2020-2030
Strategic
Plan
Defense-Related Uranium Mines Program
March 2020
S29398
2 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
This page intentionally left blank
3DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Executive Summary
The Defense-Related Uranium Mines (DRUM) Program 2020-2030 Strategic Plan describes the
U.S. Department of Energy Oce of Legacy Management (LM) implementation of a multi-phased
approach to screening abandoned defense-related uranium mines for the purposes of evaluating
and reporting on the risks and hazards presented by these mines while employing an interagency
approach to resolve identied physical hazards presented to the public at many of these sites. This
multi-pronged approach to verifying and validating these mines not only identies risks and hazards
presented by the mines, but, in conjunction with federal, state, tribal and local governments, allows
for implementation of a one-government approach to safeguarding the public from mine-related
hazards. In order to maximize eciencies that reect potential risk that might result from public
visitation to mines, LM is sequentially implementing its DRUM Program on public land
(Campaign 1), tribal land (Campaign 2), and private property (Campaign 3). These campaigns
will be completed over approximately 13 years, having begun in 2017 with an anticipated
conclusion in 2030.
In order to achieve the primary goal of identifying and ultimately safeguarding mines that pose
unacceptable risk to the public, LM has developed a three-tiered approach to achieving DRUM
Program objectives. These strategies include promoting administrative eectiveness and eciency
during program implementation; utilizing technical expertise to collect, evaluate, and report data
obtained at mines; and fostering intragovernmental relationships with partner agencies for the
purpose of reducing potential risks to the public posed by these mines. This strategic approach to
program implementation helps management identify potential programmatic risks and evaluate
potential preventative measures in order to optimize success over the life of the program.
Introduction
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Oce of Legacy Management (LM) developed a comp-
rehensive strategy to address the risks posed by abandoned uranium mines (AUMs) that had
produced ore for purchase by the former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). This strategic
plan identies the priority goal, protecting human health and the environment, and identies the
need to address the environmental legacy of defense-related uranium mines and some ore-upgrading
facilities (DOE 2020a). The Defense-Related Uranium Mines (DRUM) Program has developed
objectives and incremental strategies to achieve these goals, as well as tactical measures to control
program risks. This strategic plan enables the program to achieve results in an ecient
and cost-eective manner, produce defensible data, and expedite management decisions. It relies
on the integration of LM expertise with that of land management, regulatory, state, and tribal
agencies (known as partner agencies). This one-government approach optimizes the benet to
the government by leveraging resources to expedite the reduction of risk to human health and the
environment. Finally, it provides a three-tiered strategy enabling the success of the DRUM Program.
Note
Unless otherwise specied, in this document, the word “mine” always refers to a mine
associated with the DRUM Program.
4 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Situational Analysis
Legislative Underpinning
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (PL 112-239) (enacted January
2013) mandated that the DOE consult with the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prepare a report to Congress on AUMs from which
uranium ore was produced for U.S. defense purposes for purchase by the AEC between 1947 and
1970. In 2014, after consulting with other federal agencies, aected states, tribal nations, and
interested members of the public on these AUMs, LM submitted the Defense-Related Uranium
Mines Report to Congress (DOE 2014) (report to Congress).
Following 18 months of intergovernmental coordination, the report concluded that there are
still numerous data gaps associated with AUMs. Most importantly, the extent of chemical and
radiological hazards to human health and safety, and the amount of environmental degradation
caused by the mines was not well understood. Concerns about the possible risks associated with
these unknowns and the mandate to obtain information and data on AUMs across the United States
provided the legislative underpinning for LM’s establishment of the DRUM Program in FY 2017.
U.S. Oce of Management and Budget (OMB) Support
LM led the eort to produce the report to Congress and delivered it to the House and Senate
Committees on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the House
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the House Committee on Natural Resources in August
2014. The congressional budget request for FY 2017 supported LM’s continued involvement in
a multi-agency eort to ll existing data gaps through verication and validation (V&V) of existing
information. This additional eort is resulting in a better understanding of the magnitude and extent
of the issues associated with defense-related uranium mines. Based on discussions with other
federal agency partners, such as EPA, LM proposed focusing the DRUM Program on mines located
on public land and completing V&V eld work on an estimated 2,500 mines in its rst 5-year
campaign.
LM Vision, Mission, and Operating Principles
The overarching mission of LM is to “Fulll the Department of Energy’s post-closure
responsibilities and ensure the future protection of human health and the environment” (DOE
2020a). Promoting the protection of human health and the environment is among the nation’s
top priorities, and LM is vital to that endeavor. The vision and operating principles of LM further
guide the DRUM Program and aid in the design of program objectives and strategies. Collectively,
these principles recognize that legacy uranium mining activities have potentially impacted local
communities and the environment. It is LM’s federal trustee responsibility to safeguard land and
resources by working collaboratively with communities, other governmental agencies, and tribal
nations.
The DRUM Program supports LM’s strategic goal of “protect human health and the environment,”
known as Goal 1. In addition, the DRUM Program supports Objective 4 under Goal 1, which states
that LM shall “address the environmental legacy of defense-related uranium mining and milling
sites” (DOE 2020a).
5DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
DRUM Program
For the DRUM Program, that environmental legacy is the remnant risks of the former uranium mines
that supported AEC’s procurement of domestic uranium for defense programs from 1947 to 1970.
It is apparent in the 2014 report to Congress that the environmental hazard potential of many of these
mines is unknown. The potential presence of physical hazards and/or surface contamination from
chemical or radiological constituents is a major government concern. DOE is not directly liable for
these hazards; however, the department has a responsibility to assist in resolving these legacy issues
in an expeditious manner. By working collaboratively with partner agencies, LM can accelerate the
mitigation of hazards in order to protect human health and the environment.
The federal land management agencies have the authority to safeguard physical hazards according
to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which is outlined in Title 43 United
States Code Section 1701 (43 USC 1701 et seq.) and the authority to remediate hazardous
substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(42 USC 9601 et seq.) (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. DOE is augmenting these
authorities with their implied authority under the Atomic Energy Act (42 USC 2011 et seq.) and
the Department of Energy Organization Act (PL 95-91, Stat. 565) to protect public health, safety,
and the environment and to ensure that this protection continues when potential physical hazards
to humans and the environment are unattended. This allows for the use of DOE funding for
the safeguarding of physical hazards.
Cost recovery and cost avoidance are also important considerations in developing strategies for
mitigating impacts to human health and the environment, as concerns about cost avoidance tend
to prolong the time for a response. Strategies for recovering the costs of alleviating these risks
could include pursuing litigation against potentially responsible parties (PRPs). Although most
of the AUMs predate modern mining law, EPA, as well as other agencies, can make use of its
authority under CERCLA to identify a PRP and negotiate an agreement in which the PRP becomes
responsible for the cost of environmental remediation. In addition, in the cases of several noteworthy
uranium mines not associated with the program, the U.S. government settled litigation with the
Navajo Nation, even though the government did not operate or own these mines. However, there
are disadvantages to this approach, including signicant initial costs and time delays. LM evaluated
various options for minimizing the drawbacks associated with pursing litigation and developed a
program of pre-screening the risks associated with these mines to prioritize and more quickly focus
on the protection of human health and the environment in a cost-eective manner. The strategy for
achieving this is discussed below.
DRUM Program Strategy
An eective program strategy is essential to achieving LM’s overarching mission to protect human
health and the environment, and such a strategy must apply eective objectives and methodologies
to address the environmental legacy of defense-related uranium mines and some ore-upgrading
facilities. The DRUM Program’s primary goal is to identify mines that pose potentially unacceptable
risks to human health and the environment and eciently allocate government resources to address
these problems.
To achieve this goal, the following program objectives have been formulated:
1) Share existing information and collect site-specic data at each mine to identify possible safety
hazards or the potential for the release of mine-related contaminants
6 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
2) Perform high-level or relative risk scoring and ranking of these mine hazards
3) Improve the data quality and content of the DRUM Program database and agency databases
4) Exchange information with federal, tribal, and state governments
5) Work with these partner agencies to leverage resources to address mines with priority hazards
The following tiered strategies have been developed to optimize the achievement of program
objectives:
• Administrative strategy for the most eective and ecient implementation of the program
• Technical strategy for the collection and evaluation of defensible data and subsequent site
report information
• Intragovernmental strategy for collaboration with partner agencies to reduce the potential
risks posed by the remnant hazards at these legacy mines
Each strategy identies potential risks and the possible preventative measures for minimizing their
impacts. These measures will be re-evaluated annually to optimize program success.
Administrative Strategy: Scope, Implementation, and Budget
The administrative strategy recognizes the interrelationship of three critical aspects of the program’s
administration — scope, implementation, and budget — and looks for opportunities for eciency.
This administrative strategy further integrates the unique capabilities of LM’s partners into the
overall program in order to leverage resources eectively and achieve a collaborative, one-
government approach.
Scope
The scope of the DRUM Program is based upon AEC records on purchased uranium ore that
supported defense activities from 1947 to 1970. These purchase records identify the location
of individual mines and other sources of ore, such as uranium concentrators, across the nation
on federal, state, tribal, private, and mixed-ownership land. The majority of these mines are located
on public land (Figure 1). Over 90% of the mines are in the western United States (Figures 2 and 3).
Spatial distribution of the mines is a product of the mineral composition of the various geologic
settings, which signicantly inuences the population density and the mine density of any given area
(Figure 3).
60%
12%
14%
9%
3%
2%
Figure 1: DRUM Program Mines by Land Agency
Federal
Tribal
Private
Unknown
Mixed
State
36%
32%
11%
7%
6%
8%
Figure 2: DRUM Program Mines by State
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
Wyoming
New Mexico
Other States
7DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Implementation
Classifying the population of mines by location and land administration has several advantages for
the implementation of the program. LM’s implementation strategy prioritizes the geographic areas
with the greatest mine population and density and is systematic in its progression across each region.
Such an approach greatly maximizes overall program eciency and reduces costs. The strategy also
recognizes factors that complicate implementation. These are, but are not limited to, land ownership,
land administration authorities, current environmental regulatory activities, and enforcement actions.
Figure 3: Spatial Distribution of Mines
A signicant factor aecting implementation is the impact of land administration on the ease of
access to the mines. Public land is readily accessible by LM eld team personnel. Furthermore,
mines on public land are a relatively higher priority because there is a greater likelihood that visitors
will be exposed to mine hazards on public land than on tribal or private land. This ease of access,
coupled with the fact that the majority of these mines are on public land, oers a logical starting
point for program implementation. In addition, a unied approach can be utilized nationally on
public land as agencies managing these lands (the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the National
Park Service, and others) use similar “recreational use scenarios” for assessing risks to human health
and the environment. Private property, on the other hand, is inherently more dicult to access than
public land, and access usually requires that LM obtain formal access agreements for each mine. The
EPA’s active regulatory presence and CERCLA enforcement strategy and settlement funds currently
mitigates the urgency for the program to address mines located on tribal land.
Partner agencies are the decision makers for AUMs on public land. This strategy recognizes
their authority and their current activities and also helps to prevent redundancy when it comes to
government actions. To this end, LM is currently working with federal and state agencies on public
8 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
land and will be working with tribal governments, EPA, and private landowners in the future.
The timeline for this is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: DRUM Program Fiscal Year Implementation Timeline
As noted above, the best way to mitigate potential DRUM-related risks and allow for the most
ecient overall use of government resources was to initiate the DRUM Program on public land.
This initial 5-year campaign (Campaign 1) focuses on mines on federal, state, local, and mixed-
ownership land (collectively representing approximately 65% of the mines encompassed by the
program) and evaluates mine hazards using a recreational land use scenario.
Integrated into the implementation of the DRUM Program is LM’s plan to leverage resources to
assist partner agencies in safeguarding physical hazards that are identied by each campaign (Figure
4). Through a process of collaboration, the agencies will determine priorities and optimize available
resources to safeguard identied hazards. LM will perform the initial monitoring and maintenance
of the safeguarded hazards before closing out the DRUM Program. Initiation of a second 5-year
campaign to perform V&V work on mines located on tribal land (Campaign 2, which includes
approximately 12% of the mines associated with the program) will be integrated into Campaign 1
starting in FY 2023. A third 5-year campaign (Campaign 3) to perform V&V work on mines located
on private property (representing approximately 14% of the mines associated with the program)
will be implemented in FY 2024 (Figure 4). Completion of the program is anticipated for 2030.
Interagency collaboration for Campaigns 2 and 3 will specically be designed to best augment the
ongoing AUM programs of the partner agencies with responsibility for these lands (e.g., EPA, U.S.
Bureau of Indian Aairs, tribal AUM programs, as well as the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management). The DRUM Program will identify data gaps, if any, and solidify new
administrative and technical strategies (e.g., soliciting community stakeholder input and adjusting
land use assumptions based on the most likely scenarios). Though the number of mines targeted in
Campaigns 2 and 3 will be fewer than the quantity addressed in Campaign 1, the added complexities
associated with these campaigns will lengthen the time required per mine to complete V&V work.
Budget
The progress of the program and its short-term and long-term schedules will be continually assessed
for budgetary needs. In the LM life cycle baseline (LCB), $5 million per year for ve years was
identied as the budgetary resource requirement for the DRUM Program on public land (Campaign
1). The FY 2021 budget will include the cost of enhancing the program to encompass partnering on
the safeguarding of physical hazards, which are numerous and are recognized as an immediate threat
to human health and safety. Campaign 2 for mines on tribal land and Campaign 3 on private property
will be integrated into LCB planning for initiation in FY 2023 and FY 2024, respectively.
9DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Potential Risks to Administrative Strategy:
1. Wavering support and appropriations for the DRUM Program.
Preventative Measure:
The program will continue to collaborate with partner agencies, show progress, and
evaluate its cost savings to the government by quantifying the benet of the overall
inventory of legacy hazards identied by the program. This return on investment will
be updated as the program quanties the costs of addressing the hazards inventoried,
which will be compared to the estimated total government costs assumed in the
2014 report to Congress. The benets, cost savings, and budget needs of the DRUM
Program will be reported as part of the president’s budget submission process. This
line of communication will extend to congressional sta and the OMB. In addition,
there may be a need for LM and partner agencies to provide joint briengs and further
promote the collective advantages of the DRUM Program.
2. Problematic transition from Campaign 1 to Campaign 2.
Preventative Measure:
LM will proactively expand the intragovernmental strategy in FY 2021 to incorporate
the EPA and tribal governments. This expansion will coincide with the gradual
ramp down of Campaign 1 in FY 2022. The scope and budget of the program will
incorporate necessary changes to utilize information, objectives, and expectations
to achieve program consensus with its new partners. In anticipation of greater
community involvement, additional outreach products will be prepared for
Campaign 2.
3. Pressure on LM to start work on mines on tribal land during Campaign 1.
Preventative Measure:
LM is sharing DRUM technical documents and other relevant information with EPA
Regions 6 and 9. In addition, the agencies have had informal discussions regarding
how DRUM methodologies could be applied to similar eorts on tribal land. LM
will initiate formal outreach and conversations with aected tribes by no later than
the spring of 2021 (FY 2021).
4. Diculties with gaining access to private property for Campaign 3.
Preventative Measure:
LM will pursue a partnership with EPA to access mines on private property using
EPA’s authority. LM will expand the DRUM support contract to include realty
services necessary for obtaining access agreements. The additional time that will be
required for gaining access is accounted for in the 5-year timeframe. LM recognizes
the potential that access will not be granted for all mines; however, in these cases,
LM will obtain as much information as is possible without visiting the mine to
achieve the objectives of the DRUM Program.
10 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Technical Strategy:
The DRUM Program is a data gathering and risk screening process that supports partner agency
decisions for safeguarding, reclamation, and/or remediation. It is not the intention of the program
to satisfy requirements of CERCLA; however, a data objective is to expedite defensible management
decisions by minimizing the amount of additional data that might be needed if further actions or
evaluation are deemed necessary.
Information expectations of the program require the recognition of the intended use of the data.
This is the driving consideration in the formulation of programmatic objectives as well as data
quality objectives (DQOs). Equally important is collaboration and concurrence on the DQOs on the
part of partner agencies for the overall acceptance of the data and information needed for decision
making. The DQO process results in program-specic quality assurance (QA) objectives. These
objectives, which include precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, and completeness,
are reected in the DQOs and the program’s planning documents and follow EPA’s QA guidance.
Program objectives and DQOs are dened in the Defense-Related Uranium Mines Verication and
Validation Work Plan (DOE 2020b) (V&V Work Plan) and the DRUM Quality Assurance Program
Plan (LMS/DRM/S15867).
The primary data objectives of the DRUM Program are to:
• Determine each mine’s location
• Document the presence of physical hazards
• Identify current site environmental conditions
• Conrm the status of any previous reclamation or remediation actions
Most of the data are observational and descriptive in nature (e.g., the location, complexity, and
general condition of mine features); however, some are newly acquired analytical data. The data
gathered will be of sucient quantitative and qualitative value to accurately evaluate physical,
chemical, and radiological hazards at mines. A recreational land use scenario is used to evaluate
mines on public land, while some variation of a residential scenario is anticipated for tribal land
and private property. The scenarios are used in conjunction with a weight-of-evidence risk
screening and hazard ranking approach that will help partner agencies determine and prioritize
possible future actions.
Potential Risks to the Technical Strategy:
1. Compromised data quality.
Preventative Measure:
In order to ensure data are defensible and of sucient quality and quantity and
that the appropriate data and information are collected, the program utilizes a
quality assurance/quality control program and DQO process. Each is captured in
programmatic planning documents and follows the industry standards and guidance
documents established by EPA (EPA 2006). The program has further customized
quality control measures to ensure the high quality of the data as they are being
collected, during data review, and in reporting.
11DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
2. Rejection of data and information by partner agencies.
Preventative Measure:
Ongoing collaboration with partner agencies ensures their acceptance of not only the
data, but also the information generated from the data (e.g., risk ranking). There are
numerous informal and formal meetings and engagements with representatives from
individual agencies to discuss progress, direction, improvements, and other topics.
Due to the importance of collaborating with partner agencies, the program
has developed the following intragovernmental strategy.
Intragovernmental Strategy: Collaboration and Leveraged Resources
The intragovernmental strategy is to develop a synergy that fosters a coordinated one-government
approach that results in the timely use of DRUM data and information for the reduction of risk to
human health and the environment. This strategy requires the identication of regulatory authorities,
recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of each agency, and collaborative actions that result in
eective synchronization of governmental goals and leveraged resources.
The goals of the DRUM Program augment the mission and responsibilities of federal, state, and
tribal Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) programs, thereby making interagency collaboration and
coordination an integral component of the program’s success. The scope of their programs, however,
is immense, which limits their ability to focus on AUMs and their role in the DRUM Program. LM
has received appropriations to perform V&V work and screen and evaluate the risks posed by mines
associated with the program, which simultaneously accomplishes the goals of partner agencies and
enables them to eectively focus on other AML priorities.
Moreover, through this coordinated program, the agencies can prevent redundancy of eort and
eectively leverage their resources so they can successfully and expeditiously protect human health
and the environment. In order to achieve this goal, LM must ensure partner agencies accept the data,
information, and risk rankings produced by the DRUM Program. Therefore, the DRUM Program
must implement a strategy for ongoing collaborative participation and consensus with partner agencies
to ensure the V&V Work Plan and DQO process reect their objectives and technical needs.
Program acceptance requires active participation by the partners in the planning steps of the
program, such as work plan development, methodologies, eld schedules, and eld oversight.
Because the partner agencies have AML expertise, they are frequently consulted for assistance,
and LM facilitates this support through memoranda of understanding, interagency agreements,
and cooperative agreements. The scope of each agreement depends upon the dened tasks and
abilities of the partner agency.
The physical hazards identied by the DRUM Program should be addressed as expeditiously as
possible for the safety of the public; therefore, strategies must be very exible to accommodate
expedited risk reduction decisions. Furthermore, it is important for LM to consider that the data
and information generated by the DRUM Program may become dated or obsolete if too much time
elapses. The passage of time only increases the potential for severe accidents to occur. By working
collaboratively with these agencies, LM could accelerate the mitigation of hazards in order to
protect human health and the environment.
12 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Potential Risks to Intragovernmental Strategy:
1. Limitations on partner agency participation.
Preventative Measure:
Partner agencies have diering levels of involvement in the DRUM Program. This
is due to several factors, such as lack of sta, sta skillsets, budget, and competing
program and mission priorities. Although LM is focused on the DRUM Program, the
mines associated with this program represent a small percentage (less than 5%) of the
approximately 150,000 abandoned hard rock mines in the United States. And, even
though LM is providing funding through nancial assistance agreements to partner
agencies, many of the sta of these agencies have other duties that limit their ability
to prioritize DRUM activities. To optimize their program support, LM will place
the partner agencies in a review capacity as much as possible and maintain nancial
agreements to help mitigate their competing priorities.
2. Potential liabilities for partner agencies related to the ndings of the DRUM Program.
Preventative Measure:
Partner agencies are concerned with the potential repercussions created by the
ndings of the DRUM Program. Program ndings are increasing their knowledge
of and quantifying their potential liability for these hazardous conditions. LM is
planning to provide greater assistance to their partners so that priority hazards
identied by the DRUM Program are expeditiously addressed. LM will exercise
its implied authority to protect public health, safety, and the environment for this
augmentation. This implied authority includes safeguarding practices including, but
not limited to, backlling and gating mine openings. LM is anticipating using existing
nancial agreements with state and federal agencies to perform this work, as well as
investigating contracting options.
The current program has provisions such that, if LM identies a feature posing an
imminent hazard, it will immediately inform the appropriate agency. Every individual
DRUM mine report includes an account of any “notiable features” identied. The
agency can then take steps using LM nancial agreements for temporary safeguarding
until a long-term measure can be implemented.
Summary
The DRUM Program is currently implementing the above strategies in the pursuit of accomplishing
Campaign 1. This initial campaign has been successful in achieving DRUM Program goals and is
producing defensible data for the identication of hazards and facilitating partner agency decisions.
In addition, the intragovernmental strategy is fostering a synergy that supports a one-government
approach that is eectively leveraging the abilities of the partners.
The program has recognized the necessity to improve its abilities to expeditiously address the
physical hazards being identied by the DRUM Program and is initiating new eorts to augment
our partnerships. Despite competing responsibilities and pressures, partner agencies have been able
to eectively participate in the program and are taking advantage of the benets it oers. DRUM
13DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
partners are actively engaged and are interested in ranking sites in order to prioritize safeguarding
activities. LM will work with these partner agencies to leverage resources to address mines with
priority hazards.
LM continues to receive support for the program, and, as the program continues to evolve, LM
continually considers possible areas for improvement. In addition, LM implements preventative
measures to reduce program risks and ensure the continued and successful implementation of
Campaign 1. LM will build upon this experience and success to pursue long-term solutions for
priority hazards and initiate a smooth transition into Campaign 2 on tribal land and Campaign
3 on private property. Through the continuation of the DRUM Program, LM will achieve its
goal of protecting human health and the environment and fulll its responsibility to address the
environmental legacy of defense-related uranium mines and some ore-upgrading facilities.
14 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
This page intentionally left blank
15DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Appendix A
Authorities, Regulatory Requirements, and Compliance Drivers
This appendix catalogues the statutes that provide authority to the DRUM Program as well as the
regulatory requirements and compliance drivers.
• Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.)
• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668)
• Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (PL 95-91, Stat. 565)
• Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.)
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-712)
• National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Section 3151, “Report on
Abandoned Uranium Mines” (PL 112-239)
• National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.)
• National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470)
• Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.)
16 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
This page intentionally left blank
17DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Appendix B
Acronyms
AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
AML Abandoned Mine Lands
AUM abandoned uranium mine
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DQO data quality objective
DRUM Defense-Related Uranium Mines
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY scal year
LCB life cycle baseline
OMB U.S. Oce of Management and Budget
PL Public Law
PRP potentially responsible parties
QA quality assurance
USC United States Code
V&V verication and validation
18 DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
This page intentionally left blank
19DRUM Strategic Plan 2020-2030
Appendix C
References
16 USC 470. “National Historic Preservation Act,” United States Code.
16 USC 668. “Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act,” United States Code.
16 USC 703-712. “Migratory Bird Treaty Act,” United States Code.
16 USC 1531 et seq. “Endangered Species Act,” United States Code.
33 USC 1251 et seq. “Clean Water Act,” United States Code.
42 USC 2011 et seq. “Atomic Energy Act,” United States Code.
42 USC 4321 et seq. “National Environmental Policy Act,” United States Code.
42 USC 9601 et seq. “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,”
United States Code.
43 USC 1701 et seq. “Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,” United States Code.
Defense-Related Uranium Mines Quality Assurance Program Plan, LMS/DRM/S15867, continually
updated, prepared by Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy
Oce of Legacy Management.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2014. Defense-Related Uranium Mines Report to Congress,
U.S. Department of Energy, August.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2020a. 2020–2025 Strategic Plan, DOE/LM-1488, Oce of
Legacy Management, January.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2020b. Defense-Related Uranium Mines Verication and
Validation Work Plan, LMS/DRM/S13690, Oce of Legacy Management, February.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2006. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the
Data Quality Objectives Process, EPA QA/G-4, February.
PL 95-91, Stat. 565, “Department of Energy Organization Act,” Public Law.
PL 112-239, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,” Public Law.
