Advertisement

Identifying natural and anthropogenic variability of uranium at the well scale, Homestake Superfund site, near Milan, New Mexico, USA

  • Philip T. HarteEmail author
  • Johanna M. Blake
  • Jonathan Thomas
  • Kent Becher
Original Article
  • 109 Downloads

Abstract

The San Mateo Creek Basin in New Mexico, USA is located within the Grants Mineral Belt-an area with numerous uranium (U) ore deposits, mines, and milling operations. Six monitoring wells set in an alluvial aquifer near the Homestake Mining Co. Superfund site in the lower San Mateo Creek Basin were logged with a suite of borehole geophysical tools including spectral gamma-ray (SGR), vertically profiled with passive samplers for U and selenium (Se) concentrations, and purged sampled for same constituents. The integrated approach allowed for an assessment on the role of heterogeneity (both physical and chemical) in determining U concentrations in groundwater. Uranium, as measured with SGR logging, is ubiquitous in the alluvial aquifer and the underlying Chinle Group. Aqueous U concentrations appear to be inversely related to thorium (Th) concentrations, as measured by the SGR log, indicating the possibility that U is bound in or adsorbed to clays in the aquifer. The stratigraphy of the alluvium likely plays a role in elevated concentrations of aqueous U. Interbedded clay and sand layers allow for the mobilization of U in oxic sandy layers from U adsorbed in sediments in reduced clay layers. The stratigraphy also plays a role in the degree of mixing of groundwater in the formation and well. Mixing can obscure the ability to identify U sources. Mixing is exacerbated by the relatively long screens (> 20 ft long or > 6.1 m) of the monitoring wells.

Keywords

Spectral gamma-ray Passive samplers Micropurge Uranium Selenium 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sai Appaji, former Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, for his assistance as he oversaw project management of the Homestake Superfund site. Mr. Appaji facilitated site access to wells and helped coordinate our field activities. Mark Purcell, current Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, provided information on site conditions that helped our work. Pat Longmire of the New Mexico Environment Department provided input on several aspects of the study design with the help of Kurt Vollbrecht, Program Manager for the New Mexico Environment Department. Site employees for the Homestake Mining Company also were very helpful in providing access to wells on company land. Landowners adjacent to the site supported our work before and during the data collection process. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Supplementary material

12665_2019_8049_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 27 KB)
12665_2019_8049_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 22 KB)
12665_2019_8049_MOESM3_ESM.docx (100 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 100 KB)
12665_2019_8049_MOESM4_ESM.docx (112 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 112 KB)
12665_2019_8049_MOESM5_ESM.docx (109 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (DOCX 109 KB)
12665_2019_8049_MOESM6_ESM.tif (92 kb)
Supplementary material 6 (TIF 92 KB)
12665_2019_8049_MOESM7_ESM.tif (104 kb)
Supplementary material 7 (TIF 104 KB)
12665_2019_8049_MOESM8_ESM.tif (121 kb)
Supplementary material 8 (TIF 121 KB)

