U Lowman, Shoshone Temperate Cryic, Sandy loam: Pinus Th, U Idaho continental/ udic Alluvium and/or ponderosa pine, colluvium derived Cornus sericea Douglas fir from igneous rock. Bluewater, Zuni Cold Mesic, Silty clay loam: Atriplex Mo, New Mexico Navajo semi-arid/ ustic aridic Alluvium derived canescens 226Ra Se, SW shrub from shale and Ulmus pumila Th, U steppe siltstone. L-Bar, New Laguna Cold Mesic, Silty clay loam: Atriplex As, Mo, Mexico semi-arid/ ustic aridic Alluvium derived canescens Pb, 226Ra SW shrub from shale and Ericameria Se, Th, U steppe siltstone. nauseosa Lakeview, Klamath8 Temperate Mesic, Loam: Artemisia Th, U Oregon Northern continental/ xeric Alluvium and tridentata Paiute sagebrush lacustrine deposits Purshia derived from tuff. tridentata Sherwood, Spokane Temperate Frigid, Fine sandy loam: Pinus Th, U Washington continental/ xeric Mixed glaciofluvial ponderosa Douglas fir deposits. Purshia tridentata Split Rock, Arapahoe Cold Frigid, Clay loam: Ericameria Mn, U Wyoming Shoshone semi-arid/ ustic aridic Cretaceous shale nauseosa sagebrush Notes: 1UMTRCA sites managed by DOE. 2Native American tribes with stakeholder communities near the seven UMTRCA sites. 3Climate types are from a updated Koppen-Geiger climate map (Peel et al., 2007); vegetation types are from a 2000 version of Kuchler’s potential natural vegetation map (Schmidt et al. 2002). 4Soil temperature and moisture regimes (Natural Resources Conservation Service at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov). 5Soil textural classes and parent materials for radon barrier borrow areas and reference areas from https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. 6Genus and species for sampled plants growing on disposal cell covers are from the USDA Plants Database at https://plants.usda.gov/java/. 7EOCs analyzed in plant tissue samples. 8The Klamath Tribes include the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin.

Abbreviations: As = arsenic; EOCs = elements of concern; Mn = manganese; Mo = molybdenum; Pb = lead; 226Ra = radium-226; Se = selenium; SW = southwest; Th = thorium; U = uranium

Figure 2. Map of U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management sites showing UMTRCA disposal sites selected for study and associated Native American tribes.

Figure 3. Disposal cell cover design cross sections for the seven study sites.

Table 2. Maximum tolerable levels of elements in animal diets in µg g-1. From NRC (2005). Elements Rodents Poultry Swine Horses Cattle Sheep Arsenic 30 30 30 30 30 30 Lead 10 10 10 10 100 100

Manganese 2000 2000 1000 400 2000 2000

Molybdenum 7 100 150 5 5 5

Selenium 5 3 4 5 5 5

Uranium 100 - - - - -

Table 3. Tuba City, Arizona. Means, standard errors of the means in parentheses, and P 68 of the one-way analysis of variance comparing element concentrations in disposal cell and reference area plant tissue. Means followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Plant and Element Reference Area Disposal Cell P Atriplex canescens Se (µg g-1) 1.764 (0.352) a 0.587 (0.07) b 0.004 Mo (µg g-1) 0.586 (0.080) 0.544 (0.052) 0.670 U (µg g-1) 0.035 (0.004) a 0.070 (0.014) b 0.027 As (µg g-1) 0.129 (0.011) a 0.306 (0.031) b < 0.001 Pb (µg g-1) 0.396 (0.035) 0.327 (0.129) 0.611 Ra (pCi g-1) 0.094 (0.016) a 0.039 (0.016) b 0.041 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection Bassia scoparia Se (µg g-1) - 0.428 (0.033) - Mo (µg g-1) - 0.935 (0.058) - U (µg g-1) - 0.023 (0.003) - As (µg g-1) - 1.223 (0.101) - Pb (µg g-1) - 0.074 (0.023) - Th (ng g-1) - Below detection

Table 4. Lowman, Idaho. Means, standard errors of the means in parentheses, and P of the one-way analysis of variance comparing disposal cell and reference area plants. Means followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Plant and Element Reference Area Disposal Cell P Pinus ponderosa U (ng g-1) 0.493 (0.114) 0.323 (0.043) 0.179 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection Cornus sericea U (ng g-1) 0.114 (0.033) - - Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection

Table 5. Bluewater, New Mexico. Means, standard errors of the means in parentheses, and P of the one-way analysis of variance comparing plants growing on the acid-leached tailings disposal cell and in reference areas. Means followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05. Mean values in italics exceed the MTL for that element.

Plant and Element Reference Area Main Disposal Cell P Atriplex canescens Se (µg g-1) 5.603 (0.250) 9.330 (1.680) 0.05 Mo (µg g-1) 0.327 (0.0425) 0.410 (0.0700) 0.339 U (µg g-1) 0.0175 (0.00134) a 0.149 (0.0508) b 0.024 Ra (pCi g-1) 0.0831 (0.025) 0.064 (0.009) 0.493 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection Ulmus pamila Se (µg g-1) 7.746 (0.889) 6.801 (0.249) 0.294 Mo (µg g-1) 0.646 (0.0993) a 0.310 (0.0114) b 0.005 U (µg g-1) 0.0446 (0.00621) 0.0442 (0.0113) 0.867 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection

Table 6. Bluewater, New Mexico. Means, standard errors of the means in parentheses, and P of the one-way analysis of variance comparing plants growing on the carbonate- leached tailings disposal cell and in reference areas. Means followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05. Results in italics are mean values that exceed the MTL for that element.

Plant and Element Reference Area Carbonate Disposal Cell P Atriplex canescens Se (µg g-1) 5.603 (0.250) a 6.739 (0.332)b 0.014 Mo (µg g-1) 0.327 (0.0425) 0.443 (0.0775) 0.207 U (µg g-1) 0.0175 (0.00134) a 0.119 (0.0145)b 0.026 Ra (pCi g-1) 0.083 (0.025) 0.043 (0.012) 0.187 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection

Table 7. L-Bar, New Mexico. Means, standard errors of the means in parentheses, and P of the one-way analysis of variance comparing disposal cell and reference area plants. Means followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05. Results in italics show means that exceed the MTL for that element.

Plant and Element Reference Area Disposal Cell P Atriplex canescens Se (µg g-1) 11.02 (1.54) a 6.606 (0.318) b 0.008 Mo (µg g-1) 0.183 (0.0304) a 0.693 (0.137) b 0.003 U (µg g-1) 0.00713 (0.000745) a 0.158 (0.332) b < 0.001 Ra (pCi g-1) 0.044 (0.013) 0.069 (0.025) 0.401 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection Ericameria nauseousa Se (µg g-1) 0.399 (0.102) a 1.453 (0.490) b 0.049 Mo (µg g-1) 0.256 (0.0717) a 0.596 (0.124) b 0.029 U (µg g-1) 0.00320 (0.00101) 0.370 (0.184) 0.066 Ra (pCi g-1) 0.033 (0.005) 0.052 (0.026) 0.493 As (µg g-1) 0.0719 (0.00412) 0.0617 (0.00503) 0.135 Pb (µg g-1) 0.179 (0.0156) 0.177 (0.0264) 0.940 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection

Table 8. Lakeview, Oregon. Means, standard errors of the means in parentheses, and P of the one-way analysis of variance comparing disposal cell and reference area plants. Means followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Plant and Element Reference Area Disposal Cell P Artemisia tridentata U (ng g-1) 3.039 (0.647) a 9.662 (1.784) b 0.008 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection Purshia tridentata U (ng g-1) 0.184 (0.0260) 0.376 (0.110) 0.108 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection

Table 9. Sherwood, Washington. Means, standard errors of the means in parentheses, and P of the one-way analysis of variance comparing disposal cell and reference area plants. 70

Plant and Element Reference Area Disposal Cell P Purshia tridentata U (ng g-1) 0.147 (0.0249) 1.078 (0.521) 0.091 Th (ng g-1) Below detection Below detection Pinus ponderosa U (ng g-1) 0.0768 (0.0174) 0.164 (0.0476) 0.103

Table 10. Split Rock, Wyoming. Means, standard errors of the means in parentheses, and P of the one-way analysis of variance comparing rabbitbrush plants growing on the disposal cell and in a reference area. Means followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Plant and Element Reference Area Disposal Cell P Ericameria nauseousa U (ng g-1) 0.238 (0.0396) a 1.066 (0.168) b < 0.001 Mn (µg g-1) 1.457 (0.201) 1.141 (0.0816) 0.162

8. References

40 CFR 192, 1983. US Environmental Protection Agency, “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,” Code of Federal Regulations.

Albright, W.H., C.H. Benson, and W.J. Waugh. 2010. Water Balance Covers for Waste Containment: Principles and Practice, ASCE Press, Reston, Virginia.

Apiwantragoon, P., Benson, C., and Albright, W., 2015. Field hydrology of water balance covers for waste containment. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 141(2), 1–20.

Apps, M.J., Duke, M.J.M., Stephens-Newsham, L.G., 1988. A study of radionuclides in vegetation on abandoned uranium tailings. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., 123, 133–147.

Benson, C., Albright, W., Fuhrman, M., Likos, W., Stefani, N., Tian, K., Waugh, W., and Williams, M., 2017. Radon fluxes from two earthen barriers over uranium mill tailings after two decades of service. Proceedings of Waste Management 2017 Symposium, Phoenix, Arizona.

Bonday, D. 2011. Northwest Ethnobotany Field Guide. Northwest Ethonobotany. University of Oregon: Oregon. Retrieved from http://www.burnabylandscaping.com/Ethnobotany-Field-Guide.pdf

Boon, D.Y., 1989. Potential selenium problems in Great Plains soils, in: Jacobs, L.W. (ed.), Selenium in Agriculture and the Environment, Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 107–122.

Bowerman, A.G., and Redente, E.F. 1998. Biointrusion of protective barriers at hazardous waste sites. J. Environ. Qual., 27, 625–632.

DOE, 1989. Technical approach document, revision II. UMTRA-DOE/AL050425.0002, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

DOE, 1995. Tuba City, Arizona completion report. Vol. 4, Appendix J, “Radiological Soil Verification Methods,” prepared by DOE Albuquerque Operation Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Contract Number DE-AC04-83AL18796, April.

Dreesen, D.R., Williams, J.M., Marple, M.L., Gladney, E.S., Perrin, D.R., 1982. Mobility and bioavailability of uranium mill tailings contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 16:10, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 22, 85–93. 72

Dressen, D.R. and Marple, M.L., 1979. Uptake of trace elements and radionuclides from uranium mill tailings by four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) and akalai sacaton (Sprobolus airoides). Proc. Second Symp. Uranium Mill Tailings Management, Fort Collins, Col., Los Alamos Sci. Lab, New Mexico, 16 pp.

Dumarie, W.W., Tierney, G.D., Nabhan, G. 1995. Wild Plants of the Pueblo Province: Exploring Ancient and Enduring Uses. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

EPA, 1980. Method 903.1: Radium-226 in drinking water radon emanation technique. Prescribed Procedures for Measurement of Radioactivity in Drinking Water, EPA/600/4/80/032.

EPA. 1998. Method 6020A (SW-846): Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, Revision 1.

Gee, G.W., and Tyler, S.W., Eds. 1994. Symposium: Recharge in arid and semiarid regions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58, 5–72.

Gochfeld, M., and Burger, J., 2011. Disproportionate exposures in environmental justice and other populations: The importance of outliers. Am. J. Public Health, 101 (S1), S53– S63.

IAEA, 2010. Handbook of parameter values for the prediction of radionuclide transfer in terrestrial and freshwater environments. IAEA Technical Report Series No. 472, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

Ibrahim, S.A., and Whicker, F.W., 1988. Comparative uptake of U and Th by native plants at a U production site. Health Phys. 54:4, 413–419.

Madruga, M.J., Brogueria, A., Alberto, G., Cardoso, F., 2000. 226Ra bioavailability to plant at the Urgerica uranium mill tailings site. J. Environ. Radioact. 54 (2001), 175–188.

Markose, P.M., Bhat, I.S., and Pillai, K.C., 1993. Some characteristics of 226Ra transfer from soil and uranium mill tailings to plants. J. Environ. Radioact. 21, 131–142.

McLemore, V.T., Hill, B., Khalsa, N., and Lucaskmat, S.A., 2013. Uranium resources in the grand uranium district, New Mexico: An update. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, 64th Field Conference, Geology of Route 66 Region: Flagstaff to Grants, pp. 117–126.

Mehdawi, A.F., and Pilon-Smits, E.A.H., 2012. Ecological aspects of plant selenium hyperaccumulation. J. Plant Biol. 14, 1-10.

Mitchell, N., Pérez-Sánchez, D., and Thorne, M.C., 2013. A review of the behaviour of U-238 series radionuclides in soils and plants. J. Radiol. Prot. doi:10.1088/0952- 4746/33/2/R17. 73

Mortvedt, J.J., 1994. Plant and soil relationships of uranium and thorium decay series radionuclides. J. Environ. Qual. 23, 643–650.

NRC (National Research Council), 2005. Mineral Tolerances of Animals, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., pp. 332–347.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1989. Calculation of radon flux attenuation by earthen uranium mill tailings covers. Regulatory Guide 3.64. USNRC, Washington, D.C.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 1990. Staff technical position design of erosion protection covers for stabilization of uranium mill tailings sites, Rockville, Maryland.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2002. Design of erosion protection for long- term stabilization. NUREG-1623. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2011. Engineered covers for waste containment: Changes in engineering properties and implications for long-term performance assessment. NUREG/CR-7028, USNRC, Washington, D.C.

Otton, J.K., 2011. Annotated bibliography of environmentally relevant investigations of uranium mining and milling in the Grants Mineral Belt, northwestern New Mexico: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011–1140.

Peel, M.C., B. L. Finlayson, and T. A. McMahon, 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11, 1633–1644

Petrescu, L., and Bilal, E., 2003. Plant availability of uranium in contaminated soil from Crucea Mine (Romania). Enviro. Geosci. 10(3), 123–135.

Popa, K., R. Tykva, E, Posrachá, and D. Humelnicu, D., 2008. 226Ra translocation from soil to selected vegetation in the Crucea (Romania) uranium mining area. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Ch. 278(1), 211–213.

Reid, D.F., W.M. Sackett, and R.F. Spalding, 1977. Uranium and radium in livestock feed supplements. Health Phys. 32(6), 535–540.

Rumble, M.A. and Bjugstad, A,J., 1986. Uranium and radium concentration in plants growing on uranium mill tailings in South Dakota. Reclam. Reveg. Res., 4, 271–277.

Sackschewsky, M.R., Kemp, C.J., Link, S.O., and Waugh, W.J., 1995. Soil water balance changes in engineered soil surfaces. J. Environ. Qual. 24, 352–359.

Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.P., Hardy, C.C., Hann, W.J., and Bunnell, D.L., 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report RMRS-87, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sheppard, S.C. and Evenden,W.G., 1988. Critical compilation and review of plant/soil concentration ratios for uranium and thorium and lead. J. Environ. Radioact. 8, 255–285.

Shtangeeva, I. 2010. Uptake of uranium and thorium by native and cultivated plants. J. Environ. Radioact., 101, 458–463.

Thiry, Y., Schmidt, P., Hees, M.V., Wannijn, J., Bree, P.V., Rufyikiri, G., 2005. Uranium distribution and cycling in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) growing on a revegetated U- mining heap. J. Environ. Radioact., 81, 201–219.

Tome, F.V., Blanco Rodriguez, M.P., Lozano, J.C., 2003. Soil-to-plant transfer factors for natural radionuclides and stable elements in a Mediterranean area. J. Environ. Radioact., 65, 161–175.

Waugh, W.J., Benson, C.H., and Albright, W.H., 2009. Sustainable covers for uranium mill tailings, USA: Alternative design, performance, and renovation, in: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management. ICEM, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Waugh, W.J., Benson, C.H., Albright, W.H., Smith, G.M., Bush, R.P., 2015. Evaluation of soil manipulation to prepare engineered earthen waste covers for revegetation. J. Environ. Qual., 44, 1911–1922.

Waugh, W.J., Smith, G.M., Danforth, B., Gee, G.W., Kothari, V. and Pauling, T., 2007. Performance evaluation of the engineered cover at the Lakeview, Oregon, uranium mill tailings site, in: Proceedings of Waste Management 2007 Symposium, WM Symposia, Tempe, Arizona.

Waugh, W.J., Thiede, M.E., and Bates, D.J., 1994. Plant cover and water balance in gravel admixtures at an arid waste-burial site. J. Environ. Qual., 23, 676–685.

Waugh, W.J., Morrison, S.J., Smith, G.M., Kautsky, M., Bartlett, T.R., Carpenter, C.E., and Jones, C.E., 1999. Plant encroachment on the Burrell, Pennsylvania, disposal cell: Evaluation of long-term performance and risk. GJO-99-96-TAR. DOE, Grand Junction, Colorado.

Whiting, A.F., 1938. Ethnobotany of the Hopi, in: the Museum of Northern Arizona Bulletin 15, pp.1–120, Northern Arizona Society of Science and Art, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Wu, L., 2004. Review of 15 years of research on ecotoxicology and remediation of land contaminated by agricultural drainage sediment rich in selenium. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf., 57, 257–269. 75

APPENDIX B

THE EFFECTS OF OBSERVED AND FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE

PERFORMNACE OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS DISPOSAL COVERS LOCATED

IN THE U.S. SOUTHWEST

Carrie Nuva Joseph*, Michael Crimmins, Jody Waugh

*Corresponding author

Department of Soil, Water, and Environmental Science, University of Arizona

1177 E. Fourth Street, P.O. Box 210028

Tucson, AZ 85721-0038, USA

[email protected]

Phone: 1 520 621 1646; Fax: 1 520 621 1647

In Preparation for submission to the, International Journal of Mining, Reclamation, and

Environment

Abstract

The Department of Energy Legacy Management (DOE-LM) is investigating conceptual approaches to determine how climate will influence the long-term performance of uranium disposal cell covers for uranium tailings. Related to their inquiry, the main objectives of this research were to determine how conventional disposal cell covers were designed to adapt to climate change. This was accomplished by examining conventional disposal cell covers design criteria standards, the climate conditions that disposal covers have been subjected to since construction, exploring future climate change effects, and hypothesizing these effects on disposal cell cover performance considering the original regulatory design standards. Observed trends in precipitation and temperature were assessed at two DOE-LM disposal sites in the U.S.

Southwest to bridge the understanding between regional and local climate impacts.

Furthermore, climate projections from 20 general circulation models (GCMs), within each of two representative concentration pathways (RCPs) were examined from the

Coupled Model Intercomparsion Project phase 5 (CMIP5). For the Tuba City site, overall climate is expected to get wetter and hotter by the end of the century, with the exception of the spring season, which shows a trend of getting dryer and hotter. The Bluewater site projections showed average conditions under each forcing moving in opposite directions, indicating climate uncertainty. Seasonality differences are also noted, with summer and autumn moving towards wet/hot conditions, and winter and summer season moving towards dry/hot conditions under both moderate and high emission scenarios. The changing climate conditions, with high consideration for biological and physical studies 77 completed at each site, show favorable conditions for limiting water percolation and unfavorable conditions for radon attenuation and erosion protection.

1. Introduction

In the southwestern United States (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, New

Mexico, and California) it is estimated that are 3,629 uranium mine sites that produced approximately 62 million tons of uranium ore for defense-related purposes during the

Cold War and World War II era (DOE, 2017). The Department of Energy – Legacy

Management is responsible, through the 1978 Uranium Mill Tailings Remediation

Control Act (UMTRCA), for remedial post-closure oversight of inactive uranium ore processing sites generated by these defense-related uranium mines. The remedy for inactive uranium mill sites includes consolidating waste material in a near-surface engineered disposal cell cover to limit environmental contamination above and below ground. However, 20-30 years after disposal cell construction, abiotic and biotic processes have changed the engineering performance of existing covers, notwithstanding the longevity standard of 200-1,000 years (Waugh et al., 2018, DOE, 2006). With a majority of DOE-LM disposal facilities located in the southwestern U.S, an area highly vulnerable to climate change impacts, this research determines how climate was considered in disposal cell designs by examining design criteria standards, investigates what type of climates as-built covers are currently subjected to, and how climate will change into the future. Anticipating the consequences of climate change for sites in the southwest region will give DOE-LM the opportunity to strategize how they will maintain disposal cell systems. For example, how climatological processes are influencing 78 ecosystem processes above disposal cells, and the potential consequences of temporal climatic change on the distributions of ecological communities and soil development.

Engineered disposal covers for uranium mill tailings are designed to limit radon flux, protect groundwater, and withstand erosion for at least 1,000 years (Title 40 Code of

Federal Regulations Section 192 [40 CFR 1920]). Most disposal cover design are constructed with multiple layers of soil and rock. The uppermost “rip rap” rock armor layer, is composed of basalt rock to protect against biointrusion, and wind and water erosion. The bedding layer underlies the rip rap layer to allow rainwater to shed laterally.

The bottom most clayey soil layer limits radon decay to a surface flux requirement of 20 picocuries per square per second (pCi m-2 s-1). Directly above the clayey soil layer is a protection layer to protect against freeze-thaw and wet-dry cycles.

Abiding to these standards assures that disposal cover systems are designed to immobilize radioactive waste in soils for thousands of years while considering the radiological and chemical mechanism of uranium waste transformation and the environment in which they reside. However, within the last 20 to 30 years, climate has driven soil formation and natural ecological processes to occur above the disposal cell, changing the as-built engineering properties. Observations of disposal profiles show volume change, soil aggregation, and cracking as a result of freeze-thaw and wet-dry cycling, plant roots, secondary minerals, organic acids, and microorganisms (Waugh,

2018). As a result, percolation flux and saturated hydraulic conductivity in as-built covers increased by as much as three orders of magnitude above the standard (1.0 x 10-7 cm s-1)

(Waugh, 2018; NRC, 2011). Additionally, the rock armor performed similar to mulch material by limiting evaporation, increasing soil moisture, and trapping windblown dust 79 in the voids of the uppermost layer’s rock armor, which created a habitat for woody plant species that penetrated the disposal cell surface (Waugh, et al., 1994). Joseph et al. (2018) showed that plant roots extending into uranium disposal covers were concentrating uranium and other metals to significant levels compared to plants of the same species off the disposal cell cover; however, levels remained well-below animal exposure risk thresholds.

Alternative designs to the engineered cell cover are biotic evapotranspirative covers that are designed for plant growth. These designs are constructed with a thick sponge-like soil layer that holds moisture until it is lost through evapotranspiration, thus maintaining unsaturated conditions in the disposal cell profile (Gee and Tyler, 1994;

Scanlon et al., 2005). Ecological and soil formation processes occurring above conventional cell covers are naturally evolving into biotic evapotransipirative covers, which may be beneficial for managing risks and reducing cost in the long-term. However, until ecological succession is better understood, short-term maintenance strategies are being implemented to resist natural ecological processes that include spraying vegetation with herbicide.

Additional studies continue to be conducted to evaluate the tradeoffs of enhancing or limiting ecological processes for long-term management of disposal cell covers. While these considerations will occur on a site-by-site basis, three cell cover performance standards must be maintained to minimize risks: 1) water percolation, 2) radon attenuation, and 3) erosion protection. Conceptually, the drier the conditions in the cell cover profile, the better it is for water percolation, which will limit the further spread of contamination from the consolidated uranium tailings below-ground. Conversely, the 80 wetter the disposal cell profile, the better it is for radon attenuation due to the low diffusion coefficient for water (10-9 m2/s) compared to air (10-5 m2/s) (Benson et al.,

2018). High saturation in the soil profile is important to slow radon diffusion through the barrier to maintain the radon flux requirement at the disposal surface-atmosphere interface. Lastly, disposal covers must be able to withstand erosion for 200 to 1,000 years

(EPA, 1983).

Southwest Climate

Currently, DOE-LM has oversight of 92 disposal cells, landfills, or other impoundments for uranium waste. By the end of the decade they are projected to inherit

32 additional sites and will continue to inherit more. A majority of these locations are located in the arid and semi-arid southwest, identified by high temperatures paired with variable and minimal precipitation, primarily received during two seasons of the year

(Sheppard et al., 2002, Weiss et al., 2009). The Southwest climate will continue to change into the next century with warmer temperatures, decreased average precipitation, and severe and sustained drought-like conditions. The regions 2001-2010 temperatures have already increased 1.1°C compared to historic averages. Southwest annual averages are projected to rise 1.4 to 3.1°C by 2041-2070, and between 3.1 to 5.3°C before the end of the century (Garfin et al., 2013).

2011), yielding precipitation projections that are highly variable. For example, locations 81 may experience episodes of storm-like events, in areas that have already drought-like conditions (Garfin et al., 2013). Regionally, southwestern Arizona has already experienced an annual average precipitation decrease of 5-10% from 1958-2008, while precipitation increases were observed in New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. These recorded events in annual average precipitation illustrates the high regional variability of precipitation events for the southwest (CLIMAS, 2014).

To understand the vulnerabilities of conventional cell cover systems to climate change on the evolution of engineered cell cover systems, we investigate current climate and explore future trajectories of climate conditions for existing covers. Our study sites extend two states in the lower elevations of the Colorado Plateau, which comprise of desert shrub dominated by species of blackbrush, morman tea, and saltbush. Dominant grasses include Indian ricegrass and needle and thread grass (Schwinning et al, 2008).

Our research addresses the following objectives: (i) What type of climate conditions have conventional covers been subjected to since construction? (ii) How variable will future climate be compared to today’s climate and in relation to when cell covers were first constructed? (iii) How will climate influence the cover performance criteria of 1) water percolation, 2) radon attenuation, and 3) erosion protection.

To meet our objectives, we examine Technical Approach documents for designing covers, use the obtained data from WorldClim to extract minimums and extremes, and the MAVAv2-METADATA for climate projections with respect to our study sites.

2. Methods

Study Sites

For our study, we selected two southwestern UMTRCA sites managed by the

DOE-LM: Tuba City, Arizona and Bluewater N.M. Figure 1 shows the location and cover profile for both the Tuba City, AZ and Bluewater, NM site.

The Tuba City site has a three-layer design that consists of (bottom to top) a fine sandy loam radon (Rn) barrier, a protective gravel bedding layer (0.15m), and a rock rip rap erosion protection layer (0.12 to 0.3 m) (Joseph, et al.,2018). Construction of the cover was completed in 1990 that spans a 20-hectare [ha] area and contains 1,100,000 cubic meters (m3) of mixed waste and 35 terabecquerel (TBq) of 226Ra (DOE, 1996). The

Bluewater site has a two-layer design that consists of a silty clay loam Rn barrier (0.5 to

0.8 m) and a rock rip rap erosion protection layer (0.1 to 0.3 m) (Joseph, et al., 2018).

The construction was completed in 1995 and covers a 129-ha area. The cover encapsulates 23,000,000 dry-tons of mixed waste and 414 TBq of 226Ra (DOE, 2017).

We selected these sites because they are 1) located in the U.S. southwest, and area highly vulnerable to climate impacts, 2) have conventional engineered disposal cells to contain uranium mill tailings (compacted soil layers), and 3) where natural ecological and soil forming processes have changed the as-designed engineering properties. The climate considerations that were taken into account for these initial engineered covers were the maximum rainfall events to prevent flooding of the erosion protection layer

(rock rip-rap) (NRC, 2002) and average maximum-and-minimum daily temperature for one year’s duration to determine a freeze index to construct the protection layer (DOE,

1989). 83

Climatology of Study Sites

The Tuba City UMTRCA Disposal Site (36.14˚N, 111.3˚W; hereon Tuba City site) is located on the ancestral land of the Hopi Tribe and within the reservation of the

Navajo Reservation in northeastern Arizona. On average the Tuba City site receives approximately 21.6 cm of precipitation per year where a majority of moisture is received during two distinct seasons (summer monsoon and winter) (Figure 2a). The drier periods during the year occur during the spring season months of April, May, and June. Once the

Spring season concludes, the region reaches its highest point of average maximum- minimum temperatures that occur in July. Winter months are cold, with minimum average temperatures that reach below 0˚C. Annually, the average high temperature is

21.2˚ C and average low temperature is 5.4˚ C.

The Bluewater UMTRCA Disposal Site (35.27˚ N, 107.95˚ W; hereon Bluewater

Site) is located in the small town of Bluewater, New Mexico and within the ancestral lands of the Zuni, Laguna, and Acoma Pueblo Tribes in northeastern New Mexico.

Precipitation at the Bluewater site is unimodal, with 27.8 cm of precipitation received each year, a majority during the monsoon season (Figure 2b). Winters are cold, and average minimum temperatures can reach below 0˚ C seven months out of the year. The annual average maximum temperature is 19.8˚ C and annual average minimum temperature is 0.6˚ C.

Site Specific Climate Data

We extracted daily minimum and maximum temperatures and precipitation from

1979-2015 to calculate the distribution of yearly climate extremes at each site.

Precipitation is represented by the maximum precipitation event in one year’s duration. 84

The data is retrieved from high resolution (4-km, 1/24th degree) gridded surface meteorological (GridMet) outputs that combines two data sets; the spatial attributes of the

Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) and the temporal attributes from the North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS-

2) (Abatzoglou, 2011).

Site Specific Climate Projections

To understand how climate characteristics may change in the future we examined climate projections of 20 global circulation models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model

Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) model runs in MACAv2-METADATA

(downscaled) using Multivariate Adaptive Constructed Analogs (MACA, Abatzoglou and Brown, 2012) method with the METADATA (Abatzoglou, 2011) observational dataset as training data. CMIP5 models generally lead to more mathematically accurate models that result in higher spatial resolution (Taylor et al,2012). Future scenarios for

CMIP5 are driven by representative concentration pathway (RCPs), which represents how much energy earth will retain as a result of anthropogenic activities (greenhouse gas emissions, aerosol, and land-use changes). Four different RCP’s are distinguished by their radiative forcing by year 2100, influenced by specific emissions trajectories (Flato,

2013). Radiative forcing ranges from 2.6 – 8.5 W/m2 (watts per meter square), from lower emissions to higher emissions respectively. In this study, one ensemble mean was calculated from 20 GCM simulations to represent the annual change and seasonal change within each of two RCP’s of 4.5 (moderate emissions; 4.5 W/m2) and 8.5 (high emissions; 8.5W/m2) for each time step: 1) early century (2010-2039), mid-century

(2040-2069), and late century (2070-2090). Each time-step is calculated by averaging the 85 yearly values within that time step or season. We represent the data using a scatterplot to show how projected future climate change (seasonal and annual) varies from historical climate (1971-2000).

3. Results

The results depict minimums and extremes to illustrate the range of climate trends that are expected in each study region (Figure 3).

Tuba City

The Tuba City site (1,555 m) shows a range of variability in climate conditions when considering minimums and extremes (Figure 3). Average yearly maximum temperatures for the record were between 20 to 24 ˚C, with a recorded high of 41 ˚C in

July 2013. The minimum average temperatures between the years of 1979-2015 were between 4 and 6˚C, respectively (Figure 3c). A record minimum of -22˚C was recorded in

1990 (Figure 3c). Extreme yearly precipitation for the record ranged from 0.8 - 2.9 cm.

The wettest month for the record occurred in July 2013 (5.99 cm), which also happened to be the month when annual extreme precipitation was recorded (2.9 cm). Annual total precipitation is variable between seasons, with totals that ranged from 7 to 15 cm between 1979-2015 (Figure 3c).

Bluewater

Bluewater sits at a higher elevation (2013 m) compared to the Tuba City. The precipitation regime in Bluewater is unimodal with total yearly precipitation from summer months, that extend into September (Figure 2b). Extreme annual precipitation events ranged from 1.039 cm (2005) to 2.79 cm (2014) (Figure 4a) for the record between 1979-2015. Yearly maximum average temperatures were between 19 and 22 ˚C 86 with a recorded high of 37.88 ˚C in July 1990 (Figure 4b). The average annual minimum temperatures for the record ranged between -1 and 1 ˚C, with -28˚C as the record minimum temperature recorded in 1990 (Figure 4c). Figure 6 shows annual precipitation totals between 16 to 42 cm, with higher contributions to total yearly rainfall during the

Summer season (Jun-Aug), which extends into the Fall season (Sept-Nov).

Climate Projections

Averaged annual CMIP5 model projections over the Tuba City region indicates an increase in precipitation and an increase in temperature for both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios for each time-step; 2010-2039, 2040-2069, and 2070-2099. The mean RCP 4.5 projection shows a gradual increase in both precipitation and average extreme temperature with time. At the end of the century, average annual precipitation will increase by 1.2 cm, with a mean extreme temperature increase of 3.2 ˚C under moderate emissions. When you take into consideration the warmest season of the year (Jun-Jul-

Aug), trends continue to move towards wet/hot trends under RCP 4.5, with precipitation and temperature increases of .72 cm and 3.18 ˚C by the end of the century. This indicates that maximum average temperatures could increase from 34˚C to 37 ˚C in July, the hottest month of the year for the Tuba City site. Under the RCP 8.5 high emission scenario, precipitation will increase by .91 cm, with a 5.87 ˚C increase in maximum mean temperatures at the end of the century, for the same season. The model output for the spring season shows a different trend, with climate expected to get drier and hotter

(Figure 4a). By mid-century average precipitation will decrease by .24 cm, and an additional .3cm by the 2100, under RCP 8.5 87

Interestingly the climate outputs for the averaged RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios for the Bluewater site do not move in the same direction, indicating climate uncertainty.

While the mean RCP 4.5 variables move towards wet/hot conditions with time for, the mean RCP 8.5 variable shows a clear trend towards drier and hotter conditions with time.

Considering the high emissions scenario, average extreme temperatures could increase by

3.6 ˚C mid-century and 5.7 ˚C at the end of the century, while precipitation patterns move towards drier conditions. Conversely, moderate emission scenarios show that by the end of century precipitation will increase by .9 cm with a temperature increase just over 3˚C.

Additionally, there are seasonality differences in climate trajectories for the

Bluewater site, with summer and fall moving towards wetter/hotter conditions, and winter and summer season moving towards dryer/hotter conditions compared to historical climate under both moderate and high emission scenarios. This could be an indication of increased climate variability within each year.

4. Discussion

Each study sites projected climate for maximum average temperature fall within regional climate change projections that show a long-term rise in temperature of 1.4 to

3.1˚C increase in average temperature by mid-century, and a 3.1 to 5.3˚C by end of century (Garfin, 2013). Precipitation trends, are not as apparent as temperature, particularly for the Bluewater sites.

Summer season precipitation is the main contributor to total yearly precipitation for the Bluewater site. RCP 4.5 projections show minimal increases in summer precipitation for Tuba City (.285 cm) and Bluewater (.314 cm) by the end of the century, however, maximum average temperatures are increasing much faster. These climate 88 conditions have implications on the moisture balance which may lead to increased summer drought, that has the potential to impact vegetation density should consideration be made to enhance natural processes above conventional cell covers. Currently native plant species growing above disposal cells include, show deep-rooted plants (fourwing salthbush and black sagebrush) and grasses, (James’ galleta and black grama) that continue to be treated with herbicide (Waugh et al., 2018, Joseph et al., 2018). The literature states that the influence of climate on the redistribution of vegetation and soil destabilization in the Southwest leads to increased soil erosion and sand dune mobility.

These transitions of species loss from one eco-region to another can result in further vegetation losses, and can ultimately lead to feedback of loss of ecosystem function

(Gremer, 2015). Unfortunately, the response of vegetation to changing climate conditions in the Southwest is difficult to determine due to human system disturbance and the changing characteristics of drought conditions (Mohamed et al., 2018). However, this is not to say that early forecasting systems by determining future spatial and temporal vegetation shifts have not been investigated (Thomas, 2012).

Climate Influence on the Plant Population in Tuba City

Previous studies on vegetation-climate interactions investigated how climate changes projections could potentially shift the suitable climate conditions for individual

Southwest plant species (Thomas, 2018). For this study’s purposes, the vulnerability of two plant species to climate change, using the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 projections was extracted from the study database (Table 1). Data was retrieved within a 3-mile radius from the

Tuba City site for fourwing saltbush and rubber rabbitbrush. Each species was assigned a vulnerability score based on the categorical ranking of future climate suitability: 1) >1 89 likelihood of increasing, 2) 0 - 1, likelihood remaining stable, 3) <0 to -1, likelihood less stable, and 4) <-1, likelihood strongly decreasing. The results indicate that each species probability of occurrence decreases with time, out to 2060, however, remain within the likelihood of remaining stable range. The data also indicate that rubber rabbitbrush will be more vulnerable to climate change impacts when compared to fourwing saltbush. This illustrates how spatial tools can be used to determine future plant vulnerabilities to climate change, when considering long-term management plans for disposal covers.

The Long-term effects of Climate on Cell Cover Evolution

The climate variables that were considered in the design of as-built disposal covers were the freeze index to consider the number of freezing days in the year and maximum probable flood events. Given the climate record, the Bluewater and Tuba City site have not exceeded the standards for maximum probable flood and freezing index.

The climate records (1979-2015) for the Tuba City site and the Bluewater sites show extreme precipitation reaching 2.9 cm and 2.8 cm, respectively. Furthermore, both sites are expected to experience increased temperatures for all four seasons, increasing mean maximum temperatures between 1.3 to 5.7 ˚C. Temporal precipitation changes show an increase in annual precipitation that range roughly between .3 to 1.2 cm for the Tuba City site, and either decreasing by -0.4 cm or increasing by 1 cm for the Bluewater Site. When you consider the extreme precipitation recorded at each site post-construction (Figure 3a and Figure 4a), in addition the precipitation projections, this would not likely exceed the maximum probable flood events that the disposal cell was designed for.

Previous studies on soil developments and natural ecological processes above as- built disposal cell covers show that hydraulic properties exceed standards above 90 engineered disposal covers (Waugh, et al., 1994) for both the Tuba City and Bluewater, that plant uptake of uranium tailing constituents growing above disposal covers are significant compared to off-cell vegetation samples but do not exceed animal risk thresholds (Joseph et al., 2018), and radon flux rates above a disposal cell vegetated with grasses are below regulatory standards (Benson et al., 2017; Waugh et al. 2018).

Specifically, at the Bluewater site, the analysis of soil morphology of the cell cover profile shows early serial stages of soil development, that indicate the potential for increases in plant abundance, species diversity, evapotranspiration, and pedogenesis

(Waugh, 2018). The increases in developed soil over time will generally lead to higher saturated hydraulic conductivity.

5. Summary

The future climate states projected at each study region, with respect to historical and current climate, gives only a window of possibility. The Tuba City and Bluewater sites will experience an increase in yearly and seasonal temperatures, with precipitation projections that may decrease in one season with an overall annual mean precipitation increase (Tuba City site) under moderate and extreme conditions or may increase in moderate scenarios and decrease under extreme conditions (Bluewater site). With high consideration for the suite of studies summarized which supports allowing ecological processes to occur under current climate conditions, specifically for the Bluewater site, allowing ecological succession to take place may further increase landscape drying with respect to future temperature increases and changing precipitation patterns at each site.

Increased drying conditions will be beneficial to limit water percolation and water erosion of conventional cell covers; however, drying may be detrimental for radon attenuation an wind erosion of the cell cover, where saturation is important to slow radon flux rates and stabilize soils. To add value to this data, potential evapotranspiration can be conducted to understand soil moisture conditions at each site. This will increase the understanding of the possible range of soil moisture conditions needed to maintain radon flux standards and simultaneously provide an understanding of how to support changes in ecological processes that are inevitable above conventional disposal covers.

6. References

Abatzoglou J. T. 2011. Development of gridded surface meteorological data for ecological applications and modelling. International Journal of Climatology. 33, 1

Abatzoglou, J.T. and Brown, T.J. 2012. A comparison of statistical downscaling methods suited for wildfire applications " International Journal of Climatology 32, 5, 772- 780.

Benson, C.H., Albright, W.H., Fuhrmann, M., Likos, W., Stefani, N., Tian K., Waugh, W.J., Williams, M.M. 2017. Radon fluxes from an earthen barrier over uranium mill tailings after two decades of service – 17234. Waste Management Conference, March 5-9, 2017, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

Benson, C.H., Michaud, A., Albright, W.H., Fuhrmann, M., Likos, W.J., Tian, K., Waugh, W.J., Williams, M.M. 2018. Field evaluation of radon fluxes from in- service disposal facilities for uranium mill tailings. 2018 Long-term Stewardship Conference, August 21-24, 2018. U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Management, Grand Junction, CO, USA.

Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS). Retrieved from https://www.climas.arizona.edu/sw-climate/temperature-and-precipitation (1 Mar 2017).

Flato, G., J. Marotzke, B. Abiodun, P. Braconnot, S.C. Chou, W. Collins, P. Cox, F. Driouech, S. Emori, V. Eyring, C. Forest, P. Gleckler, E. Guilyardi, C. Jakob, V. Kattsov, C. Reason and M. Rummukainen, 2013: Evaluation of Climate Models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2002. Design of erosion protection for long- term stabilization. NUREG-1623. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, D.C. 93

DOE, 1989. Technical approach document, revision II. UMTRA-DOE/AL050425.0002, UMTRA Project Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

DOE, 1996. Long-term surveillance plan for the Tuba City, Arizona Disposal site. DOE/AL/62350-182, Jacobs Engineering Groups, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico.

DOE, 2006. Sustainable disposal cell covers: Legacy Management practices, improvements, and long-term performance. DOE LM/GJ1156-2006. Grand Junction, CO, USA

DOE, 2017. Bluewater, New Mexico Disposal Site Fact Sheet. Grand Junction, CO, USA pp. 1-3.

DOE, 2018. Defense –related uranium mines FY 2017. DRUM FY2017 Annual Report. pp.1-20.

EPA, 1983. Health and environmental protection standards for uranium mill tailings, 48FR602, 40CFR192, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gee, G.W., and S.W. Tyler (eds.), 1994. Symposium: Recharge in arid and semiarid regions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58:5−72.

Gremer, J.R., Bradford, J.B., Munson, S.M., and Duniway, M.C. 2015. Desert grassland responses to climate and soil moisture suggest divergent vulnerabilities across the southwestern United States. Global Change Biology 21, 4049-4062.

Joseph, C.N., Waugh, J.W., Glenn, E.P., Chief, K. 2018. Plant uptake of elements of concern at uranium disposal sites located near Native American communities. Journal of Arid Environments. [Submitted].

Mohamed, A.S.E., Didan, K., Marsh, S.E., Crimmins, M.A., Munoz, A.B., 2018. Characterizing drought effects on vegetation productivity in the Four Corners region of the US Southwest. Sustainability, 10, 1643.

Scanlon, B.R., Reedy, R.C, Keese, K.E., and Dwyer S.F. 2005. Evaluation of Evapotranspirative Covers for Waste Containment in Arid and Semiarid Regions of the Southwestern USA. Vadose Zone J. 4:55-71.

Schwinning, S., J. Belnap, D. R. Bowling, and J. R. Ehleringer. 2008. Sensitivity of the Colorado Plateau to change: climate, ecosystems, and society. Ecology and Society 13(2): 28.

Taylor, K.E. R.J., Stouffer, G.A. Meehl. 2012. An overview of CMIP5 and the 94

experiment design. American Meteorological Society, 93, 483-498.

Thomas, K.A., Stauffer, B.A., Jarchow, C.J., Arundel, T.R. 2018. Vulnerable plant communities across the Southwest USA: a view through two CCSM4 scenarios. USGS, Tucson, AZ, USA. [In prep for publication].

Thomas, K.A., Guertin, P.P., and Gass, L., 2012, Plant distributions in the southwestern United States; a scenario assessment of the modern-day and future distribution ranges of 166 species: U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2012–1020.

Waugh, W.J., K.L. Peterson, S.O. Link, B.N. Bjornstad, B.N., and Gee, G.W. 1994. Natural analogs on the long-term performance of engineered cell covers. In G.W. Gee and N.R. Wing (eds.). In Situ Remediation: Scientific Basis for Current and Future Technologies. Batelle Press, Columbus, OH, USA.

Waugh, WJ, WH Albright, CH Benson, DC Dander, M Fuhrmann, CN Joseph, WJ Likos, DA Marshall, AM Michaud, A Tigar, and MM Williams, 2018. Evaluating the ecology and performance of conventional and evapotranspiration covers for uranium mill tailings disposal cells. Ecological Society of America 2018, New Orleans, LA, August 5-10, 2018.

Waugh, J. Bluewater, New Mexico Disposal Cover Performance and LTS&M. 2018 Legacy Management/Navarro Bluewater Site Team Planning Meeting, November 13, 2018, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management, Grand Junction, CO, USA.

Weiss, J.L., C.L. Castro, J.T. Overpeck. 2009. Distinguishing pronounced droughts in the southwestern United States: seasonality and effects of warmer temperatures. Journal of Climate. 22: 5918-5932.

7. Figures and Tables

Tuba City, AZ Bluewater, NM Rip rap (0.1 - 0.3 m)

Rip rap (0.15 - 0.3 m) Rn Barrier

(0.5 – Bedding 0.8 m) (0.15 m)

Rn Barrier (1.0 m)

Figure 1. Map showing location and disposal cell cover cross-section for each study site. 96 a)

Figure 2. Monthly climate average for the a) Tuba City Disposal Site and the b) Bluewater Disposal Site (1981-2010).

97 a)

)

/day

PrecipitationExtreme (cm

) °

TemperatureMaximum (C c)

) °

Minimum TemperatureMinimum (C

Figure 3. Yearly Climate Extremes for the Tuba City, AZ site (1979-2015) showing, a) maximum precipitation events in cm/day, b) the distribution of maximum temperatures, and c) the distribution of minimum temperatures. 98

a) °C

)

/day

Precipitation (

Extreme b)

) °

Maximum TemperatureMaximum (C

) °

Minimum TemperatureMinimum (C

Years

Figure 4. Yearly Climate Extremes for the Bluewater, NM site (1979-2015) showing, a) maximum precipitation events in cm/day, b) the distribution of maximum temperatures, and c) the distribution of minimum temperatures.

precipitation precipitation

Ratio of Season/ Total Season/ of Ratio

Winter Precipitation (cm) Precipitation Winter

(cm)

Precipitation Summer

(cm)

Precipitation Total Annual

Water Years

Figure 5. Precipitation at the Tuba City Site between 1979-2015 that illustrates the a) ratio of seasonal precipitation to total precipitation b) winter precipitation, c) summer precipitation, and d) total annual precipitation.

100

Figure 6. Precipitation at the Bluewater Site between 1979-2015 that illustrates the a) ratio of seasonal precipitation to total precipitation, b) winter precipitation, c) summer precipitation, and d) total annual precipitation.

101

a) 7 Mean RCP4.5 Mean RCP8.5 Spring Season RCP4.5 Season RCP8.5

C) ° Dry, Hot Wet, Hot

Dec Mean Dec -

Temperature ( Temperature 2

Max Change in Jan in Change 1

0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Change in Jan-Dec Precipitation (cm)

b) 7 Mean RCP4.5 Mean RCP8.5 Season RCP4.5 Season RCP8.5

° 5

Dry, Hot Wet, Hot

4 Dec Mean Dec

3 Temperature ( Temperature

2 Max

Jan in Change 1

0 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Change in Jan-Dec Precipitation (cm)

Figure 7. Climate Summary Projections for the (a)Tuba City Disposal site and the (b) Bluewater Disposal site. Change in yearly precipitation (x axis) and temperature (y axis) relative to the historic period (1971-2000) for early-century (2010-2039), mid-century (2040-2069), and late- century (2070-2099). The red diamond indicates the ensemble mean under the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario and the blue circle indicates the ensemble mean under the RCP 4.5 emissions scenario averaged fork each year. The gray and yellow dots indicate the ensemble mean of each season for both RCP 4.5/ 8.5.

102

Plant Species Baseline RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 Rubber Rabbitbrush 0.587205 0.231381 0.154132 Ericameria nauseousa

FourWing Saltbush 0.628231 0.57494 0.540092 Atriplex canescens

Table 1. Probability of species occurrence based on CCSM4 RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 compared to baseline conditions for period 2041-2060. (From Thomas et al., 2018) Note: The probability for habitat suitability (0-1) were compared to current climate probability for suitable habitat based on average temperature and precipitation data for the period 1960-90.

103

APPENDIX C

HOPI VILLAGERS RISK PERCEPTIONS TO DEFENSE-RELATED

URANIUM SITES LOCATED IN THE US SOUTHWEST

Carrie Nuva Joseph*, Karletta Chief, and Cecilia Rosales

*Corresponding author

Department of Soil, Water, and Environmental Science, University of Arizona

1177 E. Fourth Street, P.O. Box 210028

Tucson, AZ 85721-0038, USA

[email protected]

Phone: 1 520 621 1646; Fax: 1 520 621 1647

In Preparation for submission to the, International Journal of Environmental Research

and Public Health

104

Abstract

Over 15,000 abandoned uranium mine locations remain from uranium extraction, processing, and testing during the United States’ (U.S.) World War II and Cold War era

(1945-1980). When defense-related uranium sites are unmanaged, soil, surface waters, and groundwater contamination can have debilitating ecological and human health impacts that lead to chronic disease. With over two-thirds of abandoned uranium locations on Indigenous lands, we partnered with the Hopi Tribe, who are surrounded by

521 abandoned uranium mines and a handful of inactive uranium mill sites. This is the first participatory study conducted with the Hopi Tribe that documents community perceptions of villagers to uranium exposures who were present during the active mining and milling era. Five focus groups were conducted in two Hopi villages with a strong agrarian society located 7-km downstream from an inactive uranium mill site. We composed semi-structured, open-ended questions with culturally-tailored indicators and documented local knowledge, community risks (cultural, environmental health, and others), and recommendations for management of uranium sites. We found that Hopi villagers were never consulted or compensated during the uranium era, but they were recruited for employment by U.S. agencies for uranium waste disposal and remediation.

We also document unique protective measures Hopi members are taking to perceived uranium exposures. Additionally, due to the absence of data regarding Hopi voices at uranium sites, we seek to bridge the gap in communication with U.S. agencies who are responsible for long-term investment of the health and environment of its stakeholders.

Keywords: community perception; uranium contamination; Hopi; exposure; culturally- tailored; long-term management 105

1. Introduction

Indigenous people who inherit uranium legacy waste on their ancestral lands and territories are vulnerable to increased uranium exposure risks because they have historically depended on their knowledge and relationship with the environment to survive (Pierotti, 2011; Stoffle, 1999). Their co-dependence on the environmental through practices of farming, gathering, hunting, and fishing are some exposure pathways that make tribes susceptible to uranium contaminated areas. In addition to health risks from environmental contamination, practices associated with socio-cultural and spiritual risks with the environment as a result of thousands of passage unique to each tribe make them more vulnerable to exposures. Furthermore, lack of access to a clean public water supply due to limited infrastructure and low socio-economic conditions can result in further health disparities, such as high rates of chronic diseases like cancer.

Federal agencies are beginning to address uranium legacy waste through remediation, environmental sampling, and health exposure assessments for several

Indigenous communities; however, the magnitude of the problem is so great that these efforts may fall short. For example, federal funding inputs are estimated to cover only

10% of the 3.6 billion kilogram (kg) of uranium mine waste for one area of the Navajo

Nation alone (Lewis, 2017). Nonetheless President Clinton’s 1994 Executive Order implemented supporting minority and low-income communities to assert their rights by contributing their opinions and perceptions in decision-making processes that affected their well-being (Burger et al., 2010). Environmental justice for these populations includes assessing environmental and human effects as a result of government driven activities, which includes conducting clinical or epidemiological studies from environmental hazards, consulting with tribes, and promoting public participation and 106 outreach (Executive Order No. 12898, 1994). Executive Order 12898 was established after federal agencies realized that the customary top-down decision-making approach was not reflective of community needs (Waugh et al., 2012), specifically concerning risk characterization to protect human health and the environment (Burger, 2011).

In this study, we investigate the community perceptions of Hopi villagers, who reside in an area where extensive environmental and health studies have been completed for non-Hopi communities impacted by the uranium extraction. However, while the Hopi

Tribe’s ancestral homelands are in the same region, there is no literature available that addresses exposure-related concerns specific to the Hopi people. We also examine the relationship with federal agencies, with a focus on the Department of Energy Legacy

Management (DOE-LM), who manages uranium mill tailings sites across the United

States. Federal law appointed DOE-LM long-term stewardship responsibility of uranium mill tailing sites in the country under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act

(UMTRCA) of 1978 (GAO, 2017). This act includes long-term stabilization of uranium tailings waste at inactive mill sites by eliminating radiation into the atmosphere, isolating tailing waste with a disposal cell cover, and treating groundwater contamination, which collectively contribute to their number one goal of protecting human health and the environment (DOE, 2017).

The Hopi Tribe carry the distinction of having the longest authenticated history of occupancy of a single area in the United States (ITCA, 2003; Kaye, 2016). They never signed uranium lease agreements with the federal government, yet they are highly vulnerable to exposure because of their geographic location and subsistence-dependent life practices. The Hopi Reservation, located in the U.S. state of Arizona, is split into two 107 land areas, each a land island inside the larger Navajo Reservation (Figure x). The Navajo

Nation, although located in the same region as the Hopi Reservation, have a distinctly different history, language structure, and culture (ITCA, 2003).

Complex land lease agreements between the Navajo Nation and the federal government (EPA 2014; Chenoweth, 2011) resulted in approximately 720 uranium mine locations across the reservation with over 13 million tons of uranium ore produced between 1945-1988 alone (Rock, 2017). Today, there remain over 520 abandoned mines,

1,100 abandoned features (portals, shafts, pits), three inactive disposal sites (former mill sites), and one processing site on the Navajo Reservation (DOE, 2017). The literature eludes to mention how indigenous communities, including the Navajo and Hopi, with intimate knowledge of the environment, led extraction companies to uranium rich locations to extract uranium ore (Moore-Nall, 2015). Although the Hopi Tribe share the same geographic space, Hopi tribal members did not allow uranium exploration to occur on their land base, were never consulted about the high density of mining and milling occurring around them and were not compensated for exposures that may have resulted from uranium activity. While each reservation is defined by boundary line, the watersheds and airsheds are one in the same, placing the Hopi Tribe in a precarious position to uranium exposure.

Radiological and chemical health effects from uranium and uranium-decay products are well-documented in the literature (Eggers et al., 2018, Lewis et al, 2017,

Moore-Nall,2017. EPA, 2014). Exposure through groundwater and air particles are known to target human tissue and bone, which increase cancer risk as well as cause liver damage and kidney disease. Furthermore, uranium storage in the bone affects bone 108 growth, causes DNA damage, and impairs brain development and reproductive health.

Exposure studies also note that infants, children, and fetuses are especially susceptible

(Eggers et al, 2018).

Although there is a dearth of information on disease outcomes from uranium in

Indigenous populations, there have been epidemiology and exposure studies completed with the Navajo Nation that have found critical links to the chronic diseases previously mentioned. In a study of over 1,300 Navajo tribal members, researchers found an association between uranium exposure and the development of chronic disease, specifically hypertension and kidney disease (Hund et al., 2015). The relationship was stronger for “active exposure” participants who worked or lived in the mine and mill area during the active mining and milling era (1940-1980), including reclamation workers, compared to “legacy mining exposure” participants, who lived near milling and mining sites post era. Nonetheless, the study found evidence that both legacy and mining exposures increase the likelihood of developing chronic disease. Furthermore, a subset of biological samples from the same study revealed that inflammatory potential in cellular bioassays were higher for individuals the closer they lived to a mill or mine site (range of

0-40 km), indicating a positive relationship to atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease

(Harmon et al., 2017). Their research is ongoing, and it will extend into a birth cohort study that is already finding evidence linking birth defects to uranium exposure.

The earliest finding of chronic disease from uranium exposure in the Navajo Nation was attributed to lung cancer and adverse birth outcomes (congenital defects and developmental disorders) in Navajo miners and millers and children, respectively

(Churchill, 1986; Samet et al., 1984). Roughly 4,000 Navajo tribal members were a part 109 of the uranium industry and despite compelling evidence of high lung cancer rates, tribal members were initially discriminated against when it came to compensation (Lewis,

2017). Evidence from these early studies combined with the many abandoned uranium locations on the Navajo Nation resulted in partnerships between the Navajo and various

U.S. agencies: DOE, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior, and Indian Health

Service (IHS). Collectively, they have addressed environmental and health risks that are documented in a Five-Year Plan, currently in its third cycle (USDOJ, 2015). To date, this partnership has resulted in over $100 million that went to finding a clean alternative water supply for approximately 55 Navajo Chapters, surveying and remediation of homes, and field testing of over 500 uranium sites on the Navajo Nation (U.S.EPA et al.,

2014). In addition, a Tronox settlement of $5.15 billion to address environmental contamination from abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Reservation was reached in

January 2015 (EPA, 2015).

Despite the advancements made, the Hopi tribe, specifically Moencopi villager’s, have never received any reparations. Therefore, this study was motivated by the need to develop baseline data for the unheard voices of the Hopi Tribe, who are known to be a culturally-conservative group of people, whom to this day have maintained deep-rooted practices passed on through millennia. First, we ground this study by providing the Hopi

Tribe’s context by discussing historical and socio-cultural biophysical beliefs that are the foundation of Hopi epistemology, crucial to the development of culturally-tailored research methodologies. All of this leads to qualitative data retrieved by using focus groups to help inform not only U.S. agencies responsible for long-term management of 110 uranium sites, but also tribal governance bodies, about the conditions of the members that they serve. We end with recommendations, largely provided by Hopi villager’s, that will aid and encourage inclusive risk-planning of the affected Tribe.

Hopi Context

The word Hopi means “peaceful, good, wise or good in every respect”, and its tribal members are a federally-recognized and sovereign nation in the United States located within the Great Basin of northeastern Arizona (Singletary et al., 2015). The 1882 executive order established the 2.4 million acre Hopi reservation, which was later reduced to 1.6 million acres and sits entirely within the Navajo Reservation.

Approximately 14,000 people are enrolled members of the Hopi Tribe, with an estimated

7,185 members residing within or near one of 12 villages on the Reservation.

Hopi lineage is manifested by clan, a birthright given through the mother; over 100 clans have been documented to exist at one time (Sheridan et al., 2015). Each Hopi clan has its own migration history, ritual responsibility, and knowledge that they contribute to their respective communal society (Kuwanwisiwma, 2018). Prior to their present-day location of occupancy, known among the Hopi as Tuuwanasavi (Earth Center), Hopi clans escaped a world that had become corrupt, both morally and technologically, which ultimately lead to an imbalance with the natural elements. Various bands of Hopi yearned to restore balance and peace, so they planned to leave in search of another place to begin anew. In doing so, they came upon a caretaker of this new location, referred to as the

Fourth World. The caretaker, Maasaw (Hopi deity), allowed Hopi clans to settle on the land, but only if they accepted to live by his ways. Thus, Hopi clans made a covenant with Maasaw, accepted stewardship of the earth, and were entrusted to live by 111 hopivotskwant, the Hopi path of life, which is heavily dependent on corn and agriculture.

As evidence of fulfilling their covenant with Maasaw, they were instructed to leave footprints of their migration. This included pottery shards, petroglyphs, and archeological settlements that can be found across the American Southwest, which were left behind as

Hopi clans made their way to settle Tuuwanasavi (Kuwanwisima, 2018).

Today, Hopi carry the distinction of having the longest authenticated history of occupancy of a single area in the United States (ITCA, 2003; Kaye, 2016). Traditionally, they operate under a complex and highly organized Hopi cyclic calendar (Sheridan et al.,

2015), and tribal governance is maintained by the Hopi Tribal Council, created in 1936

(https://www.hopi-nsn.gov/tribal-government/). Water, a limited resource on the reservation, is held in utmost respect, for it is viewed as having “immense physical and spiritual energy” important to daily and spiritual life (Balenquah, 2012). Hopi are known for their centuries-long, successful farming methods that utilize water-channeling of intermittent streamflow, dryland farming solely reliant on precipitation, and fields fed by springs. Each family has their own variety of Hopi corn, which is considered the staple crop and the soul of the Hopi people.

Tuba City Uranium Mill

Uranium ore was mined and transported from Cameron, AZ, approximately 30 miles southeast of the Tuba City Uranium Mill Site, on a road that bypassed Moencopi village. The Tuba City uranium mill operated between 1956-1966 and processed approximately 800,000 dry metric tons of uranium ore via acid and alkaline leaching. The tailings were slurried from the mill to tailings piles and unlined evaporative ponds that covered approximately 35 acres. 112

Once operations ceased, uranium mill tailing remnants, including low-level radioactive tailings, chemical by-products, mill buildings, and windblown tailings, were left unremedied and uncovered for 22 years until initial surface remediation began in

1988. The mill remnants were consolidated and covered onsite in an unlined engineered disposal cell made of compacted soil that contains approximately 2.5 million tons of residual radioactive material (NRC, 2016). Essentially, the disposal cell is a near-surface burial site that is similar to a landfill and uses uncontaminated layers of soil to isolate mill tailing remnants (Traynham, 2010). The groundwater contaminants of concern include uranium, molybdenum, nitrate, and selenium, which all exceed maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for UMTRCA sites (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 192 [40

CFR 192]). Although not regulated in 40 CFR 192, high levels of sulfate are also present in groundwater, therefore requiring a restoration goal to limit potential health risks.

Remediation at the Tuba City site is ongoing and consists of pump-and-treat for subsurface contaminants and a disposal cell cover designed to contain uranium tailings.

113

2. Methods

Study Area

Moencopi, the place of running water, is a province of Old Oraibi and the westernmost village on the Reservation (Kaye, 2016). Before becoming a village,

Moencopi was part of the annual pilgrimage route used by Hopi villages to access sacred areas and shrine locations in and around the Grand Canyon (Titiev, 1937). Remnants of these ancient trails are shown through petroglyphs located in Moencopi, which signify clan markings and other cultural symbolism representing each journey. Later, it also became a summer farming area where men from Old Oraibi ran approximately 100 miles round trip daily to tend to their field areas (Sheridan et al. 2015). In the late 1800’s, the village chief of Old Oraibi sent various clans to Moencopi to establish the village as a permanent community due to its successful crop yields and water resources.

Today, there are two recognized villages in Moencopi, Lower and Upper (non-

Oraibi province), located approximately 8-km downstream from the Tuba City Inactive

Uranium Mill site. Although each village is recognized separately due to Western governance influence, the lineage of Hopi from the Old Oraibi province maintain the name Moencopi and do not refer to their village as separate entities. It is also important to note that tribal governance, defined by the Hopi Constitution, was designed to have representatives from each village sit on the Hopi Tribal Council. However, the Lower

Village of Moenkopi, in its rightful position to maintain tribal sovereignty, does not send a representative to sit on the Tribal Council, thus showcasing a high regard for their traditional political system.

114

Data Collection

Prior to conducting research, ethics and research protocol was approved by the University of Arizona Institutional Review Board (Protocol no. #1608806049) and the Hopi Cultural

Preservation Office (Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, 2009).

With respect to the Hopi cyclic calendar and village ceremonies, fieldwork was conducted between September 22 and 30, 2016, at the Lower and Upper Moencopi community building. Focus groups were held, which are most often used for exploratory studies or when there is a communication or information gap between groups of people

(Kreugar and Casey, 2014). It is also frequently used for evaluating existing programs; in this study, one purpose was to understand the relationship between Moencopi and DOE, the federal cleanup agency responsible for the Tuba City Uranium Mill Site (TCMS). We also explored participant knowledge of the (TCMS) and its associated waste to identify potential vulnerabilities to Hopi villagers’ lifestyle, including but not limited to health, cultural practices, environmental impacts, and community.

To recruit participants, key locations on the Hopi Reservation were visited, including local grocery stores, the cultural center, the Hopi Tribal Headquarters, and

Moencopi community buildings. In addition, door-to-door visits were made around the village, and additional participants were recruited by word of mouth. Flyers were also posted in key locations and announcements were published in the local newspaper, the

Tutuveni, and announced over the Hopi radio station (see Supplementary Material).

The inclusion criteria for participation included being an enrolled member of the

Hopi Tribe, who is 18 years or older, and a resident of the Moencopi Village. Residency included permanent residents and those not currently residing permanently at all times, 115 yet are equally connected due to matrilineal lineage and upbringing, ritual responsibilities within the village, agricultural production, herding, or other non-subsistence practices when they are present.

Prior to each focus group session, consent forms were individually reviewed, and demographic information was collected to gauge the level of understanding among age and social groups. The focus group guide consisted of exploratory questions with broad overview and descriptive questions that were open-ended (See Supplementary Material).

The overview questions inquired broadly about the TCMS, while the descriptive questions elicited specific examples from the topic. For example, if a participant felt like their environment was impacted by the mill, we asked further about observed effects on flora and fauna.

Documentation of each focus group session followed methods outlined by Teufel-

Shone and Williams (2010). Each focus group was audio recorded and facilitated by the principal investigator (PI) with simultaneous handwritten and typed notetaking conducted by two members of the research field team. Prior to beginning the focus group, culturally appropriate introductions were made, copies of the signed consent forms were provided to each participant, ethical research practices were reviewed, and each group was informed that they could respond in Hopi. Upon the completion of each 120-minute session, the participants were compensated with a $25 gift card.

Data Analysis of Focus Groups

The field team discussed field notes and new knowledge immediately following focus group sessions, being careful not to analyze the information to avoid bias towards the remaining focus group sessions. Post-field work, audio tapes were transcribed 116 verbatim by the PI and checked against field notes. To ensure confidentiality, responses were assigned a random participant number. Hopi language responses were translated verbatim into English, and the translations were verified for accuracy by two native Hopi language speakers. Non-verbal communication such as body movements, facial expressions, and tone of voice were considered as part of the dialogue.

Utilizing a systematic and iterative process, a grounded-theory approach was used to analyze the focus group data and generate information grounded in the reality of each participant’s experiences (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Once the transcripts were finalized, the study’s goals and the original research questions were revisited. Open coding of the raw data was completed by identifying incidents, experiences, and knowledge related to the study aims. Second, axial coding was conducted by examining the relationship between the initial codes and categorizing them.

Third, selective coding was completed, where the most frequent responses were identified into themes and categories supported by repeated answers, phrases, and words.

A cross-case and comparative analysis for each code, theme, and category was completed across five focus groups, and multiple sources of field note data were used to verify, revise, and/or develop new themes and categories that were already found from the focus group data. From this process, the final theme, subthemes, and categories were determined.

117

3. Results

The results are based on the analysis of five focus group sessions with twenty-two total participants. All members of four of the groups chose to respond in Hopi, with those in one group using Hopi almost exclusively throughout the two-hour session. Sixty-four percent of the focus participants self-identified as female. A majority (71%) were older adults aged 56-65 (43%) and elders over 65 years (29%). Sixty-three percent of the male participants were elders over 65. There was little representation (5%) from young adults

(18-35). The education level of participants included the following: a high school diploma or GED, technical training, some college, a four-year degree, or a master’s degree. Locations of employment included the government sector (federal, state, or tribal), health fields, retail, self-employment, or retired. Ninety-one percent of the participants identified as having agricultural responsibilities, both to provide food to their family and as a necessity inherently tied to their culturally-based ceremonial cycle.

Interestingly, most participants (91%) identified as an affiliate of Lower Moencopi, the province of Old Oraibi, with 5% representation from Upper Moencopi and 5% from a neighboring village, Hotevilla.

The Hopi villagers’ knowledge about the TCMS and associated local uranium activity ranged along a spectrum of no knowledge to very knowledgeable dependent on age group. The older adult and elder population had more knowledge about the operations of the TCMS, compared to the younger adult population, whom were less knowledgeable. Most Hopi villagers identified multiple factors that they attribute to a higher likelihood of uranium exposure or negative outcomes that we identify as perceived risk. Furthermore, all focus groups articulated being treated unjustly by U.S. agencies due 118 to their unmet needs and perceived risks, which also highlights the strained interrelationships between the U.S., Hopi, and other tribal governments. We found behavioral factors that participants were taking to minimize their likelihood of perceived negative outcomes, also seen as positive countering events to mitigate perceived exposures. Lastly, we end by documenting village needs that come directly from the participants.

Spectrum of Awareness

Although the Hopi Tribe and the Moencopi villagers were never consulted about the upgradient uranium mill site prior to or during the processing of uranium ore, we identified Hopi’s to have familiarity with the area based on childhood recollections, through community, or because the mill location was a part of their livelihood at one point in their lifetime. Discussing familiarity during childhood does not imply that the participants knew what was occurring at the site; instead, it is familiarity with site remnants or events. For example, two male elders from different focus group sessions described how they used go to Rare Metals, which is the term most community members use to identify the Tuba City Mill site (TCMS), to watch movies. One elder described how the free black and white movies, which occasionally would be in color, were held once a week. Based on his feedback, these movies were held at the same time that uranium mill operations were taking place, particularly in the early 1950’s, and he discussed how they may have been held as a recruitment-like event for the mill. Another male elder discussed how a group of village kids would attend the movies at the same location, which led to an unfortunate event at the site.

There’s a girl here [Moencopi] that lived across from me. We would all go up there to watch movies. There was a pond, it’s a pond. What do you call those 119

ponds? Anyway, you have a water tank come in and put water on the ground, when they’re excavating. On time, they threw that girl in that pond… everything has some sort of uranium in that. She lost all her hair. But she’s not here no more, she passed on. Yea, they threw her in there.

Two female elders in separate focus groups recall how they attended high school with White children whose parents worked at the TCMS. One of them stated,

In 1959, they started the first public school in Tuba, and I started school up there. I was 13 years old, and I remember it [TCMS] was already up there…That was the first time I went to school with white kids, because I was at the Indian School for two years in Phoenix. I came home and I was the first group of kids that went to that high school. The white kids were part of the families who were living up there [TCMS]. At that time, there was activity going on up there.

The second female elder also shared stories of her classmates who lived at the

TCMS, and she often wonders how they are doing health-wise.

When uranium processing ended at the TCMS in 1966, the site remained unremedied; this included the homes that housed the uranium mill families. We learned through our focus group sessions that the government would use these homes to house employees of the new hospital that was being constructed in Tuba City. An older adult female participant lived in one of the homes because her father was employed by the hospital. She stated the following:

I was probably five or six. We were up there for maybe three, four years…back then, we used to play down there. We had houses on both sides of the road…you know, when you go towards Red Lake…we were on this side [illustrates with hand as she describes location]. Behind our house, it went down like this [illustrates downward slant with hand] and we had fields there…we had a big field in our backyard…that dust probably got into it.

Her perception to health was manifested as she shared that her sister had cancer

“from that [TCMS]” and that she was unsure if a bump on her head was tied to her early 120 exposure to the TCMS remnants. She also stated that she knew of families from

Moencopi and two neighboring villages who lived in those houses; one other Hopi family also had a cornfield behind their house. It is worth noting that this participant’s description is similar to another older adult villager from another focus group, who stated that his mother and another member of the Hopi tribe also lived in the TCMS housing during this same time-period. Similarly, he recalled playing on the very same hillside.

The length of time that previous TCMS homes were used to house hospital employees is unknown, and discussions surrounding proper physical and chemical uranium remediation would not take place until twenty years later. This is approximately the same time-period when the Hopi Tribal government was approached about remediation plans for the TCMS. To our knowledge, these discussions only included

Upper Moencopi; this resulted in recruiting villagers out of the Upper Moencopi

Administration Office to remediate the TCMS. Three of our focus group participants were involved with remediation either directly as field samplers or indirectly as office staff. One elder, who worked as a field sampler, stated,

I really don’t remember what year UMTRA clean-up started, but I know [confidential name] was Governor. Jobs opened. When you’re unemployed, you take on anything. . . and yet little do you know the effects it will take or happen to you later on. We applied. I’m not going to give you names, but four or five Hopis from here [Moencopi] worked up there [TCMS].

The villagers who were TCMS field workers during remediation provided descriptive testimony, which will be highlighted in the following sections.

Lastly, we found group members were aware of the TCMS from indirect experiences based on community interactions and places of employment. Although one female elder was unfamiliar with the site during her childhood years, much of her 121 awareness came from work-related experiences at the Tuba City hospital. She recalled various stories from co-workers about the physical properties of uranium and the illnesses it was causing TCMS uranium millers and their children.

Multidimensional Risk Perceptions

With an alarming percentage [#] of indirect and direct forms of awareness of both the TCMS and uranium-related activity, we identified perceived uranium exposure risks defined as factors that participants attribute to the higher likelihood of exposure or negative outcomes. These risks translate into physical dimensions of space, but they also include a multidimensional risk paradigm that extends beyond what can be assessed from conventional models for risk characterization (cite from book). For example, villagers placed a high emphasis on uranium migration into their natural springs, surface water, and groundwater supplies, which they attributed to the negative impacts on farming- related practices. From these cascading impacts, we discovered perceived risks to health and cultural practices, which lead to further perceived risks about their ceremonial cycle, and ultimately, Hopi identity. One male elder, who was a field worker during TCMS remediation, stated the following:

Our people are unaware. We may think we have beautiful corn. It [uranium] may carry different kinds of sicknesses, including cancer, but we don’t know. Our corn is beautiful, but what’s behind that, down to the detail? How the corn reacts to it [uranium] from the water, we don’t know. We may be getting sick, but we don’t know where it’s coming from. That’s what my concern is, and that’s why I came to sit with you.

Similar to the previous statement, almost every villager perceived risks to farming practices, a notion that was highly emphasized in all five focus group sessions. 122

There is stress and concern associated with the new awareness regarding local uranium impacts compared to prior learning about these impacts, when residents were unaware of the situation. This is portrayed in the statement below made by a male elder:

[Sigh] To us who have experienced the way Hopi used to be, the farms, and working in it…doing things the Hopi way without any worries whatsoever. But now, having that uranium, it has crossed that line into Hopi life. You cannot help but think about that on a daily basis, because it does have a big influence on what’s happening to our ground, to our drinking water, to our way of life -- dances and things like that.

Community perceptions about uranium constituents in the groundwater, soil, and crop yield are substantial; however, mentioning specific plant material and gathering sites for medicine, food, and cultural items, such as basket making materials, are also a concern.

Additionally, many village women relayed recognition of sicknesses they started in their village community and wondering if it was in any connection to the mill site. One elder stated,

I know this mill over here had something to do with our elders because when I think about it my grandmother didn’t get too old before she died. My grandfather had stomach cancer. My grandmother died of cirrhosis, and she never drank….she didn’t drink alcohol. Our elders were dying from these things, but we didn’t believe in autopsies, so we never suspected. For all we know that could have been a part of what was going on.

The historical lens and environmental injustice

All focus groups articulated unjust treatment by people in power in addressing their potential uranium exposure related to not only the TCMS, but to other uranium- related waste found directly in their community. While this study focuses primarily on the TCMS, the first uranium-related establishment in the area, it is important to recognize that an additional uranium issue would arise four decades later. In August 1997, the Tuba 123

City Open Dump (TCOD) site, which was used for waste disposal for residences, schools, agencies, and businesses of the Hopi and Navajo, was closed due to elevated levels of uranium radionuclides found in groundwater that exceeded MCLs (EPA, 2006).

The TCOD, with 28 acres situated on Hopi land, is less than 0.5-km from the nearest

Moencopi residence and 6-km southwest of the TCMS. Initially opened in 1940, there was no regulation or supervision of waste disposal during its 57-year existence.

Regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Hopi Tribe, and the

Navajo EPA, actions for TCOD remediation are yet to be determined.

Throughout this study, the research team made sure to distinguish villagers’ responses between the TCMS and the TCOD, but found many to be interrelated, especially when distinguishing a new theme of environmental injustice. A retired village community employee stated,

We were trying to work with the Navajo’s. They were trying to tell them that maybe there was a way it [uranium waste] traveled from Rare Metals [TCMS], down to this dump site, even though we all know apparently, there was waste from the mill site that was dumped into the dump. So maybe there was some shallow groundwater drainage that came to the dump site, but the people that were studying it didn’t want to poke further back to do more studies, drill more wells.

The EPA held various meetings with village members to educate and receive input from on TCOD remediation. Four of the five focus groups voiced how they have attended meetings to disclose they wanted clean closure, which consists of removing all contaminants from the landfill and backfilling it with uncontaminated soil. For example, one older adult female who attended an EPA meeting stated the following:

We don’t want it covered up, we want it taken out and moved somewhere. This is what the village wants. It’s because of the money that they won’t take it out. That’s what they [EPA] hit us with. Then they say, “We don’t know where we’re 124

going to dump it.” You know, take it to Phoenix or somewhere. [Villager’s laugh]. It’s going to cost billions, but either way it’s going to cost money.

Another adult woman in a different focus group stated,

I just feel like these departments don’t really care about our Native communities. You know, its way down on their list of things to take care of. I’m wondering if a lot of these sites were created because they were in native country, or close to Native country?

Historical Trauma and Distrust

The Hopi are descendants from the oldest settlements discovered in the Americas, dating back as far as 10,000 B.C.E (Singletary et al., 2014). Over time, their sacred spaces and practices would become threatened with the arrival of the Spaniards in the mid-1540s and the westward expansion of the U.S. Government (Sheridan et al., 2015)

Over a century of systemic destruction of ancient Hopi religious practices and disdained regard for non-human and human life was put to a halt after the 1680 Pueblo Revolt.

However, after the signage of the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between Mexico and the U.S. Government, jurisdiction would change how lands were governed, bringing yet another wave of challenge to Hopi epistemology and their communal society. This also played a major role in further straining the relationship with the more recent arrival of the Navajo Tribe (Navajo Nation, 2009).

The brief historical timeline of contact is important to understand the context of responses because intergenerational trauma is very apparent in understanding Hopi and non-Hopi relationships, as well as distrust in Hopi society as it relates to the TCMS and related sites. For example, another older adult woman stated,

The white men keep things in secrecy when they talk to us, and we never questioned it. Who let them put that site [TCMS] there is what some of us had 125

eventually started to ask. Who said yes? Who said it was okay for people to dump all that stuff over there [points towards the TCOD area]? Who started that? Nobody wants to tell the truth.

In addition to distrust, the following statements clarify the lack of understanding and awareness regarding appropriate collaboration with Hopi villagers as explained by a Hopi elder in the same focus group responding to the previous statement:

..Yes this is how it is. The white men with his money. You agree to something with them [white man] and say yes, without thinking about it until later. That is when you find out the truth about why they are offering you money. By then, it’s too late, and there’s nothing you can do. They [white man] make you believe these things, and when they are done, they just leave you without any conscious. The white men take different steps to work, and have their own ways of doing. Us, indigenous people, work hard, we have our own process too, but nobody listens to us. There is more I can share, but if I can get some good feedback, I’m willing to come back and find out more things. This is what I would like to see.

His statement speaks to another older adult male in a different focus group who was employed as a field sampler during TCMS remediation. Although he assisted with remediation, his response indicates that he did not fully understand how the site would be remediated. Here is how he describes how he learned they were going to dispose of the tailings waste:

First it was dirt, they borrowed it from across [waves arm outward], across on the other side. Dirt came in. They started to make a mound, like a pyramid. It looked nice, it was starting to take shape. That’s when the covering started. I remember I said, “they’re not gonna dig that thing up?” I thought, this is the federal government, we just cover up things. The Federal Government is known to put a Band-Aid on things. They will just put a Band-Aid on it. You’re not gonna know where [uranium] it went.

Furthermore, his awareness about TCMS remediation and the frustration that he feels when trying to get somebody to understand him during a local Moencopi meeting concerning the TCMS site is revealed below: 126

There was this one other guy from Washington. I said, “I was there, I walked every inch of that ground there [TCMS], and I know what we did there. I’ll tell you what, we didn’t clean that place up, we covered it up. Why do I have to keep telling my same stories? Nobody’s listening, or nobody’s doing nothing with it. I’m getting tired of this.” I said.

This could also be expressing frustration with Hopi tribal governance, as described by one male elder who is a Hopi Tribal employee from Upper Moencopi. He explained his outlook of uranium management by stating:

That should be the number one goal no matter what the problem is. But the village has been dealing with this for years and years and nothing has ever really been done as far as I’m concerned. We got a department at the tribal area that deal with this and a couple of them live here [Moencopi]. One of them is a head of one of the departments that do deal with this [uranium]. So, it’s probably going to get worse, in my opinion. I’m living testimony that we’ve been dealing with this thing since I was a little boy, and that’s a long time.

At the time of the interview, the elder participant was seventy-three years old.

Protective Factors

We identified discrepancies among responsible parties in addressing community perceptions around the TCMS and associated waste. We found; however, unique protective factors that the community was taking to minimize their risk of perceived negative outcomes, also seen as positive countering events.

Behavioral Change

Two of five focus groups mentioned that they do not buy sheep from owner’s who graze near the TCUMS. In addition, village participants are aware that other villager’s (outside of their focus group) have resorted to drinking bottled water instead of local groundwater because of uranium contamination concerns. One focus group also stated that they know not to gather plants near certain locations, but they did not specifically state the TCMS. 127

Hopi Identity and Resiliency

While Hopi villagers have various levels of familiarity with the TCMS and local uranium waste, their behaviors have not changed when it comes to subsistence production and the responsibility and practice of being Hopi, neither as an individual or a member of their society (refer to Hopi Context). Therefore, we have identified Hopi epistemology and cultural practices as a unique protective factor to risks. For example, a female elder explains her response to Hopi and non-Hopi department’s telling the village they may need to start drinking bottled water and avoid a local spring water source that has sustained the Hopi since prior to village establishment. She said:

I noticed how now a lot of us are drinking bottled water, because we’re sacred to drink Susungva [name of spring] water. But you know what, I drink that water. If I find one of these empty bottles at home I fill it. I don’t really drink bottled water. I feel like the water will get hurt if you don’t drink what it’s offering. That how its connected to that. That’s why even though they’ve been telling us, even our Hopi Water Resources Program, are saying that we might have to resort to bottled water. I know I’m not going to do that. I want to keep drinking water from there [Susungva]. There’s a reason why we pray over there, there a reason why we drink from there, we have a serpent there. You have to believe in those things. That’s part of our spirituality and who we really are.

Planting the Seed

All participant’s shared their short and long-term priorities for the protection of the land and health, which brought a sense of relief, as many expressed concerns for their grandchildren and the future of their village community. One woman said, “They’re

[village children] the ones that are going to be more impacted because they’re going to live on, we’re going to be gone by then, and what’s going to happen to the youth?”

Another important issue is the relationship with multiple federal agencies. Considering that there is more than one agency involved in addressing local uranium challenges, many 128 villagers find it difficult to develop a close relationship with government officials. One retired community administrator described her experience with U.S. agencies in the community as follows:

I was going to say that we’ve had more than one environmental threat out here [Moencopi]. We’ve had more communication with EPA and less with the Department of Energy. The EPA has a community liaison office that goes out and tries to do grassroots communication, so I don’t know if DOE has anything like that. I remember one-time EPA sent out a guy. They actually went to the households and talked to people about the dump site. I went with one guy and [confidential name] with the other person. Of course, sometimes they veered off track, but they went from house to household. I don’t know if they did it at the Upper Village or not, but I know they did it down here [Lower Village Moecopi]. We don’t really know DOE at all, like we know EPA. We’ve seen some people from there, but we don’t know the organization.

Similarly, three of the five focus groups were unfamiliar with the DOE-LM, which oversees the TCMS. The two focus groups that were familiar with DOE-LM had village participants that held a leadership position in the local government or were former employees that helped with TCMS remediation.

Hopi Welcome Knowledge

The initial priority for all groups regarding the TCMS was to invite the DOE-LM agency to the village’s table to start from the basics of, “who they are, “what their mission is,” and “what their job is.” One woman mentioned how there is only a

“sprinkling of people” [from Moencopi] who are familiar with the DOE-LM, stating

“The villagers don’t know who they are.” In regards to having a meeting, the villagers recommend sending agency representatives who are familiar to them. This will provide consistency in what knowledge is being shared and who its being shared by. Knowledge transfer specific to the village level is also vital to understanding what is shared, as one participant stated information can be too “technical.” 129

Acknowledgement by U.S. agencies

More importantly, regarding trust, four of the five focus groups wanted acknowledgment about the impacts that past operations had on their land, water, and health. A female villager who attended a DOE meeting held at a local hotel stated the following:

I never heard, in any kind of conversation, and even, the one at the Legacy [hotel], was that DOE has not admitted to the effects that uranium has on anybody or anything. It’s never come out of their mouth. They’re only there to provide the top layer of the sites. They never once said something like, “uranium is very toxic, or it could cause birth defects, or it could cause all of this stuff.” So, it’s like they’re not admitting to it, like it its nothing. They make it sound like it’s not harmful.

In addition, a male participant in another focus group stated,

This goes back years. The Government. They created these things. They need to come back and say, “Hey, we dirtied up your land, we’ll clean it up somehow, we’ll make it up to you.” That’s the trust responsibility. That’s the first one we put up there [on the list].

Additional information that the community yearned for is the local uranium history and information on elemental uranium. For example, one 82-year old villager, who is also the eldest member of all our focus groups, asked, “What is the contaminant really, the substance?” Others, who were familiar with remediation operations, echoed similar sentiments, stating, “We don’t really know what was used up there [TCMS] when it was in operation full swing. Maybe they even dumped fuel in there. It could be anything.

What’s under that pile? They need to tell us what’s under there.”

Options for Further Environmental Analysis 130

All focus groups mentioned the need for environmental testing, starting with the

TCMS site, then Moencopi, and including the gray areas in-between. This involves sampling groundwater, surface water, soils, cattle and other animals, field plots, crop yield, and buildings with a specific focus near the Moenkopi Wash. One focus group described how the groundwater was contaminated, and it was only a matter of time before it would reach the domestic water source, magnifying the need for a clean water supply. However, the unique land situation with the Navajo Tribe is mentioned as being a barrier for accessing a clean water resource on adjacent Hopi land. An elder stated,

“Remember in- between Hopi, there’s Navajo again, and they’re not gonna let us have any right-of-way…there’s no way around it. We don’t have a corridor.”

Uranium Health Implications

Four of the five focus groups would also like to request more information on the health- related impacts from uranium exposure. A majority of the villagers associate uranium exposure with cancer, but they also question other health impacts. For example, one female inquired, “Have DOE or somebody share information on the uranium impacts on health in general. Which I think we have some idea. One of them is cancer, but what else? We don’t know.” Another woman in another focus group stated,

Is there a study where it has affected women bearing children? I would like to know about that. Are we needing to be aware of those things for the future of the women here in the village? I also understand that the Navajo tribe have a committee, that if you’re affected by this, that there is some sort of compensation for that. In not sure if Hopi is even part of that.

Another elder female from the same focus group added this to the discussion: “Maybe we would like to have a report from the hospital about how many people up to today, how 131 many cancer people passed away. Maybe something like that will keep us working on this.”

Specific to the former employees of TCMS remediation, thorough physical exams were requested because this is what was promised. An older adult who worked at TCMS stated that when TCMS remediation was done, he was recruited to work at another site and told he would get yearly physicals. He illustrated this promise clearly by recalling the following conversation:

The project [TCMS remediation] wasn’t that long. When that project was ending, they said, “We want to take you.” I said, “Where?” “This guy you’re working with is recommending we take you. We’re going to Rifle, Colorado. Another pit.” I said, “I don’t want to go there,” I said, “I had enough of this, I don’t know what’s here…. what I’m doing,” I said. He says, “Don’t worry about it, you’ll get yearly check-ups.” By yearly check-ups, to see if they detect anything on you. They didn’t say cancer or anything, they just said, “to see if they detect anything on you.” Well it stopped, we [his household] don’t get mail or anything no more.

Overall, the participants with first-hand knowledge of the TCMS as former field-workers during remediation would be willing to expand on their experiences if an opportunity arose in the future.

Hopi Governance Programs to Action

Four focus groups were unfamiliar with how the Hopi Tribal government and programs were involved in discussions surrounding the TCMS specifically, but they were familiar with those in charge of overall Hopi environmental programs. There was little interaction with tribal governance about uranium waste, which may be attributed to the distance between the Hopi tribal headquarters and Moencopi villages (84-km) as well as the fact that the Lower Village of Moencopi does not have representation on the Hopi Tribal

Council. One elder also described how the Lower Moencopi village had an active Water

Commission team, but it has since been dissolved. This may be one reason for 132 discrepancies in knowledge transmission on the status of environmental testing in the region.

4. DISCUSSION

The results of this qualitative study increase our understanding of the unheard voices of the Hopi people and portrays their experiences and beliefs about the TCMS and associated uranium waste. This information will be invaluable in that it begins to close the gap in knowledge that is needed for bidirectional and inclusive risk planning and long-term decision-making for uranium legacy sites that have a direct impact on the health and environment of the Hopi Tribe, and more specifically, Moencopi villagers.

To our knowledge, this is the first participatory study conducted with the Hopi tribe that documents uranium exposure concerns from the villagers who lived in the region during the active milling and mining era. Past qualitative studies on DOE-LM stakeholder relationships indicated that stakeholders were satisfied with current outreach and communication efforts by DOE-LM within the community. However, the analysis of our results indicates that a majority of Hopi villagers were not familiar with DOE-LM or its mission and purpose. The DOE-LM report also summarizes the recommendations from “Native American” stakeholders, specifically the Navajo Tribe. It is important to recognize that while, tribal communities fit under a category of Native American, each indigenous population has their own unique histories, cultures, and opinions that are not representative of all Native American populations. Consequences of this generalization have the potential to result in flawed metrics during risk characterization. Instead, it would require site-specific plans to be customized for sub-populations of indigenous peoples. 133

Reiterated through our participant’s responses was the significance of subsistence farming. One woman stated, “This is how we come full circle as Hopi.” Their connection to the land, identity, and responsibilities through this practice, among others, will not change; therefore, it requires interventions and tailoring outreach and communication to reduce risks. Examples of these types of studies conducted in uranium impacted communities, outside of the Navajo Nation, include the Aleuts of Amchitka Island,

Alaska, Laguna Pueblo of New Mexico, the Pacific Northwest tribes of the Columbia

River in Washington State, and the Paiute and Shoshone tribes of Nevada. Tribal input played a central role in risk characterization, and in one case, resulted in modifying the research design of an ecological assessment due to the absence of local traditional knowledge, which may have resulted in outputs that were inappropriate for their needs.

It is known that populations that rely on their local natural resources have a higher likelihood of increased exposures from mining impacts (Lewis et al.2017 ; Chief et al.,

2017). Harmon et al. (2017) also found that Navajo tribal members had increased levels of self-reported autoimmune disease with respect to housing proximity to a uranium mine or mill site. This analysis also found biological samples with higher than expected antibody biomarkers for an autoimmune disease.

Planting the seed lays the foundation for site-specific measures that require long- term investment. The clean-up of environmental impacts from uranium processing will not occur any time soon, especially considering a 73-year old village elder’s response of

“I’m living testimony that we’ve been dealing with this thing since I was a little boy.”

Recommendations given by the villagers, for example, their concern about windblown tailings from the TCMS and surrounding mine sites, have been documented in the 134 literature. Toxic metals from uranium mine tailings are known to mobilize in air and water (Abdelouas, 2006). More importantly, because mine tailing dust has hygroscopic properties that can grow in size when exposed to moisture in the respiratory system, dust has a higher likelihood of lung deposition, therefore increasing health risk (Youn et al.,

2016). Windblown tailings is a valid concern by the villager’s considering that TCMS tailings waste was left uncovered for 22 years. In addition, there is the possibility of water mobility of contaminants from heavy rainfall events, potentially in the direction of the Moencopi Wash.

Our results indicate that there was limited representation from the younger Hopi population, with focus groups only comprising 5% of representation from young adults.

A majority of our focus group participants were older adults and elders, which may be attributed to the age demographic that was present during active uranium mill site operations between 1956 to 1966. To preserve the experiences and knowledge of

Moencopi villagers to the TCMS and beyond, we recommend documenting their oral histories to supplement knowledge transmission and improve planning for future generations of Hopi, whose ancestral territory and villages are within areas that have a high density of abandoned uranium mines, features, and uranium mill sites. This would be similar to a project completed by the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in

Montana, where documentation of their elder’s oral histories and placed-based knowledge was important in developing long-term climate change strategic plans

(Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Climate Change Strategic Plan, 2016).

Strengths, Limitations, and Methodological Considerations 135

Although focus group dialogue brought about emotional stresses such as frustration, worry, and discouragement, village participants felt a sense of healing, empowerment, and optimism at the end of each session. We believe incorporating indigenous research methods, that included using the conversational method during focus group sessions, and throughout the research process allowed the village participants to feel they were in a trusted space where they could share their community perceptions related to uranium waste. This format also positively affected how they shared their feelings, perceptions, and opinions. For example, verbal communication approaches were bilingual, with one focus group using the Hopi language almost exclusively. This was heavily dependent on the research field team, the majority who were: 1) highly-trained in research protocol and were familiar with indigenous research methodologies, and 2) identified as members of one of 12 Hopi villages; therefore, they were knowledgeable about proper Hopi etiquette during their interactions and understood the Hopi language.

On the contrary, village participants may have been less likely to participate or openly contribute if methods were void of the two. Therefore, we strongly discourage using methodologies based on colonial constructs for this culturally-conservative population.

The limitations of this study are that the results are site-specific and unique to the

Hopi population. As a result, although this study is relevant to other indigenous populations, it may not be representative of all indigenous populations who may be facing similar uranium challenges. The sample size was small with minimal representation from the Upper Moencopi village. At the same time, it allowed for in- depth conversations to take place, which was important for understanding their history, relationships, as well as social-cultural and ecological perceptions of uranium 136 contamination not found in the literature. Thus, the results of this study can serve as baseline data for the Moencopi village and Hopi community, which can be verified and quantified using a population-based survey.

5. Conclusion

Hopi villagers’ traditional knowledge and their responsibilities related to identity and their connection to the land has served as a protective barrier to exposures despite the myriad of exposure-related perceptions to uranium waste sites nearby their village community. Their ancient cultural and subsistence practices, that have been in place for millennia, will not change; however, anthropogenic land disturbance from uranium extraction and processing will challenge how the community will adapt to these disturbances in their fixed communities. Due to their limited knowledge, scarce economic resources, and analytical infrastructure available to address villager’s perceptions, we recommend that Hopi and non-Hopi governments and organizations prioritize the results from this study to continue dialog with the villagers who were never consulted about local uranium mining and milling.

6. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the village participants of the Moencopi and

Hotevilla villages for their willingness to share first-hand knowledge and experiences.

Without them, this project would not be possible. We would like to thank the Lower and

Upper Moencopi Administration for their letters of support as well as the Hopi Cultural

Preservation Office for granting us the research permit. Thank you Gary Sakwahongva, 137

Amber Poleviyuma, Sheilah Nicholas, Charlene Joseph, and Curtis Kuwaninvaya for your guidance and fieldwork support. Financial support for this project was provided by the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC)/United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Native American Natural Resources Scholarship, the University of Arizona (UA)

UNESCO Graduate Assistantship provided by the UA UNESCO Chair in Environmental

History, the Native Nations Institute, the UA Superfund Program Training Core, and the

First Nations Development Institute.

7. Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

138

8. References

1. Pierotti, R. Indigenous Knowledge, Ecology, and Evolutionary Biology; Taylor and Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2011. 2. Lewis, J.; Hoover, J.; MacKenzie, D. Mining and environmental health disparities in Native American Communities. Curr. Envir. Health Rpt. 2017, 4, 130-141. 3. U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (GAO). Uranium mill tailings: cleanup continues, but future costs are uncertain; US General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, USA. 2015; pp. 1-52. 4. U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). LM Sites on Navajo Nation Land; USDOE Legacy Management: Washington, DC, USA. 2017. 5. Intertribal Council of Arizona (ITCA) et al. The state of Indian Country, Volume I. Arizona Board of Regents: Phoenix, AZ, USA. 2013; pp. 1-88. 6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) et al. Federal actions to address impacts of uranium contamination in the Navajo Nation: Five-year plan summary report [Second cycle]. USEPA, Region 9: San Francisco, CA, USA. 2014. 7. Chenoweth, W.L. Navajo Indians were hired to assist the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in locating uranium deposits; Arizona Geological Survey Contributed Report; Tucson, AZ, USA, 2011. 8. Rock, T. Developing policy around uranium contamination on the Navajo Nation using traditional ecological knowledge. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, December 2017. 9. Kaye, C. An Examination of Hopimomngwit: Hopi leadership; Master of Science, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA, August 2016. 10. Moore-Nall, A. The Legacy of Uranium Development on or Near Indian Reservations and Health Implications Rekindling Public Awareness, Geosciences, 2015, 5, 15-29. 11. Eggers, M.J., J.T. Doyle, M.J. Lefthand, S.I. Young, A.L. Moore-Nall, Kindness, L. et al. Community engaged cumulative risk assessment of exposure to inorganic well water contaminants, Crow Reservation, Montana. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 2018, 15,76. 12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) et al. Your health: Uranium and radiation on the Navajo Nation. 2014. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 06/documents/atsdr_uranium_and_radiation_health_dec_2014.pdf (accessed on 1 Oct 2017). 13. Hund, L. A Bayesian framework for estimating disease risk due to exposure to uranium mine and mill waste Navajo Nation. J. R. Statist. Soc. A, 2015, 178. 14. Harmon, M.E., J. Lewis, C. Miller, J. Hoover, A.S. Ali, C. Shuey, et al. Residential proximity to abandoned uranium mines and serum inflammatory potential in chronically exposed Navajo communities. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol., 2017, 28, 223-236. 15. U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. will pay $13.2 million for cleanup evaluation of 16 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation. Available online: 139

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-will-pay-132-million-cleanup-evaluation-16- abandoned-uranium-mines-navajo-nation (accessed on 21 May 2018). 16. Ward, C. American Indian lands: The Native ethic amid resource development. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustainable Dev. 1986, 28, 13-34. 17. Samet, J.M.; Kutvirt, D.M.; R.J. Waxweiler; C.R. Kelly. Uranium mining and lung cancer in Navajo men. N. Engl. J. Med. 1984, 310, 1481-1484. 18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) et al. 2014-2018 Five-year plan: Federal actions to address impacts of uranium contamination in the Navajo Nation. 2014. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/navajo-nation-uranium- cleanup/federal-plans-related-documents#docs (accessed on 5 Oct 2017). 19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Tronx Navajo Area Uranium Mines Quarterly Report Q3 FY2015. 2015. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/tronox-navajo- uranium-mine-report-q3-fy2015_0.pdf (accessed on 5 Oct 2017). 20. Waugh, W.J; Glenn, E.; Charley, P.; Carroll, B., O’Neil, M. Helping mother earth heal: Dine College and enhanced natural attenuation research at the U.S. Department of Energy uranium processing sites on Navajo land. In Stakeholder and Scientists: Achieving implementable solutions to Energy and Environmental Issues, Burger, J.; Springer Science: New York, NY, USA, 2012. 21. Burger, J.; Clarke, J.; Gochfeld, M. Information needs for siting new, and evaluating current, nuclear facilities: ecology, fate, and transport, and human health. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 172, 121-134. 22. Burger, J.; Harris, S.; Harper, B.; Gochfeld, M. Ecological information needs for environmental justice. Risk Anal. 2010. 30, 893-905. 23. Exec. Order No. 12898. 59 FR 7629, February 16, 2014. 24. Stoffle, R. W., Halmo, D. B., Evans, M.J. (1999). Puchuxwavaats (To Know About Plants): Traditional Knowledge and the Cultural Significance of Southern Paiute Plants. Hum. Organ 1999, 58, 416-429. 25. Singletary, L.; Emm, S.; Loma’omvaya, M.; Clark, J.; Livingston, M. et al. Hopi People of the land: Sustaining agriculture on the Hopi Reservation. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, 2014, 1-102. 26. Sheridan, T.; Koyiyumptewa, S.; Daughters, A.; Brenneman, D.; Ferguson, T.; Kuwanwisiwma, L.; Lomayestewa, L. Moquis and Kastiilam: Hopis, Spaniards, and the Trauma of History Volume I, 1540-1679; The University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2015. 27. Kuwanwisiwma, L.J. The Collaborative Road: A Personal History of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. In Footprints of Hopi History: Hopihiniwtiput Kukveni’at, Kuwanwisiwma, L.J.; Ferguson, T.J.; Colwell, C.; The University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2018. 28. Balenquah, L. Connected by Earth: Metaphors from Hopi Tutskwa. In Thinking Like a Watershed: Voices from the West, Loeffler, J. and Loeffler, C.; University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2012. 29. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s role in the five-year plan to address uranium contamination in the Navajo Nation. NUREG/BR-0526, December 2016. 140

30. Traynham, B. Monitoring the long-term performance of engineered containment systems: The role of ecological processes; Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA, May 2010. 31. 40 CFR 192. Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, 1983. 32. Titiev, M. A Hopi Salt Expedition. Am. Anthropol. 1937, 39, 244-258. 33. Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, 2009. Hopi Research Protocol. Available online: http://www8.nau.edu/hcpo-p/ResProto.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2015). 34. Teufel-Shone, N.I., and Williams, S. 2010. Focus groups in small communities. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7(3). 35. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London, UK: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. 36. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13 (1), 3-21. 37. Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development. Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ, USA, 2009, 1-179. 38. U.S. Department of Energy Legacy Management. Independent communication and outreach stakeholder satisfaction survey. 2012. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/LM_Summary_Report_2012%20March% 2025%202013%20Update.pdf (Accessed on 22 Jan 2016). 39. Chief, K; Beamer, P.; Ingram, J.; Bilheimer, D.; Torabzadehkhorasani, E., et al. Incorporating Dine’ perspectives in assessing temporal and spatial changes of contaminants after the Gold King Mine spill in Navajo agricultural communities, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2017, New Orleans, LA, USA, 15 Dec 2017; PA53A-0256. 40. Abedelous, A. Uranium mill tailings: Geochemistry, mineralogy, and environmental impact. Elem. 2006, 2, 335-341. 41. Youn, J.; Csavin, J.; Rine, K.; Shingler, T.; Taylor M.P.; Saez, A.E. et al. Hygroscopic properties and respiratory system deposition behavior of particulate matter emitted by mining and smelting operations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017. 50, 11706-11713. 42. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. Climate Change Strategic Plan, September 2013, updated April 2016. Available online: https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5485f627e4b02acb4f0c7e71(Accessed on 16 Oct 2018)

141

9. Figures and Tables

Moencopi Villages

TCOD: Tuba City Open Dump TCDS: Tuba City Uranium Disposal Site

FIGURE 1. Location of the Tuba City Uranium Dipsoal Site and the Tuba City Open Dump Site in relation to the Moencopi villages main geographical features. (Map not to scale)

142

FIGURE 2. Timeline of Events (not to scale)

Access Recruitment Consent Focus Group Dissemination • Attendance at • Participants • A review of • Five focus • Hopi Moenkopi were recruited the consent groups were Leadership Village through process was conducted meeting meetings to various done with n=21 (Hopi propose recruitment individually. participants. Chairman, research material (See After the • Each focus and Upper • Letters of Appendix). participants group lasted and Lower support from • Door-to-door agreed to two hours. village Upper and recruitment in take part in officials) Lower the village the focus with the Moenkopi community group with a DOE-LM village verbal yes, Director – governing they signed May 9, 2017 board. the consent • Community • Hopi Tribal form, and meeting with Approval via were given a village the Cultural copy. members on Preservation Oct. 26, Office 2017 (see • University of Appendix) Arizona IRB - Approval

Table 1. Research Process

143

Figure 3. Basic Demographic Information

The results of this qualitative study provide baseline quality data that reflects the Main experiences, concerns and beliefs of Hopi villager’s needed for bidirectional and Theme inclusive risk planning and long-term decision-making for uranium legacy sites, currently absent in the literature. Spectrum Multi - Historical Protective Planting the of Dimensional Lens & Factors Seed Sub- Awareness Risk Environmenta (ST 4) (ST 5) Theme (ST 1) Perceptions l (ST 2) Injustice (ST 3) Knowledgea Factors that When Factors Recommenda- ble about the participants participants associated with tions for TCMS attribute to a articulate that minimizing the minimizing and/or other higher they are being likelihood of perceived uranium likelihood of treated unjustly perceived negative waste in the exposure or due to negative exposures and region. negative exposure outcomes and protection of

outcomes. concerns. may be seen as Moencopi positive community. countering events (e.g. mitigate or eliminate risk of exposure). ∙Environment ∙ Invitation for ∙Health ∙ Behavior new knowled- ∙Hopi Tribal ∙Physical Changes ge Government ∙ Childhood ∙Mental ∙ Hopi ∙ Infrastructure ∙ Non-Hopi Categories ∙Livelihood ∙ Spiritual Identity & ∙Collaboration Tribal ∙Community ∙ Identity and Culture ∙ Youth Government Culture ∙No Change ∙Environmental ∙ U.S. agencies ∙ None Health

Table 2. Foucs Group Main-Themes, Sub-Themes, and Caterogies. 144

10. Supplementary Information

145

146

147

148

149

150

Recruiting for “Risk Perceptions to Hopi Villages to the Tuba City, AZ Uranium Disposal Site”

A Moenkopi community member and graduate student at the University of Arizona is seeking participants to take part in focus groups that will discuss the "Risk Perceptions of Hopi villages to the Tuba City, AZ Uranium Disposal Site."

Lower Village of Moenkopi Thurs. Sept 22nd @ 530 pm at the Lower Moenkopi Community Building Fri. Sept. 23rd @ 10 am at the Lower Moenkopi Community Building Sat. Sept 24th @ 10 am at Upper Village Community Building

Upper Village of Moenkopi Thurs. Sept. 29 @ 530 pm, Upper Village Community Building Fri. Sept 30 @ 10 am, Upper Village Community Building

A focus groups consists of at least 8 participants who have an in-depth discussion about the Tuba City Uranium Disposal site, also known as the Rare Metals site. There will be 5 focus groups total, three at Lower Moenkopi and two at Upper Moenkopi. Each focus group will last two hours. This project will examine the risk perceptions of the Moenkopi community to the Tuba City Uranium Disposal site and associated waste, including, but not limited to the environment and human health.

Your privacy will be protected and your name and identity will not be released at any time during this study. Participants will be compensated with a gift card to a local store upon completion of the focus group.

If you would like to learn more about this study or to participate, please contact principal investigator, Carrie N. Joseph at [email protected] or (520) 365-2075. She will also be present at the Lower Moenkopi board meeting on Sept. 15th to give more information.

151

152

Basic Demographic Information

Group ID#: |___|___|___|___|

Today’s date: |___|___|/|___|___|/ 2016 Month Date

Directions: Answer every question by checking the correct box. If you are unsure about how to answer a question, please give the best answer you can.

1. Name of the Hopi village that you are a member of, or are an affiliate with:

______

OR, if not applicable race that you are an affiliate with? ______

2. Age ______

3. Gender

____Female _____ Male

4. Marital Status

 Single  Married, according to state or tradition

 Divorced  Widowed

5. Education Level

 Middle school  High School or GED  Some College  2-year college degree  4 – year college degree  Master’s Degree  Doctoral Degree  Advanced professional (MD, JD)  Other Specify:

6. Total number of household members in your home. ______.

153

ONE MORE ON BACK >>>>>>

7. Which of the following best describes your current main daily activities and/or responsibilities?

 Agriculture and related work o Farming to provide for your family o Farming commercially o Forestry o Fishing commercially o Hunting and/or fishing are primary sources of food for family o Other ______

 Private Industries o Construction o Education o Finance (e.g. bank, stock) o Health field o Information management o Leisure and hospitality (hotel or casino) o Manufacturing o Mining o Professional or business o Transportation o Wholesale trade o Other ______

 Government o Federal o State o Local o Tribal  Student

 Self Employed ______

 Unpaid family Worker/ Keeping house

Unemployed

 Retired

Askwali! Kwa'kway!

154

Focus Group Questions

1. What do you know about uranium waste sites found in the Tuba City/Moenkopi region?

2. Do you think there will be long-term effects of the waste will have on you, your family, your community?

3. Do you think there will be long-term effects of the waste on the environment?

4. In what way do you depend on your local natural resources/water resources?

5. Do you think uranium site and contaminants will have an effect on

a. Farming practices, your food? b. Customary herbal medicine / plant gathering practices? c. Your water resources? d. Religious practices?

The Department of Energy – Legacy Management, who manages the Inactive Mill Site in rare metals has 5 goals in which they work towards. Their goal #1 is to protect human health and the environment.

6. Do you feel you and the environment are being protected from past uranium processing that has taken place?

7. If not, do you think it will get better or worse with time?

8. Have you attended any community forums or meetings to learn more about the operations or waste in the area? If so, was the information effectively communicated?

9. Share your views on how things could be improved regarding your concerns about uranium waste in your region. For example: What do you think needs to happen?

155

156

157