References

  1. Alam MS, Cheng T (2014) Uranium release from sediment to groundwater: influence of water chemistry and insights into release mechanisms. J Contam Hydrol 164:72–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2014.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2004) Standard guide for conducting borehole logging—mechanical caliper. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 6767–97, p 6Google Scholar
  3. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2007) Standard guide for planning and conducting geotechnical borehole geophysical logging. (ASTM) D5753Google Scholar
  4. American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2010) Standard guide for conducting borehole geophysical logging – Gamma. (ASTM) D6274–10Google Scholar
  5. Bailey RT, Hunter WJ, Gates TK (2012) The influence of nitrate on selenium in irrigated agricultural groundwater systems. J Environ Qual 41(3):783–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balistrieri LS, Chao TT (1990) Absorption of selenium by amorphous iron oxyhydroxide and manganese dioxide. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 54:739–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basu A, Brown S, Christensen JN, DePaolo DJ, Reimus PW, Heikoop JM, Woldegabriel G, Simmons AM, House BM, Hartmann M, Maher K (2015) Isotopic and geochemical tracers for U(VI) reduction and U mobility at an in situ recovery U mine. Environ Sci Techn 49(10):5939–5947.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b00701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boult KA, Cowper MM, Heath TG, Sato H, Shibutani T, Yui M (1998) Towards and understanding of sorption of U(VI) and Se(IV) on sodium bentonite. J Contam Hydrol 35:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brookins DG (1977) Uranium deposits of the Grants Mineral Belt: geochemical constraints on origin. Exploration Frontiers of the Central and Southern Rockies. Mineral Deposita 17:337–352Google Scholar
  10. Canadian Well Logging Society (2013) LAS information–Log ASCII Standard (LAS) software. http://www.cwls.org/las_info.php. Accessed 13 May 2013
  11. Century Geophysical LLC (2017) http://www.century-geo.com/. Accessed 22 Feb 2018
  12. Dong W, Brooks SC (2006) Determination of the formation constants of ternary complexes of uranyl and carbonate with alkaline earth metals (Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, and Ba2+) using anion exchange method. Environ Sci Techn 40(15):4689–4695.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es0606327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubrosvky NM, Neil JM, Fugii R, Oremland RS, Hollibaugh JT (1990) Influence of redox potential on selenium distribution in ground water, Medota Western San Joaquin Valley, California. US Geol Sur Open-File Report 90–38:24Google Scholar
  14. Ehrenberg SN, Svånå TA (2001) Use of spectral gamma-ray signature to interpret stratigraphic surfaces in carbonate strata: an example from the Finnmark carbonate platform (Carboniferous-Permian), Barents Sea. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 85(2):295–308.  https://doi.org/10.1306/8626C7C1-173B-11D7-8645000102C1865D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fabricius ID, Fazladic LD, Steinholm A, Korsbech U (2003) The use of spectral natural gamma-ray analysis in reservoir evaluation of siliciclastic sediments: a case study from the Middle Jurassic of the Haral Field, Danish Central Graben. Geol Soc Denmark Greenl Bull 1:349–366Google Scholar
  16. Gallaher BM, Cary SJ (1986) Impacts of uranium mining on surface and shallow ground waters, Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division, EID/GWH-86/2, p 152Google Scholar
  17. Gallaher BM, Goad MS (1981) Water-quality aspects of uranium mining and milling in New Mexico. In: Wells SG, Lambert W, Callender JF (eds) Environmental geology and hydrology in New Mexico, vol 10. Geological Society Special Publication, Socorro, pp 85–91. http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/nmgs/special/10/. Accessed 1 May 2017
  18. Gates TK, Cody BM, Donnelly JP, Herting AW, Bailey RT, Price JM (2009) Assessing selenium contamination in the irrigated stream-aquifer system of the Arkansas River, Colorado. J Environ Qual 28:2344–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall SM, Mihalasky MJ, Tureck KR, Hammarstrom JM, Hannon MT (2017) Genetic and grade and tonnage models for sandstone-hosted roll-type uranium deposits, Texas Coastal Plain, USA. Or Geol Rev 80:716–753.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oregeorev.2016.06.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harte PT, Blake JMT, Becher KD (2018a) Determination of representative uranium and selenium concentrations from groundwater, 2016, Homestake Mining Company Superfund Site, Milan, New Mexico. US Geol Survey Open-File Report 2018–1055:39.  https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181055
  21. Harte PT, Blake JMT, Becher KD, Thomas JV, Stengel VG (2018b) Data associated with uranium background concentrations at Homestake Mining Company Superfund site, near Milan, New Mexico, July 2016 through October 2016 (ver. 1.2, September 2018). US Geol Sur data release.  https://doi.org/10.5066/F7CR5RJS. Accessed 9 Oct 2018
  22. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (2002) Statistical methods in water resources. US Geol Sur techniques of water-resources investigations of the United States Geological Survey, Book 4, hydrologic analysis and interpretation, p 524Google Scholar
  23. Homestake Mining Co (2015) Summary and discussion of groundwater background concentrations and groundwater flow for aquifers at Homestake Mining Company’s Grants Reclamation Project, Grants New Mexico, July 2015. Homestake Mining Co. of California, p 110Google Scholar
  24. Hydro-Engineering LLC (2001) Ground-water hydrology for support of background concentration at the Grants Reclamation Site for Homestake Mining Company of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaufman RF, Eadie GG, Russell CR (1976) Effects of uranium mining and milling on ground water in the Grants Mineral Belt, New Mexico. Ground Water J 14(5):296–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keys WS (1990) Borehole geophysics applied to ground-water investigations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations book 2, chap. E2, p 150Google Scholar
  27. Klaja J, Dudek L (2016) Geological interpretation of spectral gamma ray (SGR) logging in selected boreholes. Nafta-GAZ, ROK LXXII 1:3–14.  https://doi.org/10.18668/NG2016.01.01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kulp T, Pratt LM (2004) Speciation and weathering of selenium in Upper Cretaceous chalk and shale from South Dakota and Wyoming, USA. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 68(18):3687–3701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2004.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langman JB, Sprague JE, Durall RA (2012) Geologic framework, regional aquifer properties (1940s–2009), and spring, creek, and seep properties (2009–10) of the upper San Mateo Creek Basin near Mount Taylor, New Mexico. US Geol Sur Sci Inv Rep 2012–5019:96Google Scholar
  30. Langmuir D (1978) Uranium solution-mineral equilibria at the temperatures with application to sedimentary ore deposits. Geochem Cosmochim Acta 42:547–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin TD (2003) Determination of trace elements in drinking water by axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA. EPA/600/R-06/115, Revision 4.2, p 36Google Scholar
  32. Masscheleyn PH, Dealune RD, Patrick WH Jr (1990) Transformations of selenium as affected by sediment oxidation-reduction potential and Ph. Environ Sci Techn 24:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mast MA, Mills TJ, Paschke SS, Keith G, Linard JI (2014) Mobilization of selenium from the Mancos Shale and associated soils in the lower Uncompahgre River Basin, Colorado. App Geochem 48:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McNeal JM, Balistrieri LS (1989) Selenium in agriculture and the environment: geochemistry and occurrence of selenium an overview. American Society of America and American Society of Agronomy, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  35. Morrison SJ, Spangler RR (1992) Extraction of uranium and molybdenum from aqueous solutions: a survey of industrial materials for use in chemical barriers for uranium mill tailings remediation. Environ Sci Technol 26:1922–1931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mount Sopris Instruments (2017) https://mountsopris.com/. Accessed 22 Feb 2018
  37. Naftz DL, Rice JA (1989) Geochemical processes controlling selenium in ground water after mining, Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA. App Geoch 4:565–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) (2017) Hydrogeochemical and stream sediment reconnaissance data. NURE. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/metadata/nurehssr.faq.html. Accessed 1 May 2017
  39. New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources [NMBGMR] (2003) Geologic map of New Mexico, scale 1:500,000. https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/maps/geologic/state/home.cfml. Accessed 1 May 2017
  40. New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) (2008) Preliminary assessment report: San Mateo Creek legacy uranium sites. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/06-9339767.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017
  41. New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) (2012) Site inspection report, Phase 2, San Mateo Creek Basin legacy uranium mine and mill site area, CERCLIS ID NMN000606847, Cibola-McKinley Counties, New Mexico. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/san_mateo_creek_si_phase_2-report_final.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017
  42. Schoeppner J (2008) Groundwater remediation from uranium mining in New Mexico. Southwest Hydrol 7:22–23Google Scholar
  43. Turner-Peterson CE, Fishman ES (1986) Fluvial sedimentology of a major uranium-bearing sandstone—a study of the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation, San Juan basin, New Mexico. In: Turner-Peterson CE, Santos ES, Fishman NS (eds) A Basin Analysis Case Study: The Morrison Formation, Grants Uranium Region, New Mexico, vol 22. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Studies in Geology, pp 47–75Google Scholar
  44. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2010) Focused Review of Specific Remediation Issues, Report F, An Addendum to the Remediation System Evaluation for the Homestake Mining Company (Grants) Superfund Site, New Mexico. Prepared by US Army Corps of Engineers Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise for US Environmental Protection Agency, Region, vol 6, p 428Google Scholar
  45. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011) Third Five-Year Review Report, Homestake Mining Company Superfund Site, Cibola County, Region 6. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, p 133Google Scholar
  46. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2016) Drinking water requirements for states and public water systems, Radionuclides rule. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/radionuclides-rule#rule-summary. Accessed 22 Feb 2018
  47. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2018) Phase 2 Ground-Water Investigations Report for the San Mateo Creek Basin Legacy Uranium Mines Site, Cibola and McKinley Counties, Region 6. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Dallas, p 244Google Scholar
  48. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (variously dated), National field manual for the collection of water-quality data, techniques and method book 9, accessed April 4, 2018, at https://water.usgs.gov/owq/FieldManual/index.html
  49. Van Berk W, Fu Y (2017) Redox roll-front mobilization of geogenic uranium by nitrate input in aquifers: risks for groundwater resources. Environ Sci Technol 51:337–345.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vroblesky DA, Petkewich M, Campbell T (2002) Field tests of diffusion samplers for inorganic constituents in wells and at a ground water discharge zone. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4031, p 31Google Scholar
  51. Vroblesky DA, Manish J, Morrell J, Peterson JE (2003a) Evaluation of passive diffusion bag samplers, dialysis samplers, and nylon-screen samplers in selected wells at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, March-April 2002. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4157, p 36Google Scholar
  52. Vroblesky D, Scheible W, Teall G (2003b) Laboratory Equilibration Study of Nylon-Screen Passive Diffusion Samplers for VOCs, and Select Inorganics. Presented at ITRC Spring Meeting, March 2003, Annapolis MDGoogle Scholar
  53. Wright GW (1999) Oxidation and mobilization of selenium by nitrate in irrigation drainage. J Environ Qual 28(4):1182–1187.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1999.00472425002800040019x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zielinski RA, Chafin DT, Banta ER, Szabo BJ (1997) Use of 234U and 238U isotopes to evaluate contamination of near-surface groundwater with uranium-mill effluent: a case study in south-central Colorado. USA Environ Geol 32(2):124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Geological SurveyColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Geological SurveyAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.U.S. Geological SurveyFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations