Environmental Impact

Statement for the Reno Creek 

In Situ Recovery Project in 

Campbell County, Wyoming

Supplement to the

Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for

In-Situ Leach Uranium

Milling Facilities

Draft Report for Comment

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NUREG-1910

Supplement 6

Environmental Impact

Statement for the Reno Creek 

In Situ Recovery Project in 

Campbell County, Wyoming

Supplement to the

Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for

In-Situ Leach Uranium

Milling Facilities

Draft Report for Comment

Manuscript Completed: June 2016

Date Published: June 2016

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

NUREG-1910

Supplement 6
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT 

1 Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. 

2 Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please 

3 specify the report number NUREG–1910 Supplement 6 in your comments, and send them by 

4 the end of the comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the 

5 availability of this report. 

6 Addresses: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include 

7 Docket ID NRC-2013-0164 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing 

8 or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC website and on the Federal rulemaking website 

9 http://www.regulations.gov. 

10 Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents 

11 filed under Docket ID NRC-2013-0164. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

12 Gallagher at 301-415-3463 or by e-mail at Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. 

13 Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch 

14 (RADB), Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, 

15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. 

16 For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: Jill Caverly, Project 

17 Manager, 301-415-7674 or by e-mail at Jill.Caverly@nrc.gov. 

18 Please be aware that any comments that you submit to the NRC will be considered a public 

19 record and entered into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

20 (ADAMS). Do not provide information you would not want to be publicly available. 
iii 

1 ABSTRACT 

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issues licenses for the possession and use 

3 of source material (hereafter referred to as an “NRC license”) provided that proposed facilities 

4 meet NRC regulatory requirements and would be operated in a manner that is protective of 

5 public health and safety and the environment. Under the NRC environmental protection 

6 regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 CFR Part 51, which 

7 implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), issuance of a license to 

8 possess and use source material for uranium milling, as defined in 10 CFR Part 40, requires an 

9 environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS. 

10 In May 2009, the NRC issued NUREG–1910, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

11 In Situ Leach Uranium Facilities (GEIS) (NRC, 2009). In the GEIS, the NRC assessed the 

12 potential environmental impacts from the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

13 decommissioning of an in situ leach uranium recovery facility [also known as an in situ recovery 

14 (ISR) facility] located in four specified geographic regions of the western United States. As part 

15 of this assessment, the NRC determined which potential impacts would be essentially the same 

16 for all ISR facilities and which would result in varying levels of impact for different facilities, thus 

17 requiring further site-specific information to determine potential impacts. The GEIS provides a 

18 starting point for the NRC NEPA analyses for site-specific license applications for new ISR 

19 facilities, as well as for applications to amend or renew existing ISR licenses. 

20 By letter dated October 3, 2012, AUC LLC (AUC, referred to herein as the applicant) submitted 

21 a license application to NRC for a new NRC license for the Reno Creek ISR Project. The 

22 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in Campbell County, Wyoming, which is in 

23 the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region identified in the GEIS. The NRC staff prepared this 

24 draft Supplemental EIS (SEIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from the 

25 applicant proposal to construct, operate, conduct aquifer restoration, and decommission an ISR 

26 uranium facility at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. This draft SEIS describes the 

27 environment potentially affected by the proposed project activities, and describes the applicant’s 

28 environmental monitoring program and proposed mitigation measures. In conducting its 

29 analysis in this draft SEIS, the NRC staff evaluated site-specific data and information to 

30 determine whether the applicant’s proposed activities and site characteristics were consistent 

31 with those evaluated in the GEIS. The NRC staff then determined relevant sections, findings, 

32 and conclusions in the GEIS that could be incorporated by reference, and areas that required 

33 additional analysis. Based on its environmental review, the preliminary NRC staff 

34 recommendation is that, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, environmental impacts of the 

35 proposed action (issuing an NRC license for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project) are not so 

36 great as to make issuance of an NRC license an unreasonable licensing decision. 

37 Reference 

38 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

39 Milling Facilities.” Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009.

v 

1 CONTENTS 

2 Page 

3 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii 

4 FIGURES .................................................................................................................................... xiii 

5 TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... xv 

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ xix 

7 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... xxxvii 

8 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

9 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 1-1

10 1.2 Proposed Federal Action .................................................................................... 1-1

11 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ....................................................... 1-1

12 1.4 Scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ........................... 1-3

13 1.4.1 Relationship to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement ............. 1-3

14 1.4.2 Public Participation Activities ................................................................ 1-4

15 1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail ........................................................................ 1-5

16 1.4.4 Issues Outside the Scope of the SEIS ................................................. 1-6

17 1.4.5 Related NEPA Reviews and Other Related Documents ...................... 1-6

18 1.5 Applicable Regulatory Requirements ................................................................. 1-8

19 1.6 Licensing and Permitting .................................................................................... 1-8

20 1.6.1 NRC Licensing Process ....................................................................... 1-8

21 1.6.2 Status of Permitting With Other Federal and State Agencies .............. 1-9

22 1.7 Consultation ....................................................................................................... 1-9

23 1.7.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation .................................... 1-9

24 1.7.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation .................... 1-11

25 1.7.3 Coordination With Other Federal, State, Local, and Tribal 

26 Agencies ............................................................................................. 1-11

27 1.7.3.1 Coordination With Bureau of Land Management ................. 1-12

28 1.7.3.2 Coordination with the Wyoming Department of 

29 Environmental Quality .......................................................... 1-12

30 1.7.3.3 Coordination with the Wyoming Game and 

31 Fish Department ................................................................... 1-12

32 1.7.3.4 Coordination With the Powder River Basin Resource 

33 Council (PRBRC) ................................................................. 1-12

34 1.7.3.5 Coordination With Localities ................................................. 1-12

35 1.7.3.6 Interactions With Tribal Governments .................................. 1-13

36 1.8 Structure of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ............ 1-15

37 1.9 References ....................................................................................................... 1-16

38 2 IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVE ................................................. 2-1

39 2.1 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis.................................................... 2-1

40 2.1.1 The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .................................................... 2-1

41 2.1.1.1 Proposed In Situ Recovery Facility ........................................ 2-2

42 2.1.1.2 Additional Liquid Waste Disposal Options ........................... 2-46

43 2.1.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 2-55

44 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Analysis ............................................... 2-55

45 2.2.1 Conventional Mining and Milling ......................................................... 2-56

46 2.2.2 Conventional Mining and Heap Leaching ........................................... 2-57

47 2.2.3 Alternative Lixiviants ........................................................................... 2-57
vi 

1 2.2.4 Alternative Location of the Central Processing Plant ......................... 2-58

2 2.3 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts ...................................... 2-59

3 2.4 Preliminary Recommendation .......................................................................... 2-59

4 2.5 References ....................................................................................................... 2-61

5 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................. 3-1

6 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3-1

7 3.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................ 3-1

8 3.2.1 Land Use Classification ........................................................................ 3-3

9 3.2.2 Hunting and Recreation ........................................................................ 3-5

10 3.2.3 Minerals and Energy ............................................................................ 3-6

11 3.2.4 Utilities and Transportation ................................................................... 3-6

12 3.3 Transportation .................................................................................................... 3-8

13 3.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 3-13

14 3.4.1 Geology .............................................................................................. 3-13

15 3.4.1.1 Powder River Basin .............................................................. 3-13

16 3.4.1.2 Reno Creek ISR Project Area Geology ................................ 3-17

17 3.4.2 Soils .................................................................................................... 3-22

18 3.4.3 Seismology ......................................................................................... 3-22

19 3.5 Water Resources .............................................................................................. 3-24

20 3.5.1 Surface Water .................................................................................... 3-24

21 3.5.1.1 Surface Water Features ....................................................... 3-24

22 3.5.1.2 Surface Water Flow .............................................................. 3-24

23 3.5.1.3 Surface Water Quality .......................................................... 3-26

24 3.5.1.4 Wetlands .............................................................................. 3-28

25 3.5.2 Groundwater ....................................................................................... 3-31

26 3.5.2.1 Regional Groundwater Resources ....................................... 3-31

27 3.5.2.2 Surrounding Aquifers for Water Supply ................................ 3-33

28 3.5.2.3 Local Groundwater Resources ............................................. 3-36

29 3.5.2.4 Groundwater Use ................................................................. 3-46

30 3.5.3 Groundwater Quality .......................................................................... 3-47

31 3.5.3.1 Regional Groundwater Quality ............................................. 3-47

32 3.5.3.2 Reno Creek ISR Project Area Groundwater Quality ............ 3-49

33 3.6 Ecology ............................................................................................................. 3-57

34 3.6.1 Terrestrial Species ............................................................................. 3-59

35 3.6.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................ 3-59

36 3.6.1.2 Wildlife .................................................................................. 3-61

37 3.6.2 Aquatic Species .................................................................................. 3-75

38 3.6.3 Protected Species and Species of Concern ....................................... 3-75

39 3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality ....................................................... 3-79

40 3.7.1 Meteorology and Climatology ............................................................. 3-79

41 3.7.1.1 Temperature ......................................................................... 3-80

42 3.7.1.2 Wind ..................................................................................... 3-80

43 3.7.1.3 Precipitation ......................................................................... 3-81

44 3.7.1.4 Storm Events ........................................................................ 3-81

45 3.7.1.5 Evaporation .......................................................................... 3-84

46 3.7.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................... 3-84

47 3.7.2.1 Non-Greenhouse Gases ...................................................... 3-84

48 3.7.2.2 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change ............................ 3-86

49 3.8 Noise .............................................................................................................. 3-88

50 3.9 Historical and Cultural Resources .................................................................... 3-90
vii 

1 3.9.1 Cultural History ................................................................................... 3-93

2 3.9.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period .............................................................. 3-93

3 3.9.1.2 Early Archaic Period ............................................................. 3-94

4 3.9.1.3 Middle Archaic Period .......................................................... 3-94

5 3.9.1.4 Late Archaic Period .............................................................. 3-94

6 3.9.1.5 Late Prehistoric Period ......................................................... 3-95

7 3.9.1.6 Protohistoric period .............................................................. 3-95

8 3.9.1.7 Historic Period ...................................................................... 3-95

9 3.9.2 Area of Potential Effect ....................................................................... 3-96

10 3.9.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Investigations .................................. 3-96

11 3.9.3.1 Class III Cultural Resource Investigations ........................... 3-97

12 3.9.3.2 Visual Impacts Assessment ............................................... 3-106

13 3.9.4 Tribal Consultation ........................................................................... 3-106

14 3.10 Visual and Scenic ........................................................................................... 3-107

15 3.11 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................. 3-108

16 3.11.1 Demographics .................................................................................. 3-110

17 3.11.2 Income .............................................................................................. 3-111

18 3.11.3 Housing ............................................................................................ 3-112

19 3.11.4 Employment Structure ...................................................................... 3-113

20 3.11.5 Local Finance ................................................................................... 3-113

21 3.11.6 Education ......................................................................................... 3-114

22 3.11.7 Health and Social Services .............................................................. 3-115

23 3.12 Public and Occupational Health ..................................................................... 3-117

24 3.12.1 Baseline Radiological Conditions ..................................................... 3-117

25 3.12.1.1 Soils ................................................................................... 3-118

26 3.12.1.2 Sediment and Surface Water ............................................. 3-119

27 3.12.1.3 Air (Ambient Gamma, Radon, and Particulates) ................ 3-120

28 3.12.1.4 Groundwater ...................................................................... 3-121

29 3.12.1.5 Vegetation, Livestock, and Fish ......................................... 3-122

30 3.12.2 Public Health and Safety .................................................................. 3-124

31 3.12.3 Occupational Health and Safety ....................................................... 3-124

32 3.13 Waste Management ....................................................................................... 3-126

33 3.13.1 Liquid Waste Disposal ...................................................................... 3-126

34 3.13.2 Solid Waste Disposal ....................................................................... 3-127

35 3.14 References ..................................................................................................... 3-128

36 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, AQUIFER 

37 RESTORATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES AND 

38 MITIGATIVE ACTIONS .................................................................................................. 4-1

39 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4-1

40 4.2 Land Use Impacts .............................................................................................. 4-2

41 4.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-2

42 4.2.1.1 Construction Impacts ............................................................. 4-2

43 4.2.1.2 Operations Impacts ................................................................ 4-6

44 4.2.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................... 4-6

45 4.2.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ..................................................... 4-7

46 4.2.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................... 4-8

47 4.3 Transportation Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-9

48 4.3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-9

49 4.3.1.1 Construction Impacts ............................................................. 4-9

50 4.3.1.2 Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-11
viii 

1 4.3.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-15

2 4.3.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-17

3 4.3.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-18

4 4.4 Geology and Soils Impacts ............................................................................... 4-19

5 4.4.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-19

6 4.4.1.1 Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-19

7 4.4.1.2 Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-22

8 4.4.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-24

9 4.4.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-25

10 4.4.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-26

11 4.5 Water Resources Impacts ................................................................................ 4-26

12 4.5.1 Surface Water Impacts ....................................................................... 4-26

13 4.5.1.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................... 4-26

14 4.5.1.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................... 4-30

15 4.5.2 Groundwater Impacts ......................................................................... 4-30

16 4.5.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................... 4-31

17 4.5.2.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................... 4-48

18 4.6 Ecological Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-48

19 4.6.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-49

20 4.6.1.1 Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-49

21 4.6.1.2 Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-68

22 4.6.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-71

23 4.6.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-73

24 4.6.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-74

25 4.7 Air Quality Impacts ........................................................................................... 4-74

26 4.7.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-75

27 4.7.1.1 Peak Year Analysis .............................................................. 4-77

28 4.7.1.2 Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-83

29 4.7.1.3 Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-88

30 4.7.1.4 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-89

31 4.7.1.5 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-90

32 4.7.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-92

33 4.8 Noise Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-92

34 4.8.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-92

35 4.8.1.1 Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-93

36 4.8.1.2 Operations Impacts .............................................................. 4-95

37 4.8.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ................................................. 4-96

38 4.8.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................... 4-97

39 4.8.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................. 4-98

40 4.9 Historical and Cultural Impacts ......................................................................... 4-98

41 4.9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................... 4-98

42 4.9.1.1 Construction Impacts ........................................................... 4-99

43 4.9.1.2 Operations Impacts ............................................................ 4-104

44 4.9.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-105

45 4.9.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-105

46 4.9.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) .................................................................. 4-106

47 4.10 Visual and Scenic Impacts ............................................................................. 4-106

48 4.10.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................ 4-106

49 4.10.1.1 Construction Impacts ......................................................... 4-107

50 4.10.1.2 Operations Impact .............................................................. 4-108

51 4.10.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-109
ix 

1 4.10.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-109

2 4.10.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-110

3 4.11 Socioeconomic Impacts ................................................................................. 4-110

4 4.11.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................ 4-110

5 4.11.1.1 Construction Impacts ......................................................... 4-111

6 4.11.1.2 Operations Impacts ............................................................ 4-114

7 4.11.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-117

8 4.11.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-118

9 4.11.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-118

10 4.12 Environmental Justice .................................................................................... 4-118

11 4.12.1 Analysis of Impacts .......................................................................... 4-119

12 4.12.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................ 4-121

13 4.12.3 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-123

14 4.13 Public and Occupational Health ..................................................................... 4-123

15 4.13.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................ 4-123

16 4.13.1.1 Construction Impacts ......................................................... 4-123

17 4.13.1.2 Operations Impacts ............................................................ 4-125

18 4.13.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-134

19 4.13.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-134

20 4.13.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-135

21 4.14 Waste Management ....................................................................................... 4-135

22 4.14.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1 ......................................................... 4-136

23 4.14.1.1 Disposal Via Class l Deep Disposal Wells ......................... 4-136

24 4.14.1.2 Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options .......................... 4-141

25 4.14.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................ 4-148

26 4.15 References ..................................................................................................... 4-148

27 5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................... 5-1

28 5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5-1

29 5.1.1 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future 

30 Actions .................................................................................................. 5-3

31 5.1.1.1 Uranium Recovery Sites ........................................................ 5-3

32 5.1.1.2 Coal Mining ............................................................................ 5-7

33 5.1.1.3 Oil and Gas Production .......................................................... 5-8

34 5.1.1.4 Coalbed Methane Development ............................................. 5-9

35 5.1.1.5 Wind Power .......................................................................... 5-10

36 5.1.1.6 Transportation Projects ........................................................ 5-11

37 5.1.1.7 Other Mining ......................................................................... 5-11

38 5.1.1.8 Environmental Impact Statements as Indicators of Past, 

39 Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ........ 5-12

40 5.1.2 Methodology ....................................................................................... 5-13

41 5.2 Land Use .......................................................................................................... 5-16

42 5.2.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-18

43 5.3 Transportation .................................................................................................. 5-19

44 5.3.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-21

45 5.4 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................ 5-22

46 5.4.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-25

47 5.5 Water Resources .............................................................................................. 5-25

48 5.5.1 Surface Water and Wetlands ............................................................. 5-26

49 5.5.1.1 Summary .............................................................................. 5-28

50 5.5.2 Groundwater ....................................................................................... 5-28
x 

1 5.5.2.1 Summary .............................................................................. 5-33

2 5.6 Ecological Resources ....................................................................................... 5-33

3 5.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................. 5-34

4 5.6.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................ 5-34

5 5.6.1.2 Wildlife .................................................................................. 5-35

6 5.6.2 Aquatic Ecology .................................................................................. 5-37

7 5.6.3 Protected Species and Species of Concern ....................................... 5-38

8 5.6.4 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-39

9 5.7 Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 5-39

10 5.7.1 Non-Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................... 5-39

11 5.7.1.1 Near-Field Analysis .............................................................. 5-40

12 5.7.1.2 Far-Field Analysis ................................................................ 5-42

13 5.7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change ................. 5-44

14 5.7.2.1 Global Climate Change and Contribution to Atmospheric 

15 Greenhouse Gas Levels ...................................................... 5-44

16 5.7.2.2 Potential Effect of Climate Change on the Proposed 

17 Reno Creek ISR Project ....................................................... 5-47

18 5.8 Noise .............................................................................................................. 5-48

19 5.8.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-49

20 5.9 Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 5-49

21 5.9.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-52

22 5.10 Visual and Scenic Resources ........................................................................... 5-52

23 5.10.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-53

24 5.11 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................... 5-53

25 5.11.1 Population .......................................................................................... 5-53

26 5.11.2 Employment ....................................................................................... 5-54

27 5.11.3 Housing .............................................................................................. 5-55

28 5.11.4 Education ........................................................................................... 5-55

29 5.11.5 Public Services ................................................................................... 5-56

30 5.11.6 Local Finance ..................................................................................... 5-57

31 5.11.7 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-57

32 5.12 Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 5-57

33 5.12.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-58

34 5.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety ..................................................... 5-58

35 5.13.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-61

36 5.14 Waste Management ......................................................................................... 5-61

37 5.14.1 Summary ............................................................................................ 5-64

38 5.15 References ....................................................................................................... 5-64

39 6 MITIGATION .................................................................................................................. 6-1

40 6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 6-1

41 6.2 Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC .............................................................. 6-2

42 6.3 Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC ......................................... 6-2

43 6.4 References ....................................................................................................... 6-16

44 7 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAMS ............................ 7-1

45 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 7-1

46 7.2 Radiological Monitoring ...................................................................................... 7-1

47 7.2.1 Airborne Radiation Monitoring .............................................................. 7-2

48 7.2.2 Soils and Sediment Monitoring ............................................................. 7-4

49 7.2.3 Vegetation, Food, and Fish Monitoring ................................................ 7-4
xi 

1 7.2.4 Surface Water Monitoring ..................................................................... 7-4

2 7.2.5 Groundwater Monitoring ....................................................................... 7-5

3 7.3 Physiochemical Monitoring ................................................................................. 7-5

4 7.3.1 Wellfield Groundwater Monitoring ........................................................ 7-5

5 7.3.1.1 Background Groundwater Quality .......................................... 7-7

6 7.3.1.2 Excursion Monitoring .............................................................. 7-8

7 7.3.2 Wellfield and Pipeline Flow and Pressure Monitoring ........................ 7-10

8 7.3.3 Meteorological Monitoring .................................................................. 7-11

9 7.4 Ecological Monitoring ....................................................................................... 7-11

10 7.4.1 Vegetation Monitoring ........................................................................ 7-11

11 7.4.2 Wildlife Monitoring .............................................................................. 7-11

12 7.5 References ....................................................................................................... 7-12

13 8 COST-BENEFITS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 8-1

14 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8-1

15 8.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .......................................................................... 8-1

16 8.2.1 Benefits of the Proposed Action ........................................................... 8-1

17 8.2.2 Benefits from Uranium Production ....................................................... 8-3

18 8.2.3 Costs to the Local Communities ........................................................... 8-3

19 8.3 Evaluation of Findings of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ...................... 8-4

20 8.4 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) .................................................................. 8-5

21 8.5 References ......................................................................................................... 8-6

22 9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................... 9-1

23 9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................................................ 9-14

24 9.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) ................................................................ 9-15

25 9.3 References ....................................................................................................... 9-15

26 10 LIST OF PREPARES ................................................................................................... 10-1

27 10.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors ......................................... 10-1

10.2 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA® 28 ) Contributors ........ 10-1

29 10.3 CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors ........................................................ 10-2

30 11 DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................................... 11-1

31 11.1 Federal Agency Officials .................................................................................. 11-1

32 11.2 Tribal Government Officials .............................................................................. 11-1

33 11.3 State Agency Officials ...................................................................................... 11-3

34 11.4 Local Agency Officials ...................................................................................... 11-4

35 11.5 Other Organizations and Individuals ................................................................ 11-4

36 APPENDIX A—CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 

37 APPENDIX B—ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS 

38 APPENDIX C—NONRADIOLOGICAL AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING 

39 DOCUMENTATION
1 
xiii 

FIGURES 

1 Figure Page 

2 1-1 Location of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ........................................................ 1-2 

3 2-1 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Schedule ................................................................ 2-3 

4 2-2 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project General Location Map ............................................ 2-4 

5 2-3 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Boundary ................................................................ 2-5 

6 2-4 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project CPP Facility Layout ................................................ 2-8 

7 2-5 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Wellfield Layout .............................. 2-10 

8 2-6 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Monitoring Wells Layout ................. 2-14 

9 2-7 Schematic of Typical Production, Injection, and Monitoring Wellhead Construction .... 2-17 

10 2-8 Location of Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Wells ..................................................... 2-19 

11 2-9 Schematic of the Design of Class I Deep Disposal Well .............................................. 2-21 

12 2-10 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Flow Diagram ................................. 2-25 

13 3-1 Land Use and Residences Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

14 Project Area ................................................................................................................... 3-2 

15 3-2 Surface and Mineral Ownership for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ......... 3-4 

16 3-3 Existing CBM Infrastructure Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

17 Project Area ................................................................................................................... 3-7 

18 3-4 Oil and Gas Wells Within 16 km [10 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

19 Project Area ................................................................................................................... 3-9 

20 3-5 Transportation Corridor Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .............. 3-11 

21 3-6 Locations of Automated Traffic Counters ..................................................................... 3-12 

22 3-7 Geologic Map of the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District in the Powder River Basin 

23 Showing the Locations of Active ISR Projects ............................................................. 3-14 

24 3-8 Stratigraphic Section for the Powder River Basin ........................................................ 3-16 

25 3-9 Typical Geophysical Log .............................................................................................. 3-19

26 3-10 Structural Cross Section Trending Northwest-to-Southeast Across the Eastern 

27 Part of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area .................................................... 3-20 

28 3-11 Map Showing the Upper Belle Fourche River and Antelope Creek Drainage Basins 

29 in Relation to the Proposed Reno Creek Project and Subbasin Characteristics 

30 Used for the Watershed Hydrological Simulation ......................................................... 3-25 

31 3-12 Watersheds Within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region ................................... 3-26 

32 3-13 Map Showing the Modeled 100-Year Flood Inundation Boundary of the Upper 

33 Belle Fourche River Within the Proposed Reno Creek Project Area ........................... 3-27 

34 3-14 Map Showing Surface Water Sampling Locations Within the Proposed 

35 Reno Creek Project Area ............................................................................................. 3-29 

36 3-15 Regional Hydrostratigraphic Section for the Powder River Basin ................................ 3-32 

37 3-16 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section Locations ....... 3-37 

38 3-17 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, F-F' ............... 3-38 

39 3-18 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, G-G’ .............. 3-39 

40 3-19 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, H-H’ .............. 3-40 

41 3-20 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, I-I’ ................. 3-41 

42 3-21 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, J-J’ ................ 3-42 

43 3-22 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, K-K’ .............. 3-43 

44 3-23 Monitoring Wells and Existing Domestic and Stock Wells Used To Characterize 

45 Groundwater Quality Conditions and Establish Preoperational Baseline 

46 Groundwater Quality .................................................................................................... 3-45 
xiv 

1 3-24 Ecoregions of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region ........................................... 3-58 

2 3-25 Baseline Vegetation Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 

3 0.8-km [0.5-mi] Buffer ................................................................................................... 3-62

4 3-26 Wildlife Habitat at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ................................... 3-66 

5 3-27 Meteorological Stations in the Vicinity of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ........ 3-82 

6 3-28 Baseline Year Wind Rose at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project........................... 3-83 

7 3-29 Antelope Mine Baseline and 25-Year Wind Roses ............................................................. 

8 4-1 Map of Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Facilities and Vegetation Communities .... 4-51 

9 4-2 Map of Raptor Nest and Sage-Grouse Lek Locations and Proposed Facilities in 

10 the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ................................................................ 4-57 

11 4-3 Map of Wetland Locations in the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 

12 Proposed Facilities ....................................................................................................... 4-65 

13 5-1 Potential and Existing Uranium Milling and Mining Sites Within 80 km [50 mi] of the 

14 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................................................................................ 5-6 

15 7-1 Locations of Operational Air Monitoring Stations at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

16 Project Area .................................................................................................................. 7-3 

17 7-2 Locations of Groundwater Monitoring Wells for the Proposed Reno Creek 

18 ISR Project ..................................................................................................................... 7-6
xv 

TABLES 

1 Table Page 

2 1-1 In Situ Leach Generic Environmental Impact Statement Range of Expected 

3 Impacts in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region................................................... 1-3 

4 1-2 Environmental Approvals for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .......................... 1-10 

5 2-1 Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for Fugitive Dust Associated 

6 with the Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 2-35 

7 2-2 Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for Various Pollutants from 

8 Mobile Source Combustion Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action ............. 2-35 

9 2-3 Estimated Peak Year Emission Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* Per Year) for 

10 Various National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutants from All Sources for the 

11 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 2-37 

12 2-4 Estimated Mass Flow Rates* (Metric Tons† per Year) for Various Pollutants from 

13 Stationary Source Combustion Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action ........ 2-37 

14 2-5 Estimated Amount (Metric Tons*) of Carbon Dioxide† Emissions for the Peak 

15 Year from All Sources .................................................................................................. 2-38 

16 2-6 Estimated Daily Vehicle Round-Trips for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR* Project ...... 2-44 

17 2-7 Comparison of Other Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options with the Proposed 

18 Class I Deep Disposal Well .......................................................................................... 2-47 

19 2-8 Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................................. 2-60 

20 3-1 Residences Within the Proposed Reno Creek Project Area and an 8.0-km [5-mi] 

21 Radius of the Proposed Project Boundary ..................................................................... 3-3 

22 3-2 Distribution of Surface and Mineral Ownership Within the Proposed Reno Creek 

23 ISR Project Area ............................................................................................................ 3-5 

24 3-3 Land Use Inside and Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ........... 3-5 

25 3-4 Licensed and Proposed ISR Projects Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed 

26 Reno Creek ISR Project Area ........................................................................................ 3-8 

27 3-5 Producing Oil and Gas Fields Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

28 Project Area ................................................................................................................. 3-10 

29 3-6 2014 and Projected Annual Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the Proposed 

30 Reno Creek ISR Project ............................................................................................... 3-13 

31 3-7 Soil Mapping Unit Area, Soil Salvage Depth, and Erosion Hazard .............................. 3-23 

32 3-8 Surface Water Quality at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................................ 3-30 

33 3-9 Wetland Types Found in the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ........................ 3-31 

34 3-10 TDS Concentrations in Upper Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary Aquifers in the 

35 Powder River Basin* .................................................................................................... 3-48 

36 3-11 Parameters Exceeding EPA MCLs, EPA SMCLs, and WDEQ Class of Use 

37 Standards* in Wells Used to Establish Preoperational Groundwater Quality............... 3-50 

38 3-12 Plant Communities at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 0.8-km 

39 [0.5 mi] Buffer During 2010 and 2011 Baseline Vegetation Surveys ........................... 3-60 

40 3-13 Species Diversity by Vegetation Type Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

41 Project Area During Baseline Vegetation Surveys ....................................................... 3-60 

42 3-14 Wildlife Species Observed During Baseline Wildlife Surveys for the Proposed 

43 Reno Creek Project ISR Project Area and 1.6-km [1-mi] Buffer ................................... 3-64 

44 3-15 Wildlife Species of Concern in Campbell County and Within the Proposed 

45 Reno Creek ISR Project Area ...................................................................................... 3-69 

3-16 Onsite and Regional Temperature Information* in Degrees Celsius† 46 .......................... 3-81 
xvi 

1 3-17 Assumed Ambient Air Quality Conditions for the Proposed Project Area .................... 3-85 

2 3-18 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ....................................................... 3-87 

3 3-19 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Classes I and II Standards .............................. 3-88 

4 3-20 Noise Abatement Criteria: 1-Hour, A-Weighted Sound Levels in Decibels (dBA) ....... 3-91 

5 3-21 List of Previously Identified Archaeological Sites and Isolates within the Proposed 

6 Project Area Determined Not Eligible for Listing in the National Register of 

7 Historic Places ............................................................................................................. 3-98 

8 3-22 List of Newly Identified (and Updated) Archaeological Sites and Isolates within 

9 the Proposed Project Area Determined Not Eligible for Listing in the National 

10 Register of Historic Places ......................................................................................... 3-101 

11 3-23 Summary of Tribal Cultural Survey New Site/Feature Discoveries ............................ 3-105 

12 3-24 Scenic Quality Evaluation Rating ............................................................................... 3-109 

13 3-25 Communities Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area ................... 3-110 

14 3-26 2000–2010 Population Change and 2020/2030 Populations Projections for 

15 Counties and Communities Within the ROI ................................................................ 3-111 

16 3-27 Demographic Profile of the 2010 Population in Counties Within the ROI .................. 3-111 

17 3-28 2008–2012 Income Information for Counties Within the ROI ..................................... 3-112 

18 3-29 2010 Housing Units of Counties and Communities Within the ROI ........................... 3-112 

19 3-30 County Public School Districts Located Within the ROI ............................................. 3-114 

20 3-31 Hospitals, Clinics, and Health Services in Campbell, Johnson, and 

21 Natrona Counties ....................................................................................................... 3-115 

22 3-32 Police, Fire Department, and Ambulance Services in Campbell, Johnson, and 

23 Natrona Counties ....................................................................................................... 3-116 

24 3-33 Surface Soil Baseline Radiological Sampling Results (pCi/g) .................................... 3-118 

25 3-34 Subsurface Soil Baseline Radiological Sampling Results (pCi/g) .............................. 3-119 

26 3-35 Total Recordable Incidence Rates and Total Lost-Time Incidents for the 

27 Category “Other Metal Ore Mining”* .......................................................................... 3-125 

28 4-1 Estimated Land Disturbance (Alternative 1) ................................................................... 4-3 

29 4-2 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the 

30 Construction Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .................................... 4-11 

31 4-3 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the 

32 Construction Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .................................... 4-13 

33 4-4 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the Operations 

34 Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ......................................................... 4-16 

35 4-5 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the Aquifer 

36 Restoration Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ...................................... 4-18 

37 4-6 Disturbed Land by Vegetation and Other Land Cover Types for the Proposed 

38 Reno Creek ISR Project During Construction .............................................................. 4-50 

39 4-7 Disturbed Land by Vegetation and Other Land Cover Types for the Proposed 

40 Reno Creek ISR Project During Construction .............................................................. 4-59 

41 4-8 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 

42 Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project Compared to the National 

43 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ..................................................................... 4-79 

44 4-9 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 

45 Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project Compared to the Prevention 

46 of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments ............................................................. 4-80 

47 4-10 Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for the 100 Percent Activity 

48 Levels for Individual Phases from All Emission Sources for the Proposed 

49 Reno Creek ISR Project ............................................................................................... 4-84 
xvii 

1 4-11 Percentage of Emission Levels from the 100 Percent Activity Levels for the Various 

2 Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the Peak Year Emission Levels ......... 4-85 

3 4-12 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 

4 Sources for Various Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the NAAQS ........ 4-85 

5 4-13 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 

6 Sources for Various Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the 

7 PSD Increments ........................................................................................................... 4-86

8 4-14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National Register of 

9 Historic Places (NRHP) Eligibility and Impact Analysis for Previously Recorded 

10 Archaeological Sites and Isolates, and Newly Recorded Tribal Sites and Isolates 

11 Identified During the Tribal Cultural Survey ............................................................... 4-101 

12 4-15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National Register 

13 of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligibility and Impact Analysis for Historic Properties 

14 Included in the Visual Impacts Analysis ..................................................................... 4-103 

15 4-16 Percentage of Population Living in Poverty and Percentage Minority 

16 Population 2010 to 2014 5-Year Estimate ................................................................. 4-120 

17 4-17 Generic Accident Dose Analysis for ISR Operations ................................................. 4-128 

 

18 5-1 Past, Existing, and Potential Uranium Recovery Sites Within 80 km [50 mi] of the 

19 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................................................................................ 5-4 

20 5-2 Coal Mines Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project .................. 5-8 

21 5-3 Draft and Final National Environmental Policy Act Documents Related to the 

22 Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region ........................................................................ 5-12 

23 5-4 Potential Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources........................................ 5-14 

24 5-5 2000–2010 Population Change and 2020/2030 Populations Projections 

25 for Counties Within the Geographic Boundary for the Cumulative 

26 Population Analysis ...................................................................................................... 5-54

27 6-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC ..................................................... 6-3 

28 6-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC.............................................. 6-13 

29 7-1 Background Water Quality Parameters and Indicators for Operational 

30 Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................................. 7-7 

31 8-1 Towns Near the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ...................................................... 8-4 

32 8-2 Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ................... 8-5 

33 9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project ........................................ 9-2 

xix 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

2 BACKGROUND 

3 By letter dated October 3, 2012, AUC submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

4 Commission (NRC) for a new source and byproduct materials license (hereafter referred 

5 to as an “NRC license”) for the Reno Creek In Situ Uranium Recovery Project, located in 

6 Campbell County, Wyoming. The applicant is proposing to recover uranium using the in situ 

7 leach (ISL) [also known as in situ recovery (ISR)] process. The proposed Reno Creek ISR 

8 Project would include processing facilities and sequentially developed wellfields. Proposed 

9 facilities would include a central processing plant, wellfields, Class I deep disposal wells for 

10 disposal of liquid wastes, and the attendant infrastructure (e.g., pipelines and access roads). 

11 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

12 Control Act of 1978, authorizes the NRC to issue licenses for the possession and use of source 

13 material and byproduct material. These statutes require the NRC to license facilities, including 

14 ISR operations, in accordance with the NRC’s regulatory requirements, which protect public 

15 health and safety and the environment. Under the NRC environmental protection regulations in 

16 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 CFR Part 51, which implement the 

17 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), preparation of an environmental impact 

18 statement (EIS) or supplement to an EIS is required for issuance of a license to possess and 

19 use source material and byproduct material for uranium milling [10 CFR 51.20(b)(8)]. 

20 In May 2009, the NRC staff issued NUREG–1910, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

21 for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (herein referred to as the GEIS) (NRC, 2009). In the 

22 GEIS, the NRC assessed the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operations, 

23 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility located in four specified geographic 

24 regions of the western United States. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located 

25 within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region identified in the GEIS. The GEIS provides a 

26 starting point for the NRC’s site-specific NEPA analysis for new ISR license applications, as well 

27 as for applications that amend or renew existing ISR licenses. This draft Supplemental EIS 

28 (SEIS) incorporates by reference information from the GEIS and also uses information from the 

29 applicant’s license application and other independent sources to fulfill the requirements set forth 

30 in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8). 

31 This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 

32 effects of the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2), and 

33 mitigation measures to either reduce or avoid adverse effects. It also includes the NRC staff’s 

34 recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

35 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

36 The NRC regulates uranium milling, including the ISR process, under 10 CFR Part 40, 

37 “Domestic Licensing of Source Material.” AUC is seeking an NRC license to authorize 

38 commercial-scale in situ uranium recovery at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The 

39 purpose and need for the proposed federal action is to provide an option that allows the 

40 applicant to recover uranium and produce yellowcake within the proposed project area. 

41 Yellowcake is the uranium oxide product of the ISR milling process that is used to produce 

42 various products, including fuel for commercially operated nuclear power reactors. 
xx 

1 This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission’s recognition that, unless there are 

2 findings in the safety review required by the AEA, as amended, or findings in the NEPA 

3 environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license application, the NRC has no 

4 role in a company’s business decision to submit a license application to operate an ISR facility 

5 at a particular location. 

6 THE PROJECT AREA 

7 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in Campbell County, Wyoming, within 

8 the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District. The proposed project area would be located between the 

9 communities of Wright, Edgerton, and Gillette. The total land area of the proposed Reno Creek 

10 ISR Project is 2,451 hectares (ha) [6,057 acres (ac)] of mostly private land. Approximately 

11 2,192 ha [5,417 ac] is privately owned land and 259 ha [640 ac] is State of Wyoming owned 

12 land. The subsurface mineral rights are owned by the federal and state governments and 

13 various private entities. 

14 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would consist of processing facilities and sequentially 

15 developed wellfields. Planned facilities associated with the proposed project include buildings 

16 associated with a central processing plant; wellfields and their associated infrastructure 

17 (e.g., wells, header houses, and pipelines); Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

18 (WDEQ)-permitted Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I deep disposal wells for disposal 

19 of liquid wastes; and access roads. The applicant estimated that the land surface area that 

20 would be affected by proposed ISR operations would be approximately 62 ha [154 ac] 

21 (excluding wellfields). 

22 IN SITU RECOVERY PROCESS 

23 During the ISR process, an oxidant-charged solution, called a lixiviant, is injected into the 

24 production zone aquifer (uranium orebody) through injection wells. Typically, a lixiviant 

25 uses native groundwater (from the production zone aquifer), carbon dioxide, and sodium 

26 carbonate/bicarbonate, with an oxygen or hydrogen peroxide oxidant. As the lixiviant circulates 

27 through the production zone, it oxidizes and dissolves the mineralized uranium, which is present 

28 in a reduced chemical state. The resulting uranium-rich solution is drawn to production wells 

29 (i.e., recovery wells) by pumping and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of 

30 pipelines, which may be buried just below the ground surface. At the processing facility, the 

31 uranium is removed from solution (typically via ion exchange). The resulting barren solution is 

32 then recharged with the oxidant and reinjected to recover more uranium. 

33 During production, the uranium recovery solution continually moves through the aquifer from 

34 injection wells to production wells. These wells can be arranged in a variety of geometric 

35 patterns depending on the location and orientation of the orebody, aquifer permeability, and 

36 operator preference. Wellfields are typically designed in a five-spot or seven-spot pattern, with 

37 each production well located inside a ring of injection wells (AUC proposes to use a five-spot 

38 pattern). Monitoring wells are installed in the production zone aquifer and surround the wellfield 

39 pattern area. Monitoring wells are screened (i.e., open to allow water to enter) in the 

40 appropriate stratigraphic horizon to detect the potential migration of lixiviant away from the 

41 production zone. Monitoring wells are also installed in the overlying and underlying aquifers to 

42 detect the potential vertical migration of lixiviant outside the production zone. The uranium that 

43 is recovered from the solution is processed, dried into yellowcake, packaged into NRC- and 

44 U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)-approved 208 L [55 gal] steel drums, and trucked 

45 offsite to a licensed conversion facility. 
xxi 

1 A UIC program regulates the design, construction, testing, operations, and closure of disposal 

2 wells at ISR facilities. Before ISR operations begin, the portion of the aquifer(s) designated for 

3 uranium recovery must be exempted from the underground source of drinking water (USDW) 

4 designation, in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Once production is 

5 complete, the production zone groundwater is restored to NRC-approved groundwater 

6 protection standards, which are protective of the surrounding groundwater. The site is 

7 decommissioned according to an NRC-approved decommissioning plan and in accordance with 

8 NRC-approved standards. Once decommissioning is approved, the site may be released for 

9 public use. 

10 ALTERNATIVES 

11 The NRC environmental review regulations that implement NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51 require the 

12 NRC to consider reasonable alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2), to a 

13 Proposed Action (Alternative 1). The alternatives are evaluated with regard to the four phases 

14 of a uranium-recovery operation: construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

15 decommissioning. The alternatives have been established based on the purpose and need 

16 statement described in draft SEIS Section 1.3. Under the No-Action Alternative, the applicant 

17 would not construct and operate an ISR facility within the proposed project area. Other 

18 alternatives considered at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project but eliminated from detailed 

19 analysis include conventional mining and milling, conventional mining and heap leach 

20 processing, alternative lixiviants, alternative site locations, and alternative well completion 

21 methods. These alternatives were eliminated from detailed study because they either would not 

22 meet the purpose and need of the proposed project or would cause greater environmental 

23 impacts than the proposed action. This draft SEIS also discusses alternative wastewater 

24 disposal options (e.g., evaporation ponds and Class V wells) that were not included in the 

25 license application. 

26 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

27 This draft SEIS includes the NRC staff analysis that considers and weighs the environmental 

28 impacts from the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of ISR 

29 operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and for the No-Action Alternative. This 

30 draft SEIS also describes mitigation measures for the reduction or avoidance of potential 

31 adverse impacts that (i) the applicant has committed to in its NRC license application, (ii) would 

32 be required under other federal and state permits or processes, or (iii) are additional measures 

33 the NRC staff identified as having the potential to reduce environmental impacts but that the 

34 applicant did not commit to in its application. The draft SEIS uses the assessments and 

35 conclusions reached in the GEIS in combination with site-specific information to assess and 

36 categorize impacts. 

37 As discussed in the GEIS and consistent with NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003), the significance of 

38 potential environmental impacts is categorized as follows: 

39 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will 

40 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

41 MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not 

42 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 
xxii 

1 LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

2 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

3 Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS provides the NRC evaluation of the potential environmental impacts 

4 from the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed 

5 Reno Creek ISR Project. The significance of impacts from the ISR facility lifecycle is listed next, 

6 followed by a summary of impacts by environmental resource area and ISR phase. 

7 Impacts by Resource Area and ISR Facility Phase 

8 Land Use 

9 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. If Class I deep disposal wells were used to dispose of 

10 liquid wastes, approximately 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] of the proposed project area would be disturbed 

11 by the construction phase. Topsoil would be stripped and stockpiled to build surface facilities, 

12 develop the initial wellfields and the attendant infrastructure, and construct access roads. 

13 Livestock grazing and recreational activities would be excluded from fenced areas surrounding 

14 the central processing plant and wellfields. Existing wells, including 46 producing coalbed 

15 methane (CBM) wells and 2 producing oil wells, are not anticipated to be affected by 

16 construction activities. Construction activities are anticipated to take 1 to 2 years. 

17 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Land use impacts during the operations phase would 

18 be limited to the wellfields and would be similar to or less than those during the construction 

19 phase. Wellfields would be sequentially developed resulting in the disturbance of approximately 

20 187 ha [461 ac]. Land disturbance and access restrictions would result from drilling new wells 

21 and constructing additional header houses and pipelines. Livestock grazing and recreational 

22 activities would continue to be restricted from the central processing plant, surface 

23 impoundments, and wellfields. After approximately 1 to 2 years of site development and facility 

24 construction, there would be 11 years of wellfield and uranium recovery operations. 

25 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Land use impacts would be similar to or less 

26 than those described for the operations phase. Land use impacts would decrease as fewer 

27 wells and pump houses are used and overall equipment traffic and use diminish. Access to 

28 wellfields and surface facilities would continue to be restricted. No additional land would be 

29 disturbed to construct facilities. Aquifer restoration activities would continue for 11 years. 

30 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Land use impacts during the decommissioning 

31 phase would be similar to those experienced during the construction phase. Decommissioning 

32 the buildings, wellfields, storage ponds, and access roads and removing potentially 

33 contaminated soil would result in a temporary, short-term (1 year) increase in land-disturbing 

34 activities. Upon completion of the plugging and abandonment of wells, the soil would be 

35 returned to areas in the wellfield where it had been removed and reseeded. Vegetation would 

36 become reestablished in reclaimed areas and the land would be returned to a condition that can 

37 support a variety of land uses. Decommissioning activities would continue for 8 years due to 

38 the phased approach of wellfield reclamation. 

39 Transportation 

40 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The proposed traffic from construction activities, if 

41 allocated completely to the individual road segments, would noticeably increase the existing 

42 traffic on State Highway 387, but would not substantially increase traffic on more heavily 
xxiii 

1 traveled road segments, such as State Highway 59 traveling from Gillette to Wright. Traffic on 

2 State Highway 387 is projected to increase by 8 percent, and truck traffic was projected to 

3 increase 1.1 percent. Combined auto and truck traffic on State Highway 59 was projected to 

4 increase by 2.1 percent north of Wright and by 1.7 percent south of Gillette. Considering (i) the 

5 limited duration of construction activities (1 to 2 years), (ii) the mitigation measures to reduce 

6 traffic impacts, and (iii) the relatively short segments of roads that would be impacted by traffic 

7 accessing the proposed project area, the NRC staff conclude that the increase in traffic volumes 

8 to the local county road system during construction would result in SMALL impacts. 

9 Additionally, based on the available capacity on the state highway road system in Campbell 

10 County, the NRC staff conclude that the potential traffic impacts to the state highway road 

11 system providing access to the proposed project area from nearby communities would 

12 be SMALL. 

13 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. The increase in traffic volumes would result in SMALL 

14 impacts to the local county road system and state highway road system servicing the proposed 

15 Reno Creek ISR Project. Commuting worker vehicles constitute the majority of road traffic for 

16 the operations phase. Additional truck shipments of byproduct material, processing chemicals, 

17 etc., would also slightly add to the traffic volume assessed during the construction phase. 

18 However, the two phases are comparable with less than 1 percent increase in auto traffic and 

19 less than 2 percent in truck traffic when compared to the construction phase. The potential 

20 radiological accident risk associated with yellowcake product shipments during the operations 

21 phase would be SMALL. Transport companies would have standing contracts with 

22 environmental emergency response contractors for spill cleanup. In addition, the applicant 

23 would develop a communication and emergency response plan with state and local authorities 

24 for all transport and emergency conditions (AUC, 2012). The NRC staff conclude that the 

25 consequences of such accidents would also be limited because the applicant has committed to 

26 develop emergency response and standard operating procedures (AUC, 2012, 2014) for 

27 yellowcake and other transportation accidents that could occur during shipment to or from the 

28 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The applicant also proposes to ensure its personnel and the 

29 carrier receive training on these emergency response procedures and that information about the 

30 procedures is provided to state and local agencies (AUC, 2012, 2014). Based on the low 

31 radiological risks from transportation accidents and the implementation of the applicant’s 

32 additional safety practices, the overall impacts from the proposed transportation activities during 

33 the operations phase would be SMALL. 

34 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Transportation impacts would be less than 

35 those estimated for the construction and operations phases because the need to transport 

36 yellowcake product, hazardous materials, and uranium-loaded resins between units would 

37 decrease as aquifer restoration progressed. The decrease in the supply shipments, waste 

38 shipments, and employee commuting (because fewer workers will be involved) would reduce 

39 the potential for spills or leakage from accidents. 

40 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Transportation impacts would be less than those 

41 during the construction and operations phases because the transport of yellowcake product and 

42 processing chemicals would end during decommissioning. The applicant estimated the number 

43 of worker trips per day to the site would be six. In addition, the applicant estimated that two 

44 vehicles would travel to and from the proposed project area daily for commercial delivery and 

45 pickup (AUC, 2014). Access roads would either be reclaimed or left in place for future use. 

46 Waste shipments would increase temporarily, but would still represent a small contribution to 

47 daily traffic. Fewer workers would be employed, further reducing the potential transportation 

48 impact during this phase. 
xxiv 

1 Geology and Soils 

2 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Earthmoving activities associated with construction of 

3 the central processing plant, access roads, wellfields, and pipelines will include topsoil clearing 

4 and land grading. The applicant estimates that approximately 24.9 ha/m [202 ac/ft] of 

5 salvageable topsoil is present and would be removed within the 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] of potential 

6 land disturbance. Topsoil removed during these activities would be stored and reused later to 

7 restore disturbed areas. The limited areal extent of the construction area, the soil stockpiling 

8 procedures, the implementation of best management practices (BMPs), the short duration of the 

9 construction phase, and mitigative measures such as reestablishment of native vegetation 

10 would further minimize the potential impact on soils. 

11 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. The operations phase would not remove rock matrix or 

12 structure and would not dewater production zone aquifers. Therefore, no significant matrix 

13 compression or ground subsidence is expected. The occurrence of potential spills during 

14 transfer of uranium-bearing lixiviant would be mitigated by implementing onsite standard 

15 procedures and by complying with the NRC requirements for spill response and reporting of 

16 surface releases and cleanup of any contaminated soils. The WDEQ would determine the 

17 suitability of deep geologic formations for Class I deep disposal wells for liquid waste before 

18 issuing an UIC permit. 

19 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. During aquifer restoration, the processes of 

20 groundwater sweep and groundwater transfer would not remove rock matrix or structure. The 

21 formation groundwater pressure within the extraction zone would be decreased during 

22 restoration as groundwater is removed to ensure the direction of groundwater flow is into the 

23 wellfields to reduce the potential for lateral migration of constituents. However, the change in 

24 groundwater pressure would not result in collapse of overlying rock strata as it is supported by 

25 the rock matrix of the formation. The potential impact to soils from spills, leaks, and land 

26 application of treated wastewater will be comparable to that described for the operations phase. 

27 The NRC requirements for spill response and recovery and routine monitoring programs would 

28 also apply. 

29 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Disruption or displacement of soils would occur 

30 during dismantling of the facilities and reclamation of the land; however, the disturbed lands 

31 would be restored to their preextraction land use. Topsoil would be reclaimed and the surface 

32 regraded to the original topography. 

33 Surface Waters and Wetlands 

34 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The occurrence of surface water at the proposed 

35 Reno Creek site is limited, and surface water flow in channels is ephemeral. In addition, the 

36 applicant performed a wetland delineation survey and identified a total of 17.12 ha [42.23 ac] of 

37 wetlands consisting of eight wetland classes within the proposed project area. Because the 

38 applicant has committed to adopting measures to control erosion and sediment loading to 

39 surface water bodies, including implementation of stormwater BMPs (e.g., retention ponds) and 

40 compliance with state-issued permits, the NRC staff determine that impacts to surface water 

41 resources during the construction phase would be SMALL. Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 

42 Elimination System (WYPDES) permit issued by WDEQ would set limits to control the amount 

43 of pollutants that can enter surface water bodies. 
xxv 

1 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Because of the limited surface disturbances; low 

2 regional precipitation and minimal average seasonal runoff; installation of surface drainage 

3 features and spill containment structures; and implementation of BMPs (e.g. silt fencing), spill 

4 prevention, and control procedures, the NRC staff determine that the potential impact to surface 

5 water resources during operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL 

6 and would be further reduced by the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures. Additionally, 

7 processing facilities and chemical and fuel storage tanks would have secondary containment to 

8 contain potential spills. 

9 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to those during the 

10 operations phase because the same infrastructure would be used and the same activities would 

11 be conducted. The applicant’s WDEQ-approved WYPDES permit would be in place to mitigate 

12 impacts to surface water from erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. Aquifer restoration at the 

13 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would involve treatment by reverse osmosis methods, with 

14 the resulting effluent disposed of through Class I deep disposal wells. Additionally, land surface 

15 disturbances may occur, but these would be minimal in comparison to disturbances during the 

16 construction phase. Therefore, potential sediment loading to surface water bodies would be 

17 significantly less than that expected during construction. 

18 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. The impacts would be similar to those during the 

19 construction phase. Activities to clean-up, recontour, and reclaim the land surface during 

20 decommissioning would mitigate long-term impacts to surface water. The applicant’s 

21 WDEQ-approved WYPDES permit would be in place to mitigate impacts to surface water 

22 from erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. 

23 Groundwater 

24 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The primary impact to groundwater during the 

25 construction phase would be from the consumptive use of groundwater, introduction of drilling 

26 fluids into the environment during well installation, and from surface spills of fuels and 

27 lubricants. The applicant would be required to obtain water appropriation use permits from 

28 WDEQ and the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office prior to withdrawing water from aquifers. 

29 During well installation, drilling fluids (mud) would have the potential to impact surficial aquifers; 

30 however, all wells would undergo mechanical integrity tests of the casing and therefore ensure 

31 against well leakage prior to entering service. Impacts to groundwater from surface spills of 

32 fuels and lubricants would be mitigated by the applicant’s implementation of BMPs and by 

33 following a spill prevention program that would require an immediate cleanup response to 

34 prevent soil contamination or infiltration to groundwater. 

35 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. The operations phase may impact near-surface 

36 (alluvial) aquifers, production zone aquifers containing the orebodies and surrounding aquifers, 

37 and deep aquifers below the ore production zone used for the disposal of liquid wastes. 

38 Alluvial aquifers are separated from production zone and surrounding aquifers by aquitards 

39 (confining units) and, therefore, are not hydraulically connected to production zone and 

40 surrounding aquifers. In addition, the alluvial aquifers in the vicinity of the proposed project do 

41 not serve as a water supply for domestic use or livestock. The impacts from spills and leaks 

42 would be SMALL. The applicant’s leak detection and cleanup program would include rapid 

43 response and remediation to minimize impacts to soils and groundwater. 
xxvi 

1 The applicant would monitor all domestic and stock wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the wellfields 

2 every 3 months during operations and replace these wells in the event of significant drawdown 

3 or degradation of water quality. Water levels in affected wells would recover with time after ISR 

4 operations and aquifer restoration activities are complete. 

5 The applicant estimates that it would process 41,640 Lpm [11,000 gpm] of groundwater for 

6 uranium recovery operations. The establishment of an inward hydraulic gradient during wellfield 

7 operations along with the applicant-installed groundwater monitoring network to detect potential 

8 vertical and horizontal excursions would limit the potential for undetected lixiviant excursions 

9 that could degrade groundwater quality. Because the ore production zones are overlain and 

10 underlain by impermeable shale layers, this further ensures the hydraulic isolation of the ore 

11 production zones, which helps to limit potential groundwater contamination in surrounding 

12 aquifers. Because the applicant must initiate aquifer restoration in the production aquifers to 

13 return groundwater to Commission-approved background levels or to NRC-approved alternative 

14 water quality levels at the end of ISR operations, the NRC staff conclude that groundwater 

15 quality impacts to the production and surrounding aquifers as a result of ISR operations would 

16 be SMALL. Liquid wastes generated from operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

17 would be disposed via Class I deep disposal wells. The groundwater in deep formations 

18 targeted for Class I deep well disposal must not be a potential underground source of drinking 

19 water. The NRC would require the liquid waste pumped into Class I deep disposal wells to be 

20 treated and monitored to verify it meets the NRC release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, 

21 Subparts D and K. 

22 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Groundwater restoration would be initiated 

23 once a wellfield is no longer being used to produce uranium. Larger withdrawals would produce 

24 larger drawdowns in production aquifers during aquifer restoration, resulting in a greater impact 

25 on yields of nearby wells. As with operations, the applicant would monitor all domestic and 

26 stock wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the wellfields during aquifer restoration and replace these 

27 wells in the event of significant drawdown or degradation of water quality. Water levels in 

28 affected wells would recover to pre-operational levels in 1 year (on average) after ISR 

29 operations and aquifer restoration activities are complete. Natural recovery and the well 

30 monitoring measures established by the applicant would reduce impacts to nearby wells, 

31 ensuring the long-term environmental impact from consumptive use would be SMALL. 

32 During aquifer restoration, hydraulic control for the former production zone would be maintained; 

33 this would be accomplished by maintaining an inward hydraulic gradient through a production 

34 bleed. During aquifer restoration activities, water would be pumped from the wellfield (without 

35 reinjection), resulting in an influx of “fresh” groundwater into the affected (mined) portion of the 

36 aquifer. The applicant estimates that during aquifer restoration, the groundwater restoration 

37 flow rate will be 3,785 L/min [1,000 gpm] from the wellfields in the groundwater treatment stage 

38 and 189 L/min [50 gpm] in the groundwater sweep stage. Disposal of liquid wastes via Class I 

39 deep disposal wells would occur as described for ISR operations. The goal of aquifer 

40 restoration would be to restore groundwater quality in the ore production zone to 

41 Commission-approved background conditions under 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

42 Criterion 5B(5). If the aquifer cannot be restored to background conditions, then the NRC would 

43 require that either the production zone be returned to maximum contaminant levels in 

44 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Table 5C or to NRC-approved alternate concentration limits. 

45 Post-restoration groundwater quality would be protective of public health and the environment. 

46 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. The potential impact to groundwater quality 

47 during decommissioning and reclamation is comparable to that described in the construction 
xxvii 

1 phase. Groundwater consumptive use would be less than that of the operations and restoration 

2 phases. All monitoring and production wells would be plugged and abandoned in accordance 

3 with UIC program requirements. Wells would be filled with cement and clay to ensure 

4 groundwater does not flow through the abandoned wells. Abandoned wells would be properly 

5 isolated from the flow domain. The NRC would review and approve the wellfield restoration 

6 efforts to ensure that restoration standards were followed and public health and safety 

7 is protected. 

8 Ecological Resources 

9 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Construction disturbance under current development 

10 plans would require vegetative removal. Direct impacts from construction activities at the 

11 proposed project would include short-term loss of 54.28 ha [134.14 ac] of vegetation. Some 

12 habitat loss or alteration, displacement of wildlife, and mortality due to encounters with vehicles 

13 or heavy equipment would occur, though wildlife species would likely disperse from the area 

14 once construction commences. The applicant has committed to following recommended 

15 fencing and power line construction designs that would minimize impediments to game and 

16 avian movement. Mitigation would control the introduction and spread of undesirable and 

17 invasive, nonnative plants; reduce the likelihood of injury or mortality to wildlife. In addition, 

18 wetlands and ponds found in the proposed project area are seasonal in nature and do not 

19 provided a year-round source of surface water sufficient to maintain a population of aquatic 

20 species. Impacts to wildlife and habitat would be minimized with mitigation measures and the 

21 timely reseeding of disturbed areas following construction. Any trees with raptor nests would 

22 not be removed, and following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) seasonal noise, vehicular 

23 traffic, and human proximity guidelines would help to ensure the continued nesting success of 

24 area raptors. No federally threatened or endangered plant species or critical habitats are known 

25 to occur within the proposed project area. Impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered 

26 species would not noticeably affect species’ populations because wildlife surveys for the 

27 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project did not identified federally listed threatened or endangered 

28 species within the proposed project area or the 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer area around the proposed 

29 project area (AUC, 2012). 

30 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Ecological impacts due to noise, vehicles, structures, 

31 and the presence of humans would be similar to, but less than, those experienced during 

32 construction because fewer earthmoving activities would occur. The applicant would reseed 

33 disturbed areas with WDEQ-approved seed mixtures to restore habitat. Spill detection and 

34 response plans would reduce the potential impact to terrestrial and aquatic species. Fencing 

35 would further limit wildlife access to liquid waste holding ponds. Potential conflicts between 

36 active raptor nest sites and project-related activities would continue to be mitigated by annual 

37 raptor monitoring and mitigation plans. 

38 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to those experienced 

39 during the operations phase with no major differences in type or degree of impact. The existing 

40 infrastructure would be used during this phase, and mitigation measures would continue to 

41 apply from the construction and operations phases. 

42 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Temporary disturbances to land and soils during 

43 decommissioning could displace vegetation and wildlife species that had recolonized the 

44 proposed project area since initiation of ISR activities. Shrubland vegetative communities would 

45 be more difficult to reestablish and achieve full site recovery. The applicant commits to 

46 continuing vegetation reestablishment efforts throughout the ISR facility life cycle. However, 
xxviii 

1 new vegetative growth could be affected by future grazing, droughts, or intense winters, thus 

2 reducing the rate of plant productivity and delaying full recovery, Revegetation and recontouring 

3 would restore habitat previously altered during construction and operations. 

4 Air Quality 

5 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Air emissions during the construction phase of the 

6 proposed project would consist primarily of combustion emissions from drill rigs and fugitive 

7 road dust. The magnitude of the pollutant concentrations from the construction phase 

8 combustion emissions are below National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

9 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class II regulatory thresholds. This also holds true 

10 for the peak year pollutant emission levels. The peak year accounts for when all four phases 

11 occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emissions the proposed project 

12 would generate in any one project year. Fugitive dust emissions, the primary source for the 

13 particulate matter PM10, are spread out over a large area and tend to be generated sporadically. 

14 Due to the level and nature of these fugitive emissions, there is potential for intermittent impacts 

15 to localized areas in and around the proposed project area, particularly when vehicles travel on 

16 unpaved roads. 

17 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Fugitive dust emission pollutant levels would be less 

18 than those experienced during construction. ISR facilities are not major point source emitters of 

19 regulated pollutants. Combustion emissions in this phase are basically evenly divided between 

20 light duty vehicles and construction and field equipment. The combustion and fugitive dust 

21 emissions would be below NAAQS and PSD Class II regulatory thresholds. 

22 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Combustion emission and fugitive dust 

23 emission levels for the aquifer restoration phase are the lowest relative to the other three 

24 phases. For the aquifer restoration phase, combustion emissions are primarily from light duty 

25 vehicles and wind erosion can generate more fugitive dust emissions than travel on unpaved 

26 roads. The combustion and fugitive dust emissions would be below NAAQS and PSD Class II 

27 regulatory thresholds. 

28 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. The decommissioning phase pollutant sources 

29 and emission levels closely match those from the operations phase. Therefore, the 

30 decommissioning phase would produce the same impact magnitude as the operations phase. 

31 The combustion and fugitive dust emissions would be below NAAQS and PSD Class II 

32 regulatory thresholds. 

33 Noise 

34 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Increased traffic, as well as use of drill rigs, heavy 

35 trucks, bulldozers, and other equipment to construct and operate the wellfields, drill wells, 

36 access roads, and build the central processing facility, would generate noise audible above 

37 ambient (background) levels. The sound from construction activities would return to 

38 background levels at a distance of approximately 305 m [1,000 ft]. The closest occupied offsite 

39 residence is approximately 2.0 km [1.25 mi] southeast of the proposed project boundary and 

40 therefore would not be directly impacted by noise generated during the construction phase of 

41 the proposed project. Administrative and engineering controls would be expected to maintain 

42 noise levels in work areas below Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) 

43 regulatory limits and be mitigated by use of personal hearing protection. 
xxix 

1 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts from traffic-related noise would be similar to 

2 those during construction. Because wellfields would be developed and operated sequentially, 

3 potential noise impacts would be short term (1 to 2 years each for wellfields). Noise impacts 

4 would be mitigated by using sound abatement controls on operating equipment. The central 

5 processing plant would generate indoor noise audible to workers. OSHA regulatory limits would 

6 be maintained and mitigated by use of personal hearing protection. 

7 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Noise impacts would be similar to, or less than, 

8 those experienced during the operations phase. Pumps and other wellfield equipment 

9 contained in buildings would reduce the potential sound impact to an offsite individual. Because 

10 the aquifers in wellfields would be restored sequentially, potential noise impacts would be short 

11 term (1 to 2 years each for wellfields). The applicant has committed to reducing noise impacts 

12 by using sound abatement controls on operating equipment. Noise impacts from traffic would 

13 be SMALL because there would be fewer vehicular trips than during the operations phase. 

14 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Noise impacts would either be similar to, or less 

15 than, those experienced during the construction phase. Noise during this phase would be 

16 temporary, and when decommissioning and reclamation activities are complete, the noise levels 

17 would return to baseline. Noise impacts from traffic would be SMALL because there would be 

18 fewer shipments to and from the proposed project area as decommissioning progressed. 

19 Historic and Cultural Resources 

20 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. The NRC’s National Register of Historic Places 

21 (NRHP) eligibility determinations identified no historic properties in the proposed Reno Creek 

22 ISR Project area of potential effect. Therefore the construction phase would have no impact on 

23 known historic properties. Concurrence by some tribal governments and the Wyoming State 

24 Historic Preservation Office (WY SHPO) is currently pending. However, as recommended by 

25 the Northern Arapaho Tribe and the NRC staff, the applicant would implement a voluntary 

26 avoidance and construction monitoring plan to mitigate potential effects to a site. In addition, 

27 the NRC would require the use of an inadvertent discovery plan as a license condition to 

28 address the potential identification of previously unrecorded historic and cultural resources 

29 during ISR facility construction. If an inadvertent discovery of historical or cultural resources is 

30 made, then work should cease and all appropriate state, tribal, and federal parties must be 

31 contacted. Any discovered artifacts would be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 

32 36 CFR Part 800. 

33 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. During the operations phase, fewer impacts on historic 

34 and cultural resources are anticipated in comparison to the ISR facility construction phase due 

35 to a reduction in ground disturbances. A key difference between the two phases with regard to 

36 historic and cultural resources is that during operations, access restrictions are present around 

37 active production units, new wells, header houses, and pipelines that limit inadvertent 

38 disturbance of cultural properties. If an inadvertent discovery of historical or cultural resources 

39 is made, then work should cease and all appropriate state, tribal, and federal parties must be 

40 contacted. Any discovered artifacts would be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 

41 36 CFR Part 800. 

42 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts to historical and cultural resources 

43 during the aquifer restoration phase would be similar to operations. The anticipated impacts to 

44 historic and cultural resources associated with this phase would be equivalent to, or less than, 

45 those attributed to ISR facility operations. Moreover, potential ground-disturbing activities 
xxx 

1 occurring in this phase would likely be confined to areas having been disturbed through 

2 construction. The NRC’s NRHP eligibility determinations for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

3 Project found no sites listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. However, concurrence by 

4 some tribal governments and the WY SHPO is currently pending. Aquifer restoration 

5 associated with the proposed project would have no visual or auditory impact to historic 

6 properties. However, the NRC would require the use of an inadvertent discovery plan as a 

7 license condition to address the potential identification of previously unrecorded historic and 

8 cultural resources during the aquifer restoration phase. If an inadvertent discovery of historical 

9 or cultural resources is made, then work should cease and all appropriate state, tribal, and 

10 federal parties must be contacted. Any discovered artifacts would be inventoried and evaluated 

11 in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. 

12 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Decommissioning activities would be limited to 

13 previously disturbed areas within an ISR facility. Consequently, it is expected that impacts to 

14 any known historic or cultural properties which were inadvertently discovered during prior 

15 phases would have been mitigated prior to the decommissioning phase. The NRC’s NRHP 

16 eligibility determinations for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project found no sites listed in, or 

17 eligible for listing in, the NRHP. Therefore, no impacts to known historic or cultural resources 

18 are expected to occur during the decommissioning phase of the proposed Reno Creek 

19 ISR Project. 

20 Visual and Scenic Resources 

21 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. During facilities construction, short-term (1 to 2 years) 

22 visual and scenic impacts would result from construction equipment and fugitive dust emissions. 

23 Temporary and short-term visual impacts during the construction period in each wellfield 

24 would result from header house construction, well drilling, and construction of access roads 

25 and electrical distribution lines. The applicant has committed to using dust suppression and 

26 selecting building materials and paint that complement the natural environment, which would 

27 reduce overall visual and scenic impacts of project construction. 

28 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Visual impacts would be similar to, or less than, those 

29 experienced during construction. Less heavy machinery would be used, and standard dust 

30 control measures (e.g., water application and speed limits) would be implemented to reduce 

31 visual impacts from fugitive dust. Wellfields would be developed sequentially, and there would 

32 be no large expanse of land undergoing development at one time. The applicant has committed 

33 to painting buildings and other structures so that they blend in to the natural landscape, and 

34 burying power lines and pipelines where appropriate. 

35 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Visual impacts would be similar to, or less 

36 than, those experienced during the operations phase. Aquifer restoration activities would use 

37 in-place infrastructure; therefore, no modifications to either scenery or topography would occur. 

38 There would be less vehicular traffic, creating less of a visual impact. The applicant identified 

39 mitigation measures, such as dust suppression, which would be used to further reduce 

40 visual impacts. 

41 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Temporary impacts to the visual landscape 

42 would be comparable to those during the construction phase. Reclamation would return the 

43 visual landscape to baseline contours and would reduce the visual impact by removing buildings 

44 and the associated infrastructure. Implementation of applicant commitments regarding 
xxxi 

1 mitigation measures (e.g., dust suppression) would further reduce the visual impacts 

2 from decommissioning. 

3 Socioeconomics 

4 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Because of the small size of the construction 

5 workforce (80 workers) and because of the short duration of the ISR construction phase (1 to 

6 2 years), the overall potential socioeconomic impact, including the effects of ISR facility 

7 construction on demographic conditions, income, housing, employment rate, local finance, 

8 education, and health and social services, would be SMALL. 

9 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Because of the small size of the operations workforce 

10 (92 workers), the migration of workers and their families to nearby towns would have a SMALL 

11 impact on demographics. The impact on housing would be SMALL because of available 

12 housing in the immediate area surrounding the proposed ISR facility. Operation of the proposed 

13 Reno Creek ISR Project would create new jobs, but because of the small workforce size and 

14 because most skilled workers would be drawn from areas outside of the region of influence, 

15 impacts on employment would not be noticeable. The local economy would experience a 

16 SMALL beneficial impact from the purchasing of local goods and services and an increase in 

17 sales and income tax revenues. An increased demand for schools would have a SMALL impact 

18 on education because the current school systems are not at full capacity and can accommodate 

19 more students. Increased demand for health and social services would have a SMALL impact. 

20 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be less than those experienced 

21 during the operations phase. Fewer workers would be required, which would reduce demand 

22 on housing, education, and health and social services. 

23 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be less than those during the 

24 construction and operations phases because fewer workers would be required. Demand for 

25 housing, education, and health and social services would also be reduced. 

26 Environmental Justice 

27 All Phases: The percentage of minority populations living in affected block groups in the vicinity 

28 of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area in Campbell County Wyoming does not 

29 significantly exceed the percentage of minority populations recorded at the state and county 

30 level and is well below the national level. Furthermore, the percentage of low-income 

31 populations living in affected census tracts in the vicinity of the proposed project area does not 

32 significantly exceed the percentage of low-income populations recorded at the state or county 

33 level. Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and 

34 low-income populations from the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

35 decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

36 Public and Occupational Health 

37 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Construction activities, including the use of 

38 construction equipment and vehicles, would disturb the topsoil and create fugitive dust 

39 emissions. Fugitive dust generated from construction activities would be short term (1 to 

40 2 years), and the levels of radioactivity in soils at the proposed project area are low; therefore 

41 direct exposure, inhalation, and ingestion of fugitive dust would not result in a radiological dose 

42 to workers and the public. Construction equipment would be diesel powered and would exhaust 
xxxii 

1 particulate diesel emissions. The potential impacts and potential human exposures from these 

2 emissions would be SMALL, because of the short duration of the release and because the 

3 emissions would be readily dispersed into the atmosphere. 

4 Operations: The radiological impacts from normal operations would be SMALL. Public and 

5 occupational exposure rates at ISR facilities during normal operations have historically been 

6 well below regulatory limits. Dose assessments using the MILDOS computer code indicate that 

7 the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] would not be exceeded at the 

8 proposed project boundary. Within the proposed project area there are currently two occupants 

9 (Taffner Homestead) and six occupants live in the five residences outside the proposed project 

10 boundary. The Taffner Homestead is situated where the proposed central processing plant 

11 would be located, and the applicant has acquired the Taffner Homestead, and it would not be 

12 used as a residence. The Levitt residence would be the closest occupied offsite residence. The 

13 Levitt residence is approximately 2.0 km [1.25 mi] southeast of the proposed project boundary. 

14 The remote location of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and the use of the proposed ISR 

15 technology coupled with the applicant procedures to minimize exposure demonstrate that the 

16 potential impact on public and occupational health and safety from facility operation would be 

17 SMALL. The radiological impacts from accidents would be SMALL for workers (if the applicant’s 

18 radiation safety and incident response procedures in an NRC-approved radiation protection plan 

19 are followed) and SMALL for the public because of the facility’s remote location. The 

20 nonradiological public and occupational health and safety impacts from normal operations and 

21 accidents, due primarily to risk of chemical exposure, would be SMALL if handling and storage 

22 procedures are followed. 

23 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to, but less than, 

24 those during the operations phase. The reduction or elimination of some operational 

25 activities would further reduce the magnitude of potential worker and public health impacts 

26 and safety hazards. 

27 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. Impacts would be similar to those experienced 

28 during construction. Soil and facility structures would be decontaminated, and lands would be 

29 restored to preoperational conditions. 

30 Waste Management

31 Construction: Impacts would be SMALL. Small-scale and incremental wellfield development 

32 would generate small volumes of construction waste. Waste would primarily consist of building 

33 materials, piping, and other solid wastes. No byproduct material would be generated during 

34 construction. Nonhazardous solid waste would be disposed of at a nearby municipal solid 

35 waste landfill with available capacity to accommodate estimated construction-phase waste 

36 volumes. The applicant would obtain a WDEQ WYPDES permit to discharge well development 

37 water into mud pits adjacent to drilling pads. In addition, the applicant has stated that it would 

38 likely be classified as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator; and, as such, the 

39 applicant would transport its hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste facility 

40 for disposal. 

41 Operations: Impacts would be SMALL. Liquid byproduct material, including production bleed, 

42 waste brine streams from elution and precipitation, resin transfer wash, laundry water, plant 

43 wash-down water, and laboratory chemicals would be treated and disposed using Class I deep 

44 disposal wells. Class I deep disposal wells require a WDEQ permit, and wastes would have to 

45 meet permit conditions and the NRC discharge limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K 
xxxiii 

1 (both would limit potential impacts). Solids classified as byproduct material would be sent to a 

2 licensed facility for disposal. A preoperational agreement with a licensed facility to accept 

3 wastes the proposed project generates would avoid capacity impacts. Capacity is available for 

4 disposal of nonradiological, nonhazardous wastes at regional municipal landfills. Capacity 

5 would be sufficient for disposal of low volumes of generated hazardous wastes. 

6 Aquifer Restoration: Impacts would be SMALL based on the type and quantity of waste 

7 expected to be generated and the available capacity for disposal. Waste disposal procedures 

8 would be the same as those during the operations phase, resulting in similar impacts. The 

9 applicant proposal includes adequate disposal capacity, and the applicant is required to comply 

10 with WDEQ Class I deep disposal well permit conditions, and other NRC safety regulations. 

11 Although the wastewater volume could increase during aquifer restoration activities, this would 

12 be offset by the reduction in production capacity from completion of wellfield production and 

13 removal from service. 

14 Decommissioning: Impacts would be SMALL. A preoperational agreement with a licensed 

15 disposal facility to accept solid byproduct material would ensure that sufficient disposal capacity 

16 would be available at the time of decommissioning. Safe handling, storage, and disposal of 

17 decommissioning wastes would be described in a required decommissioning plan for the NRC 

18 review before decommissioning activities began. Equipment and building materials that meet 

19 release criteria would be reused, recycled, or disposed as construction waste at a landfill. The 

20 location of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project allows for both the Campbell County and 

21 Casper landfills to be feasible disposal options. However, the available local landfill capacity 

22 (Campbell County) alone may be insufficient to accommodate all decommissioning 

23 nonhazardous solid waste from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The potential impacts 

24 on waste management resources would depend on the long-term status of the existing local 

25 landfill resources. Therefore, the applicant has indicated that municipal waste would be 

26 disposed of initially at the Campbell County facility. Should the landfill capacity be reached, the 

27 applicant would then have the waste sent to the Casper landfill. The disposal of any waste from 

28 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project in either the Campbell County or Casper landfills would 

29 have a SMALL impact due to the projected operational life and available capacity of that landfill. 

30 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

31 Chapter 5 of this draft SEIS provides the NRC evaluation of potential cumulative impacts from 

32 the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed 

33 Reno Creek ISR Project considering other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

34 actions. Cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

35 were considered and evaluated in this draft SEIS, regardless of what agency (federal or 

36 nonfederal) or person undertook the action. The NRC staff determined that the SMALL impacts 

37 from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are not expected to contribute perceptible increases 

38 to the SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impacts, due primarily to ongoing uranium and oil and 

39 gas exploration activities, potential wind energy projects, and proposed infrastructure and 

40 transportation projects. Based on the currently available information and known flaws in the 

41 available information (BLM, 2015) regarding the far-field cumulative impacts on air quality , the 

42 NRC staff acknowledge the possibility that impacts to air quality from foreseeable future actions 

43 could be as much as LARGE. 
xxxiv 

1 SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

2 The proposed project would generate primarily regional and local costs and benefits. The 

3 regional benefits of building the proposed project would be increased employment, economic 

4 activity, and tax revenues in the region around the proposed site. Costs associated with the 

5 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are, for the most part, limited to the immediate area 

6 surrounding the proposed project area. The NRC staff determined the benefit from constructing 

7 and operating the facility would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. 

8 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

9 For the No-Action Alternative, the applicant would not construct or operate ISR facilities at the 

10 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. As a result, no uranium ore would be recovered from 

11 the proposed site. This alternative would result in neither positive nor negative impacts to any 

12 resource area. 

13 FINAL RECOMMENDATION 

14 After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and comparing to the No-Action Alternative, 

15 the NRC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its NEPA recommendation 

16 regarding the proposed action (granting the request for an NRC license for the proposed 

17 Reno Creek ISR Project). Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the NRC staff 

18 recommendation to the Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed 

19 action is that an NRC license be issued as requested. This recommendation is based on (i) the 

20 license application, including the ER and supplemental documents the applicant submitted and 

21 responses to the NRC staff requests for additional information; (ii) consultation with federal, 

22 state, tribal, and local agencies; (iii) the NRC staff independent review; and (v) the assessments 

23 summarized in this draft SEIS. 

24 References 

25 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. “Domestic Licensing 

26 of Source Material.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

27 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. “Environmental 

28 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

29 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

30 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

31 Environmental Report Round 1.” ML14169A450 and ML14169A449. Lakewood, Colorado: 

32 AUC LLC. 2014. 

33 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

34 Environmental Report.” ML12291A332 and ML12291A335. Lakewood, Colorado: 

35 AUC LLC. 2012. 

36 BLM. “Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

37 the Buffalo Field Office Planning Area.” Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2015. 

38 < http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/Planning/rmps/buffalo/docs.html> (18 Dec 2015). 
xxxv 

1 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

2 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

3 Commission. May 2009. 

4 NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 

5 NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 2003. 

xxxvii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ac acres 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

AERMOD atmospheric dispersion modeling system 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

ANSS Advance National Seismic System 

APE area of potential effect 

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

AUC AUC LLC 

AUMs animal unit months 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

BLC Board of Land Commissioners 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practices 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

CAB Commission-approved background 

CBM coalbed methane 

CEQ Council of Environmental Quality 

CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cm centimeters 

CPP central processing plant 

CWA Clear Water Act 

dBA decibels 

DM&E Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EMS emergency medical services 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ER environmental report 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

ft feet 

ft2

 square-foot 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 
xxxviii 

gal gallon 

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

GHG greenhouse gases 

GPS global positioning system 

GW groundwater 

HDPE high density polyethylene 

ha hectares 

IH Interstate Highway 

in inches 

IPaC Information Planning and Conservation 

ISL in situ leach 

ISR in situ recovery 

kg kilograms 

km kilometers 

kph kilometers per hour 

kV kilovolt 

L liter 

lb pounds 

Lpm liters per minute 

LQD Land Quality Division 

m meter 

m2

 square-meter 

m3

 cubic meters 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

mg milligram 

mi mile 

MIT mechanical integrity test 

mph mile per hour 

mrem millirem 

mSv millisievert 

MW megawatt 

ML Richter magnitude scale 

Mw moment magnitude 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAIP National Agricultural Imagery Program 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NLEB Northern long-eared bat 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 
xxxix 

OA Overlying Aquitard 

OM Unit Overlying Aquifer 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PEM Palustrine Emergent 

PMTF Permanent Mineral Trust Fund 

PPE personal protective equipment 

PRB Powder River Basin 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psi per square inch 

PVC polyvinyl chloride 

PZA Production Zone Aquifer 

RAC Restoration Action Plan 

RAI request for additional information 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RO reverse osmosis 

ROI region of influence 

ROW right-of-way 

RV recreational vehicle 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SER Safety Evaluation Report 

SERP Safety and Environmental Review Panel 

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

SH state highway 

SM Unit Shallow Water Table Unit 

SMCLs secondary maximum contaminant levels 

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

STB Surface Transportation Board 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

T ton 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

TR technical report 

TSS total suspended solids 

UA Underlying Aquitard 

UCL upper control limit 

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

UM Unit Underlying Unit 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 
xl 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USDW underground sources of drinking water 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WDAI Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDOE Wyoming Department of Education 

WDOR Wyoming Department of Revenue 

WDWS Wyoming Department of Workforce Services 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WIC Women, Infants, and Children 

wk week 

WOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WSEO Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

WSGS Wyoming State Geological Survey 

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation 

WYPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

WY SHPO Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

yd3

 cubic yards 

yr year 
xli 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

Approximate Conversions From SI Units 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

Length 

cm centimeters 0.39 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

Area 

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

cm2 square centimeters 0.155 square inches in2

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

Volume 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

m3 cubic meters 0.0008107 acre-feet ac-ft 

ha-m hectare-meters 8.107 acre-feet ac-ft 

Mass 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz 

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb 

t metric ton 1.103 short tons (2000 

lb) 

T 

Radiological Units 

Bq becquerels 27.03 picocuries pCi 

GBq gigabecquerels 0.027 curies Ci 

Sv sieverts 100 rems rem 

mSv millisieverts 100 millirems mrem 

Temperature (Exact Degrees) 

oC Celsius 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit °F 

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be performed to comply with 

Section 4 of ASTM E380 (ASTM International. “Standard for Metric Practice Guide.” West Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania: ASTM International. Revised 2003). 

1-1 

1 1 INTRODUCTION 

2 1.1 Background 

3 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this draft Supplemental 

4 Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in response to an application that AUC LLC (AUC, or 

5 the applicant) submitted on October 3, 2012, to develop and operate the proposed Reno Creek 

6 Uranium In Situ Recovery (ISR) Project (hereafter referred to as the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

7 Project), located in Campbell County, Wyoming (AUC, 2012). Draft SEIS Figure 1-1 shows the 

8 geographic location of the proposed project. This draft site-specific SEIS is a supplement to the 

9 Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities 

10 (hereafter referred to as the GEIS). This draft supplement was prepared in accordance with the 

11 process described in GEIS Section 1.8 (NRC, 2009) and as detailed in draft SEIS Section 1.4.1. 

12 The NRC’s Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, 

13 Safeguards, & Environmental Review) prepared this draft SEIS, as required by Title 10, Energy, 

14 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51. These regulations implement the 

15 requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (Public 

16 Law 91-190), which requires that the Federal Government assess the potential environmental 

17 impacts of major federal actions that may significantly affect the human environment. 

18 The GEIS (NRC, 2009) used the terms “in situ leach (ISL) process” and “11e.(2) byproduct 

19 material” to describe the uranium milling technology and the waste stream generated by the 

20 uranium recovery process, respectively. For the purposes of this draft SEIS, ISR is 

21 synonymous with ISL. To be consistent with the definition found in 10 CFR 40.4, this draft SEIS 

22 also uses the term “byproduct material” instead of “11e.(2) byproduct material” to describe the 

23 waste stream generated by this milling process. 

24 1.2 Proposed Federal Action 

25 On October 3, 2012, AUC submitted an application for an NRC source and material license 

26 (hereafter referred to as an “NRC license”) to construct and operate an ISR facility at the 

27 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area and to conduct aquifer restoration, site 

28 decommissioning, and site reclamation (AUC, 2012). Based on the AUC application, the NRC’s 

29 federal action is to either grant or deny the license. The applicant’s proposal is discussed in 

30 detail in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1. 

31 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

32 The NRC regulates uranium milling, including the ISR process, under 10 CFR Part 40, Domestic 

33 Licensing of Source Material. AUC is seeking an NRC license to authorize commercial-scale 

34 ISR at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. The purpose and need for the proposed 

35 federal action is to provide an option that allows the applicant to recover uranium and produce 

36 yellowcake at the proposed project area. Yellowcake is the uranium oxide product of the ISR 

37 milling process that is used to produce various products, including fuel for commercially 

38 operated nuclear power reactors. 

39 This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commission’s recognition that, unless there are 

40 findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, or 

41 findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead the NRC to reject a license 
1-2 

Figure 1-1. Location of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2014) 
1-3 

1 application, the NRC has no role in a company’s business decision to submit a license 

2 application to operate an ISR facility at a particular location. 

3 1.4 Scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

4 The NRC staff prepared this draft SEIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts 

5 (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts) of the proposed project and alternative to the 

6 proposed action. The scope of this draft SEIS considers both radiological and nonradiological 

7 (including chemical) impacts associated with the proposed action and its alternative. This draft 

8 SEIS also considers unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the relationship between 

9 short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable 

10 commitments of resources. 

11 1.4.1 Relationship to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

12 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 1.1, this draft SEIS supplements the GEIS, as published in 

13 May 2009. The final GEIS assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with the 

14 construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility that could 

15 be located in any of four specific geographic regions of the western United States. The 

16 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling 

17 Region, one of the regions considered in the GEIS. Draft SEIS Table 1-1 summarizes the 

18 expected environmental impacts by resource area in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, 

19 based on the GEIS analyses (NRC, 2009). 

Table 1-1. In Situ Leach Generic Environmental Impact Statement Range of Expected Impacts 

in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region 

Resource Area Construction Operations 

Aquifer 

Restoration Decommissioning 

Land Use S S S S to M

Transportation S to M S to M S to M S

Geology and Soils S S S S

Surface Water S S S S

Groundwater S S to L S to M S

Terrestrial Ecology S to M S S S

Aquatic Ecology S S S S

Threatened and 

Endangered Species S to L S S S

Air Quality S S S S

Noise S to M S to M S to M S to M

Historical and 

Cultural Resources S to L S to L S to L S to L

Visual and Scenic 

Resources S S S S 

Socioeconomics S to M S to M S to M S to M

Public Health and 

Safety S S to M S S

Waste Management S S S S

Source: NRC (2009)

S: SMALL Impact, M: MODERATE Impact, L: LARGE Impact
1-4 

1 Scoping provides an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to identify key issues and 

2 concerns they believe should be addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 

3 NRC staff consider the GEIS scoping process to be sufficient for the purposes of defining the 

4 scope of this draft SEIS. 

5 The NRC accepted public comments on the scope of the GEIS from July 24, 2007, to 

6 November 30, 2007, and held three public scoping meetings in Albuquerque and Gallup, 

7 New Mexico, and Casper, Wyoming, to aid in this effort. In addition, the NRC held eight public 

8 meetings to solicit comments on the draft GEIS after its publication in July 2008. Comments on 

9 the draft GEIS were accepted from July 28, 2008, until November 8, 2008. Public comments 

10 made during the scoping meetings and on the draft GEIS are available on the NRC website 

11 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html). The scoping summary report was provided in 

12 GEIS Appendix A, and GEIS Appendix G provides responses to public comments (NRC, 2009). 

13 This draft SEIS was prepared to fulfill the requirement in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8) and 43 CFR 3809 

14 to prepare either an EIS or supplement to an EIS for the issuance of an NRC license for an ISR 

15 facility (NRC, 2009). The GEIS provides a starting point for the NRC NEPA analyses for 

16 site-specific license applications for new ISR facilities, as well as applications to amend or 

17 renew existing ISR licenses. As discussed in the GEIS, the GEIS provides criteria for each 

18 environmental resource area to assess the significance level of impacts (i.e., SMALL, 

19 MODERATE, or LARGE). 

20 The NRC staff applied these criteria to the site-specific conditions at the proposed Reno Creek 

21 ISR Project. This draft SEIS tiers from or incorporates by reference the relevant GEIS 

22 information, findings, and conclusions concerning environmental impacts. The extent to which 

23 the NRC incorporates GEIS impact conclusions depends on the consistency between (i) the 

24 applicant’s proposed facility, activities, and conditions at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

25 and (ii) the general ISR facility description and activities in the GEIS and information or 

26 conclusions in the GEIS. The NRC determinations of potential environmental impacts and the 

27 discussion of which GEIS impact conclusions were incorporated by reference are discussed in 

28 draft SEIS Chapter 4. GEIS Section 1.8.3 describes the use of tiering and incorporation by 

29 reference in using the GEIS for environmental reviews of site-specific ISR license applications 

30 (NRC, 2009). 

31 1.4.2 Public Participation Activities 

32 As part of the preparation of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff met with federal, state, tribal, and 

33 local agencies and authorities in September 2013 during a site visit to the proposed Reno Creek 

34 ISR Project area (NRC, 2013a). The purpose of these meetings was to gather additional 

35 site-specific information to support the NRC staff’s environmental review and to help the staff 

36 determine consistency between site-specific and local information and corresponding 

37 information in the GEIS. As part of information gathering, the NRC staff also contacted 

38 potentially interested Native American tribes and local authorities, entities, and public interest 

39 groups in person, by email, and by telephone. Additionally, in August 2013, the NRC staff 

40 advertised in five newspapers near the proposed project area (the High Plains, the Moorcroft 

41 Leader, the Gillette News Record, the Casper Star Tribune, and the Sundance Times) soliciting 

42 public comments on the proposed project; no comments were received. 

43 The NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

44 Project license application in the Federal Register (FR) on August 5, 2013 (78 FR 47427). The 
1-5 

1 NRC did not receive any requests for hearings from stakeholders. The NRC also published a 

2 Notice of Intent to prepare this draft SEIS on August 21, 2013 (78 FR 51753). 

3 1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail 

4 To meet its NEPA obligations related to its review of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

5 license application, the NRC staff conducted an independent, detailed, and comprehensive 

6 evaluation of the potential environmental impacts from construction, operations, aquifer 

7 restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility at the proposed project area and from the 

8 No-Action Alternative. As discussed in GEIS Section 1.8.3, the GEIS (i) evaluated the types of 

9 environmental impacts that may occur from ISR facilities, (ii) identified and assessed generic 

10 impacts (the same or similar) at all ISR facilities (or those with unique facility or site 

11 characteristics), and (iii) identified the scope of environmental impacts that needed to be 

12 addressed in site-specific environmental reviews. Therefore, although all of the environmental 

13 resource areas identified in the GEIS would be addressed in site-specific reviews, certain 

14 resource areas would require a more detailed analysis, because the GEIS determined that a 

15 range in the significance of impacts (e.g., SMALL to MODERATE, SMALL to LARGE) could 

16 result, depending upon site-specific conditions (see draft SEIS Table 1-1). 

17 Based on the GEIS analysis, this draft SEIS provides a more detailed analysis of the following 

18 resource areas: 

19  Land use 

20  Transportation 

21  Geology and Soils 

22  Water Resources 

23 o Surface Water 

24 o Groundwater 

25  Ecology 

26 o Vegetation 

27 o Wildlife 

28 o Protected Species and Species of Concern 

29  Air Quality 

30  Noise 

31  Visual and Scenic Resources 

32  Historic and Cultural Resources 

33  Socioeconomics 

34  Public and Occupational Health and Safety 

35  Waste Management 
1-6 

1 In addition, site-specific analyses of cumulative impacts and environmental justice concerns that 

2 were not part of the GEIS are presented in this draft SEIS. The NRC also considers the effects 

3 the proposed project could have on global climate change; the analysis estimates the potential 

4 effect of the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions, based on a 10-year licensing period. 

5 1.4.4 Issues Outside the Scope of the SEIS 

6 Some issues and concerns raised during the public scoping process on the GEIS (NRC, 2009, 

7 Appendix A) were determined to be outside the scope of the GEIS. These issues and concerns 

8 (e.g., general support or opposition for uranium milling, impacts associated with conventional 

9 uranium milling, comments regarding the alternative sources of uranium feed material, 

10 comments regarding energy sources, requests for compensation for past mining impacts, and 

11 comments regarding the credibility of NRC) are also outside the scope of this draft SEIS. 

12 1.4.5 Related NEPA Reviews and Other Related Documents 

13 A number of NEPA documents were reviewed and used in the development of this draft SEIS. 

14 The related NEPA reviews are described next. 

15 NUREG–0706, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

16 (NRC, 1980). This EIS provided a detailed evaluation of the impacts and effects of anticipated 

17 conventional uranium milling operations in the United States through the year 2000, including 

18 analysis of tailings disposal programs. NUREG–0706 concluded that the environmental impacts 

19 of underground mining and conventional milling would be more severe than using ISR 

20 technology. As described in draft SEIS Section 2.2.1, conventional mining and milling were 

21 considered, but eliminated from the detailed analysis at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

22 [Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession 

23 Nos. ML032751663, ML0732751667, and ML032751669]. 

24 NUREG–1508, Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate the 

25 Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico (NRC, 1997). 

26 This EIS evaluated the use of ISR technology at the Church Rock and Crownpoint sites at 

27 Crownpoint, New Mexico. Alternative uranium mining methods were not evaluated, because 

28 the uranium ore located at the proposed sites was too deep to be extracted (i.e., mined) 

29 economically and the Final EIS concluded that underground mining would have more significant 

30 environmental impacts than ISR recovery (ADAMS Accession No. ML082170248). 

31 NUREG–1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

32 Facilities, Final Report (NRC, 2009). As previously discussed, this GEIS was prepared to 

33 assess the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operations, aquifer 

34 restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility located in any of four different geographic 

35 regions of the western United States, including the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region 

36 where the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located. The environmental analysis in 

37 this draft SEIS both tiers from and incorporates by reference the GEIS (ADAMS Accession No. 

38 Volume 1, ML091480244; Volume II, ML091480188). 

39 Environmental Impact Statement for the Moore Ranch ISR Project in Campbell County, 

40 Wyoming, Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 1), Final Report 

41 (NRC, 2010). The NRC prepared this SEIS as a supplement to the GEIS based on its review of 

42 an application from Energy Metals Corporation (now Uranium One) for an NRC license for the 
1-7 

1 licensed but not yet constructed Moore Ranch ISR Project, which, like the proposed 

2 Reno Creek ISR project, is located in Campbell County, Wyoming. The licensed but not yet 

3 constructed Moore Ranch ISR project would encompass 2,877 hectares (ha) [7,110 acres (ac)] 

4 of privately owned and State of Wyoming lands. However, Uranium One estimated that 

5 only 61 (ha) [150 ac] would be disturbed as a result of the project (ADAMS Accession 

6 No. ML102290470). 

7 Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Campbell and 

8 Johnson Counties, Wyoming, Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 2), 

9 Final Report (NRC, 2011a). The NRC prepared this SEIS as a supplement to the GEIS based 

10 on its review of an application from Uranerz Energy Corporation for an NRC license for the 

11 Nichols Ranch ISR Project, which is located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The 

12 Nichols Ranch ISR Project is currently operating and encompasses approximately 1,251 ha 

13 [3,091 ac] of privately owned land and approximately 113 ha [280 ac] of land managed by the 

14 U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The project consists of two noncontiguous mining 

15 units: the Nichols Ranch Unit would contain the central processing plant, and the Hank Unit 

16 would contain a satellite ion-exchange facility (ADAMS Accession No. ML103440120). 

17 Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost Creek ISR Project in Sweetwater County, 

18 Wyoming, Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 3), Final Report 

19 (NRC, 2011b). The NRC prepared this SEIS as a supplement to the GEIS based on its review 

20 of an application from Lost Creek ISR, LLC for an NRC license for the Lost Creek ISR Project 

21 located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The project is currently operating and covers 

22 approximately 1,708 ha [4,220 ac] with approximately 1,450 ha [3,583 ac] of federal owned, 

23 BLM-managed land and 259 ha [640 ac] of land owned by the State of Wyoming, Office of State 

24 Lands and Investment. Facilities associated with the project include a wellfield with production 

25 and monitoring wells; header houses; a central processing plant; an access road network; and 

26 pipeline system (ADAMS Accession No. ML11125A006). 

27 Environmental Impact Statement for the Dewey–Burdock ISR Project in Fall River and 

28 Custer Counties, South Dakota, Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 4), 

29 Final Report (NRC, 2014a). The NRC prepared this SEIS as a supplement to the GEIS based 

30 on its review of an application from Powertech (USA) Inc. for an NRC license for the licensed 

31 but not yet constructed Dewey–Burdock ISR Project located in Custer and Fall River Counties, 

32 South Dakota. The licensed but not yet constructed Dewey–Burdock ISR Project will consist of 

33 processing facilities and sequentially developed wellfields in two contiguous areas: the Burdock 

34 area and the Dewey area. The total land area of the licensed but not yet constructed 

35 Dewey–Burdock Project is 4,282 ha [10,580 ac]. Sections within the proposed project area 

36 are split estate, in which two or more parties own the surface and subsurface mineral rights. 

37 The surface rights are both publicly and privately owned. Approximately 4,185 ha [10,340 ac] 

38 of land is privately owned, and the remaining 97 ha [240 ac] of surface rights are owned by the 

39 U.S. Government and administered by BLM. The subsurface mineral rights are owned by 

40 various private entities and federally reserved by the U.S. Government (ADAMS Accession 

41 No. ML14024A477 and ML14024A478). 

42 Environmental Impact Statement for the Ross ISR Project in Crook County, Wyoming, 

43 Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 5), Final Report (NRC, 2014b). The 

44 NRC prepared this SEIS as a supplement to the GEIS based on its review of an application 

45 from Strata Energy, Inc. for an NRC license for the Ross ISR Project located in Crook County, 

46 Wyoming. The project is currently operating and covers approximately 696 ha [1,721 ac] with 
1-8 

1 approximately 16 ha [40 ac] of federally owned, BLM-managed land and 127 ha [314 ac] of land 

2 owned by the State of Wyoming. Subsurface mineral rights are owned by private entities, the 

3 State of Wyoming and federally reserved by the U.S. Government. (ADAMS Accession 

4 No. ML14056A096). 

5 1.5 Applicable Regulatory Requirements 

6 NEPA established national environmental policy and goals to protect, maintain, and enhance 

7 the environment and provided a process for implementing these specific goals for those federal 

8 agencies responsible for an action. This draft SEIS was prepared in accordance with the NRC’s 

9 NEPA-implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 and other applicable regulations that were in 

10 effect at the time the document was being written. The GEIS’s Appendix B summarized other 

11 federal statutes, implementing regulations, and executive orders that are potentially applicable 

12 to environmental reviews for the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

13 decommissioning of an ISR facility. GEIS Sections 1.6.3.1 and 1.7.5.1 summarize the State of 

14 Wyoming’s statutory authority pursuant to the ISR process, relevant state agencies that are 

15 involved in the permitting of an ISR facility, and the range of state permits that would be 

16 required (NRC, 2009). 

17 1.6 Licensing and Permitting 

18 The NRC has statutory authority through the AEA and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 

19 Act to regulate uranium ISR facilities. In addition to obtaining an NRC license, uranium ISR 

20 facilities must obtain the necessary permits from the appropriate federal, state, tribal, and local 

21 governmental agencies. The NRC licensing process for ISR facilities was described in GEIS 

22 Section 1.7.1. GEIS Sections 1.7.2 through 1.7.5 describe the role of the other federal, state, 

23 and tribal agencies in the ISR permitting process. Draft SEIS Sections 1.6.1 and 1.6.2 

24 summarize the status of the NRC licensing process at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

25 site and the status of the applicant permitting, with respect to other applicable federal, tribal, and 

26 state requirements. 

27 1.6.1 NRC Licensing Process 

28 By letter dated October 3, 2012, the applicant submitted a license application to NRC for the 

29 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2012). As discussed in GEIS Section 1.7.1, the NRC 

30 initially conducts an acceptance review of a license application to determine whether the 

31 application is complete enough to support a detailed technical review. The NRC staff accepted 

32 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project license application for detailed technical review by letter 

33 dated June 18, 2013 (NRC, 2013b). 

34 The NRC staff’s detailed technical review of AUC’s license application is composed of both a 

35 safety review and an environmental review. These two reviews are conducted in parallel 

36 (see GEIS, Figure 1.7-1). The focus of the safety review is to assess compliance with the 

37 applicable regulatory requirements at 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. 

38 The environmental review has been conducted in accordance with the regulations at 

39 10 CFR Part 51. 

40 The NRC’s hearing process (10 CFR Part 2) applies to licensing actions and offers stakeholders 

41 a separate opportunity to raise concerns associated with proposed licensing actions. 

42 Regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 specify that a petition for review and request for hearing must 
1-9 

1 include a showing that the petitioner has standing and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

2 Board Panel would rule on a petitioner’s standing by considering (i) the nature of the petitioner’s 

3 right under the AEA or NEPA to be made a party to the proceeding; (ii) the nature and extent of 

4 the petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (iii) the possible effect 

5 of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the petitioner’s interest. 

6 In accordance with the regulation, the NRC published a “Notice of Opportunity for Hearing” 

7 related to AUC’s license application for the Reno Creek ISR Project on August 5, 2013 

8 (78 FR 47427). The NRC did not receive a request for hearing. 

9 1.6.2 Status of Permitting With Other Federal and State Agencies 

10 In addition to obtaining an NRC license prior to conducting ISR operations at the proposed 

11 Reno Creek ISR Project, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary permits and approvals 

12 from other federal and state agencies to address (i) the underground injection of solutions and 

13 liquid effluent from the ISR process, (ii) the specific exemption of all or a portion of the ore zone 

14 aquifer from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and (iii) the discharge of 

15 stormwater during construction and operation of the ISR facility. Draft SEIS Table 1-2 lists the 

16 status of the required permits and approvals. 

17 1.7 Consultation 

18 Federal agencies are required to comply with consultation requirements in Section 7 of the 

19 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, and Section 106 of the National Historic 

20 Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. The GEIS took a programmatic look at the 

21 environmental impacts of ISR uranium mining within four distinct geographic regions and 

22 acknowledged that each site-specific review would include its own consultation process with 

23 relevant agencies. Section 7 (ESA) and Section 106 (NHPA) consultations conducted for the 

24 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are summarized in draft SEIS Sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2. A list 

25 of the consultation correspondence is provided in draft SEIS Appendix A. Draft SEIS 

26 Section 1.7.3 describes the NRC coordination with other federal, tribal, state, and local 

27 agencies conducted during the development of this draft SEIS. 

28 1.7.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation 

29 The ESA was enacted to prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and 

30 to restore those species and their critical habitats. ESA Section 7 recommends consultation 

31 with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that actions it authorizes, permits, or 

32 otherwise carries out will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 

33 adversely modify designated critical habitats. 

34 By letter dated October 17, 2013, the NRC staff initiated consultation with FWS, requesting 

35 information on endangered or threatened species and critical habitat in the proposed 

36 Reno Creek ISR Project area (NRC, 2013c). The NRC received a response from the FWS 

37 Wyoming Field Office on March 6, 2015, that (i) listed the threatened and endangered species 

38 that may occur in the proposed project area and their designated and proposed critical habitat in 

39 the project area, (ii) provided recommendations concerning migratory birds, and (iii) made 

40 recommendations for the protection of eagles and other raptor species (FWS, 2015). 
1-10 

Table 1-2. Environmental Approvals for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Regulatory Agency Description Status 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Source and Byproduct Materials 

License (10 CFR Part 40)* 

Application under review – Submitted 

October 3, 2012

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE)

Nationwide Permit Authorization Proposed – Nationwide permit 

preparation prior to disturbance

Determination of Jurisdictional 

Wetland

Approved – Wetland delineation 

approved and forwarded to USACE in 

April 2012 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA)

Aquifer Exemption Permit for Class 

I Injection Wells (40 CFR Parts 144 

and 146)† 

Approved – October 20, 2015. Aquifer 

reclassification application prepared by 

Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality (WDEQ) for review by EPA. 

See WDEQ Permits. Wyoming has 

primacy for the Underground Injection 

Control (UIC) Program.

Aquifer Reclassification for Class 

III Injection Wells (WDEQ, Title 35-

11) 

WDEQ Air Quality Permit Proposed – Application must be 

approved prior to start of construction 

Mineral Exploration Permit Approved – Drilling Notification #401, 

TFN #5 4/50, February 9, 2011

Permit to Mine Approved – Permit Number 824, 

July 17, 2015

Aquifer Exemption (Class III UIC 

Permit)

Approved – October 20, 2015.

UIC Class I Permit (Deep Disposal 

Well)

Approved – Permit Number 09-621, 

June 2015

UIC Class V (WDEQ Title 35-11) Proposed – Class V UIC permit for an 

approved site septic system during 

facility construction. 

Industrial/Mining Storm Water 

Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (WYPDES) 

Permit (WDEQ Title 35-11)

Proposed – Industrial Stormwater 

WYPDES permit authorizing discharge 

associated with mineral and mining 

activities

Construction Stormwater WYPDES 

Permit (WDEQ Title 35-11)

Proposed – Construction Stormwater 

WYPDES permit and Notice of Intent to 

be filed at least 30 days before 

construction activities begin, in 

accordance with WDEQ requirements

WDEQ and State 

Engineer’s Office 

Permit to appropriate groundwater 

for operational in situ recovery 

monitoring wells

Proposed – Permit to appropriate 

groundwater will be submitted prior to 

wellfield construction

Permit to appropriate groundwater 

– Central Processing Plant 

domestic water supply well

Proposed – Permit to appropriate 

application will be submitted prior to 

construction

Surface water reservoir permit for 

industrial use

Proposed – Surface water reservoir 

permit for lined retention pond

Wyoming Department of 

Transportation

District 4 Right-of-Way access 

permit for buried pipeline crossing 

State Highway 387

Proposed – Application will be 

submitted prior to start of construction

Campbell County Roads 

& Bridges

County road Right-of-Way access 

permit for buried pipeline crossing 

county roads

Proposed – Application will be 

submitted prior to construction

*Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 

†Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 144 and 146
1-11 

1 The NRC staff also met with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) on 

2 September 11, 2013, to discuss the potential impacts on ecological resources (terrestrial and 

3 aquatic) associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Further details from the WGFD 

4 interactions can be found in draft SEIS Section 1.7.3.3. 

5 1.7.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation 

6 Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of their 

7 undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an 

8 opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Section 106 process seeks the views of 

9 consulting parties, including the federal agency, the State Historic Preservation Officer, Indian 

10 tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, local 

11 government leaders, the applicant, cooperating agencies, and the public. The NRC staff is 

12 complying with NHPA requirements performing the Section 106 evaluation in coordination with 

13 performing the NEPA environmental review in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8. By conducting 

14 the NHPA Section 106 evaluation through the NEPA process, the NRC staff will be able to 

15 assesses if there are historic properties adversely affected by the proposed project and potential 

16 ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects while identifying alternatives and preparing 

17 NEPA documentation. 

18 The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, 

19 assess the effects of the undertaking on these properties, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or 

20 mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. As detailed in 36 CFR Part 800.2(c)(1)(i), 

21 the role of the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WY SHPO) in the Section 106 

22 process is to advise and assist federal agencies in carrying out their Section 106 

23 responsibilities. As part of the Section 106 consultation process for the proposed Reno Creek 

24 ISR Project, the NRC continues consultation with potentially affected Native American tribes 

25 and other consulting parties. These interactions are detailed in draft SEIS Section 1.7.3.5. 

26 The NRC initiated consultation with the WY SHPO by a letter dated June 13, 2013, requesting 

27 information from the WY SHPO to facilitate the identification of historic and cultural resources 

28 that could be affected by the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (NRC, 2013d). The NRC staff 

29 continued consultation efforts by a letter dated November 8, 2013, proposing to define the area 

30 of potential effect (APE) for both direct and indirect effects (NRC, 2013e). The NRC staff will 

31 continue to consult with the WY SHPO and other consulting parties throughout the 

32 environmental review process to evaluate the effects of the proposed project on cultural and 

33 historical resources. 

34 1.7.3 Coordination With Other Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Agencies 

35 The NRC staff interacted with federal, state, local, and tribal agencies during preparation of this 

36 draft SEIS to gather information on potential issues, concerns, and environmental impacts 

37 related to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The consultation and coordination process 

38 has included discussions with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), FWS, 

39 Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), local organizations (e.g., Powder River Basin 

40 Resource Council and Campbell County Commissioners), as well as tribal governments. 
1-12 

1 1.7.3.1 Coordination With Bureau of Land Management 

2 BLM is responsible for administering the National System of Public Lands and the federal 

3 minerals underlying these lands. BLM is also responsible for managing split estate situations 

4 where federal minerals underlie a surface that is privately held or owned by state or local 

5 government. In situations where BLM administers the surface rights, operators of mining 

6 claims, including ISR operations, must submit a plan of operations and obtain BLM approval 

7 before beginning operations beyond those for casual use. For the proposed project, BLM does 

8 not hold any surface rights within the proposed project area; therefore, the NRC staff was not 

9 required to coordinate with this federal agency. 

10 1.7.3.2 Coordination with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

11 The NRC staff met with the WDEQ staff in Sheridan and Casper, Wyoming, on 

12 September 10–12, 2013, to discuss the WDEQ’s role in the NRC’s environmental review 

13 process for uranium recovery facilities (NRC, 2013a). The WDEQ staff participating in this 

14 meeting included representatives from the Land Quality Division, Water Quality Division, and 

15 the Air Quality Division. Topics discussed during the meeting included the WDEQ air quality 

16 review and permitting as well as other required WDEQ permits. 

17 1.7.3.3 Coordination with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

18 The WGFD is responsible for controlling, propagating, managing, protecting, and regulating all 

19 game and nongame fish and wildlife in Wyoming under Wyoming Statute 23-1-301-303 and 

20 23-1-401. Regulatory authority given to the WGFD allows for the establishment of hunting, 

21 fishing, and trapping seasons, as well as the enforcement of rules protecting nongame and 

22 state-listed species. 

23 The NRC staff met with a representative of the Sheridan Regional WGFD office on 

24 September 11, 2013 (NRC, 2013a). As discussed in draft SEIS Section 1.7.1, the WGFD staff 

25 expressed concerns about sage-grouse, migratory birds, raptors, big game, and small mammals 

26 that could be affected by the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Additional concerns WGFD 

27 expressed included the need for a traffic management plan that includes the travel of personnel 

28 to and from the site. WGFD also discussed the potential need for an amphibian and reptile 

29 survey but acknowledged that the absence of surface water at the site may negate the need to 

30 perform such a survey. 

31 1.7.3.4 Coordination With the Powder River Basin Resource Council (PRBRC) 

32 On September 11, 2013, the NRC staff met with the PRBRC to discuss their concerns and 

33 perspectives on potential environmental impacts of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

34 (NRC, 2013a). PRBRC indicated that their main concerns included water quality, restoration 

35 standards, regional air quality, groundwater depletion, legacy issues from abandoned wells, and 

36 the frequency of excursions from other currently operating in situ uranium extraction facilities. 

37 1.7.3.5 Coordination With Localities 

38 On September 10, 2013, the NRC staff met with Campbell County Commissioners to elicit 

39 information and concerns pertaining to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. County 

40 Commissioners expressed their support of the oil and gas industry, as well as the uranium 
1-13 

1 mining industry in the region (NRC, 2013a). This support was also stated in a letter from the 

2 Campbell County Commissioners, submitted to NRC on October 8, 2013 (ML13290A671). 

3 1.7.3.6 Interactions With Tribal Governments 

4 Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 

5 reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to a government-to-government relationship 

6 with Native American tribes, and directed federal agencies to establish procedures to consult 

7 and collaborate with tribal governments when new agency regulations would have tribal 

8 implications. The Order excludes “independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 

9 44 U.S.C § 3502 (5)” from the requirements of the Order. However, according to Section 8, 

10 “Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.” 

11 Although the NRC, as an independent regulatory agency, is explicitly exempt from the Order, 

12 the Commission remains committed to its spirit. In 2014, the NRC proposed a tribal policy 

13 statement which establishes principles to be followed by the NRC government-to-government 

14 interactions with American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes, and to encourage and facilitate 

15 Tribal involvement in the areas over which the Commission has jurisdiction (79 FR 71136). 

16 Other NRC guidance documents supplement working knowledge for NRC staff with Tribal 

17 outreach experience and provide practical guidance to NRC personnel who have had limited 

18 interactions with Native American Tribes. 

19 The NRC also engages in tribal consultation when complying with the NHPA Section 106 

20 regulatory requirements. The NRC staff initiated discussions with potentially affected tribes that 

21 possess potential religious, spiritual, and cultural interest and ties to the proposed Reno Creek 

22 ISR Project area. In January 2012, the NRC sent a letter to 22 tribes, notifying them of AUC’s 

23 intent to submit a license application for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and soliciting 

24 input from these tribes (NRC, 2012). A list of the consultation correspondence is provided 

25 in draft SEIS Appendix A. The NRC then sent letters, dated February 22, 2013, and 

26 March 27, 2013 (NRC, 2013f), notifying tribes that the application for the proposed Reno Creek 

27 ISR Project has been received and was being reviewed for acceptance. The letter invited tribes 

28 to consult under Section 106 and requested comments or concerns regarding cultural resources 

29 at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. The following tribes were notified about the 

30 undertaking and were asked to respond if they were interested in a consultation: 

31  Yankton Sioux Tribe 

32  Turtle Mountain Band of the Chippewa 

33  Three Affiliated Tribes 

34  Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

35  Spirit Lake Tribe 

36  Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe 

37  Santee Sioux Tribe 

38  Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

39  Oglala Sioux Tribe 

40  Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

41  Northern Arapaho Tribe 

42  Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

43  Kiowa Indian Tribe 

44  Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe 

45  Fort Belknap Tribe 
1-14 

1  Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe 

2  Crow Tribe (Apsaalooke) 

3  Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

4  Chippewa Cree Tribe 

5  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

6  Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe 

7  Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

8 Three tribes responded in writing that they would participate in a consultation for the project. 

9 These included Santee Sioux (Santee Sioux, 2013), Cheyenne and Arapahoe (Cheyenne and 

10 Arapahoe, 2013), and Standing Rock Sioux (Standing Rock Sioux, 2013) Tribes. 

11 In December 2013, the NRC staff again reached out to potentially interested tribes and asked if 

12 they were interested in participating in the consulting process for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

13 Project. The NRC staff were also developing a site visit plan for Spring 2014 for interested 

14 tribes that had previously responded. After the NRC staff made additional telephone calls and 

15 sent follow-up emails, nine tribes agreed to participate in the consultation process. In an email 

16 dated February 20, 2014, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 2014) 

17 opted out of the consultation process. 

18 The NRC staff continued efforts to engage in consultation with tribes that might be affected by 

19 the proposed project. The staff made follow-up telephone calls and sent emails to further gather 

20 information related to identification efforts and to coordinate meetings with the tribes. 

21 On March 12, 2014, the NRC staff held a tribal site visit and consultation meeting related to the 

22 Reno Creek ISR Project in Wright, Wyoming (NRC, 2013a). The group visiting the site included 

23 representatives from the Santee Sioux, Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, Crow Creek, 

24 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Cheyenne and Arapaho, Crow, and Spirit Lake tribes. After 

25 a tour of the proposed project area, the NRC staff and tribal representatives met to discuss 

26 cultural resources and properties at the proposed project, as well as the consultation process for 

27 the project and unique characteristics of the site. The NRC staff provided information regarding 

28 the defined area of potential effects, an overview of the uranium milling process, and tribal 

29 consultation under NHPA. In addition, the NRC staff requested input on the need for additional 

30 tribal surveys. The overall response from tribal representatives was that the proposed project 

31 area should be surveyed for properties that have cultural and religious significance. 

32 In June and July 2014, the NRC staff opened the proposed project site for 3 weeks for tribes to 

33 perform surveys. During the 3 weeks, 12 tribes participated in traditional and religious surveys 

34 of the area. The NRC staff did not dictate a methodology or process but provided support in the 

35 form of transportation and technical expertise, where requested. A stipend, provide by the 

36 applicant, was paid to the tribes to offset the cost of the survey. The final survey concluded on 

37 July 14, 2014. The NRC staff requested that reports or significant information that the tribes 

38 wished to have considered in the NRC’s recommendation to the WY SHPO should be provided 

39 to the NRC by August 31, 2014. 

40 Following the meetings, site visit, and survey period, the NRC staff gathered information from 

41 tribes to use in its recommendation to the WY SHPO. After consulting with tribes, the NRC staff 

42 did not identify any sites as potentially eligible for listing as a historic property on the National 

43 Register of Historic Places, but did identify some sites that should be avoided, if possible 

44 because of their cultural significance to the consulting tribes. The NRC staff provided a draft 
1-15 

1 report for comment to the WY SHPO and is currently working on addressing comments. A final 

2 report will be provided to the WY SHPO for its concurrence in the upcoming months. 

3 The following tribes participated in the Cultural and Religious Property Survey described above: 

4 June 16, 2014 Participants 

5  Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

6  Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

7  Crow Tribe 

8  Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

9  Santee Sioux Tribe 

10 July 7, 2014 Participants 

11  Chippewa Cree Tribe 

12  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

13  Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribe 

14  Fort Belknap Tribe 

15  Yankton Sioux Tribe 

16 July 14, 2014 Participants 

17  Yankton Sioux Tribe 

18  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

19  Northern Arapaho Tribe 

20  Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

21 1.8 Structure of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

22 As noted in draft SEIS Section 1.4.1 of this document, the GEIS evaluated the broad impacts of 

23 ISR projects in a four-state region where such projects are anticipated (NRC, 2009), but it did 

24 not reach site-specific decisions for new ISR projects. The NRC staff evaluated the extent to 

25 which information and conclusions in the GEIS could be incorporated by reference into this draft 

26 SEIS. The NRC staff also determined whether any new and significant information existed that 

27 would change the expected environmental impact beyond what was evaluated in the GEIS. 

28 Draft SEIS Chapter 2 describes the proposed project and alternative considered for the 

29 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, draft SEIS Chapter 3 describes the affected environment, 

30 and draft SEIS Chapter 4 evaluates the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed 

31 project and the alternative. Cumulative impacts are discussed in draft SEIS Chapter 5, while 

32 draft SEIS Chapter 6 summarizes mitigation measures to reduce adverse environmental 

33 impacts at the proposed project. Draft SEIS Chapter 7 describes the environmental 

34 measurement and monitoring programs proposed for the Reno Creek ISR Project. A 

35 cost-benefit analysis is provided in draft SEIS Chapter 8, and environmental consequences from 

36 the proposed action and alternative are summarized in draft SEIS Chapter 9. 
1-16 

1 1.9 References 

2 10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 2, Energy, Part 2, “Rules of Practice for 

3 Domestic Licensing Proceeding and Issuance of Orders.”

4 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

5 Protection Against Radiation.” 

6 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of 

7 Source Material.” 

8 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

9 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

11 Part 800. “Protection of Historic Properties.”

12 43 CFR Subpart 3809. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Public Lands: Interior, 

13 Subpart 3809, “Subsurface Management.”

14 78 FR 47427. “Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, License Application Request of AUC LLC. 

15 Reno Creek In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facility in Campbell County, WY.” Federal Register. 

16 Vol. 78, No. 150. pp. 47,427–47,431. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

17 2013. 

18 78 FR 51753. “AUC LLC., Reno Creek Project, New Source Material License Application, 

19 Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.” Federal 

20 Register. Vol. 78, No. 162. pp. 51,753–51,754. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

21 Commission. 2013. 

22 79 FR 71136. “Tribal Policy Statement.” Federal Register. Vol 79, No. 230. 

23 pp. 71,136–71,141. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2014 

24 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

25 Environmental Report Round 1 and Technical Report Response 1.” ML14169A452. 

26 Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014. 

27 AUC. “Application for Source Material License, Reno Creek In-Situ Leach Uranium Recovery 

28 Project Application for Combined Source and 11e.(2) Byproduct Materials License. NRC 

29 Uranium Recovery License. NRC Submitted Source Material Licensing Application, Docket 

30 No. 40-9092.” ML122890785. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2012. 

31 Cheyenne and Arapahoe. “Tribal Response Form-Cultural Resource Considerations 

32 (Cheyenne and Arapahoe).” ML13149A168. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

33 Commission. 2013. 

34 FWS. “In Reply Refer To: 06E13000-2013-EC-0069 and 06E13000-2015-CPA-0086.” Letter 

35 (March 6) to Lydia Chang, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML15086A428. 

36 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. 
1-17 

1 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 4, Part 1 and Part 2, “Environmental Impact Statement for 

2 the Dewey–Burdock ISR Project in Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota, Supplement 

3 to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 4), Final Report.” ML14024A477 and ML14024A478. 

4 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2014a. 

5 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 5, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Ross ISR Project 

6 in Crook County, Wyoming, Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 5), Final 

7 Report.” ML14056A096. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2014b. 

8 NRC. “Site Visit to the Proposed Reno Creek Uranium Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, 

9 and Meetings with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and Local Organizations, 

10 September 10–12, 2013.” ML15040A171. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

11 Commission. 2013a. 

12 NRC. “Acceptance Review Response Package for Reno Creek ISR Project. Part 1 of 4.” 

13 ML13161A319. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013b. 

14 NRC. “Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Requesting Information Regarding Endangered 

15 or Threatened Species and Critical Habitat for the Proposed License Application for 

16 Reno Creek.” ML13268A438. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013c. 

17 NRC. “Notification and Request for Consultation Regarding AUC LLC’s Proposed Reno Creek 

18 Uranium Recovery Project – License Request (Docket NO. 040-09092).” Letter (June 13) to 

19 Mary Hopkins, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer. ML13128A497. Washington, DC: 

20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013d. 

21 NRC. “Area of Potential Effect Regarding AUC LLC’s Proposed Reno Creek Uranium Recovery 

22 Project – License Request (Docket NO. 040-09092).” Letter (November 8) to Mary Hopkins, 

23 Wyoming State Historic Preservation Officer. ML13280A332. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

24 Regulatory Commission. 2013e. 

25 NRC. “Invitation for Section 106 Consultation for Reno Creek. Letter to Yankton Sioux Tribe 

26 (ML13085A307); Turtle Mountain Band of the Chippewa (ML13085A305); Three Affiliated 

27 Tribes (ML13085A294); Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (ML13085A274); Spirit Lake Tribe 

28 (ML13085A268); Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe (ML13085A262); Santee Sioux Tribe 

29 (ML13085A244); Rosebud Sioux Tribe (ML13085A235); Oglala Sioux Tribe (ML13085A226); 

30 Northern Cheyenne Tribe (ML13085A156); Northern Arapaho Tribe (ML13085A141); Lower 

31 Brule Sioux Tribe (ML13085A136); Kiowa Indian Tribe (ML13085A119); Fort Peck Assiniboine 

32 and Sioux Tribe (ML13085A114); Fort Belknap Tribe (ML13085A105); Flandreau-Santee Sioux 

33 Tribe (ML13085A099); Crow Tribe (Apsaalooke) (ML13085A073); Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

34 (ML13085A076); Chippewa Cree Tribe (ML13085A069); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

35 (ML13085A065); Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe (ML12363A099); Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

36 (ML13085A077).” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013f. 

37 NRC. “Letter Invitations for Informal Information Gathering Meeting Pertaining to the Proposed 

38 Reno Creek In-Situ Recovery Project to Yankton Sioux Tribe (ML120120189); Turtle Mountain 

39 Band of the Chippewa (ML120120150); Three Affiliated Tribes (ML120120279); Standing Rock 

40 Sioux Tribe (ML120120264); Spirit Lake Tribe (ML120120276); Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe 

41 (ML120120169); Santee Sioux Tribe (ML120120265); Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

42 (ML120120289); Northern Arapaho Tribe (ML20120068); Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 
1-18 

1 (ML120120195); Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes (ML120120149); Fort Belknap Tribe 

2 (ML120120141); Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe (ML120120265); Crow Tribe (Apsaalooke) 

3 (ML120120128); Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (ML120120170); Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

4 (ML120120161); Eastern Shoshone Tribe (ML120120232); Ute Tribe (ML120120218).” 

5 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. 

6 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 2, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch 

7 ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming.” Supplement to the Generic 

8 Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report. 

9 ML103440120. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and 

10 State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. January 2011a. 

11 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 3, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost Creek ISR 

12 Project in Sweetwater County, Wyoming.” Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

13 Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report. ML11125A006. 

14 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials 

15 and Environmental Management Programs. June 2011b. 

16 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 1, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Moore Ranch 

17 ISR Project in Campbell County, Wyoming.” Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

18 Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report. ML102290470. 

19 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials 

20 and Environmental Management Programs. August 2010. 

21 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Uranium Milling Facilities—

22 Final Report.” ML091480244 and ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

23 Commission. May 2009. 

24 NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 

25 Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mine Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” ML082170248. 

26 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 1997. 

27 NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

28 Project M–25.” ML032751663, ML0732751667 and ML032751669. Washington, DC: 

29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. September 1980. 

30 Santee Sioux. “Tribal Response Form-Cultural Resource Considerations (Santee Sioux).” 

31 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML13109A555. 2013 

32 Standing Rock Sioux. “Tribal Response Form-Cultural Resource Considerations (Standing 

33 Rock Sioux).” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML13149A183. 2013. 

34 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “SRST Comments.” Email (February 20) to Jill Caverly, et al., 

35 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML14059A199. Fort Yates, North Dakota: Standing 

36 Rock Sioux Tribe. 2014. 
2-1 

1 2 IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVE 

2 This chapter describes the proposed federal action, which is to issue a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

3 Commission (NRC) source and byproduct material license (hereafter referred to as an “NRC 

4 license”) to AUC, LLC (hereafter referred to as AUC, or the applicant). AUC would use its NRC 

5 license, in conjunction with other licenses, for the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, 

6 and decommissioning of the Reno Creek In Situ Recovery (ISR) Project. This chapter also 

7 discusses alternatives to the proposed action, including the No-Action Alternative, as required 

8 under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

9 Section 2.1 of this draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) describes the 

10 alternatives considered for detailed analysis, including the proposed action. Section 2.2 

11 describes those alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

12 Section 2.3 compares the predicted environmental impacts of the proposed action and the 

13 No-Action Alternative. Section 2.4 sets forth the preliminary NRC staff recommendation on the 

14 proposed federal action. Section 2.5 provides the references cited for this chapter. 

15 2.1 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis 

16 This draft SEIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts from two alternatives: 

17  The Proposed Action (Alternative 1), and 

18  The No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2). 

19 The alternatives are evaluated with regard to the four phases of a uranium-recovery operation: 

20 construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning. The alternatives have been 

21 established based on the purpose and need statement described in Section 1.3 of this 

22 draft SEIS. 

23 The NRC staff used a variety of information sources for the analysis in this draft SEIS. These 

24 sources include (i) the application’s environmental report (ER) (AUC, 2012a) and technical 

25 report (TR) (AUC, 2012b); (ii) the applicant’s responses to the NRC staff’s requests for 

26 additional information (AUC, 2014a); (iii) the scoping and draft comments on NUREG–1910, 

27 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (GEIS) 

28 (NRC, 2009); (iv) the information gathered during the NRC staff site visits in September 2013 

29 (NRC, 2013); and (v) multidisciplinary discussions held among the NRC staff and various 

30 stakeholders. 

31 2.1.1 The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

32 Under the proposed action, the NRC would issue the applicant an NRC license. The applicant 

33 would use its NRC license in conjunction with other licenses for the construction, operations, 

34 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

35 Project area. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (also referred to as the proposed 

36 project area) is defined as the land within the applicant’s proposed license boundary. As 

37 described in the license application, the proposed project area is located in Campbell County, 

38 Wyoming. The applicant’s proposed project would include processing facilities and sequentially 

39 developed production units (15 total production units). Each production unit would have from 

40 one to seven wellfields, each equipped with its own header house. As uranium recovery 
2-2 

1 activities cease at a production unit, the wellfield area would be restored and reclaimed while a 

2 new production unit and supporting infrastructure is developed. This approach to wellfield 

3 construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning is referred to as a phased 

4 approach by the applicant (AUC, 2012a). 

5 AUC proposes to use ISR methods to extract uranium from the sandy facies and clay/sand 

6 boundaries in the lower part of the Eocene Wasatch Formation in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium 

7 District. The extracted uranium would be loaded onto ion-exchange resin at a central 

8 processing plant (CPP), which would be equipped with pressurized, down-flow ion-exchange 

9 columns, an elution circuit, a precipitation circuit, and yellowcake (a uranium oxide compound) 

10 drying and packing facilities. The CPP would be used to formulate the necessary solutions and 

11 processes for groundwater restoration after uranium recovery operations have ceased 

12 (AUC, 2012a). 

13 The applicant plans to dispose of liquid byproduct material generated during uranium recovery 

14 operations in Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)-permitted Class I 

15 Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells (hereafter referred to as Class I deep disposal wells), 

16 as discussed in draft SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.2 and 2.1.1.1.6. 

17 2.1.1.1 Proposed In Situ Recovery Facility 

18 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would include buildings, infrastructure, wellfields, and 

19 methods of waste disposal, which are described in the following sections. For details on the 

20 general ISR process, see GEIS Chapter 2 (NRC, 2009). The applicant’s proposed project 

21 schedule is shown in draft SEIS Figure 2-1. 

22 2.1.1.1.1 Site Description 

23 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

24 between the communities of Wright, Edgerton, and Gillette (draft SEIS Figure 2-2). As 

25 described by the GEIS (NRC, 2009), the proposed project area would be located in the 

26 Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region. The proposed project area encompasses 2,451 

27 hectares (ha) [6,057 acres (ac)] of mostly private land. The total land disturbed by the proposed 

28 project, excluding wellfields, would be approximately 62 ha [154 ac]. The proposed project 

29 location contains all or portions of Sections 5–6 of Township 42 North, Range 73 West; all or 

30 portions of Sections 1 and 12 Township 42 North, Range 74 West; all or portions of Sections 

31 21–22 and 27–34 of Township 43 North Range 73 West; and all or portions of Sections 35–36 

32 of Township 43 North Range 74 West (draft SEIS Figure 2-3) (AUC, 2012a). 

33 The proposed project area would be situated in the southern portion of the Powder River Basin 

34 (AUC, 2012a). The vegetation is semi-arid grassland and shrublands with some minimal 

35 grazing. Elevation within the proposed project area and its immediate surroundings is 

36 approximately 1,585 m [5,200 ft] above sea level. The proposed project area, as with most 

37 landscapes in the Powder River Basin, is characterized by flat to gently rolling topography 

38 with small ephemeral drainages. The proposed project area is on the divide between the 

39 Belle Fourche River and Cheyenne River Drainage Basins, straddling a subregional surface 

40 water divide for those two drainages. The primary land uses within the proposed project area 

41 are oil and gas production, coalbed methane (CBM) production, livestock grazing, and wildlife 

42 habitat. Within the surrounding 8 km [5 mi] land area, the surface land use is mostly 

43 livestock grazing. 
2-3 

Figure 2-1. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Schedule (AUC, 2014a) 
2-4 

Figure 2-2. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project General Location Map (AUC, 2014a) 
2-5 

Figure 2-3. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Boundary (AUC, 2014a) 
2-6 

1 Material shipments and employee commutes to and from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

2 area would be primarily along State Highway 387, which connects Interstate 25 (I-25) to the 

3 west and State Highway 59 to the east (draft SEIS Figure 2-2). Highway 387 runs east to west 

4 from Wright to I-25. The City of Gillette is located approximately 65 km [41 mi] north of the 

5 proposed project area and has two transportation routes available to access the proposed 

6 project area: State Highways 50 and 59. Highway 50 originates in Gillette, runs to the south, 

7 and connects with Highway 387 approximately 7.2 km [4.5 mi] west of the proposed 

8 Reno Creek ISR Project area. Highway 59 connects with Highway 387 at Wright, located 

9 approximately 12 km [7.5 mi] northeast of the proposed project area. While I-25 is a federal 

10 interstate and designed for high-volume, high-speed traffic, Highways 387, 50, and 59 are rural 

11 two-lane, opposing traffic, asphalt-paved highways. Additionally, county roads 22 (Clarkelen 

12 Road) and 25 (Cosner Road) also run through the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). 

13 2.1.1.1.2 Construction Activities 

14 As described in GEIS Section 2.3, the general construction activities associated with ISR 

15 facilities are (i) drilling wells; (ii) clearing and grading associated with road construction; 

16 (iii) excavating and building foundations and surface impoundments; (iv) assembling buildings; 

17 (v) trenching; and (vi) laying pipelines (NRC, 2009). The facilities that would be constructed as 

18 part of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are the CPP and associated infrastructure, such 

19 as wellfields, pipelines, power lines, header houses, ponds, and access roads, and ancillary 

20 buildings (AUC, 2012a). Surface facilities, underground infrastructure, and access roads at the 

21 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area would be designed and built using standard 

22 construction techniques. Construction vehicles would include bulldozers, drilling rigs, water 

23 trucks, forklifts, pickup and flatbed trucks, and other support vehicles. Construction-related 

24 activities at the proposed project would continue throughout much of the life of the project, as 

25 wellfields are sequentially developed and additional wells, underground piping, and surface 

26 structures are added and then subsequently decommissioned. 

27 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area encompasses 2,451 ha [6,057 ac]. The applicant 

28 estimates that the total land disturbed by the proposed project, excluding wellfields, would be 

29 approximately 62 ha [154 ac]. These estimates include proposed project facilities, pipeline 

30 installation, access roads, and impoundments. As wellfields and supporting infrastructure are 

31 developed and constructed over the life of the project, the total disturbed area would vary 

32 slightly between short-term and long-terms uses. Short term disturbance would be small in time 

33 duration and could include trunklines, drill pits and pads, and topsoil storage. Long-term 

34 disturbance would include the fenced area around the CPP, backup pond, and deep disposal 

35 well pad (AUC, 2012a). 

36 The applicant has committed to salvage and manage topsoil from building sites, permanent 

37 storage areas, access roads, and chemical storage areas prior to construction, in accordance 

38 with WDEQ regulations (WDEQ, 2000). Additionally, to reduce the potential effect of soil 

39 erosion, the surface would be graded, stormwater would be routed, and stockpiled topsoil would 

40 be seeded with a temporary seed mix to protect it from erosion. Within the 62 ha [154 ac] of 

41 disturbance, approximately 24.9 ha-m [202 ac-ft] of salvageable topsoil is present 

42 (AUC, 2012a). 

 
2-7 

1 Central Processing Plant Facility 

2 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would include a CPP facility, which would comprise a 

3 CPP building (hereafter referred to as the CPP) housing the processing equipment, drying and 

4 packaging equipment, onsite laboratory, and groundwater restoration water treatment 

5 equipment, as well as ancillary buildings such as a warehouse, a maintenance building, a 

6 reagent and liquid materials storage facility, an administration building, and a parking area (draft 

7 SEIS Figure 2-4). The CPP major circuits and systems would include a pressurized down-flow 

8 ion-exchange system; elution columns; and the yellowcake filtering, drying, and packaging 

9 system. Tanks at the main plant would contain various liquids, including barren lixiviant, barren 

10 eluant, yellowcake precipitation, washing and dewatering process chemicals, and yellowcake 

11 slurry. Designated areas would also be provided for hydrocarbon storage (e.g., fuel or oil) and 

12 hazardous material storage (e.g., used oil) 

13 (AUC, 2012a). 

14 The CPP building would be located in the 

15 southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of 

16 Section 1, T42N, R74W, (draft SEIS 

17 Figure 2-3) and would be approximately 

18 106m × 61m wide [350 ft × 200 ft]. The 

19 applicant has purchased the Taffner 

20 Homestead which is currently positioned at 

21 that location (First American Title, 2015). 

22 The total disturbed area of the CPP and 

23 adjacent structures is estimated at 6.2 ha 

24 [15.5 ac]. The CPP, adjacent buildings, and 

25 storage pond would be fenced to exclude 

26 livestock and wildlife and control access to 

27 the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). 

28 The entire perimeter of the CPP building floor 

29 would be surrounded by containment curbs 

30 and sloped to direct precipitation runoff away from the building foundation in all directions to a 

31 stormwater conveyance system. Additionally, the backup storage pond and all exterior 

32 chemical and fuel tanks are either self-contained or would have a means of secondary 

33 containment. Secondary containment methods include cement curbs, berms, and CPP walls 

34 (AUC, 2012b). 

35 Bulk storage tanks for the processing chemicals, such as sulfuric and/or hydrochloric acid, 

36 would be located outside the CPP building in cross-linked high-density polyethylene flat-bottom 

37 tanks. The storage tanks would be placed in concrete secondary containment basins, designed 

38 to contain 110 percent of the tank volume, and would be designed to withstand a 25-year, 

39 24-hour storm event. Sodium hydroxide solution used during the precipitation process would be 

40 stored in a flat-bottom tank located in the processing plant. This 50 percent sodium hydroxide 

41 solution would be stored in a fiberglass tank with a vent pipe routed to the outside and above 

42 the CPP. A secondary containment berm would be constructed within the plant to contain 

43 potential spills to the immediate area. As noted in NUREG–1910 (NRC, 2009), all ISR facilities 

44 have concrete curbed floors with drains and sumps to control and retain liquid from spills and 

45 wash-downs. The berm would be constructed to a height of 15.3 centimeters (cm) [6 inches 

What is Lixiviant? 

A solution composed of native ground water and 

chemicals (typically bicarbonate) added during the ISR 

operations. Lixiviant is then pumped underground to 

mobilize (dissolve) uranium from a uranium-bearing ore 

zone, or the ore body. 

What is Eluant? 

Eluant is a processing solution composed of fresh water, 

soda ash and salt that is used during the eluation stage 

of an ISR uranium recovery process to strip uranium 

from uranium loaded ion-exchange resins. 

What is Yellowcake? 

Yellowcake (uranium oxide) is the product of the 

uranium-recovery and milling process; early production 

methods resulted in a bright yellow compound, hence the 

name “yellowcake.” However, the color can vary from 

yellow to orange to dark green (blackish) depending on 

drying temperature. 

Source: NRC, 2009 
2-8 

Figure 2-4. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project CPP Facility Layout (AUC, 2014a) 
2-9 

1 (in)]. The sodium hydroxide would be transported using conventional polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 

2 piping from the fiberglass storage vessel into the CPP precipitation tanks. 

3 Carbon dioxide would be stored outside the CPP. The carbon dioxide storage system would 

4 consist of one 50-ton bulk liquid carbon dioxide pressure vessel tank supplied and maintained 

5 by the carbon dioxide supplier. Floor level ventilation and carbon dioxide monitoring at low 

6 points would be performed to protect workers from undetected leaks of carbon dioxide within the 

7 CPP. Oxygen would be stored either near the central plant or within wellfields. The oxygen 

8 storage system would consist of 30-ton bulk liquid oxygen pressure vessel(s), which would be 

9 centrally located to service multiple production units. Because oxygen is combustible, design 

10 and installation of the oxygen storage facility would be performed by the oxygen supplier and 

11 meet applicable industry standards (AUC, 2012b). 

12 Sodium carbonate and sodium chloride are used for regeneration of ion-exchange resins. Soda 

13 ash and carbon dioxide would be used to prepare sodium carbonate for injection in the 

14 production unit. Dry storage and handling systems would be designed to industry standards to 

15 control the discharge of dry material because the primary hazard is inhalation (AUC, 2012b). 

16 Other substances stored near the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project CPP would include 

17 petroleum products (gasoline, diesel) and propane. Due to the flammable and/or combustible 

18 nature of these materials, all bulk quantities of these substances would be stored outside of the 

19 CPP. All gasoline and diesel storage tanks would be located above ground and within 

20 secondary containment structures designed and constructed to meet U.S. Environmental 

21 Protection Agency (EPA) requirements (AUC, 2012a). 

22 Access Roads 

23 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.1, the main highway that would be used to access 

24 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is Wyoming State Highway 387. Access throughout 

25 the proposed project area is available via Campbell County-maintained gravel roads and private 

26 two-track gravel roads established from CBM development and agricultural activity. The 

27 applicant commits to utilizing existing access roads; although primary, secondary, and tertiary 

28 roads may be improved or constructed (AUC, 2012a). 

29 Within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, preexisting roads also would be used to the 

30 fullest extent possible to provide access to the proposed facility structures and wellfields and to 

31 limit the construction of new roads. Secondary roads would be constructed to provide access to 

32 other proposed facilities (such as header houses) and wellfields not currently accessible by 

33 existing roads. The applicant would secure approvals from private landowners, as well as any 

34 required county permits, prior to constructing any access roads within the proposed project 

35 area. Although construction of access roads within the proposed project area would be kept to 

36 a minimum, it is estimated that 9.4 ha [23.3 ac] of secondary and tertiary infrastructure roads 

37 would be constructed (AUC, 2012a). 

38 Wellfields 

39 The proposed locations of wellfields for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are shown in 

40 draft SEIS Figure 2-5. Historical drilling, conducted by the applicant and previous owners, has 

41 demonstrated that commercially extractable uranium ore bodies at the proposed project area 

42 are located in the medium- to coarse-grained sand facies of the Eocene-aged Wasatch 
2-10 

Figure 2-5. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Wellfield Layout (AUC, 2014a) 
2-11 

1 Formation. The geology, hydrology, and characteristics of the uranium mineralization at the 

2 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area are detailed in draft SEIS Sections 3.4 and 3.5. The 

3 estimated mineable resource within the proposed project area is 15.7 million kilograms (kg) 

4 [34.6 million pounds (lb)] of U3O8 (yellowcake) with an average grade of 0.065 percent 

5 (AUC, 2012a). 

6 The applicant proposes a phased approach in which they would sequentially construct and 

7 operate a series of up to 15 production units (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1). The year in which the 

8 highest number of wellfields are active may occur during year nine of the proposed project 

9 lifespan, at which time up to nine wellfields may be operating (AUC, 2014a). Consistent with a 

10 phased approach, the construction of subsequent wellfields would begin during the operational 

11 stage of the initial wellfields in the area. Each production unit would have from one to seven 

12 wellfields, each of which would be equipped with its own header house (in total approximately 

13 67 header houses). A typical wellfield is approximately 152 m by 183 m [500 ft by 600 ft]. Each 

header house is a small 33-square-meter (m2

) [360-square-foot (ft2 14 )] single-story metal building 

15 with a basement or sump. A disturbance area around each header house is necessary to 

16 provide an adequate area for operations and maintenance vehicles. Two types of wells would 

17 be constructed at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project: dual-purpose injection/production 

18 wells and monitoring wells. When used to introduce lixiviant into the uranium mineralization, a 

19 dual-purpose well is considered an injection well; when used to extract uranium-bearing 

20 solutions, it is considered a production well. Monitoring wells would be used to identify and 

21 assess impacts of ongoing operations and detect groundwater excursions. Additionally, all 

22 wells in a production unit would be completed such that they can be used as either injection or 

23 production wells. Injection and production well patterns would typically follow the conventional 

24 five-spot pattern, consisting of a production well surrounded by four injection wells. However, in 

25 order to recover uranium effectively and complete groundwater restoration, more or fewer 

26 injection wells may be associated with each production well, depending on the ore configuration. 

27 The dimensions of the patterns vary, depending on the configuration of the mineralized zone, 

28 ore grade, and accessibility, but the injection wells would typically be between 23 and 37m 

29 [75 and 120 ft] apart (AUC, 2012a). 

30 Prior to finalizing the design of wellfields, the applicant would conduct closely spaced and 

31 localized delineation drilling to refine information on the location, grade, thickness, and 

32 production capability of the ore. To estimate and manage ore production, geologic and 

33 geophysical data from the drill holes would be analyzed by the applicant’s Safety and 

Environmental Review Panel (SERP)1 34 to determine the depth of the mineralized zone and 

35 confining units, identify and locate potential barriers to groundwater flow caused by clay 

36 stringers, and determine the thickness and grade of ore deposits. Geophysical logging would 

37 include single-point resistance, spontaneous potential, and neutron and natural gamma 

38 geophysical logs. Deviation logs would also be completed to better determine the drift between 

39 the surface and the bottom of the drill hole, allowing for a more precise estimation of the 

40 ore body and identification of future production well locations (see the section on Wellfield

41 Hydrogeologic Data Packages) (AUC, 2012b). 

 

1

 The Safety and Environment Review Panel is a licensee’s review board with a minimum of three individuals: one 

member with a required expertise in management, one member with required expertise in operations or construction 

capable of implementing any changes, and one radiation safety officer or equivalent. A licensee cannot modify 

mandatory license conditions without a license amendment; however, the SERP can review and approve changes to 

project operations as long as changes do not change basic health and safety procedures and requirements or 

change basic potential environmental impacts assessed as part of the licensing process. 
2-12 

1 The initial layout of the wellfields would require that preliminary production and monitoring well 

2 locations be determined after an adequate amount of the deposit area has been drilled. This 

3 may require delineation holes to be drilled in a grid as small as 30 m [100 ft] for the first phase. 

4 However, if the need arises, additional drilling in a grid as small as 15 m [50 ft] for the second 

5 phase may be required to further map the ore body and determine production well locations. 

6 This delineation drilling would identify optimum locations for monitoring wells in the production 

7 zone and overlying aquifers. The last phase of delineation is drilling pilot holes for injection and 

8 recovery wells. Prior to installation of well casing, geophysical logs of all pilot holes would be 

9 reviewed by the SERP (see the section on Wellfield Hydrogeologic Data Packages). This 

10 review is to confirm whether the holes intersect a pattern containing sufficient resources to 

11 economically recover uranium. These logs also help determine the screen interval and if the 

12 hole proves to be economical. If it is determined that a pilot hole is not sufficient for economic 

13 recovery, the hole would not be cased. Instead, it would be plugged and abandoned in 

14 accordance with the procedures outlined in WDEQ regulations (WDEQ, 2012). 

15 Injection and Production Wells 

16 The applicant plans to construct wellfields consisting of a series of injection and production wells 

17 laid out in varying geometric-shaped patterns, depending on the configuration of the mineralized 

18 zone, ore grade, and accessibility across 

19 target uranium mineralization zones. As 

20 previously described, in order to recover 

21 uranium effectively and to complete 

22 groundwater restoration, all production unit 

23 wells would be completed so that they can be 

24 used as either injection or production wells. 

25 The dimensions of the patterns may vary 

26 slightly, but the injection wells typically would 

27 be between 23 to 37 m [75 to 120 ft] apart 

28 (AUC, 2012a).

29 With 15 production units each having 

30 between one and seven wellfields, all 

31 equipped with header houses, the applicant 

32 expects that each header house would serve 

33 between 15 to 30 production wells and 25 to 

34 50 injection wells (production and injection 

35 wells are also referred to collectively as 

36 production unit wells), depending on the 

37 design of each wellfield (AUC, 2012a).

38 The wells would be “cased” by lowering a 

39 pipe into the borehole after drilling to prevent 

40 the sides of the borehole from caving, 

41 prevent loss of drilling fluids into porous 

42 formations, and prevent unwanted fluids from 

43 entering the borehole. The base of the well 

44 casing at all injection and production wells 

45 would extend to or below the confining unit 

46 overlying the mineralized zone. The 

The EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program is responsible for regulating construction, 

operations, permitting, and closure of injection 

wells that place fluids underground. The types of 

injection wells regulated by the EPA UIC Program 

are defined below: 

Class I (Industrial and Municipal Waste Disposal 

Wells) are used to inject hazardous and 

nonhazardous wastes into deep, isolated rock 

formations that are thousands of meters [feet] 

below the lowermost underground source of 

drinking water (USDW). 

Class II (Oil- and Gas-Related Injection Wells) are 

used to inject fluids associated with oil and natural 

gas production. 

Class III (Mining Wells) are used to inject fluids to 

dissolve and extract minerals such as uranium, 

salt, copper, and sulfur. 

Class IV (Shallow Hazardous and Radioactive 

Injection Wells) are shallow wells used to inject 

hazardous and nonhazardous or radioactive 

wastes into or above a geologic formation that 

contains a USDW. 

Class V wells are used to inject nonhazardous 

fluids underground. Most are used to dispose of 

wastes into or above USDWs. 

Class VI (CO2 Geosequestration Wells) are deep 

wells used to inject carbon dioxide into deep 

geologic formations for long- term storage.
2-13 

1 screened interval of injection and production wells would be completed only across the targeted 

2 ore zone. Since wells would be dual-use wells, wellfield flow patterns could be changed to 

3 improve uranium production at the proposed project area. Dual-use wells also result in more 

4 effective restoration of groundwater quality during the aquifer restoration phase of the ISR 

5 process (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4) (AUC, 2012a). 

6 The applicant plans to utilize a five-spot square pattern where injection wells would be at the 

7 corners of a 30-m [100-ft]-wide square, and a production well would be placed in the center of 

8 the square. Based on the results of delineation drilling, the applicant may elect to space the 

9 injection wells closer for more efficient uranium production, thus increasing the overall number 

10 of wells needed for the uranium extraction process (AUC, 2012a). 

11 Production and injection wells would be connected to manifolds in a wellfield header house; 

12 header houses distribute injection fluid (i.e., lixiviant) to injection wells and collect production 

13 solution (i.e., pregnant lixiviant or uranium-bearing solution) from production wells. The header 

14 house would include manifolds, valves, flow meters, pressure meters, and booster pumps. 

15 Oxygen would be incorporated into the lixiviant at the header house before it is injected into the 

16 production formation. Typically, one header house would serve up to 15 to 30 production wells 

17 and 25 to 50 injection wells. Additional header houses would be constructed as the wellfield 

18 expands (AUC, 2012a).

19 A WDEQ-administered UIC program regulates the design, construction, testing, operations, and 

20 closure of injection wells. Injection wells for uranium extraction are classified under UIC as 

21 Class III wells; these wells are located in the aquifer(s) containing the uranium that would 

22 be recovered. 

23 The proposed operation requires the applicant to obtain a Wyoming UIC permit from WDEQ to 

24 use Class III injection wells. In order for ISR operations to occur, the uranium-bearing 

25 production aquifer must be exempted as an underground source of drinking water (USDW) 

26 through the Wyoming UIC program, in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

27 and pursuant to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 146. A USDW is 

28 defined as an aquifer or its portion that (1) supplies any public water system or that contains a 

29 sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system and (a) currently supplies 

30 drinking water for human consumption or (b) contains fewer than 10,000 mg/L [10,000 ppm] 

31 total dissolved solids; and that (2) is not an exempted aquifer. An aquifer or aquifer portion that 

32 meets the criteria for a USDW may be determined to be an “exempted aquifer” if (i) it does not 

33 currently serve as a source of drinking water, and it cannot now and would not in the future 

34 serve as a source of drinking water because it is mineral, hydrocarbon, or geothermal energy 

35 producing, or (ii) it can be demonstrated by a permit applicant as part of a permit application for 

36 a Class III operation to contain minerals that, considering their quantity and location, are 

37 expected to be commercially producible. The applicant, therefore, must obtain an aquifer 

38 exemption from WDEQ before initiating ISR operations. Once exempted, the defined aquifer(s) 

39 or its portion would no longer be protected as a USDW under the SDWA. 

40 Monitoring Wells 

41 The applicant has proposed installing production zone monitoring wells at the periphery of each 

42 production wellfield area (draft SEIS Figure 2-6). This perimeter monitoring well “ring” would be 

43 utilized for early detection of horizontal excursions from within the sand unit or aquifer where 

44 production is occurring. An excursion at a monitoring well is declared when the concentrations 
2-14 

Figure 2-6. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Monitoring Wells Layout (AUC, 2014a)
2-15 

1 of certain indicator parameters exceed upper control limits (UCLs) established by the license 

2 and verified by the NRC or the state. The purpose of the monitoring well ring is to ensure that 

3 groundwater quality in aquifers outside exempted zones is not affected by ISR operations. 

4 The applicant has committed to installing perimeter-monitoring well rings within the production 

5 zone aquifer, outside the production pattern area in a ”ring” around the wellfield area, and in the 

6 overlying aquifer within the production well pattern area at a minimum density of one well per 

7 every 1.6 ha [4 ac] of pattern area. Four samples would be collected from each overlying and 

8 perimeter ring monitoring well at least 2 weeks apart for constituents of concern. (AUC, 2012b) 

9 The applicant has already installed 21 monitoring wells with the production zone aquifer to 

10 evaluate the groundwater hydrology and collect baseline water quality data. Ten of the 21 wells 

11 were installed within the mineralized portions of the production zone aquifer and were sampled 

12 four times (once per quarter) over a year. Several of these wells were also used as observation 

13 wells for the four regional pump tests (AUC, 2014a).

14 Production zone monitoring wells would be installed before production activities begin; required 

15 groundwater sampling and hydrologic tests would be conducted on samples taken from the 

16 monitoring wells. Thirty-nine groundwater monitoring wells have already been installed to 

17 characterize the regional groundwater chemistry. 

18 Wellfield Hydrogeologic Data Packages

19 The applicant’s delineation drilling results and pumping test data would be included in wellfield 

20 hydrogeologic data packages, which would be submitted for review and evaluation by the 

21 SERP. The wellfield hydrogeologic data package would describe the wellfield, including 

22 (i) production and injection well patterns and location of monitoring wells; (ii) documentation of 

23 wellfield geology (e.g., geologic cross sections and isopach maps of production zone sand and 

24 overlying and underlying confining units); (iii) pumping test results; (iv) sufficient information to 

25 demonstrate that perimeter production zone monitoring wells adequately communicate with the 

26 production zone; and (v) data and statistical methods used to compute Commission-approved 

27 background water quality (AUC, 2012b). 

28 With the exception of the first wellfield package, which would be submitted for review to the 

29 NRC, the SERP would review the wellfield hydrogeologic test results and documentation to 

30 ensure that monitoring wells are hydrologically connected to the injection and production wells. 

31 The wellfield hydrogeologic data package and written SERP evaluation would be maintained 

32 onsite and available for NRC review. 

33 Well Construction, Development, and Testing 

34 The applicant intends to use standard mud rotary drilling techniques and equipment to construct 

35 production, injection, and monitoring wells. Wells would be drilled to the bottom of the target 

36 completion interval with a small rotary drilling unit. Industry practice is to use bentonite or 

37 polymer drilling mud with pH-adjusted water and mixed to control viscosity. A temporary mud 

38 pit, to contain the drilling mud, would be excavated adjacent to the drill site. During excavation 

39 of mud pits, topsoil would be separated from the subsoil with a backhoe. The subsoil would be 

40 deposited next to the mud pit, and the topsoil would be stored at a separate location until the 

41 well site is restored. Residual cuttings and drilling fluids are typically held in the mud pit after 

42 drilling and construction activities are completed (NRC, 2009). Depending on state and local 
2-16 

1 regulations, such mud pits are backfilled and graded or are alternatively emptied and cleaned, 

2 and residual solids and liquids are transported and disposed of offsite (NRC, 2006). At the 

3 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, mud pits that contain drilling fluids and cuttings would 

4 be backfilled and graded according to WDEQ regulations (AUC, 2012a). After well drilling is 

5 completed, the applicant proposes to redeposit the excavated subsoil in the mud pit, followed by 

6 topsoil application and grading, in accordance with WDEQ regulations.

7 All production, injection, and monitoring wells would be cased and cemented to prevent fluids 

8 from migrating into or between USDWs. The applicant has committed to construct all injection, 

9 production, and monitoring wells using methods approved by WDEQ and in compliance with 

10 WDEQ construction requirements for casing types. A schematic for a completed well is shown 

11 in draft SEIS Figure 2-7. Before an injection, production, or monitoring well enters service, the 

12 applicant would perform mechanical integrity tests (MIT) using pressure-packer tests (AUC, 

13 2012b). The mechanical integrity of wells is tested to verify that the well casing would not fail, 

14 which could cause water loss and fluid migration across confining units during injection, 

15 production, and monitoring operations (NRC, 2009). MITs are performed by sealing a casing 

16 bottom with a plug, a downhole packer, or other suitable sealing device. The casing is then 

17 filled with water, and the top of the casing is sealed with a threaded cap or mechanical seal. 

18 The well casing is then pressurized predominantly with water and to a lesser extent with air, and 

19 the mechanical integrity of the well casing is monitored by a calibrated pressure gauge. Internal 

20 casing pressure is increased to 120 percent of the maximum allowable injection pressure of the 

21 well. A well should maintain 90 percent of this pressure for 10 minutes to pass the MIT. If 

22 obvious leaks are present or the pressure drops by more than 10 percent during a 10-minute 

23 period, the seals and fittings on the packer system must be checked and reset and another test 

24 is conducted. A well casing that maintains a high level of pressure demonstrates acceptable 

25 mechanical integrity, and the well would be qualified for service at the facility (AUC, 2012b). 

26 To ensure the continued integrity of the wellfields, the applicant would test the mechanical 

27 integrity of all active wells at least once every 5 years or after any rework that may need to be 

28 performed on the well. The applicant would document the details of the MITs (specifically, the 

29 well designation, date of test, test duration, and beginning and ending pressures), and the 

30 individual conducting the test would sign the test report. MIT results would be maintained onsite 

31 and would be available for NRC inspection. MIT results would also be reported quarterly to 

32 WDEQ, in accordance with the WDEQ UIC regulations. 

33 Pipelines 

34 As part of the underground infrastructure at ISR facilities, a network of process pipelines and 

35 cables are typically installed connecting (i) the CPP and the header houses for transferring 

36 lixiviant; (ii) the header houses and wellfields for injecting and recovering lixiviant; and (iii) the 

37 CPP and wastewater disposal facilities (e.g., Class I deep disposal wells) (NRC, 2009). The 

38 piping and metering system for production and injection solutions at the proposed Reno Creek 

39 ISR Project would require buried trunk lines to connect the operating wellfield areas with the 

40 CPP and its related wellfields to transport liquid waste streams to the wastewater disposal 

41 facility (i.e., Class I deep disposal wells). The total estimated disturbance area resulting from 

42 the main trunk line and deep disposal pipeline would be approximately 8.9 ha [22 ac]. Surface 

43 disturbing activities associated with pipeline construction would include topsoil stripping, 

44 trenching, backfill, topsoil replacement, and reseeding. Pipeline corridors would be restored 

45 and reseeded, typically within the same construction season. Whenever possible, surface 
2-17 

 Figure 2-7. Schematic of Typical Production, Injection, and Monitoring Wellhead Construction (AUC, 2015)
2-18 

1 disturbance would be minimized by locating pipelines near access roads and utilities 

2 (AUC, 2012a). 

3 High density polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or steel pipe with heat-welded 

4 joints would be used to connect the wells, header houses, and processing facilities; the piping 

5 would be buried below grade to prevent freezing. Trenches containing pipelines are typically 

6 backfilled with native soil and graded to surrounding ground topography (NRC, 2009). The 

7 same procedure used in mud pit excavation during well construction would be used to preserve 

8 topsoil. Topsoil would be stored separately from subsoil and replaced on the subsoil after the 

9 pipeline ditch is backfilled (AUC, 2012b). 

10 At the header house, the piping would be connected to manifolds equipped with control valves, 

11 flow meters, check valves, pressure sensors, oxygen and carbon dioxide feed systems 

12 (injection only), and programmable logic controllers. Sensors would measure and record 

13 pipeline pressures to monitor for potential leaks and spills resulting from failure of fittings and 

14 valves. Electrical power to the header houses would be delivered by overhead power lines and 

15 buried cable. Electrical power to individual wells would be delivered by buried cable from the 

16 header house. As the wellfield expands, additional header houses would be constructed and 

17 connected to one another via buried header piping. The header piping is designed to 

18 accommodate injection and production flow rates. The only exposed pipes at the proposed 

19 project area would be at the CPP, wellheads, and wellfield header houses (AUC, 2012a). 

20 Liquid Waste Disposal Systems 

21 The applicant plans to dispose of liquid byproduct material generated during uranium recovery 

22 operations using Class I deep disposal wells. Project-generated liquid byproduct material would 

23 include bleed water from the production wells, groundwater generated during aquifer 

24 restoration, process solutions (e.g., resin transfer water and brine generated from the elution 

25 and precipitation circuits), and plant washdown water (AUC, 2012a). Additionally, the use of 

26 small onsite wastewater systems (e.g., a septic field) must be approved by WDEQ. Details 

27 about the permitting processes and applicable requirements for Class I deep disposal wells are 

28 described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. 

29 Class I Deep Disposal Well 

30 The applicant has been authorized by the WDEQ to drill, complete, and operate four deep 

31 Class I disposal wells and proposes to inject up to 606 Lpm [160 gpm] of liquid byproduct 

32 material (AUC, 2012a,b) into a discharge zone that has been defined by WDEQ permit as within 

33 the Teckla Sandstone member of the Lewis Formation and Cretaceous Teapot Sandstone of 

34 the Mesaverde Formation (WDEQ, 2015a). The permitted Class I deep disposal wells vary in 

35 depths between 2,130 and 2,400 m [7,000 and 7,860 ft] below the ground surface (WDEQ, 

36 2015a). The proposed locations of these Class I deep disposal wells are shown in draft SEIS 

37 Figure 2-8. 

38 The Class I deep disposal well design and construction must meet WDEQ regulations, and 

39 applicable permit conditions. For disposal using a Class I well, the WDEQ permit prohibits 

40 injection of any material defined as hazardous waste, as defined by Resource Conservation and 

41 Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations in 40 CFR 261.3 or WDEQ regulations (WDEQ, 2013a). 

42 Additionally, if a license were granted, the NRC waste disposal standards in 10 CFR Part 20, 
2-19 

Figure 2-8. Location of Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Wells (AUC, 2014a) 
2-20 

1 Subparts D and K would apply. The proposed deep disposal well design is shown in draft SEIS 

2 Figure 2-9. In this design, a cemented steel casing extends from the base of the well to the 

3 surface; an internal tubing string is fit with the casing; and a packer seals the casing, just above 

4 the point of injection. Fluid is injected through the tubing and through the packer and exits into 

5 the injection zone by perforations in the casing (see draft SEIS Figure 2-9). Pressure on the 

6 fluid-filled annulus between the tubing and well casing must be continuously maintained and 

7 monitored to detect leakage of the injection tubing or well casing. The constant pressure on the 

annulus would be maintained at a minimum of 14.06 kg/cm2 8 [200 pounds per square inch (psi)]. 

9 Both the annulus and injection pressure would be monitored to prevent injected waste fluid from 

10 migrating into overlying formations. Operational procedures include MIT of the casing to 

11 ensure against well leakage and reporting of MIT test results to WDEQ, as described in draft 

12 SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2. The applicant’s Class I deep disposal well monitoring program is 

13 described in detail in draft SEIS Section 7.6. 

14 The proposed facilities for managing liquid byproduct material include a temporary storage tank 

15 and surface impoundment (i.e., pond) for backup storage before injection into deep disposal 

16 wells. As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.1, this pond would be designed following NRC 

17 requirements (NRC, 2003a, 2008; 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5). The backup 

18 storage pond design for the proposed project would occupy approximately 0.2 ha [0.5 ac] 

(AUC, 2012a) of land surface and have a storage capacity of 1990 cubic meters (m3 19 ) 

20 [525,000 gallons (gal)] (AUC, 2012b). 

21 The applicant proposes to construct two backup storage ponds that would occupy a total of 

22 0.4 ha [1.0 ac]. Based on the design of the backup storage ponds, the applicant may need to 

23 acquire the necessary construction approval from EPA to ensure compliance with 

24 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W. All ponds would be designed to store the amount of water 

25 discharged to them while maintaining adequate freeboard (i.e., distance from the water level to 

26 the top of the embankment). Grading and control structures, such as collector ditches and 

27 berms, would be used to prevent surface runoff for events up to and including a 50-year rainfall 

28 event from entering the ponds (AUC, 2012a). The backup storage ponds would be constructed 

29 with a lining system consisting of the following: (i) a 0.09 cm [36 mils] high density polyethylene 

30 (HDPE) or polypropylene primary liner; (ii) a similar 0.09 cm [36 mils] secondary liner; 

31 (iii) foundation material below the secondary liner; (iv) a drainage layer between the primary and 

32 secondary high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners; and (v) a leak detection sump and access 

33 port system (AUC, 2012b). Ponds would be fenced to restrict and control access. The backup 

34 storage pond would be inspected on a daily, weekly, quarterly, and annual basis. Daily 

35 inspections would include visual inspections of the piping, liner slopes, other earthwork features, 

36 pond freeboard, and any water accumulation in leak detection systems. Weekly inspections 

37 would include visual inspection of the entire pond area, including perimeter fencing and 

38 inspection reports. Quarterly inspections would include sampling of designated groundwater 

39 leak detection wells. Annual inspections would include a survey of the embankment and review 

40 of the previous year’s inspection reports. If inspections reveal damage or defects that could 

41 result in leakage, this information would be reported to the NRC within 48 hours, and 

42 appropriate repairs would be implemented. Significant water found in the standpipes of the leak 

43 detection system would be sampled immediately for conductivity, to determine whether the 

44 water in the detection system is from the pond. If analysis confirms a leak, the pond would be 

45 taken out of service and drained sufficiently to repair the leak within 60 days. Draining would 

46 involve transferring contents to a spare pond until repairs are completed. The leak would be 

47 reported to the NRC within 48 hours followed by a written report within 30 days. Reporting 

48 to the WDEQ would be done in accordance with applicable state requirements and 

49 permit conditions. 
2-21 

Figure 2-9. Schematic of the Design of Class I Deep Disposal Well (AUC, 2012b) 
2-22 

1 Schedule 

2 Using a phased approach to construction, the applicant estimates that constructing the 

3 buildings, initial wellfields, and waste disposal systems for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

4 Project would take approximately 9 years (draft SEIS Figure 2-1). Wellfields would be 

5 developed sequentially, along with supporting infrastructure, including header houses and 

6 pipelines. The construction of subsequent wellfields would begin during the operational stage of 

7 the initial wellfields in the area. 

8 The applicant estimates that 80 workers would be directly involved in the construction phase of 

9 the proposed project (AUC, 2014a). Workers are expected to come from the nearby towns of 

10 Wright, Edgerton, or Gillette, Wyoming.

11 2.1.1.1.3 Operation Activities 

12 As discussed in GEIS Section 2.4, uranium extraction by the ISR process involves two primary 

13 operations. First, uranium mobilization occurs in underground aquifers when lixiviant (the 

14 leaching solution) is injected into the orebody and uranium-laden solutions are recovered 

15 (NRC, 2009). The uranium-laden solutions, referred to as pregnant lixiviant, are then pumped 

16 from the production wells into ion-exchange systems within surface facilities, where uranium is 

17 recovered and prepared for shipment (NRC, 2009). The applicant proposes to conduct 

18 operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project consistent with the description in the GEIS 

19 (AUC, 2012a). These activities are further described in the following sections. 

20 Uranium Mobilization 

21 Uranium mobilization would consist of the following steps: (i) injection of lixiviant into the 

22 production zone, (ii) oxidation and formation of uranium-bearing aqueous complexes 

23 underground, and (iii) extraction (production) and transport of the pregnant lixiviant to the 

24 processing facility. The uranium mobilization steps and excursion monitoring of lixiviant are 

25 described next. 

26 Lixiviant Chemistry 

27 The applicant proposes to add lixiviant, consisting of varying concentrations of carbon dioxide, 

28 sodium carbonate and/or sodium bicarbonate, hydrogen peroxide and/or oxygen to the 

29 groundwater acquired from onsite wells to promote the dissolution and mobilization of uranium 

30 (AUC, 2012a, b). The oxygen in the lixiviant oxidizes the uranium from the relatively insoluble, 

reduced tetravalent state (U4+) to the more soluble, oxidized hexavalent state (U6+ 31 ). The carbon 

32 dioxide in the lixiviant provides a source of carbonate and bicarbonate ions that react with the 

oxidized uranium to form either dissolved uranyl tricarbonate complexes [UO2(CO3)3

−4 33 ] or uranyl 

dicarbonate complexes [UO2(CO3)2

−2 34 ]. The relative abundance of each dissolved uranyl 

35 carbonate complex is a function of pH and total carbonate strength. GEIS Table 2.4-1 

36 summarizes typical lixiviant chemistry (NRC, 2009). As noted in GEIS Section 2.4.1.1, the 

37 principal geochemical reactions caused by the lixiviant are (i) oxidation and subsequent 

38 dissolution of uranium and other metals from the orebody and (ii) their subsequent extraction 

39 (NRC, 2009). 
2-23 

1 Lixiviant Injection and Production 

2 Lixiviant would be pumped down injection wells to the mineralized zones hosted in sandstones 

3 in the Wasatch Formation, where it would oxidize and dissolve uranium from the formations. 

4 The uranium-bearing solution would migrate through the pore spaces in the sandstone and 

5 would be recovered by production wells. The applicant has estimated that between 91 and 

6 182 production wells and between 152 and 304 injections wells would be installed annually over 

7 the 11-year operational life of the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). The applicant estimates 

8 maximum pumping rates of 41,640 Lpm [11,000 gpm] (AUC, 2012b). Uranium-enriched 

9 pregnant lixiviant would be pumped from production wells to the CPP for uranium extraction by 

10 ion-exchange. The resulting barren lixiviant would then be refortified with oxygen and carbon 

11 dioxide and reinjected into the wellfield to dissolve additional uranium. This process would 

12 continue until further uranium recovery is uneconomical (AUC, 2012a).

13 Production wells are normally positioned to pump pregnant lixiviant from a number of injection 

14 wells. As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, square well patterns would be utilized to 

15 access all economically recoverable portions of the uranium orebody. As described in GEIS 

16 Section 2.4.3, the production wells at an ISR facility extract slightly more water than is reinjected 

17 into the host aquifer to create a net inward flow of groundwater into the wellfield, which 

18 minimizes the potential movement of lixiviant and its associated contaminants out of the 

19 wellfield. This excess water, referred to as production bleed, is liquid byproduct material that 

20 must be properly managed (NRC, 2009). 

21 The typical production bleed would be between 0.5 and 1.5 percent and would be adjusted, as 

22 necessary, to maintain the wellfield cone of depression (i.e., a net inward flow of groundwater 

23 into the wellfield) (AUC, 2012a). Production bleed rates would be controlled by withdrawing a 

24 small portion of the barren solution from the ion-exchange circuit, which would then be disposed 

25 of via Class I deep well disposal. 

26 Excursion Monitoring 

27 GEIS Section 2.4.1.4 describes how ISR operations potentially affect the groundwater quality 

28 near a site if lixiviant moves from the production zone, resulting in either a vertical or lateral 

29 excursion (NRC, 2009). The applicant proposes to implement an operational groundwater 

30 monitoring program that meets the NRC requirements found in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

31 Criteria 7 and 7A. This program would be designed to detect and correct any condition that 

32 could lead to the unintended spread of lixiviant, either horizontally or vertically outside of the 

33 production zone, which could lead to an excursion (AUC, 2012b). As described in GEIS 

34 Section 2.4.3, excursions may be caused by improper water balance between injection and 

35 production rates, undetected high permeability strata or geological faults, improperly abandoned 

36 exploration drill holes, discontinuities within the confining layers, poor well integrity, or 

37 unintentional disruption (fracturing) of the ore zone or confining units (NRC, 2009). The 

38 applicant’s proposed excursion monitoring program includes monitoring (i) flow rates; 

39 (ii) operating pressures of injection, production, and monitoring wells; and (iii) the flow rates and 

40 operating pressures of the main pipelines leading to and from the CPP. 

41 The applicant proposes to sample the monitoring wells for chloride, conductivity, and total 

42 alkalinity. The data would be compared to the UCLs for these constituents (AUC, 2014a). The 

43 applicant would establish UCLs after background water quality is established for the monitoring 

44 wells in a particular wellfield, as described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.2. The water level in each 
2-24 

1 monitoring well would also be measured and recorded prior to each sampling event. Water 

2 level and analytical monitoring data for the UCL parameters would be retained onsite for 

3 NRC review. 

4 An excursion occurs when two or more excursion indicators in a monitoring well exceed their 

5 UCLs (NRC, 2003b). If the concentration of two or three excursion indicators exceeds 

6 established UCL concentrations during a sampling event, a second sample would be taken 

7 within 48 hours after results of the first analysis are received and reviewed (AUC, 2012b). If an 

8 excursion is not confirmed by a second sample, a third sample would be taken within 48 hours 

9 after the second set of sampling data are received. If the second or third samples produce 

10 results where two or more excursion indicators exceed the UCL concentrations, the well 

11 producing these results would be placed on excursion status and corrective action would be 

12 required. The first sample results would be considered in error if the second and third samples 

13 do not confirm the results from the first sample. 

14 If an excursion is detected, the applicant would be required to notify the NRC within 24 hours by 

15 telephone or email and in writing within 7 days; corrective actions should begin immediately. 

16 Corrective actions would include increasing sampling frequency to weekly, increasing the 

17 pumping rates of production wells in the area of the excursion to increase the net bleed, and 

18 pumping individual wells to enhance recovery of solutions. If these actions do not retrieve the 

19 excursion within 60 days, the applicant would suspend injection of lixiviant into the production 

20 zone adjacent to the excursion until the excursion is retrieved and the UCL parameters are no 

21 longer exceeded. Within 60 days of a confirmed excursion, the applicant would be required 

22 to file a written report to the NRC describing the event and the corrective action taken 

23 (NRC, 2003b). 

24 Uranium Processing 

25 Uranium would be recovered from the pregnant lixiviant and processed into yellowcake in a 

26 multistep process (NRC, 2009). The steps include (i) loading uranium complexes onto 

27 ion-exchange resin; (ii) eluting (recovering) uranium complexes from the resin; and 

28 (iii) precipitating, drying, and packaging uranium. Draft SEIS Figure 2-10 shows the general 

29 flow of the uranium processing steps for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. 

30 Ion Exchange 

31 Recovery of uranium from the pregnant lixiviant solution would be accomplished via an 

32 ion-exchange process. Pregnant lixiviant would be pumped from the wellfields into the 

33 ion-exchange columns (total of 22 onsite), which contain uranium specific ion-exchange resin 

34 beads (Dowex 21K XLT or equivalent) (AUC, 2012a). As the lixiviant flows through the resin 

35 beads, the dissolved uranium complexes in the solution would attach to the resin beads by 

36 displacing a chloride ion or bicarbonate ion. The resin would be considered loaded when 

37 uranium complexes occupy most of the available sites on the resin beads. The proposed 

38 ion-exchange systems are designed to operate in pressurized downflow mode. The barren 

39 lixiviant leaving the ion-exchange system would normally contain less than 2 mg/L [2 ppm] 

40 uranium (NRC, 2009). 

41 After the barren lixiviant leaves the ion-exchange vessels, the production bleed would be 

42 removed and routed to the liquid waste system for Class I deep well disposal. Carbon dioxide 
2-25 

 Figure 2-10. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project – Conceptual Flow Diagram (AUC, 2012b) 
2-26 

1 would then be added to the barren lixiviant to return the carbonate/bicarbonate concentration to 

2 the desired level. The lixiviant solution would then be pumped back to the wellfield, where 

3 oxygen would be added prior to reinjection into the wellfields to repeat the leaching cycle. 

4 Elution 

5 GEIS Section 2.4.2.2 describes the elution circuit at ISR facilities (NRC, 2009). At the proposed 

6 Reno Creek ISR Project CPP, resin transfer out of the ion-exchange vessels into the elution 

7 circuit would be accomplished via resin-transfer piping. Next, the resin would be transferred to 

8 a resin-transfer truck which would have one or more compartments. The resin would be 

9 hydraulically removed from the compartments and screened for debris and other particulates 

10 before transfer into the elution vessels. 

11 An elution process removes the uranyl dicarbonate and uranyl tricarbonate ions from the resin 

12 and restores the resin to its chloride form for reuse. Fresh eluant would be prepared by 

13 combining saturated chloride (salt) solution and saturated sodium carbonate (soda ash) solution 

14 with water, forming a solution that is approximately 10 percent sodium chloride and 2 percent 

15 sodium carbonate. The elution process involves recycling eluant passing through the resin 

16 elution vessel to maximize the removal of uranium from the uranium-loaded resins. The 

17 applicant estimates the proposed process would remove a considerable percentage of the 

18 uranyl carbonate complexes from the resin (AUC, 2012b).

19 Precipitation, Drying, and Packaging 

20 GEIS Section 2.4.2.3 describes precipitation, drying, and packaging at ISR facilities (NRC, 

21 2009). The proposed precipitation and drying process at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

22 central plant uses rich eluate, which has been transferred from the rich eluate tank to a 

23 precipitation tank (draft SEIS Figure 2-10). Precipitation and drying would be initiated by adding 

24 sulfuric or hydrochloric acid to the rich eluate in the precipitation tank to break down the 

25 carbonate portion of the dissolved uranyl carbonate complex. The proposed process uses 

26 hydrogen peroxide to precipitate out the uranium as uranium peroxide (UO4). Next, sodium 

27 hydroxide is added to adjust the pH before the precipitated uranyl peroxide or yellowcake 

28 slurry settles. After settling, the yellowcake slurry is pumped to a gravity thickener (GEIS 

29 Figure 2.1–10). The thickened slurry is pumped to a filter press to remove excess water. The 

30 yellowcake slurry is washed with fresh water to remove impurities, especially chloride, and air 

31 dried to further reduce the moisture content. 

32 After air drying is complete, the next step of the proposed process moves the filtered yellowcake 

33 slurry to a rotary vacuum dryer housed in a separate room of the central plant. The dryer would 

34 be operated under a vacuum to reduce the ability of water-soluble uranium oxides and other 

35 compounds to form and to pull solids and water vapor toward the center of the system, which 

36 helps to prevent unwanted releases. Vapor is pulled from the dryers by sealed liquid ring 

37 vacuum pumps and filtered through baghouse filters located on the tops of the dryers; this 

removes particles larger than 1 micron [3.9 × 10−5 38 in] in size. The vapor exiting the baghouses 

39 would be cooled using condensers to remove water vapor and any remaining smaller sized 

40 particulates. Any water in the condensers would be collected and pumped to the solids removal 

41 tank in the wastewater system. 

42 Following the drying stage, the yellowcake would be packaged in approved 208-liter (L) [55-gal] 

43 steel drums and stored within a restricted storage area until shipment offsite (AUC, 2012b). 
2-27 

1 Packaged yellowcake would be shipped offsite via truck to licensed uranium conversion facilities 

2 for further processing. Conversion facilities are currently located in Metropolis, Illinois, and 

3 Port Hope, Ontario, Canada. The applicant projects a maximum annual production of 

4 907,185 kg/year (yr) [2 million lb/yr] of yellowcake (as U3O8) over the 11-year projected 

5 operational life of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2012a). 

6 Management of Production Bleed and Water Balance 

7 As stated in GEIS Section 2.4.3, uranium mobilization would produce excess water that must be 

8 properly managed (NRC, 2009). The production wells at any ISR facility extract slightly more 

9 water than is reinjected into the host aquifer, which creates a net inward flow of groundwater 

10 into the wellfield. This excess water, referred to as production bleed, is liquid byproduct material 

11 that must be properly managed. At the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the applicant 

12 proposes to use the process described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3. As part of normal 

13 operations, the production bleed is diverted from the ion-exchange circuit after the uranium is 

14 recovered, but before the lixiviant is recharged. 

15 The applicant estimates that, at full production, wellfields in the proposed Reno Creek ISR area 

16 would operate at an average production flow rate of 41,640 Lpm [11,000 gpm] (AUC, 2012b). 

17 The production bleed would be approximately 0.5 to 1.5 percent with an average bleed rate of 

18 1.0 percent of the production flow rate, or approximately 416 Lpm [110 gpm] (AUC, 2012b). 

19 The bleed rate would be adjusted as necessary to maintain the wellfield cone of depression. 

20 The applicant proposes to treat the production bleed using a single stage of reverse osmosis 

21 (RO) followed by reinjection of the treated water back to the production aquifer while directing a 

22 portion of the treated water to CPP processes (AUC, 2012b). The applicant proposes to 

23 dispose of the resulting concentrated wastewater (i.e., RO brine) as liquid byproduct material in 

24 Class I deep disposal wells. 

25 Other liquid waste streams, including spent elution circuit bleed, liquids from process drains, 

26 groundwater generated during aquifer restoration, and washdown water, would be produced as 

27 part of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and these waste streams would be handled as 

28 liquid byproduct material in the same manner as the production bleed. 

29 Schedule 

30 The applicant currently plans to develop 15 wellfields (draft SEIS Figure 2-1). The applicant 

31 anticipates that production activities in the initial wellfields would commence 9 to 12 months 

32 after construction begins (draft SEIS Figure 2-1). Wellfield operations would continue for 

33 11 years as additional wellfields are completed along the uranium roll front deposits. The 

34 applicant estimated that 92 workers would be directly involved in the operations phase of the 

35 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2014a). 

36 2.1.1.1.4 Aquifer Restoration Activities 

37 GEIS Section 2.5 described aquifer restoration activities within wellfields that ensure water 

38 quality in surrounding aquifers would not be adversely affected by the uranium recovery 

39 operations (NRC, 2009). At the end of the uranium recovery process, constituents that were 

40 mobilized by the lixiviant remain in the production aquifer. The primary goal of aquifer 

41 restoration is to return groundwater quality within the production zone of wellfields to the 

42 preoperational water quality conditions or to standards consistent with NRC requirements at 
2-28 

1 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) (AUC, 2012a). Groundwater quality in the 

2 exempted ore-bearing aquifer is to be restored, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, 

3 Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), to (i) a Commission-approved background (CAB) concentration; 

4 (ii) the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Table 5C, for 

5 constituents listed in Table 5C and if the background level of the constituents fall below the 

6 listed value; or (iii) an alternate concentration limit (ACL) established by the Commission, if the 

7 constituent background level and the values listed in Table 5C are not reasonably achievable. 

8 The ACL development is described in draft SEIS Appendix B. These groundwater quality 

9 standards would be implemented, as part of the aquifer restoration phase, to ensure public 

10 health and safety. The applicant would also be required to provide financial sureties to 

11 cover the costs of both planned and delayed restoration programs, in accordance with 

12 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9. The NRC reviews financial sureties annually. 

13 Under the Federal UIC program (40 CFR Parts 144 and 146), the exempted production 

14 aquifer(s) would no longer be protected under the SDWA as a source of drinking water. The 

15 UIC criteria for the exemption of an aquifer that might otherwise be defined as a USDW are 

16 found at 40 CFR Part 146.4. These criteria include whether the aquifer is currently a USDW, 

17 whether the water quality is such that it would be economically or technologically impractical to 

18 use the water to supply a public water system, and whether the aquifer contains minerals that 

19 are expected to be commercially producible. An aquifer exemption is granted by the WDEQ 

20 and requires EPA approval. Wyoming’s rules for in situ mining require that the exempted 

21 aquifer be restored to its pre-mining class of use after the operations are complete (WDEQ, 

22 2013b). This requirement is more stringent than EPA’s rules, which only require that 

23 groundwater protection standards be met at the aquifer-exemption boundary (i.e., contaminants 

24 cannot migrate from an exempted aquifer to the surrounding USDW). 

25 Before beginning wellfield operations, the applicant must determine background water quality 

26 by sampling and analyzing water quality indicator constituents in the mineralized zone(s) and 

27 underlying and overlying aquifers across each wellfield (AUC, 2012b). The applicant would 

28 establish target restoration goals [CAB concentrations per 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

29 Criterion 5B(5)] as a function of the average background water quality and the variability in each 

30 parameter, based on statistical methods (AUC, 2012b). Draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.2 describes 

31 these background water quality parameters and methods to be used to establish groundwater 

32 restoration targets for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

33 Background water quality samples obtained from monitoring wells placed in the ore-bearing 

34 aquifers, as well as the underlying and overlying aquifers (where present), would be used to 

35 define excursion parameters and UCLs. UCLs must be established before ISR operations 

36 begin because they are used to control and manage any excursions that may occur during the 

37 ISR operations and restoration phases. Groundwater monitoring for selected constituents, 

38 throughout the life of the proposed project, is discussed in draft SEIS Sections 7.2.5 and 7.3.4. 

39 Groundwater Restoration Methods 

40 The applicant proposes a phased approach to groundwater restoration, and it is anticipated that 

41 two to three production units would be in various stages of active restoration or stability 

42 monitoring at one time (AUC, 2012b). The active groundwater restoration phase would include 

43 the following methods: (i) groundwater transfer, (ii) groundwater sweep (targeted or selective), 

44 and (iii) RO treatment with permeate injection and reductant addition. 
2-29 

1 The applicant intends to combine these methods selectively to improve groundwater restoration 

2 efficiency, reduce consumptive use of groundwater, and decrease the time to restore a given 

3 production unit. This can be accomplished because the applicant would install the infrastructure 

4 necessary to accomplish groundwater restoration concurrently with uranium recovery 

5 operations. To ensure that a production unit would be able to begin groundwater restoration, 

6 additional restoration pipelines would be installed along with production pipelines, as necessary. 

7 The pumps used for production would remain in the wells for use in restoration. 

8 In order to maximize the volume of treated water (i.e., permeate) and minimize brine (liquid 

9 byproduct material) production, the applicant would use two stages of RO treatment (primary 

10 and secondary, as needed). The applicant estimates applying a second stage of RO would 

11 reduce the brine quantity by an additional 40 to 50 percent compared to a single-phase RO 

12 system (AUC, 2012b). Additionally, the interference from groundwater restoration with ongoing 

13 uranium recovery operations would be kept to a minimum by maximizing the quantity of 

14 permeate reinjected into wellfields undergoing RO treatment. The restoration circuit would be 

15 designed to handle the anticipated flow of about 3,979 Lpm [1,050 gpm]. The RO system would 

16 consist of two units in series. The first RO unit would produce approximately 75 to 80 percent of 

17 the flow as high-quality permeate and 20 to 25 percent of the flow as a concentrated brine 

18 solution. Concentrated brine would then be pumped to the secondary RO unit, which would 

19 produce approximately 60 percent permeate and 40 percent brine. Additional feed water to the 

20 secondary RO unit may include brine from the production RO unit, CPP process waste water, 

21 and groundwater sweep fluids. Permeate from each of the RO units would be combined and 

22 would be injected into the wellfields undergoing active groundwater restoration. The resultant 

23 brine from this treatment would be injected into the Class I deep disposal wells. For concurrent 

24 production and aquifer restoration activities, the applicant estimates the maximum liquid 

25 byproduct material flow rate to the Class I deep disposal wells following RO treatment would be 

26 545 Lpm [144 gal/min] (AUC, 2012b). 

27 The applicant has indicated that they may decide not to employ the groundwater sweep stage 

28 at some production units. Based on the NRC staff’s review of the applicant’s water balance 

29 (AUC, 2012b), this would eliminate 189 Lpm [50 gpm] of feed water to the restoration circuit and 

30 would result in a decrease of wastewater produced at the secondary RO unit by 64 Lpm [20 

31 gpm]. The resultant wastewater flow rates from the secondary RO unit to the Class I deep 

32 disposal wells would be approximately 488 Lpm [122 gpm] for concurrent production and 

33 groundwater restoration. 

34 Restoration Monitoring and Stabilization 

35 During aquifer restoration, lixiviant injection stops and groundwater transfer, sweep, and/or 

36 treatment are used to attempt to restore the production aquifer groundwater quality to original 

37 background levels. Stopping lixiviant injection reduces the potential for an excursion and 

38 reduces the frequency of sampling the monitoring wells. The applicant’s restoration monitoring 

39 program for the proposed project would include taking samples from monitoring wells, overlying 

40 aquifer wells, and underlying aquifer wells every 60 days during the restoration phase of 

41 operations (AUC, 2012b). The samples would be analyzed to determine whether water quality 

42 has been restored, consistent with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). Water levels in 

43 wells would be measured prior to sampling. If unforeseen conditions, such as snowstorms, 

44 flooding, or equipment malfunctions, make monitoring impossible for 65 days, the applicant 

45 would be required to report this condition to the NRC. The applicant would maintain hydraulic 

46 control of each wellfield through the end of aquifer restoration. Verification of hydraulic control 
2-30 

1 would be performed through water level measurements in perimeter monitoring wells 

2 (AUC, 2012b). Water levels in the perimeter monitoring wells would be measured continuously 

3 using pressure transducers to confirm hydraulic wellfield control. Aquifer restoration would be 

4 complete when the applicant demonstrates that water quality conditions have been restored in 

5 accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) requirements. These standards 

6 are either CAB water quality; water quality equivalent to the MCLs provided in the table in 

7 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5C; or an ACL the NRC established in accordance with 

8 Criterion 5B(6). The NRC process for reviewing and approving ACLs is found in draft SEIS 

9 Appendix B. 

10 After the NRC concluded the production wellfield area was restored, the applicant would 

11 implement a groundwater stability monitoring program for a minimum of 12 months. The results 

12 of the monitoring program would determine whether the approved standards for each 

13 constituent have been met and whether any adjacent nonexempt aquifers are affected. Over 

14 the 12-month minimum stability monitoring period, there would be an initial sampling event at 

15 the beginning of the stability monitoring period. Subsequent sampling events are described in 

16 detail below: 

17  Perimeter monitoring wells in the production zone and monitoring wells in the overlying 

18 and underlying aquifers would continue to be sampled once every 60 days for the UCL 

19 indicator excursion parameters of chloride, total alkalinity, and conductivity. The 

20 applicant would contact NRC if any of the wells could not be monitored within 65 days of 

21 the last sampling event due to unforeseen conditions, such as snowstorms, flooding, or 

22 equipment malfunctions. 

23  Quarterly, the production zone wells would be sampled and analyzed for the water 

24 quality parameters listed in draft SEIS Table 7-1. The criteria to establish successful 

25 stability are as follows: for each sampling event, the mean concentration of each water 

26 quality parameter must meet the target restoration goal established for that parameter. 

27 If the analytical results from the stability monitoring program meet the target restoration 

28 goals and do not exhibit significant increasing trends, the applicant would (i) submit 

29 supporting documentation to the NRC showing that the restoration parameters have 

30 remained at or below the restoration standards and (ii) request that the wellfield be 

31 declared restored. 

32 Schedule 

33 The applicant anticipates that restoration of the first wellfields would commence in year 6 and 

34 continue until year 14 or 15. As additional wellfields are brought into production, the applicant 

35 would restore each wellfield as soon as reasonably practicable following production. The 

36 applicant estimates that 52 workers would be directly involved in aquifer restoration activities. 

37 Most workers would come from Wright, Edgerton, and Gillette, Wyoming (AUC, 2014a). 

38 2.1.1.1.5 Decontamination, Decommissioning, and Reclamation Activities 

39 Decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would require an NRC-approved 

40 decommissioning plan. All decommissioning activities would be carried out in accordance with 

41 10 CFR Part 40 and other applicable regulatory standards. GEIS Section 2.6 (NRC, 2009) 

42 describes the general processes for the decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of 

43 an ISR facility. NRC regulations require a licensee to submit a detailed decommissioning plan 
2-31 

1 for NRC review and approval at least 12 months before final decommissioning is planned. The 

2 decommissioning plan for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would include the necessary 

3 plans for proposed project closure, including all decommissioning and surface reclamation 

4 activities. The NRC evaluates a proposed decommissioning plan, and if approved, the plan 

5 becomes an amendment to the license. Only after receiving NRC approval of a plan may a 

6 licensee initiate the decommissioning process. Unless the Commission approves an alternative 

7 schedule for completion of decommissioning, pursuant to 10 CFR 40.42(i), the licensee would 

8 be required by 10 CFR 40.42(h)(1) to complete decommissioning as soon as practicable but no 

9 later than 2 years after approval of the decommissioning plan. 

10 Before the property is released for unrestricted use, the licensee would conduct a 

11 comprehensive radiation survey to establish that the levels of various constituents are within 

12 limits identified in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A (AUC, 2012b). The goal of decontamination, 

13 decommissioning, and reclamation activities would be to return disturbed lands to unrestricted 

14 use, consistent with preoperational conditions or expected post-operations use. To achieve this 

15 goal, the applicant would (i) plug and abandon wells; (ii) establish appropriate cleanup 

16 criteria for structures; (iii) survey soils and structures to identify residual contamination, 

17 (iv) decontaminate items to be released for unrestricted use; (v) remove contaminated 

18 equipment and materials for disposal at a licensed facility; (vi) perform final status surveys to 

19 verify cleanup of soils; and (vii) reclaim disturbed lands, including reapplication of stockpiled 

20 soils and revegetation of disturbed areas, in accordance with WDEQ regulations and permits 

21 (AUC, 2012b). 

22 Radiological Surveys and Contamination Control 

23 After completing aquifer restoration of each production unit, the applicant proposes, in 

24 accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning plan, to conduct radiological surveys of 

25 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area to identify any areas that contain solid byproduct 

26 material that exceed the applicable regulatory limits at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

27 Criterion 6(6) (AUC, 2012b). The NRC would require decommissioning surveys of soils, 

28 structures, and equipment. The results of these surveys would be used to determine whether 

29 decontamination or remediation is needed and how to disposition contaminated soils, 

30 structures, or other materials. 

31 The applicant has committed to remediating land areas, as necessary, to meet the limit 

32 at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) (AUC, 2012b). The most likely areas of 

33 contaminated soils would be wellfield surfaces, process building areas, storage yards, 

34 transportation routes for uranium recovery products or contaminated materials, and pipeline 

35 runs. Areas near deep Class I disposal wells would also be surveyed and decontaminated, as 

36 necessary. NRC would review and approve survey and sampling results. Soils that contain 

37 byproduct material in excess of the NRC limit would be removed and disposed, as solid 

38 byproduct material, at a licensed disposal facility. Pond liners and leak detection systems that 

39 have come in contact with solid or liquid byproduct material are designated as byproduct 

40 material and would be removed and disposed of in a licensed disposal facility. The applicant 

41 has the option to decontaminate these components and survey them for unrestricted release, 

42 but this is not the anticipated practice due to cost. 
2-32 

1 Wellfields 

2 Wellfield decommissioning and surface reclamation would be initiated when NRC determines 

3 that the groundwater in a wellfield has been adequately restored and that the water quality is 

4 stable (NRC, 2009). Decontamination and decommissioning of wellfields would include 

5 abandoning wells; removing piping, tanks, ancillary buildings, and equipment; remediating 

6 surface soils, as necessary, to meet the radiological standards provided in 10 CFR Part 40, 

7 Appendix A, Criterion 6; and revegetating disturbed areas (AUC, 2012b). To prevent adverse 

8 impacts to groundwater quality, all production, injection, and monitoring wells, as well as all drill 

9 holes, would be abandoned in place, according to WDEQ regulations (WDEQ, 2013b), unless a 

10 well is needed for continued monitoring of another production unit, or retention of the well for 

11 future use has been requested and approved (AUC, 2012b). Well abandonment would require 

12 plugging wells with a WDEQ-approved cement mixture or bentonite and cement grout mixture 

13 (AUC, 2012b). Prior to abandonment, wells would be opened to remove debris and equipment 

14 (e.g., tubing, pumps, and screens) to prevent obstacles from interfering with plugging 

15 operations. The wellhead casing would be removed to a minimum depth of 0.6 m [2 ft] below 

16 the ground surface (AUC, 2012b) and set in a cement plug on each well or borehole that is 

17 plugged and abandoned (AUC, 2012b). 

18 Wellfield reclamation would involve removing surface and subsurface equipment, including 

19 injection and production feed lines, header houses, electrical and control distribution systems, 

20 well boxes, wellhead equipment, and buried piping. NRC decommissioning guidelines require 

21 surveying all piping, equipment, buildings, and wellhead machinery for contamination prior to 

22 release. Some reusable equipment may be moved to new production wellfield areas. When the 

23 final production wellfield area is reclaimed, all contaminated piping, wellheads, and associated 

24 equipment that is not salvageable would be removed to an NRC-approved disposal facility. A 

25 final gamma survey of the proposed project area would identify contaminated earthen materials 

26 requiring removal (AUC, 2012b). As final steps, the wellfield surface would be recontoured, 

27 where necessary, and revegetated (AUC, 2012b). 

28 Process Buildings and Equipment and Other Structures 

29 After groundwater is restored in all production wellfield areas, the CPP and ancillary facilities 

30 would be decommissioned in accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning plan. All 

31 processing equipment associated with the CPP would be dismantled and either sold to another 

32 NRC-licensed facility or decontaminated in accordance with NRC regulations and guidance 

33 documents. Facilities and equipment that cannot be decontaminated would be disposed of at 

34 an NRC-approved facility. Decontaminated facilities and equipment would be reused, sold, or 

35 removed and disposed of offsite. After the dismantling and removal of buildings is completed, 

36 the former building sites would be contoured to blend in with the surrounding terrain. Gamma 

37 surveys of land areas supplemented by lab analysis for radium-226 and natural uranium for 

38 areas with elevated survey readings would be conducted to verify that radiation levels are within 

39 acceptable limits (AUC, 2012b).

40 Engineered Structures and Access Roads 

41 After final decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed project area is complete, 

42 proposed project area access and wellfield access roads would be reclaimed (AUC, 2012a). If 

43 landowners prefer, roads may be left in place for their private use, if approved by the WDEQ. 

44 Where the access roads are reclaimed, they would be ripped as necessary to relieve 
2-33 

1 compaction, and gravel would be removed from road surfaces. Culverts would also be 

2 removed, and premining drainage patterns would be reestablished. In addition to being graded, 

3 all roads and ditches would be recontoured to blend in with the surrounding terrain; topsoil 

4 would be reapplied uniformly onto road surfaces prior to revegetation. 

5 Final Contouring and Revegetation 

6 Once the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is complete, the applicant proposes to return 

7 all disturbed lands to their preproduction uses for livestock grazing and as wildlife habitat. 

8 Disturbed lands would be restored to blend with the contour of adjoining topography. Topsoil 

9 removed and stored during construction would be reapplied during reclamation. Revegetation 

10 of the proposed project area is the final state of reclamation and would involve seeding the area 

11 with a seed mixture, based on discussions with the WDEQ and area landowners (AUC, 2012a). 

12 The success of revegetation would be evaluated based on WDEQ (WDEQ, 2014). The WDEQ 

13 would determine when revegetation is complete and when the conditions for bond release have 

14 been met (AUC, 2012a). 

15 Schedule 

16 The applicant estimates that decommissioning of the CPP would take 1 year to complete 

17 (AUC, 2012b) (draft SEIS Figure 2-1). There would be some overlap between wellfield 

18 decommissioning and the groundwater restoration activities, as shown in draft SEIS Figure 2-1. 

19 Wellfield decommissioning is proposed to continue for 10 years and proceed sequentially as 

20 production and restoration activities are completed in each wellfield. The applicant estimates 

21 that 90 workers would be directly involved in the reclamation and decommissioning phases of 

22 the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). The applicant expects that the majority of these workers 

23 would come from towns such as Gillette and Casper, which are located 66 km [41 mi] and 

24 100 km [63 mi], respectively, from the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). 

25 2.1.1.1.6 Effluents and Waste Management 

26 All phases of the proposed project (i.e., construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

27 decommissioning) would generate effluents and waste streams that must be handled and 

28 disposed of properly. This section describes the types and volumes of effluents or wastes the 

29 applicant estimates would be generated during the life of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, 

30 and definitions of the liquid and solid wastes that would be generated. The proposed disposal 

31 option and locations for liquid and solid wastes are described in draft SEIS Section 3.13. The 

32 potential impacts of generating and disposing of these types of waste are detailed in draft SEIS 

33 Section 4.14. Nonradiological air quality and air emission impacts are described in draft SEIS 

34 Sections 3.7 and 4.7, and potential radiological air emission impacts are discussed in draft SEIS 

35 Section 4.13. Transportation of waste materials for offsite disposal is described in draft SEIS 

36 Section 2.1.1.1.7. Regional transportation conditions are found in draft SEIS Section 3.3, and 

37 the potential impacts on transportation are detailed in draft SEIS Section 4.3. 

38 Gaseous or Airborne Particulate Emissions 

39 Gaseous or airborne particulate emissions generated during the life of the proposed 

40 Reno Creek ISR Project would primarily consist of fugitive dusts, combustion engine exhaust, 

41 radon gas emissions from various stages of the processing system, and uranium particulate 

42 emissions from yellowcake drying (AUC, 2012a). Radiological and nonradiological emissions 
2-34 

1 are discussed separately. Appendix C of this draft SEIS and the Ambient Air Quality Modeling 

2 Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a,b) include additional details concerning nonradiological 

3 air emissions for the proposed project, including the air emission inventory and air 

4 dispersion modeling. 

5 Nonradiological Emissions 

6 Nonradiological emissions are classified into two main categories: fugitive dust and combustion 

7 emissions. Combustion emissions are further categorized into nongreenhouse gases and 

8 greenhouse gases. Nonradiological emissions are presented for each project phase (some of 

9 which would occur simultaneously), as well as for the peak year, which represents the highest 

10 amount of emissions the proposed project would generate in any one project year. 

11 For the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, all four phases are active, though not at 100 percent, 

12 during the peak year. For the proposed project, year six serves as the peak year. Draft SEIS 

13 Appendix C, Section C–3.1.4 provides additional information concerning the peak year 

14 concentrations. The construction phase is categorized into CPP (i.e., facilities) construction and 

15 wellfield construction. Facilities construction is completed in project year one, with the 

16 exception of the drilling of the deep injection wells, which are used for liquid waste disposal. 

17 Activities for drilling the deep disposal wells and the associated emissions are evenly divided 

18 between project years one and two. Wellfield construction occurs during project years one 

19 through nine. The air emission inventory presented in this section of the draft SEIS incorporates 

20 mitigation, as further described in draft SEIS Section 4.7 and in Appendix C, Section C–3.1.6. 

21 The primary fugitive dust emission sources would be from vehicular travel on unpaved roads 

22 and wind erosion on disturbed land. Draft SEIS Table 2-1 presents the estimated annual mass 

23 flow rate (i.e., the amount of pollutant generated in a year) for fugitive dust associated with the 

24 proposed project. Vehicles contributing to the onsite fugitive dust estimates presented in draft 

25 SEIS Table 2-1 include construction equipment, drill field equipment, trucks transporting 

26 materials and product, and commuter traffic. The amount of travel on unpaved roads 

27 (i.e., activity level), and, therefore, the amount of fugitive dust generated, varies over the 

28 lifespan of the project. The amount of fugitive emissions from wind erosion is a function of the 

29 amount of disturbed land. The estimated annual wind erosion levels do not vary much over the 

30 span of the project. The values in draft SEIS Table 2-1 for the individual phases represent the 

31 100 percent activity level for that phase. The peak year value in draft SEIS Table 2-1 includes 

32 contributions from construction – wellfield, operations, groundwater restoration, 

33 decommissioning/reclamation, and wind erosion. 

34 Combustion emissions primarily come from mobile sources, although stationary sources would 

35 contribute some emissions. Mobile sources, as presented in draft SEIS Table 2-2, include 

36 construction equipment, drill field equipment, trucks transporting materials and product, and 

37 commuter traffic. The number of hours the mobile sources are active varies over the lifespan of 

38 the project; therefore, the amount of combustion emissions also varies. The values in draft 

39 SEIS Table 2-2 for the individual phases represent the 100 percent activity level for that phase. 

40 For purposes of this draft SEIS, point or stationary source emissions would be limited to the 

41 equipment identified in draft SEIS Table 2-3 and are assumed to be constant over the project 

42 life span, except for project year one, which produces the lowest levels of stationary emissions.
2-35 

Table 2-1. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for Fugitive Dust 

Associated with the Proposed Project 

Category 

Particulate 

Matter PM‡2.5

Particulate 

Matter PM10

Phase† Construction – Facilities 2.10 19.05 

Construction – Wellfield 9.18 89.49 

Operation 1.83 16.22 

Groundwater Restoration 2.17 18.45 

Decommissioning/Reclamation 3.44 34.36 

Peak Year§ 10.48 102.17 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a, b) 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231 

†The values for the individual phases represent emission levels from dust generated from travel on unpaved roads 

associated with a 100 percent activity level for that phase and include contributions from dust generated from travel 

on unpaved roads and wind erosion from disturbed lands. 

‡PM = Particulate matter. PM 2.5 refer to particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. PM10 refers to 

particles larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter. 

§Peak year includes contributions from Construction – Wellfield, Operations, Groundwater Restoration, 

Decommissioning/Reclamation, and Wind Erosion. The individual phases were not active at the 100 percent activity 

level during the peak year. Therefore, the peak year values are not the same as the total for the phases at the 

100 percent activity level. 

Table 2-2. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for Various Pollutants 

from Mobile Source Combustion Emissions Associated with the 

Proposed Project 

Pollutant 

Construction 

Operation 

Groundwater 

Restoration 

Decommissioning 

Reclamation 

Peak 

Facilities Wellfield Year†

Carbon 

Monoxide 7.56 35.17 3.14 1.47 2.68 38.32 

Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 0.29 1.44 0.24 0.11 0.19 1.68 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 7.93 34.52 4.87 2.00 5.03 39.39 

Particulate 

Matter PM‡2.5

0.46 1.99 0.28 0.12 0.31 2.27 

Particulate 

Matter PM10

0.47 2.05 0.29 0.12 0.32 2.34 

Sulfur Dioxide 1.22 5.46 0.71 0.34 0.63 6.17 

Total 

Hydrocarbons 2.19 18.70 5.41 2.58 3.62 24.09 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a,b) 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231 

†Peak year includes contributions from construction – wellfield, operations, groundwater restoration, and 

decommissioning/reclamation. The individual phases were not active at the 100 percent activity level during the peak 

year. The values in this table for the individual phases do represent the 100 percent activity level. Therefore, the 

peak year values are not the same as the total for the phases at the 100 percent activity level. 

‡PM = Particulate matter. PM 2.5 refer to particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. PM10 refers to 

particles larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter.

The NRC staff has determined that any emissions from bulk storage facilities would be 

negligible. The WDEQ requires bin vents for solids storage tanks and scrubbers for acid 
2-36 

vapors. Fuel tank emissions are on the order of kilograms [pounds] per year (AUC, 2014a). 

Emissions from bulk storage facilities are not included in the emission inventory tables. 

1 The air impact analysis in draft SEIS Section 4.7 includes atmospheric dispersion modeling 

2 system (AERMOD) dispersion modeling, which was used to predict National Ambient Air Quality 

3 Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pollutant concentrations. 

4 The NAAQS and PSD-allowable increments are described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2. Draft 

5 SEIS Table 4-9 presents the AERMOD modeling results with respect to the NAAQS, while draft 

6 SEIS Table 4-10 presents the results with respect to the PSD-allowable increments. 

7 The peak year emission estimates were used as input for the AERMOD modeling, since this 

8 represents the highest amount of emissions for a single project year, which corresponds to the 

9 highest impact on air quality. Draft SEIS Table 2-3 contains the peak year estimates, which 

10 combines the emissions from the fugitive (draft SEIS Table 2-1), mobile (draft SEIS Table 2-2), 

11 and stationary sources (draft SEIS Table 2-4). Some of these sources do not operate 

12 continuously and do not generate emissions at a constant rate over an entire year. To provide a 

13 more accurate depiction of short-term impacts (i.e., 1-hour, 3-hour, or 24-hour time periods), the 

14 Reno Creek AERMOD analysis utilized relevant hourly emission rates for sources that do not 

15 operate continuously. Appendix B of the Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results 

16 (AUC, 2014b) provides the details concerning the emission rates associated with the AERMOD 

17 modeling. The values in draft SEIS Table 2-3 reveal that certain source categories generate the 

18 majority of emissions for certain pollutants. Appendix C of the applicant’s ER identifies the 

19 contribution (i.e., percent) of the various source categories to the various pollutants for the peak 

20 year. For example, fugitive dust sources generate 81.8 percent of the proposed project’s PM2.5 

21 emissions and 97.7 percent of the PM10 emissions. The mobile combustion emission sources 

22 generate the majority of carbon dioxide (98.1 percent), nitrogen dioxide (96.9 percent), and 

23 sulfur dioxide (100 percent) emissions. The highest level of emissions that the stationary 

24 sources contribute to any single pollutant is for nitrogen oxide at 3.1 percent. 

25 The air quality analysis in draft SEIS Section 4.7 examines air impacts by individual phases, in 

26 addition to the peak year. Pollutant concentrations for individual phases were not directly 

27 modeled in AERMOD. Instead, the individual phase pollutant concentrations were calculated 

28 from the peak year pollutant concentrations that were directly modeled in AERMOD. This 

29 calculation was based on the relative amount of emissions from the peak year compared to the 

30 100 percent activity emission level for each phase. Draft SEIS Appendix C Section C–3.1 

31 provides additional information regarding these calculations. 

32 Combustion exhaust estimates for greenhouse gas emissions fall into three source categories. 

33 The first category consists of facility sources, which are further categorized into stationary 

34 sources and facility fugitive emissions from the uranium recovery process. The second 

35 category consists of mobile sources, as previously discussed. The third category consists of 

36 indirect emissions from electricity consumption (i.e., emissions associated with the production of 

37 the electricity that the proposed project consumes). Draft SEIS Table 2-5 presents the carbon 

38 dioxide gas emission estimates for the proposed project for the peak year. Stationary source 

39 emissions are assumed to constant over the project life span, except for project year one, which 

40 produces the lowest levels of stationary emissions. Facility fugitive emissions from the uranium 

41 recovery process occur during the operations phase when relatively small amounts of carbon 

42 dioxide are released when acidifying pregnant eluate prior to precipitation of uranyl peroxide. 

43 These fugitive emission estimates are based on process assumptions and production rates. 

44 The value in draft SEIS Table 2-5 presents the estimated carbon dioxide emissions from the 
2-37 

Table 2-3. Estimated Peak Year Emission Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* Per Year) for 

Various National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutants from All Sources 

for the Proposed Project 

Pollutant 

Fugitive Dust 

Sources 

Mobile 

Emission 

Sources 

Stationary 

Emission 

Sources Peak Year 

Carbon Monoxide 0 38.32 0.73 39.04 

Nitrogen Oxides 0 39.39 1.26 40.65 

Particulate Matter PM†2.5 10.48 2.27 0.06 12.81 

Particulate Matter PM10 102.17 2.34 0.06 104.57 

Sulfur Dioxide 0 6.17 0.00‡ 6.17 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a, b) 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231 

†PM = Particulate matter. PM 2.5 refer to particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. PM10 refers to 

particles larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter. 

‡This emission value of 0.00 metric tons per year means that emissions were below this level but does not 

necessarily mean that none of the pollutant was emitted.

Table 2-4. Estimated Mass Flow Rates* (Metric Tons† per Year) for Various Pollutants 

from Stationary Source Combustion Emissions Associated with the 

Proposed Project‡ 

Pollutant 

Stationary Emission Source 

Total 

Vacuum 

Dryers Main Heater Furnace 

Radiant 

Heaters 

Carbon 

Monoxide 0.35 0.20 0.02 0.16 0.73 

Hazardous Air 

Pollutants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 0.61 0.34 0.03 0.27 1.26 

Particulate 

Matter PM§2.5

0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.06 

Particulate 

Matter PM10

0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.06 

Sulfur Dioxide 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total Organic 

Compounds 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.10 

Volatile 

Organic 

Compounds 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a,b) 

* Mass flow rates of 0.00 metric tons per year in this table mean that emissions were below this level, but does not 

necessarily mean that none of the pollutant was emitted. 

†To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231 

‡Except for project year one, stationary emission are assumed to be constant over the project lifespan. 

§PM = Particulate matter. PM 2.5 refer to particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. PM10 refers to 

particles larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter.
2-38 

Table 2-5. Estimated Amount (Metric Tons*) of Carbon Dioxide† Emissions for the 

Peak Year from All Sources 

Source 

Mass (Metric Tons) of Carbon Dioxide 

Emitted in Peak Year 

Mobile 4,063 

Stationary – Combustion Emissions 1,208 

Stationary – Uranium Recovery Process 685 

Electricity Consumption 35,763 

Peak Year Total 41,719 

Source: Source: Modified from AUC (2014a,b) 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231 

†All sources are expressed in carbon dioxide except for electricity consumption, which is expressed in carbon dioxide 

equivalents.

1 uranium recovery process for the maximum production rate of 907,185 kg [2,000,000 lb] of 

2 yellowcake (AUC, 2012a). Annual carbon dioxide emissions from mobile sources range from 

3 491 to 4,063 metric tons [541 to 4,479 short tons]. The indirect emissions from electricity 

4 consumption also vary based on activity levels. The value in draft SEIS Table 2-5 presents the 

5 maximum annual estimated indirect emissions associated with the proposed project. Carbon 

6 dioxide constitutes the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. Some methane and nitrous oxide 

7 emissions would occur. Chlorofluorocarbon and hydrochlorofluorocarbon greenhouse gas 

8 emissions are not expected from the proposed project. The Ambient Air Quality Modeling 

9 Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014b) present additional details concerning the greenhouse gas 

10 emission estimates. Draft SEIS Appendix C Section C–2.2 provides a brief summary of the 

11 Clean Air Act permitting program. The applicant plans to submit air quality permit information to 

12 WDEQ (see Table 1-2). Information concerning the relationship between the WDEQ regulatory 

13 determination and the NRC’s SEIS analyses is provided in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1 and draft 

14 SEIS Appendix C, Section C–2.1. 

15 Radioactive Emissions 

16 Radon gas emissions are most likely to occur during the operations and aquifer restoration 

17 stages of the proposed project, as detailed in draft SEIS Section 4.13. Radon releases may 

18 occur in the wellfield when the pregnant lixiviant is brought to the surface from the ore zone 

19 aquifer. Radon gas release could also occur when the downflow ion-exchange columns are 

20 taken offline for resin transfer and opened to the atmosphere. Radon gas would disperse 

21 quickly into the air. The use of general area and local ventilation systems would control radon 

22 buildup within the onsite facilities (AUC, 2012b). General area ventilation would involve a 

23 combination of forced air and natural ventilation of work areas in process buildings. Local 

24 ventilation for process vessels, where radon releases are more likely, would involve ducting or 

25 piping radon from the point of release through fans that exhaust to the outside, where the radon 

26 would disperse quickly into the air (AUC, 2012b). 

27 The magnitude of project-wide radon gas emissions during the proposed Reno Creek 

28 ISR Project would vary each year of the proposed schedule, depending on the degree of 

29 radon-emitting processing activities that would occur at any point in time. Considering the 

30 applicant’s breakdown of estimated radon gas releases for a single production unit operating at 

31 full capacity, the NRC staff determined the proposed facility lifecycle phase contributions are 

32 0.004 percent from construction, 72 percent from operations, and 28 percent from aquifer 

33 restoration. Therefore, the highest estimated annual radon gas emissions would occur in the 

34 year when the most production units are simultaneously operating. The applicant estimated a 
2-39 

1 maximum annual release of 28.6 TBq [772 curies] of radon gas in year nine of the proposed 

2 Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2014), considering the proposed operations schedule showing 

3 concurrent radon-generating activities (draft SEIS Figure 2-1), the size of operating production 

4 units, the percentage of the total production unit that is operating, and the process-specific 

5 maximum annual radon gas release rates. The applicant calculated the potential dose impacts 

6 from radon releases from all concurrent radon-generating activities for each proposed year of 

7 operations using the MILDOS code. Dose estimates were calculated for 16 compass directions 

8 and 5 receptors within 10 km [6.2 mi] of the CPP (AUC, 2012b). The applicant’s dose 

9 calculations are discussed further and compared with applicable NRC regulatory limits in the 

10 impact analysis in draft SEIS Section 4.13. 

11 An additional potential source for airborne particulate emissions is the yellowcake dryer, which 

12 would be located at the proposed central plant. The applicant proposes to use vacuum dryer 

13 technology for yellowcake drying operations at the CPP (AUC, 2012b). NUREG–1569 (NRC, 

14 2003a) provides guidance for evaluating air emissions at in situ leach (ISL) facilities (referred to 

15 in this document as ISR facilities), and indicates that dust emissions produced in the drying 

16 stage are negligible when a vacuum dryer is used to dry yellowcake. A vacuum dryer utilizes a 

17 heat source contained in a separate, isolated system, which ensures that no radioactive 

18 materials are trapped in the heating system or the exhaust it generates, as detailed in 

19 NUREG/CR–6733 (Mackin et al., 2001). The applicant’s proposed dryer contains a drying 

20 chamber where yellowcake slurry is added and is subjected to vacuum pressure (AUC, 2012b, 

21 2014a). The dryer would retain all yellowcake dusts that could be produced during loading and 

22 unloading operations. The proposed dryer is designed so that moisture from the yellowcake is 

23 the only source of vapor in the system. Vapor exiting the dryer is filtered through a baghouse 

24 filter above the dryer, which removes particulates down to a size of approximately 1 micron 

[3.9 × 10−5 25 in]. Vapor exiting the baghouse filter is then cooled using a condenser to remove 

26 water vapor and remaining small particulates (AUC, 2012b, 2014a). Water from the condenser 

27 would be collected and recycled back to the process. The overhead baghouse system collects 

28 dust in the baghouse filter and returns it to the drying chamber. While dryer system stack 

29 monitoring would not be conducted, based on the effectiveness of controls already included in 

30 the proposed vacuum dryer technology, the applicant proposes routine in-plant air monitoring 

31 with sample collection and analysis on a monthly basis, as described in Regulatory Guide 8.25 

32 (AUC, 2012a, b). Monitoring results must be submitted to the NRC in semiannual reports. 

33 Additionally, the dryer system would be instrumented to operate automatically and to shut down 

34 if malfunctions such as heating or vacuum system failures occur (AUC, 2012b). 

35 Liquid Wastes 

36 The applicant expects to generate liquid wastes during all phases of uranium recovery at the 

37 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. These wastes include well development and well test 

38 waters, stormwater runoff, waste petroleum products and chemicals, sanitary wastewater, 

39 production bleed, process solutions and laboratory chemicals, plant washdown water, and 

40 restoration water. Process solutions include process bleed, elution and precipitation brines, 

41 resin transfer wash, and filter backwash water. The NRC classifies wastewater generated 

42 during or after the uranium extraction phase of the proposed project operations as byproduct 

43 material; however, stormwater runoff, domestic sewage, waste petroleum, and hazardous 

44 waste are not byproduct material. Byproduct material does not meet the definition of solid 

45 waste in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4) and, therefore, is not regulated as hazardous waste under 

46 RCRA regulations. 
2-40 

1 Liquid byproduct material generated by the 

2 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would contain 

3 chemical and radiological constituents, including 

4 uranium and radium. Detailed information on 

5 expected wastewater constituents and 

6 estimated concentrations are provided in license 

7 application documentation (AUC, 2012b, 

8 2014b). 

9 The applicant proposed Class I deep disposal 

10 wells for managing liquid byproduct material. As 

11 described in draft SEIS Chapter 1, the proposed 

12 waste management option requires the 

13 applicant to obtain all applicable federal and 

14 State of Wyoming permits, in addition to an NRC 

15 license, before it operates the facility. 

16 Alternative wastewater disposal options are 

17 described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.2. 

18 However, the applicant did not propose using 

19 these alternative options. 

20 The applicant’s proposed Class I deep disposal 

21 wells involves drilling wells at the proposed 

22 project area to dispose of liquid byproduct 

23 material. A typical deep disposal well design is 

24 shown in draft SEIS Figure 2-10. The applicant 

25 has been authorized by the WDEQ to drill, 

26 complete, and operate four deep Class I deep 

27 disposal, and thereby inject radionuclide-bearing 

28 liquid waste streams into the Teckla Sandstone 

29 member of the Lewis Formation and Cretaceous 

30 Teapot Sandstone of the Mesaverde Formation 

31 (WDEQ, 2015a). The permitted Class I deep 

32 disposal wells vary in depth between 2,130 and 

33 2,400 m [7,000 and 7,860 ft] below the ground 

34 surface (WDEQ, 2015a). The Class I deep disposal well design and construction must meet 

35 WDEQ requirements (WDEQ, 2015b) and applicable permit conditions (WDEQ, 2015a). The 

36 WDEQ permit prohibits injection of any material defined as hazardous waste, as defined by EPA 

37 RCRA regulations in 40 CFR 261.3 or Wyoming regulations (WDEQ, 2013a). Additionally, if an 

38 NRC license was granted, the NRC would require compliance with the NRC dose limits and 

39 waste disposal standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K. 

40 The applicant has proposed to manage liquid byproduct material by Class I deep disposal wells 

41 using a system of treatment, storage, and injection into the wells. During the production and 

42 aquifer restoration phases, the applicant proposes to manage liquid byproduct material by 

43 treating the wastewater streams by ion exchange and RO and reusing the treated water in the 

44 CPP during production or reinjecting the treated water back into the aquifer undergoing 

45 restoration (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4). During the production phase, the applicant would 

46 then combine the contaminants removed by RO with lower volume operational wastewater 

47 streams and then transfer the combined wastewater to the Class I deep disposal wells for final 

These terms define the various types of solid and 

liquid wastes generated at the Reno Creek ISR 

Project: 

Liquid wastes 

Liquid byproduct material: All liquid wastes 

resulting from the proposed action, except for 

sanitary wastewater and well development and 

testing wastewater 

Sanitary wastewater: Ordinary sanitary septic 

system wastewater; this wastewater is not 

hazardous waste and not byproduct material 

wastewater 

Well development and testing wastewaters: 

Wastewater produced during well development 

and pumping tests; this water is not hazardous 

waste or byproduct material and would not 

require treatment before disposal 

Solid wastes 

Solid byproduct material: All solid wastes 

resulting from the proposed action that satisfy the 

10 CFR 40.4 definition of byproduct material 

Nonhazardous solid waste: Solid waste that is 

not hazardous waste, including domestic or 

municipal wastes (trash), construction/demolition 

debris, septic solids, and radioactive facilities and 

equipment resulting from the proposed action that 

meet the criteria for unrestricted release specified 

in the NRC license (NRC, 1993) 

Hazardous waste: RCRA or state-defined 

hazardous waste that is not byproduct material, 

and includes universal hazardous wastes
2-41 

1 disposal. During the aquifer restoration phase, the applicant proposes an additional round of 

2 RO to further concentrate the aquifer restoration RO brines (and any production brines 

3 produced during the period when production overlaps with aquifer restoration) prior to disposal 

4 of the brines in the Class I deep disposal wells. The additional treated water produced by the 

5 second round of RO would be injected back into the aquifer undergoing restoration. The 

6 applicant’s Class I deep disposal well monitoring program (draft SEIS Section 7.6) includes 

7 monitoring of injection pressure at the wellhead, the fluid-filled annulus pressure between the 

8 casing and injection tubing string, and injection zone pressure. 

9 The applicant has committed to monitoring air particulate, radon, surface soil, sediment, 

10 vegetation and livestock, surface water, and groundwater to identify the presence of NRC- and 

11 WDEQ-regulated constituents. Monitoring results must be reported to the NRC semiannually 

12 (see draft SEIS Chapter 7). As part of the decommissioning phase, the NRC would require 

13 radiological surveys of potentially affected areas to ensure that the soil concentration limits in 

14 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6-(6) are met. If soil concentration limits are exceeded, 

15 the NRC would require the removal of contaminated materials, which could add to the total 

16 amount of material for disposal at a licensed facility. In addition, the applicant proposes to 

17 dispose of any pond liners and solids accumulated in backup storage ponds as solid byproduct 

18 material (AUC, 2012a), as described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. 

19 The amount of liquid byproduct material produced by the proposed project varies by ISR 

20 lifecycle phase, disposal option, and aquifer restoration method. The applicant estimated the 

21 maximum flow of liquid byproduct material produced at any time by considering concurrent 

22 uranium recovery operations and aquifer restoration activities. For disposal in the proposed 

23 Class I deep disposal wells, the applicant’s maximum calculated after-treatment liquid byproduct 

24 material production is 545 Lpm [144 gal/min] (AUC, 2012b). 

25 The applicant proposes to dispose of sanitary wastewater from restrooms and lunchrooms into 

26 onsite septic systems. The applicant would be required to obtain a UIC Class V permit from the 

27 WDEQ to construct the onsite septic systems (AUC, 2012b, Table 10-1). The applicant also 

28 proposes to collect and route stormwater for discharge to surface water (AUC, 2012a). The 

29 applicant would be required to obtain a Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

30 (WYPDES) permit to discharge stormwater to surface water from the State of Wyoming. The 

31 applicant would obtain a WDEQ WYPDES permit to discharge well-development water onsite 

32 into mud pits adjacent to drilling pads. The permit would require reporting of flow, pH, 

33 radium-226 (Ra-226), uranium, total dissolved solids, and total suspended solids to the WDEQ 

34 (AUC, 2012b). 

35 Solid Wastes 

36 As described in GEIS Section 2.7.3, all phases of the operational lifecycle of an ISR facility 

37 generate solid wastes (NRC, 2009). Solid byproduct material includes spent resin, empty 

38 chemical containers and packaging, pipes and fittings, tank or storage pond sediments, 

39 contaminated soil from leaks and spills, and contaminated construction and demolition debris. 

40 Nonhazardous solid waste includes septic solids, municipal solid waste (general trash), and 

41 other solid wastes. Solid hazardous waste includes waste oil, cleaning solvents, expired 

42 laboratory reagents, used batteries, and light bulbs. 

43 Solid byproduct material that does not meet the NRC criteria for unrestricted release must be 

44 disposed of at a licensed disposal site, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, 
2-42 

1 Appendix A, Criterion 2. The applicant estimates that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

facility would produce 76 m3 [100 yd3 2 ] of solid byproduct material annually. Assuming an 

3 11-year operational period, the NRC staff calculated total solid byproduct material accumulation 

from the proposed operations as 842 m3

 [1,100 yd3 4 ]. The applicant plans to store this waste 

5 temporarily onsite. The applicant proposes to transport solid byproduct material offsite to a 

6 licensed facility for disposal in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

requirements using shipment capacities of approximately 15 m3

 [20 yd3 7 ] (AUC, 2012a). Using 

8 this solid byproduct material generation and shipment capacity information for both disposal 

9 options, the NRC staff estimated that five shipments of operational solid byproduct material 

10 would occur per year. 

11 The applicant estimated the total amount of solid byproduct material that would be generated 

from decommissioning activities is 3,060 m3

 [4,000 yd3 12 ](AUC, 2012a). This estimate applies to 

13 removal of structures and equipment that include fluid trunk lines, pipelines, well piping and 

14 equipment, buildings, constructed ponds, pond liners, plant equipment, ion-exchange resin, 

15 affected soils, and disposal wells. The applicant anticipates that decommissioning of facilities 

16 would take 1 year (AUC, 2012a); therefore, the annual solid byproduct waste generation 

17 estimate for decommissioning is the same as the total reported above. At the time of 

18 application, the applicant does not have an agreement in place with a licensed site to accept its 

19 solid byproduct material for disposal. If an NRC license is granted, an NRC license condition 

20 would require the applicant to have a solid byproduct material disposal agreement in place 

21 before operations begin. The applicant has evaluated the following facilities as potential sites 

22 for disposal of solid byproduct material: (i) the Pathfinder Mines Corporation Facility in Shirley 

23 Basin, Wyoming; (ii) the White Mesa site in Blanding, Utah; and (iii) the EnergySolutions site in 

24 Clive, Utah. These byproduct material disposal sites are detailed in draft SEIS Section 3.13. 

25 Draft SEIS Section 4.14 describes the impacts of solid byproduct material disposal. 

26 During all phases of the proposed project, the applicant expects to produce nonhazardous solid 

27 waste. This waste could be composed of municipal waste (facility trash), septic solids, and 

28 other materials, such as construction debris, uncontaminated equipment and demolition debris, 

29 hardware, and packing materials. The applicant proposes to collect nonhazardous solid waste 

30 at designated onsite areas and dispose of this material at the Campbell County landfill in 

31 Gillette, Wyoming, or another permitted nonhazardous solid waste facility, if additional capacity 

32 is needed (AUC, 2012a, 2014a). Draft SEIS Section 3.13 provides additional descriptions of 

33 the local solid waste facilities. The applicant estimates that the proposed project would 

generate approximately 1,590 m3 [2,080 yd3 34 ] of nonhazardous solid waste annually during the 

construction phase {AUC, 2012a, Table 4-13 [40 yd3 35 /week (wk) × 52 wk/yr]}. During the 

operational period, the applicant estimates that less than 1,190 m3

 [1,560 yd3 36 ] of nonhazardous 

solid waste would be generated annually {AUC, 2012a, Table 4-13 [30 yd3 37 /wk × 52 wk/yr]}. The 

38 applicant estimated the total amount of nonhazardous solid waste that would be generated 

during the proposed one-year decommissioning period as 1,530 m3

 [2,000 yd3 39 ]. The applicant’s 

40 nonhazardous solid waste estimates for decommissioning include plant building materials and 

41 equipment and wellfield equipment that do not contain radioactive materials or that meet NRC 

42 limits for unrestricted release. 

43 The applicant’s proposal describes the hazardous waste that would be generated as waste oil, 

44 cleaning solvents, expired laboratory reagents, fluorescent light bulbs, and used batteries 

45 (AUC, 2012b, Table 4-13). The applicant estimated that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

46 would generate a sufficiently small quantity of hazardous waste that would allow classification 

47 as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) under RCRA and Wyoming 
2-43 

1 regulations (AUC, 2012a). A CESQG must (i) determine whether its waste is hazardous; (ii) not 

2 generate more than 100 kg [220 lb] per month of hazardous waste or, except with regard to 

3 spills, more than 1 kg [2.2 lb] of acutely hazardous waste; (iii) not accumulate more than 

4 1,000 kg [2,205 lb] of hazardous waste onsite at any time; and (iv) treat or dispose of its 

5 hazardous waste in a treatment storage or disposal facility that meets the requirements 

6 specified in 40 CFR 261.5. If the facility fails to meet any of these four criteria, it would lose 

7 CESQG status. Without CESQG classification, it would be fully regulated as either (i) a 

8 small-quantity generator of more than 100 kg [220 lb], but less than 1,000 kg [2,205 lb] of 

9 nonacute hazardous waste per calendar month, or (ii) a large-quantity generator of 1,000 kg 

10 [2,205 lb] or more of nonacute hazardous waste per calendar month. Any hazardous waste 

11 generated by the proposed project must be disposed of in accordance with applicable local, 

12 state, and federal regulatory requirements. 

13 2.1.1.1.7 Transportation 

14 The applicant would use trucks to transport construction equipment and materials, operational 

15 processing supplies, yellowcake product, and waste materials. The applicant has committed to 

16 complying with all applicable USDOT and NRC packaging and transportation requirements for 

17 shipments of hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials (AUC, 2012a). During all phases 

18 of the facility lifecycle, both temporary and permanent workers would commute to and from the 

19 facility and generate additional traffic on local roads. In addition, shipments of nonhazardous 

20 solid wastes and hazardous wastes would originate at the proposed project area for disposal at 

21 licensed disposal facilities during all phases of the facility lifecycle. The applicant estimates that 

22 two trips per week to the Campbell County municipal landfill would be required to dispose of 

23 nonhazardous solid wastes generated at the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). The 

24 applicant estimates that one trip per month to a hazardous disposal or recycling facility would be 

25 necessary to dispose of solid and liquid hazardous wastes generated at the proposed project 

26 area (AUC, 2012a). 

27 The applicant would use trucks to ship the supplies and equipment to be used to construct 

28 facilities and production units at the proposed project area. As stated previously, the applicant 

29 proposes phased development of production units. After the processing facilities are 

30 constructed, the remaining production unit construction activities and associated transportation 

31 would occur over a number of years (draft SEIS Figure 2-1). During the construction period, the 

32 applicant estimated 27 commuting round-trips per day by workers, based on a commitment to 

33 implement a carpooling policy (AUC, 2014a). In addition, the applicant estimated that two 

34 commercial vehicles would travel to and from the proposed project area daily during the 

35 construction period to deliver and pickup supplies and equipment (AUC, 2014a). The 

36 applicant’s estimate of construction-related traffic is presented in draft SEIS Table 2-6. 

37 During operations, the applicant estimated 30 commuting round-trips per day by workers, based 

38 on implementation of a carpooling policy and two vehicle round-trips per day for delivery and 

39 pickup of packages and office supplies (AUC, 2014a). In addition, the applicant estimated truck 

40 traffic associated with shipments of process chemicals and fuels, yellowcake, and waste 

41 products during ISR operations (AUC, 2012a). The estimates of operations truck traffic are 

42 provided in draft SEIS Table 2-6 and discussed next. 

43 Proposed process chemical and fuel shipments to the Reno Creek ISR facility include sodium 

44 chloride (NaCl), sodium carbonate (NaCO3), sodium hydroxide (NaOH), hydrochloric acid (HCl), 

45 sulfuric acid (H2SO4), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), diesel fuel, 
2-44 

Table 2-6. Estimated Daily Vehicle Round-Trips for the Proposed Reno Creek 

ISR* Project 

ISR Phase and Transportation Purpose Average Daily Vehicle Round-Trips 

Construction 

Employee Commuting

Equipment and Supplies

Nonhazardous Waste Shipments

Hazardous Waste Shipments

27 

2 

0.4 

0.05 

Operations 

Employee Commuting

Delivery and Pickup

Processing Chemical Shipments

Fuel Shipments

Yellowcake Shipments

Solid Byproduct Material Shipments

Nonhazardous Waste Shipments

Hazardous Waste Shipments

30 

2 

3.3 

1 

0.2 

0.02 

0.4 

0.05 

Aquifer Restoration 

Employee Commuting

Delivery and Pickup

Solid Byproduct Material Shipments

Nonhazardous Waste Shipments

Hazardous Waste Shipments

16 

2 

0.02 

0.4 

0.05 

Decommissioning 

Employee Commuting

Delivery and Pickup

Solid Byproduct Material Shipments

Nonhazardous Waste Shipments

Hazardous Waste Shipments

6 

2 

0.38 to 0.77 

0.4 

0.05 

Source: AUC, 2012a, 2014a 

*ISR = In Situ Recovery 

1 gasoline, and bottled gases (AUC, 2012a). The applicant estimates that chemical shipments 

2 would total approximately 1,217 per year or an average of 3.3 shipments per day (AUC, 2012a). 

3 The applicant estimates that during operations approximately one shipment of fuel (diesel, 

4 gasoline, and propane) would be transported to the proposed project area each day. 

5 The CPP would be designed to process up to 0.9 million kg [2 million lb] of U3O8 (yellowcake) 

6 per year (AUC, 2012a). The applicant proposes to ship yellowcake product from the CPP to a 

7 conversion facility located in Metropolis, Illinois (AUC, 2012a). The estimated shipment 

8 distance from the proposed project area to Metropolis, Illinois is approximately 2,027 km 

9 [1,260 mi] (AUC, 2012a). The applicant proposes loading yellowcake into sealed 210-L [55-gal] 

10 drums and shipping by certified carrier. Based on the proposed production rate of 0.9 million kg 

11 [2 million lb] of yellowcake per year, the applicant estimates that approximately one yellowcake 

12 shipment per week would occur (AUC, 2012a). 

13 Shipments of solid byproduct waste material would originate at the proposed project area for 

14 disposal at licensed disposal facilities during plant operations. The applicant estimates that 

76 m3

 [100 yd3 15 ] of solid byproduct materials would be generated per year (AUC, 2012a). Using 
2-45 

15.3-m3

 [20-yd3 1 ] roll-off bins, approximately five shipments per year would be made to licensed 

2 disposal facilities. 

3 During the aquifer restoration phase, the applicant estimated 16 round-trips by workers 

4 commuting daily based on implementation of a carpooling policy (AUC, 2014a). In addition, the 

5 applicant estimated that two vehicles would travel to and from the proposed project area daily 

6 for commercial delivery and pickup (AUC, 2014a). Solid byproduct material shipments are 

7 estimated to remain unchanged (five shipments per year) during aquifer restoration. The 

8 applicant’s estimate of aquifer restoration-related traffic is presented in draft SEIS Table 2-6. 

9 During the decommissioning phase, the applicant proposes to decommission and dismantle 

10 structures and equipment and to reclaim land surfaces. The applicant estimated six round-trips 

11 by commuting workers would occur daily, based on implementation of a carpooling policy 

12 (AUC, 2014a). The applicant also estimated two vehicle round-trips per day for commercial 

13 delivery and pickup (AUC, 2014a). The applicant expects that waste materials, which would 

14 include solid byproduct material (e.g., contaminated facilities and equipment, pond liners, and 

15 excavated soils), nonradiological and nonhazardous solid waste, and hazardous solid waste, 

16 would be shipped offsite to licensed disposal facilities. The applicant estimates that the 

17 frequency of solid byproduct material shipments would increase during decommissioning to 

18 between 100 and 200 shipments per year. Nonhazardous solid waste shipments are estimated 

19 to remain unchanged (two trips per week) during decommissioning. Hazardous waste 

20 shipments are also expected to remain unchanged (one trip per month) during 

21 decommissioning. The applicant’s estimate of decommissioning-related traffic is presented in 

22 draft SEIS Table 2-6. 

23 2.1.1.1.8 Financial Surety 

24 The NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion (9) require applicants to assure 

25 that sufficient funds would be available to carry out decommissioning; reclamation of disturbed 

26 areas; waste disposal; dismantling and disposal of all facilities, including buildings and 

27 wellfields; and groundwater restoration by independent third parties (NRC, 2009). The NRC 

28 regulations require the applicant to establish financial surety arrangements to cover such costs 

29 before operations begin at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The applicant must also 

30 maintain these surety arrangements until the NRC determines that the applicant has complied 

31 with its reclamation plan. 

32 WDEQ has primacy for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area and would calculate the 

33 surety bond for the portions of the proposed project area over which it has jurisdiction, including 

34 facility decommissioning of the CPP, process and retention ponds, radioactive and byproduct 

35 storage facilities, wellfields, groundwater restoration, radiological surveys, and environmental 

36 monitoring. WDEQ would have a separate bond covering the plugging and abandonment of 

37 injection wells. 

38 The surety bond for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be independently calculated 

39 by the NRC. The NRC requires annual revisions to the applicant’s surety bond as proposed 

40 project area conditions change over the project life and to ensure that funds are available for 

41 decommissioning of existing and planned operations and existing and planned construction. 

42 The NRC reviews financial surety arrangements and decommissioning plans in detail as part of 

43 its review for the safety evaluation report. For additional information on financial surety 

44 requirements, see 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion (9), and GEIS Section 2.10. 
2-46 

1 2.1.1.2 Additional Liquid Waste Disposal Options 

2 Liquid byproduct material is expected to be generated during the operations and aquifer 

3 restoration phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The applicant is required to 

4 manage and dispose of liquid byproduct material, in compliance with applicable state and 

5 federal regulations, as established by license and permit. Draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2 

6 describes the characteristics and quantities of the proposed liquid byproduct material streams 

7 and the proposed approach to dispose of this material using Class I deep disposal wells. 

8 Although the applicant has been authorized by the WDEQ to drill, complete, and operate four 

9 Class I deep disposal wells (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6) (WDEQ, 2015a), the applicant has 

10 been granted the aquifer exemption that is also necessary to operate the Class I deep 

11 disposal wells. 

12 Historically, ISR facilities have also used evaporation ponds (NRC, 2015a), land application 

13 (NRC, 2015b), and discharge to surface waters (NRC, 2009; NRC, 1998a) to manage and 

14 dispose of liquid byproduct material. The following subsections describe these alternative 

15 wastewater disposal options that were previously described in the GEIS. Draft SEIS Table 2-7 

16 compares the characteristics of the proposed Class I deep disposal well option with several 

17 additional wastewater disposal options (NRC, 2009). Potential environmental impacts of the 

18 waste management options are analyzed in draft SEIS Section 4.14. 

19 2.1.1.2.1 Class V Disposal Well 

20 With a Class V disposal well, the techniques employed for disposing of liquid byproduct material 

21 would be similar to using a Class I deep disposal well, as described previously in SEIS 

22 Section 2.1.1.1.6. The primary differences would be the nature of the permit (WDEQ, 2015c), 

23 the need for additional wastewater treatment, and possibly the depth of the well. For disposal 

24 using a Class V well, the effluent would have to meet WDEQ regulations that prohibit injection of 

25 any material defined as hazardous waste (WDEQ, 2013a) and would be limited to the class of 

26 use standards for the receiver (WDEQ, 2015b) or any primary drinking water standard found in 

27 40 CFR Part 141 (as of June 6, 2001), whichever is more stringent (WDEQ, 2015a). In addition, 

28 a Class V permit may require an applicant to implement a monitoring plan to ensure that the 

29 injected material would be confined to the authorized injection zone (WDEQ, 2015c). The 

30 effluent would also have to meet NRC release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K 

31 and Appendix B. For these reasons, an applicant would need to treat the wastewater. Similar 

32 to surface water discharge and land application (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.3), the liquid 

33 wastewater would be treated using a combination of methods including ion-exchange, RO, and 

34 possibly radium-settling to decrease the levels of uranium, radium, and other contaminants in 

35 the wastewater. The land disturbance footprint, therefore, would be greater than for the 

36 proposed Class I deep disposal well that would not require treatment facilities, but less than 

37 needed for evaporation ponds (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.2) or land application (both would 

38 require additional impoundments, and land application would need irrigation areas). 

39 Furthermore, treatment facilities would generate additional solid byproduct material that would 

40 require disposal at a licensed facility, and the applicant would need to decommission the 

41 additional contaminated storage facilities (tanks, impoundments) or radium-settling basins and 

42 sludges when these operations end (NRC, 2003a). A Class V well could also be used to 

43 dispose of RO permeate (treated wastewater) to reduce the volume of wastewater injected in a 

44 Class I deep disposal well and therefore reduce the consumptive use of groundwater. 
2-47 

Table 2-7. Comparison of Other Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options with the Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well 

Proposed Class I 

Deep Disposal Well Class V Disposal Well Evaporation Ponds Land Application 

Discharge to 

Surface Waters 

Land Size/ Footprint 2.0 hectares (ha) 

[5.0 acres (ac)] Applicant estimate of surface area occupied or restricted from other use by four wells (1 ac/well) and backup storage pond (0.5 ac) (AUC, 2012a). 

28 ha [69 ac] Land area of 28 ha [69 ac] or more may be needed for radium-settling basins, storage ponds, and backup ponds, based on scaling Dewey–Burdock impoundment surface disturbance (NRC, 2014b, Table 4.2-1) by a factor of 2.1 to account for the increase in Reno Creek liquid byproduct material. 

40.5 ha [100 ac] Individual pond: 0.4 to 2.5 ha [1 to 6.25 ac], max 16.2 ha [40 ac] Pond system: about 40 ha [100 ac] 

1,010 ha [2,495 ac] Land area of 894 ha [2,209 ac] for application areas and an additional 116 ha [286 ac] for associated impoundment systems, including radium-settling basins, storage ponds, and backup ponds, based on scaling Dewey–Burdock impoundment surface disturbance (NRC, 2014b, Table 4.2-1) by a factor of 2.1 to account for the increase in Reno Creek liquid byproduct material 

64 ha [158 ac] Land area of 28 ha [69 ac] for associated impoundment systems (assumed by the NRC staff to have similar facility needs as Class V Disposal well). Additional evaporation pond system 34 ha [83 ac] may be needed to store water treatment residuals (reverse osmosis brine). Separate storage facilities may be needed to maintain separate waste streams for process wastewater which is approximately 9 percent of the liquid byproduct stream. Scaling impoundment estimate by 9 percent adds 2.5 ha [6.2 ac]. 
2-48 

Table 2-7. Comparison of Other Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options with the Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well (Continued) 

Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well Class V Disposal Well Evaporation Ponds Land Application

Discharge to Surface Waters

Relevant Regulations and Permits 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations(CFR) Part 20, Subparts D and K Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I permit and aquifer exemption [Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ)] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Construction Approval (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W) (EPA) 

10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B UIC Class V permit (WDEQ) NESHAP Construction Approval (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W) (EPA)

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A Wyoming State Engineer’s Office Surface Impoundment Permit NESHAP Construction Approval (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W) (EPA) Contract for solid byproduct material disposal (liners, sludges) 

10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) NESHAP Construction Approval (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W) (EPA)WYPDES permit (WDEQ) 

10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B NESHAP permit (40 CFR Part 61) WYPDES permit (WDEQ) No release of process wastewater to navigable waters standard in 40 CFR Part 440.34(b)(1) 

Construction Requirements 

Land clearing and excavation equipment for pad, mud pits, and roads Drilling rig 

Land clearing and excavation equipment for pad, mud pits, radium-settling basins, treatment facilities, and roads Drilling rig 

Land clearing and excavation equipment to prepare surface for pond(s), and roads Construction equipment to construct pond liner(s) 

Land clearing and excavation equipment for roads, radiumsettling basins, treatment facilities 

Land clearing and excavation equipment for roads, treatment facilities 

Wastewater Storage Prior to Disposal 

Applicant proposes a storage tank and a backup storage pond for surge capacity 

Storage/surge tank(s) Radium-settling basins, treatment facility if needed to reduce radium, uranium, and other contaminant concentrations 

No additional storage needed; evaporation pond provides necessary storage prior to disposal 

Storage/surge tank(s) Radium-settling basins, treatment facility if needed to reduce radium, uranium, and other contaminant concentrations 

Radium-settling basins, treatment facility if needed to reduce radium, uranium, and other contaminant concentrations 
2-49 

Table 2-7. Comparison of Other Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options with the Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well (Continued) 

Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well Class V Disposal Well Evaporation Ponds Land Application

Discharge to Surface Waters

Wastewater Treatment 

No additional treatment is required but may add antifouling agent to reduce scaling in well. Applicant proposes reverse osmosis for high-volume waste streams to conserve water 

Treatment by ion exchange, radium settling, and reverse osmosis, as needed, to meet limits. Effluent must meet 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B effluent limits and WDEQ UIC permit limits. May add antifouling agent to reduce scaling in well. 

No additional treatment is required (optional) 

Treatment by ion exchange, radium settling, and reverse osmosis, as needed, to meet U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and WDEQ requirements and other WDEQ permit and NRC license conditions 

Treatment by ion exchange and reverse osmosis to meet NRC and WDEQ requirements (e.g., WYPDES discharge permit) 

Decommissioning Applicant proposes to 

remove backup storage pond liners and sludges Applicant proposes to plug and abandon wells in accordance with WDEQ and Wyoming State Engineer’s Office requirements 

Radium-settling basin liners and sludges, treatment of building debris to be disposed of as solid byproduct material, additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility Plug and abandon well in accordance with WDEQ and Wyoming State Engineer’s Office requirements 

Pond liners and sludges to be disposed of as solid byproduct material; additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility 

Radium-settling basin liners and sludges, removed equipment, including trunklines to be disposed of as solid byproduct material, additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility Application soils to be disposed of as solid byproduct material if limits exceeded Additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility 

Removal of storage pond liners and sludges, treatment of building debris to be disposed of as solid byproduct material, additional transportation of wastes to licensed disposal facility 
2-50 

Table 2-7. Comparison of Other Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options with the Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well (Continued) 

Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well Class V Disposal Well Evaporation Ponds Land Application

Discharge to Surface Waters

Environmental Benefits 

Isolation from accessible environment. Low exposure to individuals at surface. Smallest footprint, no additional decommissioning wastes. No added transportation impacts for wastes. No additional waste streams created. Minimal and temporary visual impacts from drilling 

Wastewater treated to 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B and WDEQ UIC permit effluent limits 

Containment during storage, waste volume reduction (liquid waste form reduced to a solid prior to final disposal) 

Wastewater treatment to reduce uranium, radium, and other constituents Limited construction needed for land application area 

Wastewater treated to meet 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B and WYPDES permit effluent limits 

Climatic Influences Deeper drilling requires 

larger rig, longer rig time, higher diesel emissions [carbon dioxide (CO2) emission 

estimate for one deep well was approximately 1,000 × typical 

production well]† 

Deeper drilling requires larger rig, longer rig time, higher diesel emissions (CO2) 

emission estimate for one deep well was approximately 1,000 ×typical production well† Additional equipment emissions from constructing wastewater storage and treatment facilities 

Additional equipment emissions from constructing evaporation ponds 

Additional equipment emissions from constructing wastewater storage and treatment facilities 

Additional equipment emissions from constructing wastewater storage and treatment facilities 

Health and Safety Issues 

Potential pipeline leaks Potential leaks from 

wastewater storage and treatment facilities Additional waste volume during decommissioning 

Potential leaks from evaporation ponds Additional waste volume during decommissioning 

Potential leaks from wastewater storage and treatment facilities Additional waste volume during decommissioning 

Potential leaks from wastewater storage and treatment facilities Additional waste volume during decommissioning 
2-51 

Table 2-7. Comparison of Other Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options with the Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well (Continued) 

Proposed Class I Deep Disposal Well Class V Disposal Well Evaporation Ponds Land Application

Discharge to Surface Waters

†Ratio of calculated CO2 emissions for a single deep well of 308 t/yr [340 T/yr] and single production well of 0.29 t/yr [0.32 T/yr] is 1,062. Emissions 

estimates are from Table D.3-1 in NRC (2011). The single production well emissions estimate of 0.29 t/yr [0.32 T/yr] was calculated from the reported total wellfield drilling estimate in Table D.3-1 of 154 t/yr [170 T/yr] divided by the number of wells in the wellfield (525) that is reported in 

Table D.2-1 of the same reference. Source: Modified from NRC (2009) or where other references are specified and to include site-specific information 
2-52 

1 2.1.1.2.2 Evaporation Ponds 

2 One commonly used option for disposal of liquid byproduct material involves pumping liquids 

3 into one or more ponds and allowing natural solar radiation to reduce the volume through 

4 evaporation. The waste streams are not always treated prior to being discharged into 

5 evaporation ponds, and radionuclides and other metals are concentrated as the liquids 

6 evaporate. The basic design criteria for an evaporation pond system are contained in 

7 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria 5A and 5E. The NRC regulations set standards for the 

8 location of the pond(s) and the design and construction of the necessary clay or geosynthetic 

9 liner systems and embankments for the ponds (NRC, 2003a, 2008). The NRC regulations also 

10 establish criteria for pond inspection and maintenance. The NRC guidance in Regulatory 

11 Guide 3.11 (NRC, 2008) recommends considering applicable EPA regulations including the 

12 requirements of 40 CFR 264.221, in any impoundment design. 

13 The effectiveness of evaporation ponds depends on evaporation rates and how quickly liquid 

14 byproduct material is generated. The evaporation rate varies seasonally and is dependent on 

15 temperature and relative humidity; the rate is highest during warm, dry conditions and is lower 

16 during cool, humid conditions. When the evaporation rate is low or seasonal conditions reduce 

17 evaporation, the operator can increase the size and the surface area of the evaporation ponds 

18 to augment evaporation. 

19 Evaporation ponds are commonly used at facilities that employ a combination of waste disposal 

20 options. Historically, the area of individual evaporation ponds at uranium ISR facilities 

21 has ranged from 0.04 to 2.5 ha [0.1 to 6.2 ac] (NRC, 1997, 1998a,b; Sanford Cohen and 

22 Associates, 2008). The total footprint of the evaporation pond system for all liquid byproduct 

23 material streams at an ISR facility has been estimated to be as high as 40 ha [100 ac] 

24 (NRC, 1997). Based on the applicant’s estimated pretreatment wastewater flow rates at the 

25 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (i.e., the production bleed and restoration flow described in 

26 Draft SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.3 and 2.1.1.1.4) and the applicant’s measured evaporation rate of 

27 122 cm/yr [48 in/yr], if a pond system were employed as the only liquid byproduct material 

28 disposal option it would need to be several times larger than the GEIS estimate of 40 ha 

29 [100 ac] for evaporation ponds (draft SEIS Table 2-7). If a pond system was combined with 

30 two-stage RO treatment to reduce the volume of wastewater (as with the proposed project) then 

31 a smaller pond system of approximately 34 ha [83 ac] would likely be sufficient to accommodate 

32 the wastewater flow rates estimated by the applicant. 

33 The applicant would design, construct, and monitor a leak detection system and conduct routine 

34 inspections as described in NRC guidance to identify and repair leaks that might occur in the 

35 evaporation pond system (NRC, 2008). The NRC guidance recommends that an applicant’s 

36 design incorporate sufficient freeboard (the distance from the water level to top of the 

37 embankment) of about 1 to 2 m [3 to 6 ft], depending on the size of the individual pond, so that 

38 precipitation or wind-driven waves would not overtop the embankment (NRC, 2008). In 

39 addition, sufficient reserve capacity in the evaporation pond system must be maintained to allow 

40 the entire contents of one or more ponds to be transferred to other ponds, in the event of a leak 

41 requiring corrective action and liner repair (NRC, 2009). When necessary, an applicant would 

42 install perimeter fencing to ensure safety. These requirements would be written as conditions in 

43 an NRC license, and enforcement would be managed through the NRC inspection program. 

44 The applicant might need to demonstrate that radionuclides, such as radon, released to the air 

45 from ponds met 40 CFR Part 61 requirements and in particular the provisions of Subpart W that 
2-53 

1 incorporate the requirements of 40 CFR Part 192 (NRC, 2008; Sanford Cohen and Associates, 

2 2008). In developing the impoundment design, the applicant would also need to consider EPA 

3 surface impoundment regulations in 40 CFR Part 264 (NRC, 2008). 

4 Because ponds are open to the air, dust and dirt can blow into ponds and the concentrations of 

5 dissolved solids may increase due to evaporation, resulting in the precipitation of salts from the 

6 solution. Ponds may require periodic cleaning to maintain good repair and the necessary 

7 freeboard; additionally, accumulated salts and solids may need to be disposed of as solid 

8 byproduct material at a licensed disposal facility. Similarly, when the operations and aquifer 

9 restoration phases end, pond liners and any accumulated materials would need to be disposed 

10 of as solid byproduct material. To provide an example of decommissioning waste volume, the 

11 volume of solid byproduct material that would be generated during decommissioning and 

12 reclamation of storage ponds occupying 0.78 ha [1.91 ac] was estimated by a previous ISR 

facility license applicant as 867 m3

 [1,134 yd3 13 ] (LCI, 2008, 2010). 

14 During the winter months in Wyoming, where temperatures are generally below freezing, ponds 

15 could ice over, thereby reducing evaporation to zero. To maintain year-round liquid disposal 

16 capability using evaporation ponds at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the applicant 

17 would likely need to have either sufficient storage capacity or at least one other disposal option 

18 available. Based on a comparison with the proposed waste disposal option, the applicant 

19 currently does not consider evaporation ponds a preferable liquid waste disposal option for the 

20 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2012a). This is due to unfavorable climatic conditions 

21 at the proposed project area; notably, the short period of high temperatures, long periods of 

22 subfreezing temperatures, potential bird impacts, large surface area, and the potential for 

23 windblown overspray releases from ponds or dust deposition into ponds that reduce efficiency 

24 of evaporation and require cleanouts. 

25 2.1.1.2.3 Land Application 

26 Land application is a disposal technique that uses agricultural irrigation equipment to apply 

27 wastewater on a relatively large area of land to enhance evaporation. Previously licensed ISR 

28 facilities have proposed land application (NRC, 1995; 1998b; 2014a) and land application has 

29 been implemented at a few of these ISR facilities. 

30 Liquid byproduct material would need to be treated to meet NRC release requirements in 

31 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B and WDEQ requirements imposed by a 

32 WYPDES permit (NRC, 2003a). Water, soils and vegetation would be monitored on a regular 

33 basis established by license conditions to ensure soil loadings and vegetation concentrations 

34 remain within permit limits (NRC, 1995). 

35 Pretreatment of liquid wastes using ion-exchange columns, RO, and precipitation of 

36 barium/radium sulfate is typically incorporated into this process to decrease uranium and radium 

37 levels. This pretreatment is necessary to meet regulatory release limits and minimize the 

38 potential buildup of radionuclides in surface soils and vegetation. Despite pretreatment, liquid 

39 waste disposal by land application typically requires large areas to remain below release 

40 requirements. For example, the Crow Butte facility near Crawford, Nebraska, has identified 

41 about 40 ha [100 ac as available for land application, if needed (NRC, 1998b), the Highland 

42 Uranium Project in Converse County, Wyoming, identified two land application sites, each about 

43 22 ha [54 ac] (NRC, 1995), and the Dewey-Burdock Project near Edgemont, South Dakota 

44 identified 426 ha [1052 ac] for land application (NRC, 2014b). Depending on how an applicant 

45 would treat the wastewater prior to land application, this disposal option might have additional 
2-54 

1 land requirements related to constructing radium-settling basins and storage reservoirs (NRC, 

2 1995). These facilities would add to the required footprint for this disposal option. For example, 

3 radium settling basins are typically on the order of 0.1 to 1.6 ha [0.05 to 4 ac] (NRC, 1995, 1997, 

4 1998a); purge reservoirs for temporary storage of treated wastewater can be much larger, with 

5 a surface area on the order of 4 ha [10 ac] or more, depending on the terms of the necessary 

6 permit (NRC, 1998a). 

7 An additional National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants review by EPA may be 

8 required to determine that radionuclides such as radon released to the air from this option meet 

9 the requirements of 40 CFR Part 61. The NRC staff calculations for land application over an 

area of 42 ha [104 ac], assuming average wastewater concentrations of 37 Bq/m3 10 [1 pCi/L] for 

11 radium and 1 mg/L [1 ppm] for uranium, resulted in potential doses below regulatory limits 

12 (NRC, 1997). Similarly, representative calculations for 7 years of land application to an area of 

13 18.5 ha [46 ac] with an assumed wastewater application rate of 1,514 Lpm [400 gpm] estimated 

a radon flux of 1.3 pCi/m2 14 -sec, not much more than an assumed background of 1 pCi/m2-sec 

15 (NRC, 2003a). More recently, the land application radon release estimate from the previously 

16 licensed Dewey Burdock ISR Project was less than 2 percent of the total estimated radon 

17 release from combined operations and aquifer restoration (NRC, 2014b). 

18 During decommissioning, the additional land application structures, equipment, access roads, 

19 and land areas would need to be surveyed, removed, or reclaimed. These activities would 

20 increase the volume of decommissioning materials, including solid byproduct material and 

21 nonhazardous solid waste that would need to be transported to offsite disposal facilities. For 

22 example, the annual amount of solid byproduct material from decommissioning an ISR facility 

utilizing land application was estimated to be about 790 m3

 [1,034 yd3 23 ] (NRC, 2014b). 

24 2.1.1.2.4 Surface Water Discharge 

25 Another disposal option used at licensed ISR facilities (NRC, 2009; NRC, 1998a) is the 

26 discharge of treated wastewater to surface water. Effluent would need to meet the NRC release 

27 standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B and the provisions of 

28 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The regulations at 10 CFR 20.2007 require compliance with other 

29 applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This includes the WDEQ WYPDES permitting 

30 requirements for surface water discharge (WDEQ, 2015d). 

31 WDEQ permitting regulations incorporate by reference EPA effluent discharge regulations for 

32 ISR facilities at 40 CFR Part 440, Subpart C. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 440.34 prohibit new 

33 ISR facilities from discharging process waste water to navigable waters of the United States. 

34 Additionally, WDEQ surface discharge permitting regulations consider surface waters of the 

35 state to be waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, the NRC staff 

36 expects the prohibition on discharge of ISR process wastewater to navigable waters of the 

37 United States would extend to all natural surface waters at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

38 Project area. According to EPA, process wastewater does not include discharges from wells 

39 (within or surrounding in situ mines) used to restore aquifers after all actual mining activity 

40 (i.e., extraction of the ore, or pregnant lixiviant from the in situ process) has been completed 

41 (47 FR 54598). EPA added that such discharge would be from an inactive mine area and the 

42 effluent limitations, guidelines, and standards of performance would not be directly applicable 

43 (47 FR 54598). Therefore, the NRC staff assumes surface water discharge of treated ISR 

44 aquifer restoration water is permissible under the EPA standards, provided the discharge water 

45 is not comingled with process wastewater and a discharge permit is obtained. A WYPDES 
2-55 

1 permit, if granted by the WDEQ, would specify any necessary permit conditions including 

2 effluent limits to ensure water quality standards are maintained. 

3 Pretreatment of the liquid byproduct using ion exchange columns, RO, and barium/radium 

4 sulfate precipitation is typically used by ISR facilities to decrease uranium, radium, and other 

5 constituent levels in wastewater. The NRC staff assume that these treatment methods would 

6 be applied to reduce wastewater constituent levels below the permitted discharge limits. Like 

7 the Class V disposal well and land application wastewater disposal option, this treatment might 

8 require additional land for the construction of radium-settling basins and storage reservoirs 

9 (NRC, 2003a). Discharge of treated aquifer restoration wastewater would also require 

10 additional facilities to isolate aquifer restoration wastewater streams from process wastewater 

11 streams to comply with the EPA process wastewater discharge prohibition in 40 CFR 440.34. 

12 An evaporation pond system may also be needed to store water treatment residuals (RO brine). 

13 The staff estimates the storage and treatment facilities would occupy an additional 36 ha [89 ac] 

14 of land relative to the storage and treatment facilities needed for the Class V disposal well 

15 option. The applicant would also need to control solid byproduct material remaining at storage 

16 facilities and within tanks, impoundments, and radium-settling basins until the proposed project 

17 area and facilities are decommissioned (NRC, 2003a). 

18 2.1.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

19 Under the No-Action Alternative, the NRC would not approve the license application for the 

20 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The No-Action Alternative would result in the applicant not 

21 constructing or operating the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. No buildings, access roads, 

22 wellfields, pipelines, or liquid waste disposal systems would be constructed. No uranium would 

23 be recovered from the subsurface orebodies; therefore, injection, production, and monitoring 

24 wells would not be installed to operate the facility. No lixiviant would be introduced into the 

25 subsurface, and no facilities would be constructed to process extracted uranium or store 

26 chemicals. Because no uranium recovery activities would occur, neither aquifer restoration nor 

27 decommissioning activities would occur. No liquid effluents or solid wastes would be generated. 

28 The No-Action Alternative is included to provide a basis for comparing and evaluating the 

29 potential impacts of the other alternative (the proposed action). 

30 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Analysis 

31 As required by NEPA regulations, the NRC staff consider alternatives to issuing the applicant a 

32 license. The range of alternatives was determined by considering the purpose and need for the 

33 proposed action and the private party’s objective in extracting uranium from a particular 

34 orebody. In a site-specific environmental review, the identification of reasonable alternatives 

35 depends on the proposed action, as well as site conditions. This section describes alternatives 

36 to the proposed action that were considered by the NRC but not subjected to detailed analysis 

37 for the reasons described in the following sections. Draft SEIS Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 

38 describe different mining techniques and associated milling alternatives for the proposed project 

39 site. Draft SEIS Section 2.2.3 discusses the use of different lixiviant chemistry. Draft SEIS 

40 Section 2.2.4 describes alternative site locations for the CPP within the proposed project area. 

41 Draft SEIS Section 2.2.5 details the use of alternative well completion methods at the proposed 

42 project site. 
2-56 

1 2.2.1 Conventional Mining and Milling 

2 Uranium ore deposits may be accessed either by open pit surface mining or by underground 

3 mining techniques. Open pit mining is used to extract shallow ore deposits—generally deposits 

4 less than 168 m [550 ft] below ground surface (EPA, 2008a). To access shallow deposits, the 

5 topsoil is removed and stockpiled for later site reclamation, while the overburden (the remainder 

6 of the material overlying the deposit) is removed via mechanical shovels and scrapers, via 

7 trucks or loaders, or by blasting (EPA, 1995, 2008a). The depth to which an orebody is surface 

8 mined depends on the ore grade, the nature of the overburden, and the ratio of overburden to 

9 be removed to one unit of ore extracted (EPA, 1995). 

10 Underground mining techniques vary, depending on the size, depth, orientation, and grade of 

11 the orebody; the stability of the subsurface strata; and economic factors (EPA, 1995, 2008b). In 

12 general, underground mining involves sinking a shaft near the orebody and then extending 

13 levels horizontally from the main shaft at different depths to access the ore. Ore and waste rock 

14 are removed through shafts by elevator or by using trucks to carry these materials up inclines to 

15 the surface (EPA, 2008a). 

16 In addition, when the open pit or underground workings are established, the mine may need to 

17 be dewatered to allow the extraction of the uranium ore. Dewatering is accomplished by either 

18 pumping water directly from the open pit or pumping interceptor wells to lower the water table 

19 (EPA, 1995). The mine water usually requires treatment prior to discharge because it becomes 

20 contaminated with radioactive constituents, metals, and suspended and dissolved solids. 

21 Discharge of these mine waters may have subsequent impacts to surface water drainages and 

22 sediments, as well as to near-surface sources of groundwater (EPA, 1995). 

23 Following the completion of mining, either by open pit or underground techniques, the mine 

24 would be reclaimed. Stockpiled overburden is reintroduced into the mined area, either during or 

25 following extraction operations, and topsoil is reapplied in an attempt to reestablish topography 

26 consistent with the surroundings. When dewatering ceases, the water table may rebound and 

27 fill portions of the open pit and underground workings. Historically, uranium mines have had 

28 negative impacts on local groundwater supplies, and the waste materials from the mines have 

29 contaminated lands surrounding the mines (EPA, 2008b). 

30 Ore extracted from an open pit or underground mine is processed in a conventional mill. As 

31 discussed in GEIS Appendix C (NRC, 2009), ore processing at a conventional mill involves 

32 a series of steps (handling and preparation, concentration, and product recovery). While 

33 conventional milling techniques recover approximately 90 percent of the uranium content of the 

34 feed ore (NRC, 2009), the process generates substantial wastes, known as tailings, because 

35 roughly 95 percent of the ore rock is disposed of as waste (NRC, 2006). The conventional mill 

36 process also consumes large amounts of water. For example, the water usage estimate for the 

37 proposed Pinon Ridge Mill in Colorado is approximately 534 Lpm [141 gpm] (EFRC, 2009). 

38 Tailings are disposed of in lined impoundments; the NRC reviews the design and construction of 

39 impoundments to ensure safe disposal of the tailings (NRC, 2009). Reclamation of the tailings 

40 pile generally involves evaporation of liquids in the tailings and settlement of the tailings over 

41 time. The tailings pile is then covered with a thick radon barrier and earthen material or rocks 

42 for erosion control. The area surrounding the reclaimed tailings piles would be fenced off 

43 in perpetuity and the site transferred to either a state or federal agency for long-term care 
2-57 

1 (EIA, 1995). The costs associated with final mill decommissioning and tailings reclamation can 

2 run into the tens of millions of dollars (EIA, 1995). 

3 In the final GEIS on uranium milling (NRC, 1980), NRC evaluated the potential environmental 

4 impacts of conventional uranium milling operations in a programmatic context, including the 

5 management of mill tailings. This GEIS evaluated the nature and extent of conventional 

6 uranium milling as part of the development of regulatory requirements for the management 

7 and disposal of mill tailings and for mill decommissioning. The impacts from operating a 

8 conventional mill are significantly greater than for operating an ISR facility. A conventional 

9 mill requires a large amount of land; approximately 300 ha [741 ac] would be affected by 

10 construction and milling operations, and related activities would use approximately an additional 

11 150 ha [370 ac] (NRC, 1980). The deposition of windblown tailings could further restrict land 

12 use near the tailings. In conventional mill modeling, levels of contamination extend several 

13 hundred meters [feet] beyond the model site boundary evaluated in the GEIS for conventional 

14 milling. Because of these factors, conventional milling was eliminated from detailed analysis in 

15 the draft SEIS. 

16 2.2.2 Conventional Mining and Heap Leaching 

17 Heap leaching is discussed in GEIS Appendix C. For low-grade ores, heap leaching is a viable 

18 alternative. Heap leaching is typically used when the orebody is small and situated far from the 

19 milling site. After extraction by conventional open pit or underground mining, the low-grade ore 

20 is crushed to approximately 2.6 cm [1 in] in size and mounded above grade on a prepared pad. 

21 A sprinkler or drip system positioned over the top continually distributes leach solution over the 

22 mound. Depending on the lime content of the ore, an acid or alkaline solution is used. The 

23 leach solution trickles through the ore and mobilizes the uranium, as well as other metals, into 

24 solution. The solution is collected at the base of the mound by a manifold and is then 

25 processed to extract the uranium. The uranium recovery from heap leaching ranges from 50 to 

26 80 percent, resulting in a final tailings material of around 0.01 percent U3O8 (yellowcake)

27 content. When heap leaching is complete, the depleted materials are solid byproduct material 

28 that must be placed in a conventional mill tailings impoundment, unless the NRC grants an 

29 exemption for disposal in place. The impacts from heap leaching may be less than those 

30 associated with conventional milling; however, the impacts from open pit or underground 

31 mining are substantial. For these reasons, which are the same as those listed in draft SEIS 

32 Section 2.2.1, this alternative is not subjected to detailed analysis in the draft SEIS. 

33 2.2.3 Alternative Lixiviants 

34 Alternative lixiviant chemistry was considered for the operations phase of the applicant’s 

35 proposed project. Alternative chemistry includes acid leach solutions and ammonia-based 

36 lixiviants (AUC, 2012a). Acid-based lixiviants, such as sulfuric acid, dissolve heavy metals and 

37 other solids associated with uranium in the host rock and other chemical constituents that 

38 require additional remediation and have greater environmental impacts. At a small-scale 

39 research facility in Wyoming, acid-based solutions were used to test their effectiveness as a 

40 lixiviant in the ISR process. During operations, significant problems developed. The mineral 

41 gypsum precipitated on the well screens and in the aquifer, which plugged the wells and 

42 reduced the efficiency of the wellfield restoration. Aquifer restoration had limited success, 

43 because of the gradual dissolution of the precipitated gypsum, which resulted in increased 

44 salinity and sulfate levels in the affected groundwater (Uranium One, 2009). Because it is 
2-58 

1 technically more difficult to restore acid mine sites, the use of an acid-based lixiviant was 

2 eliminated from detailed analysis in the draft SEIS. 

3 Ammonia-based lixiviants have been used at ISR operations in Wyoming. However, operational 

4 experience has shown that ammonia tends to adsorb onto clay minerals in the subsurface and 

5 then slowly desorbs from the clay during restoration. This requires that a much larger volume of 

6 groundwater be removed and processed during aquifer restoration (Mudd, 2001). Because of 

7 the greater consumptive use of groundwater to meet groundwater restoration requirements, the 

8 use of an ammonia-based lixiviant was eliminated from detailed analysis. 

9 2.2.4 Alternative Location of the Central Processing Plant 

10 Prior to preparation of this license application, AUC considered two potential locations for the 

11 CPP in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. The first location was the former pilot plant 

12 site for Rocky Mountain Energy (AUC, 2012a). This site is located primarily in the northwest 

13 quarter of Section 27, T43N, R73W. The second location is in the northeast quarter of 

14 Section 1, T42N, R74W (see AUC, 2012a; draft SEIS Figure 2-3). After evaluating the potential 

15 impacts of both CPP locations, the former pilot plant site was rejected on the basis of the 

16 following factors: 

17  Access to this site would require the development of a main access road measuring 

18 nearly 1 mile from Hwy 387, plus the construction of a new highway intersection. 

19  The access road would require greater soil and vegetation disturbance, potentially 

20 increasing the environmental and ecological footprints during the project’s lifespan. 

21  The longer access road may increase fugitive dust potential from vehicular traffic. 

22  The former pilot plant site would require utilities (e.g., gas and power lines) to be 

23 constructed over a greater distance. 

24  Landowners within the proposed project area have communicated that they prefer not to 

25 lease land for use as a CPP. A CPP would operate for numerous years, whereas a 

26 wellfield would operate for a shorter time and would be returned to the landowner 

27 upon decommissioning. 

28  Oil and gas firms have occupied ground between the former pilot plant site and the 

29 highway, and would create competing land uses, and thus, additional logistical 

30 concerns. Traversing oil recovery and storage sites may also create challenging 

31 radiation-management issues. 

32  The former pilot plant site is closer to a residence, which could result in a higher 

33 radiological dose potential. 

34  The former pilot plant site has more varied topography, so leveling the site for 

35 construction of the CPP and ancillary facilities would require more earthwork and 

36 surface disturbance. 

37  There is known mineralization beneath this site, which might require layout 

38 reconfiguration of the wellfield and related infrastructure. 
2-59 

1  This site is positioned on a hill, which would have higher visibility from Hwy 387. 

2  Initial construction costs may be substantially greater than those for the proposed site 

3 (AUC, 2014b). 

4 Because of these factors, an alternative location for the CPP was eliminated from detailed 

5 analysis in the draft SEIS. 

6 2.3 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts 

7 NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003b) categorizes the significance of potential environmental impacts, 

8 as follows: 

9  SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they 

10 would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

11 resource considered. 

12  MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not 

13 destabilize, important attributes of the resource considered. 

14  LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

15 destabilize important attributes of the resource considered. 

16 Chapter 4 presents a detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts from the proposed action 

17 and the No-Action Alternative on resource areas at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Draft 

18 SEIS Table 2-8 compares the significance level (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of potential 

19 environmental impacts of the proposed action and the No-Action Alternative. For each resource 

20 area, the NRC staff identifies the significance level during each phase of the ISR process: 

21 construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning. 

22 The predicted environmental impact to each resource area for the proposed project can also be 

23 found in the Executive Summary. 

24 2.4 Preliminary Recommendation 

25 After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and comparing to the No-Action Alternative, 

26 the NRC staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its NEPA recommendation 

27 regarding the proposed action. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the NRC staff 

28 recommendation to the Commission regarding the environmental aspects of the proposed 

29 action is that a source and byproduct material license for the proposed action be issued as 

30 requested. This recommendation is based on (i) the license application, which includes the ER 

31 and supplemental documents, and the applicant’s responses to the NRC staff’s requests for 

32 additional information; (ii) consultation with federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; 

33 (iii) independent NRC staff review; and (iv) the assessments summarized in this draft SEIS.
2-60 

Table 2-8. Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Land Use 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Transportation 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Geology and Soils 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Water Resources-Surface Water 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Water Resources-Groundwater 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Ecology 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Air Quality 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Noise 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 
2-61 

Table 2-8. Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (Continued) 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Visual and Scenic Resources 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Socioeconomics 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Environmental Justice 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Public and Occupational Health 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

Waste Management 

Proposed Action–Alternative 1 No-Action–Alternative 2 

Construction SMALL NONE 

Operation SMALL NONE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL NONE 

Decommissioning SMALL NONE 

1 2.5 References 

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

3 Protection Against Radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of 

5 Source Material.” 
2-62 

1 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40 

2 Appendix A, “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 

3 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 

4 Processed Primarily from their Source Material Content.” 

5 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

6 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

7 40 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 61, 

8 “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).” 

9 40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

10 Part 144, “Underground Injection Control Program.” 

11 40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

12 Part 146, “Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” 

13 40 CFR Part 192. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

14 Part 192, “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

15 Mill Tailings.” 

16 40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 261, 

17 “Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.” 

18 40 CFR Part 264. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 264, 

19 “Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and 

20 Disposal Facilities.” 

21 40 CFR Part 440. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 440, 

22 “Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category.” 

23 47 FR 54598. 1982. “40 CFR Part 440, Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category 

24 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards.” Final Rule. Federal 

25 Register. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

26 AUC. “Responses to Open/Confirmatory Items.” ML15119A314. Lakewood, Colorado: 

27 AUC LLC. 2015 

28 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

29 Environmental Report Round 1.” ML14169A452. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014a. 

30 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

31 Environmental Report Round 2.” ML15002A082. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014b. 

32 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

33 Environmental Report.” ML12291A335 and ML12291A332. Lakewood, Colorado: 

34 AUC LLC. 2012a. 

35 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

36 Technical Report.” ML12291A009 and ML12291A010. Lakewood, Colorado: 

37 AUC LLC. 2012b. 
2-63 

1 EFRC. “Reply to Responses to Comments Received at Two Public Meetings, Pinon Ridge 

2 Mill Facility, Montrose County, Colorado.” Letter (September 16) to Montrose County 

3 Commissioners from F. Filas. Lakewood, Colorado: Energy Fuels Resources 

4 Corporation. 2009. 

5 EIA. “Decommissioning of U.S. Uranium Production Facilities.” DOE/EIA–0592. 

6 Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Information Administration, 

7 Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels. 1995. 

8 EPA. “Technical Report on Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive 

9 Materials from Uranium Mining: Mining and Reclamation Background.” Vol. 1. 

10 EPA–402–R–08–005. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

11 Radiation and Indoor Air/Radiation Protection Division. 2008a. 

12 EPA. “Health and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation: 

13 Five-Year Plan.” Requested by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

14 Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. 

15 EPA. “Technical Resource Document: Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals—

16 Uranium.” Vol. 5. EPA 530-R-94-032. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid Waste/Special 

17 Waste Branch. 1995. 

First American Title. “Warranty Deed: Township 42 North, Range 74 West, 6th 18 P.M., Section 1: 

19 Lot 12.” Gillette, Wyoming. 2015. 

20 LCI. “Lost Creek ISR, LLC. Lost Creek Project Technical Report: South-Central Wyoming.” 

21 Vols. 1–3. Rev. 1. Application for NRC Source Material License. Docket No. 40-9068). 

22 Casper, Wyoming: LCI. April 2010. 

23 LCI. “Lost Creek Project Environmental Report: South-Central Wyoming. Vols. 1–3. Rev. 1. 

24 Application for NRC Source Material License. Docket No. 40-9068. Casper, Wyoming: LCI. 

25 March 2008. 

26 Mackin, P.C., D. Daruwalla, J. Winterle, M. Smith, and D.A. Pickett. NUREG/CR–6733, “A 

27 Baseline Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

28 Licensees.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. September 2001. 

29 Mudd, G.M. “Critical Review of Acid In-Situ Leach Uranium Mining: 1-USA and Australia.” 

30 Environmental Geology. Vol. 41. pp. 390–403. 2001. 

31 NRC. “NRC Site Summary: Crow Butte Uranium Recovery Facility.” 2015a. 

32 <http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/licensed-facilities/is-crow-butte.pdf> 

33 (5 November 2015). 

34 NRC. “NRC Site Summary: Smith Ranch - Highland Uranium Recovery Facility.” 2015b. 

35 <http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/licensed-facilities/is-smith-ranch.pdf 

36 >(5 November 2015). 

37 NRC. “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Record of Decision for the Dewey-Burdock 

38 Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” 

39 ML14066A466. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2014a. 
2-64 

1 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 4, Part 1. “Environmental Impact Statement for the 

2 Dewey–Burdock ISR Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, Supplement to 

3 the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Final 

4 Report” ML14024A477. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

5 January 2014b. 

6 NRC. “Site Visit to the Proposed Reno Creek Uranium Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, 

7 and Meetings with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and Local Organizations, 

8 September 10–12, 2013.” ML15040A171. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

9 Commission. 2013. 

10 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 2, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch 

11 ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming Supplement to the Generic 

12 Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Final Report.” 

13 ML103440120. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. January 2011. 

14 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

15 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244 and ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

16 Regulatory Commission. May 2009. 

17 NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention 

18 Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Rev. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

19 Commission. 2008. 

20 NRC. “Environmental Assessment for the Addition of the Reynolds Ranch Mining Area to 

21 Power Resources, Inc.’s Smith Ranch/Highlands Uranium Project Converse County, Wyoming.” 

22 Washington, DC: NRC. 2006. 

23 NRC. NUGEG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

24 Applications—Final Report.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

25 June 2003a. 

26 NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 

27 NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 2003b. 

28 NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA–1341, 

29 Cogema Mining, Inc. Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Projects, Campbell and Johnson 

30 Counties, Wyoming.” Docket No. 40-8502. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

31 Commission. 1998a. 

32 NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA–1534: 

33 Crow Butte Resources Incorporated Crow Butte Uranium Project Dawes County, Nebraska.” 

34 Docket No. 40-8943. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1998b. 

35 NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 

36 Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” ML082170248. 

37 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 1997. 

38 NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Materials License No. SUA–1511. 

39 Power Resources Incorporated Highland Uranium Project, Converse County, Wyoming.” 

40 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1995. 
2-65 

1 NRC. “Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for 

2 Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear 

3 Material.” ML003745526. Washington DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1993. 

4 NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

5 Project M–25.” ML032751663, ML0732751667, and ML032751669. Washington, DC: 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. September 1980. 

7 Sanford Cohen and Associates. “Final Report Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings 

8 Impoundment Technologies.” ML12237A191. Vienna, Virginia: Sanford Cohen and 

9 Associates. 2008. 

10 Uranium One. “Response to Request for Additional Information for the Moore Ranch In-Situ 

11 Uranium Recovery Project License Application (TAC JU011).” ML092450317. Denver, 

12 Colorado: Uranium One Americas. 2009. 

13 WDEQ. “Underground Injection Control Permit. Permit 09-621.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: State of 

14 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 2015a. 

15 WDEQ. “Quality Standards for Wyoming Groundwaters.” Rules and Regulations, Water Quality 

16 Program, Chapter 8. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2015b. 

17 WDEQ. “Underground Injection Control Program Class I and V Wells.” Rules and Regulations, 

18 Water Quality Program, Chapter 27. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2015c. 

19 WDEQ. “Permit Regulations for Discharges to Wyoming Surface Waters.” Rules and 

20 Regulations, Water Quality Program, Chapter 2. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2015d. 

21 WDEQ. “Guideline No. 2, Vegetation Requirements for Exploration by Dozing, Regular Mines, 

22 and In Situ Leaching.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality23 Land Quality Division. 2014. 

24 WDEQ. “Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Regulations.” Rules and Regulations, Solid Waste 

25 Management Program, Chapter 2. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2013a. 

26 WDEQ. “Noncoal In Situ Mining,” Rules and Regulations, Land Quality – Non Coal Program, 

27 Chapter 11. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2013b. 

28 WDEQ. “Exploration by Drilling.” Rules and Regulations, Land Quality – Non Coal Program, 

29 Chapter 8. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2012. 

30 WDEQ. “Regular Noncoal Mine Permit Applications.” Rules and Regulations, Land Quality – 

31 Non Coal Program, Chapter 2. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2000.

3-1 

1 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

2 3.1 Introduction 

3 The proposed Reno Creek In Situ Recovery (ISR) Project would be located in Campbell County, 

4 Wyoming, in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region as defined in the Generic 

5 Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (hereafter 

6 referred to as the GEIS) (NRC, 2009). The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (also 

7 referred to as the proposed project area) is defined as the land within the applicant’s proposed 

8 license boundary. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located between the 

9 communities of Wright, Edgerton, and Gillette, Wyoming [draft supplemental environmental 

10 impact statement (SEIS) Figure 2-2]. The proposed project area encompasses 2,451 hectares 

11 (ha) [6,057 acres (ac)] of mostly private land. The total land disturbed by the proposed project, 

12 excluding wellfields, would be approximately 62 ha [154 ac]. 

13 This chapter describes the existing environmental conditions of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

14 Project. The resource areas described in this section include land use, transportation, geology 

15 and soils, water resources, ecology, noise, air quality, historic and cultural resources, visual and 

16 scenic resources, socioeconomics, public and occupational health, and current waste 

17 management practices. The descriptions of the affected environment are based upon 

18 information provided in the applicant’s environmental report (AUC, 2012a) and responses to 

19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requests for additional information (RAIs) 

20 (AUC, 2014a,b) and supplemented by additional information identified by the NRC staff. The 

21 information in this chapter forms the basis for assessing the potential impacts (see draft SEIS 

22 Chapter 4) of the proposed project and alternative (see draft SEIS Chapter 2). 

23 3.2 Land Use 

24 Existing land uses within the proposed project area include oil and gas production, coalbed 

25 methane (CBM) production, transportation, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and one residence 

26 (AUC, 2012a). Surface ownership within the project area consists of 2,192 ha [5,417 ac] of 

27 privately owned land and 259 ha [640 ac] of State of Wyoming owned land (AUC, 2012a). 

28 Private and state-owned land within and surrounding the proposed project area is used primarily 

29 for agricultural purposes (e.g., rangeland for livestock grazing and cropland) (draft SEIS 

30 Figure 3-1). One residence (the Taffner Homestead) is located within the proposed project 

31 boundary in Section 1, Township 42 North, Range 74 West, and five residential sites are located 

32 within 8 km [5 mi] of the project boundary (draft SEIS Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1). There are 

33 currently two occupants at the Taffner Homestead and six occupants living in the five 

34 residences outside the project boundary (draft SEIS Table 3-1). The Taffner Homestead is 

35 situated where the proposed central processing plant (CPP) would be located (AUC, 2012a). 

36 The Taffner Homestead has been acquired by the applicant (First American Title, 2015). Prior 

37 to construction, the current residents of the Taffner Homestead would relocate and, thereafter, it 

38 would not be used as a residence (AUC, 2014b). The Taffner residence (which is different than 

39 the Taffner Homestead) is the closest offsite residence but is currently vacant (see draft SEIS 

40 Figure 3-1). The Levitt and Levitt Ranch Hand residences are the closest occupied offsite 

41 residences. The Levitt residence is approximately 2.0 km [1.25 mi] southeast of the proposed 

42 project boundary (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1) and within 3.2 km [2 mi] of production units 5 and 

43 7, as depicted in draft SEIS Figure 2-4. The Levitt Ranch Hand residence is approximately 
3-2 

Figure 3-1. Land Use and Residences Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area 

(AUC, 2014a) 
3-3 

Table 3-1. Residences Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and an 

8.0 km [5-mi] Radius of the Proposed Project Boundary 

Residence Name Status Number of Occupants Location* 

Taffner Homestead Occupied† 2 T42N, R74W, Section 1 

Taffner Vacant T43N, R73W, Section 30 

Roush Occupied 2 T43N, R74W, Section 21 

Levitt Occupied 1 T42N, R73W, Section 2 

Levitt Ranch Hand Occupied 2 T43N, R73W, Section 25 

Groves Occupied 1 T43N, R73W, Section 4 

Source: AUC, 2014a 

*T = Township; R = Range; N = North, W = West 

†AUC has acquired the Taffner Homestead (First American Title, 2015), and the current occupants would relocate 

prior to facility construction. 

1 2.7 km [1.7 mi] east of the proposed project boundary and approximately 3.2 km [2 mi] from 

2 production unit 6, as depicted in draft SEIS Figure 2-4. 

3 Property rights on the proposed project area are held by the Federal Government, the State of 

4 Wyoming, and various private landowners. GEIS Section 3.1.2.2 describes the concept of a 

5 split estate, where different entities own the surface rights and subsurface rights (such as the 

6 rights to develop minerals) for a piece of land (NRC, 2009). At the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

7 Project area, this divided ownership pattern occurs where the Federal Government owns 

8 subsurface mineral rights to portions of land whose surface rights are owned by private 

9 landowners (draft SEIS Figure 3-2). Within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, the 

10 Federal Government owns 1,165 ha [2,879 ac] of federal mineral estate (draft SEIS Table 3-2). 

11 On the remainder of the proposed project area, subsurface rights are held in unity with the 

12 surface rights by private landowners and the State of Wyoming. The applicant owns 157 

13 unpatented lode mining claims associated with 1,047 ha [2,587 ac] of federal mineral estate 

14 within the proposed project area. In addition, the applicant holds state mineral leases on the 

15 259 ha [640 ac] of state mineral ownership within the proposed project area and two private 

16 mineral leases totaling 269 ha [666 ac] within the proposed project area (draft SEIS Table 3-2). 

17 The applicant has surface use agreements with all landowners who hold surface ownership, 

18 including leases on state-owned land, for the whole area of the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). 

19 3.2.1 Land Use Classification 

20 Most of the land within the proposed project area is classified as agricultural land (draft SEIS 

21 Figure 3-1 and draft SEIS Table 3-3). Agricultural land is defined as noncultivated land with 

22 potential for mixed agricultural use, such as rangeland for livestock grazing, haying for forage 

23 crops, and wildlife habitat. No commercial crop production takes place within the proposed 

24 project area. Land use within 8 km [5 mi] of the proposed project area is predominantly 

25 rangeland used for livestock grazing, with some areas classified as cropland. All cropland 

26 within 8 km [5 mi] of the proposed project boundary is nonirrigated. The U.S. Department of 

27 Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Statistics Service estimated 79,670 head of cattle and 

28 27,597 sheep and lambs in Campbell County in 2012 (USDA, 2012). In 2012, Campbell County 

29 had 744 farms and ranches totaling 1,164,692 ha [2,878,017 ac]. Of the land in farms and 

30 ranches, 93.7 percent was classified as pasture/rangeland (USDA, 2012). 
3-4 

Figure 3-2. Surface and Mineral Ownership for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Area (AUC, 2014a) 
3-5 

Table 3-2. Distribution of Surface and Mineral Ownership Within the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area 

Ownership 

Type 

Surface Ownership 

Mineral Ownership 

(AUC) 

Mineral Ownership 

(Others) 

Ha [Ac] 

Percent of 

Project 

Area Ha [Ac] 

Percent of 

Project 

Area Ha [Ac] 

Percent of 

Project 

Area 

Private 2,192 [5,417] 89.4 269 [666] 33.5 758 [1,872] 87.3 

State 259 [640] 10.6 259 [640] 16.5 [0] 0 

Federal 

(Lode 

Claims) 

0 0 1,047 [2,587] 50.0 118 [292] 12.7 

Total 2,451 [6,057] 100 1,575 [3,893] 100 876 [2,164] 100 

Source: AUC, 2014b 

Table 3-3. Land Use Inside and Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

Project Area 

Land Use Classification 

Project Area 

ha [ac] (Percent of Total) 

Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Project 

Boundary ha [ac] (Percent of Total) 

Agricultural Land 2,436 ha [6,020 ac] (99.4%) 38,875 ha [96,061 ac] (92.3%) 

Nonirrigated Cropland 0.0 ha [0.0 ac] (0.0%) 3,077 ha [7,604 ac] (7.3%) 

Reservoirs 3.4 ha [8.4 ac] (0.2%) 97.7 ha [241.4 ac] (0.2%) 

Transportation 9.7 ha [24 ac] (0.4%) 53.3 ha [131.6 ac] (0.1%) 

Industrial 2.0 ha [5.0 ac] (0.1%) 2.0 ha [5.0 ac] (0.1%) 

Source: AUC, 2014a

1 3.2.2 Hunting and Recreation 

2 There are hunting and recreation opportunities within Campbell County and surrounding 

3 counties. However, hunting and recreational activities are limited within the proposed project 

4 area because a majority of the land is privately owned. Access to hunting and other 

5 recreational activities on privately owned land requires permission of the landowner. 

6 State-owned land within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is accessible via County 

7 Road 22 (Clarkelen Road) and provides dispersed recreational activities, such as hunting. 

8 Large game hunting in the area includes pronghorn antelope and mule deer [see draft (SEIS) 

9 Section 3.6]. The proposed project area spans two Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

10 (WGFD) pronghorn and mule deer Herd Units: the Pumpkin Buttes Unit north of State 

11 Highway 387 and the North Converse Unit south of State Highway 387. Other hunting 

12 opportunities in the vicinity include small game such as cottontail rabbits and white-tailed 

13 jackrabbits. 

14 Local recreational attractions include Thunder Basin National Grassland, Fort Reno historic site, 

15 and the historic Bozeman Trail. The Thunder Basin National Grassland offers activities such as 

16 biking, camping, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle use. Although the 

17 Thunder Basin National Grassland exists within the proposed project area, the lands within and 

18 surrounding the proposed project area are privately owned. As noted previously, hunting and 

19 recreational activities on privately owned land require permission of the landowner. 

20 The Fort Reno site is 61 km [38 mi] northwest of the proposed project area and is under private 

21 ownership. The Bozeman Trail, much of which is under private ownership, passes 19 km 
3-6 

1 [12 mi] west of the project area. In addition to the local recreation attractions, communities 

2 (Gillette, Wright, Kaycee, Midwest, and Edgerton) within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project 

3 area provide a variety of recreational activities. Municipal and private campgrounds in these 

4 communities offer activities such as fishing, hiking, hunting, off-road vehicle use, horseback 

5 riding, biking, and picnicking. Other recreational areas provided in these communities include 

6 golf courses, rodeo grounds, parks, recreation centers, and swimming pools. 

7 3.2.3 Minerals and Energy 

8 The proposed project area would be located in the Powder River Basin (PRB), which contains 

9 major deposits of coal, CBM, uranium, and oil and gas. The closest coal mines to the proposed 

10 project area would be the North Antelope, Rochelle, and Thunder Basin coal mines, 

11 approximately 26 km [16 mi] to the east. There is extensive CBM production within and 

12 surrounding the proposed project area. Within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed project boundary, 

13 there are 324 wells used for CBM production. Forty-six producing CBM wells are located within 

14 the proposed project boundary. Existing gas pipeline and infrastructure associated with CBM 

15 development within and surrounding the proposed project area are shown in draft SEIS 

16 Figure 3-3. 

17 Several licensed and proposed ISR facilities are located within the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium 

18 District. The closest operational ISR facility to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is at 

19 the Willow Creek–Christensen Ranch site, located approximately 27 km [17 mi] northwest. 

20 Several licensed and proposed ISR facilities are also located within the Southern Powder River 

21 Basin Uranium District south of the proposed project area in Converse County, Wyoming. 

22 These ISR facilities are within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area. Licensed and 

23 proposed ISR sites within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are 

24 listed in draft SEIS Table 3-4. 

25 There is extensive oil and gas production surrounding the proposed project area. Locations of 

26 wells and associated oil and gas fields are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-4. A review of records 

27 from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) indicates that there are 

28 144 wells associated with oil and gas production within an 8-km [5-mi] radius of the proposed 

29 project boundary. Of these wells, 47 are currently producing oil or gas and 9 are active injector 

30 wells. Producing oil and gas fields, producing formations, and total well depths are listed in draft 

31 SEIS Table 3-5. Two producing oils wells and two permanently abandoned wells are located 

32 within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-4). The producing 

33 wells are in the northeast part of the proposed project area in the K-Bar Field. Additional 

34 information about abandoned boreholes and wells can be found in draft SEIS Section 3.4.1.2 

35 (Artificial Penetrations). 

36 3.2.4 Utilities and Transportation 

37 Overhead power lines associated with CBM development exist within the proposed project area. 

38 In addition, large scale oil and gas pipelines occur within and outside the proposed project area 

39 (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Smaller pipelines and utilities associated with CBM operations 

40 exist within the proposed project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-3). 

41 State Highway 387 is the primary route connecting nearby communities to the proposed project 

42 area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Private access roads extend from State Highway 387 to 

43 access agricultural land, oil and gas, and CBM facilities in the proposed project area. State 
3-7 

Figure 3-3. Existing CBM Infrastructure Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Area (AUC, 2014a) 
3-8 

Table 3-4. Licensed and Proposed ISR Projects Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area 

Project 

Company/ 

Owner Uranium District County Status 

Approx. 

Distance 

km [mi] Direction

Smith Ranch– 

Highland 

Ranch 

Power 

Resources, Inc. 

Southern Powder 

River Basin 

Converse Licensed 61 [38] South 

Moore Ranch Uranium One 

Americas, Inc. 

Pumpkin Buttes Campbell Licensed 13 [8] SW 

Nichols Ranch Uranerz Energy 

Corp. 

Pumpkin Buttes Campbell 

and Johnson 

Licensed 24 [15] WNW 

Willow Creek Uranium One 

Americas, Inc. 

Pumpkin Buttes Johnson Licensed 35 [22] NW 

North Butte Power 

Resources, Inc. 

Pumpkin Buttes Campbell Licensed 26 [16] NW 

Ruth Power 

Resources, Inc. 

Pumpkin Buttes Johnson Licensed 25 [16] WSW 

Ruby Ranch Power 

Resources, Inc. 

Pumpkin Buttes Campbell Proposed 10 [6] NW 

Collins Draw Uranerz Energy 

Corp. 

Pumpkin Buttes Campbell Letter of 

Intent 

2008 

19 [12] West 

Reynolds 

Ranch 

Cameco 

Resources, Inc. 

Southern Powder 

River Basin 

Converse Licensed 58 [36] South 

Ludeman Uranium One 

Americas, Inc. 

Southern Powder 

River Basin 

Converse Proposed 80 [50] South 

AllemandRoss Uranium One 

Americas, Inc. 

Southern Powder 

River Basin 

Converse Proposed 32 [20] SSW 

Sources: NRC (2014); AUC (2012a) 

1 Highway 387, Clarkelen Road, and Cosner Road provide access to nearby residences outside 

2 the proposed project area. 

3 3.3 Transportation 

4 This section describes the transportation infrastructure and conditions in the region surrounding 

5 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7, the 

6 applicant has proposed to use trucks to ship equipment, supplies, and produced materials, 

7 including wastes, during the lifecycle of the proposed project. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

8 (BNSF) railroad runs from north to south approximately 20 km [12.5 mi] east of the proposed 

9 project area (draft SEIS Figure 3-5). The BNSF railroad is used primarily to ship coal from 

10 mining operations in eastern Wyoming. The applicant does not anticipate using the BNSF 

11 railroad as a transportation option for any of the proposed project operations. There are no 

12 navigable waterways within close proximity that provide transportation access to the 

13 proposed project. 

14 The town of Wright, Wyoming is located approximately 12 km [7.5 mi] northeast of the proposed 

15 Reno Creek ISR Project. Draft SEIS Figure 3-5 shows the transportation corridor of the region 

16 surrounding the proposed project area, and draft SEIS Figure 3-1 provides a closer view of the 

17 immediate proposed project area and the existing transportation infrastructure. Access to the 

18 proposed project area from nearby communities is from State Highway 387, which traverses the 
3-9 

Figure 3-4. Oil and Gas Wells Within 16 km [10 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area (AUC, 2014a) 
3-10 

Table 3-5. Producing Oil and Gas Fields Within 8 km [5 mi] of the Proposed Reno 

Creek ISR Project Area 

Field Name Producing Formation(s) (number of wells) Total Well Depth(s) {m [ft]} 

K-Bar Parkman (7) 

Parkman and Turner (8) 

Parkman, Turner, and Niobrara (2) 

Parkman, Turner, and Sussex (1) 

Muddy, Parkman, and Turner (1) 

2,352–2,896 [7,717–9,500] 

3,185–3,624 [10,450–11,891] 

3,250–3,261 [10,662–10,700] 

3,261 [11,700] 

3,619 [11,875] 

House Creek Sussex (10) 2,515–2,583 [8,253–8,475] 

Tuit Draw Parkman and Turner (2) 

Turner (3) 

3,152–3,157 [10,340–10,358] 

3,170–3,504 [10,400–11,495] 

Buck Draw North Dakota (3) 3,819–3,836 [12,530–12,585] 

Turnercrest Dakota (2) 

Frontier (1) 

3,818–3,829 [12,525–12,562] 

3,848 [12,625] 

WC Parkman (1) 

Parkman and Turner (2) 

3,258 [10,690] 

3,287–3,692 [10,786–12,114] 

Archibald Frontier (2) 3,778–3,853 [12,396–12,642] 

Night Creek Turner (1) 3,796 [12,454] 

Sievers Shannon (1) 3,580 [11,745] 

Sources: AUC, 2012a; WOGCC, 2014 

1 proposed project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). State Highway 387 runs east to west from 

2 Wright to the town of Midwest, where it connects with U.S. Interstate Highway (IH) 25. Two 

3 transportation routes (State Highways 50 and 59) are available to access the proposed project 

4 area from the city of Gillette, located approximately 66 km [41 mi] to the north (draft SEIS 

5 Figure 3-6). State Highway 50 runs south from Gillette and connects with State Highway 387 

6 approximately 7.2 km [4.5 mi] west of the proposed project area. State Highway 59 also runs 

7 south from Gillette and connects with State Highway 387 at Wright, located approximately 

8 12 km [7.5 mi] northeast of the proposed project area. State Highways 387, 50, and 59 are 

9 two-lane, asphalt-paved highways, which are maintained year round. Lane width on these 

10 highways is approximately 3.65 m [12 ft] and, based on varying shoulder width, total width of the 

11 paved roadway ranges from 7.9 to 12.1 m [26 to 40 ft] (AUC, 2012a). Routine maintenance on 

12 the state highways includes snow and debris removal, grading, and road repairs. 

13 Access from State Highway 387 to the location of the proposed Reno Creek CPP is along 

14 Clarkelen Road (County Road 22) (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Clarkelen Road is currently 

15 used for agricultural and oil and gas activities in the area. The proposed CPP is approximately 

16 550 m [1,800 ft] north of the intersection of Clarkelen Road and State Highway 387 (AUC, 

17 2012a). Cosner Road (County Road 25) and Turnercrest Rd (County Road 22) are other 

18 county roads that traverse the project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Clarkelen/Turnercrest 

19 Road and Cosner Road are improved, all-weather, unpaved roads. These county roads are 

20 maintained and are in fair condition. However, Clarkelen Road may require improvements to 

21 accommodate trucks and heavy equipment access during the construction, operations, and 

22 decommissioning phases of the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). 

23 Draft SEIS Table 3-6 lists traffic counts recorded in 2014 at three automated traffic counter 

24 locations on the state highways in the vicinity of the proposed project. The automated traffic 

25 counters are operated by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). The location 

26 of the automated traffic counters is shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-6. Projected traffic volumes for 

27 the traffic counter locations in 2015, 2020, and 2030 are also listed in draft SEIS Table 3-6. 
3-11 

Figure 3-5. Transportation Corridor Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2014a) 
3-12 

Figure 3-6. Locations of Automated Traffic Counters (AUC, 2014a)
3-13 

Table 3-6. 2014 and Projected Annual Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the 

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Traffic Counter 

(Location)

2014* 2015† 2020† 2030†

All 

Vehicles Trucks 

All 

Vehicles Trucks 

All 

Vehicles Trucks 

All 

Vehicles Trucks 

Reno Junction North 

(State Highway 59 

milepost 75.21) 

5,163 784 5,240 807 5,645 870 6,551 1,010 

Gillette South 

(State Highway 59 

milepost 103.12) 

6,656 834 6,756 859 7,278 925 8,447 1,074 

Pine Tree Junction 

(State Highway 387 

milepost 136.2) 

1,645 437 1,670 450 1,799 485 2,088 563 

Sources: WYDOT (2013, 2014) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel for year 2014 from WYDOT (2013, 2014). 

†Projected traffic counts based on 1.5 percent annual increase of year 2014 traffic counts from WYDOT (2013, 

2014).

1 Projected traffic volumes were calculated using a 1.5 percent annual rate of increase, which 

2 WYDOT uses when available site-specific data are limited (AUC, 2012a). Traffic volumes on 

3 the county roads in the vicinity of the proposed project (e.g., Clarkelen/Turnercrest Road and 

4 Cosner Road) are not available. There are few residences along these roads (see draft SEIS 

5 Figure 3-1) and therefore little traffic. Peak traffic on the county roads occurs in the summer 

6 and fall when outdoor recreation is greatest (AUC, 2012a). 

7 The Campbell County Coal Belt Transportation Study (Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc., 2010) 

8 provides insights into the ability of the existing roadway network in Campbell County to 

9 accommodate increases in traffic levels due to future growth. The objective of this study was to 

10 develop a comprehensive transportation plan that services the primary coal, oil, and gas 

11 production areas within Campbell County. Based on WYDOT automated daily traffic count 

12 information on state highways in Campbell County, the study estimated a rural 2-lane highway 

13 hourly capacity of 1,375 vehicles. This estimate accounted for known roadway conditions such 

14 as terrain, grade, truck traffic, and peak-hour volumes. The study concluded that present traffic 

15 volumes on roads in Campbell County are low when compared to existing capacity, and that the 

16 existing roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected future increases in 

17 traffic levels (Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc., 2010). 

18 3.4 Geology and Soils 

19 GEIS Section 3.3.3 provides a description of the geology and soils of the PRB and the Pumpkin 

20 Buttes Uranium District (draft SEIS Figure 3-7). The structural geology, stratigraphy, uranium 

21 mineralization, soil characteristics, and seismology of the proposed project area are described 

22 in the following sections. 

23 3.4.1 Geology 

24 3.4.1.1 Powder River Basin 

25 The PRB is a large structural and topographic depression parallel to the Rocky Mountain 

26 Range. Within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, the PRB encompasses an area of 

approximately 31,000 km2

 [12,000 mi2 27 ] in Campbell, Johnson, and Converse Counties, 

28 Wyoming (NRC, 2009). As described in the GEIS Section 3.3.3, uranium was first discovered in 

29 the PRB in 1951 near the Pumpkin Buttes (Davis, 1969). Other uranium deposits were found 
3-14 

Figure 3-7. Geologic Map of the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District in the Powder River Basin Showing the Locations of 

Active ISR Projects (Modified from AUC, 2012b) 
3-15 

1 along a 97-km [60-mi] northwest-southeast trend in the southwest part of the basin, and 

2 production began in 1953. Active ISR projects (i.e., projects that are licensed or undergoing 

3 licensing) include Moore Ranch, Willow Creek, and Irigaray (Uranium One Inc.); Nichols Ranch 

4 and Hank Unit (Uranerz Energy Corporation); and Reno Creek (AUC) (draft SEIS Figure 3-7). 

5 Some of these projects have also requested license amendments for expansions in the area. 

6 Structural Geology 

7 The PRB is a north-northwest trending synclinal basin extending over northeastern Wyoming 

8 and southeastern Montana. The basin is bounded by the Hartville Uplift and the Laramie Range 

9 to the south, the Black Hills to the east, and the Big Horn Mountains to the west. The PRB is 

10 comprises marine and continental strata ranging in age from recent (Holocene) to early 

11 Paleozoic (draft SEIS Figure 3-8). These sediments were deposited on a basement complex of 

12 Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks. In the deepest parts of the basin, sediments 

13 reach a maximum thickness of about 6,100 m [20,000 ft]. Within the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

14 Project area, the top of the Precambrian basement is estimated to be about 5,300 m [17,500 ft] 

15 below ground surface (draft SEIS Figure 3-8). 

16 During the Paleozoic, most of northeastern Wyoming was a continental shelf covered by 

17 shallow marine seas. Deposition of marine limestone, shale, and sandstone occurred during 

18 this time. In the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic, periods of marine regression and 

19 transgression deposited sequences of marine sand and carbonates interbedded with nonmarine 

20 clastic sediments. Following an extended period of stability during the Mesozoic, tectonic forces 

21 in the Paleocene to early Eocene triggered mountain building events related to the Laramide 

22 Orogeny. During this time, the PRB was the site of active subsidence surrounded by uplift of 

23 the Big Horn Mountains, Laramie Mountains, and Black Hills. Erosion of these highlands 

24 produced clastic sediments, which now constitute the Tertiary-age sedimentary strata in the 

25 basin. During the Oligocene, regional volcanism to the west of the basin resulted in deposition 

26 of tuffaceous claystone, sandstone, and conglomerate. Sediments deposited in the basin have 

27 been undergoing erosion since the Pleistocene. Most recently, Holocene alluvium has filled 

28 channels eroded into the older rocks. 

29 Stratigraphy 

30 As described in the GEIS, the upper part of sedimentary sequence present in other portions of 

31 central Wyoming has been eroded away in the PRB, leaving only the Tertiary-aged White River, 

32 Wasatch, and Fort Union Formations. The White River Formation is of Oligocene age and is 

33 the shallowest Tertiary unit in the PRB. Underlying the White River Formation is the Eocene 

34 age Wasatch Formation. The Paleocene age Fort Union Formation directly underlies the 

35 Wasatch Formation, which directly overlies the Cretaceous Lance Formation. 

36 The White River Formation is the youngest Tertiary unit that exists in the PRB. Remnants of the 

37 White River Formation are found on top of the Pumpkin Buttes, located approximately 16 km 

38 [10 mi] west-northwest of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. A basal conglomerate of the 

39 White River Formation forms the resistant cap rock of the Pumpkin Buttes. Elsewhere, the 

40 White River Formation consists of thick sequences of buff-colored tuffaceous sedimentary strata 

41 mixed with lenses of fine sandstone and siltstone. The White River Formation does not contain 

42 significant uranium resources in the Pumpkin Buttes area. 

43 The Wasatch Formation underlies the White River Formation and consists of interbedded 

44 mudstones, carbonaceous shales, silty sandstones, and relatively clean sandstones. In the 
3-16 

Figure 3-8. Stratigraphic Section for the Powder River Basin (AUC, 2014a) 
3-17 

1 vicinity of the Pumpkin Buttes, the Wasatch Formation is approximately 480 m [1,575 ft] thick 

2 (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964). The interbedded mudstones, siltstones, and relatively clean 

3 sandstones in the Wasatch Formation have varying degrees of lithification from uncemented to 

4 moderately well cemented sandstones to weakly compacted and cemented mudstones to fissile 

5 shales. The Wasatch Formation contains significant uranium resources and hosts the uranium 

6 ore bodies at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2012a). 

7 The Fort Union Formation is lithologically similar to the Wasatch Formation in the PRB. The 

8 Fort Union Formation includes interbedded silty claystones, sandy siltstones, relatively clean 

9 sandstones, claystones, and coal. These units display varying degrees of lithification ranging 

10 from uncemented sands to moderately well cemented siltstones and sandstones. The total 

11 thickness of the Fort Union Formation varies between about 610 and 1,070 m [2,000 and 

12 3,500 ft] (Sharp and Gibbons, 1964). The Fort Union Formation contains significant uranium 

13 resources at various locations in the basin and is also the target formation for CBM 

14 extraction operations. 

15 The Upper Cretaceous Lance Formation underlies the Fort Union Formation and consists of 

16 305 to 915 m [1,000 to 3,000 ft] of thinly bedded sandstones and shales. The upper part 

17 contains minor, dark carbonaceous shales and thin coal seams. 

18 In the central part of the PRB, at least 3,050 m [10,000 ft] of mostly marine shales and 

19 mudstones underlie the Upper Cretaceous Lance Formation. Sandstone beds below the 

20 Lance Formation are found in the Cretaceous Fox Hills Formation and the Teckla, Teapot, and 

21 Parkman members of the Mesa Verde Formation. The Teapot and Parkman Sandstones are 

22 currently used in the PRB for disposal of ISR byproduct waste in Class I Underground Injection 

23 Control (UIC) disposal wells. These sandstones occur at depths ranging from approximately 

24 2,165 to 2,485 m [7,100 to 8,150 ft]. The Teckla, Teapot, and Parkman Sandstones are also 

25 potential oil and gas targets in the PRB. Deeper oil and gas targets include the Cretaceous age 

26 Niobrara Shale and Turner Sandstone. These formations are over 610 m [2,000 ft] deeper than 

27 the Teckla, Teapot, and Parkman Sandstones (AUC, 2012i). 

28 3.4.1.2 Reno Creek ISR Project Area Geology 

29 As described in the GEIS, the primary hosts for uranium mineralization in the 

30 Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District, are sandstones of the lower Wasatch Formation (NRC, 2009). 

31 Harshman (1968) described the Wasatch Formation as consisting of interbedded arkosic 

32 sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, mudstone, and carbonaceous shale, all compacted but 

33 uncemented to moderately well-cemented. 

34 Structural Geology 

35 The proposed project area lies within a portion of the PRB that dips to the northwest at 

36 approximately one degree (Fox and Higley, 1987). Based on structure maps and structural 

37 cross sections constructed from historic and recent geophysical and lithologic logs, mineralized 

38 sandstones, confining units, and marker beds within the proposed project area dip gently to the 

39 northwest and do not indicate the presence of faults (AUC, 2012a,b). 

40 Stratigraphy 

41 The Wasatch Formation outcrops at the surface in the proposed project area, except where it is 

42 occasionally covered by recent alluvium deposited in shallow drainages. As described 
3-18 

1 previously, the Wasatch Formation consists of interbedded mudstones, carbonaceous shales, 

2 silty sandstones, and relatively clean sandstones. The upper Wasatch Formation has been 

3 eroded away in the proposed project area. The lower Wasatch Formation is the host for the 

4 uranium deposits at the proposed project. Draft SEIS Figure 3-9 shows a typical geophysical 

5 log summarizing the stratigraphic nomenclature used to describe mineralized and confining 

6 units within the Wasatch Formation at the proposed project area. Draft SEIS Figure 3-10 

7 displays a cross section constructed from geophysical logs showing the position of mineralized 

8 and confining units within the Wasatch Formation. 

9 The host sandstone for uranium mineralization at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is 

10 termed the Production Zone Aquifer (PZA) (AUC, 2012a). The PZA is laterally continuous 

11 across the proposed project area and ranges in thickness from less than 23 m [75 ft] to as much 

12 as 67 m [220 ft]. Discontinuous mudstone lenses of varying lateral extent are common within 

13 the PZA, and uranium mineralization can be found both above and below the mudstone lenses. 

14 At various localities in the proposed project area, all horizons from the base to the top of the 

15 PZA contain uranium mineralization (AUC, 2012b). However, the lower half of the PZA typically 

16 contains the most economically significant uranium mineralization. 

17 The lowermost unit of the Wasatch Formation in the proposed project area is termed the 

18 Underlying Aquitard (UA). The UA lies below the PZA and above the Badger Coal. The top of 

19 the Badger Coal is considered the base of the Wasatch Formation in the proposed project area. 

20 The UA is approximately 46 to 76 m [150 to 250 ft] thick and consists of laterally continuous silt 

21 and clay-rich mudstones. Discontinuous lenticular sandstones of varying thickness and lateral 

22 extent are present within the UA. The first significant sandstone underlying the PZA is termed 

23 the Underlying Unit (UM Unit) (see draft SEIS Figure 3-10). 

24 The Overlying Aquitard (OA) occurs above the PZA and consists of a laterally continuous 

25 sequence of silt and clay-rich mudstones, thin coal seams, and discontinuous sandstones. The 

26 Upper and Lower Felix Coal seams form laterally continuous marker beds within the lower part 

27 of the OA. The Upper and Lower Felix Coal seams range from 1.5 to 3 m [5 to 10 ft] in 

28 thickness and are separated by approximately 1.5 m [5 ft] of mudstone. The Upper Felix Coal 

29 seam is not present in the western portion of the proposed project area. The Felix Coal seams 

30 are not targets for CBM production within the proposed project area. 

31 The first significant sandstone above the Felix Coal is termed the Overlying Aquifer (OM Unit). 

32 Sandstones comprising the OM Unit are discontinuous, contained within mudstones of the OA, 

33 and difficult to correlate over distances exceeding several hundred meters [a few thousand feet]. 

34 In the central part of the project area, the OM Unit is well developed and approximately 27.4 m 

35 [90 ft] thick. A discontinuous water table zone, termed the Shallow Water Table Unit (SM Unit), 

36 has also been identified by drilling within the proposed project area. The shallowest water level 

37 in the SM Unit is approximately 10.7 m [35 ft] below ground surface. 

38 Hydrologic characteristics (e.g., permeability and porosity) of the stratigraphic units within the 

39 Wasatch Formation (e.g., the PZA, OM Unit, UA, and OA) are described in draft SEIS 

40 Section 3.5 (Water Resources). 

41 The Fort Union Formation, which unconformably underlies the Wasatch Formation, is composed 

42 of continental and nonmarine deposits consisting of fine-grained sandstones, interbedded 

43 shales, carbonaceous shale, and coal. According to Hodson (1973), the Fort Union Formation 

44 is approximately 884 m [2,900 ft] thick in the southwest PRB where the proposed Reno Creek 

45 ISR Project would be located. 
3-19 

Figure 3-9. Typical Geophysical Log (AUC, 2014a) 
3-20 

Figure 3-10. Structural Cross Section Trending Northwest-to-Southeast Across the Eastern Part of the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area (AUC, 2012b) 
3-21 

1 The Fort Union Formation is a major source of coal in the PRB and hosts significant volumes of 

2 exploitable CBM reserves. Coal mines are located approximately 12.9 km [8 mi] east of Wright, 

3 Wyoming, along the north-south trending outcrop of the Fort Union Formation. The closest coal 

4 mines to the proposed project area are the North Antelope, Rochelle, and Thunder Basin coal 

5 mines, approximately 26 km [16 mi] to the east. These coal mines produce from the 

6 Anderson/Big George coal seams, which are within the Fort Union Formation. The 

7 Anderson/Big George coal seams can reach thicknesses of over 30.5 m [100 ft]. The CBM 

8 production that is present within the proposed project area is from the Anderson/Big George 

9 Coal. The Anderson/Big George coal seams are approximately 305 to 335 m [1,000 to 1,100 ft] 

10 below ground surface in the proposed project area and approximately 183 m [600 ft] below the 

11 base of the PZA (the sandstone unit proposed for ISR operations). 

12 The Fort Union Formation is underlain by the Cretaceous Lance Formation, which is in turn 

13 underlain by a thick sequence of older sandstones, mudstone, and shales. The Wyoming 

14 Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) has authorized the applicant to drill, complete, 

15 and operate four deep Class I disposal wells and thereby inject radionuclide-bearing liquid 

16 waste streams into the Teckla Sandstone member of the Lewis Formation and Teapot 

17 Sandstone member of the Cretaceous Mesa Verde Formation (WDEQ, 2015). The Teapot 

18 Sandstone member is approximately 2,270 to 2,557 m [7,450 to 8,390 ft] below ground surface 

19 in the proposed project area (AUC, 2012c). The Teapot member is characterized by marine, 

20 coarsening-upward sandstone intervals within thick intervals of shale. In the proposed project 

21 area, the Teapot Sandstone member is overlain by the Lewis Shale, a low-permeability 

22 marine shale with a thickness of approximately 259 m [850 ft] (including the Teckla 

23 Sandstone member).

24 Uranium Mineralization 

25 Uranium deposits within the PZA sandstone of the Wasatch Formation are present as roll-front 

26 deposits at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. GEIS Section 3.1.2.1 (NRC, 2009) 

27 describes the formation and characteristics of roll-front uranium deposits in the western 

28 United States, which includes the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region. Uranium 

29 mineralization at the proposed project area is confined to the host sandstone of the PZA 

30 (AUC, 2012a,b). Uranium deposits within the PZA are found within a sand unit ranging from 

31 15.2 to 61 m [50 to 200 ft] thick, and at depths from 52 to 137 m [170 to 450 ft] below ground 

32 surface. As described previously, discontinuous mudstone lenses of varying lateral extent are 

33 common within the PZA, and uranium mineralization can be found both above and below the 

34 mudstone lenses. Uranium intercepts vary in thickness from 0.3 to 12.2 m [1 to 40 ft]. The 

35 uranium mineralization typically occurs as coatings on sand grains. As discussed in GEIS 

36 Section 3.1.2.1, the principal uranium ore minerals found in roll-front deposits are coffinite and 

37 pitchblende (a form of uraninite). The source of uranium in roll-front uranium deposits in the 

38 PRB is unknown. Proposed uranium sources include (i) leached uranium from overlying ash-fall 

39 tuffs, (ii) leached uranium from igneous and metamorphic rocks in the highlands surrounding the 

40 basin, and (iii) leached uranium from the sandstones themselves (Harris and King, 1993). 

41 Although the estimate of recoverable uranium resources has not been fully developed, the 

42 applicant estimates that at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project there is approximately 

43 7.1 million kg [15.7 million lb] of uranium at an average grade of approximately 0.065 percent 

44 U3O8 (yellowcake) (AUC, 2012a). 
3-22 

1 Artificial Penetrations 

2 The Reno Creek area has been extensively explored for uranium resources since the late 1960s 

3 (AUC, 2012a). Within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project boundary, former operators drilled 

4 approximately 2,665 exploration holes. Approximately 100 of the holes were cased wells that 

5 were plugged and abandoned. An additional 215 drill holes are within 0.8 km [0.5 mi] of the 

6 proposed project boundary. From 2010 through 2012, the applicant drilled 807 exploration 

7 holes. Of these holes, 45 were cased and would remain in place as groundwater monitoring 

8 wells. The remaining 762 were plugged and abandoned, in accordance with WDEQ rules and 

9 regulations (WDEQ, 2013b). Rocky Mountain Energy (formerly operating in the proposed 

10 project area) conducted integrity testing during 1982 to determine whether historical exploration 

11 holes drilled prior to enactment of drill hole abandonment regulations had naturally sealed 

12 themselves. The integrity testing indicated that old drill holes have been sealed by either 

13 natural swelling clays or by plug gel, which was used in accordance with regulatory 

14 requirements after 1980 (AUC, 2012d). While the integrity testing indicates that replugging old 

15 drill holes may not be necessary, the applicant has committed to ensure that unplugged drill 

16 holes would not impact human health and the environment during ISR operations (AUC, 2012a). 

17 These commitments include pump testing and hydrogeologic characterization to identify and 

18 plug old drill holes in proximity to proposed production units in the wellfields. 

19 3.4.2 Soils 

20 The topography of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area consists of rolling hills and 

21 ridges, as well as drainages. Soils in the proposed project area are typical of semi-arid 

22 grasslands and shrublands in the western United States and are classified as Ustic Paleagids, 

23 Ustic Haplargids, Ustic Torriorthents, and Ustic Haplocambids. Parent soil material includes 

24 colluvium, residuum, and alluvium. To provide site-specific soil characteristics, the applicant 

25 had a soil survey conducted over the entire 2,451 ha [6,057 ac] of the proposed project area 

26 (AUC, 2012a). All phases of the soil survey (sampling, laboratory analysis, and interpretation of 

27 results) were carried out in accordance with WDEQ guidelines (WDEQ, 1994). 

28 Results of the soil survey indicated that soils within the proposed project area are generally fine 

29 textured, with patches of sandy textures on upland areas and fine-textured soils occurring near 

30 or in drainages. Deep soils are found on lower toe slopes and flat areas near drainages. 

31 Shallow and moderately deep soils are located on upland ridges and shoulder slopes. Draft 

32 SEIS Table 3-7 summarizes areas, soil salvage depths, and soil erosion properties for each soil 

33 unit mapped within the proposed project area. Approximate salvage depths ranged from 0.06 to 

34 1.1 m [0.2 to 3.6 ft] and averaged about 0.4 m [1.31 ft]. The potential for wind and water erosion 

35 is mainly a factor of surface soil characteristics, including texture and organic matter content. 

36 Based on the survey results, the hazard for wind and water erosion within the proposed project 

37 area varies from slight to severe. Surface horizons throughout the proposed project area have 

38 a fine-loamy to sandy texture, which makes the soils more susceptible to wind erosion. 

39 3.4.3 Seismology 

40 No faulting has been identified within the entirety of the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). 

41 As mentioned previously, structure maps and structural cross sections constructed from historic 

42 and recent geophysical and lithologic logs do not indicate the presence of faults within 

43 mineralized sandstones, confining units, and marker beds at the proposed project (AUC, 

44 2012a,b). According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Quaternary Fault and Fold 

45 Database, no capable faults (faults that have discernable surface expression that have 
3-23 

Table 3-7. Soil Mapping Unit Area, Soil Salvage Depth, and Erosion Hazard* 

Map Unit Description 

Area, 

ha [ac] 

% Total 

Area 

Salvage 

Depth, 

m [ft] 

Water 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Wind 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Birdman Loam 57.52 [142.13] 2.35 0.3 [1] Moderate Slight 

Bowbac Sandy Loam 13.94 [34.44] 0.57 0.06 [0.2] Slight Moderate 

Cambria Loam 341.61 [844.13] 13.94 0.36 [1.2] Moderate Slight 

Cushman Loam 90.46 [223.54] 3.69 0.3 [1] Moderate Slight 

Disturbed 112.98 [279.18] 4.61 0 n/a† n/a 

Forkwood Loam 596.70 [1,474.49] 24.34 0.27 [0.9] Moderate Slight 

Haverdad Loam 60.43 [149.33] 2.47 0.43 [1.4] Moderate Moderate 

Hiland Sandy Loam 105.62 [260.99] 4.31 0.46 [1.5] Slight Moderate 

Kishona Loam 201.36 [497.56] 8.21 0.58 [1.9] Moderate Moderate 

Shingle Loam 283.69 [701.01] 11.57 0.55 [1.8] Moderate Moderate 

Terro Sandy Loam 66.24 [163.69] 2.7 0.91 [3] Slight Moderate 

Theedle Loam 412.30 [1,018.81] 16.82 0.46 [1.5] Moderate Moderate 

Tullock Loamy Sand 6.45 [15.94] 0.26 0.18 [0.6] Slight Severe 

Ulm Clay Loam 89.28 [220.61] 3.64 0.36 [1.2] Slight Moderate 

Vonalee Sandy Loam 10.65 [26.33] 0.43 1.1 [3.6] Slight Moderate 

Water 2.13 [5.26] 0.09 0 n/a n/a 

Total 

2,451.36 

[6,057.44] 100 

 

Average Salvage Depth 0.4 [1.31] 

Source: AUC, 2012e 

*Based on soil mapping unit descriptions 

†n/a – not applicable

1 produced earthquakes in the last 10,000 to 100,000 years) occur within or near the proposed 

2 project area, demonstrating a low seismic potential. 

3 The Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS) reported that five, magnitude 2.5 or greater, 

4 earthquakes have been recorded in Campbell County since 1967 (Case, et al., 2002). Two of 

5 these earthquakes occurred within approximately 40 km [25 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek 

6 ISR Project area. The first of these earthquakes (recorded on May 11, 1967), had a magnitude 

7 of 4.8 and was centered in southwestern Campbell County approximately 11.3 km [7 mi] 

8 north-northwest of Pine Tree Junction. The second of these earthquakes (recorded on 

9 February 24, 1993) had a magnitude of 3.6 and occurred in southeastern Campbell County 

10 approximately 16 km [10 mi] east-southeast of Reno Junction. No damage was reported for 

11 these two earthquakes. The other three earthquakes in Campbell County had magnitudes of 

12 2.5 (recorded on October 29, 1984), 4.3 (recorded on February 18, 1972), and 5.0 (recorded on 

13 May 28, 1984) and occurred east and west of Gillette (Case, et al., 2002). No damage was 

14 reported for the magnitude 2.5 and 4.3 events. The magnitude 5.0 earthquake occurred 

15 approximately 39 km [24 mi] west-southwest of Gillette and was felt in Gillette, Sheridan, 

16 Buffalo, Casper, Douglas, Thermopolis, and Sundance. No damage was reported for the 

17 magnitude 5.0 event. Earthquakes have also occurred within approximately 80 km [50 mi] of 

18 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area in southwestern Johnson County. A magnitude 

19 4.7 earthquake (recorded on June 3, 1965) occurred approximately 19.3 km [12 mi] south of 

20 Kaycee, and a magnitude 4.8 earthquake (recorded September 2, 1976) occurred 

21 approximately 53 km [33 mi] northeast of Kaycee. No damage was reported from these events. 

22 Because of the lack of known capable faults within the vicinity of the proposed project area, the 

23 most significant seismic hazards are from background earthquakes, those that could occur 
3-24 

1 randomly within a defined areal seismic source or tectonic province. The magnitude and 

2 frequency of these random earthquakes is determined from statistical analyses of past 

3 earthquakes. The USGS has classified Campbell County as a tectonic province with a 

4 background earthquake having a maximum magnitude of 6.1 (Algermissen et al., 1982). 

5 In contrast, Geomatrix (1988) estimated that the largest background earthquake in 

6 Campbell County would have a maximum magnitude of 6.0–6.5, with an average maximum 

7 magnitude of 6.25. The WSGS estimated that a magnitude 6.25 floating earthquake placed 

8 15 km [9.3 mi] from any structure in Campbell County would generate horizontal peak ground 

9 acceleration of approximately 15%g {i.e., the probability of a ground motion exceeding 

15 percent of the acceleration of gravity (g = 9.8 m/s2 [32.1 ft/s2 10 ]) in 50 years} at the site (Case 

11 et al., 2002). Based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, this acceleration could produce 

12 damage that falls within an intensity VI, which results in light damage such as fallen plaster and 

13 damaged chimneys. 

14 3.5 Water Resources 

15 3.5.1 Surface Water 

16 3.5.1.1 Surface Water Features 

17 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area straddles the water divide between the Upper Belle 

18 Fourche River and the Antelope Creek drainage basins (draft SEIS Figure 3-11). Within the 

19 proposed project area, the tributaries flow to the northwest toward the Upper Belle Fourche 

20 River and to the southeast toward Antelope Creek. As defined in GEIS Section 3.3.4.1, 

21 Figure 3-12, the Upper Belle Fourche River and Antelope Creek drainage basins are among 

22 10 primary watersheds covering the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region. Approximately 

23 80 percent of the proposed project area drains into the Upper Belle Fourche River, and the 

24 remaining portion, on the eastern edge, drains into the Antelope Creek basin. All drainage 

25 channels within the proposed project area are ephemeral in nature, flowing for short durations in 

26 response to snowmelt or local precipitation events. Other surface water features within the 

27 proposed project area include manmade reservoirs or stock ponds and permitted discharge 

28 sites for CBM dewatering activities. 

29 3.5.1.2 Surface Water Flow 

30 The Upper Belle Fourche River originates approximately 8 km [5 mi] west of the proposed 

31 project area boundary, flows eastward through the proposed project area then bends northward, 

32 continues as the Belle Fourche River, and turns eastward to join the Cheyenne River in 

33 South Dakota. The Cheyenne River ultimately flows into the Missouri River. The proposed 

34 project area lies within the uppermost subwatershed of the Upper Belle Fourche River, which is 

35 identified by USGS Hydrologic Unit Code 101202010101. This subwatershed covers an area of 

185 km2

 [72 mi2]. The average discharge rate for the Belle Fourche River is 0.12 m3 36 /s 

[4.33 ft3 37 /s], based on measurements at USGS Gaging Station 06425780 located 45 km [28 mi] 

38 northeast of the proposed project boundary (AUC, 2012a). Antelope Creek runs south of the 

39 proposed project area and flows eastward into the Cheyenne River. The eastern edge of the 

40 proposed project area is drained by two ephemeral tributaries of Antelope Creek, namely Spring 

Creek {HUC 101201010302; 165 km2

 [65 mi2 41 ]} and Porcupine Creek {HUC 101201010303; 

165 km2

 [65 mi2 42 ]}. The average discharge rates for Antelope Creek and Porcupine Creek are 

0.27 and 0.01 m3

/s [9.37 and 0.29 ft3 43 /s], respectively (USGS Gaging Stations 06364700 and 

44 06364300; AUC, 2012a). 
3-25 

Figure 3-11. Map Showing the Upper Belle Fourche River and Antelope Creek Drainage Basins in Relation to the 

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and Subbasin Characteristics Used for the Watershed Hydrological 

Simulation (Modified from AUC, 2012b) 
3-26 

Figure 3-12. Watersheds Within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region (NRC, 2009) 

1 The applicant developed floodplain models for the Upper Belle Fourche River channel. The 

2 smaller ephemeral tributaries were excluded from the flood inundation analysis due to small 

3 watershed area and lack of a floodplain. The floodplain model was limited to the proposed 

4 project area to determine the extent of potential inundation of the proposed project from a 

5 simulated 100-year flood event (AUC, 2012a). Results of the modeling showing the areal extent 

6 of a 100-year flood, with respect to proposed project facilities and wellfields, are provided in 

7 draft SEIS Figure 3-13. The modeling results indicate that, except for small portions of some 

8 proposed wellfields, most of the proposed project facilities would be located outside the 

9 estimated 100-year flood inundation boundary of the Upper Belle Fourche River. In particular, 

10 the CPP, which is proposed to be located on a hill to minimize the risk of inundation, would be 

11 approximately 520 m [1,700 ft] from the estimated 100-year flood inundation boundary of the 

12 Upper Belle Fourche River. 

13 3.5.1.3 Surface Water Quality 

14 According to the Wyoming state classification of designated uses, water bodies within this 

15 region are classified mainly as Class 3B surface waters suitable for recreation, aquatic life other 

16 than fish, wildlife, agriculture, industry, and scenic value (WDEQ, 2013a). Within the proposed 
3-27 

Figure 3-13. Map Showing the Modeled 100-Year Flood Inundation Boundary of the Upper Belle Fourche River Within the 

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area (Modified from AUC, 2012b) 
3-28 

1 project area, Porcupine Creek, Spring Creek, and the tributaries of the Upper Belle Fourche 

2 River are classified as Class 3B surface waters. The Belle Fourche River itself is classified as 

3 Class 2AB, which is suitable for all uses, including drinking and fish consumption. 

4 To provide baseline water quality information for the proposed project, the applicant collected 

5 surface water samples quarterly from 21 locations within and surrounding the proposed project 

6 area (draft SEIS Figure 3-14). The sample locations consisted of existing stock ponds or areas 

7 in drainages where ponding occurs. Sampling was conducted from September 2010 to 

8 January 2012. Several of the sampling locations were dry at the time of sampling because of 

9 the ephemeral nature of streams and drainages in the area, which contain water only from 

10 storm runoff, snowmelt, and CBM contributions. Because sampling sites were often dry, six 

11 sampling locations had just one set of water quality data, eight locations had two samples, and 

12 one location had three samples. Only four sites had complete quarterly samples, while no 

13 samples were collected from two sites that remained dry during all four quarterly sampling 

14 events. Seven of the sites sampled for the baseline studies are located close to Wyoming 

15 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES)-permitted CBM outfalls. Of these, three 

16 sites had complete quarterly samples, one location had three samples, and three locations had 

17 two samples. Draft SEIS Table 3-8 summarizes the sample results for locations with two or 

18 more quarterly samples collected. The tabulated value for each water quality parameter and 

19 sampling location is the average of the quarterly samples collected. 

20 Draft SEIS Table 3-8 also includes the State of Wyoming surface water quality standards for 

21 sample parameters (WDEQ, 2013a). The baseline surface water quality results presented in 

22 Table 3-8 indicated exceedances of the state surface water standards for pH, turbidity, and 

23 arsenic. Samples from locations SW18 and SW22 indicated pH levels outside the range of 

24 values considered suitable for all designated uses. Arsenic values exceeded the state standard 

25 at SW3 and SW22. These three sampling sites are located near CBM outfalls regulated under 

26 WYPDES permits. Except at three sampling sites (SW13, SW14, and SW19), turbidity values 

27 exceeded the state standards. SW13 and SW14 are located within the Antelope Creek basin, 

28 while SW19 is within the proposed project area in a tributary of the Belle Fourche River. 

29 3.5.1.4 Wetlands 

30 The applicant performed a wetland delineation survey of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

31 area in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010) methodology. Potential 

32 wetlands were identified by vegetation and hydrology indicators determined from 

33 orthophotography maps, soil maps, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands 

34 Inventory mapping application, and pedestrian reconnaissance. Additionally, subsurface soil 

35 sampling was conducted to determine the presence of wetland criteria indicators. 

36 The wetland survey identified a total of 17.12 ha [42.23 ac] of wetlands within the proposed 

37 project area, consisting of 8 wetland classes, based on Cowardin et al. (1979) and the National 

38 Wetland Inventory classification system (draft SEIS Table 3-9). These wetlands are mostly of 

39 the Palustrine Emergent (PEM) designation and were found mainly within the channels of the 

40 Belle Fourche River and its tributaries. The PEM wetlands are not continuous and often are 

41 isolated by upland swales or manmade berms created within the channel. 
3-29 

Figure 3-14. Map Showing Surface Water Sampling Locations Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area. 

(Modified from AUC, 2012b) 

1 
3-30 

Table 3-8. Surface Water Quality at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project* 

Sample 

Parameter Unit 

WDEQ 

Standard 

Sampling Locations 

SW1 SW3 SW7 SW9 SW10 SW11 SW13 

Field pH S.U. 6.5–9.0 7.82 8.58 8.25 8.55 8.12 8.72 7.80 

Laboratory 

pH S.U. 6.5–9.0 7.95 8.70 7.95 8.35 8.40 8.68 8.00 

Dissolved 

Oxygen mg/L 

4 

(minimum) 7.69 8.92 10.05 9.68 9.88 9.42 170.00 

Electrical 

Conductivity μohms/cm 1,671 1,464 297 172 513 888 195 

Total 

Dissolved 

Solids mg/L 1,515 1,245 200 120 310 615 130 

Total 

Suspended 

Solids mg/L 33.50 575.00 26.00 10.00 40.00 56.00 10.50 

Turbidity NTU 10 31.45 2515.00 24.00 20.75 81.70 158.28 9.95 

Chloride mg/L 18.00 17.00 2.00 2.00 6.00 7.75 4.00 

Sulfate mg/L 824 6 62 5 10 16 14 

Arsenic mg/L 0.01 0.003 0.012 0.005 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.002 

Cadmium mg/L 0.005 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Chromium mg/L 0.1 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Copper mg/L 1 LLDL 0.02 LLDL 0.23 LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Lead mg/L 0.015 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Mercury mg/L 0.00005 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Nickel mg/L 0.61 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Selenium mg/L 0.05 LLDL 0.006 LLDL LLDL LLDL 0.005 LLDL 

Zinc mg/L 5 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Uranium mg/L 0.03 0.0131 0.0068 0.0028 0.0015 0.0029 0.0045 0.0013 

Iron mg/L 2.03 44.75 0.66 1.30 2.33 4.07 0.38 

Manganese mg/L 0.34 0.82 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.10 0.04 

Gross 

Alpha pCi/L 15 10.20 6.55 2.60 2.05 3.50 6.23 2.00 

Lead 210 pCi/L 1.20 6.80 LLDL 9.50 1.10 2.15 LLDL 

Radium 

226+228 pCi/L 5 0.30 4.90 LLDL LLDL 1.90 1.67 LLDL 

 SW14 SW16 SW17 SW18 SW19 SW22

Field pH S.U. 6.5–9.0 8.02 8.26 7.66 9.15 8.04 9.48 

Laboratory 

pH S.U. 6.5–9.0 8.25 7.90 7.70 8.93 8.03 9.53 

Dissolved 

Oxygen mg/L 

4 

(minimum) 10.04 9.72 7.84 9.61 8.53 12.99 

Electrical 

Conductivity μohms/cm 1,049 2,203 145 946 2,860 797 

Total 

Dissolved 

Solids mg/L 720 1,180 185 728 2,693 485 

Total 

Suspended 

Solids mg/L 5.50 116.25 26.00 41.25 12.67 11.25 

Turbidity NTU 10 9.85 71.00 63.95 56.58 8.77 28.30 

Chloride mg/L 4.00 6.00 3.00 17.50 15.67 8.25 

Sulfate mg/L 413 1,158 LLDL 167 1,682 28 

Arsenic mg/L 0.01 0.003 0.002 0.006 0.010 0.003 0.013 
3-31 

Table 3-8. Surface Water Quality at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project* (Continued)

Sample 

Parameter Unit

WDEQ 

Standard

Sampling Locations 

SW14 SW16 SW17 SW18 SW19 SW22

Cadmium mg/L 0.005 0.001 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Chromium mg/L 0.1 0.01 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Copper mg/L 1 0.01 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Lead mg/L 0.015 0.01 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Mercury mg/L 0.00005 0.001 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Nickel mg/L 0.61 0.05 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Selenium mg/L 0.05 0.005 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Zinc mg/L 5 0.01 LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL LLDL 

Uranium mg/L 0.03 0.0041 0.0008 LLDL 0.0101 0.0041 0.0019 

Iron mg/L 0.53 2.20 4.66 1.87 0.61 1.25 

Manganese mg/L 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.07 0.60 0.04 

Gross 

Alpha pCi/L 15 3.65 3.00 2.00 9.28 4.13 2.78 

Lead 210 pCi/L 2.00 2.18 2.60 1.18 2.13 2.15 

Radium 

226+228 pCi/L 5 1.40 1.47 LLDL 1.75 2.93 1.43 

*Source: AUC (2012b). WDEQ Standards obtained from WDEQ (2013a). 

LLDL = Less than laboratory detection limit. 

All values are in mg/L, which is equivalent to ppm 

Table 3-9. Wetland Types Found in the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area 

Wetland Classification Area {Ha [Ac]} 

Palustrine Aquatic Bed Semipermanently Flooded Diked (PABFh) 3.15 [7.78] 

Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded (PEMA) 6.89 [17.02] 

Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded Diked (PEMAh) 4.15 [10.26] 

Palustrine Emergent Saturated (PEMB) 0.03 [0.08] 

Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded (PEMC) 2.19 [5.42] 

Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded Diked (PEMCh) 0.04 [0.11] 

Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Semipermanently Flooded 

Excavated (PUBFx) 

0.02 [0.04] 

Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB) 0.15 [0.36] 

Other Water of the United States (OWUS) 0.50 [1.24] 

Total 17.12 [42.31] 

Source: AUC (2012f). 

1 3.5.2 Groundwater 

2 3.5.2.1 Regional Groundwater Resources 

3 The proposed project area is located in the southern portion of the PRB, in the Northern Great 

4 Plains area in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region (NRC, 2009; Whitehead, 1996; 

5 AUC, 2012a). The major aquifers in this area, from the shallowest to the deepest, are the 

6 Lower Tertiary, Upper Cretaceous, Lower Cretaceous, and Paleozoic aquifers. A regional 

7 hydrostratigraphic section for the PRB is shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-15. 
3-32 

Figure 3-15. Regional Hydrostratigraphic Section for the Powder River Basin 

(Modified from AUC, 2012b). 
3-33 

1 The Lower Tertiary aquifers consist of semi-consolidated to consolidated sandstone beds of 

2 Oligocene to Paleocene age (NRC, 2009). The Wasatch Formation (host formation for uranium 

3 mineralization at the proposed project area) and the Fort Union Formation are part of the Lower 

4 Tertiary aquifers. Both formations consist of alternating sandstone, siltstone, and claystone 

5 beds and contain lignite and subbituminous coal. Most water is stored in and flows through the 

6 more permeable sandstone beds. In the Lower Tertiary aquifers, the regional flow direction is 

7 northward and northeastward in the Wyoming portion of the PRB (AUC, 2012a). Groundwater 

8 in the PRB flows from the upland areas of recharge, along the basin margins, to areas where 

9 there is discharge to larger surface streams (groundwater flow changes locally). 

10 In Wyoming, the potentiometric surface of the Lower Tertiary aquifers is higher than the 

11 underlying Upper Cretaceous aquifers; consequently, groundwater moves vertically downward 

12 from the Lower Tertiary aquifers, to the Upper Cretaceous aquifers, through the confining layer 

13 separating the two aquifers (NRC, 2009). 

14 The Upper Cretaceous aquifers, which include the Lance Formation and the Fox Hills 

15 Sandstone, consist of consolidated sandstone interbedded with shale, siltstone, and occasional 

16 thin, lenticular beds of coal (NRC, 2009; Whitehead, 1996). The Fox Hills Sandstone is one of 

17 the most continuous water-yielding formations in the Northern Great Plains aquifer system. 

18 Several thick confining units separate the Upper Cretaceous aquifers and the Lower Cretaceous 

19 aquifers (NRC, 2009). The Lewis Shale (also regionally known as the Pierre Shale) and 

20 Steele Shale are the thickest and most extensive confining units in the region (NRC, 2009). The 

21 applicant refers to the confining unit below the Lance Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone at the 

22 proposed project area as the Lewis Shale (AUC, 2012a). The hydrostratigraphic units deeper 

23 than the Fox Hills Formation near the proposed project area are generally too deep to 

24 economically develop as domestic water supplies or for uranium recovery (AUC, 2012a). These 

25 hydrostratigraphic units also typically have elevated dissolved solids concentrations, further 

26 reducing the likelihood of domestic water use (see draft SEIS Section 3.5.3.1). 

27 The Lower Cretaceous aquifers are the most widespread aquifers in the Northern Great Plains 

28 area and contain several sandstones (Whitehead, 1996). The principal water-yielding units are 

29 the Muddy Sandstone and the Inyan Kara Group in the PRB. The Lower Cretaceous aquifers 

30 contain little freshwater and the water becomes saline in the deep parts of the PRB. 

31 The Paleozoic aquifers, consisting of mostly limestone and dolomite, are separated into two 

32 groups—upper Paleozoic and lower Paleozoic rocks (Whitehead, 1996). The principal 

33 water-yielding units are the Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation. Confining units that 

34 overlie and separate the aquifers consist of shale and siltstone with some beds of anhydrite and 

35 halite (rock salt). The aquifers in lower Paleozoic rocks are deeply buried near the proposed 

36 project area and, therefore, are not a major source of water. 

37 3.5.2.2 Surrounding Aquifers for Water Supply 

38 As indicated in GEIS Section 3.3.4.3.4, the Wasatch and Fort Union Formations are important 

39 aquifers for regional water supply. The Fox Hill Sandstone is one of the most continuous 

40 water-yielding formations in the Northern Great Plains area. Except near outcrop areas, the 

41 Lower Cretaceous and Paleozoic aquifers are not usually used for water production because 

42 they are either deeply buried or contain saline water (NRC, 2009). 

43 The hydrostratigraphic units of importance to water supply in the vicinity of the proposed project 

44 area, in order of shallowest to the deepest, are described in detail next. 
3-34 

1 Wasatch Formation (Host formation)

2 This Eocene-aged formation is composed of alternating beds of (i) valley and channel-fill fine- to 

3 coarse-grained lenticular sandstones and (ii) interbedded shale and coal, with relatively 

4 coarser-grained deposits (AUC, 2012a). The Wasatch formation generally dips at 

5 approximately one to two degrees to the northwest. The sandstones that contain uranium 

6 mineralization are generally coarse, cross-bedded, arkosic sands, with individual channel sand 

7 deposits trending generally to the north. The Wasatch is approximately 488 m [1,600 ft] thick in 

8 southern Campbell County, although basin erosion since the middle Tertiary period removed 

9 approximately half of the original deposited material. The reported groundwater well yields 

10 range from 38 to 189 Lpm [10 to 50 gpm] in the northern basin, and 1893 Lpm [500 gpm] or 

11 more is possible in the southern portion of the basin. The applicant notes that most of the 

12 available hydrologic data are from shallow stock and domestic wells, and as hydraulic heads 

13 often vary with depth and between sandstones, hydraulic head data from these wells do not 

14 adequately define the potentiometric surface in the Wasatch Formation (AUC, 2012i). 

15 Recharge is primarily through infiltration at outcrops, and discharge occurs in topographic 

16 alluvial valleys. Shallow groundwater flow is primarily controlled by topography and defined by 

17 stratigraphy at greater depths. Groundwater flow is mostly horizontal at greater depths. 

18 Fort Union Formation 

19 The Paleocene-aged Fort Union Formation is a heterogeneous unit of sandstones, interbedded 

20 shale, carbonaceous shale, and coal. Its thickness ranges from 701 to 1,067 m [2,300 to 

21 3,500 ft] with the maximum thickness in the southwest portion of the PRB (AUC, 2012a). It is 

22 conformably underlain by the Lance Formation and unconformably overlain by the Eocene-age 

23 Wasatch Formation. This formation serves as a source of water mostly for stock and domestic 

24 purposes and is the municipal water supply source for the cities of Wright and Gillette. 

25 Maximum yields of up to 568 Lpm [150 gpm] have been reported (AUC, 2012a). 

26 Lance Formation

27 The Lance Formation consists of interbedded, light yellow-grey, fine- to medium-grained, 

28 cross-bedded, and lenticular sandstones, with grey carbonaceous shale, siltstone, and thin 

29 coals (AUC, 2012a). The thickness ranges from 183 to 914 m [600 to 3,000 ft]. The Lance 

30 Formation is the uppermost Cretaceous aquifer in the region. The wells in the Lance Formation 

31 are for domestic and stock use and are located near outcrops. The well yields are generally 

32 less than 76 Lpm [20 gpm]. The Lance Formation is hydrologically connected to the underlying 

33 Fox Hills Sandstone. 

34 Fox Hills Sandstone

35 The Fox Hills Sandstone is the basal aquifer unit in the Lower Tertiary/Upper Cretaceous 

36 aquifer system and consists of fine- to medium-grained sandstone beds (AUC, 2012a). The 

37 sandstone ranges from thin to massively bedded, weakly cemented, friable, lenticular sandstone 

38 and is interbedded with carbonaceous shale and siltstone. The applicant states that the 

39 thickness in the southern basin ranges from 122 to 152 m [400 to 500 ft] in Niobrara County to 

40 213 m [700 ft] in Natrona County. In the northern basin, the Fox Hills Sandstone thins out to 

41 45 to 60 m [150 to 200 ft] thick in Crook County. Other sources, such as U.S. Bureau of Land 

42 Management (BLM, 2009), note that the thickness of the Fox Hills Sandstone in the northern 

43 portion of the PRB is approximately 30.5 m [100 ft], and thickens to approximately 91 m [300 ft] 

44 in the southern portion of the PRB. 
3-35 

1 The industrial groundwater supply locations at Rozet (east of Gillette) and Hilight Field 

2 (southeastern Campbell County) utilize wells completed across the Lance and Fox Hills 

3 sequence. The hydrologically connected Lance and Fox Hills Formations are also a source for 

4 domestic and stock wells in the outcrop areas along the margins of the PRB. These formations 

5 are the source for municipal water supply for the cities of Gillette, Glenrock, and Moorcroft. Well 

6 yields as high as 757 Lpm [200 gpm] were reported in the eastern part of the basin, and yields 

7 less than 379 Lpm [100 gpm] were reported in the western basin. A maximum well yield of 

8 1,438 Lpm [380 gpm] in the deep industrial wells was also reported (AUC, 2012a). The values 

9 of specific capacity range from 0.02 to 0.4 Lps per meter (Lps/m) of drawdown [0.1–2 gpm per 

10 foot of drawdown (gpm/ft)]. An average yield of 1,223 Lpm [323 gpm] and average specific 

11 capacity of 0.06 Lps/m [0.3 gpm/ft] was reported for wells in southeastern Campbell County. 

The reported transmissivity for the Lance/Fox Hills Formation ranged from 1.2 to 25 m2 12 /day 

[13 to 270 ft2 13 /day]. For the entire aquifer system in southeastern Campbell County, a minimum 

transmissivity of 3.1 m2

/day [33 ft2 14 /day] was reported. 

15 Based on potentiometric maps, the applicant observed a general northward regional 

16 groundwater flow in the Lance and Fox Hills aquifer system with a groundwater divide in 

17 southeastern Campbell County and subsequent groundwater flow toward the southeast 

18 (AUC, 2012a). Local recharge is observed in eastern outcrop areas. Though a potential for 

19 vertical leakage from the overlying Wasatch and Fort Union Formations exists, the applicant 

cites the low vertical hydraulic conductivities {~10-8 cm/s [3.9 × 10-9 20 in/s]} as a reason to expect 

21 minimal vertical leakage (AUC, 2012a). 

22 Lewis Shale 

23 The Lewis Shale primarily consists of a sequence of marine shales and sandstones with an 

24 approximate thickness of 274 m [900 ft] near the proposed project area. It is the regional 

25 confining aquitard between the overlying Wasatch through Fox Hills Formations and underlying 

26 aquifers. Most of the formation does not yield water, but some sandy zones may yield as much 

27 as 38 Lpm [10 gpm] (AUC, 2012a). 

28 Muddy Sandstone and the Inyan Kara Group 

29 The Muddy (or Newcastle) Sandstone and Inyan Kara Group (Lakota and Fall River 

30 Formations) comprise the Lower Cretaceous Dakota Aquifer System (AECOM, 2014). The 

31 Lakota Formation ranges in thickness from 14 to 61 m [45 to 200 ft] and is mainly sandstone 

32 with interbedded conglomerates and shales. The Fall River Formation is also sandstone with 

33 interbedded shale and siltstone and ranges in thickness from 11 to 46 m [35 to 150 ft]. Wells in 

34 the Lakota and Fall River yield 3.8 to 38 Lpm [1 to 10 gpm] and are generally not used for water 

35 supply. The Muddy Sandstone is a major aquifer in the eastern Wyoming PRB and ranges in 

thickness up to 30 m [100 ft]. Because of low transmissivity (up to 1.7 m2

/day [up to 18 ft2 36 /day]) 

37 and poor water quality, the Muddy Sandstone is used for water supply only near its outcrop area 

38 along the eastern rim of the PRB. 

39 Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation 

40 The Madison Limestone and Minnelusa Formation are units within the Paleozoic Madison 

41 Aquifer System that yield water of good quality for public water supply (AECOM, 2014). The 

42 Madison Limestone is a 61 to 305 m [200 to 1,000 ft] thick massive limestone and has wells 

43 with yields of up to 3,785 Lpm [1,000 gpm]. The Madison Limestone is a source of water for 

44 municipal water supply as well as industrial, irrigation, and stock water use in the eastern 
3-36 

1 Wyoming PRB. The City of Gillette uses the aquifer for its water supply. The Minnelusa 

2 Formation is also a major aquifer in the eastern Wyoming PRB. The Minnelusa is 183 to 244 m 

3 [600 to 800 ft] thick and consists of sandstone interbedded with limestone, dolomite, and shale. 

4 The upper part of the Minnelusa yields 757 Lpm [200 gpm] to wells. Historical use of water from 

5 the Minnelusa has been for public water supply and domestic and stock use. 

6 3.5.2.3 Local Groundwater Resources 

7 Several hydrogeologic investigations were performed within the proposed project area from 

8 1978 to 2011 (AUC, 2012a). The applicant collected lithologic, water level, water quality, and 

9 pump test data as part of its ongoing evaluations of hydrologic conditions at the proposed 

10 project area during 2010 and 2011. Recent hydrologic testing, described in the environmental 

11 report (ER) (AUC, 2012a), includes multi- and single-well pump testing at four clusters within the 

12 proposed project area: PZM1, PZM3, PZM4, and PZM5 (AUC, 2012i). Well clusters PZM6 and 

13 PZM7 in the western and southwestern part of the proposed project area were installed for 

14 baseline groundwater monitoring. 

15 The applicant has identified the following hydrostratigraphic layers within the Wasatch 

16 Formation at the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). Draft SEIS Figures 3-16 through 3-22 

17 display cross-sections constructed from geophysical logs showing the position of aquifers and 

18 confining units within the Wasatch Formation at the proposed project area. 

19 Shallow Water Table Unit (SM Unit) 

20 The applicant describes this sand unit as a perched shallow water table unit that is partially 

21 saturated (AUC, 2012i) and is not continuous across the proposed project area. The thickness 

22 ranges from 3 to 6 m [10 to 20 ft] and occurs 12 to 24 m [40 to 80 ft] below ground surface. The 

23 applicant stated that the SM Unit wells installed at clusters PZM1, PZM3, and PZM4 were 

24 observed to be dry. Hydrologic testing indicated that the specific capacity and transmissivity of 

25 the SM Unit is very low, ranging from 0.01 to 0.03 Lps/m [0.07 to 0.13 gpm/ft] and 0.001 to 

0.02 m2

/day [0.014 to 0.3 ft2 26 /day], respectively (AUC, 2012a). Calculated permeability ranged 

27 between 0.0003 and 0.006 m/day [0.001 and 0.02 ft/day]. The applicant states that though data 

28 do not support interpretation of the SM Unit as a regional aquifer, this unit may be characterized 

29 as exhibiting some aquifer characteristics locally (AUC, 2015a). The SM Unit can be 

30 considered the uppermost aquifer, if at any specific location, the SM Unit or similar shallow 

31 sandstone unit, contains groundwater. 

32 Overlying Aquifer (OM Unit)

33 The OM Unit is described as a water-bearing unit exhibiting aquifer characteristics based on 

34 geologic and potentiometric data (AUC, 2012a). The OM Unit is the uppermost aquifer if the 

35 OM Unit is the shallowest sandstone containing groundwater (AUC, 2015a). The applicant 

36 states that though the OM Unit appears continuous on a local scale (within the PZM well 

37 clusters), it does not correlate over greater distances across the proposed project area 

38 (AUC, 2012a). The thickness of the OM Unit ranges from 3.7 m [12 ft] at the PZM5 (western) 

39 cluster to a maximum thickness of approximately 18 m [60 ft] at the PZM4 (central) cluster. The 

40 OM Unit occurs at various depths: (i) 47 to 66 m [155 to 215 ft] below ground surface at the 

41 PZM1 and PZM3 clusters (northeastern portion); (ii) 38 to 56 m [125 to 185 ft] below ground 

42 surface at the PZM4 cluster (central portion); and (iii) 21 to 25 m [70 to 82 ft] below ground 

43 surface at the PZM5 cluster (western portion). Calculated hydraulic conductivities in the 
3-37 

Figure 3-16. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section Locations (AUC, 2014a) 
3-38 

Figure 3-17. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, F-F' (AUC, 2014a) 
3-39 

Figure 3-18. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, G-G’ (AUC, 2014a) 
3-40 

Figure 3-19. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, H-H’ (AUC, 2014a) 
3-41 

Figure 3-20. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, I-I’ (AUC, 2014a) 
3-42 

Figure 3-21. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, J-J’ (AUC, 2014a) 
3-43 

 Figure 3-22. Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Hydrostratigraphy—Cross Section, K-K’ (AUC, 2014a) 
3-44 

1 OM Unit at the PZM1, PZM4, and PZM5 clusters ranged from 0.26 to 1 m/day [0.84 to 

2 3.3 ft/day] (AUC, 2012a). 

3 However, the calculated hydraulic conductivity at the PZM3 cluster was much lower, on the 

4 order of 0.009 to 0.02 m/day [0.03 to 0.05 ft/day]. The applicant concluded that the OM Unit is 

5 isolated from surface water infiltration at the proposed project area based on (i) the lack of a 

6 perennial wetting front from the ephemeral surface drainages and (ii) the thick sequence of 

7 shale and finer-grained sediments {21 to 66 m [70 to 215 ft]} between the ground surface and 

8 the top of the OM Unit (AUC, 2012a). 

9 Overlying Aquitard (OA)

10 The OA, consisting of a laterally continuous sequence of clays and silt, provides confinement 

11 between the production zone and the Overlying Aquifer (OM Unit) (AUC, 2012a). The thickness 

12 ranges from 7.6 to 30.5 m [25 to 100 ft] (AUC, 2012h). The applicant reported a single-point, 

vertical permeability analysis (to brine) of 8.2 × 10-10 cm/sec [2.34 × 10-6 13 ft/day] for the OA. The 

14 Felix Coal is found in the lower portion of the OA with a thickness that ranges from 1.5 to 3 m 

15 [5 to 10 ft]. A continuous mudstone with a minimum thickness of 1.5 m [5 ft] separates the Felix 

16 Coal into the Upper and Lower Felix Coal seams in the eastern portion of the proposed project 

17 area (see draft SEIS Figures 3-18 through 3-21). The Upper Felix Coal seam gradually pinches 

18 out in the western portion of the proposed project area, where only the Lower Felix Coal seam is 

19 present (see draft SEIS Figures 3-17 and 3-22). Piezometric data indicated that these coal 

20 seams are not aquifers. 

21 Production Zone Aquifer (PZA)

22 The PZA is described as a “discrete and continuous aquifer” across the proposed project area 

23 with an approximate thickness range of 23 to 61 m [75 to 200 ft] (AUC, 2012h). The applicant 

24 describes the sand that hosts the uranium mineralization as commonly cross-bedded, graded 

25 sequences from very coarse at the base to fine grained at the top. The applicant states that 

26 there is geologic confinement of the PZA by the Overlying Aquitard (OA) and Underlying 

27 Aquitard (UA) (see below) over the entire proposed project area. The aquifer conditions change 

28 from saturated conditions in the western portion of the proposed project area to partially 

29 saturated (or unsaturated) conditions in the eastern portion (~30 percent in area) of the 

30 proposed project area (AUC, 2012i). At well cluster PZM1 (see draft SEIS Figure 3-23), the 

31 saturated thickness of the PZA is approximately 29 m [94 ft], and the total sand thickness is 

32 approximately 38 m [125 ft] (i.e., 75 percent of the PZA is under saturated conditions). At well 

33 cluster PZM3, 33 m [109 ft] out of a total thickness of 50 m [165 ft] is saturated. The PZA 

34 occurs at various depths: (i) 79–116 m [260 to 380 ft] below ground surface at the PZM1 

35 cluster; (ii) 82 to 128 m [270 to 420 ft] below ground surface at the PZM3 cluster; (iii) 67 to 115 

36 [220 to 380 ft] below ground surface at the PZM4 cluster; and (iv) 55 to 100 m [180 to 330 ft] 

37 below ground surface at the PZM5 cluster (western portion). Groundwater in the PZA flows 

38 toward the northeast. The horizontal hydraulic gradient estimated in recent hydrologic 

39 investigations varied across the proposed project area from 0.0032 to 0.0035 in the 

40 southwestern and northeastern portions to 0.0017 in the central portion (AUC, 2012a). The 

41 lower gradients in the central portion were attributed to the presence of thicker and more 

42 transmissive sands (AUC, 2012a). The applicant notes that an unidentified mudstone unit is 

43 present in some portions that divides the PZA into upper and lower sand units (AUC, 2012a). 

44 The applicant states that wellfield-scale hydrologic testing at a later date would address the 

45 effects of this mudstone unit. However, this information is not needed to determine the 

46 confinement of the PZA in the proposed project area as a whole because any effects of the 
3-45 

Figure 3-23. Monitoring Wells and Existing Domestic and Stock Wells Used To Characterize Groundwater Quality 

Conditions and Establish Preoperational Baseline Groundwater Quality 
3-46 

1 division into upper and lower sand units would still be localized to the PZA layer itself and would 

2 not affect other hydrostratigraphic layers. The calculated transmissivity and hydraulic 

conductivity of the PZA ranged from 1.9 to 132.7 m2

/day [20 to 1,428 ft2 3 /day] and 0.09 to 

4 3.7 m/day [0.3 to 12 ft/day], respectively (AUC, 2012a).

5 Underlying Aquitard (UA)

6 The UA is a laterally continuous sequence of undifferentiated mudstones and clays, with 

7 discontinuous and often lenticular sandstones, and provides confinement between the PZA and 

8 underlying aquifers (AUC, 2012a). The UA has an approximate thickness of 46 to 76 m [150 to 

9 250 ft] and extends to the Badger Coal (see draft SEIS Figures 3-17 to 3-22). The top of the 

10 Badger Coal is considered the base of the Wasatch Formation in the proposed project area. 

The applicant reported Klinkenberg vertical air permeability results ranging from 4.55 × 10-6 11 

to 9.1 × 10-6 cm/sec [0.013 to 0.026 ft/day] and a brine permeability of 5.46 × 10-10 12 cm/sec 

[1.5 × 10-6 13 ft/day].

14 Underlying Unit (UM Unit) 

15 This discontinuous sand unit, consisting of relatively thin and lenticular sandstones, lies within 

16 the UA. Geologic and potentiometric data indicate that the UM Unit is not hydrologically 

17 connected across the proposed project area. The thickness of the UM Unit observed at the well 

18 clusters ranged from 10.1 to 32 m [35 to 105 ft] (AUC, 2012a). The minimum distance from the 

19 PZA to the UM Unit is 3 m [10 ft]. Hydraulic conductivity estimates ranged from 0.001 to 

20 0.006 m/day [0.005 to 0.02 ft/day], which is significantly less than the PZA. The applicant 

21 concludes that the UM Unit does not meet the definition for an aquifer, based on the observed 

22 well yields and hydraulic conductivity estimates. 

23 3.5.2.4 Groundwater Use 

24 The applicant provided information regarding groundwater use within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of 

25 the proposed project area boundary (i.e., outside of the proposed project boundary), based on 

26 information available from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (AUC, 2012a). The applicant 

27 identified 49 wells used for stock, domestic, miscellaneous, and industrial purposes (AUC, 

28 2012i, 2014b). The well permits for the 49 wells can be found in Table 2.7B-18 of 

29 Addendum 2.7B in the applicant’s technical report (TR) (AUC, 2012g). The NRC staff have 

30 proposed and the applicant has agreed to a preoperational license condition that would require 

31 the applicant to sample all wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the project area and provide the NRC 

32 with a report that lists all known wells (functional and non-functional) and their intended use, if 

33 known (AUC, 2015a). In addition, the NRC staff proposed and the applicant has agreed to a 

34 license condition that would require the applicant to perform an annual survey of water supply 

35 wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the project boundary (AUC, 2015a). Of the 49 wells identified by 

36 applicant, 15 are located within the proposed project area, including (i) one well (Taffner #1 well) 

37 for domestic water supply, (ii) eight wells for stock watering usage, and (iii) six wells with water 

38 rights that have been cancelled. The applicant has acquired the Taffner property (First 

39 American Title, 2015) and has committed to plugging the Taffner #1 well located on the property 

40 prior to construction. The eight stock wells with existing water rights include (i) four completed 

41 in the OM Unit, (ii) three completed in the PZA, and (iii) one completed in the sandstone interval 

42 below the Badger Coal. 
3-47 

1 The applicant also provides information for wells used for CBM (AUC, 2012j). The applicant 

2 states that 324 wells are identified as being used for CBM or CBM and stock within 3.2 km 

3 [2 mi] of the proposed project area. The target coal seam for CBM is the Big George Coal 

4 within the Fort Union Formation with reported total depths ranging between 192 and 434 m 

5 [631 and 1,424 ft] and averaging approximately 305 m [1,000 ft] (AUC, 2012b). 

6 3.5.3 Groundwater Quality 

7 Regional and site-specific groundwater quality conditions in the production zone and 

8 surrounding aquifers are discussed in this section in the context of federal and state 

9 groundwater standards. Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for primary drinking water 

10 contaminants are provided in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations in 

11 40 CFR Part 141. Secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) are EPA-established 

12 nonmandatory water quality standards for parameters that affect the taste, color, and odor of 

13 groundwater. SMCLs are not considered to present a risk to human health and include 

14 parameters such as pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), and sulfate. State of Wyoming 

15 groundwater is classified by use in order to apply standards to protect water quality. State 

16 groundwater quality standards have been established for domestic use (Class I standards), 

17 agricultural use (Class II standards), livestock use (Class III standards), and industrial use 

18 (Class IV standards) (WDEQ, 2005). The applicant implemented a preoperational or baseline 

19 groundwater monitoring program to collect site-specific groundwater quality information. 

20 3.5.3.1 Regional Groundwater Quality 

21 The Task 1B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Current Water Resources 

22 Conditions (AECOM, 2014) summarizes information on regional groundwater quality in 

23 Paleozoic and Lower Cretaceous aquifer systems in the PRB. The Madison Formation (or 

24 Madison Limestone) is the principal unit of the Paleozoic Madison Aquifer System, which is the 

25 deepest aquifer system in the PRB. Water quality at the outcrop of the Madison Limestone 

26 along the eastern flank of the PRB is calcium-magnesium bicarbonate water with a TDS 

27 concentration of less than 600 mg/L [600 ppm] (AECOM, 2014). The TDS increases basinward 

28 to greater than 3,000 mg/L [3,000 ppm], and the water becomes dominated by sodium sulfate 

29 and sodium chloride with locally high concentrations of fluoride and radionuclides. The 

30 Minnelusa Formation, which is also a unit of the Madison Aquifer System, is a major aquifer in 

31 the eastern Wyoming PRB. Water quality is good near the outcrop of the Minnelusa Formation 

32 with TDS concentrations below 600 mg/L [600 ppm] (AECOM, 2014). TDS concentrations 

33 increase basinward to around 2,400 mg/L [2,400 ppm]. The water quality changes from calcium 

34 bicarbonate water near the outcrop to water dominated by calcium sulfate and sodium chloride 

35 in deeper parts of the PRB. Fluoride enrichment and locally high values of radionuclides in 

36 water from the Minnelusa Formation are a problem for municipal water use (AECOM, 2014). 

37 The Lower Cretaceous Dakota Aquifer System in the PRB is comprised of three water-bearing 

38 units: Lakota Formation, Fall River Formation, and Muddy (Newcastle) Sandstone. Water in 

39 the Dakota Aquifer System is of poor quality in the PRB and is used only for water supply near 

40 its exposures along the eastern flank of the PRB. The TDS of the water can range up to 

41 3,200 mg/L [3,200 ppm] in the basin with the water dominated by calcium and sodium sulfate 

42 (AECOM, 2014). High concentrations of selenium and radionuclides in some parts of the 

43 aquifer make the water unsuitable for public use (AECOM, 2014). 

44 Lowry et al. (1986), Feathers (1981), and Rankl and Lowry (1990) provide information on 

45 regional groundwater quality in Upper Cretaceous to Lower Tertiary aquifer systems in the PRB. 
3-48 

1 Draft SEIS Table 3-10 summarizes TDS concentrations in Upper Cretaceous and Lower 

2 Tertiary aquifers in the PRB that Lowry et al. (1986) reported. The Upper Cretaceous aquifer 

3 system consists of the Fox Hills Sandstone and Lance Formation, and the Lower Tertiary 

4 aquifer system consists of the Wasatch and the Fort Union Formations. In general, the water in 

5 each aquifer has a considerable range of TDS concentrations. For example, samples from the 

6 Lance Formation contained from 251 to 2,850 mg/L [251 to 2,850 ppm] TDS, whereas those 

7 from the Wasatch Formation contained from 227 to 8,200 mg/L [227 to 8,200 ppm] TDS. Wells 

8 close to recharge areas generally had the lowest TDS concentrations, whereas wells remote 

9 from the recharge areas have high TDS concentrations (Lowry et al., 1986). Lowry et al. (1986) 

10 concluded that the length of flow time or the length of flow path from recharge to discharge or 

11 withdrawal is probably the dominant factor affecting the TDS concentration in the aquifers. 

12 Rankl and Lowry (1990) reported that water from shallow wells {e.g., less than about 150 m 

13 [500 ft] deep} is calcium sulfate or calcium sodium sulfate in composition, while water from 

14 deeper wells is generally sodium bicarbonate in composition. 

15 Chemical data for Fox Hills and Lance aquifer system waters are sparse and largely limited to 

16 outcrop areas. Feathers (1981) reported that Fox Hills and Lance waters from outcrop areas in 

17 the eastern half of the PRB have a TDS content ranging from 600 to 3,300 mg/L [600 to 

18 3,300 ppm] and are primarily sodium bicarbonate-sulfate in composition. In the western half of 

19 the PRB, Fox Hills and Lance waters from outcrop wells have TDS contents ranging from 450 to 

20 4,060 mg/L [450 to 4,060 ppm] and vary from calcium bicarbonate to calcium sulfate to sodium 

21 sulfate to sodium bicarbonate in composition (Feathers, 1981). Feathers (1981) concluded that 

22 local lithologic variation likely controls anion composition in the Fox Hills and Lance waters 

23 through dissolution of carbonate, gypsum, and pyrite, while exchange reactions (e.g., sodium 

24 replacement of calcium) control cation composition. 

25 Extensive chemical data exist on the Wasatch and Fort Union aquifer system waters in the 

26 central portion of the PRB. The discontinuous, lenticular nature of the sandstones comprising 

27 the system results in significant water quality differences over short geographic distances 

28 (Feathers, 1981). Feathers (1981) reported that the Wasatch and Fort Union waters have TDS 

29 contents ranging from less than 250 mg/L [250 ppm] to over 6,500 mg/L [6,500 ppm] and that 

30 there is little correlation between TDS and well depth. Wasatch and Fort Union waters from 

31 relatively shallow wells exhibit wide variations in major ion composition with most analyses 

32 showing a mixed cation content or sodium enrichment (Feathers, 1981). Waters in shallow 

33 wells containing less than 500 mg/L [500 ppm] TDS are enriched in bicarbonate, while more 

34 saline waters are generally high in dissolved sulfate. In deeper wells, dissolved sodium and 

35 bicarbonate increase, with the increase in sodium being attributed to cation exchange with 

36 calcium and magnesium (Feathers, 1981). 

Table 3-10. TDS Concentrations in Upper Cretaceous and Lower Tertiary Aquifers in 

the Powder River Basin* 

Aquifer Median Average Minimum Maximum No. of Samples 

Wasatch Formation 1,010 1,298 227 8,200 191 

Fort Union Formation 1,260 1,464 209 5,620 257 

Fox Hills Sandstone 943 1,494 451 5,450 26 

Lance Formation 977 1,218 251 2,850 31 

*All values are in mg/L, which is equivalent to ppm. 

Source: Lowry, et al. (1986). 
3-49 

1 Lowry et al. (1986) reported trace metal concentrations in PRB groundwater. The EPA MCL for 

2 selenium of 0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm] was exceeded in 4 of 159 groundwater samples analyzed, 

3 and the MCL for lead of 0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm] was exceeded in 6 of 165 samples analyzed. 

4 The MCL for arsenic of 0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm] was exceeded in 1 of 154 samples analyzed, and 

5 the MCL for cadmium of 0.01 mg/L [0.01 ppm] was exceeded in 1 of 165 samples analyzed. 

6 Concentrations of manganese and iron commonly exceeded EPA SMCLs. For example, 

7 100 of 257 samples exceeded the SMCL of 0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm] for manganese and 56 of 

8 366 samples exceeded the SMCL of 0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm] for iron. 

9 Numerous radionuclide analyses of Wasatch and Fort Union waters exist due to the 

10 presence of economic uranium deposits in these formations. Available data show a wide 

11 range in radionuclide concentrations. For example, radium-226 ranges from less than 

3.7 Bq/m3 [0.1 Ci/L] to over 35,150 Bq/m3 12 [950 pCi/L]; gross alpha radiation varies from 0.0 pCi/L 

13 to 4,691 pCi/L; and dissolved uranium concentrations of over 10 mg/L [10 ppm] have been 

14 reported (Feathers, 1981). High concentrations are restricted to areas adjacent to uranium ore 

15 zones. Analyses of waters from non-mining areas show no exceedances of radium-226 or 

gross alpha primary drinking water standards 185 Bq/m3

 and 555 Bq/m3 16 [5 pCi/L and 15 pCi/L], 

17 respectively and contain less than 0.001 mg/L [0.001 ppm] dissolved uranium (Feathers, 1981). 

18 Water in Upper Cretaceous formations deeper than the Fox Hills Sandstone near the proposed 

19 project area are typically saline (i.e., they have elevated dissolved solids concentrations), which 

20 prohibits their use for domestic or municipal water supply. As discussed in draft SEIS 

21 Section 3.4.1.1, the Upper Cretaceous Teapot and Parkman sandstones below the Fox Hills 

22 Sandstone are currently used in the PRB for disposal of ISR liquid byproduct waste in Class I 

23 deep disposal wells. As further discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.2.3, there is extensive oil and 

24 gas production from Cretaceous formations below the Fox Hills Sandstone. Within an 8-km 

25 [5-mi] radius from the proposed project boundary, oil and gas is produced from the Parkman 

26 Sandstone, Turner Sandstone, Niobrara Formation, Sussex Sandstone, Muddy Sandstone, 

27 Frontier Formation, and Shannon Sandstone (see draft SEIS Table 3-5). Because of their 

28 chemical characteristics (i.e., saline and hydrocarbon-bearing), Upper Cretaceous formations 

29 below the Fox Hills Sandstone near the proposed project area typically do not meet EPA 

30 requirements for designation as “underground sources of drinking water” (USDWs) as defined in 

31 40 CFR 144.3. 

32 3.5.3.2 Reno Creek ISR Project Area Groundwater Quality 

33 The applicant followed guidance in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003) and WDEQ (2013b) to 

34 characterize preoperational or baseline groundwater quality conditions at the proposed project 

35 area (AUC, 2012a). The applicant installed 39 monitoring wells in 4 aquifers: 21 wells in the 

36 Production Zone Aquifer (PZA) (designated PZM); 7 wells in the Overlying Aquifer (OM Unit) 

37 (designated OM); 7 wells in the Underlying Unit (UM Unit) (designated UM); and 4 wells in the 

38 Shallow Water Table Unit (SM Unit) (designated SM; monitoring wells were installed but dry at 

39 3 additional locations in the SM Unit). The locations of groundwater monitoring wells are shown 

40 in draft SEIS Figure 3-22. To establish preoperational baseline groundwater quality, 28 of the 

41 monitoring wells (10 of the 21 PZM wells and all OM, UM, and SM wells) were sampled 

42 quarterly over a 1-year period, starting in 2010 or 2011 and ending in either 2011 or 2012. 

43 These wells are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-11. The remaining 11 PZM wells were installed to 

44 act as either pumping or observation wells for the applicant-conducted pumping tests 

45 (AUC, 2014a). However, groundwater was sampled and analyzed in 8 of these 11 PZM wells 

46 during 2010 or 2011 (PZM1, PZM3, PZM4, PZM5, PZM9, PZM13, PZM19, and PZM20), and 
3-50 

Table 3-11. Parameters Exceeding EPA MCLs, EPA SMCLs, and WDEQ Class of Use 

Standards* in Wells Used to Establish Preoperational Groundwater Quality 

Well ID 

Parameters 

Exceeding EPA 

MCLs 

Parameters 

Exceeding EPA 

SMCLs 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ Class I 

Standards 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ Class II 

Standards 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ 

Class III 

Standards 

Probable 

WDEQ 

Class of 

Use 

Production Zone Aquifer (PZA)

PZM2 Uranium, 

Arsenic, Gross 

alpha†, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222‡ 

pH, Sulfate, 

TDS 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

pH, Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Selenium, 

Vanadium, pH, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

pH, 

Vanadium, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

PZM6 Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

pH, Sulfate, 

TDS, 

Manganese 

Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

pH, Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

pH, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

PZM7 Uranium, 

Arsenic, Gross 

alpha, Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

pH, Sulfate, 

TDS 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

pH, Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, pH, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

pH, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

PZM8 Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese 

Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

PZM10 Uranium, 

Arsenic, 

Cadmium, Lead, 

Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

Sulfate, TDS Gross alpha, 

Cadmium, Lead, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Cadmium, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

PZM14 Gross alpha, 

Rn-222 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, Iron, 

TDS 

Gross alpha Gross alpha IV 

PZM15 Uranium, Gross 

alpha, Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

Sulfate, TDS Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

PZM16 Uranium, Gross 

alpha, Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese 

Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

PZM17 Uranium, Gross 

alpha, Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese 

Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

PZM18 Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

pH, Sulfate, 

TDS 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

pH, Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, pH, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

pH, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 

 
3-51 

Table 3-11. Parameters Exceeding EPA MCLs, EPA SMCLs, and WDEQ Class of Use 

Standards* in Wells Used to Establish Preoperational Groundwater Quality 

(Continued)

Well 

ID 

Parameters 

Exceeding EPA 

MCLs 

Parameters 

Exceeding EPA 

SMCLs 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ Class I 

Standards 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ Class II 

Standards 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ 

Class III 

Standards 

Probable 

WDEQ 

Class of 

Use 

GW5 Rn-222 Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate III or IV 

GW7 Gross alpha, 

Uranium, 

Rn-222 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate 

Gross alpha IV 

GW9 Gross alpha, 

Rn-222, 

Ra-226/228 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Iron 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Ra-226/228, 

Iron 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, 

Ra-226/228 

Ra-226/228 IV 

GW10 Gross alpha, 

Uranium, 

Rn-222 

Sulfate, TDS Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate 

Gross alpha IV 

Overlying Aquifer (OM Unit)

OM1 Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Iron 

Sulfate, 

Manganese 

 III or IV 

OM2 Rn-222 pH pH pH pH IV 

OM3 Arsenic, Rn-222 pH, Iron pH, Iron pH pH IV 

OM4 Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese 

Sulfate, 

Manganese 

 III or IV 

OM5 Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, 

Manganese 

 III or IV 

OM6 Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, 

Manganese 

 III or IV 

OM7 Arsenic, Rn-222 Sulfate, TDS, 

pH 

Sulfate, TDS, 

pH, Nitrogen, 

Ammonia (as N) 

Sulfate, pH pH IV 

GW2 Rn-222 Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

 III or IV 

GW11 Rn-222, 

Ra-226/228 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Iron 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Iron, 

Ra-226/228 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Ra-226/228 

Ra-226/228 IV 

Underlying Unit (UM Unit)

UM1 Gross alpha, 

Rn-222 

pH, Iron Gross alpha, 

pH, Iron 

Gross alpha Gross alpha, 

pH 

IV 

UM2 Arsenic, Rn-222 pH, Sulfate, 

TDS 

pH, Sulfate, 

TDS 

pH, Sulfate pH IV 

UM3R Arsenic Sulfate, TDS Sulfate, TDS Sulfate III or IV 

UM4 Arsenic Sulfate, TDS , 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, 

Manganese 

 III or IV 

UM5 pH, Manganese pH pH II or IV 

UM6 pH, Iron pH, Iron pH, Sulfate pH IV 

UM7 Gross alpha, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228, 

Rn-222 

pH, Iron Gross alpha, 

pH, Iron, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

pH, Combined 

Ra-226/228 

Gross alpha, 

pH, 

Combined 

Ra-226/228 

IV 
3-52 

Table 3-11. Parameters Exceeding EPA MCLs, EPA SMCLs, and WDEQ Class of Use 

Standards* in Wells Used to Establish Preoperational Groundwater Quality 

(Continued)

Well 

ID 

Parameters 

Exceeding EPA 

MCLs 

Parameters 

Exceeding EPA 

SMCLs 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ Class I 

Standards 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ Class II 

Standards 

Parameters 

Exceeding 

WDEQ 

Class III 

Standards 

Probable 

WDEQ 

Class of 

Use 

GW6 Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Sulfate III or IV 

GW8 Gross alpha Gross alpha Gross alpha Gross alpha IV 

Shallow Water Table Unit (SM Unit)

SM3 Rn-222 Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese 

 III or IV 

SM5 Rn-222 Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron, Nitrogen, 

Ammonia (as N) 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

 III or IV 

SM6 Gross alpha, 

Rn-222 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Gross alpha IV 

SM7 Gross alpha, 

Uranium 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron, Nitrogen, 

Ammonia (as N) 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Manganese, 

Iron 

Gross alpha IV 

GW1 Rn-222 Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate 

 III or IV 

Unknown Aquifers§ 

GW3 Rn-222 Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate 

 III or IV 

GW4 Gross alpha, 

Rn-222 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Gross alpha, 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Gross alpha, 

Sulfate 

Gross alpha IV 

GW12 Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS, 

Ammonia 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

 III or IV 

GW14 Rn-222 pH pH pH II or IV 

GW15 pH pH pH IV 

GW17 Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate, TDS 

Manganese, 

Sulfate 

 III or IV 

Source: AUC, 2012j, 2014b. 

*State of Wyoming groundwater is classified by use in order to apply standards to protect water quality. WDEQ has 

established groundwater quality standards for domestic use (Class I standards), agricultural use (Class II standards), 

livestock use (Class III standards), and industrial use (Class IV standards) (WDEQ, 2005). 

†A gross alpha standard for all alphas of 15 pCi/L (not including radon and uranium). 

‡The MCL for radon (Rn) is a proposed standard, not an approved standard. The proposed EPA MCL for Rn-222 is 

11,100 Bq/m3

 [300 pCi/L] (56 FR 33050).

§Waters sampled for baseline quality from existing domestic and stock wells where the aquifer is unknown. 

1 the chemical analyses were used to develop Piper Diagrams to characterize baseline 

2 groundwater quality based on anion and cation distributions (AUC, 2012a, 2014a). 

3 Using chemical data from the groundwater monitoring wells, the applicant also developed Piper 

4 Diagrams to illustrate the relative concentration of major ions in each aquifer (AUC, 2012g, 

5 Figures 2.7B-60, 2.7B-61, and 2.7B-62). Waters from the PZM wells display a consistent 
3-53 

1 composition with sodium, potassium, and sulfate as the dominant ions. The consistent 

2 composition of the PZM well waters is related to the geochemical reactions responsible for 

3 formation of the ore bodies. For example, oxidation of pyrite produces sulfate that is dominant 

4 in these waters. In contrast to waters in PZM wells, UM well waters generally have greater 

5 amounts of sodium and vary in sulfate and bicarbonate/carbonate concentration. Waters from 

6 the OM Unit and SM Unit wells often have more calcium than water from the PZM wells. 

7 Chemically, waters from the OM and SM wells are the most variable in composition, which is 

8 related to the discontinuous nature of the shallow aquifers at the proposed project area and the 

9 abundance of low-permeability mudstones (AUC, 2012a,b). 

10 In addition to the groundwater monitoring wells, 15 existing domestic and stock wells 

11 (designated GW) within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the project boundary were also sampled quarterly over 

12 a 1-year period (starting in 2010 or 2011 and ending in 2011 or 2012) for preoperational 

13 baseline groundwater quality. These wells are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-11 and their locations 

14 are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-22. Based on a comparison of available hydrogeologic 

15 information within the proposed project area, such as aquifer depths and structural 

16 configurations, with available information on well completion intervals from the Wyoming State 

17 Engineer’s Office (WSEO), the applicant determined the aquifer completion zone for the 

18 GW wells (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). One well (GW1) was completed in the SM Unit, two wells 

19 (GW2 and GW11) were completed in the OM Unit, four wells (GW5, GW7, GW9, and GW10) 

20 were completed in the PZA, and two wells (GW6 and GW8) were completed in the UM Unit 

21 (AUC, 2014b). For the remaining six GW wells (GW3, GW4, GW12, GW14, GW15, and 

22 GW17), the available hydrogeologic information within the proposed project area and well 

23 completion intervals from the WSEO was inadequate for determining the aquifer completion 

24 zone for the remaining six GW wells (GW3, GW4, GW12, GW14, GW15, and GW17) (AUC, 

25 2014b). For these six wells, the aquifer from which groundwater was collected is listed as 

26 “unknown” in draft SEIS Table 3-11. 

27 Groundwater quality parameters that exceeded EPA MCLs, EPA SMCLs, and WDEQ water 

28 quality standards in the 28 monitoring wells and 15 existing domestic and stock wells used to 

29 establish preoperational baseline groundwater quality are summarized in draft SEIS Table 3-11. 

30 Baseline groundwater quality results for the PZA, OM Unit, UM Unit, and SM Unit are 

31 discussed next. 

32 Production Zone Aquifer (PZA) 

33 Baseline groundwater quality samples collected from the PZA exceeded EPA MCLs for one or 

34 more of the following contaminants: uranium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, gross alpha, combined 

35 radium-226/228, and radon-222 (see draft SEIS Table 3-11; as described in the draft SEIS 

36 Table 3-11 footnotes, the EPA MCL for radon-222 is a proposed standard). Uranium 

37 concentrations ranged from <0.0003 to 0.661 mg/L [<0.0003 to 0.661 ppm] (AUC, 2012j). The 

38 MCL for uranium {0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm]} was exceeded in 10 wells (PZM2, PZM7, PZM8, 

39 PZM10, PZM15, PZM16, PZM17, GW7, GW9, and GW10). Arsenic concentrations ranged from 

40 <0.001 to 0.045 mg/L [<0.001 to 0.045 ppm] (AUC, 2012j). Samples collected from three wells 

41 (PZM2, PZM7, and PZM10) exceeded the MCL for arsenic {0.01 mg/L [0.01 ppm]}. In addition, 

42 one quarterly cadmium and lead concentration in well PZM10 {0.026 mg/L [0.026 ppm] and 

43 0.02 mg/L [0.02 ppm], respectively} exceeded the MCL for cadmium {0.005 mg/L [0.005 ppm]} 

44 and lead {0.015 mg/L [0.015 ppm]}. The MCL for other metals, such as selenium {0.05 mg/L 

45 [0.05 ppm]}, was not exceeded in any of the groundwater samples. 
3-54 

1 With the exception of well GW5, samples collected from PZA wells exceeded the MCL for gross 

alpha {555 Bq/m3

 [15 pCi/L]}. Gross alpha concentrations ranged from 74 to 102,120 Bq/m3 2 

3 [2.0 to 2,760 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012j). With the exception of monitoring well PZM14, samples 

4 collected from PZA monitoring wells exceeded the MCL for combined radium-226/228 

{185 Bq/m3 5 [5 pCi/L]}. Radium-226 concentrations in the monitoring wells (i.e., PZM wells) 

ranged from 114.7 to 25,900 Bq/m3 6 [3.1 to 700 pCi/L] and radium-228 concentrations ranged 

from 37 to 70.3 Bq/m3 7 [<1.0 to 1.9 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012i). None of the samples collected from 

8 domestic and stock wells completed in the PZA exceeded the MCL for combined 

radium-226/228 {185 Bq/m3 9 [5 pCi/L]}. Radium-226 concentrations in domestic and stock wells 

(i.e., GW wells) ranged from 7.4 to 111 Bq/m3 10 [0.2 to 3.0 pCi/L] and radium-228 concentrations 

ranged from <37 to 137 Bq/m3 11 [<1.0 to 3.7 pCi/L]. A majority of samples collected from PZA 

wells exceeded the proposed EPA MCL for radon-222 {11,100 Bq/m3 12 [300 pCi/L]} 

(56 FR 33050). Radon-222) concentrations ranged from 3,404 to 1.05 × 108

 Bq/m3 13 [92 to 

14 2,830,000 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012i). 

15 Baseline groundwater quality samples from PZA wells also exceeded the SMCLs for bulk water 

16 quality properties, including pH, TDS, and other major constituents such as manganese, iron, 

17 and sulfate (draft SEIS Table 3-11). Samples from all the PZA wells exceeded the SMCL for 

18 TDS {500 mg/L [500 ppm]} and sulfate {250 mg/L [250 ppm]}. TDS concentrations ranged from 

19 530 to 2,170 mg/L [530 to 2,170 ppm] and sulfate concentrations ranged from 231 to 

20 1,180 mg/L [231 to 1,180 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The pH of PZA wells ranged from 7.64 to 12.6 

21 (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for pH (6.5 to 8.5) was exceeded in four monitoring wells (PZM2, 

22 PZM6, PZM7, and PZM18). The manganese concentration in PZM wells ranged from <0.01 to 

23 0.52 mg/L [<0.01 to 0.52 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for manganese {0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm]} 

24 was exceeded in eight wells (PZM6, PZM8, PZM14, PZM16, PZM17, GW5, GW7, and GW9). 

25 Samples from three wells (PZM14, GW5, and GW9) exceeded the SMCL for iron {0.3 mg/L 

26 [0.3 ppm]}. 

27 As shown in draft SEIS Table 3-11, all the PZA wells contained one or more parameters that 

28 exceeded State of Wyoming standards for Classes I, II, and III groundwater use. Parameters 

29 exceeding Class I standards included gross alpha, sulfate, manganese, iron, cadmium, lead, 

30 TDS, pH, and combined radium-226/228. Parameters exceeding Class II standards included 

31 gross alpha, sulfate, manganese, selenium, vanadium, pH, and combined radium-226/228. 

32 Parameters exceeding Class III standards included gross alpha, vanadium, pH, and combined 

33 radium-226/228. 

34 Overlying Aquifer (OM Unit) 

35 Baseline groundwater quality samples collected from five OM Unit wells (OM2, OM3, OM7, 

36 GW2, and GW11) exceeded EPA MCLs for the following contaminants: arsenic, radon-222, 

37 and combined radium-226/228 (draft SEIS Table 3-11). Arsenic concentrations ranged from 

38 <0.001 to 0.033 mg/L [<0.001 to 0.033 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The MCL for arsenic {0.01 mg/L 

39 [0.01 ppm]} was exceeded in two wells (OM3 and OM7). The MCL for other metals, such as 

40 uranium {0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm]} and selenium {0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm]} was not exceeded in any 

41 of the OM Unit groundwater well samples. Radon-222 concentrations in the OM Unit wells 

ranged from <1,850 to 55,500 Bq/m3 42 [<50 to 1,500 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012i). The proposed EPA 

MCL for radon-222 {11,100 Bq/m3 43 [300 pCi/L]; 56 FR 33050} was exceeded in five wells (OM2, 

OM3, OM7, GW2, and GW11). The MCL for combined radium-226/228 {185 Bq/m3 44 [5 pCi/L]} 

45 was exceeded in one well (GW11). Radium-226 concentrations in well GW11 ranged from 48.1 

to 55.5 Bq/m3

 [1.3 to 1.5 pCi/L] and radium-228 concentrations ranged from 55.5 to 181 Bq/m3 46 

47 [1.5 to 4.9 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012i). 
3-55 

1 Baseline groundwater quality samples from wells in the OM Unit exceeded the SMCLs for bulk 

2 water quality properties, including pH, TDS, and other constituents such as manganese, iron, 

3 and sulfate (draft SEIS Table 3-11). Samples from seven wells (OM1, OM4, OM5, OM6, OM7, 

4 GW2, and GW11) exceeded the SMCL for TDS {500 mg/L [500 ppm]} and sulfate {250 mg/L 

5 [250 ppm]}. TDS concentrations in OM Unit wells ranged from 250 to 2,400 mg/L [250 to 

6 2,400 ppm] and sulfate concentrations ranged from 17 to 1,560 mg/L [17 to 1,560 ppm] 

7 (AUC, 2012i). The pH of wells ranged from 6.26 to 11.87 (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for pH 

8 (6.5 to 8.5) was exceeded in four wells (OM2, OM3, OM7, and GW11). The manganese 

9 concentration in OM Unit wells ranged from <0.01 to 1.16 mg/L [<0.01 to 1.16 ppm] 

10 (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for manganese {0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm]} was exceeded in six wells 

11 (OM1, OM4, OM5, OM6, GW2, and GW11). The iron concentration ranged from <0.05 to 

12 0.76 mg/L [<0.05 to 0.76 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for iron {0.3 mg/L [0.3 ppm]} was 

13 exceeded in five wells (OM1, OM3, OM5, OM6, and GW11). 

14 All the OM Unit wells contained parameters that exceeded State of Wyoming standards for 

15 Classes I and II groundwater use (see draft SEIS Table 3-11). Parameters exceeding Class I 

16 standards included sulfate, manganese, iron, TDS, pH, nitrogen, ammonia, and 

17 radium-226/228. Parameters exceeding Class II standards included sulfate, manganese, iron, 

18 pH, and radium-226/228. In addition, three wells (OM2, OM3, and OM7) exceeded the State of 

19 Wyoming Class III standard for pH, and one well (GW11) exceeded the Class III standard for 

20 radium-226/228. 

21 Underlying Unit (UM Unit) 

22 Baseline groundwater quality samples collected from six UM unit wells (UM1, UM2, UM3R, 

23 UM4, UM7, and GW8) exceeded EPA MCLs for the following contaminants: arsenic, gross 

24 alpha, combined radium-226/228, and radon-222 (draft SEIS Table 3-11). Arsenic 

25 concentrations ranged from <0.001 to 0.022 mg/L [<0.001 to 0.022 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The 

26 MCL for arsenic {0.01 mg/L [0.01 ppm]} was exceeded in three UM unit wells (UM2, UM3R, and 

27 UM4). The MCL for other metals, such as uranium {0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm]} and selenium 

28 {0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm]}, was not exceeded in any of the UM unit groundwater samples. 

Gross alpha concentrations in the UM unit wells ranged from 74 to 9,102 Bq/m3 29 [2.0 to 

24.6 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012i). The MCL for gross alpha {555 Bq/m3 30 [15 pCi/L]} was exceeded in 

31 three wells (UM1, UM7, and GW8). In addition, one quarterly combined radium-226/228 

concentration in well UM7 {233 Bq/m3 32 [6.3 pCi/L]} exceeded the MCL for combined 

radium-226/228 {185 Bq/m3 33 [5 pCi/L]}. Radon-222 concentrations in the wells ranged from 

<1,850 to 171,680 Bq/m3 34 [<50 to 4,640 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012i). The proposed EPA MCL for 

radon-222 {11,100 Bq/m3 35 [300 pCi/L]; 56 FR 33050} was exceeded in three wells (UM1, UM2, 

36 and UM7). 

37 Baseline groundwater quality samples from UM unit wells exceeded the SMCLs for bulk water 

38 quality properties, including pH, TDS, and other constituents such as manganese, iron, 

39 and sulfate (draft SEIS Table 3-11). Samples from four wells (UM2, UM3R, UM4, and GW6) 

40 exceeded the SMCL for TDS {500 mg/L [500 ppm]} and sulfate {250 mg/L [250 ppm]}. TDS 

41 concentrations in UM unit wells ranged from 250 to 1,620 mg/L [250 to 1,620 ppm] and sulfate 

42 concentrations ranged from <1 to 852 mg/L [<1 to 852 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The pH of wells 

43 ranged from 7.5 to 11.57 (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for pH (6.5 to 8.5) was exceeded in five 

44 wells (UM1, UM2, UM5, UM6, and UM7). The manganese concentration in wells ranged from 

45 <0.01 to 0.72 mg/L [<0.01 to 0.72 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for manganese {0.05 mg/L 

46 [0.05 ppm]} was exceeded in three wells (UM4, UM5, and GW6). The iron concentration in 
3-56 

1 wells ranged from <0.05 to 1.16 mg/L [<0.05 to 1.16 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for iron 

2 {0.3 mg/L [0.3 ppm]} was exceeded in three wells (OM1, OM6, and OM7). 

3 All the UM unit wells contained parameters that exceeded State of Wyoming standards for 

4 Class I groundwater use (see draft SEIS Table 3-11). Parameters exceeding Class I standards 

5 included gross alpha, sulfate, manganese, iron, TDS, pH, and combined radium-226/228. With 

6 the exception of well UM5, all UM unit wells contained parameters that exceeded State of 

7 Wyoming standards for Class II groundwater use. Parameters exceeding Class II standards 

8 included gross alpha, sulfate, manganese, iron, pH, and combined radium-226/228. In addition, 

9 six wells (UM1, UM2, UM5, UM6, UM7, and GW8) exceeded the State of Wyoming Class III 

10 standards for one or more of the following parameters: pH, gross alpha, and combined 

11 radium-226/228. 

12 Shallow Water Table Unit (SM Unit) 

13 Baseline groundwater quality samples collected from SM Unit wells exceeded EPA MCLs for 

14 one or more of the following contaminants: uranium, gross alpha, and radon-222 (draft SEIS 

15 Table 3-11). Uranium concentrations in wells ranged from 0.0005 to 0.0304 mg/L [0.0005 to 

16 0.0304 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The MCL for uranium {0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm]} was exceeded in one 

17 well (SM7). The MCL for other metals, such as arsenic {0.01 mg/L [0.01 ppm]} and selenium 

18 {0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm]} was not exceeded in any of the SM Unit groundwater well samples. 

Gross alpha concentrations in SM Unit wells ranged from 74 to 1,136 Bq/m3 19 [2.0 to 30.7 pCi/L] 

20 (AUC, 2012i). Gross alpha concentrations in two wells (SM6 and SM7) exceeded the MCL for 

gross alpha {555 Bq/m3 21 [15 pCi/L]}. Radon-222 concentrations in wells ranged from <1,850 to 

26,714 Bq/m3 22 [<50 to 722 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012i). With the exception of well SM7, samples 

collected from the SM Unit wells exceeded the proposed EPA MCL for radon-222 {11,100 Bq/m3 23 

24 [300 pCi/L]} (56 FR 33050). 

25 Baseline groundwater quality samples from the SM Unit wells also exceeded the SMCLs for 

26 TDS {500 mg/L [500 ppm]}, sulfate {250 mg/L [250 ppm]}, manganese {0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm]}, 

27 and iron {0.3 mg/L [0.3 ppm]} (draft SEIS Table 3-11). TDS concentrations ranged from 430 to 

28 3,060 mg/L [430 to 3,060 ppm], sulfate concentrations ranged from 68 to 1,730 mg/L [68 to 

29 1,370 ppm], manganese concentrations ranged from 0.08 to 0.99 mg/L [0.08 to 0.99 ppm], and 

30 iron concentrations ranged from <0.05 to 11.9 mg/L [<0.05 to 11.9 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). 

31 All the SM Unit wells contained parameters that exceeded State of Wyoming standards for 

32 Classes I and II groundwater use (see draft SEIS Table 3-11). Parameters exceeding Class I 

33 standards included gross alpha, sulfate, manganese, iron, TDS, nitrogen, and ammonia. 

34 Parameters exceeding Class II standards included gross alpha, sulfate, manganese, iron, and 

35 TDS. In addition, two wells (SM6 and SM7) exceeded the State of Wyoming Class III standard 

36 for gross alpha. 

37 Unknown Aquifer 

38 As described previously, six domestic and stock wells (GW3, GW4, GW12, GW14, GW15, and 

39 GW17) were sampled for baseline groundwater quality where the aquifer from which the water 

40 was collected could not be determined based on a comparison of available hydrogeologic 

41 information within the proposed project area with available information on well completion 

42 intervals from the WSEO (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). For these six wells, the aquifer from which 

43 groundwater was collected is listed as “unknown” in draft SEIS Table 3-11. Baseline 
3-57 

1 groundwater quality samples collected from four of these wells (GW3, GW4, GW14, and GW15) 

2 exceeded EPA MCLs for the following contaminants: gross alpha and radon-222 (draft SEIS 

Table 3-11). The MCL for gross alpha {555 Bq/m3 3 [15 pCi/L]} was exceeded in one well (GW4). 

Gross alpha concentrations in well GW4 ranged from 455 to 692 Bq/m3 4 [12.3 to 18.7 pCi/L] 

5 (AUC, 2012i). Radon-222 concentrations in the samples collected from wells completed in 

unknown aquifers ranged from <1,850 to 208,680 Bq/m3 6 [<50 to 5,640 pCi/L] (AUC, 2012i). The 

proposed EPA MCL for radon-222 {11,100 Bq/m3 7 [300 pCi/L]; 56 FR 33050} was exceeded in 

8 three wells (GW3, GW4, and GW14). 

9 Baseline groundwater quality samples from unknown aquifer wells exceeded the SMCLs for 

10 bulk water quality properties, including pH, TDS, and other constituents such as manganese, 

11 iron, and sulfate (draft SEIS Table 3-11). Samples from four wells (GW3, GW4, GW12, and 

12 GW17) exceeded the SMCL for TDS {500 mg/L [500 ppm]} and sulfate {250 mg/L [250 ppm]}. 

13 TDS concentrations ranged from 280 to 2,360 mg/L [280 to 2,360 ppm] and sulfate 

14 concentrations ranged from 56 to 1,520 mg/L [56 to 1,520 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The pH of wells 

15 ranged from 7.02 to 9.80 (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for pH (6.5 to 8.5) was exceeded in two 

16 wells (GW14 and GW15). The manganese concentration ranged from <0.01 to 0.71 mg/L 

17 [<0.01 to 0.71 ppm] (AUC, 2012i). The SMCL for manganese {0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm]} was 

18 exceeded in four wells (GW3, GW4, GW12, and GW17). 

19 All samples from wells in unknown aquifers contained parameters that exceeded State of 

20 Wyoming standards for Class I groundwater use (see draft SEIS Table 3-11). Parameters 

21 exceeding Class I standards included sulfate, manganese, TDS, pH, ammonia, and gross 

22 alpha. Four wells (GW3, GW4, GW12, and GW17) had parameters exceeding Class II 

23 standards, including sulfate, manganese, TDS, and gross alpha. In addition, two wells (GW14 

24 and GW15) exceeded the State of Wyoming Class III standard for pH and one well (GW4) 

25 exceeded the Class III standard for gross alpha. 

26 Summary 

27 The baseline groundwater sampling results found that samples from 33 of the 43 wells listed in 

28 draft SEIS Table 3-11 contained parameters that exceeded the MCLs for primary drinking water 

29 standards, as provided by EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 141. In addition, all of the wells 

30 contained parameters that exceeded State of Wyoming Class I standards for domestic use. All 

31 groundwater samples from the PZA exceeded the MCLs for primary drinking water, as provided 

32 by EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 141 and State of Wyoming Class I standards for domestic 

33 use. Therefore, groundwater from the proposed PZA within the permit boundaries would not be 

34 used in public water systems and is unsuitable for private domestic use without treatment. 

35 3.6 Ecology 

36 The Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, as described in the GEIS, encompasses the 

37 Wyoming Basin, Northern Great Plains, Southern Rockies, and Western High Plains 

38 ecoregions. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is located in the Northwestern Great 

39 Plains ecoregion (draft SEIS Figure 3-24). GEIS Section 3.3.5.1 describes the PRB as rolling 

40 prairie and dissected river breaks surrounding the Powder, Cheyenne, and Upper North Platte 

41 Rivers. The PRB has less precipitation and less available water than neighboring regions 

42 (NRC, 2009). Vegetation within this region is composed of sagebrush and mixed-grass prairie 

43 dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis); western wheatgrass (Elymus smithii syn.

44 Pascopyrum smithii); prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha); Sandberg Bluegrass (Poa 

45 secunda); needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata); rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus); 
3-58 

1 fringed sage (Artemisia frigida); and other forbs, shrubs, and grasses (Chapman et al., 2004). 

2 The region includes native grasslands and some woodlands, especially in areas of steep or 

3 broken topography (Chapman et al., 2004). Topography in the proposed project area is 

4 relatively flat, with gently rolling hills, ridges, and ephemeral surface water drainages. The 

5 proposed project area elevation ranges from 1,536 to 1,614 m [5,041 to 5,296 ft] above mean 

6 sea level with the highest elevation in the eastern portion (AUC, 2012a). 

7 The applicant conducted a number of ecological studies of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

8 Project area (AUC, 2012a) to address the guidelines in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003), including 

9 the identification of important species and their relative abundances and to meet the applicable 

10 Wyoming requirements. In fall 2010 and summer 2011, baseline vegetation and wetland 

11 surveys were conducted for the proposed project area and a 0.8-km [0.5-mi] buffer around the 

Figure 3-24. Ecoregions of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region 

(NRC, 2009) 

Proposed Reno 

Creek Project 
3-59 

1 proposed project area. Additionally, in spring 2008 and 2010, and in spring and summer 2011, 

2 baseline wildlife surveys were conducted for the proposed project area and a 1.6-km [1-mi] 

3 buffer around the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). In addition, the applicant searched for 

4 Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) leks within a 6.4 km [4 mi] around the 

5 proposed project area to address Wyoming assessment procedures (Mead, 2015). No surveys 

6 were conducted for aquatic species due to the lack of sufficiently deep-water habitat or 

7 extensive water sources that would support the presence of fish and other aquatic species 

8 (AUC, 2012a). 

9 3.6.1 Terrestrial Species 

10 3.6.1.1 Vegetation 

11 Using 2009 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) true color ortho-aerial imagery, the 

12 applicant mapped the plant communities within the proposed project area and a 0.8-km [0.5-mi] 

13 buffer around the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). Following WDEQ guidelines to verify 

14 the aerial imagery results, the applicant conducted quantitative (field samples) vegetation 

15 sampling only within the proposed project area during the summer of 2011 (AUC, 2012a). In 

16 addition, wetland surveys were conducted within the proposed project area in fall 2010 and 

17 summer 2011 following the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland 

18 Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0) (USACE, 2010). The wetland surveys 

19 identified a total of 17.12 ha [42.23 ac] of wetlands within the proposed project area. Wetlands 

20 are further described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.1.4. State and county noxious weeds and FWS 

21 threatened, endangered, and candidate plant species were inventoried during the baseline 

22 vegetation surveys (AUC, 2012a). 

23 Four plant communities were mapped within the proposed project area and the 0.8-km [0.5-mi] 

24 buffer around the project area and include big sagebrush shrubland, meadow grassland, upland 

25 grassland, and breaks grassland (AUC, 2012a). The big sagebrush shrubland community 

26 covers approximately 78 percent of the proposed project area and 0.8-km [0.5-mi] buffer, and is 

27 denser in the eastern portion of the proposed project area and 0.8-km [0.5-mi] buffer. 

28 Combined, the three aforementioned grassland plant communities cover approximately 17 to 

29 18 percent of the proposed project area and 0.8-km [0.5-mi] buffer. Upland grassland is found 

30 scattered throughout the proposed project area and 0.8-km [0.5-mi] buffer, covering a relatively 

31 large area within higher elevations adjacent to Highway 387. Meadow grassland and breaks 

32 grassland are interspersed along lower elevation creeks and drainages throughout the proposed 

33 project area and 0.8-km [0.5-mi] buffer. The acreage of each plant community, disturbed 

34 ground, and open water at the proposed project area and surrounding buffer area are 

35 summarized in Table 3-12. 

36 The four plant communities in the proposed project area are composed of 93 individual plant 

37 species. Field samples of vegetation were collected and specific species were counted only 

38 within the proposed project area. Between 36 and 61 plant species were found in each plant 

39 community. Table 3-13 summarizes the species diversity by vegetation type within each plant 

40 community. The most common perennial grasses included Western wheatgrass, green 

41 needlegrass (Nassella viridula), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), and blue grama 

42 (Bouteloua gracilis), which all occurred in each of the four plant communities. Dominant 

43 perennial forbs included American vetch (Vicia americana), Hoods phlox (Phlox hoodii), and 

44 spoonleaf milkvetch (Astragalus spatulatus). Dominant perennial shrub species included big 

45 sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), fringed sagewort (Artemisia frigida), and birdfoot sagebrush 

46 (Artemisia pedatifida). Threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia) was the dominant grass-like vegetation 
3-60 

Table 3-12. Plant Communities at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 

0.8 km [0.5 mi] Buffer During 2010 and 2011 Baseline Vegetation Surveys 

Plant Community, 

Disturbed Ground, 

or Water 

Proposed Reno Creek 

Project Area 

0.8 km [0.5 mi] Buffer Area 

(not field verified) 

Hectares [Acres]

Percent of 

Proposed 

Project Area Hectares [Acres] 

Percent of 

Buffer Area 

Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland 1,913.87 [4,729.27] 78.08 1859.77 [4,595.60] 78.59 

Meadow Grassland 195.89 [484.06] 7.99 200.46 [495.34] 8.47 

Upland Grassland 194.34 [480.23] 7.93 164.73 [407.06] 6.96 

Breaks Grassland 32.54 [80.41] 1.33 57.79 [142.80] 2.44 

Disturbed Ground 112.96 [279.14] 4.61 82.54 [203.97] 3.49 

Water 1.74 [4.31] 0.07 1.26 [3.11] 0.05 

Total 2,451.35 [6,057.42] 100.00 2,366.55 [5,847.88] 100.00

Source: (AUC, 2012a) 

Table 3-13. Species Diversity by Vegetation Type Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

Project Area During Baseline Vegetation Surveys 

Vegetation Type 

Number of Individual Plant Species 

Recorded in Each Plant Community 

Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Upland 

Grassland 

Meadow 

Grassland 

Breaks 

Grassland 

Perennials 

Native Cool Season 

Perennial Grasses 7 5 5 10 

Native Warm Season 

Perennial Grasses 1 2 2 1 

Introduced Perennial 

Grasses 3 2 3 3 

Native Grass-like 

Species 2 2 4 1 

Native Perennial Forbs 25 20 19 21 

Introduced Perennial 

Forbs 3 4 2 1 

Native Full Shrubs 3 1 2 3 

Native Half & SubShrubs 3 4 3 6 

Native Succulent 1 1 0 1 

Subtotal 48 41 42 47 

Annuals 

Native Annual Grasses 1 1 1 0 

Introduced Annual 

Grasses 3 2 3 3 

Native Annual Forbs 3 1 3 1 

Introduced Annual 

Forbs 4 3 8 3 
3-61 

Table 3-13. Species Diversity by Vegetation Type Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR 

Project Area During Baseline Vegetation Surveys (Continued) 

Vegetation Type

Number of Individual Plant Species 

Recorded in Each Plant Community

Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland

Upland 

Grassland

Meadow 

Grassland

Breaks 

Grassland

Introduced Biennial 

Forbs 2 1 2 2 

Subtotal 13 8 17 9 

Unknown 

Forb species 0 0 2 1 

Subtotal 0 0 2 1 

TOTAL SPECIES 61 49 61 57 

Source: (AUC, 2012a; AUC, 2014a) 

1 type. Japanese brome (Bromus japonicus) and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), introduced and 

2 invasive annual grasses, were prevalent in each plant community. Desert alyssum (Alyssum 

3 desertorum) was the dominant annual forb. Lichens and plains prickly pear (Opuntia 

4 polyacantha), a succulent, were also present. Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), a state 

5 designated noxious weed, and plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides), the Wyoming state tree, 

6 are the only trees present in the proposed project area. A stand of these two trees is present 

7 north of Hwy 387 within the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). 

8 State designated noxious weed species Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), field bindweed 

9 (Convolvulus arvensis), and the Russian olive tree were recorded and mapped when 

10 encountered during the baseline vegetation surveys (AUC, 2012a; Wyoming Weed and Pest 

11 Control Council, 2014). Canada thistle occurred at eight survey locations within the project 

12 area, and field bindweed and Russian olive occurred at one survey location within the project 

13 area (AUC, 2012a). No federal or state threatened or endangered plant species were 

14 documented during surveys at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. The vegetation 

15 types sampled or observed in each vegetative community within the proposed Reno Creek 

16 project area and 0.8-km [0.5-mi] buffer are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-25.

17 The WDEQ describes selenium indicator plant species as plant species that may selectively 

18 concentrate selenium in their tissue, be tolerant of high selenium concentrations in the soil, or 

19 both. These species, when grazed by livestock, may produce toxic reactions known as 

20 selenium poisoning (WDEQ, 2014a; USDA, 2006). Twogrooved milkvetch (Astragalus 

21 bisulcatus), which is identified as a primary selenium indicator plant species (WDEQ, 2014a), 

22 was observed during baseline vegetation surveys in the big sagebrush shrubland and breaks 

23 grassland plant communities, but it was not sampled to obtain relative cover. Western 

24 wheatgrass, a secondary selenium indicator plant (USDA, 2006), was observed in all of the 

25 plant communities within the proposed project area. For more information on livestock grazing 

26 within the proposed project area, see draft SEIS Section 3.2. 

27 3.6.1.2 Wildlife 

28 General ranges for terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling 

29 Region are presented in the GEIS (NRC, 2009). The applicant collected background 

30 information for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area from several sources, including 

31 records from the WGFD, BLM, and FWS (AUC, 2012a), as well as from the GEIS (NRC, 2009). 

32 Wildlife baseline surveys were conducted in 2008, 2010, and 2011 after consultation with the 
3-62 

Figure 3-25. Baseline Vegetation Within the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 0.8-km [0.5-mi] Buffer 

(AUC, 2014a). 
3-63 

1 WGFD and review of the FWS website (AUC, 2012a). WGFD letters to the applicant in 2008 

2 and 2010 stated that the applicant should conduct raptor nest surveys and Greater sage-grouse 

3 lek surveys within the proposed project area and a 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer around the proposed 

4 project area as part of the applicant’s baseline wildlife survey activities. WGFD staff also 

5 recommended in 2010 that the applicant conduct surveys for swift fox (Vulpes velox) and 

6 delineate prairie dog colonies, if found, within the proposed project area. The applicant 

7 conducted baseline wildlife surveys following these WGFD recommendations as well as 

8 applicable sections of WDEQ rules and regulations (WDEQ, 1994b; 2000) and WDEQ 

9 guidelines (WDEQ, 2007; 2013b) (AUC, 2012a). 

10 The applicant conducted baseline wildlife surveys in 2008, 2010, and 2011. The applicant 

11 conducted surveys to look for raptor nests on July 1, 2008; June 4 and 16, 2010; and April 11, 

12 May 2 and 16, June 3, and July 11, 2011. The applicant followed the guidelines recommended 

13 by Grier and Fyfe (1987) during these raptor nest surveys to prevent adverse disturbances. 

14 Consistent with FWS and WGFD recommendations (BLM, 2015; WGFD, 2014a), upland 

15 gamebird surveys were conducted on April 12 and 28, 2008; April 12, 19, and 29, 2010; and 

16 April 1, 12, and 28, 2011 (AUC, 2012a). 

17 The applicant recorded threatened and endangered species and habitats and other sensitive 

18 species, Wyoming species of greatest conservation need (SGCN), and FWS Migratory Bird 

19 Species of Management Concern when observed (AUC, 2012a). In addition to those species 

20 that were targeted on specific dates, each vertebrate species that was observed during baseline 

21 wildlife surveys was recorded (AUC, 2012a). No quantitative surveys were conducted at the 

22 proposed Reno Creek project area for big game, lagomorphs [e.g., jackrabbits (Lepus spp.) and 

23 cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.)], breeding birds, waterfowl, small mammals, mammalian predators, 

24 furbearers, reptiles, amphibians, or fish (AUC, 2012a). 

25 3.6.1.2.1 Habitat Description 

26 Big sagebrush shrubland previously described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.1 is an important 

27 habitat for pronghorn (Antilocapra americana); mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus); Greater 

28 sage-grouse; small- and medium-sized mammals such as badgers, mice, and voles; and 

29 several sagebrush obligate avian species, such as the sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), 

30 sage-grouse, and Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) (AUC, 2012a). This habitat type provides 

31 important food and cover for resident and migratory birds and small mammals, nesting sites for 

32 raptors, and critical forage for ungulates (e.g., pronghorn and mule deer) and Greater 

33 sage-grouse during winters (WGFD, 2010a). 

34 Grasslands in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area support nesting, foraging, and refuge 

35 for mammals, reptiles, and avian species, including raptors such as Northern harriers (Circus 

36 cyaneus), Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni), ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) and golden 

37 eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), migratory birds, and song birds (AUC, 2012a). Mixed grasslands, 

38 such as those found at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, offer a variety of habitat 

39 needs for birds that require short vegetation and open ground, such as the McCown’s longspur 

40 (Calcarius mccownii), and birds that prefer taller grasses, such as the grasshopper sparrows 

41 (Ammodramus savannarum) (WGFD, 2010a). Table 3-14 lists the 37 different species 

42 observed during the baseline wildlife surveys conducted in spring and summer 2008, spring 

43 2010, and spring and summer 2011 (see draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2). Draft SEIS Figure 3-26 

44 shows raptor nest locations within the proposed project area and a 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer around 

45 the proposed project area. Greater sage-grouse lek locations within 6.4 km [4 mi] of the 
3-64 

Table 3-14. Wildlife Species Observed During Baseline Wildlife Surveys for the 

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 1.6-km [1-mi] Buffer 

Scientific Name Common Name Primary Habitat Type 

Mammals 

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn sagebrush/desert shrublands

Lepus townsendii White-tailed jackrabbit desert shrubland

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer sagebrush/desert/foothill 

shrublands

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat wetlands, riparian 

Sylvilagus spp. Cottontail species grasslands, shrublands 

Taxidea taxus Badger desert shrubland 

Birds 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird wetlands, meadows 

Ammodramus savannarum*† Grasshopper Sparrow shortgrass prairie, shrub-steppe 

Anas platyrhynchos‡ Mallard wetlands 

Anas acuta*‡ Northern pintail wetlands 

Anas crecca‡ Green-winged teal wetlands 

Anas americana‡ American wigeon wetlands 

Anas clypeata‡ Northern shoveler wetlands, meadows 

Aquila chrysaetos‡† Golden eagle cliffs 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk desert shrubland 

Buteo swainsoni*‡§ Swainson's hawk sagebrush shrubland, plains/basin 

riparian, grasslands 

Buteo regalis*†‡§ Ferruginous hawk shrub-steppe, shortgrass prairie 

Calcarius mccownii*†‡ ǁ McCown’s Longspur shortgrass prairie, shrub-steppe 

Calamospiza melanocorys* Lark bunting shortgrass prairie, shrub-steppe 

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier shortgrass prairie, meadows 

Centrocercus urophasianus*†§ Greater sage-grouse shrub-steppe, grasslands 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer shortgrass prairie 

Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow shrub-steppe 

Eremophila alpestris Horned lark shortgrass prairie 

Lanius ludovicianus*†‡§ Loggerhead shrike shrub-steppe 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird foothill shrubland 

Oreoscoptes montanus*†‡§ Sage thrasher shrub-steppe, sagebrush/foothill 

shrublands 

Podiceps nigricollis Eared grebe wetlands 

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow shrub-steppe, shortgrass prairie 

Riparia riparia Bank swallow riparian 

Spizella reweri*†‡§ Brewer's sparrow sagebrush/mountain-foothills shrub 

Steganopus tricolor Wilson's phalarope wetlands 

Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark shortgrass prairie 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird shortgrass prairie 

Zenaida macroura‡ Mourning dove desert shrubland 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Pseudacris maculata* Boreal Chorus frog wetlands 

Phrynsoma douglassi Short-horned lizard desert shrublands 
3-65 

Table 3-14. Wildlife Species Observed During Baseline Wildlife Surveys for the 

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and 1.6-km [1-mi] Buffer 

(Continued) 

Source: AUC, 2012a; WGFD, 2010a, FWS, 2011; FWS, 2015a, BLM, 2010 

*WGFD Species of Greatest Conservation Need (WGFD, 2010a) 

†FWS Birds of Conservation Concern in Bird Conservation Region 17 (FWS, 2008a) and Birds of Conservation 

Concern That Occur in Wyoming (FWS, 2015a) 

‡FWS Birds of Management Concern (FWS, 2011) 

§BLM Sensitive Species (BLM, 2010) 

ǁIncludes Rhyncophanes mccownii 

1 proposed project area are also shown on draft SEIS Figure 3-26; the 6.4 km [4 mi] distance is 

2 based on State of Wyoming recommendations for greater sage-grouse (Mead, 2015). 

3 The proposed project area and 1.6 km [1 mi] buffer lies within habitat WGFD designates as 

4 winter/yearlong and yearlong range for pronghorn antelope and yearlong range for mule deer 

5 (AUC, 2012a). Winter/yearlong habitat use is when a population or a portion of a population of 

6 animals makes general use of the range on a year-round basis. During the winter months, there 

7 is typically an influx of additional animals into the area from other seasonal ranges. No WGFD 

8 crucial big game habitats or migration corridors are located within 30.6 km [19 mi] of the 

9 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (NRC, 2009; BLM, 2015). Big game species are 

10 discussed further in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.2. 

11 The eastern portion of the proposed project area and 1.6 km [1 mi] buffer is characterized by 

12 taller and denser sagebrush plants than other parts of the proposed project area and is 

13 identified as a WGFD Crucial Habitat Priority Area and an Enhancement Habitat Priority Area 

14 for the sagebrush/mixed grassland habitat within Greater sage-grouse complexes (draft SEIS 

15 Figure 3-26). Crucial Habitat Priority Areas are identified by WGFD based on significant 

16 biological or ecological values in areas that need to be protected or managed to maintain viable 

17 healthy populations of wildlife species, while enhancement Habitat Priority Areas represent 

18 those habitat areas that can realistically be improved, enhanced, or restored (WGFD, 2010a). 

19 Wyoming big sagebrush provides crucial food for sage-grouse, and mature sagebrush cover is 

20 important for sage-grouse broods (WGFD, 2010a). Although available sage-grouse nesting and 

21 winter habitat are located within the proposed project area (BLM, 2015), the proposed project 

22 area and 1.6 km [1 mi] buffer are not located in a sage-grouse core population area or 

23 connectivity corridor. Sage-grouse core population areas or connectivity corridors are areas the 

24 State of Wyoming has identified as high-quality habitat for sage-grouse nesting and 

25 brood-rearing and are necessary to maintain sage-grouse populations (WGFD, 2010a,b). 

26 Sage-grouse located within 6 km [4 mi] of the proposed project area are discussed further in 

27 draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.3. 

28 As previously stated in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2, WGFD recommended the applicant conduct 

29 surveys for the swift fox as part of their baseline wildlife surveys. However, the applicant’s swift 

30 fox surveys did not find large burrows, tracks, scat, or prey remains indicative of swift fox 

31 presence, and no swift foxes were observed. The applicant also surveyed for the presence of 

32 black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies as part of the baseline wildlife surveys. 

33 No active prairie dog colonies were observed within the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). 

34 The applicant stated that WGFD database reviews indicated black-tailed prairie dog colonies 

35 were present within 1.6 km [1 mi] north and south of the proposed project area but were inactive 

36 during the applicant’s baseline wildlife surveys. BLM records indicate that prairie dog colonies 

37 are present east (T43N R73W S24 and S25) and southeast (T42N R73W S2) at distances 

38 greater than 1.6 km [1 mi] but less than 4.8 km [3 mi] from the proposed project area 
3-66 

Figure 3-26. Wildlife Habitat at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area (AUC, 2014a; BLM, 2014; 

WGFD, 2015) 
3-67 

1 (BLM, 2015). No critical habitat for federally-listed threatened or endangered species was 

2 identified in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area during baseline wildlife surveys 

3 (AUC, 2012a). 

4 3.6.1.2.2 Mammals 

5 Pronghorn and mule deer (pronghorn being the more prevalent of the two) were the only big 

6 game species observed during the baseline wildlife surveys. As stated in draft SEIS 

7 Section 3.6.1.2.1, pronghorn and mule deer are present throughout the year in the proposed 

8 project area and 1.6 km [1 mi] buffer. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area and 1.6 km 

9 [1 mi] buffer are located within the WGFD pronghorn and mule deer Pumpkin Buttes and North 

10 Converse Herd Units (AUC, 2012a). The WGFD reported the 2014 pronghorn populations in 

11 those two herd units to be approximately 21,928 and 18,945 individuals, respectively. The 

12 Pumpkin Buttes Herd Unit considerably exceeded the WGFD pronghorn population objective of 

13 18,000, and the North Converse Herd Unit was less than the objective of 28,000 pronghorn 

14 (WGFD, 2014b, c). The WGFD reported the 2015 mule deer populations in the Pumpkin Buttes 

15 Herd Area to be approximately 12,364 and 7,785 individuals, respectively; both were less than 

16 their WGFD objectives of 13,000 for Pumpkin Buttes and 9,100 for North Converse (WGFD, 

17 2014b,c). 

18 Although white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and elk (Cervus elaphusi) could be present 

19 in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area and 1.6 km [1 mi] buffer, WGFD considers the 

20 proposed project area and 1.6 km [1 mi] buffer to be outside of the normal range for these 

21 species (WGFD, 2014b,c). White-tailed deer in Wyoming are concentrated in areas with rivers 

22 and streams such as the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains, and are not usually found in the 

23 grasslands and shrubland habitat that cover the proposed project area (BLM, 2015). Elk in 

24 northeast Wyoming are also concentrated in the foothills of the Big Horn Mountains and other 

25 locations west of Gillette and southeast Campbell County. 

26 A variety of small- and medium-sized mammals could potentially be present in the proposed 

27 project area. These mammals include various rodents, predators, and furbearers such as 

28 jackrabbits (Lepus sp.) and cottontails (Sylvilagus sp.), a variety of mice and rats, gophers 

29 (Thomonys sp.), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), shrews (Sorex sp.), voles (Microtus sp.), 

30 coyotes (Canis latrans), swift foxes (Vulpes velox), raccoons (Procyon lotor), bobcats (Lynx 

31 rufus), badgers (Taxidea taxus), beavers (Castor canadensis), and porcupines (Erethizon 

32 dorsatum) (NRC, 2009; AUC, 2012a). The six species of mammals that were encountered 

33 within the proposed project area or the 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer around the proposed project area 

34 are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-14. Although bat surveys were not conducted as part of the 

35 applicant’s baseline wildlife surveys, riparian areas, grasslands, and shrub-steppe habitats that 

36 are present within eastern Wyoming do serve as important foraging and roosting resources for 

37 bats (WGFD, 2005a). 

38 3.6.1.2.3 Birds 

39 Birds account for the largest diversity of animals in eastern Wyoming (NRC, 2009) and for the 

40 animals found at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area and 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer (draft 

41 SEIS Table 3-14). This section provides a broad description of avian species that could 

42 potentially occur at the proposed project, and provides results of baseline wildlife surveys. As 

43 previously described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2, the applicant specifically looked for raptor 

44 nests and Greater sage-grouse leks as part of the baseline wildlife surveys. The applicant also 

45 reviewed BLM raptor nest data for the preparation of the application. After the NRC staff 
3-68 

1 received the application, the NRC staff reviewed the most recent BLM raptor nest data available 

2 for the development of this draft SEIS (BLM, 2014). 

3 It is industry standard protocol to document the status and condition of raptor nests when 

4 conducting nest surveys (BLM, 2005). “Active” nests are those where reproductive activities 

5 such as breeding, brooding, and nest attendance are observed. “Inactive” nests show no signs 

6 of physical bird presence or recent use. Nests are identified as “unknown” if there is not enough 

7 information to conclusively determine if a nest is active or inactive. The condition of bird nests 

8 are also reported during nest surveys and can range from “remnants” (scant material remaining 

9 and not usable unless fully rebuilt) to “excellent” (nest is able to be used with little or no 

10 maintenance) (BLM, 2005). A nest is considered “gone” if that nest was located during a 

11 previous survey but evidence of a nest is no longer there. For Greater sage-grouse leks, 

12 “occupied” leks are those that have been active during the breeding season within the last 

13 10 years (BLM, 2005). “Unoccupied” leks are those that have not been active during a 

14 consecutive 10-year period. 

15 Raptors 

16 Several raptor species were observed during the baseline wildlife surveys, including golden 

17 eagles, ferrugious hawks, red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawks, and 

18 northern harriers. Golden eagles are cliff-dwellers that use grassland and sagebrush shrubland 

19 communities similar to those found within the proposed project area for foraging (BLM, 2015). 

20 The ferruginous hawk and Swainson’s hawk are Wyoming species of SGCN, and BLM-sensitive 

21 species that prefer to inhabit mixed-grass prairies. Red-tailed hawks are a common bird in 

22 Wyoming that consumes mostly small mammals and occupies a variety of habitats. Northern 

23 harriers nest in a variety of habitats found within the proposed project area, including 

24 grasslands, agricultural lands, wetland and riparian areas, and sagebrush.

25 During the baseline wildlife surveys conducted between 2008 and 2011, 14 raptor nest locations 

26 [12 ferruginous hawk, one red-tailed hawk , and one red-tailed hawk/Swainson’s hawk] were 

27 identified within the proposed project area and the 1.6 km [1 mi] buffer around the proposed 

28 project area (AUC, 2012a). Four of the 14 nests (two inactive ferruginous hawk nests and one 

29 active red-tailed hawk nest and one inactive red-tailed hawk/Swainson’s hawk nest) were 

30 located within the proposed project area. The remaining 10 nests were located within the 

31 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer around the proposed project area and were identified either as inactive 

32 ferruginous hawk nests or as historical ferruginous hawk nest locations that are no longer there 

33 (i.e., gone) (AUC, 2012a). BLM reported the condition of these 10 nests as follows: good (1), 

34 fair (3), poor (2), remnants (2), gone (2) (BLM, 2014). The active red-tailed hawk nest, located 

35 in a cottonwood tree adjacent to Highway 387, produced two fledglings in 2008, had an 

36 unknown status in 2009, was gone in 2010, and was active (rebuilt) in 2011 with no young 

37 hatched or fledged (AUC, 2012a). The NRC staff’s review of the most recently available BLM 

38 data indicates that this same nest was active in 2012 and 2013 and was occupied by a 

39 Swainson’s hawk in 2013 (draft SEIS Figure 3-25). 

40 The locations of raptor nest sites within the proposed project area and the 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer 

41 around the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-26. Raptor 

42 SGCN that are known to occur within Campbell County are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-15. 

 
3-69 

Table 3-15. Wildlife Species of Concern in Campbell County and Within the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area 

Common Name 

Scientific Name

FWS Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Priority Level* 

and Birds of 

Management 

Concern (MC) 

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species 

2010 

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need†

Observed Within 

the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project Area 

Plants 

Ute ladies’-tresses orchid 

Spiranthes diluvialis X 

Mammals 

black-tailed prairie dog 

Cynomys ludovicianus X Not listed 

big brown bat 

Eptesicus fuscus NSS4 (Cb) II 

Eastern red bat 

Lasiurus borealis NSSU (U) II 

hispid pocket mouse 

Chaetodipus hispidus NSS3 (Bb) II 

little brown myotis 

Myotis lucifugus NSS4 (Cb) II 

Northern long-eared bat 

Myotis septentrionalis X NSS3 (Bb) II 

olive-backed pocket mouse 

Perognathus fasciatus NSS4 (Cb) II 

plains harvest mouse 

Reithrodontomys montanus NSS3 (Bb) II 

plains pocket gopher 

Geomys bursarius NSS3 (Bb) II 

dwarf shrew 

Sorex nanus NSS3 (Bb) II 

Hispid pocket mouse 

Chaetodipus hispidus NSS3 (Bb) II 

Long-eared myotis 

Myotis evotis NSS3 (Bb) II 

Long-legged myotis 

Myotis volans NSS3 (Bb) II 

Northern river otter 

Lontra canadensis NSSU (U) II 

plains pocket mouse 

Perognathus flavescens NSS3 (Bb) III 

Plains pocket gopher 

Geomys bursarius NSS3 (Bb) II 

silky pocket mouse 

Perognathus flavus NSS3 (Bb) II 

swift fox 

Vulpes velox X NSS4 (Cb) II 

 
3-70 

Table 3-15. Wildlife Species of Concern in Campbell County and Within the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area (Continued)

Common Name 

Scientific Name

FWS Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Priority Level* 

and Birds of 

Management 

Concern (MC)

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

2010 

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need† 

Observed Within 

the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project Area

Townsend's big-eared bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii NSS2 (Ba) I 

Vagrant Shrew 

Sorex vagrans NSS4 (Cb) III 

Western small-footed 

myotis 

Myotis ciliolabrum

 NSS4 (Cb) II 

Birds 

Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

American Bittern 

Botaurus lentiginosus Level I; MC NSS3 (Bb) II 

Barrow's goldeneye 

Bucephala islandica NSS3 (Bb) II 

Black Tern 

Chlidonias niger NSS3 (Bb) II 

Canvasback 

Aythya valisineria MC NSS3 (Bb) II 

Clark's Grebe 

Aechmophorus clarkii NSSU (U) II 

Common Loon 

Gavia immer NSS1 (Aa) I 

Forster's Tern 

Sterna forster NSS3 (Bb) II 

Franklin's Gull 

Larus pipixcan NSS3 (Bb) II 

Lesser Scaup 

Aythya affinis MC NSS3 (Bb) II 

long-billed curlew 

Numenius americanus Level I; MC X NSS3 (Bb) II 

Northern pintail 

Anas acuta MC NSS3 (Bb) II X 

Redhead 

Aythya americana MC NSS3 (Bb) II 

Greater sandhill crane 

Grus canadensis tabida MC NSS4 (Bc) III 

Virginia rail 

Rallus limicola MC NSS3 (Bb) II 

willow flycatcher 

Empidonax traillii MC NSS4 (Cb) III 

White-faced Ibis 

Plegadis chihi NSS3 (Bb) II 
3-71 

Table 3-15. Wildlife Species of Concern in Campbell County and Within the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area (Continued)

Common Name 

Scientific Name

FWS Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Priority Level* 

and Birds of 

Management 

Concern (MC)

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

2010 

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need† 

Observed Within 

the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project Area

Raptors 

burrowing owl 

Athene cunicularia Level I; MC X NSSU (U) I 

ferruginous hawk 

Buteo regalis Level I; MC X NSSU (U) I X 

Merlin 

Falco columbarius Level I NSSU (U) III 

Peregrine Falcon 

Falco peregrinus Level I; MC X NSS3 (Bb) II 

Bald Eagle 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Level I; MC X NSS2 (Ba) I 

short-eared owl 

Asio flammeus Level I; MC NSS4 (Bc) II 

Swainson's hawk 

Buteo swainsoni Level I; MC X NSSU (U) II X 

Upland Game Birds 

Greater sage-grouse 

Centrocercus urophasianus X NSS2 (Ba) I 

Nongame and Migratory Birds 

bobolink 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus NSS4 (Bc) II 

Brewer's sparrow 

Spizella breweri Level I; MC X NSS4 (Bc) II X 

Black Rosy-Finch

Leucosticte atrata Level III; MC NSSU (U) II 

mountain plover 

Charadrius montanus Level I; MC X NSSU (U) I 

chestnut-collared longspur 

Calcarius ornatus Level II; MC NSS4 (Bc) II 

dickcissel 

Spiza americana Level II; MC NSS4 (Bc) II 

grasshopper sparrow 

Ammodramus savannarum Level II; MC NSS4 (Bc) II 

Lewis's woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis Level II; MC NSSU (U) II 

McCown's longspur 

Calcarius mccownii Level I; MC NSS4 (Bc) II X 

Northern Goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis NSSU (U) I 

Pygmy Nuthatch 

Sitta pygmaea NSSU (U) II 
3-72 

Table 3-15. Wildlife Species of Concern in Campbell County and Within the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area (Continued)

Common Name 

Scientific Name

FWS Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Priority Level* 

and Birds of 

Management 

Concern (MC)

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

2010 

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need† 

Observed Within 

the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project Area

sage sparrow 

Amphispiza belli Level I; MC X NSS4 (Bc) II 

sage thrasher 

Oreoscoptes montanus Level II; MC X NSS4 (Bc) II X 

upland sandpiper 

Bartramia longicauda Level I; MC NSSU (U) II 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Great Plains toad 

Anaxyrus cognatus NSSU (U) III 

Northern leopard frog 

Lithobates pipiens X NSSU (U) III 

plains spadefoot 

Spea bombifrons NSSU (U) III 

Greater short-horned lizard 

Phrynosoma hernandesi NSS4 (Bc) III 

pale milk snake 

Lampropeltis triangulum 

multistriata

 NSS3 (Bb) II 

red-sided garter snake 

Thamnophis sirtalis 

parietalis 

 NSSU (U) II 

plains garter snake 

Thamnophis radix NSSU (U) II 

plains hog-nosed snake 

Heterodon nasicus NSSU (U) II 

Western painted turtle 

Chrysemys picta bellii NSS4 (Bc) III 

Western spiny softshell 

Apalone spinifera hartwegi NSS4 (Bc) III 
3-73 

Table 3-15. Wildlife Species of Concern in Campbell County and Within the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area (Continued)

Common Name 

Scientific Name

FWS Birds of 

Conservation 

Concern 

Priority Level* 

and Birds of 

Management 

Concern (MC)

BLM 

Sensitive 

Species

2010 

Wyoming 

Species of 

Greatest 

Conservation 

Need† 

Observed Within 

the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project Area

Bold names are FWS candidate, proposed, or listed species or FWS Species of Concern 

Sources: WGFD, 2010a; BLM, 2010; FWS, 2008a, 2011 

* FWS Conservation Priority Levels 

Level I (Conservation Action): species clearly needs conservation action. 

Level II (Monitoring): The action and focus for the species is monitoring. Declining population trend and habitat loss 

are not significant at this point. 

†WGFD Status 

 NSS=Native species status 

NSS1=Aa 

NSS2=Ab, Ba, 

NSS3= Bb 

NSS4=Bc, Cb 

NSSU=Unknown: necessary information for classification is lacking 

A=Population size or distribution is restricted or declining, and extirpation is possible 

a=Limiting factors are severe and continue to increase in severity 

B=Population size or distribution is restricted or declining but extirpation is not imminent 

b=Limiting factors are severe and not increasing significantly 

C=Population size and distribution is stable, and the species is widely distributed 

c=Limiting factors are moderate and appear likely to increase in severity 

U=Unknown 

I=Highest priority 

II=Moderate priority 

III=Lowest priority

1 Upland Game Birds 

2 Gray partridge (Perdix perdix), Greater sage-grouse, and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) 

3 are upland game birds that occur at the proposed project area and 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer (NRC, 

4 2009; USGS, 2015). Both mourning dove and Greater sage-grouse were observed during 

5 baseline surveys. Within the proposed project area and 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer, the grey partridge 

6 would most likely inhabit open grasslands (BLM, 2013). Three occupied Greater sage-grouse 

7 leks (160 Acre, Porcupine Creek, and Spring Creek) are located between the 1.6-km [1-mi] 

8 buffer area and 6.4 km [4 mi] east and southeast of the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a; 

9 BLM, 2013)(draft SEIS Figure 3-26). One female Greater sage-grouse was observed within the 

10 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer around of the proposed project area during the applicant’s wildlife surveys 

11 (AUC, 2012a). The NRC staff requested the most recent available WGFD and BLM 

12 sage-grouse survey data in and within 6.4 km [4 mi] of the proposed project area (WGFD, 2015, 

13 BLM, 2014). Males and females were observed during the spring at the Porcupine Creek lek 

14 between 2011 and 2015 (WGFD, 2015; BLM, 2014). No sage-grouse were observed during the 

15 spring at the 160 Acre lek in 2010, 2011, 2013, or 2014; however, males were observed in 

16 April 2015 (WGFD, 2015; BLM, 2014). No sage-grouse were observed at the Spring Creek lek 

17 in 2010, 2011, or 2013, but males and females were observed at the lek in April 2014 and 2015 

18 (WGFD, 2015; BLM, 2014). All three leks are considered occupied because a male has been 

19 observed at each of the three leks at least once in the last 10 years (BLM, 2005, 2014). As 

20 stated in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.1, the proposed project area and 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer 
3-74 

1 contains sage-grouse nesting and winter habitat, but the proposed project area is not located in 

2 a sage-grouse core population or connectivity area. The sage-grouse leks located between the 

3 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer area and a distance of 6.4 km [4 mi] from the proposed project area are 

4 shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-26. Greater sage-grouse are further discussed in draft SEIS 

5 Section 3.6.3. 

6 Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

7 The proposed project area lies within the Central flyway, which is one of several major migratory 

8 bird flyways in North America, and a major migration route for waterfowl. Nine avian species 

9 associated with wetlands or riparian habitat areas were observed within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the 

10 proposed project area, primarily within ponds and reservoirs along the Belle Fourche River and 

11 Spring Creek (AUC, 2012a). 

12 Because all of the streams within the proposed project area are ephemeral, limited habitat 

13 (i.e., waterbodies, wetland, streams) exists within the proposed project area for waterfowl and 

14 shorebirds. Therefore, year-round residence is rare for species present during the spring 

15 migration period. Based on the wetland survey results presented in draft SEIS Section 3.5.1.4, 

16 the proposed project activities may affect a total of 1.6 ha [3.94 ac] of wetland channels, isolated 

17 ponds, isolated depressions, and open water within the proposed project area (AUC, 2014). 

18 The Northern pintail was observed during the applicant’s baseline wildlife surveys and is a 

19 Wyoming SGCN (see draft SEIS Tables 3-14 and 3-15) that prefers to breed in shallow 

20 ephemeral to semi-permanent wetlands with emergent vegetation and into uplands with low 

21 cover interspersed throughout prairie grasslands (WGFD, 2010a). Pintails often nest during the 

22 spring in crop stubble left from the prior fall harvest (WGFD, 2010a). Waterfowl and shorebirds 

23 SGCN that occur within Campbell County are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-15. 

24 Nongame and Migratory Birds 

25 Thirteen avian species associated with grasslands and shrub-steppe habitats were also 

26 observed within the proposed project area and 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer (AUC, 2012a) (draft SEIS 

27 Table 3-14). Surveys specifically to search for breeding birds were not conducted for the 

28 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, but during baseline wildlife surveys, any observations of 

29 breeding birds were recorded. Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), lark bunting (Calamospiza 

30 melanocorys), and vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) were observed during baseline 

31 wildlife surveys and assumed to be breeding within the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). 

32 Nongame and migratory birds SGCN that occur within Campbell County are listed in draft SEIS 

33 Table 3-15. 

34 3.6.1.2.4 Reptiles and Amphibians 

35 Milk snake (Lampropeltis triangulum), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis viridis), plains 

36 hog-nosed snake (Heterodon nasicus), common sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosas), 

37 Greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassi), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), snapping 

38 turtle (Chelydra serpentina), western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), chorus frogs (Pseudacris 

39 triseriata and Pseudacris maculata), plains spadefoot (Scaphiopus bombifrons), and western 

40 spiny softshell turtle (Trionyx spiniferus) are some of the reptiles and amphibians that could 

41 potentially be present in the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a; USGS, 2015; WGFD, 2010a). 

42 A single short-horned lizard was the only reptile observed during the applicant’s baseline wildlife 

43 surveys. The boreal chorus frog, a semiaquatic amphibian species, was the only amphibian 

44 reported—it was heard calling in several of the reservoirs throughout the proposed project area 
3-75 

1 and was observed in sagebrush-grassland uplands (AUC, 2012a). Although surveys targeting 

2 reptiles and amphibians were not conducted, there is suitable habitat at the proposed 

3 Reno Creek ISR Project area to support a variety of reptiles and amphibians, including CBM 

4 discharge reservoirs, scattered stock ponds, riparian areas, wetlands, and rocky outcrops. 

5 Reptile and amphibian SGCN that occur within Campbell County are listed in draft SEIS 

6 Table 3-15. 

7 3.6.2 Aquatic Species 

8 Water is a limiting factor for wildlife in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area due to the 

9 ephemeral nature of the surface waters within the proposed project area. GEIS Table 3.4-4 lists 

10 the state-designated uses of the Upper Belle Fourche River and tributaries as fisheries, fish and 

11 wildlife propagation, recreation, agriculture, and aesthetics, indicating that the water is 

12 acceptable for fishing, boating, swimming, agricultural irrigation, and growth of aquatic life. As 

13 stated in draft SEIS Section 3.5.1.1, all drainage channels within the proposed project area are 

14 ephemeral in nature, flowing for short durations in response to snowmelt or precipitation events. 

15 The lack of sufficient deep-water habitat and perennial water sources decreases the potential 

16 for many aquatic species to exist. CBM discharge reservoirs and scattered stock ponds in the 

17 area do not provide adequate deep water habitat for fish. In addition, wetlands and ponds found 

18 in the proposed project area are seasonal in nature and do not provided a year-round source of 

19 surface water sufficient to maintain a population of aquatic species. Wetlands are further 

20 discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.5.1.4. 

21 3.6.3 Protected Species and Species of Concern 

22 Federal agencies have an obligation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to 

23 determine whether a proposed project may affect federally-listed species. For completeness, 

24 this section provides detailed descriptions of federally listed or candidate species under the ESA 

25 as well as FWS species of concern that may occur within the proposed project area and in 

26 Campbell County (FWS, 2015a,b, 2016a). Six such species were identified, which are 

27 discussed next. The FWS identified no other federally threatened or endangered species, 

28 candidate species, or proposed species that are known to potentially occur in Campbell County 

29 or may be affected by the proposed project (2015b, 2016a). Although the greater sage-grouse 

30 (Centrocerus Urophasianus) is not a federally listed or candidate species under the ESA or a 

31 FWS species of concern, this species is included in this section because of a recent FWS to 

32 remove the species as a candidate species list and the multi-state efforts to conserve this 

33 species in the Western United States. 

34 Draft SEIS Table 3-15 presents federally listed species under the ESA that occur in Campbell 

35 County and state SGCN that occur in Campbell County, as provided in the 2010 Wyoming State 

36 Wildlife Action Plan (WGFD, 2010a). Table 3-15 also identifies BLM sensitive species, FWS 

37 birds of conservation concern, and FWS migratory birds of management concern. Not all 

38 species of concern or federal candidate species are afforded the same protections as those 

39 species federally listed under the ESA. Candidate species are plants and animals that are 

40 proposed for listing under the ESA Section 4. All migratory birds, their feathers and body parts, 

41 nests, eggs, and nestling birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

42 With a few exceptions, all bird species that are native to the United States are protected by the 

43 MBTA. Eagles are additionally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

44 (BGEPA) (FWS, 2015b). 
3-76 

1 Ute Ladies’-Tresses 

2 The FWS identified one federally threatened plant species or its designated habitat, Ute 

3 ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) that may occur in the proposed project area (FWS, 2015b, 

4 2016a). However, this species has not been reported within the proposed project area (Heidel, 

5 2012). The Ute ladies’-tresses orchid is federally listed as threatened (57 FR 2048). The 

6 species is a perennial, terrestrial orchid that occurs in Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, 

7 Idaho, Montana, and Washington. Within Wyoming, it inhabits early stages of riparian habitats 

8 along moist stream beds, edges of stream channels, and meadows with moderately dense but 

9 short vegetative cover. The species is found at elevations of 1,280 to 2,130 m [4,200 to 

10 7,000 ft], though no known populations occur in Wyoming above 1,680 m [5,500 ft] (FWS, 

11 2008b). Generally, this orchid is found in low densities of four to eight flowering plants per 

12 square meter (Fertig, 2000). The species is likely to inhabit silt, sand, or gravely soils in areas 

13 with ample sunlight (FWS, 2008b). It is characterized by 12- to 50-cm [4.7- to 20-in] stems with 

14 linear basal leaves up to 28 cm [11 in] long and spikes of small white to ivory flowers that bloom 

15 between early August and early September (Fertig, 2000). Urbanization, livestock grazing, 

16 pesticide use, competition with noxious weeds, and loss of pollinators threaten this species’ 

17 survival (Fertig, 2000). Although undocumented populations are predicted to be present in 

18 southern Campbell County (BLM, 2015), this species has not been observed in Campbell 

19 County (BLM, 2007; Heidel, 2012), and was not observed during baseline vegetation surveys in 

20 the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). 

21 Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB) 

22 The FWS identified one federally threatened mammal species, the northern long-eared bat 

23 (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis), that may occur in the proposed project area (FWS, 2015b, 

24 2016b,c). However, this species is not known to occur within the proposed project area 

25 (WGFD, 2010a). The NLEB is federally listed as threatened (80 FR 17974). The FWS has not 

26 designated or proposed critical habitat for the NLEB (FWS, 2016b). This species is also a 

27 Wyoming SGCN (WGFD, 2010a). This medium-sized bat is found throughout eastern and 

28 central North America, and its range extends into the eastern-most counties of Wyoming 

29 (Campbell, Crook, Weston, Niobrara, and Goshen Counties) where it has been more rarely 

30 encountered (FWS, 2016c, 2015d; BLM, 2015); however, the area of influence where projects 

31 may cause direct and indirect effects to the species extends into Campbell County (FWS, 

32 2016d). The greatest threat to NLEB is white-nose syndrome, a disease caused by a fungus 

33 that has and will continue to affect the species population where the disease is present (FWS, 

34 2016b). However, the State of Wyoming and the proposed project area are located outside of 

35 the zone where white-nose syndrome occurs (FWS, 2016b). NLEBs emerge at dusk to fly 

36 through the understory of forested hillsides and ridges, feeding on flying insects they catch 

37 either while in flight or by picking them off of plants and water surfaces (FWS, 2016b). NLEBs 

38 have been documented using entrances or internal passages of caves, mines, railroad tunnels, 

39 or other entrances to underground voids as winter hibernation habitat. During summer 

40 (mid-May through mid-August), NLEBs roost singly or in colonies in cavities, underneath bark, in 

41 crevices, or in hollows of both live and dead trees and/or snags (FWS, 2016b). A wide variety 

42 of forested/wooded area provides habitats where they roost, forage, and travel. NLEB habitat 

43 may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats, such as emergent 

44 wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures, as well as linear 

45 features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. Breeding occurs in 

46 late summer and fall (August to November) when bats swarm at entrances of winter hibernation 

47 areas, which also are typically located in large underground openings where they spend the rest 

48 of the winter (FWS, 2016b). As explained in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.1, Russian olive and 
3-77 

1 plains cottonwood trees are present in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area just north of 

2 Highway 387 near the southeastern project boundary (draft SEIS Figure 3-25) and could also 

3 serve as potential habitat for the NLEB. 

4 Sprague’s Pipit 

5 The FWS (2015b) indicated that Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii), a federal candidate species, 

6 may be affected by the proposed project due to the species’ historical breeding range in 

7 extreme north central and northwest Wyoming (FWS, 2014). The Sprague’s pipit is a small bird 

8 that nests, breeds, and spends the winter in open grasslands of the United States (FWS, 2014). 

9 The birds breed in northern states and Canada and spends the winter in the southern states 

10 and Mexico (FWS, 2014). Sprague’s pipit primarily eats insects, spiders, and some seeds 

11 (FWS, 2014). Because of its preference to breed in continuous, open grassland ranging from 

12 69 to 314 ha [170 to 776 ac] or more in size that has not been cultivated, habitat loss, 

13 conversion, and fragmentation threaten the continued existence of this species (FWS, 2014). 

14 Sprague’s pipits’ historical breeding range is reported to include some small areas in extreme 

15 north central and northwest Wyoming (FWS, 2014). However, this species was not observed 

16 during baseline wildlife surveys conducted in 2008, 2010, and 2011 (see Section 3.6.1.2) 

17 (AUC, 2012a), and is considered a ‘rare migrant’ in Wyoming (FWS, 2010). 

18 Greater Sage-Grouse 

19 Greater sage-grouse reside in sagebrush shrubland habitats; sagebrush is essential in every 

20 phase of the life cycle of this species. Breeding habitat, referred to as leks, and stands of 

21 sagebrush surrounding leks are used in early spring; they are particularly important habitat 

22 because nesting birds often return to the same leks and nesting areas each year. Leks are 

23 common in more sparsely vegetated areas, such as ridgelines and disturbed areas adjacent to 

24 stands of sagebrush. Threats to the survival of this species include loss of habitat, agricultural 

25 practices, livestock grazing, hunting, and land disturbances related to energy/mineral 

26 development and the oil and gas industry (Sage-Grouse Working Group, 2006). Three 

27 occupied sage-grouse leks are located between the 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer around the proposed 

28 project area and 6.4 km [4 mi] east and southeast of the proposed project area (draft SEIS 

29 Figure 3-26). 

30 The species was put on the federal list of candidate species in 2010 (75 FR 13909), and was 

31 removed as a candidate species in 2015 (80 FR 59858). The FWS decision was due, in part, to 

32 the conservation efforts implemented by federal, state, and private landowners (80 FR 59858). 

33 The State of Wyoming Governor has established impact thresholds and has issued guidance 

34 and recommendations in an executive order for Greater sage-grouse management on private 

35 and public lands to limit project impacts (Mead, 2015). The governor’s executive order 

36 establishes core population areas, where 83-percent of the sage-grouse population is 

37 concentrated, and connectivity corridors, where sage-grouse travel between population areas. 

38 Projects located within core population areas and connectivity corridors, and project activities 

39 located within 3.2 km [2 mi] of an occupied lek outside core population areas, are expected to 

40 follow the executive order recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts. As previously 

41 stated in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.1, the proposed project area is not located in a sage-grouse 

42 core population area or connectivity corridor; however, proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

43 activities are within 3.2 km [2 mi] of an occupied lek (Porcupine Creek lek) and are therefore 

44 subject to recommendations in the executive order. 
3-78 

1 Bald Eagle 

2 The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted from the federal list of Endangered and 

3 Threatened Wildlife in July 2007 (72 FR 37346) but remains an FWS species of concern (FWS, 

4 2015a). No bald eagles or nests were observed during the baseline wildlife surveys conducted 

5 in 2008, 2010, and 2011 (AUC, 2012a) as described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2. BLM’s 

6 approved Resource Management Plan identifies the nearest bald eagle nest at more than 

7 14.5 km [9 mi] from the proposed project area east of Highway 59 (BLM, 2015). The nearest 

8 bald eagle roost is located more than 14.5 km [9 mi] northwest from the proposed Reno Creek 

9 ISR Project area (BLM, 2015). 

10 The species continues to be protected federally by the BGEPA as well as the MBTA, and at the 

11 state level as a species of concern. FWS published its National Bald Eagle Management 

12 Guidelines in FWS (2007) to ensure the continued protection of the species. The bald eagle is 

13 a large raptor species with a white head and tail and brown body feathers and is generally 

14 associated with lakes and other large, open bodies of water. Bald eagles prey on fish, small 

15 mammals, birds, and occasionally carcasses of dead animals.

16 Black-Tailed Prairie Dog 

17 The black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) is an FWS species of concern 

18 (73 FR 73211). The species is a small, diurnal (active during the day) ground squirrel that is 

19 endemic to North America and occurs throughout the Great Plains region. In Wyoming, the 

20 black-tailed prairie dog inhabits dry, flat, open, short, and mixed-grass prairie within the eastern 

21 third of the state (WGFD, 2005b). Adults weigh 0.5 to 1.4 kg [1 to 3 lb] and are 36 to 43 cm 

22 [14 to 17 in] long. Coloring can vary from a mixture of brown, black, grey, and white, though the 

23 black-tipped tail is characteristic of the species. Black-tailed prairie dogs live in family groups 

24 within large colonies (FWS, 2000). The black-tailed prairie dog provides habitat for several 

25 burrowing animals, including the black-footed ferret, swift fox, burrowing owl (Athene 

26 cunicularia), and mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). Prairie dogs are also a food 

27 source for carnivores, including black-footed ferrets, ferruginous hawks, and golden eagles 

28 (WGFD, 2010a). 

29 As stated in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.1, prairie dog colonies are located between 0.8 and 

30 4.8 km [1 and 3 mi] away from the proposed project area (BLM, 2015), but were not observed 

31 within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (AUC, 2012a). Although the black-tailed 

32 prairie dog provides habitat for the federal listed species such as the black-tailed ferret, no 

33 critical habitat for threatened or endangered species was encountered in the proposed 

34 Reno Creek ISR Project area during baseline wildlife surveys (AUC, 2012a). Within the State of 

35 Wyoming, the major threat to this species is habitat degradation, habitat loss, and the use of 

36 pesticides (WGFD, 2005b). 

37 Mountain Plover 

38 The mountain plover is a FWS species of concern (76 FR 27756) and a Wyoming SGCN 

39 (WGFD, 2010a). This bird is a native of the short-grass prairie and is found in open, dry 

40 shrublands or agricultural fields with short vegetation and bare ground. Mountain plover 

41 breeding habitat includes the western Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states extending from 

42 the Canadian border to northern Mexico (76 FR 27756). The prime breeding and nesting period 

for the mountain plover is from April 10th through July 10th 43 (BLM, 2007). In Wyoming, the 

44 greatest concentration of mountain plovers is found in the south central part of the state, but 
3-79 

1 they can be found in every county (WGFD, 2010a). Prairie dog burrows and those of other 

2 burrowing animals provide highly suitable habitat for the mountain plover. The mountain plover 

3 is often found in areas with heavy grazing and flat landscapes with excessive surface 

4 disturbance (WGFD, 2010a). This species is a small bird about 21 cm [8 in] in height with light 

5 brown and white coloring (76 FR 27756). This species was not observed during the proposed 

6 Reno Creek ISR Project area baseline wildlife surveys, which were conducted on June 4 

7 and 16, 2010, and May 2 and 16, and June 3, 2011 (AUC, 2012a). BLM’s proposed Resource 

8 Management Plan indicates that the closest mountain plover nest is located approximately 4 km 

9 [2.5 mi] east of the proposed project area (BLM, 2015).

10 3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality 

11 3.7.1 Meteorology and Climatology 

12 The proposed project area is located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, as defined in 

13 the GEIS (NRC, 2009). As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.1, Wyoming’s elevation results in 

14 relatively cool temperatures. Much of the temperature variation within the state can be 

15 attributed to elevation differences, with average values dropping 1 to 2 °C [1.8 to 3.6 °F] per 

16 300 m [1,000 ft] (NRC, 2009). The region’s semiarid or steppe climate is characterized 

17 seasonally by cold harsh winters, hot dry summers, relatively warm moist springs, and cool 

18 autumns. Summer nights are normally cool, although daytime temperatures may be quite high. 

19 The fall, winter, and spring can experience rapid changes with frequent variations from cold to 

20 mild periods. Freezes in early and late spring are typical and result in long winters and short 

21 growing seasons. In addition, mountains and high valleys can freeze during the summertime. 

22 During warm winter spells, nighttime temperatures can remain above freezing. Valleys 

23 protected from the wind by mountain ranges can provide pockets for cold air to settle. As a 

24 result, temperatures in the valley can be considerably lower than temperatures on the nearby 

25 mountainsides. Mountain ranges are generally oriented in a north-south direction, which is 

26 perpendicular to the prevailing westerlies. Therefore, the mountains often act as a moisture 

27 barrier. Air currents from the Pacific Ocean rise and drop much of their moisture along the 

28 western slopes of these mountains (known as the rain shadow effect). 

29 The applicant established a weather station near the northeast corner of the proposed project 

30 area in October 2010. Information collected at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

31 meteorological station includes ambient temperature, wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, 

32 and pan evaporation. Although this meteorological station continues to collect hourly data, the 

33 baseline annual monitoring period (i.e., the baseline year) ran from October 6, 2010, to 

34 October 3, 2011. Onsite data were supplemented with data from a meteorological station at the 

35 Antelope Coal Mine to provide a historical perspective (e.g., to compare the 1 year of onsite 

36 meteorological data to representative data reflecting long-term conditions over several years). 

37 The Antelope Mine station, located about 32.2 km [20 mi] southeast of the proposed Reno 

38 Creek ISR Project area and operated by Inter-Mountain Laboratories, started collecting hourly 

39 meteorological data in 1986. 

40 Although not a National Weather Service meteorological station, the Antelope Mine station 

41 operates in compliance with WDEQ regulations for air quality monitoring. Data collection at this 

42 station also complies with EPA’s OnSite Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory 

43 Modeling Applications. As seen in draft SEIS Figure 3-26, the Antelope Mine is the closest 

44 active station to the proposed project area since the Reno National Weather Station stopped 

45 collecting data in 1983. In addition to proximity, the Antelope Mine site topography and 

46 elevation are similar to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. As seen in draft SEIS 
3-80 

1 Figure 3-26, the closest active National Weather Station is Dull Center, which is located about 

2 64.4 km [40 mi] southeast of the proposed project area. However, this station does not collect 

3 wind speed or direction data. The nearest National Weather Station that collects wind direction 

4 and speed data is Gillette AP, located about 64.4 km [40 mi] north of the proposed project area. 

5 Other stations near the proposed project area that collect wind speed and direction data include 

6 the Casper AP National Weather Station located about 96.6 km [60 mi] to the southwest and the 

7 Glenrock Coal Company station located about 64.4 km [40 mi] to the south. 

8 3.7.1.1 Temperature 

9 As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.1, temperatures fluctuate greatly throughout the year in this 

10 region. Draft SEIS Table 3-16 contains both the onsite data and the Antelope Mine station data. 

11 The annual mean temperature from the data collected at the onsite station for the baseline year 

12 is 6.78 °C [44.2 °F] (AUC, 2012a). July recorded the highest average mean daily temperature 

13 at 22.3 °C [72.2 °F], and February recorded the lowest average mean daily temperature at 

14 −6.61 °C [20.1 °F] (AUC, 2012a). Generally, the data in draft SEIS Table 3-16 show that the 

15 proposed project area experiences lower mean daily temperatures, relative to the Antelope 

16 Mine data, over the 25-year period from 1986 to 2011. However, the onsite data compare 

17 favorably and fall within the historical range of the Antelope Mine station data. The region’s 

18 altitude and low humidity contribute to the large diurnal temperature variations, which typically 

19 range from about an 8.3 °C [15 °F] difference during the cooler portions of the year to about a 

20 13.9 °C [25 °F] difference during the summer (AUC, 2012a). Data from the proposed project 

21 area show similar diurnal temperature variations. Diurnal variations during the winter are 

22 approximately 6.1 °C [11 ° F] and summertime differences are approximately 15 °C [27 °F] 

23 (AUC, 2012a). 

24 3.7.1.2 Wind 

25 As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.1, windy conditions are common within the proposed project 

26 area. Data collected at the onsite station during the baseline year showed that the average 

27 annual wind speed was 21.7 km per hour (kph) [13.5 mi per hour (mph)] (AUC, 2012a). 

28 February produced the highest average monthly wind speed at about 25.7 kph [16 mph], and 

29 September recorded the lowest average monthly wind speed—slightly above 16.1 kph [10 mph] 

30 (AUC, 2012a). The average monthly wind speeds at the Antelope Mine station over that same 

31 year were about 3.22 kph [2 mph] lower than those at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

32 meteorological station, but followed the same pattern as those recorded at the onsite station. 

33 The average annual wind speed for the Antelope Mine station over the 25-year period from 

34 1986 to 2011 was 17.5 kph [10.9 mph] (AUC, 2012a). The differences between the wind 

35 speeds at the two locations can be attributed to the slightly higher elevation and greater 

36 exposure of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project meteorological station {1,548 m [5,080 ft]}, 

37 relative to the Antelope Mine station 1,425 m [4,675 ft] (AUC, 2012a). 

38 Draft SEIS Figure 3-27 shows the annual wind rose generated from the onsite data for the 

39 baseline year. Winds are predominately from the west-southwest and southwest. In the spring 

40 and summer, winds are also common from the northwest, north-northwest, and southeast. 

41 Draft SEIS Figure 3-28 shows the wind rose from the Antelope Mine station for both the 

42 baseline year and the 25-year period from 1986 to 2011. The wind speeds and directions are 

43 very similar for the 25-year and 1-year monitoring periods. Winds at the Antelope Mine station 

44 follow a similar pattern to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project meteorological station, although 

45 the dominant winds are shifted slightly to the westerly and west-southwesterly directions. 
3-81 

Table 3-16. Onsite and Regional Temperature Information* in Degrees Celsius† 

Month Mean Daily Temperature 

Mean Daily 

Minimum 

Temperature 

Mean Daily 

Maximum 

Temperature 

Onsite Antelope Coal Antelope Coal Antelope Coal 

January −5.28 −3.78 −8.94 1.94 

February −6.61 −3.39 −8.28 2.83 

March 1.28 0.833 −4.28 7.72 

April 3.61 6.33 0.111 12.3 

May 7.33 11.8 5.33 17.5 

June 15.3 17.3 10.4 23.8 

July 22.3 23.2 14.4 29.2 

August 21.9 21.3 13.7 28.6 

September 15.9 15.2 7.50 22.4 

October 9.94 6.83 1.00 14.4 

November −0.944 1.94 −4.28 6.89 

December −3.39 −4.28 −9.06 1.83 

Annual 6.78 7.78 1.44 14.1 

Source: Modified from AUC (2012a) 

*Onsite values were collected over a single year, whereas Antelope Coal values were collected over a 

25-year period. 

†To convert Celsius (°C) to Fahrenheit (°F), multiply by 1.8 and add 32.

1 3.7.1.3 Precipitation 

2 As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.1, the proposed project area is located within a semiarid 

3 region (NRC, 2009). Data collected at the onsite station show that the average annual 

4 precipitation is 34.0 cm [13.4 in] (AUC, 2012a). Onsite data indicate that the wettest month by 

5 far was May, with over 12.7 cm [5 in] of rain. With the exception of May and June, all other 

6 months recorded less than 2.54 cm [1 in]. Historical data from the Antelope Mine station over a 

7 25-year time period, as well as the baseline-monitoring year, followed this same pattern, with 

8 peak rainfall at about 12.7 cm [5 in] in May and most other months below 2.54 cm [1 in] 

9 (AUC, 2012a). Nearby National Weather Service sites were used for snowfall analysis because 

10 neither the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project meteorological station nor the Antelope Mine 

11 station records snowfall data. The project region as a whole averages about 12.2 m [40 ft] 

12 of snow annually, with a range that varies between about 9.14 and 23.8 m [30 and 78 ft] 

13 (AUC, 2012a), depending on location. 

14 3.7.1.4 Storm Events 

15 For the location of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, severe weather events mostly 

16 comprise either hail or damaging winds with an occasional tornado (AUC, 2012a). This draft 

17 SEIS section describes the occurrence of storm events over a 14-year period from 2000 to 

18 2013, as documented in the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events Database. 

19 Campbell County experienced 248 hail storms over the 14-year period; property damage was 

20 reported for only 16 of these hail storms (NCDC, 2014a). The National Climate Data Storm 

21 Events Database records events where the hail size is at least 1.9 cm [0.75 in] in diameter. 

22 This database reports two types of wind events for Campbell County: high winds and 

23 thunderstorm winds. High winds are defined as sustained nonconvective winds of 64.4 kph 
3-82 

Figure 3-27. Meteorological Stations in the Vicinity of the Proposed Reno Creek 

ISR Project (AUC, 2014a) 
3-83 

Figure 3-28. Baseline Year Wind Rose at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

(AUC, 2014a) 

1 [40 mph] or greater lasting for 1 hour or longer or winds (sustained or gusts) of 93.3 kph 

2 [58 mph] for any duration on a widespread or localized basis. Thunderstorm winds are defined 

3 as winds arising from convection (occurring within 30 minutes of lightning being observed or 

4 detected) with speeds of at least 93.3 kph [58 mph] or winds of any speed {non-severe 

5 thunderstorm winds below 93.3 kph [58 mph]} producing a fatality, injury, or damage. 

6 From 2000 to 2013, Campbell County experienced 47 high wind events (NCDC, 2014b) and 

7 150 thunderstorm wind events (NCDC, 2014c). Tornadoes occur in Campbell County, but less 

8 frequently than hail or wind storm events. From 2000 to 2013, 21 tornadoes occurred in 

9 Campbell County (NCDC, 2014d). Over this time period, only four tornados exceeded the 

10 specifications for inclusion in the lowest severity category on the Fujita or Enhanced Fujita 

11 Tornado Damage Scale (the Enhanced Fujita scale replaced the old Fujita scale in 2007) 

12 (NCDC, 2014d). An increase in the Fujita Tornado Damage Scale number represents an 

13 increase in tornado severity. Tornadoes with Fujita or Enhanced Fujita values from F2 to F5 are 

14 considered strong to violent. The most severe tornado in Campbell County over this 14-year 

15 period was an F2 in 2005 (NCDC, 2014d). 
3-84 

1 3.7.1.5 Evaporation 

2 As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.1, pan evaporation rates for the Wyoming East Uranium 

3 Milling Region range from about 102 to 127 cm [40 to 50 in] (NRC, 2009). Pan evaporation 

4 rates can be used to estimate the evaporation rates of other bodies of water, such as lakes or 

5 ponds, and are applicable to the backup storage pond the applicant proposes. Pan evaporation 

6 rate data are typically available only from the spring to fall because freezing conditions often 

7 prevent collection of quality data during the remainder of the year. The Reno Creek pan 

8 evaporation gauge operated from April to October 2011. The total pan evaporation measured 

9 121.9 cm [48 in] (AUC, 2012a). This value falls within the expected range identified in 

10 the GEIS. 

11 3.7.2 Air Quality 

12 3.7.2.1 Non-Greenhouse Gases 

13 In 40 CFR Part 50, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, EPA 

14 established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to promote and sustain 

15 healthy living conditions (see GEIS Sections 1.7.2.2 and 3.3.6.2). Primary NAAQS are 

16 established to protect public health, and secondary NAAQS are established to protect welfare 

17 by safeguarding against environmental and property damage. These standards define 

18 acceptable ambient air concentrations for six common air pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

19 ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and particulates (PM10 and 

PM2.5)

1 20 . EPA requires states to monitor ambient air quality and evaluate compliance with 

21 the NAAQS. 

22 Based on the results of these evaluations, EPA assigns areas to various NAAQS compliance 

23 classifications (e.g., attainment or nonattainment) for each of the six criteria air pollutants. 

24 These classifications characterize the air quality within a defined area. These defined areas 

25 range in size from portions of cities to large regions composed of many counties. The proposed 

26 Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in Campbell County, Wyoming, which is classified as 

27 an attainment area for each criteria pollutant (see 40 CFR 81.351). Based on this attainment 

28 classification, the air quality at the proposed project area is considered good. The Taffner 

29 Homestead is located within the proposed project area. However, AUC has acquired the 

30 Taffner Homestead (First American Title, 2015). Therefore, the nearest residence to the 

31 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is about 0.68 km [0.42 mi] northwest (AUC, 2012a). 

32 Along the path of predominant wind direction (draft SEIS Figure 3-27), the nearest residence is 

33 about 2.7 km [1.7 mi] east-northeast of the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). The nearest 

34 nonattainment area is the city of Sheridan, about 164.2 km [102 mi] northwest of the proposed 

35 Reno Creek ISR Project. The only other nonattainment area in Wyoming is the Upper Green 

36 River Basin in Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties, which is more than 321.9 km [200 

37 mi] southwest from the proposed project area. The pollutant of concern in Sheridan is PM10, 

38 whereas the pollutant of concern in the Upper Green River Basin is ozone. 

39 Draft SEIS Table 3-17 contains pollutant concentrations that reflect the existing ambient air 

40 conditions. NAAQS pollutants are not monitored within the proposed project area. The 

41 applicant contacted the WDEQ to obtain recommended ambient air concentrations deemed 

 

1 Particulate matter (PM)10 refers to particles larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in 

diameter, and PM2.5 refers to particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller.
3-85 

Table 3-17. Assumed Ambient Air Quality Conditions for the Proposed Project Area 

Pollutant*

Averaging 

Period Form 

Value†

(μg/m3

)‡

Percent 

NAAQS§ Location 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

1 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

680 1.7 Antelope 

Coal Mine 

8 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

378 3.8 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 

21 11.2 Newcastle 

Annual Annual mean 6 6.0 

Ozone 8 hour Annual fourth highest 

daily maximum 8-hour 

concentration, 

averaged over 3 years 

0.064 91.4 Campbell 

County 

Particulate 

Matter PM2.5

24 hour 98th percentile, 

averaged over 3 years 

8 22.9 Newcastle 

Annual Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years 

3.4 28.3ǁ

Particulate 

Matter PM10

24 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year on average over 

3 years 

40 26.7 Antelope 

Coal Mine 

Annual Annual mean 15 30 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

1 hour 99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 

43.2 21.6 Newcastle 

3 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

124.7 9.6 

24 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

16.3 Not 

applicable 

Annual Annual mean 1.3 Not 

applicable 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014) and WDEQ (2014) 

*Operators do not currently monitor for lead, because of historically low levels in the state. The proposed Reno 

Creek ISR Project is not considered to be a source for airborne lead. 

†Values are WDEQ recommendations provided to the applicant, except for ozone (AUC, 2014c). WDEQ did not 

provide a recommended ozone value. This value was obtained from the closest State of Wyoming Ambient Air 

Monitoring station that analyzed for ozone (WDEQ, 2014b). 

‡To convert μg/m3

 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 × 10-8. 

§NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

ǁ Compared to the 12 μg/m3

 primary standard rather than the 15 μg/m3 secondary standard 

There is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This percentage is calculated against Wyoming’s 

supplemental annual PM10 particulate matter standard of 50 μg/m3

.
3-86 

1 representative of the southern Powder River Basin and that are appropriate for the proposed 

2 project. As noted in draft SEIS Table 3-17, the values provided by the WDEQ are derived from 

3 several monitoring locations in the area. 

4 EPA has revised the NAAQS since the publication of the GEIS. The following information 

5 updates the NAAQS as documented in GEIS Table 3.2-8. NAAQS that are no longer applicable 

6 include the sulfur dioxide 24-hour and annual standards, as well as the ozone 1-hour standard. 

7 New standards include a nitrogen dioxide 1-hour 100 ppb standard and a sulfur dioxide 1-hour 

8 75 ppb standard. Revised standards include an ozone 8-hour 0.070 ppm standard, a PM2.5 

annual 12 μg/m3

 standard, and a rolling 3-month average 0.15 μg/m3 9 lead standard. Draft SEIS 

10 Table 3-18 contains the updated NAAQS. States may develop standards that are stricter or 

supplement the NAAQS. Wyoming has a supplemental PM10 annual standard at 50 μg/m3 11 

12 (WDEQ, 2012). 

13 As discussed in GEIS Section 3.3.6.2, EPA also established Prevention of Significant 

14 Deterioration (PSD) standards that set maximum allowable concentration increases for 

15 particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide pollutants above baseline conditions in 

16 attainment areas (NRC, 2009). In part, the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that air 

17 quality in attainment areas remains good. There are several different classes of PSD areas. 

18 Different standards were developed for these different classifications, with Class I areas having 

19 the most stringent requirements. The proposed project area is located in a Class II area. The 

20 closest Class I area near the proposed project area is Wind Cave National Park located in 

21 Custer County, South Dakota, about 181.9 km [113 mi] away (AUC, 2012a). 

22 EPA has revised the PSD standards since publication of the GEIS (documented in GEIS 

23 Table 3.2-9; NRC, 2009), as follows. New PM2.5 standards have been added for two different 

24 timeframes: annual and 24 hours. Draft SEIS Table 3-19 contains the updated PSD standards. 

25 3.7.2.2 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 

26 Temperature and precipitation are two parameters that can be used to characterize climate 

27 change. Average U.S. temperatures have increased between 0.72 and 1.06 °C [1.3 and 1.9 °F] 

28 since 1895, and temperatures in the U.S. are expected to continue to rise (GCRP, 2014). From 

29 1991 to 2012, the average temperature in the region where the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

30 Project area is located increased by approximately 0.83 °C [1.5 °F] compared to the 1951 to 

31 1980 baseline (GCRP, 2014). The average temperature in the region where the proposed 

32 Reno Creek ISR Project area is located is projected to increase between 2.22 and 5.00 °C 

33 [4 and 9 °F] by the later part of this century (GCRP, 2014). Average U.S. precipitation has 

34 increased since 1990; however, some regions experienced increases greater than the national 

35 average, while other regions experienced decreased precipitation levels. From 1991 to 2012, 

36 the annual precipitation totals in the region where the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is 

37 located increased between 0 and 15 percent compared to the 1901 to 1960 baseline (GCRP, 

38 2014). By the latter part of this century, U.S. Global Change Research Program forecasts a 0 to 

39 10 percent decrease in precipitation during the summer and a 0 to 20 percent increase in 

40 precipitation for the fall, winter, and spring for the region of Wyoming, where the proposed 

41 Reno Creek ISR Project area is located (GCRP, 2014). 

42 The EPA administrator determined that greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere may 

43 reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare (74 FR 66496). As described 

44 in the Federal Register notice, the primary scientific basis supporting the administrator’s 

45 endangerment finding was major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, 
3-87 

Table 3-18. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant Primary/Secondary 

Averaging 

Period Level* Form 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Primary 1 hour 35 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Primary 8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Lead Primary and 

Secondary 

Rolling 

3-month 

average 

0.15 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Primary 1 hour 100 ppb 98th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary 

Annual 53 ppb Annual mean 

Ozone Primary and 

Secondary 

8 hours 0.070 ppm Annual fourth highest daily 

maximum 8-hour 

concentration, averaged 

over 3 years 

Particulate 

Matter 

2.5 μm 

Primary and 

Secondary 

24 hours 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years 

Primary Annual 12 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years 

Secondary Annual 15 μg/m3 Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years 

Particulate 

Matter 

10 μm 

Primary and 

Secondary 

24 hours 150 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year on 

average over 3 years 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Primary 1 hour 75 ppb 99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged 

over 3 years 

Secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Source: Modified from EPA (2016) 

*ppm = parts per million; ppb = parts per billion. To convert μg/m3

 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 × 10-8. 

1 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National Research Council. The 

2 Federal Register notice also states that these assessments indicate that ambient concentrations 

3 of GHG emissions do not cause direct adverse health effects (e.g., respiratory or toxic effects), 

4 but rather cause indirect effects from the associated changes in climate. Based on the EPA’s 

5 determination, NRC recognizes that GHGs may contribute to climate change and that climate 

6 change may have an effect on health and the environment. 

7 GHGs, which can trap heat in the atmosphere, are produced by numerous activities, including 

8 the burning of fossil fuels and agricultural and industrial processes. GHGs include carbon 

9 dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and certain fluorinated gases. These gases vary in their ability 

10 to trap heat and in their atmospheric longevity. GHG emission levels are expressed as CO2

11 equivalents (CO2e), which is an aggregate measure of total GHG global warming potential 
3-88 

Table 3-19. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Classes I and II Standards 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Class I Level 

(μg/m3)* 

Class II Level 

(μg/m3) Form 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Annual 2.5 25 Annual mean 

Particulate 

Matter 

2.5 μm 

24 hours 2 9 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Annual 1 4 Annual mean 

Particulate 

Matter 

10 μm 

24 hours 8 30 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Annual 4 17 Annual mean 

Sulfur Dioxide 3 hours 25 512 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

24 hours 5 91 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Annual 2 20 Annual mean 

Source: Modified from 40 CFR 52.21. 

*To convert μg/m3

 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 × 10-8. 

1 described in terms of CO2 and accounts for the heat-trapping capacity of different gases. The 

2 Center for Climate Strategies estimated that GHG-producing activities in Wyoming accounted 

3 for approximately 55.6 million metric tons [61.3 million short tons] of gross CO2e emissions in 

4 2005; levels of 60.3 and 69.4 million metric tons [66.5 and 76.5 million short tons] are forecasted 

5 for years 2010 and 2020, respectively (Center for Climate Strategies, 2007). 

6 EPA promulgated a phased approach known as the Tailoring Rule to address GHG emissions 

7 under the Clean Air Act permitting programs (EPA, 2012). This rule focused on the nation’s 

8 largest stationary source GHG emitters and established thresholds for greenhouse gas 

9 emissions that define whether sources are subject to EPA air permitting. As initially constituted, 

10 the Tailoring Rule specified that new sources, as well as existing sources with the potential to 

11 emit 90,718 metric tons [100,000 short tons] per year of CO2e, were subject to EPA PSD and 

12 Title V requirements. Modifications at existing facilities that increase GHG emissions by at 

13 least 68,039 metric tons [75,000 short tons] per year of CO2e were also subject to 

14 Title V requirements. Initially, the Tailoring Rule only applied to sources subject to permitting 

15 based on the emission levels of pollutants other than greenhouse gases (i.e., no sources were 

16 subject to permitting requirements due solely to greenhouse gas emissions). In the second 

17 phase or step of the Tailoring Rule, EPA extended the requirements to sources that would be 

18 subject to permitting based solely on the emission levels of greenhouse gases. However, in 

19 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the portions of the Tailoring Rule stating that sources 

20 could be subject to EPA air permitting based 

21 solely on greenhouse gas emissions. EPA is 

22 revising the Tailoring Rule in response to the 

23 U.S. Supreme Court decision (EPA, 2015). 

24 3.8 Noise 

25 Due to the rural location of the proposed Reno 

26 Creek ISR Project area, the most significant 

27 ambient noise (i.e., background noise) is from 

28 traffic on State Highway 387, which traverses 

How is sound measured?

The human ear responds to a wide range of sound 

pressures. The unit of measure used to represent 

sound pressure levels is the decibel (dB). Another 

common sound measurement is the A-weighted sound 

level (dBA). dBA is a sound level measure designed to 

simulate human hearing by placing less emphasis on 

lower frequency noises, because the human ear does 

not perceive sounds at low frequencies in the same 

manner as sound at higher frequencies. Higher 

frequencies receive less A-weighting than lower ones. 
3-89 

1 the project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1), and from CBM operations (AUC, 2012a). County 

2 Road 22 (Clarkelen/Turnercrest Road) and County Road 25 (Cosner Road) also traverse parts 

3 of the proposed project area and contribute to ambient noise (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). 

4 Ambient noise measurements were not part of the applicant’s prelicensing studies. In 

5 undeveloped rural areas of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, existing ambient noise 

6 levels range from 22 to 38 decibels (dBA) depending on wind and traffic (NRC, 2009). The EPA 

7 (2003) reported that levels of noise close to industrial facilities and transportation corridors in the 

8 PRB are likely to be in the range of 50 to 70 dBA. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.2.3, 

9 pipelines and infrastructure associated with CBM operations are located within and around the 

10 project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-3). A CBM compressor station in the western portion of 

11 the proposed project area houses multiple engines that move natural gas from central gathering 

12 facilities and long high-pressure transmission pipelines (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Noise 

13 levels from CBM operations are expected to be unnoticeable from distances of 490 m [1,600 ft] 

14 and beyond (BLM, 2003). Rail lines utilized for shipping coal from mining operations in the PRB 

15 are distant from the proposed project area. Noise levels ranging from 75 to 85 dBA are typical 

16 of a train traveling at approximately 80 kph [50 mph] on grade at a distance of 30 m [100 ft] 

17 (FRA, 2010). As described in draft SEIS Section 3.3, the BNSF Railroad operates the closest 

18 rail line approximately 20 km [12.5 mi] east of the proposed project area. 

19 Noise associated with the proposed activities is considered because it may interfere with 

20 persons residing in the surrounding area. There is currently one residence within the proposed 

21 project area (the Taffner Homestead) and five residences within 8 km [5 mi] of the proposed 

22 project (see draft SEIS Section 3.2). The Taffner Homestead is situated where the proposed 

23 CPP would be located and has been acquired by the applicant (AUC, 2012a; First American 

24 Title, 2015). Prior to construction, the Taffner Homestead would be vacated, and it would not be 

25 used as a residence thereafter (AUC, 2014b). The closest occupied offsite residence (Levitt 

26 residence) is approximately 2.0 km [1.25 mi] southeast of the proposed project (see draft SEIS 

27 Figure 3-1). This residence is within 3.2 km [2.0 mi] of production units 5 and 7, as depicted in 

28 draft SEIS Figure 2-5. Small communities within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed 

29 project include Gillette, Wright, Kaycee, Midwest, and Edgerton (see draft SEIS Figure 3-5). 

30 Populations within these communities range from 195 people in Edgerton to 29,087 people in 

31 Gillette (see draft SEIS Section 3.11). Noise levels are expected to be slightly higher in these 

32 communities than in surrounding rural areas, as a result of traffic and human activities. 

33 However, nearby small communities such as Wright, which is located 13 km [8 mi] from the 

34 proposed project, are too distant to be affected by noise levels at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

35 Project. Larger urban communities (e.g., cities) experience ambient noise levels from street 

36 noise, traffic, emergency vehicles, and construction. Noise levels in urban areas range from 

37 approximately 45 to 78 dBA (WSDOT, 2012). The nearest city to the proposed project area is 

38 Gillette, which is located approximately 65 km [41 mi] to the north. Because of its distance from 

39 the proposed project area, Gillette is not expected to be affected by noise levels at the 

40 proposed project. 

41 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2.2, recreational activities in and around the proposed 

42 Reno Creek ISR Project area are limited. A parcel of state-owned land in the western portion of 

43 the project area offers limited potential for dispersed recreational activities that could be 

44 sensitive to noise impacts (see draft SEIS Figure 3-2). Other nearby recreational attractions 

45 that could be sensitive to noise impacts include the Thunder Basin National Grassland, 

46 Fort Reno historic site, and the Bozeman Trail. Although the Thunder Basin National Grassland 

47 exists within the proposed project area, lands encompassed by the Grassland within and 

48 surrounding the proposed project area are privately owned. Therefore, recreational activities on 
3-90 

1 the Grassland within or near the proposed project area, such as biking, camping, hunting, 

2 hiking, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle use, would not be allowed without permission from 

3 the landowner. The Fort Reno site and the Bozeman Trail are quite distant from the proposed 

4 Reno Creek ISR Project area and are not expected to be affected by noise levels from the 

5 proposed project. The Fort Reno site is 61 km [38 mi] northwest of the proposed project area, 

6 and the Bozeman Trail passes 19 km [12 mi] west of the proposed project area. 

7 Noise associated with the activities described in the proposed project can displace wildlife and 

8 interfere with wildlife breeding habits. Draft SEIS Table 3-14 lists wildlife species observed 

9 during baseline surveys for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. These species include small 

10 mammals (e.g., badger, cottontail, white-tailed jackrabbit, and muskrat), avian species 

11 (e.g., mourning dove, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, Greater sage-grouse, golden eagle, 

12 and killdeer), and big game species (e.g., pronghorn antelope and mule deer). For more 

13 information on the species and populations of wildlife within and surrounding the proposed Reno 

14 Creek ISR Project area see draft SEIS Section 3.6. 

15 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the WYDOT have noise impact assessment 

16 procedures and criteria to help protect public health and welfare from excessive vehicular traffic 

17 noise. As described in draft SEIS Table 3-20, FHWA-established Noise Abatement Criteria 

18 according to land use, recognizing that different areas are sensitive to noise in different ways. A 

19 person is considered to be impacted by noise according to WYDOT procedures when existing 

20 or expected future sound levels approach [within 1 decibels (dBA)] or exceed the Noise 

21 Abatement Criteria or when expected future sound levels exceed existing sound levels by a 

22 substantial amount (15 dBA). These criteria were used to assess impacts at the proposed 

23 Reno Creek ISR Project. 

24 State Highway 387, which traverses the proposed project area, and Clarkelen Road, which 

25 would provide access to the proposed project area, are line sources of noise. Vehicular traffic 

26 sound at a distance of 15 m [50 ft] from the receptor has been estimated at 54 to 62 dBA for 

27 passenger cars and 58 to 70 dBA for heavy trucks (FHWA, 2011). Because noise from line 

28 sources, such as roads, is reduced by approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance (FHWA, 

29 2011), the maximum truck sound level of 70 dBA on the shoulder of either State Highway 387 or 

30 Clarkelen Road would diminish to the level of a Category “A” activity (57 dBA) approximately 

31 480 m [1,575 feet] from the source. However, noise dampening characteristics of topographic 

32 interference and vegetation are not part of these calculations (NRC, 2009). It is expected that 

33 sound levels beyond a distance of 480 m [1,575 ft] from SH 387 and Clarkelen Road would be 

34 approximately 40 dBA. This calculation produces a conservative estimate of a baseline for 

35 ambient noise that is slightly higher than the GEIS statement that existing ambient noise levels 

36 in the region range from 22 to 38 dBA (NRC, 2009). GEIS Figure 3.2-17 provides examples of 

37 sound levels for common activities (NRC, 2009). 

38 3.9 Historical and Cultural Resources 

39 GEIS Section 3.3.8 provides an overview of historic and cultural resources in the Wyoming East 

40 Uranium Region where the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located (NRC 2009a). 

41 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in the Northwestern Plains region. The 

42 archaeological record indicates that precontact habitation of the northwestern Plains began 

43 13,000 years ago. Early populations comprised hunters and gatherers. Around 4,000 years 

44 ago, bison tracking led to open prairie living and the exploitation of open prairie resources. 

45 During the historic period, the earliest Euro-Americans in the region were French fur traders. It 

46 was not until the nineteenth century that the area was opened to homesteaders (AUC, 2012a). 
3-91 

Table 3-20. Noise Abatement Criteria: 1-Hour, A-Weighted Sound Levels in 

Decibels (dBA) 

Activity 

Category Leq(h)* Description of Activity Category 

A 57 

(Exterior) 

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance 

and serve an important public need and where the preservation of 

those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its 

intended purposes. 

B 67 

(Exterior) 

Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, 

parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and 

hospitals. 

C 72 

(Exterior) 

Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A 

or B above. 

D -- Undeveloped lands. 

E 52 

(Interior) 

Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, 

libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. 

*Leq(h) is an energy-averaged, 1-hour, A-weighted sound level in decibels (dBA). 

Source: 23 CFR Part 772 

1 While the NRC’s NEPA analysis assesses the potential impact of the proposed project for the 

2 broader category of both historic and cultural resources, the National Historic Preservation Act 

3 (NHPA) [54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.], specifically requires federal agencies to consider the 

4 effects of their undertakings on historic properties as defined under the NHPA and provide the 

5 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment. The issuance of 

6 a source material NRC license is a federal undertaking that may affect either known or 

7 undiscovered historic properties located on or near the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. 

8 In accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, the NRC is required to identify historic 

9 properties in the area of potential effect (APE). The APE for this review is the area that may be 

10 directly (direct APE) or indirectly (indirect APE) impacted by the construction, operations, aquifer 

11 restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed project. The NRC is required to consult with 

12 the Wyoming Historic Preservation Office (WY SHPO), interested tribes and other parties when 

13 making determinations and seek WY SHPO concurrence before taking action. If it is 

14 determined that historic properties are present, the NRC is further required to assess and 

15 develop alternatives or propose measures that might minimize or mitigate any adverse effects of 

16 the undertaking on historic properties and describe them in the environmental assessment (EA) 

17 or draft SEIS. 

18 Historic properties are defined as resources that are eligible for listing on the National Register 

19 of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR 60.4 and include 

20 (i) association with significant events in history; (ii) association with the lives of persons 

21 significant in the past; (iii) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, period, or 

22 construction; or (iv) sites or places that have yielded or are likely to yield important information 

23 (ACHP, 2012). The National Park Service also requires that the property has integrity, or the 

24 ability of a property to convey its significance, to be listed in the NRHP (National Park 

25 Service, 2014). 

26 The historic preservation review process, NHPA Section 106, is outlined in regulations the 

27 ACHP issued in 36 CFR Part 800. As allowed under 36 CFR 800.8, the NRC staff is conducting 

28 the Section 106 review process through NEPA for this proposed project. The NRC staff have 

29 consulted with the WY SHPO and consulted with interested tribes and the applicant when 
3-92 

1 making preliminary determinations on the identification of historic properties that could be 

2 impacted by the proposed project. Draft SEIS Section 3.9.3 discusses the NRC staff’s 

3 preliminary determinations regarding whether a historic or cultural resource meets the eligibility 

4 criteria to be considered a historic property under the NHPA. 

5 As noted in GEIS Section 3.3.8.4, there are no culturally significant places listed in either the 

6 NRHP or state registers in the Wyoming East Uranium Region. However, the proposed 

7 Reno Creek ISR Project area would be located 12 km [7.5 mi] from the Pumpkin Buttes. The 

8 Pumpkin Buttes have been identified as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) and have potential 

9 cultural affiliation with nine tribes (SWCA, 2006). There is a Programmatic Agreement (PA) 

10 between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the WY SHPO regarding mitigation of 

11 adverse effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. This PA was put in place for anticipated federal 

12 minerals development in Campbell County, Wyoming. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

13 would be located at least 8.6 km [5.5 mi] outside the PA boundary. While the TCP is outside the 

14 PA boundary, the Pumpkin Buttes are visible from most of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

15 Project. 

16 Cultural resources investigations for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project included a review of 

17 available archaeological literature, a search and evaluation of archaeological records and 

18 collections maintained by the WY SHPO, archaeological field investigations, and tribal 

19 consultation. Tribal consultation included a tribal cultural survey performed by Native American 

20 Tribes to identify places of religious or cultural importance. Sites identified include sites 

21 supporting past human activity containing artifacts, features, or architectural structures, and/or 

22 include sacred places important to Native American tribes. 

23 The NRC will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as 

24 amended), as well as the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended [Public 

25 Law 96-95;16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm], The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

26 of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 3001), The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (16 U.S.C. 1996), and 

27 the Wyoming Antiquities Act of 1935 (Wyoming Statues 35-1-114 to 116). Applicable laws and 

regulations are discussed more fully in GEIS Appendix B2 28 (NRC, 2009). 

29 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001) requires federal 

30 agencies and museums that receive federal funding to consult with Native American tribes and 

31 Native Hawaiian organizations to inventory and repatriate human remains and other cultural 

32 items to tribes and lineal descendants who have cultural affiliation with those remains or items. 

33 It also requires consultation with tribes regarding the excavation of human remains and 

34 associated items on federal and tribal land. 

35 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (16 U.S.C. 1996) was established by the 

36 U.S. government to “protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to 

37 believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, 

38 and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred 

39 objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.” Federal 

40 agencies are directed to consult with tribal governments in evaluating their policies and 

41 procedures for compliance with this policy (AIRFA, 1966). 

 

2

 The NRC also follows the stipulations in Executive Order 13004 – Indian Sacred Sites and Executive Order 13175 

and 13084 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (1998 and 2000, respectively). These 

Executive Orders are discussed more fully in GEIS Appendix B (NRC, 2009). 
3-93 

1 The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 requires federal agencies to consult with 

2 Native American tribes prior to approving permits for archaeological excavations that could 

3 cause harm to places of religious and cultural importance to tribes [(16 USC 470cc(c)] on 

4 federal lands and prior to approving permits for archaeological excavations on tribal land 

5 [(16 USC 470cc(g)]. The NRC does not need to comply with this law since the proposed project 

6 does not take place on federal or tribal lands. 

7 Draft SEIS Section 3.9.1 outlines the regional cultural history for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

8 Project. Subsequently, draft SEIS Section 3.9.2 presents the APE (direct and indirect) for the 

9 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Draft SEIS Sections 3.9.3 and 3.9.4 describe the results of 

10 historic and cultural resource investigations and summarize the tribal consultation that was 

11 carried out for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

12 3.9.1 Cultural History 

13 GEIS Section 3.3.8 provided an overview of cultural and historic resources in the Wyoming East 

14 Uranium Region where the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located (NRC, 2009). 

15 Within this portion of Wyoming, the area appears to have been inhabited by aboriginal hunting 

16 and gathering people for more than 13,000 years (AUC 2012a).

17 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in the prehistoric cultural sub-area 

18 known as the Northwestern Plains. The Northwestern Plains stretch from central Alberta to 

19 southern Wyoming and from western North Dakota to western Montana. The PRB of central 

20 Wyoming has a diverse cultural setting that exhibits influence of both the Northern Plains 

21 archaeological chronologies and the Great Basin archaeological chronologies (AUC, 2012a; 

Francis and Loendorf, 2002). The PRB, which occupies more than 88,060 km2

 [34,000 mi2 22 ], is 

23 bounded to the west by the Bighorn Mountains and the Casper Arch, to the east by the Black 

24 Hills uplift, and to the south by the Laramie Mountains and the Hartville uplift. This intermontane 

25 basin, lower in elevation than the surrounding mountains, features unglaciated rolling hills and 

26 prairies dissected by irregular meandering permanent and intermittent streams. The basin is 

27 primarily drained by the Powder River, though several other major rivers also have watersheds 

28 within it, including the Belle Fourche River (Dolton and Fox, 1996; Chapman et al., 2004). 

29 The following sections provide a brief description for each of the cultural periods associated 

30 with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area and defined by the years before the present 

31 time (B.P.): 

32  Paleo-Indian Period (13,000 to 7,000 years B.P.) 

33  Early Archaic Period (7,000 to 5,000-4,500 years B.P.) 

34  Middle Archaic Period (5,000-4,500 to 3,000 years B.P.) 

35  Late Archaic Period (3,000 to 1,850 years B.P.) 

36  Late Prehistoric Period (1,850 to 400 years B.P.) 

37  Protohistoric Period (400 to 250 years B.P.) 

38  Historic Period (250 to 120 years B.P.) 

39 3.9.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period 

40 The prehistoric populations of the Northwestern Plains shared a single major economic 

41 adaptation that persisted over the course of 12,000 years, with only minor changes in tool 

42 technology and subsistence strategy (AUC, 2012a; Michlovic 1986; Reeves 1969). Throughout 

43 prehistory, the inhabitants of the Northwestern Plains subsisted as semi-nomadic hunters and 
3-94 

1 gatherers, but the species of plants and animals they exploited and the methods they used 

2 varied over time. The adaptations of human inhabitants of the Northwestern Plains during the 

3 last 4,000 years largely reflected their dependence on bison (AUC, 2012a; Frison 1971). 

4 Paleo-Indian culture is believed to have existed in the PRB as far back as 12,000 years ago. 

5 However, evidence to this effect is relatively sparse. The PRB is filled with deep sediment, and 

6 older artifacts are assumed to be well-covered. Since settlement by pioneers, archaeological 

7 finds have proceeded from the periphery of the basin toward the center; however, most known 

8 archaeological sites are around the edges of the PRB (AUC 2012a). 

9 3.9.1.2 Early Archaic Period 

10 The early part of the Plains Archaic Period occurred during a relatively dry climatic episode 

11 roughly 8,500 years ago. It is generally accepted that groups of people were concentrated in 

12 protected and humid locations, such as mountains, foothills, and major river valleys 

13 (AUC, 2012a; Husted 1969). This pattern of site distribution is not significantly different from 

14 that observed for the Paleo-Indian period and may reflect the continuation of a generalized 

15 subsistence strategy. Most sites of this type are believed to be associated with the Plains 

16 Archaic period and have been found in major river valleys. Occupation sites may include 

17 semi-subterranean houses and diagnostic artifacts associated with this time period take the 

18 form of side and corner notched projectile points (AUC, 2012a; Davis, 1976; Deaver et al., 1989; 

19 Greiser et al., 1983). 

20 3.9.1.3 Middle Archaic Period 

21 During the middle Plains Archaic Period, groups began to adopt increasingly specialized 

22 subsistence and settlement strategies. In the Northern Plains, greater attention was devoted to 

23 bison hunting, resulting in increasingly regular movement across open prairie settings. There is 

24 evidence of a developing interest in open prairie living and resource procurement. In the 

25 southern portion of the Northwestern Plains, particularly in Wyoming’s basin/foothill regions, 

26 archaic sites show an emphasis on a broader range of subsistence resources. In addition to 

27 bison, deer, pronghorn, and elk, smaller animals, such as rabbit, rodents, and fish were 

28 exploited. There is also a greater emphasis on the utilization of plant resources. Associated 

29 with the exploitation of plant resources is an increase in the abundance of grinding stones and 

30 food preparation pits (AUC, 2012a; Frison, 1991:89). 

31 3.9.1.4 Late Archaic Period 

32 The late Plains Archaic Period is marked by further adaptations toward upland living and the 

33 exploitation of open prairie resources. Groups continued to occupy river valley and foothill 

34 settings while also devoting greater time and attention to the prairies. This change of focus is 

35 illustrated by their adoption of new cooperative hunting techniques and the development of the 

36 tipi, a specialized structure suited for open plains habitation. 

37 Artifacts of the Plains Archaic Period have been recovered in greater numbers than 

38 Paleo-Indian or early Plains Archaic types (AUC, 2012a; Deaver and Deaver, 1988). Late 

39 Plains Archaic sites occur in basin/foothill regions, river valley settings (AUC, 2012a, Davis 

40 1976), and in open prairie areas (AUC, 2012a; Deaver and Aaberg, 1977). With the 

41 continuation of the Atlantic climatic episode, periods of drought commonly occurred in the Great 

42 Plains. In many regions, this ecological stress caused indigenous populations to use a greater 

43 diversity of resources, which then resulted in corresponding modifications of subsistence 
3-95 

1 strategies and weaponry point styles. In the Northern Plains, however, the subsistence patterns 

2 remained relatively stable and few differences in subsistence strategy from the Paleo-Indian 

3 tradition can be found. 

4 3.9.1.5 Late Prehistoric Period 

5 The Late Prehistoric Period is characterized by an increasing specialization toward upland living 

6 and the utilization of open prairie resources, most importantly bison. The vast majority of Late 

7 Prehistoric/Woodland sites occur in open prairies rather than in protected hills or river valleys. 

8 The bow and arrow replaced atlatls, darts, and spears which resulted in a much more efficient 

9 exploitation of upland game, particularly when employed with communal hunting techniques. 

10 The presence of pottery in Late Prehistoric/Woodland sites has led to several interpretations 

11 of the manner and significance of Eastern Plains influence in the Northwestern Plains. 

12 (AUC, 2012a). 

13 3.9.1.6 Protohistoric period 

14 The Protohistoric Period witnesses the beginning of European influence on prehistoric cultures 

15 of the Northwestern Plains. Additions to the material culture include, most notably, the horse 

16 and European trade goods, including glass beads, metal, and firearms. Projectile points of this 

17 period include side-notched, tri-notched, and unnotched points, with the addition of metal points. 

18 The occupants lead a nomadic lifestyle as hunter gathers (AUC, 2012a). 

19 3.9.1.7 Historic Period 

20 The historical period of Wyoming begins with the arrival of Euro-Americans. Unlike areas to the 

21 east, the first documented activities by Euro-Americans in Wyoming did not begin until the 

22 1800s. Prior to this time there was no appreciable European presence in the region, with the 

23 exception of French fur traders. Beginning in the 1840s, emigrants of the “great western 

24 migration” passed along the Oregon-California Trail along the Platte and through South Pass, 

25 but few, if any, detoured through the PRB. The exceptions were those traveling the Bozeman 

26 Trail. The Bozeman Trail is located west of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. It was 

27 a route used first by Native Americans and then later by traders and homesteaders moving west 

during the 19th 28 century (AUC, 2012a). 

During the late 19th 29 century, the PRB was disputed hunting grounds between the Sioux, 

30 Blackfoot, and Crow nations. When gold was discovered in Montana during the 1860's, 

31 pioneers attempted to cross the PRB from the Platte River by means of the Bozeman Trail. For 

32 approximately the next 20 years, conflicts arose between the Native Americans and the new 

33 settlers. The last of the major Native American wars of the northern plains were fought in the 

34 PRB area (e.g. Fetterman, Wagonbox, and Crazy Woman Fights) (AUC, 2012a; Larson, 1990). 

35 In 1911 (officially organized in 1913), Campbell County was created out of the western halves of 

36 Crook and Weston Counties. Campbell County was named after both John A. Campbell, the 

37 first governor of the territory of Wyoming, and Robert Campbell, who was part of an early 

38 expedition to this part of Wyoming from 1825 to 1835. 

39 Following World War I, Campbell County had an intense period of homesteading due to the 

40 growth of the “dry farming” movement and cattle and sheep ranching. Small coal mines were 

41 developed around the area as early as 1909, and major oil discoveries in Eastern Campbell 
3-96 

1 County in 1956 set off the oil boom in the area. This oil boom did not as whole change land 

2 use, but did add substantially to the economy of the area. 

3 During the 1970's, the modern coal industry in Campbell County began to thrive. Major coal 

4 companies flocked to the County to harvest the PRBs low-sulfur coal. Railroad companies 

5 began adding more lines to ship the coal away, thus beginning a new age of railroad history in 

6 Gillette. Today coal remains a vital industry in Campbell County (AUC, 2012a; CCGov, 2011). 

7 Uranium was discovered in the region in the 1950’s. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, the uranium 

8 industry acquired large tracts of subsurface uranium mineral rights and leases (AUC, 2012a; 

9 WSGC, 2011). Substantial historical exploration, development, and mine permitting were 

10 performed on the Reno Creek property. Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing into the 

11 mid-1980s, RME, a wholly owned mining subsidiary of the Union Pacific Railroad, drilled 

12 thousands of exploration borings on the Reno Creek property. Significant permitting studies, 

13 including the construction, successful operations, groundwater restoration, and subsequent 

14 reclamation of an ISR pilot plant, were also performed over the years. Restoration and 

15 stabilization of the groundwater was acknowledged and signed off by the NRC in March of 1986 

16 (AUC, 2012a). 

17 3.9.2 Area of Potential Effect 

18 The area that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed activity represents the 

19 APE. The indirect APE for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would consist of visual effects 

20 and noise sources. The direct APE would coincide with the footprint of ground disturbance 

21 during construction (e.g., wellfields, access roads, trunklines, etc.) with the potential for 

22 additional ground disturbance to occur during decommissioning activities. The NRC staff 

23 anticipate that due to construction activities, the largest area would be disturbed during the 

24 construction phase (see draft SEIS Section 4.2 for more information on the proposed land use 

25 footprint). Therefore, the land disturbed during the construction phase represents the upper 

26 bound of potential effects to the direct APE. 

27 The proposed project area encompasses a total land area of 2,451 ha [6,057 ac], while the 

28 direct APE for the proposed project for all phases would total 651 ha [1,609 ac]. The direct APE 

29 impact area includes proposed project facilities, pipeline installation, access roads, wellfields, 

30 header houses, and impoundments. Wellfields and the space between the edges of the 

31 wellfields and monitoring well rings are also included in the direct impact area for the proposed 

32 Reno Creek ISR Project. The extent of the visual APE (indirect APE) includes areas within an 

33 8 km [5 mi] radius of the CPP in the Reno Creek ISR Project area {i.e. the area within the 

34 proposed project plus an additional 3.2 km [2 mi] from the project boundary}. The CPP would 

35 be the tallest building constructed at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project location. 

36 3.9.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Investigations 

37 The NRC staff reviewed cultural resources investigations prepared on behalf of the applicant for 

38 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. A review of archival data (Class I cultural resource 

39 inventory) was conducted on June 6, 2010 by the applicant’s contractor. The Class I inventory 

40 also included a review of the environmental setting, prehistoric and historic contexts, and BLM 

41 General Land Office (GLO) survey plats dating to 1882. The Class I inventory shows that 

42 between 1993 and 2008, a total of 977 ha [2,463 acres] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

43 Project area had been subjected to an archaeological survey which meets current Class III 

44 standards (Greer Services, 2011). 
3-97 

1 A total of 41 cultural localities were previously recorded within the proposed project area (Greer 

2 Services, 2011) (draft SEIS Table 3-21). Of the 41 cultural localities recommended not eligible 

3 for listing on the NRHP during pre-2010 field investigations, 9 are prehistoric sites, 8 are historic 

4 sites, 6 are multi-component sites (prehistoric and historic), and the remaining 18 are isolated 

5 finds. Of those isolated finds, 14 are prehistoric, 2 are historic, and 1 represents a 

6 multicomponent isolate (prehistoric and historic), and the temporal affiliation or function of the 

remaining isolate could not be determined (Greer Services, 2011).3 7 None of the previously 

8 recorded 41 cultural localities met the requirements for NRHP eligibility according to the 

9 WY SHPO. After reviewing these recommendations and considering any comments received 

10 from other consulting parties, the NRC staff made a preliminary determination that these 

11 41 sites and isolates are ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The NRC staff submitted its 

12 preliminary determinations to WY SHPO for concurrence. The WY SHPO is currently 

13 evaluating these preliminary determinations. 

14 3.9.3.1 Class III Cultural Resource Investigations 

15 Subsequent to the Class I inventory, the applicant’s contractor conducted a Class III Intensive 

16 Survey (comprehensive field inventory) of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Areas 

17 within the proposed project area that were previously surveyed to current Class III standards 

18 were not resurveyed. The Class III survey was conducted between August 5, 2010, and 

19 December 11, 2010 with some additional field visits conducted through August 17, 2011. This 

20 survey identified 33 new cultural resource areas in the proposed project area and reevaluated 

21 3 previously recorded resources. Of these, all localities were evaluated and recommended 

22 ineligible for listing in the NRHP. After reviewing these recommendations and considering 

23 any comments received from other consulting parties, the NRC staff made preliminary 

24 determinations that these 36 sites and isolates are ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The NRC 

25 staff submitted its preliminary determinations to WY SHPO for concurrence. The WY SHPO is 

26 currently evaluating these preliminary determinations. 

27 Each site’s integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association are 

28 considered in the evaluation, as well as the NRHP’s four main criteria: 

29  Criterion A – The site must make a contribution to the major pattern of American history 

30  Criterion B – The site is associated with significant people of the American past 

31  Criterion C – The site embodies distinctive characteristics

32  Criterion D – The site has yielded or may be likely to yield information important to 

33 prehistory or history. (NRHP, 2011a) 

34 Site and isolate definitions required by the WY SHPO were applied to all sites and isolates. 

35 These definitions are as follows: 

36  A prehistoric site is defined as 15 or more spatially restricted artifacts (no more than 

37 30 meters between artifacts), or a location with one or more cultural features and/or 

38 potential for buried deposits. 

 

3

 Wyoming SHPO indicates that isolated cultural localities are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 
3-98 

Table 3-21. List of Previously Identified Archaeological Sites and Isolates within the Proposed 

Project Area Determined Not Eligible for Listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places 

Historic Property 

(Site Number, or 

Structure 

Identification) Description NRHP Determination†

IF 6967-1 quartzite biface Not Eligible 

IF 6967-2 prehistoric lithic scatter and historic artifacts Not Eligible 

IF 6967-3 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

IF 6967-4 projectile point, silicified wood Not Eligible 

IF 6967-5 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

48CA2798 historic debris Not Eligible 

48CA2776 herder camp Not Eligible 

48CA2777 herder camp Not Eligible 

48CA2764 prehistoric campsite Not Eligible 

48CA2765 prehistoric campsite historic trash Not Eligible 

48CA2766 prehistoric campsite Not Eligible 

48CA2767 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

48CA2769 prehistoric campsite Not Eligible 

48CA2770 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

48CA2777 herder camp Not Eligible 

48CA2778 herder camp Not Eligible 

48CA2779 herder camp Not Eligible 

FA93-25-2 unmodified flake Not Eligible 

FA93-25-12 unmodified flake Not Eligible 

FA93-25-18 unmodified flake Not Eligible 

FA93-25-23 unmodified flake Not Eligible 

FA93-25-29 unmodified flake Not Eligible 

FA93-25-30 Late Archaic dart point Not Eligible 

RD93-8-IF-1 can Not Eligible 

RD93-8-IF-2 can Not Eligible 

48CA2771 prehistoric campsite historic trash Not Eligible 

48CA2772 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

48CA2773 prehistoric campsite historic trash Not Eligible 

48CA2774 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

48CA2775 prehistoric lithic scatter historic trash Not Eligible 

48CA2780 herder camp Not Eligible 

IF-14 unmodified flake Not Eligible 

IF-18 unknown Not Eligible 

48CA5077 prehistoric lithic scatter historic trash Not Eligible 

IF-9 biface Not Eligible 

IF-10 scraper Not Eligible 

48CA4987 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

48CA4267 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

48CA5073 prehistoric lithic scatter historic remains Not Eligible 

IF-13 unmodified flake Not Eligible 

48CA4868 Reno to Salt Creek Road Not Eligible 

Source: Greer Services, 2011. The WY SHPO has concurred with these recommendations. 

†NRHP eligibility criteria are presented in Section 3.9 of this draft SEIS. 
3-99 

1  A historic site contains 50 or more spatially associated artifacts (excluding trash dumps 

2 or artifact scatters older than 50 years for which historical significance cannot be 

3 demonstrated), as above (with fragments of a single artifact counted as one item), or 

4 one or more cultural features. 

5  A prehistoric isolate is defined as 14 or fewer associated artifacts, no cultural features, 

6 and no known cultural deposits. 

7  A historic isolate is defined as 49 or fewer associated artifacts (excluding trash dumps 

8 and highway trash) and no cultural features. 

9 3.9.3.1.1 Archaeological Sites 

10 The combined results of the Class I inventory and Class III intensive survey identified a total of 

11 74 cultural localities (i.e., 41 previously recorded and 33 new cultural resource areas) in the 

12 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. These cultural localities include 35 locations with 

13 prehistoric artifacts; 29 with historic artifacts, features, or structures; 9 with both prehistoric and 

14 historic artifacts; and, 1 isolated artifact of an unknown temporal affiliation (Greer Services, 

15 2011). As previously stated, 41 of these cultural localities were inventoried during earlier 

16 surveys and have been previously determined ineligible for listing in the NRHP with WY SHPO 

17 concurrence. The 33 newly recorded resources were evaluated and recommended ineligible for 

18 listing in the NRHP. Three previously recorded sites were also revisited during the Class III 

19 survey. After reviewing these recommendations and considering any comments received from 

20 other consulting parties, the NRC staff made preliminary determinations that all 74 cultural 

21 localities are ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The NRC staff submitted its preliminary 

22 determinations to WY SHPO for concurrence. The WY SHPO is currently evaluating these 

23 preliminary determinations. The following contains a brief description of the historic and cultural 

24 resources that were evaluated for the proposed project. 

25 

26 Previously Recorded Sites Revisited 

27 Three previously recorded sites were revisited during the 2010-2011 Class III survey of the 

28 Reno Creek ISR Project area. These sites include 48CA2775 (prehistoric campsite), 48CA4868 

29 (Reno to Salt Creek Road) and 48CA5077 (historic ranch facility). The archaeological survey 

30 team reevaluated these sites under NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). The sites were not 

31 recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

32 Site 48CA4868 (Reno to Salt Creek Road) 

33 The historic Reno to Salt Creek Road (48CA4868 Reno to Salt Creek Road) was first recorded 

34 by Jon Frizell (North Platte) in December 2003 as part of a CBM survey. Establishment of the 

35 road probably began around 1910 when the Reno Homestead was constructed. It was formally 

36 surveyed and mapped in 1924 (AUC, 2012a). By 1941, a petition signed by several people and 

37 sent to the Board of County Commissioner’s office requested the road be designated as an 

38 “auto-gate County Road” (Frizell, 2003). The route was evaluated as not eligible for NRHP with 

39 WY SHPO concurrence (Frizell, 2003). Portions of the old road within previous survey areas 

40 were not re-inspected. According to the BLM and WY SHPO, the site does not meet any of the 

41 NRHP Criteria. The archaeological survey team reevaluated the site under NRHP Criteria 

42 (Greer Services, 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 
3-100 

1 Site 48CA2775 (Prehistoric campsite) 

2 Site 48CA2775 was first identified in 1993 and is a prehistoric campsite with a historic trash 

3 scatter (Greer Services, 2011). The site was evaluated as not eligible for the NRHP, based on 

4 no potential for information beyond locational data (Greer Services, 2011). The WY SHPO 

5 concurred that the site is not eligible. The archaeological survey team reevaluated the site 

6 under NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing 

7 in the NRHP. 

8 Site 48CA5077 (Historic ranch facility) 

9 Site 48CA5077 represents a prehistoric lithic scatter, historic debris, and a depression. The site 

10 was first recorded in 2004 as part of CBM survey. Historic materials appear to date between 

11 1925 and 1940 and may be associated with the homestead patent for this area. In 2004, the 

12 site was evaluated as not eligible for the NRHP, based on no potential for information beyond 

13 locational data (Greer Services, 2011). The WY SHPO concurred that the site is not eligible. 

14 The archaeological survey team reevaluated the site under NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 

15 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

16 Newly Identified Resources 

17 The 2010-2011 Class III intensive survey identified 33 new cultural localities in the Reno Creek 

18 ISR Project area and revisited three previously inventoried sites. Newly inventoried resources 

19 include 1 prehistoric site, 6 historic sites, and the remaining 26 are isolated finds (draft SEIS 

20 Table 3-22). Of those isolated finds, 11 are prehistoric, 13 are historic, and 2 represent 

21 multicomponent isolates (prehistoric and historic). The archaeological survey team evaluated 

22 all 33 new cultural sites and isolates under NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). None were 

23 recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. After reviewing the recommendations and 

24 considering any comments received from other consulting parties, the NRC staff made 

25 preliminary determinations that the sites are ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The NRC staff 

26 submitted its preliminary determinations to WY SHPO for concurrence. The WY SHPO is 

27 currently evaluating these preliminary determinations. The following contains a brief description 

28 of the historic and cultural resources that were evaluated for the proposed project. 

29 Archaeological Sites 

30 Site 48CA7084 represents a prehistoric campsite identified as a result of the Class III cultural 

31 resources survey performed for the proposed Reno Creek ISR project. The site is defined by 

32 the extent of a lithic scatter and a surface hearth. The lack of diagnostic artifacts and the lack of 

33 potential for buried cultural deposits does not allow determination of age, function, or 

34 archeological affiliation of the site. The archaeological survey team evaluated the site under 

35 NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing in 

36 the NRHP. 

37 Site 48CA7085 represents the remains of a historic homestead. The site is defined by the 

38 remains of a historic ranch. The site likely was occupied from at least 1916, when initial 

39 improvement of the property probably began. The remains were still present through the early 

40 1970s. The archaeological survey team evaluated the site under NRHP Criteria (Greer 

41 Services, 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 
3-101 

Table 3-22. List of Newly Identified (and Updated) Archaeological Sites and Isolates 

within the Proposed Project Area Determined Not Eligible for Listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places 

State 

Site/Isolate 

Number Description

Recommendation for NRHP 

Determination† 

48CA2775* prehistoric campsite Not Eligible 

48CA5077* historic ranch facility Not Eligible 

48CA4868* Reno to Salt Creek Road Not Eligible 

48CA7084 prehistoric campsite Not Eligible 

48CA7085 historic homestead Not Eligible 

48CA7086 historic ranch facility(possible homestead) Not Eligible 

48CA7087 historic artifacts (possible homestead) Not Eligible 

48CA7088 historic artifacts (stock camp) Not Eligible 

48CA7089 historic homestead Not Eligible 

48CA7090 historic depression Not Eligible 

IF 7063-1 prehistoric campsite Not Eligible 

IF 7063-2 prehistoric isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-3 prehistoric isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-4 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

IF 7063-5 historic artifacts Not Eligible 

IF 7063-6 prehistoric isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-7 prehistoric campsite Not Eligible 

IF 7063-8 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

IF 7063-9 historic isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-10 historic herder camp Not Eligible 

IF 7063-11 prehistoric lithic scatter 

historic artifacts 

Not Eligible 

IF 7063-15 prehistoric isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-18 prehistoric isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-19 historic isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-20 historic isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-22 prehistoric lithic scatter Not Eligible 

IF 7063-23 prehistoric isolate Not Eligible 

IF 7063-25 historic herder camp Not Eligible 

IF 7063-26 historic livestock windbreak remains Not Eligible 

IF 7063-27 historic herder camp Not Eligible 

IF 7063-28 prehistoric lithic scatter 

historic artifacts 

Not Eligible 

IF 7063-30 historic livestock windbreak remains Not Eligible 

IF 7063-32 historic windmill remains Not Eligible 

IF 7063-33 historic windmill remains Not Eligible 

IF 7063-34 historic windmill remains Not Eligible 

IF 7063-36 historic artifacts Not Eligible 

Source: Greer Services, 2011. Recommended not eligible by Greer Services (2011) and the NRC. 

*Update to previously recorded site. 

†NRHP eligibility criteria are presented in Section 3.9 of this draft SEIS.

 
3-102 

1 Site 48CA7086 is the remains of a historic ranch facility. The site may have been used as early 

2 as 1919, when initial improvement of the property probably began for homesteading, but by 

3 about the 1950s, it appears to have been converted into its current function as a livestock 

4 facility. The archaeological survey team evaluated the site under NRHP Criteria (Greer 

5 Services, 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

6 Site 48CA7087, a former stock camp, is defined by a scatter of historic artifacts. The site may 

7 have been used as early as 1921, when initial patent improvement on the property may have 

8 begun. Remaining artifact fragments are typical of the 1920s to 1950s in general, so there is no 

9 clear indication of limited age or function. The archaeological survey team evaluated the site 

10 under NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing 

11 in the NRHP. 

12 Also a former stock camp, Site 448CA7088 is a historic artifact scatter. Cultural affiliation of 

13 herder camps is generally assumed to be Euro-American because most herders in the west 

14 were of that descent. The archaeological survey team evaluated the site under NRHP Criteria 

15 (Greer Services, 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

16 Site 48CA7089 represents a historic homestead. The overall paucity of trash and evidence of 

17 out-buildings, however, indicates that this site was not occupied intensively, and not for a long 

18 period of time. The archaeological survey team evaluated the site under NRHP Criteria Greer 

19 Services, 2011). The archaeological survey team evaluated the site under NRHP Criteria 

20 (Greer Services, 2011). The site was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

21 Site 48CA7090 is defined by a historic hand dug depression. Investigators suggest that the 

22 depression is the same size and shape as a homestead-era icehouse. It is assumed that it was 

23 associated with homestead-era activities and probably dates between about 1915 and 1930. 

24 The archaeological survey team evaluated the site under NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). 

25 The site was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

26 Isolated Cultural Resources 

27 Along with the 7 new archeological sites, the 2010-2011 Class III survey identified 26 new 

28 isolated resources in the Reno Creek ISR Project area. A total of 11 isolates are prehistoric, 

29 13 are historic and 2 contain artifacts dating to both the prehistoric and historic periods. The 

30 majority of prehistoric isolates have limited quantities of associated artifacts. The WY SHPO 

31 defines a prehistoric isolate as 14 or fewer associated artifacts, with no cultural features, and no 

32 known cultural deposits. A historic isolate is defined as 49 or fewer associated artifacts 

33 (excluding trash dumps and highway trash) and no cultural features. The WY SHPO indicates 

34 that isolated cultural localities are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. The archaeological survey 

35 team evaluated the 26 new isolates under NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). These 

36 isolates were not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. After reviewing the 

37 recommendation and considering any comments received from other consulting parties, the 

38 NRC staff made preliminary determinations that these sites are ineligible for listing in the NRHP. 

39 The NRC staff submitted its preliminary determination to WY SHPO for concurrence. The 

40 WY SHPO is currently evaluating these preliminary determinations. The following contains 

41 a brief description of the historic and cultural resources that were evaluated for the 

42 proposed project. 

43 The proposed project area contains two multi-component isolated localities (IF 7063-11 and IF 

44 7063-28). Both of these isolates are prehistoric lithic scatters with historic artifacts. IF 7063-11 
3-103 

1 represents an isolated resource containing nine prehistoric and four historic artifacts; no 

2 diagnostic lithic artifacts are associated with this isolate and there is no indication of previous 

3 cultural features, either prehistoric or historic. IF7063-28 represents a scatter of four lithic and 

4 four historic artifacts. The archaeological survey team evaluated these isolates under NRHP 

5 Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). These isolates were not recommended eligible for listing in 

6 the NRHP. 

7 Isolated historic resources range from locations having 1 artifact to more than 30, or represent 

8 structural remains and/or landscape features. Five of the historic isolates (IF 7063-5, IF 7063-9, 

9 IF 7063-19, IF 7063-20, and IF 7063-27) have low quantities of artifacts (e.g., 1 to 5 artifacts). 

10 Three historic isolates represent windmill remains (IF 7063-32, IF 7063-33, and IF 7063-34). 

11 Each of these windmills appears to date to the 1950s and is associated with stock-watering 

12 facilities. Two of the historic isolates are livestock windbreak remains (IF 7063-26 and 

13 IF 7063-30). It is estimated that each was constructed during the late 1930s and used through 

14 the early 1960s. The archaeological survey team evaluated these isolates under NRHP Criteria 

15 (Greer Services, 2011). These isolates were not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

16 Two of the historic isolates are identified as former herder camps (IF 7063-10 and IF 7063-25). 

17 IF 7063-10 is a small concentration of historic artifacts. Based on styles and conditions of these 

18 items, the site appears to date to the late 1930s or 1940s (Greer Services, 2011) and 

19 presumably is the discard area at a small temporary herder camp. IF 7063-25 represents a 

20 small concentration of historic artifacts. All artifacts appear to date to the late 1930s or 1940s 

21 (Greer Services, 2011). The archaeological survey team evaluated these isolates under NRHP 

22 Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). These isolates were not recommended eligible for listing in 

23 the NRHP. 

24 IF 7063-36 is a historic trash dump consisting of a variety of historic materials. This appears to 

25 have been a single-episode dump, and from the kinds and conditions of the materials, it is 

26 estimated that they were discarded during the 1930s to 1940s. There are no indications of 

27 structures or any other cultural use or modification around the site or anywhere in the 

28 surrounding area. The archaeological survey team evaluated this isolate under NRHP Criteria 

29 (Greer Services, 2011). The isolate was not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

30 3.9.3.1.2 Historic Standing Structures 

31 A total of six historic structures were identified within the direct APE and are associated with 

32 historic archaeological sites (three windmills, one lambing/livestock shed, and the two livestock 

33 windbreaks) (Greer Services, 2011). No historic structures within the proposed project area are 

34 currently listed or recommended eligible for listing on the NRHP. The archaeological survey 

35 team evaluated these historic structures under NRHP Criteria (Greer Services, 2011). These 

36 historic structures were not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

37 3.9.3.1.3 Places of Religious or Cultural Significance 

38 Amendments to the NHPA passed in 1992 greatly expanded the role of Native American tribes 

39 in the Section 106 review process [54 U.S.C. § 306108]. These changes allowed tribes to 

40 assume the role of the WY SHPO for projects on tribal land [54 U.S.C. § 306102(b)(5)(b)] and 

41 recognized that historic properties of religious and cultural significance to Native American tribes 

42 or Native Hawaiians may be eligible for the NRHP listing; and required that federal agencies 

43 consult with any Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches 

44 significance to such sites [54 U.S.C. § 306102(b)(5)(b] (NHPA, 1966). 
3-104 

1 For Native American Tribes, places of religious or cultural significance represent the cultural 

2 localities or spaces that are linked to the cultural practices and beliefs of living Native American 

3 populations. Moreover, these places may be representative of their history and therefore may 

4 be considered an essential representation of a group’s cultural heritage. Places of religious or 

5 cultural significance may not be represented in archaeological or historic contexts. 

6 3.9.3.1.4 Overview 

7 Cultural resources that are considered sensitive and potentially sacred to modern Native 

8 American tribes include burials, rock art, rock features and alignments (such as cairns, medicine 

9 wheels, and stone circles), Native American trails, and certain religiously significant natural 

10 landscapes and features. Some of these resources may be formally designated as TCPs or 

11 sites of religious or cultural significance to Native American Tribes. A TCP is a site that may be 

12 eligible for inclusion on the NRHP because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of 

13 a living community, which are (i) rooted in that community’s history and (ii) important in 

14 maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (NRHP, 2011) and meets the other 

15 criteria in 36 CFR 64.2. 

16 The NRC staff identified tribes that may attach religious and cultural significant to historic 

17 properties in the area of potential effects and invite them to be consulting parties. Information 

18 regarding prior surveys of the proposed project area was sent to interested tribes. 

19 Representatives from 12 tribes also took part in the tribal cultural survey and are as follows: 

20 Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, Yankton Sioux Tribe, Turtle Mountain 

21 Band of Chippewa, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Northern 

22 Arapaho Tribe, Crow Tribe (Apsaalooke), Santee Sioux Nation, Fort Belknap Tribe, Chippewa 

23 Cree Tribe, and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. During the tribal cultural survey, six sites or 

24 features of religious or cultural significance were identified by the tribes. The Santee Sioux 

25 Tribe determined that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would not have an adverse effect 

26 on sites of historic or cultural significance to the tribe. The Northern Arapaho identified two sites 

27 of historic and cultural significance to their tribe. However, the Northern Arapaho did not 

28 recommend the sites eligible for listing in the NRHP. The Northern Arapaho tribe also 

29 recommended avoidance for two isolated cultural resources in the direct APE and one isolated 

30 resource that is adjacent to the direct APE. 

31 As previously mentioned, BLM previously designated Pumpkin Buttes as a TCP and developed 

32 a PA between the BLM and the WY SHPO regarding mitigation of adverse effects for the 

33 anticipated federal minerals development in Campbell County, Wyoming. The proposed Reno 

34 Creek project area is geographically located 12 km [7.5 mi] from the Pumpkin Buttes, and at 

35 least 8.6 km [5.5 mi] outside of the PA boundary. The Pumpkin Buttes TCP has potential 

36 cultural affiliation with nine tribes. 

37 3.9.3.1.5 Tribal Cultural Survey Results 

38 The following sections provide an overview of places of religious and cultural significance to 

39 tribes and the results of the tribal cultural survey completed at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

40 Project area. 

41 Tribal Review of Previously Reported Archaeological Sites 

42 While participating in the tribal cultural survey, some Native American tribes chose to revisit 

43 some previously recorded archaeological sites. In total, tribal representatives investigated four 
3-105 

1 such sites and one isolate location, which are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-23. Tribal survey 

2 teams recorded sparse cultural artifact scatters within or adjacent to the boundaries of three 

3 known archaeological sites (48CA2765, 48CA4267, and 48CA7084). All of the newly recorded 

4 locations consist of individual artifacts. No new cultural features were recorded during these 

5 revisits. Tribal representatives elected to revisit Site 48CA7087 and isolate location IF-7063-11 

6 but did not record any individual artifacts or features. None of the surveying tribes 

7 recommended previously recorded archaeological sites or isolates eligible for listing in the 

8 NRHP Criteria. 

9 Tribal Sites: New Discoveries 

10 Two of the six newly discovered cultural sites were identified on July 17, 2014 within the project 

11 area but outside the direct APE (see draft SEIS Table 3-24). Both of these sites (48CA7249 

12 and 48CA7250) are located on property owned by the State of Wyoming. Four of the sites were 

13 located within the direct APE. One of these sites (48CA7252) is located on property owned by 

14 the State of Wyoming, while the remaining three sites (48CA7251, 48CA7253, and 48CA7254) 

15 are located on privately owned property. The Northern Arapaho Tribe provided formal 

16 recommendations for 48CA7252. 

17 The tribal survey also resulted in the identification of 22 isolated artifact locations, designated as 

18 IA-01 to IA-22). Two of the isolated artifacts were located within the proposed project area but 

19 outside of the direct APE, while the remaining 20 isolated artifacts were located within the direct 

20 APE. While none of the tribes recommended these sites to be eligible for listing on the NHPA, 

21 the Northern Arapaho Tribe recommended avoidance for three of these 22 isolated artifacts 

22 (IA-05, IA-12, and IA-13) (Northern Arapaho Tribal Historic Preservation Office, 2015). 

23 Likewise, surveyors for the Cheyenne River and Yankton Sioux Tribes verbally communicated 

24 to the NRC staff recommendations for avoidance or mitigation (IA-12) to avoid ground 

25 disturbing impacts. 

Table 3-23. Summary of Tribal Cultural Survey New Site/Feature Discoveries 

Tribal Survey 

Number Tribal Features/Artifacts 

National Register of 

Historic Places 

Recommendation†

48CA7249* Spare cultural artifacts scatter Recommended as Not 

Eligible 

48CA7250* Spare cultural artifacts scatter Recommended as Not 

Eligible 

48CA7251 Stone Circle Recommended as Not 

Eligible 

48CA7252 Prayer Circle; Fasting Circle; Recommended as Not 

Eligible 

48CA7253 Stone Circle Recommended as Not 

Eligible 

48CA7254 Stone Circle Recommended as Not 

Eligible 

*Sites 48CA7249 and 48CA7250 Wyoming are located on state land. All other sites are located on private land. 

†NRHP eligibility criteria are presented in draft SEIS Section 3.9.
3-106 

1 After reviewing the recommendations and considering any comments received from the tribes 

2 and other consulting parties, the NRC staff made preliminary determinations that the additional 

3 sites and isolates identified during the tribal survey are ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The 

4 NRC staff submitted its preliminary determinations to WY SHPO for concurrence. The 

5 WY SHPO is currently evaluating these preliminary determinations. 

6 3.9.3.2 Visual Impacts Assessment 

7 The Class III survey and the Tribal Cultural Survey did not identify sites recommended eligible 

8 for listing in the NRHP in the direct or indirect APE. The nearest known TCP is Pumpkin Buttes, 

9 which is located 12.8 km [8 mi] from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. Draft SEIS 

10 Section 4.9.1.1 describes the visual effects analysis conducted for the proposed Reno Creek 

11 ISR Project. This analysis does indicate that the proposed CPP location will be visible from the 

12 southeastern vantage of the Pumpkin Buttes. 

13 3.9.4 Tribal Consultation 

14 The federal government recognizes the sovereignty of federally recognized Native American 

15 tribes. Executive Order (EO) 13175 (November 2000), “Consultation and Coordination with 

16 Indian Tribal Governments,” excludes from the requirements of the order, “independent 

17 regulatory agencies,” as defined in 44 U.S.C. §3502(5).” However, Section 8 of EO 13175 does 

18 indicate that agencies such as NRC are, “encouraged to comply with the provisions” of 

19 EO 13175. While the NRC is exempt from the EO, the Commission is committed to carrying out 

20 meaningful consultation with Native American tribes. 

21 Under Section 106 of the NHPA and the regulations at 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(B)(ii)(A), NRC must 

22 also provide Native American tribes “a reasonable opportunity to identify its concerns about 

23 historic properties, advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties and 

24 evaluation of historic properties, including those of religious and cultural importance, articulate 

25 its views on the undertaking’s effects on such properties, and participate in the resolution of 

26 adverse effects.” To this end, the NRC identified 22 Native American tribes who attribute 

27 historical, cultural, and religious significance to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. 

28 The NRC’s consultation with tribal governments began with formal notification letters dated 

29 March 27, 2013 (NRC, 2013). 

30 Subsequently, the NRC invited all 22 tribes to participate in a meeting and site visit on 

31 March 12, 2014. As a result of the meeting, the NRC staff determined that there was sufficient 

32 interest in the project area to warrant a tribal cultural survey of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

33 Project area. In May 2014, the NRC staff issued correspondence to all interested tribes to 

34 coordinate a tribal cultural survey for the purpose of identifying properties of religious and 

35 cultural significance to tribes (NRC, 2014). The NRC staff invited interested tribes to investigate 

36 any area within the Reno Creek ISR Project direct APE during the months of June and 

37 July 2014. The NRC staff also sent prior survey information regarding the proposed project 

38 area to interested tribes. 

39 In all, representatives from 12 Native American tribes took part in the tribal cultural survey 

40 offered by the NRC in June and July 2014. The participating tribes include: 

41  Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

42  Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

43  Yankton Sioux Tribe 
3-107 

1  Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

2  Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux 

3  Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

4  Northern Arapaho Tribe 

5  Crow Tribe (Apsaalooke) 

6  Santee Sioux Nation 

7  Fort Belknap Tribe 

8  Chippewa Cree Tribe 

9  Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

10 Draft SEIS Section 1.7 describes consultation activities undertaken by the NRC staff with tribal 

11 governments. Consultation correspondence and meeting notes associated with the Section 106 

12 process is presented in Appendix A. The NRC staff have considered tribal comments when 

13 making the required determinations under the NHPA. The NRC staff did not identify any historic 

14 properties affected by the proposed project. These preliminary determinations are currently 

15 being evaluated by the WY SHPO. The NRC staff also considered tribal comments when 

16 assessing potential impacts to historic and cultural resources in draft SEIS Chapter 4 and 5. 

17 3.10 Visual and Scenic 

18 The proposed project area is located in the PRB. The PRB extends over northeastern Wyoming 

19 and southeastern Montana. The PRB is bounded by the Hartville Uplift and the Laramie Range 

20 to the south, the Black Hills to the east, and the Big Horn Mountains to the west. The PRB is 

21 described as rolling prairie and dissected river breaks surrounding the Powder, Cheyenne, and 

22 Upper North Platte Rivers, and has less precipitation and less available water than neighboring 

23 regions (NRC, 2009). Within the project area, the landscape is characterized by flat to rolling 

24 topography with small ephemeral drainages with big sagebrush shrubland, meadow grassland, 

25 upland grassland, and breaks grassland vegetation. The proposed project area elevation 

26 ranges from 1,536 to 1,614 m [5,041 to 5,296 ft] above mean sea level with the highest 

27 elevation in the eastern portion (AUC, 2012a). Wetland surveys identified a total of 17.12 ha 

28 [42.23 ac] of wetlands within the proposed project area (for more information see draft SEIS 

29 Section 3.5.1.4). The Pumpkin Buttes are visible from the proposed project area, but range 

30 from 12 to 23 km [7.5 to 14 mi] away. Modified landscapes within the proposed project area 

31 include oil and gas production facilities and infrastructure, utilities, transportation infrastructure, 

32 agricultural infrastructure, and three residences. The Thunder Basin National Grassland covers 

33 approximately 77.2 percent {1,892 of 2,451 ha [4,675 of 6,057 ac]} of the proposed project area; 

34 however, all lands encompassed by the grassland are privately owned (AUC, 2012a). 

35 Although the proposed project does not include any federal land (see draft SEIS Section 3.2), 

36 the applicant used the BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) system to evaluate visual and 

37 scenic resources. The VRM system is the basic tool used by the BLM to inventory and manage 

38 visual resources. BLM evaluates the visual or scenic quality of the land using the Visual 

39 Resource Inventory to assess the scenic value of a property and ensure that its value is 

40 preserved (BLM, 1986). In compiling the inventory, BLM completed a scenic quality evaluation, 

41 a sensitivity-level analysis, and a delineation of distance zones for properties; each property or 

42 area is assigned to one of four VRM classes (BLM, 1984). Class I is most protective of visual 

43 and scenic resources, and Class IV is least restrictive. 

44  Class I: Preserve the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

45 characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention; 
3-108 

1  Class II Objective: Retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change 

2 to the characteristic landscape should be low; 

3  Class III Objective: Partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of 

4 change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate; and 

5  Class IV Objective: Provide for management activities which require major modification 

6 of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

7 landscape can be high. 

8 The key factors of landform, vegetation, water, color, influence of adjacent scenery, scarcity, 

9 and cultural modifications were evaluated and scored according to the rating criteria. The 

10 criteria for each key factor range from high- to moderate-to-low quality, based on the variety of 

11 line, form, color, texture, and scale of the factor within the landscape. A score was associated 

12 with each rating criteria, with a higher score applied to greater complexity and variety for each 

13 factor in the landscape. 

14 As stated in GEIS Section 3.3.9, the Wyoming East Uranium Region (which includes the 

15 proposed project area) does not contain any VRM Class I resources (NRC, 2009). There are 

16 few VRM Class II resources listed within the Wyoming East Uranium Region (NRC, 2009); 

17 however, those sites are approximately 63 km [40 mi] away from the proposed project area 

18 (AUC, 2012a). The majority of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region is categorized as 

19 VRM Class III (along highways) and Class IV (open grassland, oil and natural gas, or urban 

20 areas). Extensive landscape modification in urban areas and in several areas of oil, natural gas 

21 and coal production near Casper and Gillette, Wyoming have resulted in these areas being 

22 predominantly classified as VRM Class IV (NRC, 2009). 

23 The Pumpkin Buttes have been identified as a TCP and have potential cultural affiliation with 

24 some Native American tribes (SWCA, 2006). There is a PA between the BLM and the 

25 WY SHPO regarding mitigation of adverse effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. The proposed 

26 Reno Creek ISR Project would be located at least 8.6 km [5.5 mi] outside the PA boundary and 

27 outside the 3.2 km [2mi] Pumpkin Buttes TCP viewshed boundary (for more information on the 

28 Pumpkin Buttes, see draft SEIS Section 3.9). Using guidance in the GEIS (NRC, 2009) and 

29 utilizing the BLM VRM system, the applicant inventoried the landscape for the proposed project 

30 area and a 3.2 km [2 mi] buffer. The applicant rated the areas as VRM Class III (AUC, 2012a). 

31 For the proposed Reno Creek ISR area, the CPP was selected for the viewshed evaluation 

32 because it would be the most noticeable (the largest and tallest) structure at the proposed 

33 project area. According to NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003), if the visual resource evaluation rating 

34 is 19 or less, no further evaluation is required. Based on the visual and scenic resource survey 

35 the applicant conducted in July 2011, the total score of the scenic quality inventory for the 

36 proposed project would be 8 out of the possible 32, see draft SEIS Table 3-24 (AUC, 2012a). 

37 Therefore, under the NUREG–1569 guidance, no further evaluation would be required for 

38 existing scenic resources. 

39 3.11 Socioeconomics 

40 General socioeconomic factors associated with this region are described in GEIS Section 3.3.10 

41 (NRC, 2009). Socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) is defined as the area where employees 

42 and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby affecting the 

43 economic conditions in the region. This section describes current socioeconomic conditions 
3-109 

Table 3-24. Scenic Quality Evaluation Rating 

Key Factor Rating Criteria Score

Landform Flat to rolling terrain with some areas of steeper topography in the 

background; few or no interesting landscape features. 

1 

Vegetation Little variety in vegetation, which consists of grazed grassland with 

sage and other shrubs. There are a few large trees present on the 

site which offer some variety in form. 

2 

Water Present, but not noticeable. Water bodies consist of small stock 

ponds, CBM outfalls, and surface runoff. 

1 

Color Vegetation and soil have some subtle color variations but 

generally shift from green tones in the spring to tan tones 

throughout the remainder of the year. 

2 

Influence of 

Adjacent Scenery 

Adjacent scenery is very similar to the proposed project area, and 

provides little variety in line, form, color, and texture. 

1 

Scarcity Landscape is common for the region. 1 

Cultural 

Modifications 

Existing modifications consist of numerous oil and gas production 

facilities and infrastructure, and grazing activities. 

0 

Total 8 

Source: AUC, 2012a 

1 and local community services within the ROI surrounding the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

2 area that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. The construction and 

3 operation of the proposed project (the CPP building, wellfields, roads, etc.) are expected to 

4 create demand for employees, goods, and services. Existing communities would provide the 

5 people, goods, and services required to construct and operate the proposed project. Personal 

6 income from wages and benefits would be spent on goods and services within other sectors 

7 of the communities and create additional opportunities for employment and income 

8 (i.e., indirect effects). 

9 The proposed project would be located in a rural portion of southwest Campbell County, 

10 Wyoming. Communities expected to be part of the socioeconomic ROI for the proposed project 

11 are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-25. Most construction and operations workers are expected to 

12 come from the surrounding communities of Wright, Gillette, Antelope Valley/Crestview, and 

13 Sleepy Hollow in Campbell County. Additional workers are expected to come from smaller 

14 communities within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed project area, including Kaycee in 

15 Johnson County and Edgerton and Midwest in Natrona County. It is anticipated that the 

16 majority of workers would reside near the proposed project; therefore, Campbell County is 

17 expected to experience the most significant socioeconomic changes. Although Casper 

18 (Natrona County) is 105 km [65 mi] from the proposed project area, it is the largest city in the 

19 region and is expected to be a source of equipment, supplies, services, and workers 

20 (AUC, 2012a). 

21 Demographics, income, housing, employment structure, local finance, education, and public 

22 services in the ROI surrounding the proposed project area are discussed in the following 

23 subsections. The socioeconomic information in these subsections incorporates 2000, 2010, 

24 and more recent U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) data accessed via American FactFinder, 

25 USCB 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, and USCB State and County 

26 Quickfacts (USCB, 2014). In addition, the Wyoming Department of Administration and 

27 Information (WDAI), the Wyoming Department of Revenue (WDOR), and the Wyoming 

28 Department of Education (WDOE) provided information on demographics and employment 
3-110 

Table 3-25. Communities Surrounding the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area 

Community County 2010 Population Distance/Direction from 

Reno Creek Site 

Gillette Campbell 29,087 69 km [43 mi]/N 

Wright Campbell 1,807 13 km [8 mi]/NE 

Antelope Valley/Crestview Campbell 1,658 64 km [40 mi]/N 

Sleepy Hollow Campbell 1,308 66km [41 mi]/N 

Kaycee Johnson 263 77 km [48 mi]/W 

Edgerton Natrona 195 53 km [33 mi]/SW 

Midwest Natrona 404 56 km [35 mi]/SW 

Casper Natrona 55,316 105 km [65 mi]/SW 

Sources: AUC, 2012a; USCB, 2014 

1 (WDAI, 2007, 2011, 2012), local finance (WDOR, 2007, 2013), and education (WDOE, 

2 2014a-e), respectively. 

3 3.11.1 Demographics 

4 Population changes and projections for counties and communities within the ROI are shown in 

5 draft SEIS Table 3-26. Between 2000 and 2010, all counties and communities (with the 

6 exception of Midwest) experienced population growth. Between 2000 and 2010, population 

7 growth rates in Campbell and Johnson Counties (36.9 and 21.1 percent, respectively) exceeded 

8 the State of Wyoming growth rate of 14.1 percent. The highest growth among communities 

9 between 2000 and 2010 occurred in Gillette (48.1 percent) and Wright (34.1 percent). 

10 Population in all of the counties and communities is projected to increase in coming years. 

11 Between 2010 and 2030, the populations of Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties are 

12 projected to increase by approximately 43 percent, 22 percent, and 17 percent, respectively. 

13 The projected population growth rate of Campbell and Johnson Counties is expected to outpace 

14 the state’s projected population growth rate of approximately 18.6 percent between 2010 and 

15 2030. Gillette and Wright are projected to have the highest growth rates among communities 

16 within the ROI. Between 2010 and 2030, the populations of Gillette and Wright are projected to 

17 increase by approximately 43 percent. 

18 The demographic profiles for Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties are presented in draft 

19 SEIS Table 3-27. All three counties have predominately white populations. Hispanic or Latino 

20 and Native American make up the main minority groups. Hispanic or Latino accounted for 7.8, 

21 3.2, and 6.9 percent of the population in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties, 

22 respectively. Native Americans accounted for 1.2, 1.1, and 1.0 percent of the population in 

23 Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties, respectively. The racial characteristics of the 

24 three-county area are slightly less diverse than the State of Wyoming. 

25 The 40- to 64-year-old age group accounts for a third or more of the population in each of 

26 the counties and in the State of Wyoming (draft SEIS Table 3-27). The 40- to 64-year-old 

27 population in Wyoming is one of the highest in the nation and is a result of the in-migration 

28 of workers during the oil boom years in the late 1970s and early 1980s (WDAI, 2007). In 

29 Campbell and Natrona Counties, the 20- to 39-year-old population is comparable to the 40- to 

30 64-year-old population. 
3-111 

Table 3-26. 2000–2010 Population Change and 2020/2030 Populations Projections for 

Counties and Communities Within the ROI 

State/County/City 

2000 

Census 

2010 

Census 

Percent 

Change 

2000/2010 

Population Projections 

2020 2030 

State of Wyoming 493,782 563,626 14.1 622,360 668,830 

Campbell County 33,698 46,133 36.9 56,890 66,060 

Gillette 19,646 29,087 48.1 35,869 41,651 

Wright 1,347 1,807 34.1 2,228 2,588 

Antelope Valley/Crestview 1,642 1,658 1.0 - - 

Sleepy Hollow 1,177 1,308 11.1 - - 

Johnson County 7,075 8,569 21.1 9,450 10,450 

Kaycee 249 263 5.6 290 321 

Natrona County 66,533 75,450 13.4 82,490 88,320 

Edgerton 169 195 15.4 213 228 

Midwest 408 404 −1.0 442 473 

Sources: USCB, 2014; WDAI, 2011 

Table 3-27. Demographic Profile of the 2010 Population in Counties Within the ROI 

Population Category 

Campbell 

County 

Johnson 

County 

Natrona 

County Wyoming 

Race (percent of total population)

White alone 93.2 96.5 92.8 90.7

Black/African American alone 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.8

American Indian, Alaskan Native alone 1.2 1.1 1.0 2.4

Asian alone 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.8

Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander alone 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

Some Other Race 2.7 0.7 2.2 3.0 

Two or More Races 2.1 1.1 2.4 2.2

Hispanic or Latino 7.8 3.2 6.9 8.9

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 88.9 94.4 89.1 85.9

Population Density 

Persons per km2 [mi2] 3.7 [9.6] 0.8 [2.1] 5.4 [14.1] 2.2 [5.8]

Population by Age/Percent of Total 

Under 5 years 4,063/8.8 573/6.7 5,377/7.1 40,203/7.1 

5–19 years 10,164/22.0 1,479/17.3 14,720/19.5 111,310/19.7 

20–39 years 14,059/30.5 1,798/21.0 20,554/27.2 151,828/26.9 

40–64 years 15,231/33.0 3,131/36.5 25,407/33.7 190,195/33.7 

+65 years 2,616/5.7 1,588/18.5 9,392/12.4 70,090/12.4 

Total 46,133/100 8,569/100 75,450/100 563,626/100 

Source: USCB, 2014

1 3.11.2 Income 

2 Income information for the ROI is presented in draft SEIS Table 3-28. According to USCB data, 

3 2008–2012 median household and per capita incomes were significantly higher in Campbell 

4 County than in Johnson and Natrona Counties (USCB, 2014). Median household and per 

5 capita income levels in Johnson and Natrona Counties were similar to the statewide averages. 

6 The percentage of the population living below the poverty level in the three counties is lower 

7 than the statewide percentages (11.0 percent). Approximately 6.7 percent of the population of 
3-112 

Table 3-28. 2008–2012 Income Information for Counties Within the ROI 

Campbell

County 

Johnson

County 

Natrona 

County Wyoming 

Median Household Income (Annual Dollars) 77,090 57,175 55,786 56,573 

Per Capita Income (Annual Dollars) 33,557 28,972 29,702 28,858 

Families Living Below the Poverty Level (Percent) 6.0 5.8 6.3 7.2 

Persons Below the Poverty Level (Percent) 6.7 8.0 9.3 11.0 

Source: USCB, 2014. 

1 Campbell County, 8.8 percent of the population of Johnson County, and 9.3 percent of the 

2 population of Natrona County live below the poverty level (USCB, 2014). The percentage of 

3 families living below the poverty level in the three counties is also lower that the statewide 

4 percentage (7.2 percent). Approximately 6.0 percent of families in Campbell County, 

5 5.8 percent of families in Johnson County, and 6.3 percent of families in Natrona County live 

6 below the poverty level (USCB, 2014). 

7 3.11.3 Housing 

8 Housing data for the three counties and seven communities within the proposed Reno Creek 

9 ISR Project ROI, including occupied and vacant units, are provided in draft SEIS Table 3-29. In 

10 2010, the vacancy rate in Campbell and Natrona Counties was 9.4 percent, and in Johnson 

11 County the vacancy rate was 16.9 percent. Of the approximately 14,500 housing units in the 

12 seven communities within the ROI, which include single-family homes, multifamily housing, 

13 mobile homes, and rental units, approximately 13,000 units or 90 percent are occupied and 

14 approximately 1,500 units or 10 percent are vacant. Most occupied housing units in the seven 

15 communities within the ROI (about 9,000 or 70 percent) are owned rather than rented (USCB, 

16 2014). Most vacant units in the seven communities are for rent (approximately 660 units or 

17 45 percent) rather than for sale (approximately 210 units or 14 percent) (USCB, 2014). The 

18 median value of owner-occupied housing units is $201,100 in Campbell County, $215,300 in 

19 Johnson County, and $179,100 in Natrona County (USCB, 2014). 

Table 3-29. 2010 Housing Units of Counties and Communities Within the ROI 

County/Community Total 

Housing 

Units 

Occupied Units Vacant Units 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Campbell County 18,955 17,172 90.6 1,783 9.4 

Gillette 12,153 10,975 90.3 1,178 9.7 

Wright 813 685 84.3 128 15.7 

Antelope 

Valley/Crestview 

644 593 92.1 51 7.9 

Sleepy Hollow 447 435 97.3 12 2.7 

Johnson County 4,553 3,782 83.1 771 16.9 

Kaycee 134 115 85.5 19 14.2 

Natrona County 33,807 30,616 90.6 3,191 9.4 

Edgerton 111 90 81.1 21 18.9 

Midwest 200 148 74.0 52 26.0 

Total 7 Communities 14,502 13,041 89.9 1,461 10.1 

Source: USCB, 2014 
3-113 

1 Temporary lodging within the ROI is located in Wright, Gillette, and Edgerton. Temporary 

2 lodging in Wright includes a mobile home park, two motels, a recreational vehicle (RV) park, 

3 and one hotel. In Gillette, temporary accommodations include 23 motels/hotels, two RV parks, 

4 and 22 campgrounds with RV hookups. One motor lodge is located in Edgerton. 

5 3.11.4 Employment Structure 

6 Based on information from the Wyoming Department of Administration and Information (WDAI), 

7 total employment (farm and nonfarm) in April 2010 was estimated to be 32,824 for Campbell 

8 County; 5,937 for Johnson County; and 52,286 for Natrona County (WDAI, 2012). In 2011, the 

9 unemployment rate in Campbell County was 4.6 percent, which is lower than the statewide rate 

10 of 6.0 percent. The unemployment rate in Johnson County was 7.1 percent, which exceeded 

11 the statewide rate, whereas the unemployment rate in Natrona County was 5.9 percent, which 

12 approximately matched the statewide rate. 

13 The largest employment sector for Campbell County was mining, which accounted for about 

14 26 percent of the labor force. Other major sources of employment in Campbell County were 

15 construction jobs (13 percent), government-related jobs (13 percent), and retail trade (8 percent) 

16 (WDAI, 2012). Major sources of employment in Johnson and Natrona Counties include 

17 mining (7 and 9 percent, respectively), construction jobs (10 and 8 percent, respectively), 

18 government-related jobs (18 and 12 percent, respectively), and retail trade (9 and 12 percent, 

19 respectively). Health care and social assistance is another major source of employment in 

20 Natrona County, accounting for 12 percent of the labor force. 

21 3.11.5 Local Finance 

22 Wyoming does not impose a corporate income tax or personal income tax. Wyoming has a 

23 four percent sales tax (WDOR, 2007). In addition, counties may impose two optional taxes, 

24 either for general or specific uses (WDOR, 2007). Each optional tax is limited to a maximum of 

25 1 percent. Campbell County has a 6 percent total sales and use tax (4 percent state tax, 

26 1 percent general use county option tax, and 1 percent specific use county option tax) (WDOR, 

27 2013). Johnson and Natrona Counties have a 5 percent total sales and use tax (4 percent state 

28 tax and 1 percent general use county option tax) (WDOR, 2013). In 2013, sales and use tax 

29 revenues in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties totaled approximately $183 million, 

30 $14 million, and $127.5 million, respectively (WDOR, 2013). Wyoming law also allows counties 

31 to impose a local option lodging tax of not more than 4 percent (WDOR, 2007). Campbell 

32 and Johnson Counties both impose a 2 percent lodging tax, and Natrona County imposes 

33 a 3 percent lodging tax (WDOR, 2013). In 2013, lodging tax collections in Campbell, Johnson, 

34 and Natrona Counties totaled approximately $432,000, $163,000, and $1.3 million, respectively 

35 (WDOR, 2013). 

36 Because Wyoming does not impose an income tax, local governments largely rely on property 

37 tax collections. The majority of the property tax revenues are directed to Wyoming’s public 

38 schools. The approximate 2013 taxable valuation for all state and locally assessed property in 

39 Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties was $5.8 billion, $785 million, and $1.25 billion, 

40 respectively (WDOR, 2013). Wyoming's property tax rate is 11.5 percent for industrial property 

41 and 9.5 percent for commercial, residential, and all other property. 

42 Finally, the State of Wyoming levies taxes on the value of mineral production (a severance tax). 

43 Severance taxes associated with mineral recovery are levied by the Mineral Tax Division of the 

44 State of Wyoming Department of Revenue. Wyoming levies a uranium mineral severance tax of 
3-114 

1 4 percent (WDOR, 2013). Counties also levy an ad valorum property tax (gross products tax) 

2 on the previous year’s mineral production. The Mineral Tax Division of the Wyoming 

3 Department of Revenue assesses the previous year’s mineral production, which the counties 

4 use to bill and collect the ad valorem property tax from mineral taxpayers. 

5 3.11.6 Education 

6 Communities within the ROI with public school systems are Wright, Gillette, Midwest, and 

7 Kaycee. Public schools in Wyoming are generally organized at the county or subcounty level by 

8 school district. The Wright and Gillette public schools are part of Campbell County School 

9 District #1; Kaycee public schools are part of Johnson County School District #1; and Midwest 

10 public schools are part of Natrona County School District #1. Information concerning these 

11 school districts is presented in draft SEIS Table 3-30. 

12 Most of the public schools in Campbell County School District #1 are located in Gillette and 

13 immediately surrounding communities. There are 15 elementary schools, 2 junior high schools, 

14 and 2 high schools in Gillette and the immediate surrounding communities (WDOE, 2014a). 

15 The Wright public schools consist of one elementary school (Cottonwood Elementary; 

kindergarten through 6th 16 grade) and one junior-senior high school (Wright Junior and Senior 

High School; 7th through 12th 17 grade). Fall enrollment for the 2012–2013 school year at 

18 Cottonwood Elementary was 293 students (WDOE, 2014a). At Wright Junior and Senior High 

19 School, fall enrollment for the 2012–2013 school year was 219 students (WDOE, 2014a). 

The Kaycee public school serves kindergarten through 12th 20 grade. Fall enrollment for the 

21 2012–2013 school year was 146 students (WDOE, 2014a). The Midwest public school system 

includes an elementary school with a half-day preschool, full-day kindergarten, and 1st 22 through 

5th grades, and a secondary school serving 6th to 12th 23 grades. Fall enrollment for the 

24 2012–2013 school year for the Midwest public schools was 183 students (WDOE, 2014a). 

25 Due to the low enrollment, class sizes in the Kaycee and Midwest public schools are fairly small. 

26 The student-to-teacher ratio at the Midwest schools is approximately 12 to 1 (WDOE, 2014e). 

Table 3-30. County Public School Districts Located Within the ROI 

Campbell County School District #1 

Number of students enrolled (K–12) 8,705

Number of schools 21

Student-teacher ratio 13.5

Johnson County School District #1 

Number of students enrolled (K–12) 1,287

Number of schools 5

Student-teacher ratio 10.8

Natrona County School District #1 

Number of students enrolled (K–12) 12,750

Number of schools 35

Student-teacher ratio 14.1

Sources: WDOE, 2014a,b,c,d,e
3-115 

1 Wyoming has seven community colleges. The Northern Wyoming Community College District 

2 has a main campus in Sheridan (Sheridan College), a satellite college in Gillette (Gillette 

3 College), and outreach centers in Wright and Kaycee. The Gillette College campus is the 

4 closest post-secondary school to the proposed project area. The University of Wyoming at 

5 Casper and Casper College (one of Wyoming’s seven community colleges) offer courses and 

6 degree programs taught in Casper. 

7 3.11.7 Health and Social Services 

8 Medical facilities and health services in the ROI are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-31. Hospitals 

9 and clinics are located in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties. 

10 Campbell County Memorial Hospital in Gillette is the primary health care facility in Campbell 

11 County and provides emergency care and clinical outpatient operations. Hospital facilities 

12 include a 90-bed acute-care hospital, specialty clinics, a 150-bed long-term care facility, an 

13 inpatient hospice, and an ambulatory surgery center. Other services include a cancer care 

14 center, inpatient and outpatient behavioral health services, occupational health services, and 

15 rehabilitation services. Campbell County Memorial Hospital is designated as an Area Trauma 

16 Hospital by the Wyoming Department of Public Health Emergency Services. Campbell County 

17 Memorial Hospital has two walk-in branch clinics—one in Gillette and one in Wright. 

18 The Wyoming Medical Center in Casper is the nearest hospital offering full service emergency 

19 services and is designated as a Regional Trauma Hospital by the Wyoming Department of 

20 Public Health Emergency Services. The Wyoming Medical Center is a 191-bed acute-care 

21 hospital offering comprehensive medical services. Emergency services at Wyoming Medical 

22 Center include Wyoming Life Flight, the state’s only air ambulance service. 

23 The Johnson County Healthcare Center, located in Buffalo, is the primary health care facility in 

24 Johnson County. It includes a 25-bed acute-care hospital, outpatient medical clinic, and a 

25 50-bed long-term care facility. 

26 The Wyoming Department of Health has a Public Health Nursing office in Gillette. This office 

27 provides primary and preventative health services, including family planning; immunizations; 

28 Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and maternal and 

Table 3-31. Hospitals, Clinics, and Health Services in Campbell, Johnson, and 

Natrona Counties 

Hospitals Location 

Campbell County Memorial Hospital Gillette 

Wyoming Medical Center Casper 

Johnson County Healthcare Center Hospital Buffalo 

Clinics Location 

CCMH Walk-in Clinic Gillette 

CCMH Wright Walk-in Clinic Wright 

Johnson County Healthcare Center Clinic Buffalo 

Health Services Location 

Public Health Nursing Gillette 

Wyoming Department of Family Services Gillette 
3-116 

1 family health. The Wyoming Department of Family Services has a local office in Gillette, which 

2 provides assistance for connecting with community resources; reporting child and adult abuse 

3 and neglect; and applying for programs, including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

4 (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Medicaid. 

5 Police, fire department, and ambulance services in the ROI are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-32. 

6 In Campbell County, emergency medical services (EMS) are provided by Campbell County 

7 Memorial Hospital and the Campbell County Fire Department. Campbell County Memorial 

8 Hospital EMS has two stations—one in Gillette and one in Wright. The Campbell County Fire 

9 Department has 10 stations: 8 stations in Gillette, 1 station in Wright, and 1 station in Rozet. 

10 The Campbell County Fire Department is a combination fire department consisting of career 

11 and volunteer firefighters. 

12 Johnson County has a volunteer fire department in Buffalo and fire control districts in Buffalo 

13 (Johnson County Fire District) and Kaycee (Powder River Fire District). Natrona County has a 

14 volunteer fire department in Midwest and a fire protection district with two stations in Casper and 

15 Evansville. The Natrona County Fire Protection District is staffed by career firefighters. 

16 Campbell County has a sheriff’s office headquartered in Gillette with a substation in Wright. The 

17 City of Gillette also has a police department. The Campbell County Sheriff’s Office contracts 

18 with the Town of Wright to provide law enforcement services. The Wright substation has five 

19 deputies who provide routine and emergency coverage for the Town of Wright and southern 

20 Campbell County. 

Table 3-32. Police, Fire Department, and Ambulance Services in Campbell, Johnson, 

and Natrona Counties 

Police Location 

Campbell County Sheriff’s Office Gillette, Wright 

Natrona County Sheriff’s Office Casper, Midwest 

Johnson County Sheriff’s Office Buffalo 

Gillette Police Department Gillette 

Kaycee Police Department Kaycee 

Midwest Police Department Midwest 

Fire Departments 

Campbell County Fire Department 10 stations (8 in Gillette, 1 in Wright, and 1 in Rozet) 

Buffalo Volunteer Fire Department Buffalo 

Johnson County Fire District Buffalo 

Powder River Fire District Kaycee 

Midwest Volunteer Fire Department Midwest 

Natrona County Fire Protection District Casper, Evansville 

EMS/Ambulance 

Campbell County Memorial Hospital Gillette, Wright 

Campbell County Fire Department Gillette, Wright, Rozet 

Wyoming Medical Center Casper 

Johnson County Healthcare Center Buffalo 
3-117 

1 Johnson County has a sheriff’s office headquartered in Buffalo. The Town of Kaycee has 

2 a police department with one full-time officer. Natrona County has a sheriff’s office 

3 headquartered in Casper with resident deputies in Midwest. The Town of Midwest also has 

4 a police department. 

5 3.12 Public and Occupational Health 

6 This section summarizes the natural background radiation levels in and around the proposed 

7 Reno Creek ISR Project area. Descriptions of these levels are known as “preoperational” or 

8 “baseline” radiological conditions, and, unless otherwise noted, would be used for evaluating 

9 any future changes to site conditions during operations and potential reclamation obligations 

10 during eventual decontamination and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

11 Project. This section also describes applicable safety criteria and radiation dose limits that have 

12 been established for the protection of public and occupational health and safety. 

13 Radiation dose is a measure of the amount of ionizing energy that is deposited in the body. 

14 Ionizing radiation is a natural component of the environment and ecosystem, and members of 

15 the public are exposed to natural radiation continuously. Radiation doses to the general public 

16 occur from radioactive materials found in the Earth’s soils, rocks, and minerals. Radon 

17 (Rn-222) is a radioactive gas that escapes into ambient air from the decay of uranium (and its 

18 progeny, radium-226) found in most soils and rocks. Naturally occurring low levels of uranium 

19 and radium are also found in drinking water and foods. Cosmic radiation from outer space is 

20 another natural source of exposure and ionizing radiation dose. In addition to natural sources of 

21 radiation, there are artificial or manmade sources that contribute to the dose the general public 

22 receives. Medical diagnostic procedures using radioisotopes and x-rays are a primary 

23 manmade radiation source. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

24 (2009) estimates the annual average dose to the public from all natural background radiation 

25 sources (terrestrial and cosmic) is {3.1 millisieverts (mSv) [310 millirem (mrem)]}. Due to the 

26 increase in medical imaging and nuclear medicine procedures, the annual average dose to the 

27 public from all sources (natural and human made) is 6.2 mSv [620 mrem] (NCRP, 2009). 

28 3.12.1 Baseline Radiological Conditions 

29 In accordance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria 7 and 7A, the 

30 applicant developed and implemented a preoperational monitoring program to establish 

31 baseline radiological conditions for the proposed project area (AUC, 2012i; 2015b). For this 

32 program, the applicant performed radiological surveys and sampling of soils, air, surface water, 

33 groundwater, and biota at the proposed project from September 2010 through December 2011 

34 (AUC, 2012i), then supplemented or revised surveys, as applicable, in response to NRC 

35 requests for additional information (AUC, 2014a–c), and then compiled all preoperational 

36 monitoring results in AUC (2015b). The applicant followed guidance in NUREG–1569 

37 (NRC, 2003) and NRC Regulatory Guides 4.14 (NRC, 1980), 3.46 (NRC, 1982a), and 

38 3.8 (NRC, 1982b), as applicable (AUC, 2012i; 2015b). Results of this baseline radiological 

39 monitoring are described in the following subsections. These results provide data on 

40 radiological conditions that would be used to evaluate potential changes in future site conditions 

41 from routine facility operations or accidental or unplanned releases, if a license is issued. 

42 In response to the NRC requests for additional information, the applicant relocated 2 of 6 air 

43 sampling stations and committed to collecting 12 months of environmental samples at these 

44 new stations, collecting a final round of vegetation samples, and documenting the results in an 

45 updated preoperational monitoring report for the NRC review (AUC 2015a,b). This update 
3-118 

1 affects the monitoring results described in this section for airborne particulate, airborne radon, 

2 ambient gamma, soil, and vegetation. Therefore, if the NRC issues the license in the future, it 

3 will be conditioned on receiving this updated information prior to prelicense NRC inspection and 

4 start of operations. Upon receipt, the NRC staff would review the updated information and 

5 evaluate whether the SEIS needs to be supplemented. 

6 3.12.1.1 Soils 

7 The applicant performed a baseline gamma radiation survey to evaluate gamma exposure rates 

8 and soil radionuclide concentrations. The applicant conducted global positioning system 

9 (GPS)-based unshielded gamma-ray surveys at 100-m [328-ft] transect intervals, increased 

10 densities of 50 m [160 ft] in areas of known ore deposits, and 100 percent coverage in areas 

11 where correlations with soil samples were developed (AUC, 2012i). The applicant also 

12 conducted surface soil sampling every 5 cm [2 in] at 54 locations along 8 transects and the 

13 center of a radial grid, 6 biased air sampling locations across the proposed project area, and 

14 subsurface soil at 0.33-m [1.09 ft] intervals to a depth of 1 m [3 ft] at the center of the proposed 

15 CPP location and at 750 m [2,500 ft] to the north, south, east, and west of that location 

16 (AUC,2012i; 2015b). 

17 The objective of the gamma-ray surveys is to characterize and quantify baseline or 

18 preoperational radiation levels and radionuclide concentrations in soils throughout the proposed 

19 project area. Detailed gamma-ray survey results are provided in the applicant’s technical report 

20 (AUC, 2012i). Gamma-ray exposure rates ranged from 7.4 to 23 μR/hr with a mean of 

21 13.6 μR/hr (AUC, 2012i). 

22 The soil samples were analyzed for Ra-226. Additionally, 10 percent of the samples and 

23 samples at air monitoring stations were analyzed for uranium, thorium (Th-230), and lead 

24 (Pb-210) (AUC, 2012i; 2014b; 2015b). Results of the soil sampling are summarized in draft 

25 SEIS Tables 3-33 and 3-34. 

26 Over the entire site area, the mean and median radium-226 (Ra-226) surface soil 

27 concentrations based on 54 samples were both 0.037 Bq/g [1.0 pCi/g]. The minimum 

28 radium-226 (Ra-226) surface soil concentration was 0.018 Bq/g [0.50 pCi/g], and the maximum 

29 concentration was 0.089 Bq/g [2.4 pCi/g]. For comparison, background radium-226 (Ra-226) 

30 levels in soil in the United States typically average 0.037 Bq/g [1.0 pCi/g] (NCRP, 2009). 

31 Uranium concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 0.02 Bq/g [0.4 to 0.7 pCi/g]. Thorium (Th-230) 

32 concentrations ranged from 0.018 to 0.037 Bq/g [0.50 to 1.0 pCi/g]. Lead (Pb-210) 

33 concentrations ranged from 0.037 to 0.18 Bq/g [1.0 to 4.8 pCi/g]. 

Table 3-33. Surface Soil Baseline Radiological Sampling Results (pCi/g) 

Radionuclide Mean Median Minimum Maximum Sample Size

Ra-226 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.4 54 

U-natural* 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 7 

Pb-210 2.1 1.5 1.0 4.8 7 

Th-230 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.00 7 

Source: AUC, 2012i; 2014b; 2015b 

 
3-119 

Table 3-34. Subsurface Soil Baseline Radiological Sampling Results (pCi/g) 

Depth Mean* Median Minimum Maximum Sample Size

Ra-226 

0–33 1.3 1.2 0.6 2.4 5 

33–66 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.5 5 

66–100 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.6 5 

All Depths 1.2 1.2 0.6 2.4 15 

U-natural 

0−33 0.7 NA NA NA 1 

33−66 1.4 NA NA NA 1 

66−100 1.5 NA NA NA 1 

Pb-210 

0−33 1.5 NA NA NA 1 

33−66 1.2 NA NA NA 1 

66−100 1.3 NA NA NA 1 

Th-230 

0−33 0.7 NA NA NA 1 

33−66 0.9 NA NA NA 1 

66−100 0.6 NA NA NA 1 

*Single measurements reported for U-natural, Pb-210, and Th-230 

NA = Not Applicable 

Source: AUC, 2012i; 2014b; 2015b 

1 All subsurface soil samples were analyzed for uranium, thorium (Th-230), radium (Ra-226), and 

2 lead (Pb-210) (AUC, 2012i; 2014b; 2015b). Over the entire site area, the mean and median 

3 subsurface radium-226 (Ra-226) concentrations based on 15 samples were both 0.044 Bq/g 

4 [1.2 pCi/g], and measurements ranged from 0.022 to 0.088 Bq/g [0.6 to 2.4 pCi/g]. The 

5 remaining radionuclides were sampled from the center grid location, with a mean uranium 

6 concentration across all depths of 0.044 Bq/g [1.2 pCi/g], Th-230 concentration of 0.026 Bq/g 

7 [0.7 pCi/g], and lead (Pb-210) concentration of 0.048 Bq/g [1.3 pCi/g] (AUC, 2014b). The 

8 thorium (Th-230), radium (Ra-226), and uranium mean subsurface results are comparable to 

9 surface sampling results. The lead (Pb-210) subsurface soil sampling results are slightly lower 

10 than the mean results for uranium in surface soils, but both sets are within the range of 

11 background. 

12 3.12.1.2 Sediment and Surface Water 

13 Sediment and surface water sampling was conducted at upstream and downstream locations in 

14 perennial streams and ephemeral stream drainage channels where water is present during a 

15 portion of the year within the proposed project area (AUC. 2012a; 2015b). A total of 

16 41 sediment samples were analyzed for radium-226 (Ra-226), and 25 samples were analyzed 

17 for uranium, thorium (Th-230), and lead (Pb-210) (AUC, 2012i; 2014b). Radium (Ra-226) 

18 concentrations range from <0.007 to 0.0729 Bq/g [<0.2 to 1.97 pCi/g] and average 0.0514 Bq/g 

19 [1.39 pCi/g]. Uranium concentrations in sediments range from 0.02 to 0.12 Bq/g [0.5 to 

20 3.3 pCi/g] and average 0.0422 Bq/g [1.14 pCi/g]. Thorium (Th-230) concentrations range from 

21 0.01 to 0.0559 Bq/g [0.3 to 1.51 pCi/g] and average 0.030 Bq/g [0.81 pCi/g]. Lead (Pb-210) 

22 concentrations range from 0.037 to 0.14 Bq/g [1.0 to 3.7 pCi/g] and average 0.081 Bq/g 

23 [2.2 pCi/g]. 
3-120 

1 A total of 41 surface water samples were analyzed for radionuclides, including uranium, gross 

2 alpha, radium (Ra-226), thorium (Th-230), lead (Pb-210), and polonium (Po-210) (AUC, 2012i; 

3 AUC, 2014b). Results are summarized here along with EPA drinking water standards for 

4 radionuclides (MCLs) for context. Three of the stream samples (SW1, SW8, and SW18) 

exceeded the EPA MCL for gross alpha {555 Bq/m3 5 [15 pCi/L]} in drinking water, as established 

in 40 CFR Part 141. Gross alpha concentrations ranged from 74 to 681 Bq/m3 6 [2.0 to 

7 18.4 pCi/L]. Total suspended uranium concentrations ranged from below the detection limit of 

8 <0.0003 to 0.0021 mg/L [<0.0003 to 0.0021 ppm], while the range of total dissolved uranium 

9 was <0.0003 to 0.0266 mg/L [<0.0003 to 0.0266 ppm]. These uranium results are below the 

10 EPA MCL for total uranium in 40 CFR 141.66 of 0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm]. Total suspended 

radium-226 (Ra-226) concentrations ranged from <7 to 104 Bq/m3 11 [<0.2 to 2.8 pCi/L], while the 

range of total dissolved radium-226 (Ra-226) is <7.4 to 63 Bq/m3 12 [<0.2 to 1.7 pCi/L]. These 

13 radium-226 (Ra-226) results are below the EPA MCL for combined radium in 40 CFR 141.66 of 

185 Bq/m3 14 [5.0 pCi/L]. While most dissolved radium-228 (Ra-228) measurements were at or 

near the detection limit of 37 Bq/m3 15 [1.0 pCi/L], one quarterly sample from SW19 reported a 

radium-228 (Ra-228) concentration of 204 Bq/m3 16 [5.5 pCi/L] that resulted in total combined 

17 radium that exceeded the combined radium EPA MCL. Total suspended thorium (Th-230) 

concentrations ranged from <7 to 30 Bq/m3 18 [<0.2 to 0.9 pCi/L], while the results for total 

dissolved thorium (Th-230) ranged from <7 to 20 Bq/m3 19 [<0.2 to 0.5 pCi/L]. Total suspended 

and dissolved polonium (Po-210) concentrations were all less than or equal to 37 Bq/m3 20 

[1 pCi/L], except for one quarterly dissolved sample (SW18) that was 59 Bq/m3 21 [1.6 pCi/L]. 

22 These results, when added to radium-226 (Ra-226), are below the EPA MCL for gross alpha in 

40 CFR 141.66 of 560 Bq/m3 23 [15 pCi/L] (excluding uranium and radon, but including 

radium-226). Total suspended lead (Pb-210) concentrations ranged from <40 to 230 Bq/m3 24 [<1 

to 6.3 pCi/L], while the range of total dissolved lead (Pb-210) was <40 to 350 Bq/m3 25 [<1 to 

9.5 pCi/L]. Lead (Pb-210) concentrations greater than 40 Bq/m3 26 [1 pCi/L] are above the EPA 

27 MCL for beta/photon radioactivity in 40 CFR 141.66 of 0.04 mSv/yr [4 mrem/yr], based on a 

28 drinking water dose calculation that assumes water consumption at the rate of 2 L/d [0.5 gal/d] 

29 for 365 days per year and Federal Guidance No. 11 dosimetry (EPA, 1988). Dissolved lead 

(Pb-210) concentrations exceeded 40 Bq/m3 30 [1 pCi/L] in 22 percent of the samples. Suspended 

lead (Pb-210) concentrations exceeded 40 Bq/m3 31 [1 pCi/L] in 27 percent of the samples. The 

32 applicant’s preoperational and operational surface water monitoring programs are discussed in 

33 draft SEIS Sections 7.2.4 and 7.3.3. 

34 3.12.1.3 Air (Ambient Gamma, Radon, and Particulates) 

35 The applicant conducted air particulate, ambient gamma dose, and ambient radon concentration 

36 sampling at five air monitoring stations {three onsite stations; one offsite station located 

37 approximately 1.7 km [1.1 mi] west of the southwestern boundary of the proposed project area; 

38 and another offsite station located approximately 2.1 km [1.3 mi] east of the northeastern 

39 boundary of the proposed project area} (AUC, 2012i; AUC, 2014b; 2015b). Ambient gamma 

40 and radon monitoring were used to measure gamma radiation and alpha track etch detectors to 

41 measure radon. 

42 The applicant placed high-sensitivity optically-stimulated dosimeters (OSLs) at each of the five 

43 air monitoring stations established for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project to measure 

44 ambient gamma dose rates. Ambient gamma measurements were taken quarterly over a 

45 1-year period (AUC, 2014b). Based on the gamma dose rate monitoring results, projected 

46 quarterly average gamma doses at the sample locations ranged from 0.291 to 0.343 mSv 

47 [29.1 to 34.3 mrem] (AUC, 2014b). These values are within the range of reported background 
3-121 

1 levels from natural radiation sources in the region and the United States, including cosmic 

2 radiation, external terrestrial radiation, and naturally occurring radon (NCRP, 2009). 

3 The applicant placed Radtrack passive track etch detectors at each of the five air monitoring 

4 station locations to measure ambient radon (Rn-222) concentrations in air. Radon (Rn-222) 

5 concentrations were measured quarterly over a 1-year period (AUC, 2014b; 2015b). Ambient 

radon concentrations ranged from 2 to 37 Bq/m3

 [<0.06 to 1.0 pCi/L] and averaged 20 Bq/m3 6 

7 [0.54 pCi/L]. The reported average ambient radon (Rn-222) concentrations are within the range 

8 of background levels reported for the region (NCRP, 2009). 

9 The applicant conducted continuous air particulate sampling over a 1-year period (July 2012 to 

10 July 2013) at each of the five air monitoring station locations. Air sampling filters were collected 

11 on a quarterly basis. Particulates were collected using high volume air samplers and analyzed 

12 for radium (Ra-226), uranium, thorium (Th-230), and lead (Pb-210) (AUC, 2012i; AUC, 2014b; 

13 2015b). Results of the air particulate sampling are summarized, as follows: 

14  Radium (Ra-226) concentrations ranged from below detection limits to a maximum of 

1.0 × 10−11 Bq/cm3

 [2.7 × 10−16 15 μCi/mL]. The maximum concentration is less than 

0.03 percent of the effluent release limit of 3.3 × 10-8 Bq/cm3

 [9.0 × 10−13 16 μCi/mL] 

17 specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. 

18  Uranium concentrations ranged from below detection limits to a maximum of 7.8 × 

10−12 Bq/cm3

 [2.1 × 10−16 19 μCi/mL]. The maximum concentration is less than 0.02 percent 

of the effluent release limit of 3.3 × 10-7 Bq/cm3

 [9.0 × 10−12 20 μCi/mL] specified in 

21 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. 

22  Thorium (Th-230) concentrations ranged from below detection limits to a maximum of 

9.2 × 10−12 Bq/cm3

 [2.5 × 10−16 23 μCi/mL]. The maximum concentration is less than 

0.01 percent of the effluent release limit of 1.1 × 10-7 Bq/cm3

 [3.0 × 10−12 24 μCi/mL] 

25 specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. 

 Lead (Pb-210) concentrations ranged from 3.4 × 10−10 Bq/cm3

 [9.3 × 10−15 26 μCi/mL] to a 

maximum of 9.2 × 10−10 Bq/cm3

 [2.5 × 10−14 27 μCi/mL]. The maximum concentration was 

4.2 percent of the effluent release limit of 2.2 × 10-8 Bq/cm3

 [6.0 × 10−13 28 μCi/mL] specified 

29 in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. 

30 3.12.1.4 Groundwater 

31 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.5, the applicant conducted initial preoperational 

32 groundwater sampling of wells at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area from August 2010 

33 through April 2012 (AUC, 2014b; 2015b). This baseline study consisted of 43 groundwater 

34 wells sampled on a quarterly basis for a year. These wells are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-11. 

35 The wells were selected based on the potential influence of proposed operations on 

36 groundwater resources (AUC, 2012i). The locations of all groundwater sampling wells are 

37 shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-22, and the formation sampled in each well is listed in draft SEIS 

38 Table 3-11. Radiological constituents sampled in each well included gross alpha, radium 

39 (Ra-226), uranium, lead (Pb-210), polonium (Po-210), and radon (Rn-222) (AUC, 2014b; 

40 2015b). Results of preoperational groundwater sampling are discussed in draft SEIS 

41 Section 3.5.3.2 and summarized as follows: 
3-122 

1  The MCL for uranium {0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm]} was exceeded in 17 percent of the well 

2 samples. Of these samples above the MCL, 75 percent were located in the production 

3 zone aquifer, 21 percent were in domestic and stock wells, and 4 percent in the shallow 

4 water table unit. The uranium concentrations exceeding the MCL ranged from 0.0304 to 

5 0.607 mg/L [0.0304 to 0.607 ppm]. 

 The MCL for dissolved combined radium (Ra-226 and Ra-228) {185 Bq/m3 6 [5 pCi/L]} 

7 was exceeded in about 23 percent of the well samples. Of these samples above the 

8 MCL, 90 percent were located in the production zone aquifer, 8 percent were in 

9 domestic and stock wells, and 2 percent in the underlying aquitard unit. The combined 

radium concentrations exceeding the MCL ranged from 190 to 25,900 Bq/m3 10 [5.1 to 

11 701 pCi/L]. 

 The MCL for gross alpha {555 Bq/m3 12 [15 pCi/L]} was exceeded in about 38 percent of 

13 the well samples. Of these samples above the MCL, 62 percent were located in the 

14 production zone aquifer, 19 percent were in domestic and stock wells, 13 percent in the 

15 underlying aquitard unit, and 6 percent in the shallow water table unit. The gross alpha 

concentrations exceeding the MCLs ranged from 644 to 171,700 Bq/m3 16 [17.4 to 

17 4640 pCi/L]. 

18  Although EPA has not finalized an MCL for radon (Rn-222), a value of 11,100 Bq/m3 

[300 pCi/L] was previously proposed (56 FR 33050).4 19 The proposed EPA MCL for radon 

20 (Rn-222) was exceeded in about 52 percent of the well samples. Of the samples that 

21 exceeded the proposed MCL, 45 percent were located in the production zone aquifer, 

22 36 percent were in domestic and stock wells, 8 percent in the underlying aquitard unit, 

23 8 percent in the overlying aquifer, and 3 percent in the shallow water table unit. 

24 The radon (Rn-222) concentrations in samples exceeding the proposed limit ranged 

from 11,400 to 1.05 × 108

 Bq/m3 [307 to 2.83 × 106 25 pCi/L]. The wells with the highest 

26 radon (Rn-222) concentrations included wells that are directly in mapped orebodies in 

27 the production zone aquifer, such as wells PZM2, PZM10, PZM8, and PZM17. 

28 3.12.1.5 Vegetation, Livestock, and Fish 

29 The applicant collected vegetation samples for two of three planned sampling times during the 

30 grazing season and at three locations that exhibited the highest predicted radionuclide 

31 concentrations downwind of the proposed CPP location at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

32 Project area (AUC, 2015b,c). Composite samples of the vegetation were analyzed for Ra-226, 

33 uranium, thorium (Th-230), lead (Pb-210), and polonium (Po-210) (AUC, 2015b,c). Results of 

34 the vegetation sampling are summarized as follows: 

35  Radium (Ra-226) concentrations ranged from 0.36 to 1.7 Bq/kg [9.7 to 45 pCi/kg] and 

36 averaged 0.92 Bq/kg [25 pCi/kg] 

37  Uranium concentrations ranged from 0.15 to 1.1 Bq/kg [4.1 to 29 pCi/kg] and averaged 

38 0.37 Bq/kg [10 pCi/kg] 

 

4

 EPA has twice proposed the same limit and although it has not been issued as a final regulation, neither EPA nor 

the NRC has concluded that the limit is insufficient to protect health. 
3-123 

1  Thorium (Th-230) concentrations ranged from 0.13 to 0.56 Bq/kg [3.6 to 15 pCi/kg] and 

2 averaged 0.23 Bq/kg [6.3 pCi/kg] 

3  Lead (Pb-210) concentrations ranged from 5.2 to 16 Bq/kg [140 to 440 pCi/kg] and 

4 averaged 9.2 Bq/kg [250 pCi/kg] 

5  Polonium (Po-210) concentrations ranged from 0.037 to 0.52 Bq/kg [<1 to 14 pCi/kg] 

6 and averaged 0.21 Bq/kg [5.6 pCi/kg] 

7 In comparison to corresponding shallow {0–5 cm [0–2 in]} soil samples collected from air 

8 monitoring stations, radionuclide concentrations in the vegetation samples are one to two orders 

9 of magnitude lower. Lead (Pb-210) concentrations in the vegetation samples were significantly 

10 higher than the other radionuclides and may be due to the higher relative abundance of lead 

11 (Pb-210) in air particulates from radon decay products. 

12 The applicant provided livestock sampling results based on the food sampling guidance in 

13 Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980) in the preoperational monitoring report (AUC, 2015b). For 

14 this sampling, AUC procured three meat samples from a local rancher that has pastures 

15 adjacent to the proposed CPP location. The samples were analyzed for radium (Ra-226), 

16 uranium, thorium (Th-230), lead (Pb-210), and polonium (Po-210). Results of the livestock 

17 sampling are summarized as follows: 

18  Radium (Ra-226) concentrations ranged from 0.089 to 0.11 Bq/kg [2.4 to 3.1 pCi/kg] and 

19 averaged 0.10 Bq/kg [2.7 pCi/kg] 

20  Uranium concentrations ranged from 0.15 to 0.44 Bq/kg [4.1 to 12 pCi/kg] and averaged 

21 0.27 Bq/kg [7.2 pCi/kg] 

22  Thorium (Th-230) concentrations ranged from 0.037 to 0.10 Bq/kg [1.0 to 2.8 pCi/kg] and 

23 averaged 0.067 Bq/kg [1.8 pCi/kg] 

24  Lead (Pb-210) concentrations ranged from 0.18 to 0.48 Bq/kg [4.8 to 13 pCi/kg] and 

25 averaged 0.37 Bq/kg [9.9 pCi/kg] 

26  Polonium (Po-210) concentrations ranged from 0.037 to 0.074 Bq/kg [<1 to 2.0 pCi/kg] 

27 and averaged 0.048 Bq/kg [1.3 pCi/kg] 

28 For context, the NRC staff consider these livestock meat concentrations at low levels that would 

29 contribute a minor dose to humans if consumed. Considering factors commonly used to convert 

30 radionuclide intake to human dose (ICRP, 1996) and the magnitude of the radionuclide 

31 concentrations, the greatest dose from consumption of this meat would be from lead (Pb-210). 

32 If a person consumed 29 kg [64 lb] of this meat annually at the maximum measured lead 

33 (Pb-210) concentration 0.48 Bq/kg [13 pCi/kg], the annual intake of lead (Pb-210) would be the 

34 product of the consumption rate and the meat concentration 13.9 Bq/yr [377 pCi/yr]. Based on 

35 a radionuclide-specific intake-to-dose coefficient from the International Commission on 

Radiological Protection of 6.9 × 10-7 Sv/Bq [2.5 × 10-3 36 mrem/pCi] (ICRP, 1996), the NRC staff 

37 estimate an intake of this magnitude would produce an annual dose of 0.0096 mSv [0.96 mrem] 

(i.e., 2.5 × 10-3 38 mrem/pCi × 377 pCi/yr). This estimated dose is a small fraction of the annual 

39 natural background dose of 3.1 mSv [310 mrem] described in draft SEIS Section 3.12. 

40 No fish sampling was conducted based on the lack of available habitat (AUC, 2012i; 2015b). 
3-124 

1 3.12.2 Public Health and Safety 

2 The NRC has a statutory responsibility, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

3 amended, to protect public health and safety. The NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 specify 

4 annual dose limits to members of the public of 1 mSv [100 mrem] total effective dose equivalent 

5 (TEDE) with no more than 0.02 mSv [2 mrem] in any 1-hour period from any external sources. 

6 This public dose limit from NRC-licensed activities is a fraction of the background radiation 

7 dose, as discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.12.1. 

8 A review of the surrounding area indicated there are several ISR facilities within 80 km [50 mi] of 

9 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (NRC, 2009): 

10  Smith Ranch-Highland—This operational ISR facility is located approximately 72 km 

11 [45 mi] southeast of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

12  Moore Ranch—This recently licensed but not yet operational ISR facility would be 

13 located approximately 16 km [10 mi] southeast of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

14  Nichols Ranch and Hank Units—These recently licensed but not yet operational ISR 

15 facilities would be located approximately 24 km [15 mi] west-northwest of the proposed 

16 Reno Creek ISR Project 

17  Willow Creek—These licensed and operating ISR facilities are approximately 32 km 

18 [20 mi] (Willow Creek Christensen Ranch) and 48 km [30 mi] northwest (Willow Creek 

19 Irigaray) of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

20  North Butte and Ruth—These licensed but not operating satellite ISR facilities are 

21 located approximately 24 km [15 mi] northwest and 32 km [20 mi] west of the proposed 

22 Reno Creek ISR Project 

23  Reynolds Ranch—This licensed but not operating satellite ISR facility is located 60 km 

24 [37 mi] south of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

25 Several inactive and decommissioned conventional uranium mills are in the 80-km [50-mi] 

26 radius. However, because of their relative distances, none of these projects are considered to 

27 represent an appreciable source of radiation exposure in and around the proposed Reno Creek 

28 ISR Project area. Therefore, the natural background represents the only radiation exposure to 

29 individuals in the area surrounding the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. Other than 

30 CBM activities, there are no major sources of nonradioactive, chemical releases to the 

31 atmosphere or water-receiving bodies in the immediate area surrounding the proposed 

32 project area. 

33 The public health in a region is assessed by reviewing health studies conducted in the region 

34 over a period of time. Neither the applicant nor NRC staff identified health studies about 

35 radiological and chemical exposures in the vicinity of the proposed project area. 

36 3.12.3 Occupational Health and Safety 

37 Radiation Protection Standards at 10 CFR Part 20 concern occupational health and safety risks 

38 to workers and provide limits on worker exposure to radiation. The regulations provide annual 

39 radiation dose limits for workers and incorporate the principal of maintaining doses “as low as is 
3-125 

1 reasonably achievable” (ALARA), taking into consideration the purpose of the licensed activity 

2 and its benefits, technology for reducing doses, and the associated health and safety benefits. 

3 A maximum annual occupational dose is determined by the more limiting of two calculated dose 

4 equivalents: (i) 0.05 Sv [5 rem] TEDE and (ii) the sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the 

5 committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye being 

6 equal to 0.5 Sv [50 rem]. The lower dose equivalent calculated is the maximum annual 

7 occupational dose. The lens of the eye is limited to a dose equivalent of 0.15 Sv [15 rem], and 

8 the skin (of the whole body or any extremity) is limited to a shallow dose equivalent of 0.5 Sv 

9 [50 rem]. Radiation safety measures that comply with these 10 CFR Part 20 standards must be 

10 implemented at ISR facilities to protect workers and to ensure radiation exposures and doses 

11 are below occupational limits as well as ALARA. 

12 Industrial hazards and exposure to nonradioactive pollutants are also of concern with respect to 

13 occupational health and safety, which for an ISR operation can include common industrial 

14 airborne pollutants associated with service equipment (e.g., vehicles), fugitive dust emissions 

15 from access roads and wellfield activities, and various chemicals used in the ISR process. 

16 Industrial safety aspects associated with the use of hazardous chemicals at the proposed 

17 Reno Creek ISR Project would be regulated by the State of Wyoming. The types of chemicals 

18 and impacts are discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.13. 

19 The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not compile data on 

20 workplace total recordable incident rates and lost-time incident rates specific to the ISR industry. 

21 Statistics for injuries and illnesses for the ISR industry are included in the category “Other Metal 

22 Ore Mining,” which includes both underground and surface (open pit) uranium mines (OSHA, 

23 2010). Total recordable incidence rates and total lost-time incidents for the “Other Metal Ore 

24 Mining” category for years 2003 to 2008 are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-35. Total recordable 

25 incidents are work-related deaths, illnesses, or injuries resulting in loss of consciousness, 

26 restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or required medical treatment beyond first 

27 aid. A lost-time incident is a recordable incident that results in one or more days away from 

28 work, days of restricted work activity, or both, for affected employees. The incident rate is used 

29 for measuring and comparing work injuries, illnesses, and accidents within and between 

30 industries and can indicate the impacts of operations on occupational health. 

Table 3-35. Total Recordable Incidence Rates and Total Lost-Time Incidents for the 

Category “Other Metal Ore Mining”* 

Year 

Recordable Incidence Rate 

(Per 100 Employees) 

Total Lost-Time Incidents 

(Per 100 Employees) 

2008 3.6 2.2 

2007 3.5 2.0 

2006 3.8 2.6 

2005 6.0 4.4 

2004 <15 total cases — 

2003 <15 total cases — 

Source: OSHA (2010) 

*Includes underground and surface uranium mining. 
3-126 

1 OSHA data for specific injury/illness and lost time in the ISR industry are not available, although 

2 the applicant provided an estimate based on the expected annual labor hours at the proposed 

3 Reno Creek ISR Project and the 2010 Wyoming mineral recovery industry total annual nonfatal 

4 occupational injury and illness rate (WYDWS, 2010). Based on this information, the applicant 

5 estimated operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project could have 1.3 nonfatal 

6 occupational injuries and illnesses per year of operation. The NRC staff consider the estimate 

7 to be conservative, based on differences in workplace hazards between ISR operations and 

8 conventional mining. 

9 3.13 Waste Management 

10 Draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6 describes the types and volumes of liquid and solid waste that 

11 could be generated by operation of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. This section 

12 describes the environment that could potentially be affected by the disposition of liquid and solid 

13 waste streams generated by the proposed project. The analysis of waste management impacts 

14 is located in draft SEIS Section 4.14. 

15 3.13.1 Liquid Waste Disposal 

16 Liquid wastes generated from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would include well 

17 development and well test waters, stormwater, waste petroleum products and chemicals, 

18 sanitary wastewater, and liquid byproduct material, including production bleed, process 

19 solutions, laboratory chemicals, plant washdown water, and restoration water. Process 

20 solutions include process bleed, elution and precipitation brines, and resin transfer wash. 

21 Detailed descriptions of the wastes generated by the proposed project and the applicant’s 

22 proposed disposition are provided in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6 and are briefly summarized 

23 here. The Solid Waste Disposal Act, defines hazardous waste as a subset of solid waste. 

24 Therefore, waste petroleum products and chemicals meeting the definition of hazardous waste, 

25 are, by definition considered a solid waste and discussed further in draft SEIS Section 3.13.2. 

26 The applicant proposes to obtain a WDEQ WYPDES permit to discharge well development 

27 water into mud pits adjacent to drilling pads (AUC, 2012a) on each wellfield that is constructed. 

28 The applicant proposes to collect stormwater and discharge to surface water in accordance with 

29 a WDEQ WYPDES permit. The applicant proposes to dispose of sanitary wastewater from 

30 restrooms and lunchrooms in a WDEQ-permitted septic system. The applicant proposes to 

31 dispose of liquid byproduct material using Class I deep disposal wells, as described under the 

32 proposed project in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The applicant has been authorized by WDEQ 

33 to drill, complete, and operate four Class I deep disposal wells, as described in draft SEIS 

34 Section 2.1.1.1.6, and thereby inject radionuclide-bearing liquid waste streams into the Teckla 

35 Sandstone member of the Lewis Formation and Cretaceous Teapot Sandstone of the 

36 Mesaverde Formation (WDEQ, 2015). Before the permitted Class I deep disposal wells can be 

37 operated, an aquifer exemption determination must be made by the WDEQ with EPA approval 

38 (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4) for the aquifer (or portion thereof) that is the discharge zone for 

39 the disposal well (currently pending). 

40 The permitted Class I deep disposal wells vary in depth between 2,130 and 2,400 m [7,000 and 

41 7,860 ft] below the ground surface (WDEQ, 2015). The applicant’s Class I deep disposal well 

42 permit application (AUC, 2012a) describes the environmental conditions the applicant evaluated 

43 to determine the suitability of the locations for hosting Class I deep disposal wells, including 

44 (i) the water quality within the receiver interval (the location where liquid byproduct material 

45 would be injected), (ii) the presence of hydrocarbons within the receiver interval, (iii) the 
3-127 

1 hydraulic properties of the receiver interval, (iv) the presence of underground sources of 

2 drinking water above the receiver interval, (v) the nature and thickness of materials separating 

3 the receiver interval from identified underground sources of drinking water above the receiver, 

4 and (vi) the nature of strata or aquifers below the receiver interval. The applicant’s permit 

5 application describes each well location receiver interval as containing water that is not suitable 

6 as a source of underground drinking water, based on the concentrations of TDS, hydrocarbons, 

7 and other undesirable constituents such as chloride and barium. Additionally, the applicant’s 

8 permit application explained that each proposed Class I deep disposal well is located between 

9 thick confining layers of low-permeability shale that separate the receiver interval from potential 

10 underground sources of drinking water and that each disposal well location is not penetrated by 

11 existing wells. 

12 3.13.2 Solid Waste Disposal 

13 Solid wastes generated from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would include solid 

14 byproduct material, nonhazardous solid waste, and hazardous waste. 

15 Solid byproduct material (including radioactively contaminated soils or other media) that does 

16 not meet NRC unrestricted release criteria must be disposed of at a licensed facility, as required 

17 by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2. As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the 

18 proposed project would generate solid byproduct material that does not meet NRC criteria for 

19 unrestricted release. In addition to the regulatory requirements, if an NRC license is granted, 

20 the NRC staff would require, by license condition, an agreement to be in place before 

21 operations begin to ensure the availability of sufficient disposal capacity. The applicant has 

22 identified the Pathfinder Mines Corporation; Shirley Basin (Wyoming) Facility; the Denison 

23 Mines Corporation; White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah; and the EnergySolutions LLC, 

24 Clive Disposal Facility, Clive, Utah, as potential disposal locations for solid byproduct material, 

25 but a disposal agreement is not yet in place (AUC, 2012a). These sites are described in more 

26 detail in the following paragraphs. 

27 The Pathfinder Mines Corporation Shirley Basin Facility is a decommissioned uranium mill site 

28 that presently includes both reclaimed and operating NRC-licensed tailings impoundments and 

29 an operating solution pond for ISR byproduct material. The site is located approximately 

30 232 km [144 mi] (AUC, 2012a) from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Under an 

31 agreement with WDEQ (WEQC, 2013), the licensee must obtain approval from WDEQ to allow 

32 any additional ISR operations to dispose of byproduct material at the site. 

33 The Denison Mines Corporation White Mesa site is an operating conventional uranium mill in 

34 Blanding, Utah, approximately 1,070 km [666 mi] (AUC, 2012a) from the proposed Reno Creek 

project. The White Mesa site constructed an additional 1,452,654 m3

 [1,900,000 yd3 35 ] of tailings 

36 impoundment capacity in 2011 (UDEQ, 2011, 2010a, 2010b); however, in accordance with its 

37 state-granted license (UDEQ, 2010b), the operator must obtain approval from the Utah 

38 Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) to accept ISR waste. Furthermore, the operator 

may not receive more than 3,823 m3

 [5,000 yd3 39 ] of ISR wastes from any single source 

40 (UDEQ, 2010b). 

41 The EnergySolutions Clive Disposal Facility, the largest commercial low-level radioactive waste 

42 disposal facility, is located approximately 129 km [80 mi] west of Salt Lake City, Utah, and 

43 approximately 913 km [567 mi] (AUC, 2012a) from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The 

44 facility is licensed by the State of Utah to receive byproduct material, Class A low-level 

45 radioactive waste, mixed waste (combined radioactive and hazardous wastes), and naturally 
3-128 

1 occurring radioactive material. The facility is accessible by both rail and highway 

2 (EnergySolutions, 2015). 

3 All proposed phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would generate nonhazardous 

4 solid waste. The applicant has proposed to dispose of nonhazardous solid waste offsite in a 

5 WDEQ-permitted municipal landfill. The nearest municipal solid waste facility is the Campbell 

6 County landfill in Gillette, Wyoming {approximately metric [50 mi] north of the proposed 

7 Reno Creek ISR Project}. The NRC staff estimated the Campbell County landfill has capacity to 

8 dispose of nonhazardous solid waste and construction and demolition waste for approximately 

9 18 years after year 2014. This estimate is based on the available capacity the operator 

10 provided in 2010 (CCPW, 2010) and the additional capacity consumed since that time (CCPW, 

11 2014). The current projected average annual rate of nonhazardous solid waste received at the 

12 landfill is 50,377 t/yr [55,566 T/yr], with approximately 73 percent municipal solid waste and 

13 27 percent construction and demolition waste (CCPW, 2014). The NRC staff converted the 

average annual rate of waste received of 50,377 t/yr [55,566 T/yr] to a volume of 106,280 m3 14 

[138,900 yd3

] by applying a density factor of 0.36 t/m3 [0.4 T/yd3 15 ] (Wyoming Office of State 

16 Lands and Investments, 2007). The annual amounts of waste received at waste facilities are 

17 provided in draft SEIS Section 4.14 to show how the proposed project’s generation rate 

18 compares with the regional generation from other sources in the impact analysis. 

19 AUC proposes to maintain future contact with Campbell County Public Works regarding the 

20 status of the Campbell County Landfill (AUC, 2014a). If capacity at the landfill becomes a 

21 concern, AUC would dispose of nonhazardous solid waste generated by the proposed project at 

22 another WDEQ-permitted facility. A large regional nonhazardous solid waste landfill is located 

23 near Casper, Wyoming, in Natrona County, approximately 140 km [84 mi] southwest of the 

24 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The volume of waste the Casper landfill receives annually is 

25 over 90,662 t [100,000 T], based on previously reported values (Wyoming Office of State Lands 

26 and Investments, 2007). The NRC staff converted that annual rate of waste received to a 

volume of 191,280 m3

 [250,000 yd3] by applying a density factor of 0.36 t/m3 [0.4 T/yd3 27 ] 

28 (Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments, 2007). The permitted capacity of the Casper 

landfill is 317,000,000 m3

 [414,000,000 yd3 29 ] of compacted solid waste, and the life expectancy is 

30 over 1,000 years (Uranium One, 2010). 

31 The applicant expects the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project to be classified as a Conditionally 

32 Exempt Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and 

33 Recovery Act. WDEQ would determine whether that classification applies to the proposed 

34 facility (see Section 2.1.1.1.6). Waste petroleum products and chemicals meeting the definition 

35 of hazardous waste would be stored in small quantities until they are disposed of offsite, in 

36 accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements, as described in 

37 draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The applicant would not generate mixed waste from any of the 

38 proposed waste management options. Mixed waste consists of a mixture of hazardous waste 

39 (as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) and radioactive waste (as defined 

40 by the Atomic Energy Act). 

41 3.14 References 

42 40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 50. 

43 “National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 

44 40 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 52. 

45 Section 21, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.” 
3-129 

1 40 CFR 81.351. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 81, Protection of the Environment, Part 81. 

2 Section 851, “Wyoming.” 

3 40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

4 Part 141. “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.” 

5 40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

6 Part 144, “Underground Injection Control Program.” 

7 56 FR 33050. “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides; Notice of Data 

8 Availability.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 138 1991. 

9 57 FR 2048. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Plant 

10 Spiranthes diluvialis, Ute Ladies'- Tresses, as a Threatened Species.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

11 Service. Federal Register. Vol. 57, No. 12. 1992. 

12 73 FR 73211. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 

13 To List the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

14 Service. Federal Register. Vol. 73, No. 232. 2008. 

15 74 FR 66496. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases.” 

16 Federal Register. Vol. 74, No. 239. 2009. 

17 75 FR 13909. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for 

18 Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or 

19 Endangered.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 55. 2010. 

20 76 FR 27756. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed 

21 Rule To List the Mountain Plover as Threatened.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal 

22 Register. Vol. 76, No. 92. 2011. 

23 80 FR 59858. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition 

24 To List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened 

25 Species.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register. Vol. 80, No. 191. 2015 

26 ACHP. “Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process: A Handbook.” 

27 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Washington, DC: Advisory Council on Historic 

28 Preservation. 2012. 

29 AECOM. “Task 1B Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Current Water Resources 

30 Conditions.” Fort Collins, CO: AECOM. 2014. 

31 <http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/programs/energy/coal/prb/coalreview/phase2/Task1

32 B.Par.91805.File.dat/Task1B.pdf> (16 February 2016). 

33 Algermissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P.C. Thenhaus, S.L. Hanson, and B.L. Bender. “Probabilistic 

34 Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United States.” 

35 ML13022A452. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 82-1033. p. 99. Washington, DC: 

36 U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. 

37 AUC. “Response to Open/Confirmatory Items.” ML15119A314. Lakewood, Colorado: 

38 AUC LLC. 2015a. 
3-130 

1 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, Preoperational Monitoring 

2 Radiological Report.” ML15119A316. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2015b. 

3 AUC. “Reno Creek In-Situ Leach Uranium Recovery (ISR) Project Vegetation Sampling 

4 Procedure and Lab Analyses per Regulatory Guide 4.14.” Letter (January 12) from 

5 James H. Viellenave, President, AUC, to Chad Glenn, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

6 ML15013A175. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2015c. 

7 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

8 Environmental Report Round 1.” ML14169A450 and ML14169A449. Lakewood, Colorado: 

9 AUC LLC. 2014a. 

10 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

11 Technical Report Round 1.” ML14169A447. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014b. 

12 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

13 Environmental Report Round 2.” ML15002A082. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014c. 

14 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

15 Environmental Report.” ML12291A332 and ML12291A335. Lakewood, Colorado: 

16 AUC LLC. 2012a. 

17 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

18 Technical Report, Addendum 2.6-A, Geology Tables and Figures.” ML12291A015. 

19 Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2012b. 

20 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

21 Technical Report, Addendum 4-B, UIC Class I Deep Disposal Well Permit Application.” 

22 ML12291A077. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2012c. 

23 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

24 Technical Report, Addendum 2.7-E, Well Construction Details.” ML12291A070. 

25 Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2012d. 

26 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

27 Environmental Report, Addendum 3.3-B, Soil Tables.” ML12291A343. Lakewood, Colorado: 

28 AUC LLC. 2012e. 

29 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

30 Environmental Report, Addendum 3.5-F, Aquatic Resources Inventory.” ML12291A345. 

31 Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2012f. 

32 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

33 Technical Report, Addendum 2.7A-B.” ML12291A013. Lakewood, Colorado: 

34 AUC LLC. 2012g. 

35 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

36 Technical Report, Addendum 2.6-A, Figure 2.6A-25-26.” ML12291A015. Lakewood, Colorado: 

37 AUC LLC. 2012h. 
3-131 

1 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

2 Technical Report.” ML12291A009 and ML12291A010. Lakewood, Colorado: 

3 AUC LLC. 2012i. 

4 BLM. “Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Buffalo 

5 Field Office Planning Area.” Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field 

6 Office. 2015. <https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front7 office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=

8 48300> (16 February 2015) 

9 BLM. “NRC Data Request.” Email (April 30, 2014) and attachments: Reno_Raptor.xlsx, 

10 NRC_RenoCk_Raptor_GSG, and Reno_SG, from William Ostheimer, Biologist, BLM Buffalo 

11 Field Office, to Jill Caverly, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of 

12 Land Management. 2014. 

13 BLM. “Decision Record, Environmental Assessment (EA), WY-070-EA13-83 Devon Energy 

14 Corporation, Durham Ranches 1 Plan of Development (POD).” Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of 

15 Land Management, Buffalo Field Office. 2013. 

16 <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/bfodocs/pods/devon/2013.P

17 ar.33747.File.dat/durranch1ea.pdf> (16 February 2016). 

18 BLM. “BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

19 U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. 2010. 

20 BLM. “Final Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report.” Buffalo, Wyoming: 

21 Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office. 2009. 

22 <http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/programs/planning/rmps/buffalo/docs.Par.9016

23 9.File.dat/RevisedFinalMineralReport_Part1.pdf> (16 February 2016).

24 BLM. “Final Report, Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Biological Evaluation.” Cheyenne, 

25 Wyoming: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. ML110820619. 2007. 

26 BLM. “Wildlife Survey Protocol for Coal Bed Natural Gas Development Powder River Basin 

27 Wildlife Task Force.” Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2005. 

28 <http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/field29 offices/buffalo/wildlife.Par.34632.File.dat/WildlifeSurveyProtocol.pdf> (17 March 2016).

30 BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder 

31 River Basin Oil and Gas Project.” ML14255A385. Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of Land 

32 Management. 2003. 

33 BLM. “Visual Resource Inventory.” Manual H–8410–1. ML12237A196. Washington, DC: 

34 Bureau of Land Management. 1986. 

35 BLM. “Visual Resource Management.” Manual 8400. ML12237A194. Washington, DC: 

36 Bureau of Land Management. 1984. 

37 Case, J.C., R.N. Toner, and R. Kirkwood. “Basic Seismological Characterization for Campbell 

38 County, Wyoming.” Wyoming State Geological Survey. 2002. 

39 <http://www.wrds.uwyo.edu/wrds/wsgs/hazards/quakes/seischar/Campbell.pdf> 

40 (16 February 2015) 
3-132 

1 CCGov. “History of Campbell County.” Campbell County, Wyoming: Campbell County 

2 Government. 2011. <http://www.ccgov.net/documentcenter/view/508> (21 August 2015). 

3 CCPW. “Summary of Teleconference with Mark Swan, Environmental Services Manager, 

4 Campbell County Public Works, Concerning Landfill Capacity for the Proposed Nichols Ranch 

5 ISR Project.” Memo to file from C. Pineda, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

6 ML102600569. Gillette, Wyoming: Campbell County Department of Public Works. 2010. 

7 CCPW. “Campbell County/Public Works/Landfill/Statistics.” Campbell County, Wyoming: 

8 Campbell County Department of Public Works. 2014. <http://www.ccgov.net/1043/Statistics> 

9 (9 December 2014). 

10 Center of Climate Strategies. “Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case 

11 Projections 1990–2020.” ML13011A261. Washington, DC: Center for Climate Strategies. 

12 2007. 

13 Chapman, S.S., S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, D.G. Despain, J. ZumBerge, and M. Conrad. 

14 “Ecoregions of Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Map. Scale 1:1,400,000. 2004. 

15 Davis, J.F. “Uranium Deposits of the Powder River Basin.” Contributions to Geology, Wyoming 

16 Uranium Issue. Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. Vol. 8, No. 2.1. pp. 131–142. 

17 1969. 

18 Deaver, K., S. Deaver, and M. Bergstrom. “Onion Ring, 32ME166, A Tipi Ring Site in Central 

19 North Dakota.” Ethnoscience for the Coteau Properties Company, Bismarck, ND. 1989. 

20 Deaver, K. and S. Deaver. “Prehistoric Cultural Resource Overview of Southeast Montana. 

21 Ethnoscience for U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Miles City, Montana.” Miles City, Montana: 

22 U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Vol. 1. 1988. 

23 Deaver, K. and S. Aaberg. “Archaeological Survey of the Proposed National Guard Training 

24 Areas: Valley County, Montana.” Denver, Colorado: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

25 Denver Service Center, Pro-Lysts, Inc. 1977. 

26 Dolton, Gordon L. and James E. Fox. “Powder River Basin Province.” United States Geological 

27 Survey. 1996. <http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/noga95/prov33/text/prov33.pdf>. 

28 (6 June 2016) 

29 EnergySolutions. “Clive Facility Details.” <http://www.energysolutions.com/waste30 management/facilities/clive-facility-details/> (22 July 2015). 

31 E.O. (Executive Order 13175). 65 FR 67249. “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

32 Governments.” November 9, 2000. 

33 EPA. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” Washington, DC: U.S. 

34 Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. < http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html> 

35 (1 March 2016). 
3-133 

1 EPA. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: 

2 Removal of Certain Vacated Elements—Fact Sheet.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental 

3 Protection Agency. 2015. < http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

4 11/documents/20150812fs.pdf> (24 February 2016). 

5 EPA. “Final Rule - Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit 

6 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits—Fact 

7 Sheet.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. 

8 <http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/20120702fs.pdf> (22 July 2015). 

9 EPA. “Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion 

10 Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion.” Federal Guidance Report, No. 11. 

11 Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. 

12 Feathers, K.R., R. Libra, T.R. Stephenson, and C. Eisen. “Occurrence and characteristics of 

13 ground water in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.” Report to U.S. Environmental Protection 

14 Agency Contract No. G-008269-79. Prepared by Water Resources Research Institute. 

15 Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. 1981. 

16 Fertig, W. “Status Review of the Ute Ladies Tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) in Wyoming.” 

17 Prepared for the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

18 Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department. ML13023A2607. Laramie, Wyoming: 

19 Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming. 2000. 

20 FHWA. “Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance.” FHWA–HEP–10–025. 

21 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2011. 

22 <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abateme

23 nt_guidance/revguidance.pdf> (28 August 2013). 

First American Title. “Warranty Deed: Township 42 North, Range 74 West, 6th 24 P.M., Section 1: 

25 Lot 12.” Gillette, Wyoming. 2015. 

26 Fox, J.E. and D.K. Higley. “Structure at the Base of the Upper Cretaceous Fox Hills Sandstone, 

27 Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana.” U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 

28 87-340-V. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 1987. 

29 <http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1987/0340v/plate-1.pdf> (23 August 2013). 

30 FRA. “Horn Noise Questions and Answers.” Washington, DC: Federal Railroad 

31 Administration. 2010. <http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/1173.shtml> (25 August 2010). 

32 Frison, G.C. “The Buffalo Pound in North-Western Plains Prehistory: Site 48CA302. Wyoming.” 

33 American Antiquity. Vol. 36, No. 1. pp. 77–91. 1971. 

34 FWS. “List of Threatened and Endangered Species That May Occur in Your Proposed Project 

35 Location, and/or May Be Affected By Your Proposed Project.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Fish 

36 and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office. 2016a. 

37 <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/> (18 February 2016). 
3-134 

1 FWS. “Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat 

2 and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions.” Bloomington, Minnesota: U.S. Fish and 

3 Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional Office. 2016b. 

4 <http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/BOnlebFinal4d.pdf> 

5 (18 February 2016). 

6 FWS. “Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) Status: Threatened with 4(d) Rule.” 

7 Bloomington, Minnesota: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional Office. 2016c. 

8 <http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/> (18 February 2016). 

9 FWS. “Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species, Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis 

10 septentrionalis).” Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological 

11 Services Field Office. 2016d. <http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Species/NLEBat.php> 

12 (18 February 2016) 

13 FWS. “Wyoming Ecological Services Species, Mountain-Prairie Region, Species of Concern, 

14 Birds of Conservation Concern.” Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

15 Mountain-Prairie Region. 2015a. 

16 <http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Species/BirdsConsvConcern.php> (17 February 2016). 

17 FWS. “In Reply Refer To: 06E13000-2013-EC-0069 and 06E13000-2015-CPA-0086.” Letter 

18 (March 6) to Lydia Chang, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

19 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. 

20 FWS. “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment 

21 Form.” Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. 2014. 

22 <http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2014/r6/B0GD_V01.pdf> 

23 (18 February 2016). 

24 FWS. “Birds of Management Concern and Focal Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

25 Migratory Bird Program.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. 

26 <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/BMCFocalSpecies.pdf> 

27 (18 February 2016). 

28 FWS. “Environmental Comments on Powertech Dewey-Burdock Project, Custer and Fall River 

29 43 County, South Dakota.” ML100970556. Pierre, South Dakota: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

30 Service. 2010. 

31 FWS. “Birds of Conservation Concern.” Arlington, Virginia: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

32 Division of Migratory Bird Management. 2008a. 

33 FWS. Letter from B.T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

34 Service, to Gregory F. Suber, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML082840332. 

35 Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. 

36 FWS. “National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.” ML112620357. Arlington, Virginia: 

37 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. 
3-135 

1 FWS. “Twelve Month Finding for the Black-tailed Prairie Dog.” ML092940030. 

2 Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. 

3 GCRP. “Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

4 Assessment.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, U.S. Global Change 

5 Research Program. 2014. 

6 Geomatrix. “Seismotectonic Evaluation of the Wyoming Basin Geomorphic Province.” Report 

7 prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Contract No. 6-CS-81-07310. San Francisco, 

8 California: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. p. 167. 1988. 

9 Greer Services. “An Intensive Cultural Resource Survey of the AUC LLC, Reno Creek Uranium 

10 Project, Campbell County, Wyoming.” Report 7063. Redacted. ML16175A481. 2011. 

11 Grier, J., and R. Fyfe. “Preventing research and management disturbance.” Raptor 

12 Management Techniques Manual. pp. 173–182. Washington, D.C: National Wildlife 

13 Federation. 1987 

14 Greiser, S.T., J. Sanderson Stevens, Alan L. Stanfill, Heidi Plochman, T. Weber Greiser, and 

15 Susan Vetter. “Eastern Powder River Basin Prehistory: Archeological Investigation at the 

16 Antelope Mine.” Prepared for Northern Energy Resources Company, Inc., Portland, OR. 1983 

17 Headley, C. Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Northern Arapaho Tribe. Phone 

18 conversation with Louis Berger Archaeologist Rebecca Brodeur on August 26, 2014. 

19 Nonpublic. 2014 

20 Heidel, B. “2012 Wyoming Plant Species of Concern List.” Laramie, Wyoming: University of 

21 Wyoming. 2012. <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/soc-plants/2012_plant_soc.pdf> 

22 (17 February 2016). 

23 Hodson, W.G., R.H. Pearl, and S.A. Druse. “Water Resources of the Powder River Basin and 

24 Adjacent Areas, Northeastern Wyoming.” USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-465. 

25 Reston, Virginia: 1973. 

26 Husted, W. “Bighorn Canyon Archeology.” Salvage Archeology. Smithsonian Institution. River 

27 Basin Surveys. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution. Vol. 12, No. 12. 1969. 

28 ICRP. “Age-Dependent Doses to Members of the Public from Intake of Radionuclides: Part 5 

29 Compilation of Ingestion and Inhalation Dose Coefficients.” ICRP Publication 72—Annals of the 

30 International Commission on Radiological Protection. Tarrytown, New York: Elsevier 

31 Science, Inc. 1996. 

32 Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc. “Campbell County Coal Belt Transportation Study.” 

33 ML12240A251. Gillette, Wyoming: Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc. 2010. 

Larson, T.A. History of Wyoming. 2nd 34 Edition. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska 

35 Press. 1990. 
3-136 

1 Lowry, M.E., J.F. Wilson, Jr., and others. “Hydrology of Area 50, Northern Great Plains and 

2 Rocky Mountain Coal Provinces, Wyoming and Montana.” U.S. Geological Survey Water 

3 Resources Investigations Open File Report 83-545. Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Geological 

4 Survey. 1986. 

5 Mead, Matthew. Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. EO No. 2015-4. Cheyenne, 

6 Wyoming: Office of the Governor, State of Wyoming Executive Department. 2015. 

7 <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Sage%20Grouse/SG_Executive_Ord

8 er.pdf> (16 February 2016). 

9 Michlovic, M.G. “The Archaeology of the Canning Site.” Minnesota Archaeologist. Prairie 

10 Smoke Press. Champlin, MN. Vol. 45, No. 1. 1986: 

11 National. Park Service. “National Register Bulletin, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 

12 Traditional Cultural properties.” U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 

13 Washington DC: 2014. 

14 NCDC. “NCDC U.S. Storm Events Database – Campbell County, Wyoming – Hail.” Ashville, 

15 North Carolina: U.S. National Climatic Data Center. 2014a. 

16 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28C%29+Hail&beginDate_

17 mm=01&beginDate_dd=01&beginDate_yyyy=2000&endDate_mm=12&endDate_dd=31&endDa

18 te_yyyy=2013&county=CAMPBELL&hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=DT&submit

19 button=Search&statefips=56%2CWYOMING> (5 December 2014). 

20 NCDC. “NCDC U.S. Storm Events Database – Campbell County, Wyoming – High Wind.” 

21 Ashville, North Carolina: U.S. National Climatic Data Center. 2014b. 

22 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28Z%29+High+Wind&begi

23 nDate_mm=01&beginDate_dd=01&beginDate_yyyy=2000&endDate_mm=12&endDate_dd=31

24 &endDate_yyyy=2013&county=CAMPBELL&hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=DT

25 &submitbutton=Search&statefips=56%2CWYOMING> (5 December 2014). 

26 NCDC. “NCDC U.S. Storm Events Database – Campbell County, Wyoming – Thunderstorm 

27 Wind.” Ashville, North Carolina: U.S. National Climatic Data Center. 2014c 

28 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28C%29+Thunderstorm+

29 Wind&beginDate_mm=01&beginDate_dd=01&beginDate_yyyy=2000&endDate_mm=12&endD

30 ate_dd=31&endDate_yyyy=2013&county=CAMPBELL&hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=00

31 0&sort=DT&submitbutton=Search&statefips=56%2CWYOMING>. (5 December 2014). 

32 NCDC. “NCDC U.S. Storm Events Database – Campbell County, Wyoming – Tornado.” 

33 Ashville, North Carolina: U.S. National Climatic Data Center. 2014d. 

34 <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/listevents.jsp?eventType=%28C%29+Tornado&beginD

35 ate_mm=01&beginDate_dd=01&beginDate_yyyy=2000&endDate_mm=12&endDate_dd=31&en

36 dDate_yyyy=2013&county=CAMPBELL&hailfilter=0.00&tornfilter=0&windfilter=000&sort=DT&su

37 bmitbutton=Search&statefips=56%2CWYOMING> (5 December 2014). 
3-137 

1 NCRP. “Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States.” Report No. 160. 

2 Bethesda, Maryland: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 2009. 

3 Northern Arapaho Tribal Historic Preservation Office. Recommendations regarding cultural 

4 resources in the Reno Creek ISR Project. ML15317A483. 2015. 

5 NRC. “Major Uranium Recovery Licensing Applications: Updated 07/20/2014.” 

6 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2014. 

7 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

8 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244 and ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

9 Regulatory Commission. May 2009. 

10 NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

11 Applications.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 2003. 

12 NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.46, “Standard Format and Content of License applications, Including 

13 Environmental Reports, for In-Situ Uranium Solution Mining.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

14 Regulatory Commission. June 1982a. 

15 NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.8, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills.” 

16 ML003739941. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. October 1982b. 

17 NRC. Regulatory Guide 4.14, “Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 

18 Mills.” Rev. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April 1980. 

19 OSHA. “Industry Injury and Illness Data, Summary Tables, Table 1—Incidence Rates of 

20 Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by Industry and Case Types.” ML12240A297. 

21 Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Bureau of Labor 

22 Statistics. 2010. 

23 Rankl, J.G. and M.E. Lowry. “Ground-Water-Flow Systems in the Powder River Basin, 

24 Wyoming and Montana.” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 

25 Report 85-4229. Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Geological Survey. 1990. 

26 Reeves, B.O.K. “The Southern Alberta Paleo-Cultural Paleo-Environmental Sequences. Post 

27 Pleistocene Man and His Environment on the Northern Plains.” Calgary, Canada: University of 

28 Calgary Archaeological Association. 1969. 

29 Sage-Grouse Working Group: Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group. “Northeast 

30 Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan.” ML12240A374. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 2006. 

31 Sharp, W.N. and A.G. Gibbons. “Geology and Uranium Deposits of the Pumpkin Buttes Area of 

32 the Powder River Basin, Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1107H. Reston, Virginia: 

33 pp. 541–638. 1964. 

34 SWCA Environmental Consultants. “Pumpkin Buttes Cultural Resources: Ethnohistoric, 

35 Ethnographic and Traditional Cultural Properties, Investigations in Campbell and Johnson 

36 Counties, Wyoming.” ML14056A440. 2006. 
3-138 

1 UDEQ. “Safety Evaluation Report for the Denison Mines White Mesa Mill 2007 License 

2 Renewal Application.” Section 5.5.5. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Department of Environmental 

3 Quality, Division of Radiation Control. 2011. 

4 UDEQ. “Division of Radiation Control; Denison Mines (USA) Corp.; Review of License 

5 Amendment Request and Environmental Report for Cell 4B; Safety Evaluation Report; Under 

6 UAC R313-24 and UAC R317-6.” ML12241A232. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Department of 

7 Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control. 2010a. 

8 UDEQ. “Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479.” ML12241A243. Salt Lake City, Utah: 

9 State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control. 2010b. 

10 Uranium One. “Re: Waste Issues.” ML101330405. Email (May 12) D. Wichers, Senior Vice 

11 President, In-Situ Recovery Operations to Shroff, Behram. Casper, Wyoming: Uranium One 

12 Americas. 2010. 

13 USACE. “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great 

14 Plains Region (Version 2.0).” Washington DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. 

15 USCB. “American FactFinder, Census 2000 and 2010, 2008–2012 American Community 

16 Survey 5-Year Estimate, State and County QuickFacts.” Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

17 2014. <http://factfinder.census.gov, http://quickfacts.census.gov> (17 April 2014). 

18 USDA. “2012 Census of Agriculture, County Profile, Campbell County, Wyoming.” Washington 

19 DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2012. 

20 <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Wyomin

21 g/cp56005.pdf> (15 February 2015). 

22 USDA. “Selenium-Accumulating Plants” Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

23 2006 <http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=9979> (20 November 2014). 

24 USGS. “Gap Analysis Program (GAP) Species Viewer.” Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological 

25 Survey 2015. <http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/species/viewer/> (27 July 2015). 

26 WDAI. “Wyoming Employment, Income, and Gross Domestic Product Report.” 

27 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2012. 

28 <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/i&e/Inc_Emp_Report10.pdf> (12 February 2014). 

29 WDAI. “Population for Wyoming, Counties, Cities, and Towns: 2010 to 2030.” 

30 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2011. 

31 <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/wyc&sc30.htm> (12 February 2014). 

32 WDAI. “Wyoming Economic and Demographic Forecast 2007 to 2016.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

33 Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2007. 

34 <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/wef/Outlook2007.pdf> (12 February 2014). 

35 WDEQ. “Draft Underground Injection Control Permit.” Permit 09-621. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

36 State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division. 2015. 
3-139 

1 WDEQ. “Guideline No. 2, Vegetation Requirements for Exploration by Dozing, Regular Mines, 

2 and Insitu Leaching.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality3 Land Quality Division. 2014a. 

4 WDEQ. “Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2014.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

5 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2014b. 

6 WDEQ. “Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1 – Wyoming Surface Water Quality 

7 Standards.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2013a. 

8 WDEQ. “Noncoal Rules and Regulations, Chapter 11 – In Situ Mining.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

9 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division. 2013b. 

10 WDEQ. “Chapter 2, Ambient Standards.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 2012. 

11 <http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/default.aspx> (16 December 2013). 

12 WDEQ. “In Situ Mining Permit Application Requirements Handbook Draft.” Cheyenne, 

13 Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land Quality Division. 2007. 

14 <http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qENgpFhpa34J:www.gus235.com/g

15 oopages/pages_downloadgallery/downloadget.php%3Ffilename%3D4987_2671539.pdf%26orig

16 _name%3DIn_Situ_Mining_Permit_Handbook+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us> 

17 (15 February 2016). 

18 WDEQ. “Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 8, Quality Standards for Wyoming 

19 Groundwaters.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water 

20 Quality Division. 2005. 

21 WDEQ. “Noncoal Rules and Regulations, Chapter 2 – Regular Noncoal Mine Permit 

22 Application.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Land 

23 Quality Division. 2000. 

24 WDEQ. “Guideline No. 1, Topsoil and Overburden.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming 

25 Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1994a. 

26 <http://sgirt.webfactional.com/filesearch/content/Land%20Quality%20Divison/Guidelines/Guideli

27 nes-01_Topsoil-and-overburden-guide-1.pdf> (22 July 2015). 

28 WDEQ. “Guideline No. 5, Wildlife.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of 

29 Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1994b. 

30 <http://deq.wyoming.gov/media/attachments/Land%20Quality/Guidelines/Guidelines31 05_Wildlife-guide-5.pdf> (15 February 2016). 

32 WDOE. “Fall Enrollment Summary By School By Grade for: 2012–13.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

33 Wyoming Department of Education. 2014a. 

34 WDOE. “Fall Enrollment Summary By Grade for Districts and State for: 2012–13.” 

35 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Education. 2014b. 

36 WDOE. “Campbell #1 School District Staff For School Year: 2012–13.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

37 Wyoming Department of Education. 2014c. 
3-140 

1 WDOE. “Johnson #1 School District Staff For School Year: 2012–13.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

2 Wyoming Department of Education. 2014d. 

3 WDOE. “Natrona #1 School District Staff For School Year: 2012–13.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

4 Wyoming Department of Education. 2014e. 

5 WDOR. “State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2013 Annual Report.” 

6 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2013. 

7 WDOR. Wyoming Vendor Manual. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Revenue, 

8 Excise Tax Division. 2007. 

9 WEQC. “Order Approving Stipulation and Granting Motion for Fourth Amendment of Settlement 

10 Agreement.” EQC Docket Nos. 2485-93 and 00-5402. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming 

11 Environmental Quality Council. 2013. 

12 WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). “SG Lek Observations 1948-2015.” Accessed 

13 via WGFD drive. 2015. (30 January 2015). 

14 WGFD. “Raptor Nest Seasonal Timing and Spatial Buffers.” Email from Andrea Orabona, 

15 Biologist, WGFD to Amy Hester, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis. ML16162A741 

16 Attachments: WGFD Raptor Survey Dates, Disturbance-free Dates, & Buffers.pdf. Lander, 

17 Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2014a. 

18 WGFD. “2014 Big Game Job Completion Report Casper Region.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

19 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2014b. 

20 <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Hunting/JCRS/JCR_BGCASPERCOMP_2014

21 .pdf> (16 February 2016). 

22 WGFD. “2014 Big Game Job Completion Report Sheridan Region.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

23 Wyoming Game and Fish Department.” 2014c. 

24 <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Hunting/JCRS/JCR_BGSHERCOMP_2014.p

25 df> (16 February 2016). 

26 WGFD. “Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan 2010.” ML12241A410. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

27 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010a. 

28 WGFD. “Recommendations for Development of Oil and Gas Resources Within Important 

29 Wildlife Habitats.” Version 6.0. ML110810642. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and 

30 Fish Department. 2010b. 

31 WGFD. “Handbook of Biological Techniques.” Third Edition Edited by Tessman, Stephen. 

32 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. August, 2007. 

33 <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Wildlife-in-Wyoming/More-Wildlife/Handbook-Bio-Techniques> 

34 (15 February 2016). 

35 WGFD. “A Conservation Plan for Bats in Wyoming.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game 

36 and Fish Department. 2005a. 

37 <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Wildlife/Nongame/WYBAT_CONSERVATION

38 PLAN.pdf> (16 February 2016). 
3-141 

1 WGFD. “Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) in Final Comprehensive Wildlife 

2 Conservation Strategy.” ML13024A147. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish 

3 Department. 2005b. 

4 Whitehead, R.L. “Groundwater Atlas of the United States, Montana, North Dakota, South 

5 Dakota, Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Report HA 730–I. Denver, Colorado: 

6 U.S. Geological Survey. 1996. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/> (December 27, 2013). 

7 WOGCC (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission). “Wells.” Casper, Wyoming: 

8 Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2014. <http://wogcc.state.wy.us/> 

9 (16 July 2014). 

10 WSDOT. “Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects—Advanced Training 

11 Manual Version 02-2012, 7.0 Construction Noise Impact Assessment.” ML12250A723. 

12 Olympia, Washington: Washington State Department of Transportation. 2012. 

13 WYDOT. “2014 Automatic Traffic Recorder Report.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming 

14 Department of Transportation, Planning Program. 2014. 

15 <https://www.dot.state.wy.us/home/planning_projects/Traffic_Data.default.html> (22 July 2015). 

16 WYDOT. 2013 Vehicle Miles Book. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of 

17 Transportation, Planning Program. 2013. 

18 WYDWS. “Table A: Numbers and incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and 

19 illnesses by selected 3-digit NAICS industries, Wyoming, private industry, 2010.” 

20 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Workforce Services. 2010. 

21 <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/osh/OSH_10/tA.htm> (22 July 2015). 

22 Wyoming Weed and Pest Council. “Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act State Designated 

23 Weeds and Pests.” Gillette, Wyoming: 2014. 

24 <http://www.wyoweed.org/images/Designated_List.pdf> (22 July 2015). 

25 Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments. “Wyoming Biomass Inventory: Animal Waste, 

26 Crop Residue, Wood Residue, and Municipal Solid Waste.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Office of 

27 State Lands and Investments, Wyoming State Forestry Division. 2007.

4-1 

1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, 

2 AQUIFER RESTORATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES 

3 AND MITIGATIVE ACTIONS 

4 4.1 Introduction 

5 The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities 

6 (NRC, 2009) evaluated the potential environmental impacts of implementing in situ recovery 

7 (ISR) operations in four distinct geographic regions, including the Wyoming East Uranium 

8 Milling Region where the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located. This chapter 

9 evaluates the potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and the 

10 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2). Other reasonable alternatives considered at the proposed 

11 Reno Creek ISR Project included alternative sites, alternative lixiviants, conventional mining and 

12 milling, and conventional mining and heap leach processing. These alternatives were 

13 eliminated from detailed analysis for reasons described in draft supplemental environmental 

14 impact statement (SEIS) Section 2.2. 

15 This chapter analyzes the four lifecycle phases of ISR uranium extraction (construction, 

16 operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

17 consistent with the analytical approach used in the GEIS (NRC, 2009). The results of the GEIS 

18 impact analyses for the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, as summarized in draft SEIS 

19 Table 1-1, were used to focus the site-specific environmental review at the proposed 

20 Reno Creek ISR Project. If the GEIS concluded there could be a range of impacts on a 

21 particular resource area (e.g., the impacts could range from SMALL to LARGE), then that 

22 resource area was evaluated in greater detail within this site-specific SEIS. The site-specific 

23 analyses in this chapter also note where (i) the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 

24 staff obtained new information during its independent site-specific review and (ii) whether the 

25 potential impacts fit in the range of the GEIS analyses or whether the new information would be 

26 significant enough that it would change the expected impact beyond that discussed in the GEIS. 

27 Draft SEIS Sections 4.2 through 4.14 evaluate the impacts from both the Proposed Action 

28 (Alternative 1), which includes construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

29 decommissioning using Class I deep disposal wells for management of process-related liquid 

30 waste streams, and the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2), which means no ISR facilities 

31 would be built or operated at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The No-Action Alternative 

32 is assessed to provide a baseline to compare the potential impacts from the proposed project. 

33 The NRC established a standard of significance for assessing environmental impacts in the 

34 conduct of environmental reviews based on the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

35 regulations, as described in the NRC guidance in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a) and summarized 

36 as follows: 

37 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

38 destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource considered. 

39 MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 

40 important attributes of the resource considered. 

41 LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

42 important attributes of the resource considered. 
4-2 

1 4.2 Land Use Impacts 

2 Potential environmental impacts to land use at an ISR facility may occur during all phases of the 

3 facility life cycle (NRC, 2009). Impacts could include (i) land disturbance associated with 

4 construction, operations, and decommissioning activities; (ii) grazing and access restrictions; 

5 and (iii) competing access for mineral rights (e.g., leasing of land for both uranium and oil and 

6 gas exploration and development). 

7 The potential environmental impacts on land use from construction, operations, aquifer 

8 restoration, and decommissioning for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are detailed in the 

9 following sections. 

10 4.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

11 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area 

12 encompasses approximately 2,451 hectares (ha) [6,057 acres (ac)] (AUC, 2012a). Surface 

13 ownership within the proposed project area consists of 2,192 ha [5,417 ac] of privately owned 

14 land and 259 ha [640 ac] of State of Wyoming owned land (see draft SEIS Table 3-2). There is 

15 one residence (Taffner Homestead) within the proposed project area and five residences within 

16 8 km [5 mi] of the proposed project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-2). As described in draft SEIS 

17 Section 3.2, livestock grazing on rangeland is the primary land use within and surrounding the 

18 proposed project area. Oil and gas and coalbed methane (CBM) facilities and infrastructure are 

19 also located on land within and surrounding the proposed project area. 

20 Land within the proposed project area would be converted temporarily from its primary use as 

21 rangeland to use as an ISR facility, with facilities constructed and wellfields brought into 

22 production over time (AUC, 2012a). Subsurface mineral rights within the proposed project area 

23 are divided among several private owners, the State of Wyoming, and the Federal Government 

24 (see draft SEIS Table 3-2). The applicant maintains mining claims on federal minerals and 

25 holds mineral leases on privately and state-owned minerals within the proposed project area 

26 (see draft SEIS Section 3.2 and draft SEIS Table 3-2). At the end of ISR operations, final site 

27 reclamation would occur during decommissioning and all lands would be returned to their 

28 current land use. 

29 As summarized in draft SEIS Table 1-1, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that depending on 

30 the phase of the facility life cycle, potential impacts on land use in the Wyoming East Uranium 

31 Milling Region could range from SMALL to LARGE (NRC, 2009). The impact conclusions that 

32 contributed to a greater than SMALL impact finding in the GEIS addressed potential alterations 

33 to ecological, historical, and cultural resources. In this draft SEIS, the potential ecological 

34 impacts on land use are presented in draft SEIS Section 4.6 and the potential historical and 

35 cultural resource impacts on land use are presented in draft SEIS Section 4.9. In addition, 

36 impacts to soils from surface disturbances are addressed in draft SEIS Section 4.4. Therefore, 

37 the following discussion assesses land use impacts at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

38 considering proposed land disturbances and associated access restrictions that could limit other 

39 mineral extraction activities, grazing activities, or recreational activities. 

40 4.2.1.1 Construction Impacts 

41 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.1.1, potential impacts to most aspects of land use from the 

42 construction of an ISR facility in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region would be SMALL. 
4-3 

1 Land disturbances during the construction phase would be temporary and limited to small areas 

2 within permitted boundaries. After construction, disturbed areas around well sites, staging 

3 areas, and trenches would be immediately reseeded and restored. Changes to land use due to 

4 grazing restrictions and limits on recreational activities would be limited because restricted 

5 areas would be small and other land is available for these activities. In the GEIS, the NRC staff 

6 concluded that land use impacts would be SMALL when the amount of land disturbed by ISR 

7 facilities ranged from 49 to 753 ha [120 to 1,860 ac]. (NRC, 2009) 

8 Construction activities would have the largest direct land use impact within the proposed 

9 Reno Creek ISR Project area. Activities associated with ISR facility construction include topsoil 

10 stripping, trenching, excavating, backfilling, compacting, grading, and building assembly. 

11 Construction of the central processing plant (CPP) facility (e.g., the CPP building, ancillary 

12 buildings, backup pond, parking area, and storage areas), the initial production unit and 

13 associated wellfields, access roads, deep disposal wells, and pipelines is expected to take 9 to 

14 12 months to complete (AUC, 2012a). Construction of the initial production unit would be 

15 followed by development of additional production units during the project’s anticipated 11-year 

16 operational phase (AUC, 2012a). Construction of each production unit is anticipated to take 1 to 

17 2 years, with three to seven wellfields in various stages of construction at one time (AUC, 

18 2012a). Wellfield construction would include installation of injection, production, and monitor 

19 wells; header houses; pipelines; and utilities. 

20 A breakdown of estimated land disturbance for facilities and infrastructure at the proposed 

21 Reno Creek ISR Project is provided in draft SEIS Table 4-1. A total of 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] of land 

22 or 2.5 percent of the proposed project area is estimated to be potentially disturbed by activities 

23 associated with construction of CPP facility, production units, access roads, deep disposal 

24 wells, and pipelines. 

25 To mitigate the impacts of surface disturbance during construction, the applicant would 

26 (i) restore and reseed areas disturbed by facility construction, production unit development, and 

27 pipeline installation as soon as practicable; (ii) coordinate construction efforts with oil and gas 

28 production companies operating within the proposed project area (currently Williams Production 

29 RMT Company, Yates Petroleum Corporation, Lance Oil and Gas Company, and Bill Barrett 

30 Corporation); (iii) use existing county roads and oil and gas access roads to the extent possible 

31 to limit new access road construction; (iv) utilize existing topography during access road 

32 construction to minimize cut and fill; (v) minimize secondary and tertiary access road widths; 

33 and (vi) locate access roads, pipelines, and utilities in common corridors (AUC, 2012a). 

Table 4-1. Estimated Land Disturbance (Alternative 1) 

Central Processing Plant (CPP) Site Facility* 6.3 ha [15.5 ac] 

Production Units† 36.1 ha [89.3 ac] 

Access Roads 9.4 ha [23.3 ac] 

Deep Disposal Wells 1.6 ha [4.0 ac] 

Pipelines 9.0 ha [22.2 ac] 

Total 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] 

Source: AUC, 2012a. 

*Includes CPP, ancillary buildings, backup pond, parking area, laydown area, and storage areas. 

†Includes header houses, mud pits, topsoil storage areas, and pipelines. 
4-4 

1 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2, the Taffner Homestead is located where the proposed 

2 CPP would be located (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). The applicant has acquired the Taffner 

3 Homestead (First American Title, 2015). The Taffner Homestead would not be used as a 

4 residence during the life of the project (AUC, 2014b). 

5 The applicant would restrict and control access to the CPP facility (including the backup pond), 

6 production units, and deep disposal wells with fences (AUC, 2012a). The CPP facility would be 

7 located on approximately 6.3 ha [15.5 ac] and surrounded by a controlled access area fence 

8 throughout the life of the project. Production units would be constructed on land currently used 

9 for livestock grazing and would be fenced using four-line stranded barbed wire to restrict access 

10 to livestock. Fenced areas around production units are estimated to encompass 187 ha 

11 [461 ac] (AUC, 2012a). Monitoring wells around production units would not be fenced; however, 

12 access to monitoring wells would be controlled by installing protective locked covers (AUC, 

13 2014b). The applicant would construct up to four deep disposal wells. Each disposal well site 

14 would encompass approximately 0.4 ha [1.0 ac] and would be fenced to exclude livestock and 

15 wildlife. The fenced areas around the CPP facility, production units, and deep disposal wells 

16 total approximately 195 ha [481 ac] or about 8 percent of the proposed project area of 2,451 ha 

17 [6,057 ac] (AUC, 2012a). However, because production unit development would occur in a 

18 sequential manner, fencing would be removed after operations and reclamation of each 

19 production unit is completed. Therefore, concurrently fenced areas around the CPP facility, 

20 production units, and deep disposal wells are expected to be significantly less than 8 percent of 

21 the proposed project area. 

22 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2.1, the primary land use within the proposed project area 

23 is livestock grazing on private and state-owned rangeland. No commercial crop production 

24 takes place within the proposed project area. The applicant would mitigate potential impacts to 

25 livestock grazing by restoring and reseeding disturbed areas as soon as practicable (AUC, 

26 2012a). As described previously, production unit development would occur in phases, resulting 

27 in temporary livestock grazing restrictions (e.g., fencing would be removed after operations and 

28 reclamation of each production unit is completed). As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2, the 

29 applicant holds a mineral lease for the parcel of state-owned land within the proposed project 

30 area. State-owned lands in Wyoming are administered by the Office of State Lands and 

31 Investments, Board of Land Commissioners (BLC). The applicant has committed to submitting 

32 a written request to the BLC to restrict livestock grazing access within proposed production units 

33 to be constructed on the parcel of state-owned land within the proposed project area (AUC, 

34 2014a). Therefore, the exclusion of grazing from production unit areas over the course of the 

35 proposed project would be expected to have a minor impact on local livestock production. In 

36 addition, the applicant would establish surface use agreements with surface owners/lessees to 

37 compensate for the temporary loss of land. 

38 Recreational activities, primarily hunting, are limited within the proposed project area (see draft 

39 SEIS Section 3.2.2). There is no public access to private lands within the proposed project 

40 area. Hunting on privately owned land would be restricted over the life of the project to protect 

41 workers (AUC, 2012a). BLC has extended to the public the privilege of using legally accessible 

42 state-owned land for recreational purposes, such as hunting. Hunters can legally access the 

43 state land within the proposed project area via County Road 22 (Clarkelen Road). However, the 

44 BLC can close or restrict designated state-owned lands where recreational use has the potential 

45 for abuse or damage to lessee interests, or public or lessee safety. The applicant has 

46 committed to submitting a written request to the BLC to restrict hunting on the parcel of state47 owned land within the proposed project area (AUC, 2014a). This request would be based on 
4-5 

1 public health and safety concerns and would be designed to prevent damage to surface 

2 equipment within fenced production unit areas on the state-owned land (AUC, 2014a). 

3 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2.2, the proposed project area spans two Wyoming Game 

4 and Fish Department (WGFD) pronghorn and mule deer Herd Units: Pumpkin Buttes and North 

5 Converse. As described previously, concurrently fenced areas within the proposed project area 

6 would be less than 8 percent of the proposed project area, which would limit disruptions to the 

7 movement of big game populations. 

8 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2.3, known minerals being recovered within the proposed 

9 project area include conventional oil and gas and CBM. Two oil-producing wells and 

10 46 CBM-producing wells are located within the proposed project area. To avoid impacts 

11 between proposed construction of ISR facilities and infrastructure with existing oil and gas and 

12 CBM infrastructure (e.g., buried water lines, power lines, and gas pipelines), the applicant has 

13 committed to using One Call of Wyoming to identify all existing utility infrastructure in 

14 construction areas prior to any earthmoving activities (AUC, 2014a). All utilities (e.g., buried 

15 pipelines and power lines) are required by state law to be a member of One Call of Wyoming, 

16 which is administered by the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). Before 

17 excavating, individuals and companies are required by Wyoming law to contact One Call of 

18 Wyoming to request the location of underground utilities in the area to be excavated. The 

19 applicant has also committed to mitigate potential impacts to competing access for mineral 

20 rights by developing working relationships with the oil and gas production companies operating 

21 within the proposed project area (currently Williams Production RMT Company, Yates 

22 Petroleum Corporation, Lance Oil and Gas Company, and Bill Barrett Corporation). The 

23 applicant has committed to developing similar relationships with other companies should other 

24 minerals be discovered and developed during the life of the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). 

25 In the GEIS, the NRC staff defined land use impacts to be SMALL when the amount of land 

26 disturbed by ISR facilities ranged from 49 to 753 ha [120 to 1,860 ac] (NRC, 2009). The land 

27 area projected to be disturbed by construction activities for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

28 Project area {62.4 ha [154.3 ac]} falls at the low end of land disturbance estimates in the GEIS. 

29 In addition, the land area projected to be disturbed by construction activities accounts for only 

30 2.5 percent of the 2,451 ha [6,057 ac] proposed project area. The applicant committed to use 

31 the following mitigation measures to minimize the impacts of surface disturbance: restore and 

32 reseed disturbed areas as soon as practicable; limit construction of new access roads; minimize 

33 cut and fill during access road construction; and use common corridors when locating access 

34 roads, pipelines, and utilities (AUC, 2012a). 

35 Fenced areas around the CPP facility and deep disposal wells would be relatively small in 

36 comparison to the permitted area of the proposed project. Furthermore, fenced areas around 

37 production units would be temporary and would be removed after operational and reclamation 

38 phases are completed in the production units. Prohibiting grazing within fenced areas during 

39 construction would have only a SMALL impact on local livestock production. There is no public 

40 access to privately owned lands within the project area. The applicant would submit a request 

41 to U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to restrict hunting within proposed production units 

42 constructed on state-owned land within the proposed project area. Therefore, impacts to 

43 recreational activities (primarily big game hunting) are expected to be SMALL. To mitigate the 

44 impacts of competing mineral rights, the applicant has committed to developing working 

45 relationships with oil and gas companies operating within the proposed project area. Therefore, 

46 the NRC staff conclude that overall land use impacts during construction would be SMALL. 
4-6 

1 4.2.1.2 Operations Impacts 

2 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that additional land disturbances and access restrictions 

3 are not expected while operational activities are ongoing. Because impacts from access 

4 restrictions and land disturbances would be similar to or less than construction impacts, the 

5 NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the overall potential impacts on land use from operational 

6 activities at an ISR facility would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

7 For the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the primary changes to land use during the 

8 operations phase would be land disturbance and access restrictions from the expansion of 

9 active production units and development of new production units. Land disturbance and access 

10 restrictions would result from drilling new wells and constructing additional header houses 

11 and pipelines. 

12 Fencing would be used to restrict livestock grazing from the CPP facility, deep disposal wells, 

13 and production units during the operations phase. During the operational life of the project, 

14 fencing around production units will remove 187 ha [461 ac] of land from livestock grazing 

15 (AUC, 2012a). The applicant would restore and reclaim production units concurrently, as 

16 operations are completed and moved to the next production unit (AUC, 2012a). As uranium 

17 recovery activities cease at a production unit, the area would be restored and reopened to 

18 grazing while a new production unit is developed. The sequential movement of active 

19 operations from one production unit to the next would minimize potential impacts to grazing and 

20 livestock production throughout the operational life of the project. 

21 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.2.1.1, recreational activities, primarily hunting, are limited 

22 within the proposed project area. Recreational activities on state-owned land within the 

23 proposed project area provide only dispersed recreational activities. Hunting on privately owned 

24 land would be restricted over the life of the project to protect workers (AUC, 2012a). In addition, 

25 the applicant would submit a request to the BLC to restrict hunting within proposed production 

26 units constructed on state-owned land within the proposed project area (AUC, 2014a). As 

27 discussed previously, the applicant would restore and reclaim production units concurrently, as 

28 operations are completed and moved to the next production unit. The sequential movement of 

29 active operations from one production unit to the next would minimize the potential impacts of 

30 fencing on the movement of big game populations within the proposed project area. 

31 In summary, impacts due to land disturbance during the operations phase of the proposed 

32 project would be limited to the production units and would be less than those impacts expected 

33 during the construction phase. Access restrictions during the operations phase would be similar 

34 to the construction phase. The CPP facility and deep disposal wells would remain fenced. 

35 Temporary fencing around operational production units would restrict livestock grazing and 

36 recreational use. Once operations are completed in a production unit, the production unit would 

37 be restored and reopened to grazing and recreational use. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude 

38 that the overall impacts to land use from operations would be SMALL. 

39 4.2.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

40 As discussed in the GEIS, because aquifer restoration would use the same infrastructure that is 

41 present during operations phases, land use impacts from aquifer restoration are expected to be 

42 similar to or less than operations impacts. As aquifer restoration proceeds and wellfields are 
4-7 

1 closed, operational activities would diminish. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS 

2 that aquifer restoration impacts to land use would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

3 For the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the aquifer restoration phase would use the same 

4 operational infrastructure and require the same level of infrastructure maintenance as the 

5 operations phase. Land disturbance impacts from aquifer restoration would decrease as fewer 

6 wells and header houses are used. Additionally, equipment traffic and related impacts would 

7 diminish. Livestock grazing and recreational use restrictions would be similar to those for the 

8 operations phase. For example, fencing would be used to restrict livestock grazing from the 

9 CPP facility, deep disposal wells, and active production units during the aquifer restoration 

10 phase. NRC staff conclude that the potential impacts to land use during the aquifer restoration 

11 phase would be comparable to those of the operations phase and would be SMALL. 

12 4.2.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

13 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that decommissioning an ISR facility would temporarily 

14 increase land-disturbing activities, such as dismantling, removing, and disposing of materials, 

15 equipment, and excavated contaminated soils. Access restrictions would remain in place until 

16 decommissioning and reclamation are complete, although a licensee may decommission and 

17 reclaim the site in stages. Reclamation of land to preexisting conditions and uses would help to 

18 mitigate potential long term impacts. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that impacts to land 

19 use during decommissioning could range from SMALL to MODERATE and would be SMALL 

20 after decommissioning and reclamation activities are complete (NRC, 2009). 

21 Decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be based on an 

22 NRC approved decommissioning plan, and all decommissioning activities would be carried out 

23 in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40 and other applicable federal and state regulatory 

24 requirements. During decommissioning, land disturbed by the proposed project would be 

25 returned to its preoperational condition, including surface topography and drainage patterns, 

26 and available for its preoperational use of livestock grazing (AUC, 2012a). 

27 Decommissioning of surface and subsurface facilities in individual production units would 

28 commence after planned aquifer restoration and stabilization activities received final regulatory 

29 approval from NRC and Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) (see draft 

30 SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5). The applicant would submit a decommissioning plan for NRC review 

31 and approval at least 12 months before the planned commencement of final decommissioning 

32 (AUC, 2012a). Final decommissioning activities would include final production unit 

33 decommissioning, plugging and abandonment of all deep disposal wells), access road 

34 reclamation, process building and equipment decommissioning, and revegetation. Prior to 

35 commencing decommissioning activities, a radiological survey would be conducted on all 

36 process equipment and area soils. Any contaminated equipment that could not be 

37 decontaminated onsite would be properly disposed of at a licensed disposal facility. All 

38 contaminated soil would be disposed of at a licensed byproduct material disposal facility 

39 (AUC, 2012a). For further information about waste disposal for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

40 Project, see draft SEIS Section 4.14. 

41 Production unit decommissioning includes plugging and abandonment of wells and removal and 

42 disposal of wellfield equipment. Wells would be plugged and abandoned in accordance with 

43 WDEQ rules and regulations (WDEQ, 2013a). Plugging and abandonment procedures include 

44 removing piping, pumps, and equipment suspended in the well casing; filling the casing from the 
4-8 

1 total depth to just below the ground surface with cement grout or bentonite; cutting off the 

2 surface casing below ground; and restoring and reseeding the disturbed area. Wellfield 

3 equipment that would be removed includes production, monitoring, and deep disposal wells; 

4 wellhead covers; pipelines; valves; and buried electrical cable. All downhole pipe and electrical 

5 cable, pipelines (e.g., flow, feeder, and trunk lines), and valves would be disposed of as 

6 byproduct material in a licensed disposal facility (AUC, 2012a). Following production unit 

7 decommissioning, disturbed areas would be recontoured and revegetated. 

8 Access roads constructed at the proposed project would be removed and reclaimed unless 

9 landowners/lessees request that the roads be retained (AUC, 2012a). In those cases, 

10 maintenance and disposition of the roads would become the responsibility of the 

11 landowner/lessee. Access roads would be removed in accordance with NRC and WDEQ 

12 regulations and the desires of the surface landowners. Disturbed areas associated with road 

13 and culvert removal would be graded to a contour consistent with the surrounding topography. 

14 Contouring would be followed by topsoil replacement and revegetation. 

15 Unless the landowner requests that buildings be retained for private use, the applicant would 

16 decommission the CPP facility and remaining infrastructure when aquifer restoration is 

17 completed and approved by the NRC and WDEQ. All structures, equipment, pipe, and other 

18 materials would be dismantled and decontaminated and either disposed of in accordance with 

19 applicable regulations or salvaged and removed to another facility for use. Equipment that 

20 cannot be decontaminated to release limits for alpha and beta-gamma radiation, as specified in 

21 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86, would be disposed of in a licensed byproduct disposal facility 

22 (AUC, 2012a). 

23 Revegetation of disturbed areas would be carried out in accordance with a WDEQ Reclamation 

24 Plan and Restoration Action Plan (RAC) (AUC, 2012b). Topsoil would be redistributed across 

25 disturbed areas to a depth approximately equal to preconstruction conditions. After replacing 

26 topsoil, the disturbed areas would be seeded using drill or broadcast methods with a seed mix 

27 selected in consultation with landowners and WDEQ. 

28 At the end of decommissioning, all lands would be returned to their preoperational land use of 

29 livestock grazing. Livestock grazing and recreational activities would no longer be restricted. 

30 Landowners/lessees may request that access roads and buildings be retained for private use. 

31 Contouring and revegetation of decommissioned areas (e.g., the CPP facility, access roads, 

32 and production units) would lessen the land disturbance impacts caused by earlier phases of 

33 the proposed project. The land use impacts for disturbed areas would be MODERATE until 

34 vegetation is established in revegetated areas. Once vegetation has been established in 

35 reclaimed areas, the NRC staff conclude that land use impacts from decommissioning of the 

36 proposed project would be SMALL. 

37 4.2.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

38 Under the No-Action Alternative, NRC would not license the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

39 and the land would continue to be available for other uses. Impacts such as soil disturbances 

40 and access restrictions to current land uses from the proposed project would not occur. 

41 Construction impacts would be avoided because ISR processing facilities would not be 

42 constructed, wells would not be drilled, and pipelines would not be laid. Operational and aquifer 

43 restoration impacts would also be avoided because no subsurface injection of lixiviant would 

44 occur. Impacts to land use from decommissioning would not occur, because unbuilt ISR 
4-9 

1 processing facilities and infrastructure require no decontamination, and unstrapped land 

2 surfaces require no reclamation or revegetation. The current land uses on and near the project 

3 area, including livestock grazing, natural resource extraction, and recreation, would remain 

4 essentially unchanged under the No-Action Alternative. 

5 4.3 Transportation Impacts 

6 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.2, potential transportation impacts at an ISR facility may occur 

7 during all phases of the facility life cycle. Impacts would result from workers commuting to and 

8 from the site and from the shipment of construction equipment and materials, operational 

9 processing supplies, ion-exchange resins, yellowcake product, and waste materials 

10 (NRC, 2009). 

11 The potential environmental impacts from transportation during the construction, operations, 

12 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are 

13 detailed in the following sections. 

14 4.3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

15 The regional and local transportation infrastructure that would serve the proposed Reno Creek 

16 ISR Project is described in draft SEIS Section 3.3. Access to the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

17 Project from nearby communities would be from State Highway 387, which traverses the project 

18 area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Access from State Highway 387 to the location of the 

19 proposed Reno Creek CPP is along Clarkelen Road (County Road 22) (see draft SEIS Figure 3-

20 1). The transportation activities for the proposed Reno Creek ISR facility are described in draft 

21 SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. For the proposed project, these activities include workers commuting to 

22 and from the proposed project and road transportation of construction equipment and materials, 

23 operational processing supplies, yellowcake, and waste materials. 

24 4.3.1.1 Construction Impacts 

25 The NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.3.2.1 that ISR construction activities would 

26 generate low levels of additional traffic (relative to local traffic counts) and would not significantly 

27 increase traffic or accidents on many of the roads in the region. Roads that have low traffic 

28 counts could be moderately impacted by the additional workers commuting during periods of 

29 peak employment. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded in the GElS that the construction phase 

30 of ISR projects would result in transportation impacts that ranged from SMALL to MODERATE 

31 (NRC, 2009). 

32 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.3, the proposed project area is accessed by Clarkelen 

33 Road (also known as County Road 22) and State Highways 387, 50, and 59. The applicant 

34 estimated traffic generated by the proposed construction activities, including transportation of 

35 equipment, supplies, waste materials, and workers (AUC, 2012a, 2014a), and this analysis is 

36 described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. The NRC staff’s impact analysis first compared the 

37 proposed traffic estimates and data with the information evaluated in GEIS Section 2.8 and then 

38 evaluated the estimated percentage increase in existing traffic that could result from the 

39 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

40 The NRC impact analysis found that the overall magnitude of the proposed daily construction 

41 traffic is less than the construction traffic evaluated in GEIS Section 2.8 (NRC, 2009). 
4-10 

1 Commuting workers constitute the majority of road traffic the applicant described for the 

2 construction phase. The applicant estimated 27 worker trips to the proposed project daily, 

3 which is well below the upper range of 200 commuting worker trips to a site considered in the 

4 GEIS. The applicant has estimated that the initial facility construction requiring these workers 

5 would take 1 year (AUC, 2012a). The applicant’s proposed equipment and supply shipments, 

6 however, were higher than those assumed in GEIS Section 2.8: two trips per day for the 

7 proposed project compared to 0.24 trips per day considered in GEIS Section 2.8. 

8 Draft SEIS Table 4-2 compares the magnitude of the NRC staff’s estimated local traffic 

9 counts from proposed construction activities with existing traffic counts on regional and local 

10 state highways. Considering draft SEIS Table 4-2, the proposed traffic, if allocated completely 

11 to the individual road segments, would noticeably increase the existing traffic on State 

12 Highway 387, but would not substantially increase traffic on more heavily traveled road 

13 segments, such as State Highway 59 traveling from Gillette to Wright. State Highway 387 

14 traverses the proposed project area and is the primary transportation route to the proposed 

15 project from nearby communities. Auto traffic on State Highway 387 is projected to increase by 

16 8 percent, and truck traffic was projected to increase by 1.1 percent. Combined auto and truck 

17 traffic on State Highway 59 was projected to increase by 2.1 percent north of Wright 

18 (Reno Junction North traffic counter location) and by 1.7 percent south of Gillette (Gillette South 

19 traffic counter location) (see draft SEIS Figure 3-6). The projected increase in traffic on State 

20 Highway 387 (8 percent increase in auto traffic and 1.1 percent increase in truck traffic) is a 

21 noticeable change in conditions. The NRC staff further evaluated the projected increases in 

22 traffic by considering the ability of the roads to accommodate the increased traffic. When the 

23 projected traffic for all the state highways in the analysis is evaluated (ranging from 1,117 to 

24 5,949 vehicles per day based on the sum of projected auto and truck traffic for each road), the 

25 magnitude of traffic is not expected to exceed the existing road capacity. The conclusion that 

26 existing road capacity would not be exceeded is based on consideration of road capacity 

27 estimates provided by the Campbell County Coal Belt Transportation Study (Kadrmas, Lee, and 

28 Jackson, Inc., 2010) (see draft SEIS Section 3.3). The study estimated a rural 2-lane highway 

29 hourly capacity of 1,375 vehicles per hour based on WYDOT automated daily traffic count 

30 information on state highways in Campbell County. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that 

31 the regional and local state highways could accommodate the additional traffic from the 

32 proposed project. 

33 The projected daily traffic on Clarkelen Road, the county road providing access to the CPP from 

34 State Highway 387, would experience a noticeable increase over existing traffic considering 

35 both autos and trucks. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.3, Clarkelen Road is currently used 

36 for agricultural and oil and gas activities in the area. The segment of Clarkelen Road from State 

37 Highway 387 to the proposed location of the CPP is approximately 550 m [1,800 ft]. This 

38 segment may require improvements (e.g., supplemental gravel resurfacing) to accommodate 

39 trucks and heavy equipment access during the construction phase of the proposed project 

40 (AUC, 2012a). The applicant has committed to mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the 

41 county road system potentially affected by the proposed project. Mitigation measures include 

42 (i) improving signage; (ii) enforcing speed limits for AUC employees and contractors; and 

43 (iii) performing routine assessments of road conditions (AUC, 2012a). The applicant has 

44 committed to work with Campbell County to provide necessary upgrades to affected portions of 

45 the county road system (AUC, 2012a). Prior to construction of the proposed project, the 

46 applicant would define coordination efforts with Campbell County in a required County 

47 Development Plan (AUC, 2012a). 
4-11 

Table 4-2. Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the 

Construction Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Road Segment Traffic Count*

Projected Traffic 

Increase† Percent Increase‡

Auto Truck Auto Truck Auto Truck 

State Highway 59 

North of Wright 

(Reno Junction North) 

3,568 784 54 5 1.5 0.6 

State Highway 59 

South of Gillette 

(Gillette South) 

5,056 834 54 5 1.1 0.6 

State Highway 387 

(Pine Tree Junction) 621 437 54 5 8.0 1.1 

Sources: AUC (2012a, 2014a); WYDOT (2013a,b) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel (draft SEIS Section 3.3). The NRC staff 

calculated the auto traffic count as the difference between the all vehicle count and reported truck count. Data for all 

roads are for year 2013 and are from Wyoming Department of Transportation (2013,a,b). 

†Projected traffic increase is the proposed project daily two-way traffic. Proposed construction phase two-way traffic 

is double the round trips reported in draft SEIS Table 2-6. 

‡This analysis assumes all projected traffic will travel on each road. If the proposed project traffic used multiple 

routes, then this analysis overestimates impacts to each road segment. 

1 Considering the limited duration of construction activities (1 to 2 years), the mitigation measures 

2 to reduce traffic impacts and the relatively short segment of Clarkelen Road that would be 

3 impacted by traffic accessing the proposed project, the NRC staff conclude that the increase in 

4 traffic volumes to the local county road system during construction would result in SMALL 

5 impacts. Based on the available capacity on the state highway road system in Campbell 

6 County, the NRC staff conclude that the potential traffic impacts to the state highway road 

7 system providing access to the proposed project area from nearby communities would 

8 be SMALL. 

9 4.3.1.2 Operations Impacts 

10 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.2.2, the low level of facility-related traffic during operations 

11 activities would not noticeably increase traffic or the occurrence of accidents on most roads, 

12 although local, less traveled roads could be moderately impacted during periods of peak 

13 employment. GEIS Section 4.3.2.2 also assessed the potential for and consequence from 

14 accidents involving the transportation of hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. The 

15 NRC staff recognized in the GEIS the potential for high consequences from a severe accident 

16 involving transportation of hazardous chemicals in a populated area. The probability of such 

17 accidents occurring was determined to be low because of the small number of shipments, 

18 comprehensive regulatory controls, and the applicant’s use of best management practices 

19 (BMPs). For radioactive material shipments (yellowcake, ion-exchange resins, or byproduct 

20 material), compliance with transportation regulations was expected to limit radiological risk for 

21 normal operations. The NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.3.2.2 that there would be a low 

22 radiological risk from transportation accidents. The use of emergency response protocols would 

23 help to mitigate the consequences of any severe accidents that involved the release of uranium. 

24 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential environmental impact from 

25 transportation during operations would range from SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009). 
4-12 

1 The proposed operational transportation activities for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are 

2 similar to those evaluated in GEIS Section 4.3.2.2, including employee commuting and truck 

3 shipments of yellowcake, processing chemicals, hazardous materials, and byproduct material. 

4 The types of impacts evaluated are also similar to those evaluated in the GEIS, including 

5 impacts to traffic and potential hazards associated with shipment of yellowcake, byproduct 

6 material, and hazardous materials. 

7 Traffic that would be generated by these proposed project operations is described in draft SEIS 

8 Section 2.1.1.1.7. The overall magnitude of proposed operational transportation is comparable 

9 to the operational transportation evaluated in GEIS Section 4.3.2.2. Commuting workers 

10 constitute the majority of road traffic the applicant described for the operations phase. The 

11 applicant estimated the number of commuting workers’ trips to the proposed project would be 

12 within the range considered in the GEIS (30 vehicle trips for the proposed project compared to 

13 20 to 200 trips considered in the GEIS). For trucking activities, processing chemical shipments 

14 were greater than GEIS Section 2.8 values. The proposed operational byproduct shipments are 

15 comparable to the GEIS values, and proposed yellowcake shipments are at the low end of the 

16 range considered in the GEIS. 

17 Draft SEIS Table 4-3 compares the magnitude of the NRC staff’s estimated increase in local 

18 traffic counts from proposed operations activities. The projected traffic for the operations phase 

19 for all road segments evaluated is comparable to the projected traffic from the construction 

20 phase. Considering draft SEIS Table 4-3, the proposed traffic, if allocated completely to the 

21 individual road segments, would noticeably increase the existing traffic on State Highway 387 

22 but would not substantially increase traffic on more heavily traveled road segments, such as 

23 State Highway 59 traveling from Gillette to Wright. As noted previously, State Highway 387 

24 traverses the proposed project area and would be the primary transportation route to the 

25 proposed project from nearby communities. Auto traffic on State Highway 387 was projected 

26 to increase by 8.8 percent, and truck traffic was projected to increase by 3.1 percent. Auto and 

27 truck traffic on State Highway 59 was projected to increase by 3.3 percent north of Wright 

28 (Reno Junction North traffic counter location) and by 2.8 percent south of Gillette (Gillette South 

29 traffic counter location) (see draft SEIS Figure 3-6). The projected increase in traffic on 

30 State Highway 387 (8.8 percent increase in auto traffic and 3.1 percent increase in truck traffic) 

31 is a noticeable change in conditions. The NRC staff further evaluated the projected increases in 

32 traffic by considering the ability of the roads to accommodate the increased traffic. When the 

33 projected traffic for all the state highways in the analysis is evaluated (ranging from 1,132 to 

34 5,964 vehicles per day based on the sum of projected auto and truck traffic for each road), the 

35 magnitude of traffic would not be expected to exceed the existing road capacity. As discussed 

36 previously, the conclusion that existing road capacity would not be exceeded is based on 

37 consideration of road capacity estimates provided by the Campbell County Coal Belt 

38 Transportation Study (Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc., 2010) (see draft SEIS Section 3.3). 

39 The study estimated a rural 2-lane highway hourly capacity of 1,375 vehicles per hour based on 

40 WYDOT automated daily traffic count information on state highways in Campbell County. 

41 Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the regional and state highways could accommodate the 

42 additional traffic from the proposed project. 

43 The projected daily traffic on Clarkelen Road, the county road providing access to the CPP from 

44 State Highway 387, would experience a noticeable increase over existing traffic from both autos 

45 and trucks. As described in the previous section, the applicant has committed to work with 

46 Campbell County to provide necessary upgrades to affected portions of the county road system 

47 (AUC, 2012a). The applicant has also committed to implement mitigation measures to reduce 
4-13 

Table 4-3. Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the 

Operations Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Road Segment Traffic Count*

Projected Traffic 

Increase†

Percent 

Increase‡

 Auto Truck Auto Truck Auto Truck 

State Highway 59 

North of Wright 

(Reno Junction North) 

3,568 784 60 14 1.6 1.7 

State Highway 59 

South of Gillette 

(Gillette South) 

5,056 834 60 14 1.2 1.6 

State Highway 387 

(Pine Tree Junction) 621 437 60 14 8.8 3.1 

Sources: AUC (2012a, 2014a); WYDOT (2013a,b) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel (draft SEIS Section 3.3). The NRC staff 

calculated the auto traffic count as the difference between the all vehicle count and reported truck count. Data for all 

roads are for year 2013 and are from Wyoming Department of Transportation (2013,a,b). 

†Projected traffic increase is the proposed project daily two-way traffic. Proposed operations phase two-way traffic is 

double the round trips reported in draft SEIS Table 2-6. 

‡This analysis assumes all projected traffic will travel on each road. If proposed project traffic used multiple routes, 

then this analysis overestimates impacts to each road segment. 

1 impacts to the county road system potentially affected by the proposed project. Mitigation 

2 measures include (i) improving signage; (ii) enforcing speed limits for AUC employees and 

3 contractors; and (iii) performing routine assessments of road conditions (AUC, 2012a). 

4 Considering the magnitude of projected traffic from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the 

5 mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts, and the relatively short segment of Clarkelen 

6 Road that would be impacted by traffic accessing the proposed project, the NRC staff conclude 

7 that the increase in traffic volumes to the local county road system during operations would 

8 result in SMALL impacts. Based on the available capacity on the state highway road system in 

9 Campbell County, the NRC staff conclude that the potential traffic impacts to the state highway 

10 road system providing access to the proposed project area from nearby communities would also 

11 be SMALL. 

12 The potential radiological accident risk associated with yellowcake product shipments was 

13 evaluated in GEIS Section 4.3.2.2. The yellowcake transportation analysis assumed shipment 

14 volumes that ranged from 34 to 145 yellowcake shipments per year, which could result in a risk 

15 of 0.01 and 0.04 latent cancer fatalities, respectively, considering accident probabilities and 

16 consequences (NRC, 2009). The proposed yellowcake transportation activities for the 

17 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. These 

18 activities would be similar in approach to the activities evaluated in the GEIS Section 4.3.2.2, 

19 and the quantities of material that would be shipped, the number of shipments, and the 

20 shipment distances are within the magnitude of the yellowcake transportation activities 

21 evaluated in the GEIS. The applicant has estimated approximately 52 yellowcake shipments 

22 per year would be needed for the proposed project or an average of one shipment per week. 

23 This estimate is based on the proposed 0.9-million-kg [2-million-lb] annual yellowcake 

24 production rate and an assumed 17,300-kg [38,460-lb] capacity per yellowcake shipment 

25 (AUC, 2012a). By comparison, the GEIS does not differ significantly; it considers yellowcake 

26 shipped in drums that hold approximately 430 kg [950 lb] and shipments carrying 40 drums per 

27 load for a total shipment capacity of 17,200 kg [38,000 lb]. Therefore, the radiological accident 

28 risk associated with yellowcake shipment at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project can be 
4-14 

1 considered similar to the GEIS risk analysis. The shipment volume would not significantly affect 

2 the project-related traffic relative to the expected commuting workforce. 

3 GEIS Section 4.3.2.2 reported that previous accidents involving yellowcake releases result in up 

4 to 30 percent of shipment contents being released (NRC, 2009). To limit the risk of an accident 

5 involving yellowcake transport, the applicant has proposed that all such materials would be 

6 transported in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and NRC 

7 regulations, handled as low specific-activity materials, and shipped by a licensed transport 

8 company that specializes in shipment of yellowcake (AUC, 2012a). The transport companies 

9 would have standing contracts with environmental emergency response contractors for spill 

10 cleanup. In addition, the applicant would develop a communication and emergency response 

11 plan with state and local authorities for all transport and emergency conditions (AUC, 2012a). 

12 The NRC staff conclude that the consequences of such accidents would also be limited 

13 because the applicant has committed to develop emergency response and standard operating 

14 procedures (AUC, 2012a, 2014a) for yellowcake and other transportation accidents that could 

15 occur during shipment to or from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The applicant also 

16 proposes to ensure its personnel and the carrier would receive training on these emergency 

17 response procedures and that information about the procedures would be provided to state and 

18 local agencies (AUC, 2012a, 2014a). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the impact from a 

19 potential accident involving yellowcake transportation during the operations phase of the 

20 proposed project would be SMALL. 

21 The potential impacts from operational byproduct material shipments were evaluated in GEIS 

22 Section 4.3.2.2. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS the SMALL risks from transporting 

23 yellowcake during operations would bound the risks expected from byproduct material 

24 shipments, owing to the concentrated nature of shipped yellowcake, the longer distance 

25 yellowcake is shipped relative to byproduct material, and the relative number of shipments of 

26 each material. The proposed operational byproduct material transportation activities for the 

27 Reno Creek ISR Project are described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. The applicant proposed 

28 to temporarily store operational byproduct material and then ship the material to an offsite 

29 disposal facility that is licensed to accept byproduct material. Byproduct material disposal 

30 facility options are described in draft SEIS Section 3.13.2. The applicant’s estimated annual 

generation of 76.5 m3

 [100 yd3 31 ] of byproduct material (including unusable contaminated 

32 equipment, filters, and spent ion-exchange resin) would comprise approximately five shipments 

33 per year (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7). This magnitude of operational byproduct material 

34 shipping is at the low end of the range documented in the GEIS of 2.5 to 15 shipments per year 

35 (NRC, 2009). Transportation safety would be maintained by the applicant’s proposed 

36 adherence to applicable NRC and USDOT transportation requirements, the applicant’s 

37 proposed use of licensed third-party carriers, and the applicant’s proposed emergency response 

38 measures (AUC, 2012a). Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff conclude that the 

39 applicant’s proposed operational byproduct material shipment activities are consistent with the 

40 impact analysis in GEIS Section 4.3.2.2, and therefore environmental impacts of the proposed 

41 shipments would be bounded by impacts from the proposed yellowcake shipments (SMALL). 

42 The potential impacts from transportation of process chemical supplies were also evaluated in 

43 GEIS Section 4.3.2.2. The potential safety hazards associated with process chemicals the 

44 applicant intends to use for the proposed project (see draft SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.3) were also 

45 described and evaluated in GEIS Sections 2.11.2 and 4.3.11.2.4 (NRC, 2009). The planned 

46 operational hazardous chemical and fuel shipments for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

47 are described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. The applicant would store, use, and receive 
4-15 

1 shipments of the following chemicals: sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), 

2 sodium hydroxide (NaOH), hydrochloric acid (HCl), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), hydrogen peroxide 

3 (H2O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), diesel fuel, gasoline, and bottled gases (AUC, 

4 2012a). The types of chemicals and fuels shipped align with the materials evaluated in the 

5 GEIS (NRC, 2009). The applicant estimated the magnitude of operational chemical supply 

6 shipments to be approximately three shipments per day and the magnitude of fuel shipments 

7 (diesel, gasoline, and propane) to be approximately one shipment per day (AUC, 2012a). 

8 Transportation risks associated with incoming, onsite, and outgoing shipments involve potential 

9 in-transit accidents. The process chemicals and fuels described in the applicant’s proposal are 

10 commonly used in industrial applications, and they would be transported following applicable 

11 USDOT hazardous materials shipping provisions. If an accident occurred, spill response would 

12 be handled via emergency response procedures, although a spill of nonradiological materials 

13 would be reportable to the appropriate state agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

14 (EPA) and USDOT (NRC, 2009). Spill material would be recovered or removed and the 

15 affected areas reclaimed. The applicant would maintain transportation safety by following 

16 applicable USDOT hazardous materials transportation requirements (AUC, 2012a). Based on 

17 these considerations, the NRC staff conclude that the environmental impacts from operational 

18 hazardous chemical shipments would be SMALL. 

19 The NRC staff conclude that the increase in traffic volumes would result in SMALL impacts 

20 to the local county road system and state highway road system servicing the proposed 

21 Reno Creek ISR Project. Based on the low radiological risks from transportation accidents and 

22 the implementation of the applicant’s additional safety practices as previously discussed, the 

23 overall impacts from the proposed transportation activities during the operations phase would 

24 be SMALL. 

25 4.3.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

26 The NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.3.2.3 that the magnitude of transportation activities 

27 during aquifer restoration would be lower than for the construction and operations phases. 

28 Aquifer-restoration-related transportation activities would be primarily limited to supply 

29 shipments, waste shipments, onsite transportation, and employee commuting. The NRC staff 

30 concluded in the GEIS that transportation impacts from aquifer restoration would range from 

31 SMALL to MODERATE for the same reasons discussed previously for the operations phase 

32 (NRC, 2009). 

33 At the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, commuting workers constitute the majority of road 

34 traffic the applicant proposes for the aquifer restoration phase. The applicant estimated the 

35 number of worker trips per day to the project area would be 16 (compared to 20 to 200 worker 

36 trips per day considered in GEIS Section 2.8). In addition, the applicant estimated that two 

37 vehicles would travel to and from the project area daily for commercial delivery and pickup 

38 (AUC, 2014a). 

39 Draft SEIS Table 4-4 compares the magnitude of the NRC staff’s estimated increase in local 

40 traffic counts from proposed aquifer restoration activities. The projected auto traffic for the 

41 aquifer restoration phase for all road segments evaluated is lower than the projected traffic from 

42 the construction and operations phases, and the projected truck traffic is similar to the 

43 construction phase. Considering the data detailed in draft SEIS Table 4-4, the proposed traffic, 

44 if allocated completely to the individual road segments, would increase the existing traffic on 
4-16 

Table 4-4. Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the 

Aquifer Restoration Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Road Segment Traffic Count*

Projected Traffic 

Increase†

Percent 

Increase‡

Auto Truck Auto Truck Auto Truck 

State Highway 59 

North of Wright 

(Reno Junction North) 

3,568 784 32 5 0.9 0.6 

State Highway 59 

South of Gillette 

(Gillette South) 

5,056 834 32 5 0.6 0.6 

State Highway 387 

(Pine Tree Junction) 621 437 32 5 4.9 1.1 

Sources: AUC (2012a, 2014a); WYDOT (2013a,b) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel (draft SEIS Section 3.3). The NRC staff 

calculated the auto traffic count as the difference between the all vehicle count and reported truck count. Data for all 

roads are for year 2013 and are from Wyoming Department of Transportation (2013,a,b). 

†Projected traffic increase is the proposed project daily two-way traffic. Proposed aquifer restoration phase two-way 

traffic is double the round trips reported in draft SEIS Table 2-6. 

‡This analysis assumes all projected traffic will travel on each road. If proposed project traffic used multiple routes, 

then this analysis overestimates impacts to each road segment. 

1 State Highway 387 but would not substantially increase traffic on more heavily traveled road 

2 segments, such as State Highway 59 traveling from Gillette to Wright. Auto traffic on 

3 State Highway 387 was projected to increase by 4.9 percent, and truck traffic was projected to 

4 increase by 1.1 percent. Auto and truck traffic on State Highway 59 was projected to increase 

5 by 1.5 percent north of Wright (Reno Junction North traffic counter location) and by 1.2 percent 

6 south of Gillette (Gillette South traffic counter location) (see draft SEIS Figure 3-6). The 

7 projected increase in traffic on State Highway 387 (4.9 percent increase in auto traffic and 

8 1.1 percent increase in truck traffic) would be a noticeable change in conditions. However, as 

9 discussed previously, based on a road capacity estimate provided by the Campbell County Coal 

10 Belt Transportation Study (Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc., 2010), State Highway 387 could 

11 accommodate the projected increase in traffic from the proposed project. 

12 The projected daily traffic on Clarkelen Road, the county road that would provide access to the 

13 CPP from State Highway 387, would experience a noticeable increase over existing traffic 

14 considering both autos and trucks. As described in the previous section, the applicant has 

15 committed to work with Campbell County to provide necessary upgrades and maintenance to 

16 affected portions of the county road system (AUC, 2012a). 

17 Considering the magnitude of projected traffic from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the 

18 mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts, and the relatively short segment of Clarkelen 

19 Road that would be impacted by traffic accessing the proposed project, the NRC staff conclude 

20 that the increase in traffic volumes to the local county road system during aquifer restoration 

21 would result in SMALL impacts. Based on the available capacity on the state highway road 

22 system in Campbell County, the NRC staff conclude that the potential traffic impacts to the state 

23 highway road system providing access to the proposed project area from nearby communities 

24 during aquifer restoration would also be SMALL. 
4-17 

1 4.3.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

2 The NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.3.2.4 that transportation activities during 

3 decommissioning at ISR facilities and the potential impacts would be similar to the construction 

4 and operations phases, except the magnitude of transportation activities (e.g., number and 

5 types of waste and supply shipments, excluding yellowcake shipments) from decommissioning 

6 would be lower than for the operations phase. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the 

7 potential radiological risks from transportation accidents during decommissioning would be 

8 bounded by the estimates of risk for yellowcake transportation during operations based on the 

9 concentrated nature of the shipped yellowcake, the greater distance yellowcake is shipped 

10 compared to the byproduct material destined for a licensed disposal facility, and the number of 

11 shipments of yellowcake relative to byproduct material. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS 

12 that the potential transportation impacts during decommissioning would be SMALL because of 

13 the reduced transportation activities (NRC, 2009). 

14 The proposed decommissioning traffic estimates for the Reno Creek ISR Project are described 

15 in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. The NRC staff derived these estimates from information 

16 provided by the applicant. During decommissioning, the applicant projects a small increase in 

17 truck traffic and commuting workers due to the increased number of contractors and shipments 

18 associated with decommissioning activities. The applicant estimated the number of worker trips 

19 per day to the proposed project area would be 6 (compared to the 20 to 200 worker trips per 

20 day considered in GEIS Section 2.8). In addition, the applicant estimated that two vehicles 

21 would travel to and from the proposed project area daily for commercial delivery and pickup 

22 (AUC, 2014a). 

23 Proposed decommissioning byproduct shipments (100 to 200 shipments per year) would be up 

24 to double the number considered in the GEIS (100 shipments per year) (NRC, 2009). 

25 Estimated nonhazardous solid waste shipments (104 shipments per year) were greater than 

26 GEIS Section 2.8 values (44 shipments per year). 

27 Draft SEIS Table 4-5 compares the magnitude of the NRC staff’s estimated increase in local 

28 traffic counts from proposed decommissioning activities. The projected combined auto and 

29 truck traffic for the decommissioning phase for all road segments evaluated is lower than the 

30 projected traffic from the construction, operations, and aquifer restoration phases. Considering 

31 the data detailed in draft SEIS Table 4-5, the proposed traffic, if allocated completely to the 

32 individual road segments, would not substantially increase traffic on the state highway road 

33 segments in the table. The projected daily traffic on Clarkelen Road, the county road providing 

34 access to the CPP from State Highway 387, would experience a noticeable increase over 

35 existing traffic considering both autos and trucks. As described in the previous section, the 

36 applicant has committed to work with Campbell County to provide necessary upgrades and 

37 maintenance to affected portions of the county road system (AUC, 2012a). 

38 Another potential transportation impact from proposed decommissioning activities is the 

39 radiological risk from the transportation of byproduct material for offsite disposal. The NRC staff 

40 determine that the potential radiological accident risk associated with byproduct material 

41 shipments would be low based on the calculated risks from concentrated yellowcake shipments 

42 discussed previously in draft SEIS Section 4.3.1.2 and in GEIS Section 4.3.2.2. 

43 Relative to powdered yellowcake, decommissioning byproduct material is in a form that would 

44 be less dispersible (i.e., less likely to cause public exposure if released) and easier to clean up if 
4-18 

Table 4-5. Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional and Local State Highways for the 

Decommissioning Phase of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Road Segment Traffic Count*

Projected Traffic 

Increase†

Percent 

Increase‡

Auto Truck Auto Truck Auto Truck 

State Highway 59 

North of Wright 

(Reno Junction North) 

3,568 784 12 12 0.3 1.5 

State Highway 59 

South of Gillette 

(Gillette South) 

5,056 834 12 12 0.2 1.4 

State Highway 387 

(Pine Tree Junction) 621 437 12 12 1.9 2.7 

Sources: AUC (2012a, 2014a); WYDOT (2013a,b) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel (draft SEIS Section 3.3). The NRC staff 

calculated the auto traffic count as the difference between the all vehicle count and reported truck count. Data for all 

roads are for year 2013 and are from Wyoming Department of Transportation (2013,a,b). 

†Projected traffic increase is the proposed project daily two-way traffic. Proposed decommissioning phase two-way 

traffic is double the round trips reported in draft SEIS Table 2-6. 

‡This analysis assumes all projected traffic will travel on each road. If proposed project traffic used multiple routes, 

then this analysis overestimates impacts to each road segment. 

1 an accident involving release occurred. The byproduct material would be transported and 

2 disposed of at a licensed facility. The applicant has committed to implementing additional BMPs 

3 to reduce the risk of accidents including (i) enforcing safe driving and emergency response 

4 procedures and training for personnel and truck drivers; (ii) installing communication systems to 

5 connect trucks to shipper/receiver/emergency responders; and (iii) enforcing speed limits on the 

6 proposed project area to increase driver safety and to reduce collisions with big game, livestock, 

7 and other vehicles (AUC, 2012a). All shipments would be required to comply with applicable 

8 NRC and USDOT regulations governing the transportation of radioactive material (including 

9 quantity limits, packaging requirements, and conveyance dose rate limits). Based on the 

10 preceding analysis, the NRC staff conclude that the potential radiological risks from the 

11 proposed transportation of decommissioning byproduct material would be low and therefore the 

12 potential environmental impacts from the proposed radioactive material transportation would 

13 be SMALL. 

14 In conclusion, because of the low estimated traffic for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

15 relative to existing road traffic in the region surrounding the proposed project area, the NRC 

16 staff conclude that the potential traffic-related transportation impacts during decommissioning 

17 would be SMALL. The low radiological risk from potential transportation accidents in 

18 comparison to the accident risks evaluated for the operations phase (i.e., no interstate transport 

19 of yellowcake) supports the NRC staff’s conclusion that the radiological risks from transportation 

20 of decommissioning byproduct material for offsite disposal would also be SMALL. Therefore, 

21 the NRC staff conclude that the overall transportation impacts related to the decommissioning 

22 phase would be SMALL. 

23 4.3.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

24 Under the No-Action Alternative, traffic volumes and patterns would remain the same as 

25 described in draft SEIS Section 3.3. There would be no transportation of materials to and from 

26 the project area to support licensed activities. There would be no transportation of either 
4-19 

1 radionuclide or solid waste attributable to the proposed project because the facility would neither 

2 be licensed nor constructed and operated. 

3 4.4 Geology and Soils Impacts 

4 As discussed in the GEIS, environmental impacts on geology and soils occur during all phases 

5 of an ISR facility life cycle; however, the direct impacts on geology and soils would be 

6 concentrated during the construction phase (NRC, 2009). 

7 The potential environmental impacts to geology and soils during construction, operations, 

8 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are 

9 discussed in the following sections. 

10 4.4.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

11 The principal impacts to geology and soils at the proposed project would be caused by

12 earthmoving activities during construction of the CPP and associated facilities, access roads, 

13 production units, deep disposal wells, utilities, and pipelines. Earthmoving activities affecting 

14 soils would include ground clearing, topsoil stripping, excavation, backfill, compaction, grading, 

15 and pipeline trenching. Potential soil impacts from earthmoving activities include soil loss, 

16 compaction, increased salinity, loss of soil productivity, and soil contamination. 

17 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area 

18 encompasses 2,451 ha [6,057 ac] (AUC, 2012a). The applicant estimates that 62.4 ha 

19 [154.3 ac] of land or 2.5 percent of the proposed project area would potentially be disturbed by 

20 construction activities and require topsoil salvage (see draft SEIS Section 4.2.1.1; draft SEIS 

21 Table 4-1). The average topsoil salvage depth over the proposed project area is 0.4 m [1.31 ft]. 

22 The applicant estimates that approximately 24.9 ha-m [202 ac-ft] of salvageable topsoil is 

23 present within the 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] of potential land disturbance (AUC, 2012a). Based on soil 

24 survey results, the potential for wind and water erosion within the proposed project area varies 

25 from slight to severe (see draft SEIS Section 3.4.2). Surface horizons throughout the proposed 

26 project area have a fine-loamy to sandy texture, making the soils more susceptible to erosion 

27 from wind than water. 

28 The primary potential geologic hazard for the proposed project is earthquakes. As discussed in 

29 draft SEIS Section 3.4.3, faulting has not been identified across the entirety of the proposed 

30 project area (AUC, 2012a). Structure maps and structural cross-sections constructed from 

31 historic and recent geophysical and lithologic logs do not indicate the presence of faults within 

32 mineralized sandstones, confining units, and marker beds at the proposed project (AUC, 

33 2012a,b). In addition, according to the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold 

34 Database, no capable faults (active faults) with surface expression occur within or near the 

35 proposed project area, demonstrating a historically low seismic potential. 

36 4.4.1.1 Construction Impacts 

37 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.3.1, the principal impacts on geology and soils are caused by 

38 earthmoving activities during construction of ISR surface facilities, access roads, wellfields, and 

39 pipelines. Earthmoving activities affecting soils include ground clearing, topsoil removal, and 

40 preparation of land surfaces before construction of facility structures. Such structures include 

41 the processing plant, header houses, access roads, drilling sites, and associated structures. 
4-20 

1 Excavating and backfilling trenches for pipelines and cables would also impact soils. 

2 (NRC, 2009) 

3 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impact on geology and soils from construction 

4 activities is dependent on local topography, surface and bedrock geology, and soil 

5 characteristics. Earthmoving activities are normally limited to a small portion of the project area. 

6 Consequently, earthmoving activities would result in a SMALL disturbance of soils—impacts 

7 that are commonly mitigated using accepted BMPs. Construction activities would increase the 

8 potential for wind and water erosion due to the removal of vegetation and the physical 

9 disturbance that would result from vehicle and heavy equipment traffic. These activities, 

10 however, would result in SMALL impacts if equipment operators adopt construction BMPs to 

11 either prevent or substantially reduce erosion. (NRC, 2009) 

12 Impacts on soils would occur largely during the construction phase of the proposed Reno Creek 

13 ISR Project, when most of the ground disturbance takes place. As described previously, 

14 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] or 2.5 percent of the total 2,451-ha [6,057-ac] project area would be 

15 disturbed as a result of earthmoving activities. Topsoil would be removed, stockpiled, and 

16 stabilized for later use in the decommissioning phase of the proposed project. The applicant 

17 would implement BMPs related to topsoil handling, stormwater control, sediment control, and 

18 wind erosion protection to mitigate potential soil loss. Topsoil removed from building sites, 

19 drilling sites, storage areas, and access roads would be salvaged in accordance with WDEQ 

20 guidelines and conditions of the WDEQ Permit to Mine (AUC, 2012a). Stockpiles would be 

21 constructed and maintained in accordance with WDEQ rules and regulations (WDEQ, 2014). 

22 Mitigation measures to avoid wind and water erosion would include (i) placing stockpiles on 

23 leeward hill sides when practicable and out of drainage channels, (ii) building stockpiles with 

24 slopes of 3:1 grade or flatter, and (iii) seeding stockpiles as soon as practicable with an 

25 appropriate seed mix (AUC, 2012a). 

26 The applicant would implement additional mitigation measures to limit potential soil loss from 

27 disturbed areas at the proposed project. These mitigation measures include (i) wetting exposed 

28 soil during construction, (ii) revegetating disturbed areas as soon as practicable after 

29 disturbance, and (iii) implementing stormwater and sediment-control measures (AUC, 2012a). 

30 The applicant would construct a stormwater control system within the CPP area to route 

31 stormwater away from disturbed areas. The system would include (i) sloping pavement with slot 

32 drains in areas adjacent to the CPP, (ii) connecting conveyance pipes to the slot drains to 

33 discharge stormwater away from facilities, (iii) grading the CPP area to drain downgradient, and 

34 (iv) constructing culverts to divert runoff from secondary roads that cross ephemeral stream 

35 channels (AUC, 2012a). Sediment-control measures proposed by the applicant to minimize soil 

36 loss include (i) avoiding construction and soil disturbance in sensitive areas; (ii) implementing 

37 sediment control BMPs, such as silt fencing, sediment logs, and straw bale check dams; 

38 (iii) incorporating wing ditches into topsoil stockpiles; and (iv) promptly restoring and reseeding 

39 disturbed areas (AUC, 2012a). 

40 Construction activities have the potential to compact soils. Compaction of soils could lead to 

41 decreased infiltration and increased stormwater runoff. To mitigate the effects of compaction at 

42 the proposed project, the applicant would use existing roads where practicable (AUC, 2012a). 

43 In addition, the applicant would minimize secondary access road widths and implement a single 

44 direction of travel policy to access production units (AUC, 2012a). During decommissioning, 

45 soils that have undergone compaction during all phases of the project would be ripped as 

46 needed to loosen soils, recontoured, and reseeded. 
4-21 

1 During production unit development at the proposed project, well construction, exploration 

2 drilling, and delineation drilling would also affect soils. As discussed in draft SEIS 

3 Section 2.1.1.1.2, drilling activities would include the construction of mud pits. During 

4 excavation of mud pits, topsoil would be separated from the subsoil and placed in a temporary 

5 stockpile (AUC, 2012a). The subsoil would be removed and placed next to the mud pit. When 

6 use of the mud pit is complete (usually within 30 days of initial excavation), the applicant would 

7 redeposit the subsoil in the mud pit followed by topsoil replacement (AUC, 2012a). The 

8 applicant would follow similar procedures for pipeline and utility trench construction. 

9 Where subsoil is removed in other construction areas, such as the CPP area, it would generally 

10 not be stockpiled (AUC, 2012a). Rather, the subsoil would be utilized as fill to construct backup 

11 storage pond embankments and primary access roads. Subsoil removed during the 

12 construction phase would be replaced during decommissioning. 

13 Potential soil contamination could also occur from spills and leaks of fuel and lubricants from 

14 heavy construction equipment and other vehicles that would be operated during construction of 

15 the proposed project. Potential soil contamination resulting from fuel and oil leaks would be 

16 promptly cleaned up and contaminated soil removed and disposed offsite in an approved 

17 disposal facility (AUC, 2012a). During well construction, potential soil contamination resulting 

18 from the spread of drilling fluid and drilling mud would be mitigated by directing drilling fluids and 

19 muds into mud pits. 

20 The applicant has been authorized by WDEQ to drill, complete, and operate four deep Class I 

21 disposal wells and thereby inject radionuclide-bearing liquid waste streams into the Teckla 

22 Sandstone member of the Lewis Formation and the Teapot Sandstone of the Mesaverde 

23 Formation at depths of approximately 2,130 and 2,400 m [7,000 and 7,860 ft] below ground 

24 surface (WDEQ, 2015a). These wells would be used for the disposal of process solutions, 

25 including brine and excess permeate. The applicant’s drilling, completion, and testing of these 

26 wells is governed by the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I Permit from WDEQ 

27 (WDEQ, 2015a). The surface and subsurface areas disturbed by these wells would be 

28 very limited. 

29 While the NRC staff conclude that impacts to soils from construction would be SMALL, the NRC 

30 staff recognize that alternative methods to manage drilling fluids are available that the applicant 

31 could choose to implement to further limit the potential impacts from the use of mud pits during 

32 well drilling activities. Alternatives or mitigating measures to the use of mud pits include, for 

33 example, lining the mud pits with an impermeable membrane, offsite disposal of potentially 

34 contaminated drilling mud and other fluids, and the use of portable tanks or tubs to contain 

35 drilling mud and other fluids. 

36 The NRC staff conclude that the environmental impacts to geology and soils from construction 

37 activities at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL. This finding is based on 

38 the NRC staff’s evaluation of (i) the proposed project area’s historically low seismic potential 

39 (see draft SEIS Section 3.4.3), (ii) the limited area that would be disturbed by construction 

40 activities, (iii) the applicant’s commitments to BMPs to limit soil loss, (iv) the applicant’s 

41 commitment to mitigation methods to limit soil compaction and contamination, and (v) the 

42 applicant’s commitment to use procedures to construct mud pits and pipeline trenches that 

43 would limit soil loss and soil contamination. 
4-22 

1 4.4.1.2 Operations Impacts 

2 As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.3.2, during ISR operations, a non-uranium-bearing (barren) 

3 solution or lixiviant is injected through wells into the mineralized zone. The lixiviant moves 

4 through the host rock, dissolving uranium and other metals. Production wells withdraw the 

5 resulting “pregnant” lixiviant, which now contains uranium and other dissolved metals, and 

6 pump it to a processing facility for further uranium recovery and purification. During ISR 

7 operations, the removal of uranium and other metals would permanently change the 

8 composition of uranium-bearing rock formations. However, the uranium mobilization and 

9 recovery process in the target sandstones does not result in the removal of rock matrix; 

10 therefore, no significant matrix compression or ground subsidence is expected. Consequently, 

11 impacts on geology from ground subsidence at ISR projects would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

12 In GEIS Section 4.3.3.2, the NRC staff discussed the potential soil impacts from ISR operations 

13 resulting from the need to transfer barren and pregnant uranium-bearing lixiviant to and from the 

14 processing facility in aboveground and underground pipelines. If a pipe ruptures or fails, 

15 lixiviant could be released and (i) pond on the surface, (ii) run off into surface water bodies, 

16 (iii) infiltrate and adsorb in overlying soil and rock, or (iv) infiltrate and percolate to groundwater. 

17 In the case of spills from pipeline leaks and ruptures, licensees are expected to initiate 

18 immediate spill responses using onsite standard operating procedures (e.g., NRC, 2003b, 

19 Section 5.7). As part of the monitoring requirements at ISR facilities, licensees must report 

20 certain spills to the NRC within 24 hours. Regular inspection and monitoring also occurs to 

21 minimize the potential for spills and leaks through early detection. (NRC, 2009) 

22 Additionally, failure of settling and holding pond liners or embankment systems may negatively 

23 affect soils (NRC, 2009). Licensees would be expected to construct and monitor settling and 

24 holding pond liners and embankments in accordance with NRC-approved plans to conduct 

25 regular soil monitoring. Such actions would tend to mitigate impacts to soils. Based on these 

26 considerations, the NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.3.3.2 that impacts to soils from spills 

27 during operations could range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on the volume of soil affected 

28 by the spill, but that the immediate response requirement to report spills at ISR facilities, the 

29 mandated spill recovery actions, and the required routine monitoring programs would reduce the 

30 potential impact from spills to SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

31 The applicant’s operational activities at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are consistent 

32 with the operations analyzed in the GEIS (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3). Soil disturbance 

33 during the estimated 11-year operations phase of the proposed project would be limited 

34 primarily to earthmoving activities associated with production unit development (e.g., preparing 

35 and constructing drill sites and mud pits, expanding pipelines, and constructing wellfield access 

36 roads). Therefore, the amount of soil disturbance resulting from earthmoving activities during 

37 the project’s operations phase would be less than that for the construction phase. 

38 During development of production units during the operations phase, construction activities 

39 may increase the risk for both wind and water erosion of soils due to removal of vegetation 

40 and disturbance from heavy equipment. Measures to mitigate soil erosion during the 

41 operations phase would be similar to those described previously for the construction phase. 

42 These measures would include (i) diversion of surface runoff around disturbed areas; 

43 (ii) implementation of water velocity dissipation structures; (iii) use of BMPs, such as silt fencing 

44 and retention ponds to control sedimentation; and (iv) salvaging and stockpiling topsoil from 

45 drilling sites and access roads in accordance with WDEQ rules and regulations to avoid wind 

46 and water erosion (AUC, 2012a). 
4-23 

1 The removal of uranium from target sandstones [i.e., the Production Zone Aquifer (PZA)] at the 

2 proposed project would occur at depths ranging from 52 to 137 m [170 to 450 ft] below ground 

3 surface (see draft SEIS Section 3.4.1.2). During ISR operations, the lixiviant dissolves the 

4 uranium-mineral coatings on the sandstones in the targeted ore zone. This geochemical 

5 change in the rock would result in mineralogical changes to the ore zone, but it would not affect 

6 or remove the rock matrix in the ore-bearing sandstones. In addition, net withdrawal of fluid 

7 from the target sandstones during operations and aquifer restoration would be on the order of 

8 1 percent or less (AUC, 2012a). Therefore, no significant matrix compression would result from 

9 the proposed uranium recovery operations. Because rock matrix is not removed during the 

10 uranium mobilization and recovery process and dewatering of uranium source formations is not 

11 expected, no subsidence is expected from the collapse of overlying rock strata into the PZA. 

12 Based on historical ISR operations in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, reactivation of 

13 geologic faults is not anticipated (NRC, 2009). As established in draft SEIS Section 3.4.3, 

14 earthquake activity in the area of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is very low. Potential 

15 effects associated with increased earthquake risk resulting from the operation of deep disposal 

16 wells would be avoided by maintaining injection pressures at a level that does not exceed the 

17 fracture pressure of the receiving rock formation. In accordance with 40 CFR 144.28(f)(6)(i), for 

18 Class I and Class III disposal wells, the operator must not exceed an injection pressure at the 

19 wellhead, which would be calculated to assure that the pressure during injection would not 

20 initiate fractures in the injection and confining zone. To ensure that formation fracture pressures 

21 were not exceeded, the applicant has committed to monitoring and maintaining injection 

22 pressures in Class I and Class III UIC wells at a level that does not exceed fracture pressures 

23 specified in its UIC permits (AUC, 2012c). 

24 Negative effects to soils during operations may occur due to soil compaction, primarily from 

25 vehicles travelling on production unit access roads. Potential effects from soil compaction 

26 would be most noticeable on tertiary access roads in the production units. The tertiary access 

27 roads would be two-track roads without gravel surfacing. During operations, these roads would 

28 be used primarily for monitoring well sampling and mechanical integrity testing. The effects of 

29 soil compaction on the tertiary access roads would be mitigated during production unit 

30 decommissioning by ripping compacted soils and then recontouring and revegetating the 

31 disturbed access road surfaces. 

32 Soil contamination risks during operations include potential spills from pipelines, wells, header 

33 houses, and process vessels. Within the CPP area, soil contamination risks include potential 

34 leaks of process fluids or chemicals from pipelines, chemical storage tanks, and the backup 

35 pond. The applicant would implement an NRC-required well and pipeline flow and pressure 

36 monitoring program to detect unexpected loss of pressure due to equipment failure, a leak, or a 

37 problem with well integrity. Monitoring would include continuous measurement of flows and 

38 pressures for injection and recovery trunklines and feeder lines, leak detection sensors in valve 

39 manholes, and leak detection sensors in wellhead sumps (AUC, 2012a). In the CPP, 

40 containment of process fluid spills and leaks would be provided by curbs, berms, and sumps for 

41 chemical storage tanks, process vessels, and all piping and equipment. The backup pond 

42 within the CPP area would be constructed with a double liner and leak detection system and 

43 would be inspected regularly (AUC, 2012a). The applicant would also collect and monitor soils 

44 for contamination along transportation routes and in production unit areas where spills and leaks 

45 are possible (AUC, 2012a). 

46 To minimize soil contamination due to spills and leaks of radiological and chemical constituents 

47 above baseline levels, the applicant would be required to establish immediate spill detection, 
4-24 

1 response, containment, and cleanup protocols and standard operating procedures by its NRC 

2 license (NRC, 2009). For example, in the case of a leaking pipeline, immediate spill response 

3 would include the applicant shutting down the leaking pipeline, recovering as much of the 

4 spilled fluid as possible, and collecting samples of the affected soils for comparison of 

5 constituent-concentration values (e.g., uranium, radium, and other constituents) to baseline 

6 conditions. Soils affected by spills or leaks would be analyzed for compliance with 

7 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) cleanup standards. Any soils contaminated with 

8 process fluids resulting from spills or leaks would be sampled, removed, and transported as 

9 necessary to a licensed byproduct disposal facility (AUC, 2012a). 

10 In summary, based on analyses of the depth of the ore production zones and because the 

11 operations phase would not involve the removal of rock matrix, the NRC staff find that the 

12 impacts to geology from subsidence at the proposed project would be SMALL. Applicant 

13 commitments to implement mitigation measures to avoid soil erosion would limit soil loss during 

14 operations. Spills and leaks in the CPP building would be contained by curbs, berms, and 

15 sumps. Systems and procedures would be in place to monitor and clean up soil contamination 

16 resulting from any pipeline and wellfield spills, pond leaks, or vehicle accidents. Therefore, the 

17 NRC staff conclude that impacts to geology and soils during the operational phase of the 

18 proposed project would be SMALL. 

19 4.4.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

20 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.3.3, aquifer restoration programs typically use a combination 

21 of (i) groundwater transfer; (ii) groundwater sweep; (iii) reverse osmosis (RO), permeate 

22 injection, and recirculation; (iv) stabilization; and (v) water treatment and surface conveyance 

23 (NRC, 2009). The groundwater sweep and recirculation process does not remove rock matrix, 

24 nor would dewatering occur within the aquifer; therefore, no significant matrix compression or 

25 ground subsidence is expected. The water pressure in the aquifer decreases during restoration 

26 because a negative water balance must be maintained in the wellfield undergoing restoration to 

27 ensure water flows from the edges of the wellfield inward; this reduces the spread of 

28 contaminants outside of the wellfield. The influx of fluid would change the reservoir pressure 

29 but would not reactivate any local faults because the change in reservoir pressure is limited by 

30 recirculation of treated groundwater. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that ISR operations 

31 are unlikely to reactivate any local faults and are extremely unlikely to cause earthquakes. After 

32 analyzing these conditions, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the environmental impact 

33 of aquifer restoration to the geology of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region would be 

34 SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

35 In GEIS Section 4.3.3.3, the NRC staff also concluded that impacts on soils from spills during 

36 aquifer restoration would range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on the volume of soil 

37 affected by the spill. Because of the requirements for immediate spill response at ISR facilities, 

38 for spill-recovery actions, and for routine monitoring programs, the NRC staff concluded in the 

39 GEIS that impacts from spills would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

40 The applicant’s aquifer restoration program includes the use of groundwater transfer, 

41 groundwater sweep, and RO treatment with permeate injection to restore groundwater in 

42 production units (AUC, 2012b). The PZA occurs at depths ranging from 52 to 137 m [170 to 

43 450 ft] below ground surface (see draft SEIS Section 3.4.1.2). Rock matrix would not be 

44 removed by groundwater transfer and groundwater sweep during aquifer restoration. Net 

45 withdrawal of fluid from the target sandstones during aquifer restoration would be on the order 

46 of 1 percent or less (AUC, 2012a). Therefore, no significant matrix compression or ground 
4-25 

1 subsidence is expected during aquifer restoration activities. For these reasons, the subsidence 

2 or collapse of overlying rock strata into the ore zone during the aquifer restoration phase is not 

3 expected. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the environmental impact on geology during 

4 aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

5 Potential effects to soils during aquifer restoration include soil compaction and contamination 

6 from spills and leaks. Because there would be less traffic in the production unit areas, and less 

7 transport of uranium-bearing solutions in pipelines, the risks of soil compaction and the potential 

8 for contamination would be less than those occurring during the operations phase (NRC, 2009). 

9 The spill and leak detection program described for the operations phase in draft SEIS 

10 Section 4.4.1.2 would continue during aquifer restoration because the CPP area and production 

11 unit infrastructure would continue to be used during aquifer restoration. In addition, potential 

12 soil contamination resulting from spills and leaks would continue to be mitigated through 

13 regulatory requirements for immediate spill response, implementation of spill recovery and 

14 cleanup actions, and pipeline flow and pressure monitoring. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude 

15 that the potential impacts to soils during aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

16 4.4.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

17 As indicated in GEIS Section 4.3.3.4, the decommissioning of ISR facilities includes the 

18 following activities: (i) dismantling process facilities and associated structures, (ii) removing 

19 buried piping, and (iii) plugging and abandoning wells using accepted practices. The main 

20 impacts to the geology and soils at the project during decommissioning would result from land 

21 reclamation activities and cleaning up contaminated soils. (NRC, 2009) 

22 The GEIS also states that a licensee is required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC 

23 for review and approval before decommissioning and reclamation activities may begin. The 

24 NRC regulations require an applicant to submit a final decommissioning plan to the NRC for 

25 review and approval at least 12 months prior to the planned decommissioning of a wellfield or 

26 any portion of an ISR facility (NRC, 2003a). Any soils that have the potential to be 

27 contaminated would be surveyed to identify and clean up areas with elevated radionuclide 

28 concentrations in accordance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

29 Criterion 6 (6). The goal of reclamation is to return the proposed project area to preproduction 

30 conditions by replacing topsoil and reestablishing vegetation communities (NRC, 2009). 

31 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts on geology and soils from 

32 decommissioning would be noticeable but SMALL. Disruption and/or displacement of existing 

33 soils would be relatively small in scale. Changes in the size and location of impervious surfaces 

34 would be measureable, but would involve only a few hectares [acres] of compacted soil beneath 

35 buildings and parking lots. These changes would not be on a large enough scale to alter 

36 existing natural conditions. (NRC, 2009) 

37 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.2.1.4, the applicant would restore disturbed lands at the 

38 proposed project area to their prior use of livestock grazing during decommissioning. The CPP 

39 facilities would be decontaminated according to regulatory standards and the applicant’s 

40 NRC-approved decommissioning plan. Buildings would be demolished and transported to a 

41 licensed disposal facility or would be turned over to the landowner. Production unit 

42 decommissioning would include plugging and abandonment of wells in accordance with WDEQ 

43 rules and regulations and removal and disposal of wellfield equipment. Baseline readings of 

44 soils, vegetation, and radiological data would guide and provide a basis to evaluate final 

45 reclamation efforts. Any soils that have the potential to be contaminated would be surveyed to 
4-26 

1 identify and clean up areas with elevated radionuclide concentrations in accordance with NRC 

2 regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6). Any contaminated soils would be 

3 disposed of in licensed disposal facilities. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.2.1.4, stockpiled 

4 topsoil would be redistributed over disturbed surfaces, which would be recontoured to match 

5 existing topography. Final revegetation would consist of seeding with a seed mixture approved 

6 by WDEQ and landowners (AUC, 2012a). 

7 Impacts to geology and soils are expected as reclamation progresses. For example, the risk of 

8 compacting soil would increase due to increased heavy equipment operation. Soils that have 

9 undergone compaction would be ripped as needed to loosen soils and then recontoured and 

10 reseeded. The result of decommissioning and reclamation would be to return the land to uses 

11 that existed before proposed ISR activities began. Due to the nature of the impacts on the land, 

12 the applicant’s goal of decommissioning and reclaiming the proposed project area to 

13 preproduction conditions, and the fact that the magnitude of expected soil disturbance is within 

14 the range evaluated in the GEIS, the NRC staff conclude that the environmental impacts of the 

15 decommissioning phase on geology and soils would be SMALL. 

16 4.4.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

17 Under the No-Action Alternative, a license authorizing operation of an ISR facility would not be 

18 issued; therefore, construction and operation of the facility would not occur and aquifer 

19 restoration and decommissioning would not be needed. Buildings would not be constructed, 

20 wells would not be drilled, production units would not be developed, and pipelines connecting 

21 the wellfields to the CPP would not be constructed. Earthmoving activities would not disturb or 

22 compact soils; therefore, existing topography would be unchanged. The geology of the area 

23 would be unaffected by the proposed project because no fluids would be injected into the 

24 subsurface for uranium extraction or liquid waste disposal. Current land uses affecting soils on 

25 and near the proposed project area (grazing land for livestock, natural resource extraction, and 

26 recreational activities) would continue. 

27 4.5 Water Resources Impacts 

28 4.5.1 Surface Water Impacts 

29 Potential environmental impacts to surface water resources from an ISR facility may occur 

30 during all phases (construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) of the 

31 ISR facility life cycle (NRC, 2009). Construction of roads and stream crossings, stormwater 

32 erosion, runoff, spills or leaks of fuel and lubricants, or discharge of wellfield fluids could cause 

33 water quality degradation due to contaminated stormwater runoff, sediment loading, and 

34 discharge of treated wastewater. In addition, groundwater extraction during operations and 

35 aquifer restoration could deplete flow in nearby streams and springs. 

36 4.5.1.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

37 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.1.1, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area crosses 

38 the boundary between the Upper Belle Fourche River and the Antelope Creek drainage basins 

39 (see draft SEIS Figure 3-11), with approximately 80 percent of the area draining into the Upper 

40 Belle Fourche River. These drainage basins include the proposed project surface facilities 

41 (comprising the CPP and ancillary structures), wellfields and production units, access roads and 

42 utility infrastructure. All drainage channels within the proposed project area are ephemeral in 

43 nature, flowing for short durations in response to snowmelt or local precipitation events. Other 
4-27 

1 surface water features within the proposed project area include man-made reservoirs or stock 

2 ponds and permitted discharge sites for CBM dewatering activities. Potential impacts to surface 

3 water resources would result from sediment loading due to land surface disturbing activities, 

4 spills of fuel and lubricant from heavy equipment operations, spills of process liquid in the CPP 

5 or production units, and excessive rainfall and runoff events. The potential environmental 

6 impacts to surface water resources during the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

7 decommissioning phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are discussed in the 

8 following sections. 

9 4.5.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

10 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.4.1.1, potential impacts to surface waters from construction of 

11 an ISR facility in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region would be SMALL. Stormwater 

12 runoff during construction would be controlled through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

13 (SWPPP) as part of a Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) permit 

14 issued by WDEQ. Wastewater discharges from construction activities and well pump tests 

15 would be regulated by an appropriate discharge permit from WDEQ. BMPs would be 

16 implemented to control sediment loading to surface waters. In the GEIS, the NRC staff 

17 concluded that surface water impacts during construction would be SMALL based on 

18 compliance with the applicable federal and state regulations and permit conditions, the 

19 implementation of BMPs, and other mitigation measures. (NRC, 2009) 

20 During construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, potential impacts to surface 

21 waters would come from land surface disturbance, hydrocarbon spills, and surface runoff. As 

22 noted in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, land surface disturbance would involve removal of 

23 vegetation and soils to build the CPP, develop the production units, construct access roads, and 

24 install pipelines and electrical power lines. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.2.1.1, land 

25 disturbance would affect approximately 62.4 ha [154.3 ac], or 2.5 percent of the proposed 

26 project area. Construction would be planned and conducted to minimize impacts to the surface 

27 drainages (AUC, 2012a). The combined area of these disturbances is small relative to the 

28 project area and the watershed areas. Furthermore, the NRC staff found very limited surface 

29 water resources within the project area, because existing drainage channels are ephemeral and 

30 often dry. However, water quality degradation may occur in these drainages due to sediment 

31 loads generated from erosion and land surface disturbing activities. These impacts would be 

32 reduced by construction of temporary sediment control features and implementation of BMPs 

33 during construction, including use of sediment logs and silt fences (AUC, 2012a). These 

34 mitigation measures would be implemented until vegetation is reestablished on the affected 

35 land areas. 

36 In addition to sediment loading from land surface disturbances, the use of heavy duty vehicles 

37 and machinery for construction may lead to spillage of fuels and lubricants. When transported 

38 with surface runoff generated from local rainstorms and snowmelt events, these spills may 

39 cause water quality impairment to the nearby receiving stream channels and drainages. Also, 

40 direct spillage into water bodies may occur during construction of stream crossings for access 

41 roads and pipelines. Because the occurrence of surface water in the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

42 Project area is limited and surface water flow in the surface drainages is ephemeral, there is 

43 minimal potential for water quality degradation from hydrocarbon spills during construction. 

44 Furthermore, draft SEIS Section 1.6.2 notes that the applicant would obtain a general 

45 construction permit and a WYPDES permit in accordance with WDEQ regulations. As part of 

46 the WYPDES permit, the applicant would develop a SWPPP which would include monitoring 
4-28 

1 requirements to control surface water contamination (AUC, 2012a). Combined with BMP 

2 implementation, compliance with requirements of these permits would protect surface drainages 

3 from excessive stormwater discharges and reduce potential water quality impacts. 

4 Because the applicant commits to adopting measures to control erosion and sediment loading 

5 to surface water bodies, including implementation of stormwater BMPs and compliance with 

6 state-issued permits, the NRC staff conclude that impacts to surface water resources during the 

7 construction phase would be SMALL. 

8 4.5.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

9 According to GEIS Section 4.3.4.1.2, stormwater discharges would be controlled through a 

10 SWPPP as part of a WYPDES permit issued by WDEQ. This permit includes monitoring 

11 requirements to control pollution, contamination, or degradation of waters of the state. In 

12 addition, BMPs (e.g., concrete curbs and berms) would be used to prevent runoff contamination 

13 from accidental spills or leaks. Furthermore, licensees wishing to discharge treated wastewater 

14 to a surface water body must obtain a WYPDES permit from WDEQ containing numerical 

15 discharge limits for various pollutants. Based on these requirements, the NRC staff concluded 

16 in the GEIS that surface water impacts during operation of an ISR facility would be SMALL. 

17 (NRC, 2009) 

18 Due to reduction in the land surface areas disturbed during operations at the proposed 

19 Reno Creek ISR Project, potential impacts to surface water bodies from sediment loading 

20 would be less than those of the construction phase. Although some amount of land surface 

21 disturbance would still occur during the operations phase, such disturbances would be limited 

22 to the areas of new production units and pipelines installed concurrently with operations in 

23 previously built production units. The applicant would continue to implement BMPs to control 

24 storm runoff and sediment transport from these continual surface-disturbing activities 

25 (AUC, 2012a). 

26 The more significant impacts during operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would 

27 be attributable to surface runoff and runoff-induced erosion from developed areas, and any 

28 chemical spills at the CPP and production units. 

29 Because of the low regional precipitation and the ephemeral surface drainages observed in the 

30 surrounding watershed areas, the average seasonal runoff generated from the project area is 

31 expected to be minimal. However, occasional excessive precipitation events could produce 

32 unusually high runoff volumes, leading to soil erosion around the CPP site and at other surface 

33 facilities. The applicant has committed to mitigation measures, including the installation of 

34 diversion ditches, culverts, and energy dissipaters to control peak surface water flows due to 

35 storm runoff within the developed areas of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. These 

36 structures would reduce flow concentration and velocities, thereby reducing the potential for 

37 runoff-induced soil erosion and sediment generation. 

38 Accidental releases of process liquids due to spills at the CPP or production units could lead to 

39 surface water quality impairment if such spills are discharged into surface drainages or mixed 

40 with storm runoff. The applicant has committed to the installation of sumps and secondary 

41 berms and curbs to contain accidental spills within the process buildings (AUC, 2012a). In 

42 addition, regular inspections and preventive maintenance procedures would be implemented 

43 during the operations phase (AUC, 2012a). Furthermore, the applicant would continue to 
4-29 

1 implement a SWPPP as part of a WYPDES permit issued by WDEQ. This permit protects 

2 surface water by limiting the discharge volume and prescribing concentration limits to 

3 discharged water. 

4 Because of the limited surface disturbances; low regional precipitation and minimal average 

5 seasonal runoff; installation of surface drainage features and spill containment structures; and 

6 implementation of BMPs, a SWPPP, and spill prevention and control procedures, the NRC staff 

7 conclude that the potential impact to surface water resources during operations at the proposed 

8 Reno Creek ISR facility would be SMALL and would be further reduced by the applicant’s 

9 proposed mitigation measures described previously. 

10 4.5.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

11 As discussed in the GEIS Section 4.3.4.1.3, because aquifer restoration would use the same 

12 infrastructure that is present during the operations phase, the potential impacts to surface water 

13 resources due to aquifer restoration activities are expected to be similar to or less than 

14 operations impacts. Key activities during this phase would include management of treated 

15 wastewater through direct land application, discharge to solar evaporation ponds, or discharge 

16 to surface waters such as streams or rivers. The intensity of surface activities is expected to 

17 diminish as aquifer restoration proceeds and as wellfields are closed. Therefore, the NRC staff 

18 concluded in the GEIS that aquifer restoration impacts to surface waters would be SMALL. 

19 (NRC, 2009) 

20 Aquifer restoration at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would involve treatment by reverse 

21 osmosis methods, with the resulting effluent disposed of in Class I deep disposal wells. Thus, 

22 the potential impact to surface water resources would be water quality impairment due to leaks 

23 and spillage of untreated groundwater, process chemicals, and effluent. Additionally, land 

24 surface disturbances may occur, but these would be minimal in comparison to disturbances 

25 during the construction phase. Therefore, potential sediment loading to surface water bodies 

26 would be significantly less than that expected during construction. Adherence to WYPDES 

27 permit requirements to protect surface water and spill prevention and control procedures 

28 implemented during the operations phase would continue during aquifer restoration. Therefore, 

29 the NRC staff conclude that there would be a SMALL impact to surface water resources during 

30 the aquifer restoration phase of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

31 4.5.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

32 As discussed in the GEIS Section 4.3.4.1.4, decommissioning an ISR facility would involve 

33 removal of piping, stream crossings, and other facility infrastructure as part of activities 

34 expected to return the affected land and waters to preconstruction status. These activities 

35 would temporarily increase the potential for sediment loading along with stormwater runoff to 

36 surface waters. Because stormwater runoff would be controlled through implementation of a 

37 SWPPP, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that impacts to surface water resources during 

38 decommissioning would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

39 During the decommissioning phase of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the CPP, other 

40 facility buildings, and pipelines would be removed. Also, production and disposal wells would 

41 be plugged and abandoned, topsoil would be restored to previously disturbed areas, and the 

42 land surface would be recontoured and revegetated. Potential impacts to surface water bodies 

43 would result from temporary soil disturbances and spillage of fuels and lubricants attributable to 
4-30 

1 these activities. These impacts would be of similar intensity as the construction phase. The 

2 applicant stated that surface water impacts would be minimized through sediment control 

3 features, adherence to WYPDES permit requirements, and BMPs similar to those implemented 

4 during the construction phase. Furthermore, cleanup and reclamation of previously disturbed 

5 land surfaces would mitigate long-term impacts to surface water resources. Because of the 

6 preventive and mitigative measures the applicant would implement, the NRC staff conclude that 

7 the potential impact to surface water resources during the decommissioning phase of the 

8 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL. 

9 4.5.1.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

10 Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no additional impact to surface water resources 

11 because the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would not be undertaken. There would be no 

12 construction of a CPP, facility buildings, production units and wellfields, or access roads. No 

13 pipelines would be laid. Therefore, land surface disturbances associated with these activities 

14 would not occur and additional sediment loading to surface water bodies would be avoided. In 

15 addition, because there would be no shipments of construction materials, products, and 

16 byproduct materials to or from the project area, spills of fuels and lubricants would not occur. 

17 The current land uses affecting surface waters, which are primarily livestock ranching and CBM 

18 activities, would persist. 

19 4.5.2 Groundwater Impacts 

20 Potential environmental impacts on 

21 groundwater at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

22 Project area could occur during all phases of 

23 the ISR facility life cycle, but primarily during 

24 operations and aquifer restoration. At ISR 

25 sites, ore-bearing aquifers are typically 

26 separated from adjacent aquifers at varying 

27 depths by confining layers, also known as 

28 aquitards. If the confining layers do not 

29 effectively isolate the ore-bearing aquifer from 

30 the hydrogeological system, the aquifers above 

31 and below the uranium-bearing aquifer can be 

32 adversely affected during ISR operations and 

33 aquifer restoration. 

34 The NRC staff reported in the GEIS that ISR 

35 facility impacts on groundwater resources can 

36 result from surface spills, leaks from buried 

37 piping, consumptive water use (i.e., water 

38 removed from available supplies without return 

39 to a water resource system), horizontal and 

40 vertical excursions of lixiviant from production 

41 aquifers, degradation of water quality from 

42 changes in production zone aquifer chemistry, 

43 and liquid waste management practices 

44 involving deep disposal wells. (NRC, 2009) 

Stratigraphic nomenclature for units of interest 

present in the Wasatch Formation at the 

proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (in 

descending order): 

 Shallow Water Table Unit (SM Unit): Partially 

saturated discontinuous sand unit that exhibits 

aquifer characteristics based on its local use 

as a livestock water supply. 

 Overlying Aquifer (OM Unit): Discontinuous 

water-bearing sand unit exhibiting aquifer 

characteristics based on geologic and 

potentiometric data. 

 Overlying Aquitard (OA): Laterally continuous 

sequence of clays and silt providing 

confinement between the production zone and 

overlying aquifers. 

 Production Zone Aquifer (PZA): Discrete 

continuous aquifer consisting of interbedded 

sandstone, shale, and mudstone units. 

Sandstone units are hosts for uranium 

mineralization at the proposed project. 

 Underlying Aquitard (UA): Laterally 

continuous sequence of mudstones and clays 

providing confinement between the production 

zone and underlying aquifers. 

 Underlying Unit (UM Unit): Discontinuous 

water-bearing sand unit that does not meet 

the definition of an aquifer based on well 

yields and hydraulic conductivity estimates. 
4-31 

1 4.5.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

2 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1, ISR methods would be used to recover uranium from 

3 sandstone-hosted uranium orebodies in the lower part of the Eocene Wasatch Formation. As 

4 described in draft SEIS Section 3.4.1.2, the Wasatch Formation outcrops at the surface in the 

5 proposed project area and consists of interbedded mudstones, shales, and sandstones. 

6 Structural cross-sections illustrating the hydrostratigraphy within the Wasatch Formation at the 

7 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area are displayed in draft SEIS Figures 3-16 to 3-22. The 

8 nomenclature used to describe hydrostratigraphic units within the Wasatch Formation for the 

9 proposed project is described in the accompanying text box. The host aquifer for uranium 

10 mineralization is termed the PZA. The PZA is a laterally continuous aquifer that ranges in 

11 thickness from less than 23 m [75 ft] to as much as 67 m [220 ft]. As described in draft SEIS 

12 Section 3.5.2.3, aquifer conditions in the PZA change from saturated in the western part of the 

13 project area to partially saturated in the eastern part of the project area. The PZA is confined by 

14 overlying and underlying aquitards across the entire site. These aquitards are termed the 

15 Overlying Aquitard (OA) and Underlying Aquitard (UA) and consist of laterally continuous 

16 sequences of clay, silt, and mudstone. The thickness of the OA ranges from 7.6 to 30.5 m [25 

17 to 100 ft] and the thickness of the UA ranges from 46 to 76 m [150 to 250 ft]. Discontinuous 

18 aquifers termed the Shallow Water Table Unit (SM Unit) and the Overlying Aquifer Unit (OM 

19 Unit) are present above the OA and a discontinuous water-bearing sand unit termed the 

20 Underlying Unit (UM Unit) is present within the UA below the PZA. 

21 Potential impacts to groundwater at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project may result from 

22 pumping water to meet required consumptive water demands and from potential water quality 

23 degradation. Surface or near-surface activities that could introduce contaminants into soils 

24 would be more likely to impact shallow aquifers (the SM and OM Units). Activities associated 

25 with production and aquifer restoration would impact groundwater in the PZA, as well as 

26 groundwater in overlying and underlying aquifers (the SM, OM, and UM Units). In addition, 

27 groundwater in deeper aquifers used for liquid waste disposal could be impacted. As described 

28 in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the applicant has been authorized by the WDEQ to operate four 

29 Class I deep disposal wells to dispose of ISR process-related liquid waste streams into the 

30 Teckla Sandstone member of the Lewis Formation and Cretaceous Teapot Sandstone of the 

31 Mesaverde Formation (WDEQ, 2015). The permitted Class I deep disposal wells vary in depth 

32 between 2,130 and 2,400 m [7,000 and 7,860 ft] below ground surface (WDEQ, 2015). 

33 Detailed discussion of the potential impacts on groundwater resources from construction, 

34 operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

35 are provided in the following sections.

36 4.5.2.1.1 Construction Impacts 

37 The NRC staff reported in the GEIS that potential impacts to groundwater during construction of 

38 an ISR facility are from the consumptive use of groundwater, injection of drilling fluids and mud 

39 during well drilling, and spills of fuels and lubricants from construction equipment. Surface 

40 activities that can introduce contaminants into soils are more likely to affect shallow 

41 (near-surface) aquifers during construction. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that during 

42 construction, groundwater use is limited and groundwater quality is protected by implementing 

43 BMPs, which include spill prevention and cleanup programs. In addition, the volume of drilling 

44 fluids and mud to be introduced into the environment during well installation is limited. 
4-32 

1 Therefore, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that construction impacts to groundwater 

2 resources would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

3 Consumptive water use during the construction phase of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

4 would be limited to routine activities such as dust suppression, cement mixing, and drilling 

5 support (AUC, 2012a). As described in the GEIS, the volume of water used in these activities is 

6 small relative to pumpable water and would have a SMALL impact to groundwater supplies 

7 within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region (NRC, 2009). The applicant has not defined 

8 the water source for construction activities. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.4, 

9 domestic and stock wells with existing water rights within the proposed project area are 

10 completed in the OM Unit and PZA. Therefore, the NRC staff consider these aquifers to be the 

11 most likely source of water for construction activities. 

12 Potential groundwater quality impacts to shallow aquifers (i.e., the SM and OM Units) that could 

13 occur during construction include the introduction of drilling fluids and muds into the 

14 environment during well installation, discharge of pumped water to the surface during hydrologic 

15 testing, and spills or leaks of fuels and lubricants from construction equipment and vehicles. 

16 Within the proposed project area, the SM Unit occurs 12 to 24 m [40 to 80 ft] below ground 

17 surface and the OM Unit occurs 21 to 66 m [70 to 215 ft] below ground surface (see draft SEIS 

18 Section 3.5.2.3). As described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.3, both of these units are 

19 discontinuous and overlain by a thick sequence of mudstone and silt. Therefore, the potential 

20 for spills and leaks of fuels and lubricants from equipment and vehicles, for discharge of 

21 pumped water, and for drilling fluids to be introduced to groundwater are low and the impact of 

22 such releases would be SMALL. 

23 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, the applicant plans to use standard mud rotary 

24 drilling techniques to construct production, injection, and monitoring wells. To minimize 

25 potential soil contamination during well installation, drilling fluids and muds would be directed to 

26 temporary mud pits in accordance with WDEQ requirements (AUC, 2012a). The volume of 

27 drilling fluids and mud used during well installation would be limited by using the smallest 

28 quantity of water that is technically practicable for well drilling and development (AUC, 2012a). 

29 Impacts to groundwater during well drilling would be further limited by the nature of the 

30 bentonite or polymer-based drilling additives in the drilling fluids. These additives are designed 

31 to limit infiltration in an aquifer (i.e., to a few inches) and to isolate the drill hole from the 

32 surrounding geologic materials via a wall-cake or veneer of drilling-fluid filtrate, further reducing 

33 the potential for impacts. Thus, the impacts to groundwater quality in shallow aquifers from well 

34 installation activities would be SMALL. 

35 After wells are installed, some water may be pumped from aquifers for well development or 

36 hydrologic testing, such as pumping tests. This water would be discharged to the surface in 

37 accordance with construction and industrial/mining stormwater WYPDES permits that the 

38 applicant must obtain from WDEQ (see draft SEIS Section 1.6.2). These permits protect 

39 shallow aquifers by limiting the discharge volume and prescribing concentration limits to 

40 discharged water. The applicant has not yet submitted applications for the WYPDES permits to 

41 WDEQ (see draft SEIS Table 1-2). 

42 Spills of fuels and lubricants could also impact shallow groundwater quality during facility 

43 construction and wellfield installation. The applicant has committed to the following BMPs to 

44 protect shallow groundwater quality: (i) developing and implementing a spill response and 

45 cleanup plan to contain and remediate affected soil or surface water; (ii) training employees in 
4-33 

1 spill detection, containment, and clean up procedures; and (iii) monitoring shallow aquifers in 

2 the proposed project area (i.e., the SM or OM Units) to ensure that, in the event of fuel or 

3 lubricant leaks or spills, the impacts to groundwater would be detected (AUC, 2012a, 2015). If 

4 these BMPs are properly implemented, the NRC staff anticipates that the impact to shallow 

5 groundwater from spills of fuels and lubricant would be SMALL. 

6 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, a WDEQ-administered Class III UIC program 

7 regulates the design and construction of injection, production, and monitoring wells. The 

8 applicant has committed to construct all injection, production, and monitoring wells using 

9 methods approved by WDEQ and in compliance with WDEQ construction requirements for 

10 casing types and annular sealing techniques. Proper annular sealing techniques ensure that 

11 vertical migration pathways are not created outside the casing or inside the borehole. The 

12 WDEQ construction requirements would prevent the migration of fluids between the PZA and 

13 surrounding aquifers. In addition, Class I deep disposal wells would also be designed and 

14 constructed according to WDEQ requirements to prevent the migration of fluids between the 

15 deep injection zone aquifer (the Tekla and Teapot Sandstones) and surrounding underground 

16 sources of drinking water (USDWs). Prior to entering service, all wells would undergo 

17 Mechanical Integrity Testing (MIT) of the casing to verify that the well casing would not fail, 

18 which could cause water loss and fluid migration across confining units (AUC, 2012a). Because 

19 WDEQ UIC permit requirements for construction and testing of Class I and Class III wells would 

20 prevent migration of fluids between aquifers as described above, the NRC staff anticipates that 

21 impacts to the PZA and surrounding aquifer and deep aquifers targeted for disposal of liquid 

22 byproduct material would be SMALL. 

23 Based on the NRC staff analysis, the potential impacts from consumptive groundwater use and 

24 on groundwater quality during the construction phase at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

25 are consistent with those in the GEIS (i.e., SMALL). Consumptive groundwater use would be 

26 limited to routine activities, such as dust suppression, mixing cements, and drilling support, and 

27 would have a SMALL impact. The impact to groundwater quality in shallow aquifers during the 

28 construction phase would be SMALL based on the occurrence of a thick sequence of mudstone 

29 and silt overlying shallow aquifers, the limited volume of drilling fluids and mud used during well 

30 installation, the applicant’s adherence to WYPDES permit requirements, and the applicant’s 

31 implementation of BMPs to protect water quality in the event of leaks and spills of fuels and 

32 lubricants. Based on WDEQ UIC requirements for Class I and Class III well design, 

33 construction, and testing, the impact to groundwater quality in the PZA and surrounding aquifers 

34 and deep aquifers would also be SMALL. 

35 4.5.2.1.2 Operations Impacts 

36 GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.2 discussed potential environmental impacts to shallow (near-surface) 

37 aquifers during ISR operations. During this phase, shallow aquifers could potentially be affected 

38 by lixiviant leaks from pipelines, wells, or header houses and from liquid waste management 

39 practices, such as the use of settling and holding ponds. Potential environmental impacts to 

40 groundwater resources in the production and surrounding aquifers also include consumptive 

41 water use and changes to water quality that could result from normal operations in the 

42 production aquifer and from possible horizontal and vertical lixiviant excursions beyond the 

43 production zone. Disposal of processing wastes by deep well disposal during ISR operations 

44 could also impact groundwater in deep aquifers. (NRC, 2009) 
4-34 

1 Operations Impacts to Shallow (Near-surface) Aquifers 

2 In the GEIS, the NRC staff discussed the potential environmental impacts to shallow 

3 (near-surface) aquifers during ISR operations. A network of buried pipelines transports lixiviant 

4 between the header house and the satellite or main processing facility. Piping connects 

5 injection and production wells to manifolds inside the header houses. Failure of pipeline fittings 

6 or valves, or failure of well mechanical integrity in shallow aquifers, could result in leaks and 

7 spills of pregnant and barren lixiviant, with adverse impacts on water quality in shallow aquifers. 

8 The potential environmental impacts of pipeline, valve, or well integrity failure depend on the 

9 depth to shallow groundwater; the current and anticipated future uses of shallow groundwater 

10 for domestic, agricultural, and livestock water demands; and the degree of hydraulic connection 

11 between shallow aquifers, production aquifers, and regionally important aquifers. Shallow 

12 aquifers may also be affected by hazardous wastewater leaks and spills from settling and 

13 holding ponds. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential environmental impacts 

14 of pipeline, valve, or well integrity failures to shallow aquifers could be MODERATE to 

15 LARGE, if 

16  The groundwater table in shallow aquifers is close to the ground surface (i.e., small 

17 travel distances from the ground surface to the shallow aquifers) 

18  The shallow aquifers are important sources for local domestic or agricultural 

19 water supplies 

20  Shallow aquifers are hydraulically connected to other locally or regionally 

21 important aquifers. 

22 The potential environmental impacts could be SMALL if shallow aquifers have poor water quality 

23 or yields are not economically suitable for production, and if they are hydraulically separated 

24 from other locally and regionally important aquifers. (NRC, 2009) 

25 In some parts of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, local shallow aquifers (alluvium 

26 type) exist, and they usually yield small quantities of water only for local uses. Hence, potential 

27 environmental impacts due to spills and leaks from pipeline networks or failures of well integrity 

28 in shallow aquifers would be expected to be SMALL to MODERATE, depending on site-specific 

29 conditions. Potential impacts would be reduced based on flow monitoring to detect pipeline 

30 leaks and spills early and implementation of required spill response and cleanup procedures. In 

31 addition, preventive measures would limit the likelihood of well integrity failure during 

32 operations. (NRC, 2009) 

33 As discussed in the previous section, the shallow aquifers (SM and OM Units) in the proposed 

34 Reno Creek ISR Project area are discontinuous and are overlain by continuous mudstone and 

35 silt. The SM Unit at the proposed project area occurs 12–24 m [40-80 ft] below ground surface 

36 and the OM Unit occurs at various depths ranging from 21–66 m [70–215 ft] below ground 

37 surface. In addition, the shallow aquifers are not known to be hydraulically connected with more 

38 significant local and regional water supply aquifers, such as the Fort Union Formation, Lance 

39 Formation, and Fox Hills Sandstone. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.3, the PZA, 

40 which is within the Lower Wasatch Formation, is hydraulically separated from shallower aquifers 

41 by the OA, which ranges in thickness from 7.6 to 30.5 m [25 to 100 ft] across the proposed 

42 project area. Groundwater quality data presented in draft SEIS Table 3-11 indicate that 

43 groundwater in SM and OM Unit wells exceed State of Wyoming standards for Class I 
4-35 

1 (domestic) and Class II (agricultural) groundwater use and is only suitable for Class III 

2 (livestock) and Class IV (industrial) use. During ISR operations, groundwater quality in shallow 

3 aquifers at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area has the potential to be impacted by 

4 accidental spills or leaks from chemical storage areas, process solution vessels, or the backup 

5 storage pond, as well as by spills and leaks of lixiviant from failure of pipelines or valves or a 

6 break in the casing of a well. NRC-required leak detection, spill response, and cleanup 

7 programs would greatly reduce the potential impact on shallow groundwater from any surface 

8 releases during the operations phase. Within wellfield facilities, the applicant has committed to 

9 continuously monitoring wellfield flows to detect any variations in flow or pressure that could 

10 indicate a leak in the pipelines or wells (AUC, 2012a). The applicant has also committed to 

11 monitoring shallow aquifers (the SM and OM Units) to detect impacts to groundwater from 

12 process fluid spills due to pipeline and valve failure (AUC, 2015). In addition, the applicant has 

13 committed to the following mitigation measures to detect and control potential adverse impacts 

14 of spills and leaks in processing facilities, pipeline infrastructure, and wellfields: 

15  Installing automated equipment capable of detecting leaks and shutting down pump 

16 systems; 

17  Equipping facilities and manholes with leak detectors having audible and visible alarms; 

18  Performing periodic (every 5 years) MIT of wells to detect potential leakage; 

19  Constructing buried wellfield pipelines with corrosion-resistant high density polyethylene 

20 (HDPE); 

21  Constructing piping within the CPP with corrosion-resistant high density polyethylene 

22 (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or stainless steel; 

23  Hydrostatically testing piping prior to use; 

24  Using piping rated for pressures greater than the maximum operating pressure; and 

25  Providing thrust blocking at pipe bends and valves (AUC, 2012a). 

26 The backup storage pond would be designed following guidelines described in NRC Regulatory 

27 Guide 3.11 for embankment systems (NRC, 2008). Adherence to these guidelines would 

28 ensure that the backup storage pond meets NRC requirements for groundwater protection at 

29 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5 and groundwater protection standards established 

30 under WDEQ water quality rules and regulations (AUC, 2012a). Furthermore, the applicant has 

31 committed to the following mitigation measures to minimize the impacts of leaks from the 

32 backup pond: 

33  Limiting backup pond use to when deep disposal wells are not functioning due to 

34 maintenance or MIT 

35  Using two layers of low permeability liners 

36  Equipping the pond with a leak detection system 
4-36 

1  Regularly (every 2 weeks) monitoring the leak detection system for the presence of 

2 moisture; and 

3  In the event of a pond leak, notifying the NRC within 48 hours of leak verification and 

4 repairing the leak as quickly as possible (AUC, 2012a). 

5 Based on the NRC staff analysis, the potential impacts on shallow groundwater during the 

6 operations phase of the proposed project are consistent with GEIS criteria for a SMALL impact. 

7 The shallow aquifers (the SM and UM Units) have poor water quality and are hydraulically 

8 separated from locally and regionally important aquifers. Implementation of required spill 

9 response and cleanup procedures and the applicant’s commitments to mitigation measures to 

10 detect, control, and minimize potential adverse impacts of spills and leaks in processing 

11 facilities, pipeline infrastructure, storage ponds, and wellfields would reduce potential impacts to 

12 shallow aquifers. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that impacts to shallow (near-surface) 

13 groundwater during operations for the proposed project would be SMALL. 

14 Operations Impacts to Production and Surrounding Aquifers 

15 The potential environmental impact to groundwater in the production and surrounding aquifers is 

16 related to consumptive groundwater use and groundwater quality. 

17 Water Consumptive Use 

18 The NRC staff reported in the GEIS that impacts of consumptive water use would be localized in 

19 the Wyoming region and would be SMALL to MODERATE, depending on aquifer 

20 characteristics. Near a wellfield, the impact of consumptive use could be MODERATE if there 

21 are local water users who use the production aquifer (outside of the exempted zone) or if the 

22 production aquifer is not well isolated from other aquifers that are used locally. However, 

23 because localized drawdown near wellfields would dissipate after pumping stops, these 

24 localized effects are expected to be temporary (1 to 2 years). After consideration of these 

25 factors, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that impacts of consumptive water use would be 

26 SMALL in most cases. (NRC, 2009) 

27 Based on information available from the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, the applicant 

28 provided an inventory of groundwater wells (e.g., location, use, and completion depth) within a 

29 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of the proposed project boundary (AUC, 2012a, b). As described in draft 

30 SEIS Section 3.5.2.4, the applicant identified 49 groundwater wells within the 3.2 km [2 mi] 

31 radius. Of the 49 wells, 3 are used for domestic purposes, 4 are used for domestic/stock 

32 purposes, 30 are used for stock watering, 1 is used for industrial purposes, and 11 are used for 

33 miscellaneous purposes (AUC, 2012b). The majority of these wells are completed in the 

34 OM Unit or the PZA. Fifteen of the 49 groundwater wells are located within the proposed 

35 project area and include 6 wells whose water rights have been cancelled, 8 wells that 

36 are appropriated for stock watering, and 1 well (Taffner #1) that is appropriated for 

37 domestic/stock use. 

38 Prior to initiating ISR operations, the applicant has committed to plugging and abandoning the 

39 Taffner #1 well located at the Taffner residence in accordance with WDEQ rules and regulations 

40 (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). Of the eight stock watering wells within the proposed project area, four 

41 are completed in the OM Unit, two in the PZA, and one in the sandstone interval below the PZA 

42 (AUC, 2012a, b). The applicant investigated the two stock wells completed in the PZA (GW5 
4-37 

1 and GW9) to determine if new stock wells would need to be developed within the proposed 

2 project area (AUC, 2014b). The locations of these wells are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-23. 

3 With the approval of the land/well owner, the applicant plugged and abandoned well GW9 in 

4 accordance with WDEQ rules and regulations. Well GW5 is located approximately 700 m 

5 [2,300 ft] outside the closest proposed aquifer exemption zone in an area with no known 

6 mineralization. The applicant would conduct periodic sampling of well GW5 as part of its 

7 operational groundwater monitoring program as described in draft SEIS Section 7.3.4. 

8 No stock or domestic water wells would be located in the currently proposed wellfield areas (as 

9 shown in draft SEIS Figure 2-5) (AUC, 2012a). If future development within the proposed 

10 project area includes an area(s) where a stock well is located in the PZA, the applicant has 

11 committed to the following mitigation measures: 

12  Replacing the wells with new wells completed in either shallower or deeper aquifers that 

13 are not impacted by ISR operations or 

14  Providing another source of stock water (AUC, 2012a) 

15 In addition, consistent with Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980), the applicant would measure 

16 water levels, as well as water quality, in domestic and stock wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the 

17 wellfields before operations and every 3 months during operations to evaluate the impacts of 

18 ISR operations on groundwater (AUC, 2012a). If significant effects to either domestic or stock 

19 wells were observed (e.g., the water levels drop to a point that impairs the usefulness of the 

20 wells), the applicant has proposed the following mitigation measures: 

21  Lowering the pump level in the wells, if possible; 

22  Deepening the wells, if possible; or 

23  Replacing the wells with new wells completed in aquifers that are not affected by ISR 

24 operations (AUC, 2012a). 

25 The applicant evaluated the potential impact of operations on groundwater quantity in 

26 surrounding wells using a groundwater model (AUC, 2012b). The applicant’s groundwater 

27 model estimated drawdown (reduction in hydraulic head)) assuming (i) maximum projected 

28 extraction rates of 41,640 Lpm [11,000 gpm], (ii) a 1 percent production bleed rate, and (iii) a 

29 restoration bleed rate of between 3 and 9 percent. The groundwater model assumed the first 

30 four years of the simulation would include only the production phase, while the remaining years 

31 had concurrent production and aquifer restoration phases. The applicant’s simulation predicted 

32 maximum drawdowns between 5.8 and 10.4 m [19 and 34 ft] at wellfields in the partially 

33 saturated PZA and between 6.1 and 16.7 m [20 to 55 ft] at wellfields in the fully saturated 

34 portion of the PZA. Simulated production at the maximum projected rates of 41,640 Lpm 

35 [11,000 gpm] and a 1 percent bleed for a period of several years did not result in dewatering of 

36 the aquifer or excessive drawdown outside the project area. The estimated drawdowns at 

37 various locations along the proposed project area boundary ranged from 0 to7.6 m [0 to 25 ft] 

38 and simulated drawdown of approximately 1.5 m [5 ft] or more extended several kilometers 

39 beyond the proposed project area. Based on the available head and saturated thickness of the 

40 PZA across the proposed project area, the applicant concluded that a drawdown of 1.5 m [5 ft] 

41 would not adversely impact offsite groundwater users (AUC, 2012b). 
4-38 

1 The NRC staff reviewed the applicant’s groundwater model and found that the results of the 

2 predictive simulations could be biased because of model construction and lack of consistency 

3 with details of the applicant’s “conceptual site model.” Perceived biases in model construction 

4 included the use of a one-layer model and general head boundary conditions. In addition, 

5 aquifer heterogeneities, which are prevalent within the proposed project area, were not 

6 incorporated into the model. In order to independently evaluate the effects of the perceived 

7 biases on groundwater quantity in surrounding wells, the NRC staff revised the groundwater 

8 model to establish its own model using parameters consistent with the applicant’s conceptual 

9 site model for the project and with reported site-specific data. NRC staff revisions to the 

10 groundwater model and the reasoning for the revisions are listed as follows: 

11  The applicant’s pumping test data at well PZM5 yielded low hydraulic conductivities, but 

12 the applicant’s model did not extend those properties to the proposed locations of 

13 nearby production areas—the NRC staff’s model extended the low conductivity to the 

14 proposed production areas, consistent with the applicant’s conceptual model; 

15  The applicant’s model was a one-layer model that could not simulate vertical flow nor 

16 account for vertical heterogeneities in the PZA—the NRC staff developed a five-layer 

17 model that incorporated some aspects of the vertical heterogeneity and flow, consistent 

18 with reported data; 

19  The applicant’s model accounted for horizontal heterogeneities by using large areas of 

20 varying properties—the NRC staff’s model accounted for and tested the potential for 

21 preferred migration paths, consistent with a fluvial depositional environment; 

22  The applicant’s model resulted in the use of large storage values in the partially 

23 saturated portion of the PZA—the NRC staff’s model reduced the usage of large 

24 storage values to a limited interval, and thus the effective storage of the model was 

25 consistent with observed data; and 

26  The applicant’s model contained general head boundary conditions that were effectively 

27 constant head boundary conditions—the NRC staff’s model modified the general head 

28 boundary to minimize boundary effects. 

29 Predicted drawdowns for simulations with the NRC staff’s groundwater model were greater than 

30 those predicted by the applicant’s groundwater model. For example, the applicant reported a 

31 maximum drawdown of 16.7 m [55 ft] at Production Unit 10 at the end of year 9 (AUC, 2012b). 

32 The staff’s model predicted a maximum drawdown of 28.9 m [95 ft], almost twice the maximum 

33 drawdown predicted by the applicant’s model. As described previously, the thickness of the 

34 PZA ranges from 23 to 61 m [75 to 200 ft] across the proposed project area. Therefore, the 

35 greater drawdowns predicted by the staff’s model indicate that a significant portion of the 

36 available water column in the PZA could be used during normal operations. These greater 

37 drawdowns, in turn, could result in greater drawdown in wells at and outside the proposed 

38 project area boundary than those predicted by the applicant’s model. 

39 Considering the difference between the applicant’s and NRC staff’s estimates for drawdown, the 

40 NRC staff finds that the potential impact from groundwater consumptive use during the 

41 operations phase of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project could be MODERATE. However, as 

42 described above, there would be no domestic wells and a limited number of stock wells (eight 

43 wells) within the proposed project area during ISR operations. Moreover, the applicant has 
4-39 

1 committed to and proposed mitigation measures to detect and reduce the potential adverse 

2 impacts on consumptive use of groundwater. These mitigation measures include: (i) measuring 

3 water levels in domestic and stock wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the wellfields before operations 

4 and every 3 months during operations; (ii) lowering pump levels in wells or deepening or 

5 replacing wells affected by ISR operations; and (iii) providing another source of water for stock 

6 wells affected by ISR operations. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the impact from 

7 groundwater consumptive use during ISR operations with mitigation would be SMALL. 

8 Excursions and Groundwater Quality 

9 The NRC staff reported in the GEIS that degradation of groundwater quality in the production 

10 aquifer would occur during ISR operations. In order for ISR operations to occur, the 

11 uranium-bearing production aquifer must be exempted as an underground source of drinking 

12 water (USDW) through the Wyoming UIC program. When production at a wellfield has ceased, 

13 the licensee would be required to initiate aquifer restoration activities to restore the production 

14 aquifer to baseline or preoperational class-of-use conditions, if possible. If the aquifer cannot be 

15 returned to preoperational conditions, the NRC regulations require that the production aquifer be 

16 returned to the maximum contaminant levels provided in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Table 5C 

17 or to alternate concentration limits approved by the NRC. For these reasons, potential impacts 

18 to the water quality of the uranium-bearing production zone aquifer as a result of ISR operations 

19 would be expected to be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

20 Groundwater quality in the overlying and underlying aquifers and adjacent aquifers could also 

21 be degraded if horizontal or vertical lixiviant excursions occur beyond the production zone. 

22 During normal ISR operations, inward hydraulic gradients are expected to be maintained by 

23 production bleed so that groundwater flow is toward the production zone from the edges of the 

24 wellfield. If this inward gradient is not maintained, horizontal excursions can occur and lead to 

25 the spread of leaching solutions in the ore-bearing aquifer beyond the mineralization zone and 

26 the wellfield. The potential environmental impacts of vertical excursions to groundwater quality 

27 in surrounding aquifers would be SMALL if the vertical hydraulic head gradients between the 

28 production aquifer and the adjacent aquifer are small, the vertical hydraulic conductivity of the 

29 confining units is low, and the confining layers are sufficiently thick. On the other hand, the 

30 environmental impacts could be MODERATE to LARGE if confinements are discontinuous, thin, 

31 or fractured (i.e., high vertical hydraulic conductivities). To reduce the likelihood and 

32 consequences of potential excursions at ISR facilities, the NRC requires licensees to establish 

33 and implement an excursion monitoring program prior to starting operations, which would 

34 include corrective actions to stop or reverse an excursion. Based on preventive measures the 

35 licensee would implement to reduce horizontal and vertical excursions (i.e., maintaining inward 

36 hydraulic gradients through production bleed and implementing an excursion monitoring 

37 program), the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that potential impacts of ISR operations on 

38 water quality of a uranium-bearing production zone aquifer would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

39 Groundwater quality data presented in draft SEIS Table 3-11 indicate that groundwater in the 

40 PZA does not meet State of Wyoming standards for Class I (domestic), Class II (agricultural), 

41 and Class III (livestock) groundwater use and is only suitable for industrial (Class IV) use. 

42 Parameters exceeding Class I standards included gross alpha, sulfate, manganese, iron, 

43 cadmium, lead, total dissolved solids, pH, and combined radium-226/228. Parameters 

44 exceeding Class II standards included gross alpha, sulfate, manganese, selenium, vanadium, 

45 pH, and combined radium-226/228. Parameters exceeding Class III standards included gross 

46 alpha, vanadium, pH, and combined radium-226/228. Thus, the PZA water quality meets the 
4-40 

1 criteria for exemption as an USDW, as described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2. As 

2 documented in draft SEIS Table 2-1, the EPA approved an aquifer exemption request for the 

3 PZA; specifically, production zones in the Lower Wasatch Formation at depths between 52 m 

4 [170 ft] and 138 m [450 ft] (EPA, 2015). 

5 To prevent horizontal excursions, inward hydraulic gradients need to be maintained in the 

6 production aquifer during ISR operations (NRC, 2009). These inward hydraulic gradients are 

7 created by the net groundwater withdrawals (production bleeds) maintained through continued 

8 pumping during ISR operations. For the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the applicant plans 

9 to maintain an average 1 percent production bleed rate (AUC, 2012a). Results of the 

10 applicant’s groundwater modeling demonstrated that an average 1 percent bleed rate is 

11 sufficient to maintain an inward gradient in the PZA during ISR operations (AUC, 2012a). The 

12 inward hydraulic gradients would ensure that groundwater flow in the PZA is toward operating 

13 wellfields and that horizontal excursions would not occur. 

14 NRC regulations require that the licensee of an ISR facility take preventive measures to reduce 

15 the likelihood and consequences of potential excursions. An applicant must design and install a 

16 monitoring network capable of detecting both horizontal and vertical excursions from the 

17 production zone. The applicant’s excursion monitoring program is detailed in draft SEIS 

18 Sections 2.1.1.1.3 and 7.3.1.2. As described in these sections, a ring of monitoring wells 

19 encircling the production zone is required for early detection of horizontal excursions. The 

20 applicant’s groundwater model determined that the distance between the perimeter ring monitor 

21 wells should be no more than 152 m [500 ft], and the distance between these monitoring wells 

22 and the production patterns should also be no more than 152 m [500 ft] for production units 

23 located within the fully saturated portion of the PZA. The model determined that a distance of 

24 122 m [400 ft] between the perimeter ring monitoring wells and 122 m [400 ft] between these 

25 monitoring wells and the production patterns for production units located within the partially 

26 saturated portion of the PZA is appropriate. The NRC staff evaluated the distance to and 

27 spacing of the perimeter wells to assess the probability of an excursion migrating past the 

28 monitoring well ring. For example, in a fluvial environment consistent with the applicant’s 

29 conceptual model, the width of a channel sand deposit could be a preferred path for fluid 

30 migration and be less than 152 m [500 ft]. Therefore, the NRC staff found the applicant’s 

31 proposed 152 m [500 ft] spacing distance of the perimeter wells in the fully saturated portion of 

32 the PZA to be inadequate. The staff has proposed and the applicant has agreed to a license 

33 condition that requires a 122 m [400 ft] distance to, and spacing of, the perimeter wells for a 

34 wellfield in either the fully or partially saturated portions of the PZA (AUC, 2015). 

35 If excursions are detected in the monitoring well ring, corrective actions to either stop or reverse 

36 fluid movement (i.e., excursions) are required. The applicant would need to modify wellfield 

37 operations, as necessary, to correct the excursion. As described in draft SEIS 

38 Section 2.1.1.1.3, corrective actions would include increasing sampling frequency to weekly, 

39 increasing the pumping rates of production wells in the area of the excursion to increase the net 

40 bleed, and pumping individual wells to enhance recovery of solutions. If these actions do not 

41 retrieve the excursion within 60 days, the applicant would suspend injection of lixiviant into the 

42 production zone adjacent to the excursion until the excursion is retrieved and the upper control 

43 limit parameters are no longer exceeded. 

44 Vertical excursions may also occur in aquifers overlying or underlying the production zone 

45 aquifer. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.3 and illustrated in draft SEIS Figures 3-17 

46 through 3-22, the PZA is confined by aquitards (the OA and UA Units) across the entire 
4-41 

1 proposed project area. The OA ranges in thickness from 7.6 to 30.5 m [25 to 100 ft] and 

2 consists of a laterally continuous sequence of clays and silt. The thickness of the UA ranges 

3 from 91.4 to 122 m [300 to 400 ft] and consists of a laterally continuous sequence of 

4 undifferentiated mudstones and clay. Therefore, the thickness of the OA {7.6 to 30.5 m [25 to 

5 100 ft]} and the UA {91.4 to 122 m [300 to 400 ft]} would minimize the potential of vertical 

6 excursions reaching surrounding aquifers. 

7 The applicant reported two sets of permeability data for the aquitards: one relative to air 

4.55 × 10-6 to 9.1 × 10-6 cm/sec [1.3 × 10-2 to 2.6 × 10-2 8 ft/day] and the other relative to brine 

5.46 × 10-

10 to 8.2 × 10-10 cm/sec [1.56 × 10-6 to 2.34 × 10-6 9 ft/day]. Based on the staff’s 

10 analysis, the air permeability values likely represent high permeability siltstones in the aquitards. 

11 Therefore, assuming the two sets of permeability (one for the mudstones and one for the 

12 siltstones in the aquitard), and each set represents 50 percent of the aquitard, the staff 

estimated a vertical hydraulic conductivity for the aquitards of 3.0 × 10-8 13 cm/sec 

[8.6 × 10-5 14 ft/day]. This low hydraulic conductivity value, which is consistent with the expected 

15 rate of groundwater flow through a relatively impermeable clay, would limit the potential impacts 

16 of vertical excursions. 

17 Steep hydraulic gradients in which the potentiometric head of the production zone is above that 

18 of the overlying or underlying aquifers could also result in a vertical excursion. Potentiometric 

19 head measurements in wells within the proposed project area exhibit a consistent downward 

20 gradient (AUC, 2012a,b). Therefore, vertical excursions of lixiviant would be more likely to 

21 impact aquifers underlying the PZA, such as the UM Unit. Potentiometric head differences 

22 between the PZA and the UM Unit vary between 0.6 and 10.8 m [2 and 36 ft], yielding vertical 

23 gradients of between 0.02 and 0.26. These vertical hydraulic gradients are low and would 

24 further minimize the potential impacts of vertical excursions. 

25 Vertical excursions can be caused by improperly cemented well casings, well casing failures, 

26 and improperly abandoned exploration drillholes. The applicant would use its MIT program to 

27 mitigate the impacts of potential vertical excursions resulting from borehole failure of injection, 

28 production, and monitoring wells (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2). After well installation, the 

29 applicant would conduct periodic MITs on each well to check for leaks and cracks in the well 

30 casing, as required by WDEQ regulations. Because the MIT program reduces the likelihood of 

31 poor well integrity, the impacts from excursions involving failure or damage to a well casing 

32 would be SMALL. 

33 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.4.1.2, within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, 

34 former operators drilled approximately 2,665 exploration holes and an additional 215 drill holes 

35 are within 0.8 km [0.5 mi] of the proposed project boundary. From 2010 through 2012, the 

36 applicant drilled an additional 807 exploration holes. Of these holes, 45 were cased and would 

37 remain in place as groundwater monitoring wells. The remaining 762 were plugged and 

38 abandoned, in accordance with WDEQ rules and regulations. The applicant has committed to 

39 plugging old drill holes and abandoning exploration wells that may be encountered within the 

40 proposed project area per WDEQ requirements (AUC, 2012a). In addition, the NRC staff has 

41 proposed and the applicant has agreed to a license condition that would require abandonment 

42 of all historic drill holes within a wellfield before testing for a wellfield hydrogeologic data 

43 package (AUC, 2015). This commitment would ensure that all historic drill holes are properly 

44 abandoned before ISR activities at a wellfield are initiated; therefore, any historic drill holes 

45 would not be a pathway for lixiviant migration to overlying or underlying aquifers. 
4-42 

1 In summary, the NRC staff conclude that potential impacts from excursions to groundwater 

2 quality in the production zone and surrounding aquifers at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

3 during operations would be SMALL because 

4  the EPA has approved an USDW aquifer exemption for the PZA, 

5  inward hydraulic gradients would be maintained to ensure groundwater flow is toward 

6 the production zone, 

7  the applicant’s NRC-mandated groundwater monitoring plan would ensure that 

8 excursions are detected and corrected, 

9  aquitards confining the production zone have low permeabilities and are of sufficient 

10 thickness to minimize the potential vertical migration of lixiviant to overlying and 

11 underlying aquifers, 

12  the applicant would properly plug and abandon or mitigate any previously drilled wells 

13 and exploration drill holes that may potentially impact the control and containment of 

14 wellfield solutions within the proposed project area, and 

15  the applicant’s required MIT program would mitigate the impacts of potential vertical 

16 excursions resulting from borehole failure. 

17 Operations Impacts to Deep Aquifers Below the Production Aquifers 

18 Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA has statutory authority to regulate deep 

19 disposal well activities that may affect the environment. Underground injection of fluid requires 

20 a permit from EPA or from a state UIC program under the SDWA. WDEQ has been authorized 

21 to administer the UIC program in Wyoming and is responsible for issuing permits for deep well 

22 disposal at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The GEIS concluded that the potential 

23 environmental impact of injecting liquid byproduct material into deep aquifers below the 

24 ore-bearing aquifers would be SMALL if the aquifers were located below a USDW, if water 

25 production from deep aquifers was not economically feasible, or if the groundwater quality from 

26 these aquifers would not be suitable for domestic or agricultural uses (e.g., high salinity) and if 

27 they were confined above by sufficiently thick and continuous low permeability layers. 

28 (NRC, 2009) 

29 The applicant has been authorized by WDEQ to drill, complete, and operate four Class I deep 

30 disposal wells and thereby dispose of liquid waste streams into the Upper Cretaceous Teckla 

31 and Teapot Sandstones at depths of approximately 2,130 and 2,400 m [7,000 and 7,860 ft] 

32 below ground surface (WDEQ, 2015). The Lewis Shale, a low-permeability marine shale with 

33 an approximate thickness of 274 m [900 ft] in the proposed project area overlies the target 

34 interval (see draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.2 and draft SEIS Figure 3-15). The Upper Cretaceous 

35 Steele Shale underlies the Teapot and Teckla Sandstones (see draft SEIS Figure 3-15). The 

36 Steele Shale is a low-permeability marine shale member with an approximate thickness of 

37 152 m [500 ft] in the proposed project area (WDEQ, 2015). 

38 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.2, Lower Tertiary strata of the Wasatch and Fort Union 

39 Formations and Upper Cretaceous strata of the Lance Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone, 

40 which overlie the Lewis Shale, are or have the potential to be USDWs. However, as discussed 
4-43 

1 in draft SEIS Section 3.5.3.1, waters in Upper Cretaceous formations deeper than the Fox Hills 

2 Sandstone near the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area are typically saline (i.e., they have 

3 elevated dissolved solids concentrations), which prohibits their use for domestic or municipal 

4 water supply. Specifically, concentrations of total dissolved solids in the Teckla and Teapot 

5 Sandstones are greater than 3,000 mg/L [3,000 ppm] and cannot reasonably be expected to 

6 provide a source of water for domestic, stock, or agricultural use (WDEQ, 2015). Because of 

7 their chemical characteristics (i.e., highly saline), the Teckla and Teapot Sandstones do not 

8 meet WDEQ requirements for designation as USDWs. 

9 The applicant’s Class I deep disposal well permit includes disposal well construction, 

10 operations, and MIT requirements to prevent movement of fluid from the permitted disposal 

11 wells into any USDW (WDEQ, 2015). In addition, the UIC permit includes operational 

12 monitoring requirements to ensure that the effects of deep disposal wells on surrounding 

13 formations is evaluated regularly and appropriate measures are taken in the event of 

14 malfunction of the disposal system or noncompliance with permit conditions. Operational 

15 monitoring would include continuous monitoring of injection rate and pressure and quarterly 

16 monitoring of injectate (waste stream) quality. Finally, the UIC permit stipulates that upon 

17 permit expiration or termination or cessation of injection activities, all wells shall be plugged and 

18 abandoned in accordance with WDEQ rules and regulations (WDEQ, 2015). 

19 In summary, the NRC staff conclude that impacts to deep aquifers below the production 

20 zone from disposal of treated liquid wastes in deep wells during ISR operations would be 

21 SMALL because 

22  the target aquifers for Class I deep disposal wells (i.e., the Teckla and Teapot 

23 Sandstones) are confined above and below by sufficiently thick and continuous 

24 low-permeability layers, 

25  groundwater quality in the target aquifers is not suitable for domestic, stock, or 

26 agricultural uses (e.g., high salinity), and therefore do not meet WDEQ requirements for 

27 designation as USDWs, 

28  the applicant’s Class I deep disposal well permit includes operational monitoring 

29 requirements (discussed in draft SEIS Section 7.2.5) to ensure that the impact of 

30 injection wells on surrounding formations is evaluated regularly and appropriate 

31 measures are taken to correct failure of the injection system, and 

32  upon permit termination, all deep disposal wells would be plugged and abandoned in 

33 accordance with WDEQ requirements. 

34 4.5.2.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

35 GEIS Section 4.3.4.2.3 describes the potential environmental impact on groundwater resources 

36 during aquifer restoration and states the impact is from groundwater consumptive use, 

37 excursions and groundwater quality, and waste management practices, including the potential 

38 deep disposal of brine slurries from RO. (NRC, 2009) 

39 In general, aquifer restoration continues until the NRC and applicable state requirements for 

40 groundwater quality are met. As discussed in GEIS Section 2.5, NRC licensees are required to 

41 return wellfield water quality parameters to the standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 
4-44 

1 Criterion 5B(5) or to another standard approved in their NRC license. Potential environmental 

2 impacts are affected by the restoration techniques chosen, the severity and extent of the 

3 contamination, and the current and future use of the production and surrounding aquifers. 

4 Consequently, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential environmental impacts of 

5 groundwater quantity and quality during restoration could range from SMALL to MODERATE 

6 depending on site conditions. Rather than negatively impacting the groundwater quality during 

7 aquifer restoration, the water quality would improve as restoration continues. (NRC, 2009) 

8 Aquifer Restoration Impacts to Shallow (Near-surface) Aquifers 

9 As with the operations phase, a network of buried pipelines is used during aquifer restoration for 

10 transporting fluids between the pump house and the CPP facility (NRC, 2009). These pipelines 

11 are also used to connect injection and production wells to manifolds inside the header houses. 

12 However, the fluids transported in these pipelines during aquifer restoration are generally less 

13 concentrated than during operations. The potential failure of pipeline fittings or valves, or a 

14 failure of or damage to a well casing, could result in leaks and spills that could impact the water 

15 quality in shallow aquifers. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1, the applicant has 

16 committed to implementing leak detection and spill prevention-cleanup programs and mitigation 

17 measures to detect and limit the potential impacts of leaks and spills in processing facilities, 

18 pipeline infrastructure, storage ponds, and wellfields (AUC, 2012a). The applicant has also 

19 committed to monitoring shallow aquifers (the SM and OM Units) to detect effects on 

20 groundwater from process fluid spills due to pipeline and valve failure (AUC, 2015). In addition, 

21 the WDEQ-mandated UIC program would require preventive measures, such as periodic MITs 

22 of well casings to detect potential leakage. 

23 Implementation of required leak detection and spill response and cleanup procedures and the 

24 applicant’s commitments to mitigation measures to detect, control, and minimize potential 

25 adverse impacts of spills and leaks in processing facilities, pipeline infrastructure, storage 

26 ponds, and wellfields would reduce potential effects to shallow aquifers. Therefore, the NRC 

27 staff conclude that impacts to shallow (near-surface) groundwater during the aquifer restoration 

28 phase of the proposed project would be SMALL. 

29 Aquifer Restoration Impacts to Production and Surrounding Aquifers 

30 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4, the applicant is planning three phases of aquifer 

31 restoration: groundwater sweep, groundwater transfer, and groundwater treatment. The 

32 groundwater treatment involves RO with permeate injection and reductant addition. The actual 

33 restoration sequence would be based on operating conditions. The applicant would conduct 

34 aquifer restoration concurrently with ISR operations: as each production wellfield ceases 

35 operations, aquifer restoration would commence, even while other production units are still in 

36 recovery (per the phased approached as described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1) (AUC, 2012b). 

37 The proposed aquifer restoration process would begin following the permanent cessation of 

38 lixiviant injection, continuing through active restoration and postrestoration stability monitoring, 

39 and concluding with NRC and WDEQ approval of successful restoration for each 

40 production unit. 

41 Water Consumptive Use 

42 The potential environmental impact to groundwater in the production and surrounding aquifers 

43 during aquifer restoration is related to consumptive groundwater use and groundwater quality. 
4-45 

1 Hydraulic control of the former production zone during each restoration phase would be 

2 maintained by establishing an inward hydraulic gradient through restoration bleed. During 

3 concurrent production and aquifer restoration of the production units, the average total bleed 

4 would increase to as much as 1.2 percent of the lixiviant flow (AUC, 2012b). Thus, water 

5 consumption during concurrent production and restoration of the production units would be 

6 slightly higher than during production alone. During aquifer restoration only, the average bleed 

7 rate is expected to be 9 percent (AUC, 2012a). However, due to lower flow rates during aquifer 

8 restoration, the consumption rate would be less than the consumption rates incurred during the 

9 production only and concurrent production and aquifer restoration phases. During concurrent 

10 production and aquifer restoration, the applicant estimates that the groundwater restoration flow 

11 rate would include 3,785 Lpm [1,000 gpm] from the wellfields in the groundwater treatment 

12 stage and 189 Lpm [50 gpm] in the groundwater sweep stage. After flowing through the ion 

13 exchange columns, the restoration RO units would receive 3,785 Lpm [1,000 gpm]. The 

14 secondary RO unit would receive (i) the remaining 189 Lpm [50 gpm] and (ii) 435 Lpm 

15 [115 gpm] of the waste stream from the production circuit. All permeate generated by RO and 

16 secondary RO units would be injected into the wellfields undergoing groundwater treatment. 

17 Combining the two permeate streams would result in a less than 10 percent bleed rate 

18 (AUC, 2012a). When all the production units have been depleted and only groundwater 

19 restoration activities are occurring, the applicant estimates that the flow rate would include 

20 3,785 Lpm [1,000 gpm] from the wellfields in the groundwater treatment stage and 189 Lpm 

21 [50 gpm] from the wellfields in the groundwater sweep stage. The RO unit would receive 

22 3,785 Lpm [1,000 gpm] while the secondary RO unit would receive 984 Lpm [260 gpm]. All 

23 the permeate generated by the restoration and secondary RO units would be injected into the 

24 wellfields undergoing groundwater treatment. About 38 Lpm [10 gpm] is estimated to be 

25 withdrawn from the CPP water supply well at times when only groundwater restoration 

26 is occurring. 

27 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2, the applicant evaluated the impact of concurrent 

28 production and restoration operations on surrounding wells using a groundwater model that 

29 assumed a (i) maximum projected extraction rate of 41,640 Lpm [11,000 gpm]; (ii) 1 percent 

30 production bleed; and (iii) restoration bleed rate between 3 and 9 percent (AUC, 2012b). 

31 Results of the modeling indicated a simulated drawdown of approximately 1.5 m [5 ft] or more 

32 extending several miles beyond the proposed project area in response to concurrent ISR 

33 production and aquifer restoration. Much of the drawdown extended into the fully saturated and 

34 more confined portions of the PZA where there is greater available head. The model results 

35 were based on the maximum proposed extraction volume of 41,640 Lpm [11,000 gpm] and 

36 therefore the regional drawdown represented a conservative evaluation of regional effects 

37 (AUC, 2012b). However, as described previously, when all the production units have been 

38 depleted and only groundwater restoration activities are occurring, estimated extraction volumes 

39 would decrease to 3,785 Lpm [1,000 gpm] from the wellfields in the groundwater treatment 

40 stage and 189 Lpm [50 gpm] from the wellfields in the groundwater sweep stage. 

41 Consequently, potential drawdown in wells within and surrounding the production zone during 

42 aquifer restoration would be less than during concurrent production and aquifer restoration. 

43 After production and aquifer restoration are completed and groundwater withdrawal ceases at 

44 the proposed project, the groundwater levels in the PZA would recover with time as a result of 

45 natural recharge (NRC, 2009). The time it would take for groundwater levels in the production 

46 zone to recover is dependent on the hydraulic properties of the aquifer (e.g., permeability and 

47 transmissivity) and can be predicted based on numerical modeling. The applicant’s 

48 groundwater model predicted 2.13 to 3.35 m [7 to 11 ft] of residual drawdown within the 

49 proposed project area 5 years after aquifer restoration is completed (AUC, 2012b). However, 
4-46 

1 as described in draft SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2, results of the NRC staff’s revisions to the 

2 applicant’s groundwater model predicted greater maximum drawdown in the production units. 

3 Therefore, the applicant’s predicted residual drawdown {2.13 to 3.35 m [7 to 11 ft] 5 years after 

4 aquifer restoration is complete} could underestimate the time it would actually take for 

5 groundwater levels in the PZA to recover. 

6 In summary, because estimated extraction volumes from the wellfields would decrease during 

7 aquifer restoration, potential drawdown in wells within and surrounding the production zone 

8 during aquifer restoration would be less than during concurrent production and aquifer 

9 restoration. However, considering the difference between the applicant’s and the NRC staff’s 

10 estimates for drawdown, the NRC staff find that the potential impact from groundwater 

11 consumptive use during aquifer restoration at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project could be 

12 MODERATE. As described in draft SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2, the applicant has proposed and 

13 committed to mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts on consumptive use of 

14 groundwater. Consistent with Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980), the applicant would 

15 measure water levels in domestic and stock wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the wellfields before 

16 operations and every 3 months during operations to evaluate the impacts on groundwater 

17 (AUC, 2012a). If significant impacts to either domestic or stock wells are observed, the 

18 applicant has proposed to (i) lower the pump level in the wells, if possible; (ii) deepen the wells, 

19 if possible; or (iii) replace the wells with new wells completed in aquifers that are not impacted 

20 by wellfield operations (AUC, 2012a). In addition, if future development within the proposed 

21 project area includes an area(s) where a stock well is located in the PZA, the applicant has 

22 committed to (i) replacing the wells with new wells completed in either shallower or deeper 

23 aquifers that are not impacted by ISR operations or (ii) providing another source of stock water. 

24 Implementation and adherence to these mitigation measures would limit any adverse impacts 

25 from consumptive use of groundwater. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the potential 

26 impact from groundwater consumptive use during aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

27 Excursions and Groundwater Quality 

28 The potential impacts to water quality of the PZA as well as overlying and underlying aquifers 

29 during aquifer restoration would be less than from operations because no lixiviant would be 

30 used during aquifer restoration. The potential for vertical and horizontal excursions during 

31 aquifer restoration would be similar to those described for the operations phase. However, the 

32 magnitude of impacts would be less because the injection and recovery rates would be lower 

33 during aquifer restoration than during operations, the addition of lixiviant would have ceased, 

34 and water quality in the PZA would improve throughout active aquifer restoration. 

35 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4, the applicant would implement a restoration 

36 monitoring plan to detect and correct horizontal and vertical excursions and to determine 

37 whether water quality has been restored to the NRC’s restoration standards. In addition, 

38 continued implementation of the applicant’s leak-detection and spill prevention-cleanup program 

39 and preventive measures, such as periodic MIT of well casings, would ensure that potential 

40 impacts to surrounding aquifers are SMALL. Moreover, restoration of the production aquifer in 

41 compliance with WDEQ and NRC requirements would ensure that groundwater within the 

42 exemption boundary would not threaten surrounding groundwater. 

43 In summary, the potential impacts to water quality of the PZA as well as overlying and 

44 underlying aquifers during aquifer restoration would be less than from operations because no 

45 lixiviant would be used during aquifer restoration. The NRC review and approval of the wellfield 
4-47 

1 restoration plan would ensure that the NRC’s restoration standards are met and that they are 

2 protective of public health and the environment. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the 

3 impacts to groundwater quality in production zone and surrounding aquifers from aquifer 

4 restoration at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL. 

5 Aquifer Restoration Impacts to Deep Aquifers Below the Production Aquifers 

6 As discussed in the GEIS, underground disposal of waste streams into deep aquifers requires a 

7 permit from EPA or the authorized state. The deep aquifers suitable for disposal must have 

8 poor water quality, have low water yields, or be economically infeasible for production. They 

9 also need to be hydraulically separated from overlying aquifer systems. Under these conditions, 

10 the potential environmental impacts would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

11 In draft SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2, the NRC staff assessed the potential environmental impacts 

12 from disposal of treated liquid byproduct material into deep aquifers below the production zone 

13 at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project during operations. The staff concluded that potential 

14 impacts to deep aquifers below the production zone from deep well disposal would be 

15 SMALL because 

16  The proposed target aquifers for Class I deep disposal wells at the proposed project 

17 (i.e., the Teckla and Teapot Sandstones) are confined above and below by sufficiently 

18 thick and continuous low-permeability layers, 

19  Groundwater quality in the target aquifers is not suitable for domestic, stock, or 

20 agricultural uses due to high salinity, and therefore do not meet WDEQ requirements for 

21 designation as USDWs, and 

22  The applicant’s Class I deep disposal well permit includes operational monitoring 

23 requirements to ensure that the impact of the deep disposal wells on surrounding 

24 formations is evaluated regularly and appropriate measures are taken in case of 

25 malfunction of the disposal system or noncompliance of permit conditions. 

26 Consequently, the NRC staff conclude that the potential environmental impacts from Class I 

27 deep well disposal of brine slurries from RO on deep aquifers below the production zone during 

28 aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

29 4.5.2.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

30 In the GEIS, the NRC staff noted that the environmental impacts to groundwater during 

31 dismantling and decommissioning of ISR facilities are primarily associated with consumptive 

32 use of groundwater, potential spills of fuels and lubricants, and well abandonment. The 

33 consumptive groundwater use could include water use for dust suppression, revegetation, and 

34 reclamation of disturbed areas. The potential environmental impacts during the 

35 decommissioning phase are expected to be similar to potential impacts during the construction 

36 phase. Groundwater consumptive use during the decommissioning activities would be less than 

37 groundwater consumptive use during ISR operations and groundwater restoration activities. 

38 Spills of fuels and lubricants during decommissioning activities could affect shallow aquifers. 

39 Implementation of BMPs during decommissioning can help to reduce the likelihood and 

40 magnitude of such spills. Based on consideration of best management practices to minimize 
4-48 

1 water use and spills, impacts to the groundwater resources in shallow aquifers from 

2 decommissioning would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

3 The applicant would continue to implement a spill prevention-cleanup program to reduce the 

4 potential impacts of spills of fuels and lubricants during decommissioning (AUC, 2012a). The 

5 applicant would implement mitigation measures to control erosion and stormwater runoff that 

6 could impact shallow aquifers. The applicant’s WYPDES permit requirements, which limit 

7 discharge volumes and prescribe concentration limits to discharged water, would ensure that 

8 stormwater runoff would not contaminate shallow groundwater. 

9 After ISR operations are completed, improperly abandoned wells could affect aquifers above the 

10 production aquifer by providing hydrologic connections between aquifers. As part of the 

11 restoration and reclamation activities, all monitoring, injection, and production wells would be 

12 plugged and abandoned in accordance with the WDEQ requirements (see draft SEIS 

13 Section 2.1.1.1.5). In addition, the applicant would submit decommissioning plans, including 

14 detailed plans for plugging and abandoning wells to the NRC for review and approval. If this 

15 process is properly implemented and the abandoned wells are properly isolated from the flow 

16 domain, the environmental impacts to groundwater in the production zone and surrounding 

17 aquifers and deep aquifers used for liquid waste disposal during the decommissioning phase 

18 would be SMALL. 

19 4.5.2.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

20 Under the No-Action Alternative, a license authorizing operation of an ISR facility would not be 

21 issued; therefore, construction and operation of the facility would not occur and aquifer 

22 restoration and decommissioning would not be needed. Consumptive use of groundwater 

23 would not occur. Liquid byproduct material would not be generated; therefore, there would be 

24 no threat to groundwater quality. Historic and exploration wells that have already been 

25 constructed would be plugged and abandoned to prevent potential degradation and 

26 contamination (AUC, 2012a). The current land uses on and near the project area, including 

27 grazing lands and recreational activities, would continue. Consequently, the No-Action 

28 Alternative would result in no impacts to groundwater. 

29 4.6 Ecological Impacts 

30 The proposed project could affect the ecology of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, 

31 including both flora and fauna. The NRC reported in GEIS Section 4.3.5 that these effects could 

32 occur during all phases of the ISR facility life cycle (NRC, 2009). In general, effects could 

33 include removal of vegetation from the site and an increased risk of soil erosion and weed 

34 invasion); modification of existing vegetative communities as a result of site activities; loss of 

35 sensitive plants and habitats; and the potential spread of invasive species and noxious weed 

36 populations. Effects to wildlife could include loss, alteration, and/or incremental fragmentation 

37 of habitat; reduction in forage; displacement of and stresses on wildlife; and direct or indirect 

38 mortalities. Aquatic species could be affected by disturbance of stream channels, increases in 

39 suspended sediments, fuel spills, and habitat reduction. Potential environmental impacts to 

40 ecological resources from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

41 from activities associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and the No-Action 

42 Alternative are provided in the following sections. 
4-49 

1 4.6.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

2 The staff’s ecological impact analysis for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project involved 

3 evaluating interactions between the proposed project activities and the local animals and habitat 

4 that could be affected by the proposed project. Typical ISR facility life cycle phases 

5 (construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) can have direct and 

6 indirect impacts on local habitat and wildlife populations. As described in Chapter 9 of this draft 

7 SEIS, these potential impacts are both short term (lasting until successful reclamation is 

8 achieved) and long term (persisting beyond successful completion of reclamation). If an 

9 applicant or licensee adheres to recommended BMPs from appropriate agencies, the potential 

10 ecological impacts could be mitigated. The NRC staff correspondence with the applicant and 

11 state and federal agencies was ongoing throughout the draft SEIS development process for the 

12 proposed project and is described in Appendix A. If new information is received before the final 

13 SEIS is issued, Appendix A will be updated with that information. 

14 The potential environmental impacts and related mitigation measures for ecological resources 

15 for the proposed project and alternative are discussed in the following sections.

16 4.6.1.1 Construction Impacts 

17 The potential impacts to ecological resources, specifically for vegetation and wildlife (including 

18 protected species) during construction as a result of the proposed project would be consistent 

19 with the findings described in the GEIS, and are summarized in the following sections. 

20 The terrestrial ecology of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is discussed in draft SEIS 

21 Section 3.6.1. Potential impacts to terrestrial vegetation and wildlife, including protected 

22 species, from construction of the proposed project are described in this section.

23 Construction Impacts on Vegetation 

24 As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.5.1, during construction, terrestrial vegetation may be 

25 affected through (i) removal of vegetation from the milling site (and associated reduction in 

26 wildlife habitat and forage productivity and an increased risk of soil erosion and weed invasion); 

27 (ii) modification of existing vegetative communities; (iii) loss of sensitive plants and habitats as a 

28 result of clearing and grading; and (iv) potential spread of invasive species and noxious weed 

29 populations (NRC, 2009). The percentage of vegetation removed and land disturbed by 

30 construction activities evaluated in the GEIS (from less than 1 percent up to 20 percent) would 

31 cause a SMALL impact compared to the total permit area and surrounding plant communities. 

32 The GEIS evaluated ISR facilities that ranged in facility size from 1,000 to 7,000 ha [2,471 to 

33 17,297 ac] with disturbed area estimates of 49 to 753 ha [120 to 1,860 ac]. Additionally, the 

34 NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that clearing of herbaceous vegetation in an open grassland or 

35 shrub steppe community would be expected to have a short-term SMALL impact if active 

36 revegetation measures are used, given the rapid colonization of annual and perennial species in 

37 the disturbed areas. The clearing of wooded areas could have a long-term impact given the 

38 pace of natural succession, and such impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE, 

39 depending on the amount of surrounding woody areas. Invasive plant species and noxious 

40 weeds may invade areas disturbed by construction, but would be expected to be controlled with 

41 appropriate spraying techniques, and therefore impacts would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 
4-50 

1 The applicant estimates that for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the total amount of soil 

2 and vegetation disturbed during all phases of ISR activities would be approximately 62.4 ha 

3 [154.3 ac] (AUC, 2014a). During the construction phase, approximately 54.28 ha [134.14 ac] of 

4 previously undisturbed vegetation would be disturbed. Draft SEIS Table 4-6 provides the land 

5 disturbance by vegetation type (as well as water coverage and previously disturbed land 

6 amounts) during the construction phase. Draft SEIS Figure 4-1 depicts the proposed wellfield 

7 locations in relation to the vegetation communities. The applicant proposes constructing up to 

8 15 sequentially phased production units (production wellfields) (AUC, 2012a), with 1 to 

9 7 wellfields in each production unit (see draft SEIS Chapter 2 for more information on the 

10 phased approach). However, according to the proposed project schedule (draft SEIS 

11 Table 2-1), no more than 6 out of the 15 production units would be under construction at the 

12 same time, reducing the amount of surface area disturbed at any one time. 

13 Topsoil stripping, excavation, backfill, compaction, grading, utility and pipeline trenching, 

14 increased traffic, and storage areas associated with construction activities would result in direct 

15 and indirect impacts to vegetation. These potential impacts include: an increased potential for 

16 nonnative species invasion establishment, shifts in species composition; changes in vegetative 

17 density; soil erosion; changes in visual aesthetics; reduction of wildlife habitat; reduction in 

18 livestock forage, and expansion from invasive and noxious species found within the proposed 

19 project area that include Canada thistle, Russian olive, field bindweed, Japanese brome, and 

20 cheatgrass (see draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.1). Secondary and tertiary access roads would be 

21 constructed for access to the facilities and production units (AUC, 2012a), which would directly 

22 impact vegetation by clearing and grading activities. Areas along pipelines and adjacent to 

23 roads, the CPP, impoundments, and well pads would experience soil compaction from heavy 

24 equipment and vehicular traffic, making it more difficult for vegetation to reestablish. 

25 Cheatgrass, in particular, is a growing threat for Wyoming sagebrush habitats because of its 

26 ability to change fire and vegetation patterns (WGFD, 2010). Cheatgrass is the dominant 

27 introduced (nonnative) annual grass in the meadow grassland and breaks grassland plant 

28 communities in the proposed project area and was observed at almost all baseline vegetation 

29 sample locations(AUC, 2012a). 

30 The potential impacts to vegetation during the construction phase of the proposed project would 

31 be mitigated by the applicant’s commitment that employees would use only existing and 

32 proposed roads in the proposed project area to minimize vegetation impacts from increased 

Table 4-6. Disturbed Land by Vegetation and Other Land Cover Types for the 

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project During Construction 

Big Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Hectares 

[Acres]

Upland 

Grassland 

Hectares 

[Acres] 

Meadow 

Grassland 

Hectares 

[Acres] 

Breaks 

Grassland 

Hectares 

[Acres] 

Water 

Hectares 

[Acres] 

Previously 

Disturbed/ 

Developed 

Land 

Hectares 

[Acres] 

47.4 

[117.1] 

2.5 

[6.1] 

3.7 

[9.2] 

0.7 

[1.74] 

0.06 

[0.15] 

4.45 

[1.8] 

Source: AUC, 2014a 
4-51 

Figure 4-1. Map of Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Facilities and Vegetation Communities (AUC, 2014a)
4-52 

1 traffic (AUC, 2012a). In addition, the applicant has committed to using common corridors for the 

2 locations of access roads, pipelines, and utilities, and to minimize secondary and tertiary access 

3 road widths as practicable (AUC, 2012a, 2014a). WDEQ requires that mine operations include 

4 temporary seeding for reclamation during the first spring or fall with WDEQ-approved seed 

5 mixes (WDEQ, 2006). The applicant has committed to reseed areas where topsoil has been 

6 removed during construction, typically within one construction season, using a WDEQ-approved 

7 seed mixture (AUC, 2012a). The NRC staff expect that rapid reseeding would restore most 

8 vegetative cover within the first growing season (NRC, 2009). Some native plant populations 

9 bordering disturbed areas can also be expected to spread into those disturbed areas, which 

10 would facilitate the revegetation process. Once permanent revegetation efforts are complete, it 

11 would likely require 2 to 4 years for grasses to be reestablished, but it could take 10 or more 

12 years for mature shrub communities to be reestablished (Connelly et. al, 2004; BLM, 2010; 

13 2015). Sagebrush shrubland, the largest vegetation type within the proposed project area, can 

14 be particularly slow to reestablish. Consequently, preconstruction vegetation communities and 

15 subcommunities (i.e., shrub-steppe) may be different than post-construction communities 

16 (i.e., grass dominated) for several years, or possibly decades, which could alter the composition 

17 and abundance of both plant and wildlife species in the area (BLM, 2010). 

18 The impact from the construction phase of previously undisturbed vegetation (primarily in the 

19 big sagebrush shrubland vegetation community) would affect approximately 54.28 ha 

20 [134.14 ac], or about 2.2 percent of the proposed project area. Construction of wellfields would 

21 be phased; therefore, not all of the impacts would occur at the same time. The applicant 

22 estimates that constructing the buildings, initial wellfields, and waste disposal systems for the 

23 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would take approximately 9 years (draft SEIS Figure 2-1). 

24 However, vegetation could still experience impacts from construction for a longer duration (10 or 

25 more years), especially within the sagebrush shrubland communities. The applicant has 

26 committed to revegetation measures that would reduce the overall impacts. Because the 

27 applicant has committed to revegetation measures, the NRC staff conclude that construction 

28 impacts on vegetation from the proposed project would be SMALL. Reestablishment of native 

29 shrub species could be hindered by yearlong grazing pressure. Large ungulates (i.e., wild and 

30 domestic animals with hooves) are attracted to more succulent, younger plants and they often 

31 concentrate in newly seeded locations during the critical early-growth stage. The NRC staff 

32 recommend that the applicant apply mitigations such as fencing off areas with young vegetation, 

33 which would reduce these types of disturbances where possible. In addition, WGFD 

34 recommended to control cheatgrass (McMahan, 2013a,b) by ensuring that earth moving 

35 equipment is cleaned prior to entering the site, obtaining weed-free seed mix products, conduct 

36 spot treatment of invasive species with a WDEQ-approved herbicide, and implementing a 

37 WDEQ-approved vegetation monitoring program (AUC, 2014a). These additional 

38 recommended mitigations could further reduce impacts to ensure that the potential impacts to 

39 vegetation remain SMALL. 

40 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, no federally listed threatened or endangered plant 

41 species or critical habitat are known to occur within the proposed project area. Therefore, the 

42 NRC staff conclude that there would be no effect on federally listed plant species during the 

43 construction phase, and thus, potential impacts on these species would be SMALL. 

44 Construction Impacts on Wildlife 

45 The GEIS evaluation of impacts during construction included terrestrial wildlife that may be 

46 affected through (i) habitat loss or alteration and incremental habitat fragmentation, 

47 (ii) displacement of wildlife from project construction, and (iii) direct and/or indirect mortalities 
4-53 

1 from project construction. These impacts could result from noise and dust generated during 

2 construction, increased presence and activities of workers, and construction of above-ground 

3 power lines. The NRC staff noted in the GEIS that construction impacts to wildlife habitat would 

4 be minimized by timely reseeding of disturbed areas following construction. In general, wildlife 

5 would be expected to disperse from the proposed project area as construction activities begin, 

6 although smaller, less mobile species could perish during clearing and grading. Habitat 

7 fragmentation, temporary displacement, and direct or indirect mortalities would be possible; 

8 thus, the potential impact on terrestrial wildlife from construction could range from SMALL to 

9 MODERATE. (NRC, 2009) 

10 As previously stated, certain vegetative communities in the proposed project area could be 

11 difficult to reestablish, which would affect approximately 54.28 ha [134.14 ac] of wildlife habitat 

12 in the proposed project area, or about 2.2 percent of the proposed project area. Consequently, 

13 wildlife species associated with specific habitats, such as grasslands and big sagebrush, could 

14 be reduced in number or replaced by generalist species with more generic habitat requirements 

15 until reseeding of certain vegetation occurs or reclamation matures to its preconstruction 

16 vegetation type. Wildlife species associated with habitat types within the project area are 

17 provided in draft SEIS Table 3-14. The primary habitats for the majority of wildlife species 

18 observed during baseline wildlife surveys in the proposed project area are the big sagebrush 

19 shrubland and upland grassland communities. 

20 Most of the effects to wildlife from construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would 

21 be due to habitat-related disturbances, such as habitat alteration, fragmentation, or increased 

22 competition for and reduction of the approximately 54.28 ha [134.14 ac] of available land that 

23 would be disturbed. Direct effects such as injuries or mortality to individual animals and removal 

24 of wildlife habitat during construction would occur during topsoil stripping, trenching, excavating, 

25 backfilling, compacting, grading, and building construction. Construction of the CPP facilities 

26 (e.g., the CPP building, ancillary buildings, backup pond, parking area, laydown area, and 

27 storage areas), the initial production wellfield and associated wellfield infrastructure, access 

28 roads, deep disposal wells, backup storage pond, mud pits, and pipelines would be expected to 

29 take 9 to 12 months to complete (draft SEIS Figure 2-1) (AUC, 2012a). Construction of 

30 subsequent production wellfields is expected to be completed by the end of year 8 (draft SEIS 

31 Figure 2-1). Direct effects could include increased mortality of wildlife from traffic collisions and 

32 encounters with humans. Indirect effects, such as displacement, loss of forage, erosion, and 

33 changes in predator/prey populations, could result from clearing and grading, increased noise, 

34 traffic, dust, or other disturbances associated with the construction activities of the proposed 

35 project. Fugitive dust could be generated from travel on unpaved roads and bare land (see 

36 fugitive dust analysis in draft SEIS Sections 4.7.1.1 and 4.7.1.2). Fugitive dust could increase 

37 localized air and visual disturbances to wildlife and settle on plants, making them unpalatable to 

38 wildlife. Indirect effects due to vegetation alteration affecting wildlife habitat typically persist 

39 longer than direct effects to individual animals due to the length of time (months to decades 

40 depending on the type of plant community) required for vegetation to reestablish and 

41 become habitable. 

42 Specific effects on groups of wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, and 

43 aquatic species) are discussed in the following sections. 
4-54 

1 Mammals

2 Big Game 

3 Pronghorn antelope and mule deer were the only two big game species observed during the 

4 applicant’s baseline wildlife surveys and are the most likely big game species to be impacted by 

5 the proposed project. The proposed project area provides nonessential winter and yearlong 

6 range to pronghorn antelope and yearlong range for mule deer. No other big game species are 

7 expected to be present in the proposed project area (BLM, 2015). No crucial big-game habitats 

8 or migration corridors are recognized by the WGFD within the proposed project area or the 

9 surrounding 1.6-km [1-mi] perimeter (see draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.1). 

10 As previously stated, most impacts to wildlife would be from habitat-related disturbances as a 

11 result of construction related activities, increased traffic, and human encounters. The following 

12 paragraphs address specific construction impact considerations for big game. The winter and 

13 yearlong range carrying capacity for pronghorn antelope and the yearlong range carrying 

14 capacity for mule deer within the proposed project area could be impacted during the 

15 construction phase of the proposed project due to the loss of forage and habitat of 

16 approximately 54.28 ha [134.14 ac], or 2.2 percent of the proposed project area. There would 

17 be no direct effects on big game crucial habitat, critical or key winter or summer ranges, or 

18 migration corridors. However, white-tailed deer and elk could be indirectly affected during 

19 construction by displaced pronghorn antelope and mule deer populations that move from the 

20 proposed project area into offsite habitat. Adequate habitat for pronghorn antelope and mule 

21 deer exists in the surrounding area, and big game could return to the affected project areas 

22 once vegetation is restored and the areas become productive enough to support big game. In 

23 addition to loss of forage, accidental spills from drilling fluids, muds from well drilling, and 

24 lubricants and hydrocarbons from equipment and refueling during construction could directly 

25 affect the vegetation, making in unpalatable to animals, in the immediate area of the spill 

26 temporarily until spill response and cleanup activities are completed. 

27 The applicant has committed to implementing mitigation measures such as reduced speed limits 

28 to reduce the risk of vehicular collision and resulting potential big game mortalities. Reducing 

29 speed limits would also reduce fugitive dust on unpaved roads. The applicant has committed to 

30 apply water or chemical dust suppressant to control fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads 

31 (AUC, 2014a). The applicant has committed to using common corridors to locate access roads, 

32 pipelines, and utilities, and to minimize secondary and tertiary access road widths as practicable 

33 (AUC, 2012a, 2014a). In addition, the applicant has committed to ensuring the use of existing 

34 and proposed roads where possible to avoid altering or disturbing habitat and wildlife movement 

35 patterns (AUC, 2012a). The applicant’s proposed phased approach to wellfield development 

36 would limit the effects on the movement of big game through the proposed project area. The 

37 phased construction approach would also reduce the effects of habitat loss by reducing the 

38 amount of habitat affected at one time. The applicant has committed to reseeding areas where 

39 topsoil would be removed during construction (AUC, 2012a), which would provide big game with 

40 grass and forage within a few years of habitat disturbance. The applicant has committed to 

41 implement a spill prevention and cleanup plan prior to construction activity (AUC, 2012b), which 

42 would ensure that accidental spills do not significantly affect wildlife. Furthermore, as stated in 

43 the GEIS, big game are highly mobile species that would likely travel to suitable habitat near the 

44 proposed project area during the construction phase (NRC, 2009). The mitigation measures 

45 previously described that the applicant has committed to would reduce the impacts on big game 

46 to be SMALL. 
4-55 

1 Small and Medium-sized Mammals 

2 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.2, a variety of small- and medium-sized mammals 

3 could potentially be present within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. These include a 

4 variety of predators and furbearers, such as coyote, red fox, raccoon, bobcat, badger, beaver, 

5 and muskrat. Prey species observed during the applicant’s field surveys included badgers, 

6 muskrat, jackrabbits, and cottontails. These species are cyclically common and widespread 

7 throughout the region and are important food sources for raptors and other predators such as 

8 foxes. Bats are unique small mammals in that they fly and are discussed later in this section. 

9 As previously stated, habitat related disturbances, increased traffic, and human encounters, 

10 would affect wildlife the most from construction related activities. The following paragraphs 

11 address specific construction impact considerations for small and medium-sized mammals. As 

12 discussed previously for big game, small- to medium-sized mammals (e.g., coyotes, foxes) 

13 could be temporarily displaced to other habitats during construction activities. However, direct 

14 mortalities could be higher for smaller mammal species (e.g., voles, ground squirrels, mice) than 

15 for other wildlife because of the likelihood they would retreat into burrows if disturbed and thus 

16 potentially be killed by vehicles, topsoil scraping, or staging activities. Small- and medium-sized 

17 mammal species do have higher reproductive potential than large wildlife species that require 

18 large home ranges and occur in lower densities (i.e., large mammals) thereby making smaller 

19 species less vulnerable to habitat loss (BLM, 2009). However, the NRC staff anticipate that the 

20 proposed project area will not be uninhabitable when construction ends, and some animals may 

21 return to their previously occupied habitats (NRC, 2009). 

22 As previously described, the applicant has committed to revegetating disturbed areas, driving on 

23 existing and proposed roads, and adhering to mandated spill recovery procedures. These 

24 measures would reduce potential impacts on small- and medium-sized mammals. Because 

25 small- and medium-sized mammals repopulate quickly and require smaller habitats, 

26 construction activities are not expected to significantly affect these species’ populations within 

27 the proposed project area. A smaller percentage of small- and medium-sized mammals 

28 compared to big game species are likely to move to suitable habitat near the proposed 

29 Reno Creek ISR Project area during construction. However, the NRC staff expect that the area 

30 will not be uninhabitable when construction ends; therefore, the potential impact to small and 

31 medium-sized mammals from construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be 

32 SMALL. Potential construction impacts to specific ESA and FWS species of concern, such as 

33 black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) are discussed later in this section. 

34 Bats 

35 Although, as explained in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.2, the applicant did not conduct bat surveys 

36 as part of the baseline wildlife surveys, habitat within the proposed project area is favorable for 

37 bats. No bats were observed during the applicant’s baseline wildlife surveys; however, these 

38 species may be easily overlooked because they are not usually observed during daytime survey 

39 methods, which is when the applicant conducted baseline wildlife surveys for the proposed 

40 project area. Bats often roost in deep crevices or under bridges and culverts, which are also 

41 difficult to survey. These species may be attracted to the applicant’s proposed storage ponds 

42 and structures. 

43 As previously stated, most effects to wildlife from construction related activities would be from 

44 habitat-related disturbances, increased traffic, and human encounters. Specific construction 
4-56 

1 impact considerations for bats include the potential for direct effects from loss and modification 

2 of habitat and increased mortality from decreased water quality (WGFD, 2005a). Habitat loss 

3 could occur from construction activities in areas near rocky outcrops where bats could be 

4 present. Negative effects on water quality could occur from construction activities along 

5 drainages and either artificial or natural stream beds or wetlands. Applicant commitments 

6 previously described for the phased construction approach and revegetation would limit the loss 

7 of bat habitat. In addition, the applicant’s commitment to use existing roads where possible 

8 would reduce the possibility of disturbing ground-level bat habitat. Because bats are highly 

9 mobile animals, construction activities are not expected to significantly affect bat populations 

10 within the proposed project area. Consistent with the GEIS findings, the NRC staff anticipate 

11 that some individual animals would likely move to suitable habitat near the proposed 

12 Reno Creek ISR Project area during construction and that the proposed project area would be 

13 habitable after construction ends (NRC, 2009). Therefore, the proposed project would have a 

14 SMALL impact on bats. Potential construction impacts to the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

15 septentrionalis) are further discussed later in this section. 

16 Raptors 

17 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.3, the applicant reported several raptor species 

18 observed during baseline wildlife surveys including golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), 

19 ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo 

20 swainsoni), and northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). Ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, and 

21 red-tailed hawk are the only raptor species that have been reported to nest within the proposed 

22 project area (BLM, 2014; AUC, 2012a), and individual ferruginous hawks were occasionally 

23 observed soaring and foraging during baseline wildlife surveys (AUC, 2012a). Raptor species 

24 of concern in Campbell County that could occur at the proposed project area are listed in draft 

25 SEIS Table 3-15. Draft SEIS Figure 4-2 depicts the raptor nests in relation to construction 

26 activities planned for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. As shown in draft SEIS 

27 Figure 4-2, two inactive ferruginous hawk nests are located within the proposed project area 

28 close {less than 0.2 km [0.12 mi]} to proposed secondary and tertiary roads associated with two 

29 of the production wellfields. BLM reported in 2013 that the condition of these two nests were 

30 fair and poor (BLM, 2014). 

31 As previously stated, most impacts to wildlife would be from habitat-related disturbances as a 

32 result of construction related activities, increased traffic, and human encounters. Potential 

33 impacts to raptors from the construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project include 

34 indirect effects such as nest desertions or reproductive failure as a result of increased presence 

35 of humans and noise from traffic and construction activities; and temporary reductions in prey 

36 populations. Some raptors may continue to use nests as they acclimate to the proposed project 

37 construction activities and could return to inactive nests within the proposed project area. Direct 

38 effects could include destruction of nests and deaths from collisions with traffic and equipment. 

39 Presence and construction of power lines may also result in direct and indirect effects. Avian 

40 collision and electrocution with overhead power lines, a direct effect, could occur year-round 

41 throughout the life of the proposed project. Indirect effects from overhead power lines on 

42 raptors could include nesting disruption and displacement of prey species, which may reduce 

43 food availability within the area. The NRC staff anticipate that these indirect effects to raptors 

44 from overhead power lines would affect a broader group of avian and mammal species than 

45 collisions or electrocutions of avian species alone. 
4-57 

Figure 4-2. Map of Raptor Nest and Sage-Grouse Lek Locations and Proposed Facilities in the Proposed 

Reno Creek ISR Project Area. Sources: AUC, 2014a; BLM, 2014 
4-58 

1 Although the ferruginous hawk nests surveyed in the proposed project area are reported as 

2 inactive, ferruginous hawks infrequently build new nests and prefer to repair and reuse old nests 

3 (Neal, 2010). Ferruginous hawks may also return to their previous nesting territory even though 

4 their previously used nests have been removed or destroyed (Neal, 2010). Effects from 

5 construction activities on individual ferruginous hawks would be lower in the proposed project 

6 area compared to a higher potential if the nests were active. However, should construction 

7 affect any raptor species constructing a nest or returning to an inactive nest during its respective 

8 breeding season, direct and indirect impacts could occur. 

9 The applicant has been in routine contact with WGFD regarding avian mitigation measures and 

10 has committed to prepare a detailed preoperational plan that reflects mitigation measures 

11 outlined by the WGFD for oil and gas development (AUC, 2014b). The applicant has also 

12 committed to conduct annual raptor nest surveys during the breeding season (AUC, 2012a). 

13 The WDEQ describes the necessary measures an applicant must take to obtain a permit to 

14 mine, including consulting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) if mine activities could 

15 potentially affect the nest of any raptor species (WDEQ, 1994). The applicant has committed to 

16 acquire appropriate permits and provide mitigations in accordance with FWS requirements if an 

17 active raptor nest needs to be disturbed (AUC, 2012a). The applicant has committed to 

18 mitigation measures to limit noise and vehicular traffic (AUC, 2012a) during the construction 

19 phase of the proposed project, which will limit potential impacts for all birds. The applicant has 

20 committed to use existing power line infrastructure where possible to minimize the construction 

21 of new overhead power lines (AUC, 2014a). In addition, the applicant has committed to 

22 mitigation measures to follow guidelines suggested by the Avian Power Line Interaction 

23 Committee (APLIC, 2006), which would reduce overall impacts to all birds, including raptors 

24 (AUC, 2014a). For example, constructing new overhead power lines and retrofitting old power 

25 lines with a 150-cm (60-in) distance between energized conductors or hardware and grounded 

26 conductors or hardware limits the risk for birds to be electrocuted (APLIC, 2006). 

27 The applicant’s planned facilities for the proposed project (draft SEIS Figure 4-2) show that 

28 the small stand of trees located just north of Highway 387, where an active red-tailed 

29 hawk/Swainson’s hawk nest is located, is not within 0.4 km [0.25 mi] of proposed construction 

30 activities. Therefore, NRC does not expect this active nest to be directly affected by 

31 construction activities. Removal of any active migratory bird nest or removal of any structure 

32 that contains an active nest (e.g., a tree, fence post, or power line pole) is prohibited by law 

33 (FWS, 2015a). In addition, nest manipulation is not allowed without a permit (FWS, 2015a). 

34 Also, all native migratory birds, their feathers and body parts, nests, eggs, and nestling birds are 

35 protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), making it unlawful to, hunt, shoot, 

36 wound, kill, trap, capture, or sell birds listed under this convention. All the bird species observed 

37 during baseline wildlife surveys for the proposed project area are protected under the MBTA 

38 (AUC, 2012a; 70 FR 12710). Eagles are additionally protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle 

39 Protection Act (BGEPA) (FWS, 2015a). The applicant would be responsible for complying with 

40 these acts during all phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, limiting potential effects 

41 on birds from the proposed project. 

42 Based on the applicant’s commitment to conduct annual raptor nest monitoring and implement 

43 the mitigation measures previously described, and the applicant’s obligation to follow state and 

44 federal laws if raptor nests would be directly affected, the NRC staff conclude that the potential 

45 impact to raptor species during the construction phase of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

46 would be SMALL.
4-59 

1 The applicant could further reduce effects on raptors from construction by following FWS 

2 recommendations that construction of surface facilities, including roads, should not occur within 

3 the spatial/seasonal buffer of any nest (occupied or unoccupied) when raptors are in the 

4 process of courtship and nest site selection (FWS, 2015a,b). Buffer recommendations may be 

5 modified on a site-specific or project-specific basis by consulting with the FWS Wyoming 

6 Ecological Services office and the WGFD (AUC, 2012a). The FWS- and WGFD-recommended 

7 disturbance-free dates and spatial buffers to protect raptors and songbirds are provided in draft 

8 SEIS Table 4-7. FWS recommendations do not supersede WGFD disturbance-free dates and 

9 buffer zones if WGFD dates and zones are more restrictive (FWS, 2015b). These 

10 recommendations may be included in the previously discussed preoperational plan that the 

11 applicant has committed to develop to further reduce potential effects on other birds during the 

12 construction phase. Specifically, for the raptor nests located within the proposed project area 

13 and 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer, FWS recommends that no surface disturbances should occur within 

14 0.4 km [0.25 mi] of an occupied or unoccupied red-tailed hawk nest or a Swainson’s hawk nest 

15 during its breeding season (FWS, 2015a,b). The FWS-recommended timing buffer for a 

16 red-tailed hawk nest is from February 1 through August 15, and from April 1 through August 31 

17 for a Swainson’s hawk nest (FWS, 2015a,b). WGFD does not have a recommended timing and 

18 spatial buffer for the red-tailed hawk. WGFD and FWS recommend that no surface 

19 disturbances should occur within 1.6 km [1 mi] of occupied or unoccupied ferruginous hawk 

20 nests during its breeding season (WGFD, 2014; FWS, 2015a,b). FWS’s recommended timing 

21 buffer is March 15 through July 31 (FWS, 2015a), and WGFD’s recommended timing buffer is 

22 from April 1 through July 31 (WGFD, 2014). Should the applicant choose to follow these 

23 additional WGFD and FWS recommended mitigations, effects on raptors would be reduced and 

24 the potential impacts to raptors would remain SMALL. 

Table 4-7. FWS and WGFD Recommended Seasonal Wildlife Timing and 

Spatial Buffers 

Species 

(Common Name) 

FWS Timing 

Buffer Dates 

FWS Spatial 

Buffer Zone 

WGFD Timing 

Buffer Dates 

WGFD Spatial 

Buffer Zone 

Raptors Kilometers Kilometers 

 [Miles] [Miles] 

Bald Eagle January 1 –

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

February 15 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

Ferruginous Hawk* March 15 – 

July 31 

1.6 

[1] 

April 1 – 

July 31 

1.6 

[1] 

Golden Eagle January 15 –

July 31 

0.8 

[0.5] 

February 1 – 

July 31 

0.8 

[0.5] 

Merlin April 1 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

April 1 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

Northern Goshawk April 1 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

April 1 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

Peregrine Falcon March 1 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

March 15 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

Prairie Falcon March 1 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

March 1 – 

August 15 

0.8 

[0.5] 

Swainson’s Hawk* April 1 – 

August 31 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Red-tailed Hawk* February 1 – 

August 15 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

 
4-60 

Table 4-7. FWS and WGFD Recommended Seasonal Wildlife Timing and 

Spatial Buffers (Continued) 

Species 

(Common Name) 

FWS Timing 

Buffer Dates 

FWS Spatial 

Buffer Zone 

WGFD Timing 

Buffer Dates 

WGFD Spatial 

Buffer Zone 

Short-eared Owl March 15 – 

August 1 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Burrowing Owl April 1 – 

September 15 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Osprey April 1 – 

August 31 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Cooper’s Hawk March 15 – 

August 31 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Sharp-shinned Hawk March 15 – 

August 31 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Northern Harrier April 1 – 

August 15 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Merlin April 1 – 

August 31 

0.8 

[0.5] None None 

American Kestrel April 1 – 

August 31 

0.2 

[0.125] None None 

Common Barn Owl February 1 – 

September 15 

0.2 

[0.125] None None 

Northern Saw-whet Owl March 1 – 

August 31 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Boreal Owl February 1 – 

July 31 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Long-eared Owl February 1 – 

August 15 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Great Horned Owl December 1 – 

September 30 

0.2 

[0.125] None None 

Northern Pygmy-Owl April 1 – 

August 1 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Eastern Screech-Owl March 1 – 

August 15 

0.2 

[0.125] None None 

Western Screech-Owl March 1 – 

August 15 

0.2 

[0.125] None None 

Great Gray Owl March 15 – 

August 31 

0.4 

[0.25] None None 

Other Meters [Feet] 

Songbirds 

None None 

April 1 – 

August 31 

91 m 

[300 ft] 

Great Blue Heron 

None None 

February 15 – 

August 7 

251 m land/154 

m water 

[825 ft land/500 

ft water] 

*Species nests (active and inactive) previously observed in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area 

Sources: FWS, 2015a,b; WGFD, 2014 
4-61 

1 Upland Game Birds 

2 The only upland game birds observed during the wildlife surveys for the proposed Reno Creek 

3 ISR Project are the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

4 urophasianus). As stated in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.3, gray partridge (Perdix perdix) could 

5 potentially occur within the proposed project area but were not observed during the baseline 

6 wildlife surveys. Grey partridge populations appear relatively stable in the region, although 

7 populations do fluctuate as a result of naturally occurring phenomena, such as drought, fire, and 

8 floods (BLM, 2013). Mourning doves are a common bird in Wyoming and can be found across 

9 fields to woodlands and residential areas. Essentially all of the State of Wyoming provides 

10 habitat that supports mourning doves, including the proposed project area and immediate area 

11 that surrounds the proposed project area. 

12 Draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.3 explains that three occupied Greater sage-grouse leks are located 

13 between 1.6 and 6.4 km [1 and 4 mi] east and southeast of the proposed project area 

14 (AUC, 2012a; BLM, 2015). The Porcupine Creek lek, located east of the northeast corner of the 

15 proposed project boundary, is within 3.2 km [2 mi] of proposed Reno Creek production wellfields 

16 and a deep disposal well location (see draft SEIS Figure 4-2). In addition, the eastern and 

17 southeastern portion of the proposed project area is identified as a WGFD Crucial Habitat 

18 Priority Area and an Enhancement Habitat Priority Area for the sagebrush/mixed grassland 

19 habitat within Greater sage-grouse complexes. As previously stated in draft SEIS 3.6.1.2.1, 

20 approximately 1,913.87 ha [4,729.27 ac], or 78 percent, of the proposed project area is covered 

21 by the big sagebrush shrubland vegetative community (AUC, 2012a). Approximately 31 percent 

22 of the big sagebrush shrubland vegetative community is composed of big sagebrush (Artemisia 

23 tridentata) (AUC, 2012a). However, the proposed project area and the location of the three 

24 sage-grouse leks are not within Greater sage-grouse core population areas (WGFD, 2011). 

25 This means that although the proposed project area contains nesting and winter habitat for 

26 sage-grouse, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is not identified as necessary to 

27 maintain sage-grouse populations (WGFD, 2010). 

28 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.1, the eastern portion of the proposed project area 

29 and 1.6 km [1 mi] buffer is identified as a WGFD Crucial Habitat Priority Area and Enhancement 

30 Habitat Priority Area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-26), which are habitats that WGFD considers 

31 important to maintain or enhance. This habitat would be disturbed during construction activities; 

32 therefore, some upland game birds will be displaced and some upland game bird habitat loss 

33 would occur. Potential direct and indirect effects described previously in this section for raptors 

34 would be similar to potential impacts to upland game birds. The applicant has committed to 

35 (i) reseed disturbed areas as soon as reasonably possible to establish vegetative cover 

36 (AUC, 2012a); (ii) using only existing and proposed roads in the proposed project area 

37 (AUC, 2012a); (iii) constructing new roads, power lines, and pipelines in the same corridors 

38 where possible to reduce overall disturbance and minimize new surface disturbance 

39 (AUC, 2012a); and (iv) conducting annual spring monitoring of the Porcupine Creek Greater 

40 sage-grouse lek, in coordination with the WGFD biologist in Gillette, Wyoming (AUC, 2014a). 

41 All lands disturbed by proposed construction activities would be revegetated following WDEQ 

42 reclamation requirements as soon as possible (AUC, 2012a), which would restore the habitat 

43 loss experienced from proposed construction activities. This is especially important in 

44 sagebrush plant communities to mitigate potential adverse effects on sagebrush-obligate 

45 species such as sage-grouse (FWS, 2013). In addition, the applicant has committed to 

46 mitigation measures designed to limit noise and vehicular traffic (AUC, 2014a) during the 

47 construction phase of the proposed project, which would limit potential impacts for all birds. The 
4-62 

1 applicant also has committed to mitigation measures to follow guidelines suggested by the 

2 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC, 2006), which would reduce overall impacts to 

3 upland game birds. 

4 As previously stated, all of the bird species observed during baseline wildlife surveys for the 

5 proposed project are protected under the MBTA (AUC, 2012a; 70 FR 12710). The applicant 

6 would be responsible for complying with the MBTA to limit potential effects on birds from 

7 proposed project activities. Due to the proposed phased construction approach, a 

8 noncontiguous area of habitat for migratory birds would be disturbed {54.28 ha [134.14 ac]} 

9 within the proposed project area, or 2.2 percent of the entire project area at any one time. 

10 Because of the applicant’s commitment to implement monitoring and mitigation measures, 

11 reseed disturbed areas as soon as reasonably possible to establish vegetative cover, and the 

12 applicant’s obligation to follow state and federal laws, the NRC staff conclude that potential 

13 impacts to upland game birds during the construction phase of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

14 project would be SMALL. 

15 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, the State of Wyoming has set forth protective 

16 stipulations for Greater sage-grouse both inside and outside core population areas. Projects 

17 located within 3.2 km [2 mi] of an occupied lek outside core population areas are expected to 

18 follow the Wyoming recommendations for avoiding and minimizing impacts. This means that 

19 surface-disturbing or disruptive activities, or a combination of both, should not occur from 

20 March 15 through June 30 within 3.2 km [2 mi] of an active lek to protect breeding activities. 

21 WGFD has informed the applicant that WDEQ expects “sage-grouse non-core area stipulations 

22 and recommendations to be abided by” (AUC, 2014a). Should the applicant choose to follow 

23 these additional Wyoming recommended mitigations, effects to Greater sage-grouse could be 

24 reduced to ensure that the potential impacts to Greater sage-grouse remain SMALL. 

25 Nongame and Migratory Birds, Waterfowl, and Shorebirds 

26 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.3, nine waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetland 

27 birds were observed during the wildlife surveys, including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), 

28 Northern pintail (Anas acuta), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), American wigeon (Anas 

29 Americana), Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), eared grebe (Podiceps nigricollis), bank 

30 swallow (Riparia riparia), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and Wilson’s phalarope 

31 (Steganopus tricolor). In northeastern Wyoming, mallard, Northern pintail, green-winged teal, 

32 American wigeon, and Northern shoveler are FWS birds of management concern (FWS, 2011). 

33 The Northern pintail is also a WGFD Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). 

34 Mallards, Northern pintails, green-winged teals, American wigeons, and Northern shovelers are 

35 duck species that arrive in Wyoming to nest in March and April. Although these birds may feed 

36 and nest in upland areas with plant stubble or in fields, open shallow water is necessary for 

37 these birds to complete their life cycle (WGFD, 1994). Eared grebes are diving birds that breed 

38 in shallow waters. Open water serves as a temporary stopover area for water fowl and 

39 shorebirds during spring and fall migration, nesting in the spring, and brood rearing in the 

40 summer (WGFD, 1994). 

41 Thirteen avian species associated with grasslands and shrub-steppe habitats occur within the 

42 proposed project area and the 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer (AUC, 2012a) (draft SEIS Table 3-14). 

43 Species of concern, including avian SGCN listed on draft SEIS Table 3-15, could also be 

44 present within the proposed project area during the construction phase. Although breeding bird 

45 surveys were not conducted for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, based on observations 
4-63 

1 during the baseline wildlife surveys, three species [Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), lark 

2 bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys), and vesper sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus)] were 

3 assumed to be breeding within the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). Migrating shorebirds 

4 that could occur at the proposed project area such as the Wilson’s phalorpe, bank swallows, 

5 and red-winged black birds depend on wetland environments along rivers and streams for food 

6 and nesting (WGFD, 2010). The long-billed curlew is the only BLM-sensitive species and FWS 

7 bird of conservation concern found in Campbell County that could also occur at the proposed 

8 project area (draft SEIS Table 3-15). 

9 Vegetation clearing, road construction, noise, and increased human and equipment activity 

10 associated with construction activities adversely impact waterfowl and shorebirds (WGFD, 

11 2010). In addition, disruption of water features, loss of wetlands, construction of surface 

12 impoundments for waste management, and installation of aboveground power lines could 

13 indirectly impact waterfowl in the proposed project area. Approximately 13.27 ha [32.81 ac] of 

14 the total 17.12 ha [42.23 ac], or 77.7 percent, of wetlands located within the proposed project 

15 area are designated as temporarily flooded or seasonally flooded (AUC, 2012a) isolated 

16 pockets of surface water due to precipitation events and intermittent discharge from CBM 

17 outfalls. After flooding ceases, the water table usually lies well below the soil surface for most of 

18 the growing season, significantly limiting surface water and available habitat for waterfowl. 

19 As previously stated, the applicant has committed to mitigation measures that would limit 

20 potential impacts for all birds, such as following guidelines suggested by the Avian Power Line 

21 Interaction Committee. In addition, the applicant has committed to avoiding sensitive areas, 

22 such as wetlands, during access road construction and using BMPs in the occurrence of stream 

23 channel crossings, which would limit potential impacts to waterfowl and shorebirds (AUC, 

24 2012a). In addition, the applicant is responsible for complying with the MBTA to limit potential 

25 effects on birds from the proposed project. Because the temporary presence of surface water at 

26 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area provides relatively little habitat to support large 

27 groups of waterfowl or shorebirds, the NRC staff anticipate fewer direct effects to avian species 

28 from construction activities such as vehicle collisions and nest destruction compared to a higher 

29 potential for indirect impacts such as effects from noise and habitat alteration. Potential impacts 

30 on waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetland birds are likely to be minimal during construction for 

31 the proposed project considering the limited amount of wetland habitat within the proposed 

32 project area and the applicant’s commitment to avoid such areas. Likewise, the phased 

33 approach would limit the effects on migratory avian species, reducing the amount of surface 

34 area disturbed at any one time. The NRC staff anticipate that the proposed project would not 

35 influence migratory movement patterns, because most bird species are able to leave the area. 

36 Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that impacts on nongame and migratory birds, waterfowl, and 

37 shorebird populations from proposed construction activities for the proposed project would 

38 therefore be SMALL. 

39 BLM’s interim guidance for migratory birds (BLM, 2012) recommends that pre-disturbance 

40 clearances are conducted within 7 days prior to the disturbance in order to detect any newly 

41 arriving nesting birds. If active nests with eggs or young are located within the proposed project 

42 area, the applicant should establish buffers around those nests, construction activities should be 

43 delayed until all young have fledged, and the applicant should consult with the FWS. Buffer 

44 distances for bird species should be developed in coordination with FWS to determine 

45 appropriate mitigations. However, the WGFD determined that annual monitoring protocols 

46 provided by the applicant in the WDEQ large-mine application are adequate (AUC, 2014a). 

47 Should the applicant choose to follow these additional recommended mitigations, the overall 
4-64 

1 effects would be reduced and potential impacts to nongame, migratory birds, waterfowl, and 

2 shorebirds would remain SMALL. 

3 Reptiles and Amphibians 

4 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.4, the applicant reported that a single short-horned 

5 lizard and chorus frog were the only reptile and amphibian, respectively, observed during 

6 baseline wildlife surveys (AUC, 2012a). Although baseline wildlife surveys targeting reptiles and 

7 amphibians were not required by WDEQ or conducted, there is suitable habitat within the 

8 proposed project area to support a variety of reptiles and amphibians, including CBM discharge 

9 reservoirs, scattered stock ponds, riparian areas, wetlands, and rocky outcrops. 

10 Potential impacts to reptiles and amphibians from construction activities at the proposed 

11 Reno Creek ISR Project would primarily result in the mortality of individual reptiles and 

12 amphibians, destruction of habitat, degradation of water quality from surface-disturbing activities 

13 that cause erosion, and exposure to accidental spills. Construction of wellfields could result in 

14 direct mortalities to basking reptiles and amphibians, and to reptiles that spend the winter 

15 underground in rocky outcrops and crevices. The construction of proposed secondary and 

16 tertiary roads, header houses, monitoring wells, and trunklines that cross wetlands and potential 

17 riparian areas would occur primarily in the western half of the proposed project area. The 

18 mapped wetlands in relation to the proposed disturbed areas are provided in draft SEIS 

19 Figure 4-3. 

20 The applicant stated that the amount of wetlands located within the proposed project area that 

21 would be disturbed by the proposed project totals approximately 1.6 ha [3.9 ac], or 9.2 percent 

22 of the total wetlands located within the proposed project area (AUC, 2014a). All jurisdictional 

23 wetland disturbances would be mitigated in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

24 (USACE) requirements found in the USACE permit under the Clean Water Act. The applicant 

25 has committed to avoiding sensitive areas such as wetlands during access road construction 

26 and using temporary sediment-control features, such as silt fencing or straw bales, in the 

27 occurrence of stream channel crossings to prevent indirect impacts due to erosion and habitat 

28 destruction (AUC, 2012a). The applicant would ensure that employees use only existing and 

29 proposed roads in the project area, which would minimize surface disturbance and erosion 

30 (AUC, 2012a). The applicant would also use common corridors while locating access roads, 

31 pipeline, and utilities, and will minimize secondary and tertiary access road widths as practicable 

32 (AUC, 2012a). Accidental surface spills from drilling fluids, muds from well drilling, and 

33 lubricants and hydrocarbons from equipment and refueling during construction could temporarily 

34 affect the immediate area of the spill until spill response and cleanup activities are completed. 

35 The applicant committed to implementing a spill prevention and cleanup plan prior to initiating 

36 construction activities (AUC, 2012a,b), which would ensure that accidental spills during 

37 construction do not significantly affect wildlife or riparian areas. The applicant stated that topsoil 

38 stockpiles and as much as practicable of the disturbed areas will be seeded as soon as 

39 reasonably possible to establish vegetative cover to minimize wind and water erosion (AUC, 

40 2012a). If active revegetation measures are used with WDEQ-approved seed mixtures, NRC 

41 staff expect that rapid colonization by annual and perennial herbaceous species in the disturbed 

42 staging areas and rights-of-way would restore most vegetative cover within the first growing 

43 season (NRC, 2009). In addition, consistent with conclusions made in the GEIS, the NRC staff 

44 expect that the proposed project area would be habitable after construction ends (NRC, 2009). 
4-65 

Figure 4-3. Map of Wetland Locations in the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area and Proposed Facilities 

(AUC, 2014b) 
4-66 

1 Impacts on reptiles and amphibians are likely to be minimal during construction for the proposed 

2 project considering the limited impacts on riparian zones within the proposed project area, the 

3 applicant’s commitment to use of erosion-control measures, implement a spill prevention and 

4 cleanup plan, and reseed disturbed areas and topsoil stockpiles. Therefore, potential erosion 

5 and siltation impacts to reptiles and amphibians would be localized and temporary (e.g., during 

6 storm events or when snow melts). Given the mitigation measures the applicant has committed 

7 to and the limited amount of wetlands and potential riparian areas that would be disturbed 

8 {1.6 ha [3.9 ac] of wetlands}, the NRC staff expect no major changes or reductions in reptile or 

9 amphibian populations. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that impacts to reptiles and amphibians 

10 from construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL.

11 To further minimize impacts to riparian areas where amphibians are concentrated, WGFD staff 

12 recommend that equipment should be serviced and fueled away from streams and riparian 

13 areas, and that equipment staging areas should be at least 91 m [300 ft] from riparian areas 

14 (AUC, 2014a). In addition, the applicant could enforce seasonal closure of roads if reptile and 

15 amphibian mortalities are observed on the roads during the breeding season when young are 

16 emerging from breeding areas. These additional recommended mitigation measures would 

17 ensure that potential impacts to reptiles and amphibians from construction of the proposed 

18 Reno Creek ISR Project would remain SMALL. 

19 Aquatic Species 

20 Because of the limited and ephemeral nature of surface water within the proposed project area, 

21 the occurrence of aquatic species is also limited. Additional information on surface water at the 

22 proposed project area is provided in draft SEIS Section 3.5.1.1. As stated in draft SEIS 

23 Section 3.6.2, CBM discharge reservoirs, scattered stock ponds, and wetlands and ponds found 

24 in the proposed project area that are seasonal in nature do not provide sufficiently deep water 

25 habitat for fish. In addition, there is no year-round source of surface water sufficient to maintain 

26 aquatic plant species. However, potential impacts to the limited aquatic and semiaquatic 

27 species (e.g. tadpoles, algae, or insect larvae) at the proposed project site would occur primarily 

28 along drainages and scattered stock ponds. Direct impacts to potential aquatic habitat would be 

29 limited to periods of stream channel disturbances and wetland encroachment during 

30 construction activities. Construction activities have the potential to result in minor spills of 

31 drilling fluids, muds from drilling, and fuels and lubricants from heavy equipment operation and 

32 refueling. As previously described in this section, the applicant has committed to mitigation 

33 measures, including using temporary sediment-control features during construction, until 

34 vegetation can be reestablished and implementing a spill prevention and cleanup plan that 

35 would limit direct impacts from stream disturbances and spills. WDEQ regulations require that 

36 the applicant follow provisions in a WYPDES permit that would address stormwater drainage 

37 impacts from erosion and sedimentation during construction activities (AUC, 2012b).

38 As stated in draft SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1, the NRC staff expect planned construction activities 

39 for the proposed project would have a SMALL impact on surface water. Because there is 

40 insufficient deep water habitat to support aquatic species and the applicant committed to 

41 implementing mitigation measures that would limit effects from construction on drainages, the 

42 NRC staff conclude that potential impacts to aquatic species and habitats would be SMALL. 

43 Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that potential impacts to aquatic species and habitats from 

44 the construction phase for the proposed project would be SMALL. 
4-67 

1 WGFD provided the following additional recommendations in its comments on AUC’s large mine 

2 permit application that, if the applicant followed, would further minimize impacts to aquatic 

3 resources of the Belle Fourche River (AUC, 2014a): (i) equipment should be serviced and 

4 fueled away from streams and riparian areas, (ii) equipment staging areas should be at least 

5 91 m [300 ft] from riparian areas, and (iii) the spread of aquatic invasive species should be 

6 prevented. Based on the applicant’s implementation of these recommendations the potential 

7 impacts on aquatic species and habitat remain SMALL. 

8 Protected Species and Species of Concern 

9 Wildlife surveys for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project have not identified federally listed 

10 threatened or endangered species within the proposed project area or the 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer 

11 area around the proposed project area (AUC, 2012). The NRC staff initially requested 

12 information for federally listed species on October 17, 2013 (NRC, 2013); the FWS provided an 

13 initial response in March 2015 (FWS, 2015b). The NRC staff obtained an updated species list 

14 from the FWS Information Planning and Conservation (IPaC) website in February 2016 

15 (FWS, 2016a). FWS staff identified one federally threatened plant species, the Ute ladies’ 

16 tresses, or its recognized habitat, and one threatened mammal species, the Northern 

17 long-eared bat (NLEB), that could occur in the proposed project area. The FWS (2015a) also 

18 identified Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii), a federal candidate species, that could occur in the 

19 proposed project area because of its historical use of the north central and northwest portions of 

20 Wyoming. However, as explained in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, this species is rare in Wyoming 

21 and was not observed during the applicant’s baseline wildlife surveys. Therefore, NRC staff do 

22 not expect Sprague’s pipit to occur in the proposed project area and, thus, the proposed project 

23 would not affect this species. The affected environment of these species was previously 

24 discussed in this draft SEIS Section 3.6.3. 

25 Potential direct impacts from proposed construction activities on the federally threatened Ute 

26 ladies’ tresses could include removal of individual plants by land surface-clearing activities, 

27 burial by soil stockpiles or construction materials, or destruction by being run over by equipment 

28 or vehicles. Potential indirect impacts to the Ute ladies’ tresses could occur from the 

29 modification of vegetation structure, species composition, and areal extent of vegetation cover 

30 types within the proposed project area. Indirect impacts could include short-term and long-term 

31 increased potential for nonnative species expansion that would overrun the Ute ladies’ tresses. 

32 As explained in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, although undocumented populations may be present 

33 in southern Campbell County (BLM, 2015), this species has not been observed in Campbell 

34 County (Heidel, 2007), was not observed during baseline wildlife surveys, and is not known to 

35 occur within the proposed project area (WGFD, 2010; AUC, 2012a; Heidel, 2012). Therefore, 

36 construction activities from the proposed project would not affect Ute ladies’ tresses. 

37 Potential direct impacts from proposed construction activities on the federally threatened NLEB 

38 include mortality or disturbance during roosting or hibernation. Potential indirect impacts include 

39 loss of habitat and exposure to chemicals or solutions from accidental spills during proposed 

40 construction activities. Based on the NRC staff’s review of the applicant’s proposed activities, 

41 the NRC staff conclude that the proposed project is not likely to disturb the small stand of trees 

42 located within the proposed project area because no planned activities are identified within 

43 0.8 km [0.5 mi] of the tree stand. In addition, the sequenced, noncontiguous (phased) 

44 development of production units would limit the amount of land undergoing development at any 

45 one time and thus reduce the potential for disturbing or injuring bats that may be present in 

46 underground voids. As stated in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, the greatest threat to NLEB is 
4-68 

1 white-nose syndrome (FWS, 2016b). The state of Wyoming, including the proposed project 

2 area, is not located within the white-nose syndrome zone. FWS has finalized a special rule 

3 under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that does not prohibit incidental take 

4 (i.e., harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing or 

5 collection) of NLEB during otherwise lawful activities in areas not yet affected by white-nose 

6 syndrome (FWS, 2016b); however, all of Wyoming’s bats are protected from intentional take 

7 (WGFD, 2005). Therefore, construction activities from the proposed project would not result in 

8 unacceptable takes of bats, and thus there would be no effect on the NLEB under Section 7 of 

9 the ESA. 

10 Five FWS avian species of conservation concern and FWS management concern [ferruginous 

11 hawk, Swainson’s hawk, Brewer's sparrow (Spizella breweri), McCown's longspur (Calcarius 

12 mccownii), and sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus)], and one species of FWS management 

13 concern [Northern pintail (Anas acuta)] were observed during the applicant’s wildlife surveys 

14 within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (see draft SEIS Table 3-15). Potential 

15 impacts to these species would be no different than those previously explained in other sections 

16 for similar species (raptors and nongame and migratory birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds). As 

17 discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, FWS species of concern that could potentially occur 

18 within the proposed project area include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), black-tailed 

19 prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), and mountain plover (Charadrius montanus). As described 

20 in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, bald eagles were not observed during baseline wildlife surveys, and 

21 the nearest bald eagle nest is more than 14.5 km [9 mi] from the proposed project area; 

22 therefore, NRC staff does not expect bald eagles to occur within the proposed project area. As 

23 also described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, no black-tailed prairie dogs or their colonies or 

24 mountain plover were observed within the proposed project area. However, black-tailed prairie 

25 dog colonies are located between 0.8 and 4.8 km [1 and 3 mi] away from the proposed project 

26 area (BLM, 2015a). Black-tailed prairie dog colonies provide habitat for a number of species 

27 including mountain plover. Potential impacts to these species would be no different than those 

28 previously explained in other sections for similar species (small mammals and nongame and 

29 migratory birds, waterfowl, and shorebirds). These species discussed in this paragraph are not 

30 afforded protection under the ESA (see draft SEIS Section 3.6.3). As previously stated in this 

31 section, all birds that could potentially occur within the proposed project area are protected 

32 under the MBTA. Eagles are additionally protected by the BGEPA. 

33 As noted previously in this section, the applicant has committed to specific mitigation measures 

34 that would be implemented during the construction phase. These include the applicant 

35 reseeding disturbed areas, limiting noise and traffic, conducting annual raptor surveys, 

36 implementing measures to limit erosion and sedimentation, and implementing a spill prevention 

37 and cleanup plan, etc. Because the applicant would observe permit requirements and 

38 implement the appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to all ecology, the NRC 

39 staff conclude that the potential environmental impacts to ecology, including protected species 

40 and species of concern, during the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project construction would 

41 be SMALL. 

42 4.6.1.2 Operations Impacts 

43 As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.5.2, wildlife habitats could be altered by operations (fencing, 

44 traffic, and noise), and limited wildlife mortalities could occur due to conflicts between species 

45 habitat and operations. However, the GEIS also noted that WGFD specifies fencing 

46 construction techniques to minimize impediments to big game movement. As further indicated 
4-69 

1 in GEIS Section 4.3.5.2, temporary contamination or alteration of soils could occur from 

2 operational leaks and spills and possibly from transportation or land application of treated 

3 wastewater. However, detection and response to leaks and spills (e.g., soil cleanup) and 

4 eventual survey and decommissioning of all potentially impacted soil would limit the magnitude 

5 of impacts to terrestrial ecology. The implementation of spill detection and response plans 

6 would mitigate impacts to aquatic species from spills around well heads and from pipeline leaks. 

7 Mitigation measures, such as fencing constructed in accordance with WGFD recommendations, 

8 WDEQ rules and regulations concerning drilling, leak detection and spill response plans, and 

9 periodic wildlife surveys, would also limit the potential impact. Therefore, the NRC staff 

10 conclude in the GEIS that the impact to wildlife and vegetation would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

11 Terrestrial Species 

12 Vegetation 

13 Only minor effects to vegetative communities would occur during the operations phase due to 

14 clearing activities for staggered wellfield expansion. The potential for these effects to occur 

15 during operations is less than that during construction, due to smaller areas of land being 

16 disturbed. Invasive and noxious weeds could potentially colonize disturbed areas. In addition, 

17 material spills and failure of backup pond liners or embankment systems could also occur during 

18 the operations phase, which could kill vegetation exposed to the spilled material. The applicant 

19 has committed to revegetate disturbed areas and soil stockpiles with a WDEQ-approved seed 

20 mixture, which would prevent the establishment of competitive weeds and restore habitat to 

21 native species (AUC, 2012a). The backup storage pond would be designed in accordance with 

22 NRC and WDEQ regulations being either self-contained or would have a means of secondary 

23 containment, thus limiting the amount of material that could potentially affect vegetation 

24 (AUC, 2012b). In addition, the applicant stated that the CPP will be constructed with secondary 

25 containment structures (e.g., concrete berms and floor sumps) to stop fluids from spilling on the 

26 ground immediately around the CPP if a tank or process vessel fails (AUC, 2012). The 

27 applicant has also proposed to minimize vehicular access to specific roads to reduce damage to 

28 vegetation. Because a small amount of land would be disturbed during the proposed operations 

29 phase and because of the lower number of vehicles accessing the proposed project area, and 

30 because of the applicant’s commitment to mitigation measures, the potential impacts on 

31 vegetation would be SMALL during the operations phase of the proposed project. 

32 Wildlife 

33 The potential impacts to mammals, raptors, upland game birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

34 amphibians, and reptiles during operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be 

35 similar to or less than those described earlier for the construction phase because earthmoving 

36 activities and the amount of traffic would be limited compared to the construction phase. In 

37 addition, the potential for wildlife to access the surface impoundments would be minimized by 

38 the installation of fencing around the mud pits and the backup storage pond. Potential exposure 

39 of wildlife to the backup storage pond and temporary mud pit constituents, and the potential 

40 failure of pond liners or embankment systems, could potentially impact wildlife. Mammals, 

41 amphibians, bats, and birds, including hawks, owls, waterfowl, and songbirds, are attracted to 

42 storage ponds and mud pits by mistaking them for fresh bodies of water (FWS, 2009). Insects 

43 trapped in storage ponds and mud pits also attract songbirds, bats, amphibians, and small 

44 mammals. As discussed in other sections of this chapter, there will be less noise and less traffic 

45 during the operations phase of the proposed project compared to the construction phase; 
4-70 

1 therefore, the potential to disrupt wildlife populations would be reduced along with a decrease 

2 in the probability of vehicular collisions. Approximately 195 ha [481 ac], or approximately 

3 8 percent of the proposed project area, would be fenced to limit access to operations (i.e., the 

4 CPP, wellfields, the backup pond, and disposal wells) (AUC, 2012a). Thus, livestock 

5 grazing and recreational activities would be restricted from ISR surface facilities during the 

6 operations phase. 

7 As previously stated in this section for impacts from construction on ecological resources, the 

8 applicant has committed to mitigation measures that would also limit potential effects on wildlife 

9 during the operations phase. These mitigations include implementing speed limits, driving on 

10 existing roads, following spill response plans, minimizing vehicular access to specific roads, 

11 reseeding disturbed areas, limiting noise and traffic, conducting annual raptor surveys, taking 

12 measures to limit erosion and sedimentation, designing the backup storage pond to contain 

13 releases as much as possible if leaks occur, and following mandated spill response activities. 

14 The applicant has committed to restore and reclaim wellfields sequentially, as proposed 

15 operations are completed, which would limit potential impacts on grazing and recreational uses 

16 throughout the operational life of the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). The applicant also has 

17 committed to employing operational practices that include installing visual deterrents at the 

18 backup storage pond to startle or make the birds feel uncomfortable and otherwise prevent the 

19 birds from using the backup storage pond (AUC, 2014a). FWS recommends that immediate 

20 removal of the drilling fluids after well completion and restoring the area as soon as possible is 

21 the key to preventing wildlife mortality in temporary mud pits (FWS, 2009). The applicant has 

22 committed to reclaiming and restoring mud pits by backfilling and grading in accordance with 

23 WDEQ requirements (AUC, 2012a). Mud pits would be reseeded after construction of the wells 

24 is complete (AUC, 2012a). WDEQ has extensive experience in managing potential impacts 

25 from mud pits and storage ponds because they are a standard component of exploration for 

26 natural resources, and this experience would be reflected in the requirements included in the 

27 WDEQ Permit to Mine. The WDEQ guidelines for in situ mine operators include implementing a 

28 wildlife monitoring and mitigation plan as part of the mine operations plan (WDEQ, 2013b). 

29 WGFD (2004) and WDEQ (1994) also specify fencing construction techniques to minimize 

30 impediments to big game movement. 

31 The applicant described the expected chemical constituents and estimated concentrations in 

32 wastewater that would be stored in the backup storage pond (AUC, 2014a). The NRC staff 

33 evaluated the toxicity of the proposed wastewater solutions and the potential for planned 

34 wastewater management activities to impact wildlife. Selenium, in particular, is identified by the 

35 FWS as a constituent of concern in ISR wastewater because of low wildlife health effects 

36 thresholds in some sensitive species when compared with concentrations of selenium 

37 measured in ISR wastewater (FWS, 2007). The wildlife health effects thresholds described 

38 here refer to the concentration of a chemical in water that is known to cause health effects in 

39 wildlife based on scientific studies. The NRC staff also compared the applicant’s estimated 

40 wastewater concentrations (AUC, 2014b) with EPA’s chronic (long-term), exposure-based water 

41 quality criteria (guidance) established for the protection of aquatic life in fresh water and found 

42 the estimated concentration ranges of arsenic, cadmium, chloride, chromium, lead, nickel, and 

43 selenium expected in the backup storage pond water to exceed the EPA chronic and acute 

44 exposure-based water quality aquatic life criteria (EPA, 2014). Additionally, the applicant’s 

45 estimated concentrations of selenium expected in the backup storage pond water exceed levels 

46 referenced by FWS (2007) as hazardous to aquatic birds. In summary, some of the chemical 

47 constituent concentrations in proposed wastewater solutions that would be stored in the backup 

48 storage pond may exceed levels known to cause impacts to wildlife. The NRC staff conclude 

49 that impacts to individual animals would be possible even with the practices proposed by the 
4-71 

1 applicant and the WDEQ regulatory controls that would be imposed by permit conditions, which 

2 include monitoring, setting action levels, and requiring corrective actions if those controls do not 

3 limit all direct exposures of wildlife to wastewater solutions. However, because the applicant 

4 has committed to employing mitigations such as perimeter fencing and the avian-deterrent 

5 system around the backup storage pond, the NRC staff conclude that the direct exposure of 

6 wildlife to wastewater solutions would be limited and would not affect a noticeable number of 

7 animals. Therefore, potential impacts to terrestrial wildlife during the proposed operations 

8 phase would continue to be SMALL. The NRC staff anticipate that the applicant would follow 

9 WGFD and FWS spatial and timing buffers previously explained for the construction phase to 

10 ensure potential impacts to avian species during operations remain SMALL. 

11 Aquatic Species 

12 For the same reasons explained for construction impacts on terrestrial wildlife, the NRC staff 

13 expect that potential operations impacts to aquatic species would be similar to or less than 

14 those described earlier for the construction phase because earthmoving activities and the 

15 amount of traffic would be more limited compared to the construction phase, thus reducing 

16 erosion and impacts to water quality. As previously stated, some of the chemical constituent 

17 concentrations in proposed wastewater solutions that would be stored in the backup storage 

18 pond may exceed levels known to cause impacts to aquatic life. Leak-detection systems and 

19 spill-response plans would reduce the potential impacts to aquatic species from spills around 

20 wellheads and leaks from pipelines by preventing contamination of soils, surface waters, or 

21 wetlands. The NRC staff conclude that direct chronic exposure of sensitive aquatic species to 

22 the applicant’s estimated concentrations in wastewater could adversely impact exposed 

23 individual animals. However, because of regulatory controls to protect wildlife, including aquatic 

24 species, and because of the limited occurrence of surface water that supports aquatic life within 

25 the proposed project area, the NRC staff conclude that potential impact to aquatic species 

26 would be SMALL. 

27 Protected Species and Species of Concern 

28 No federally listed or proposed threatened and endangered species would be affected during 

29 the operations phase because Ute ladies’ tresses have not been identified at the proposed 

30 Reno Creek ISR Project area, and the proposed project area is not located within the NLEB 

31 white-nose syndrome zone where take of this species is prohibited. Potential impacts to 

32 protected species and species of concern during the proposed project’s operations would be the 

33 same or less than those discussed previously for the construction of the proposed Reno Creek 

34 ISR Project because there would be fewer humans present outdoors on the site itself and fewer 

35 vehicles being used. In general, activities that may result in impacts would be limited. In 

36 addition, mitigation measures previously explained in this section would be implemented during 

37 the construction phase and would continue to be employed during the operations phase to 

38 ensure that potential operations impacts to all wildlife, including protected species and species 

39 of concern, remain SMALL. 

40 4.6.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

41 GEIS Section 4.3.5.3 describes potential impacts to ecological resources during the 

42 aquifer restoration phase that are similar to potential impacts during operations. These impacts 

43 could include habitat disruption, spills and leaks, and animal mortalities. Because existing 
4-72 

1 (in-place) infrastructure will be used during aquifer restoration, little additional ground 

2 disturbance would occur, and therefore potential impacts would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

3 During aquifer restoration, potential impacts to ecological resources from the proposed 

4 Reno Creek ISR Project would remain similar to those described previously for the operations 

5 phase and would be consistent with the findings described in the GEIS. As noted for the 

6 operations phase, the already in-place infrastructure from the construction phase (i.e., roads) 

7 would continue to be used, and little additional ground disturbance would occur during the 

8 aquifer restoration phase. Planned activities using existing infrastructure during the aquifer 

9 restoration phase are described in draft SEIS Section 4.2. Because construction and drilling 

10 equipment are not used during the aquifer restoration phase, the NRC staff expect effects from 

11 human presence, noise, and wildlife mortalities from equipment to decrease compared to 

12 human presence, noise, and wildlife mortalities expected during the operations phase. Also, 

13 because the existing infrastructure would be in place, the potential impacts to vegetation and 

14 wildlife from aquifer restoration activities at the proposed project area would be similar to or less 

15 than that experienced during the operations phase, and wildlife would have already retreated or 

16 learned to tolerate the presence of humans or noise. The applicant expects that no vegetation 

17 would be disturbed during the aquifer restoration phase (AUC, 2014a). In addition, the quantity 

18 of liquid waste handled during the aquifer restoration phase would decrease compared to the 

19 volumes of liquid waste generated during operations as described in draft SEIS Section 

20 2.1.1.1.6. During the aquifer restoration phase, the liquid byproduct material generated, which 

21 would be composed of RO brine and aquifer restoration bleed, would be injected in Class I deep 

22 disposal wells. 

23 As with the operations phase, potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife exposed to leaks and 

24 spills during aquifer restoration would be mitigated by implementing leak-detection systems and 

25 spill-response protocols. The applicant has obtained a WDEQ Class I disposal permit that 

26 requires adequate disposal capacity, the NRC effluent limits, and other NRC safety regulations 

27 as explained in draft SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.6 and 4.14.1.1.3. The eventual radiation survey of 

28 all potentially impacted soils and sediments would limit the magnitude of overall impacts to 

29 terrestrial and aquatic ecology during the proposed project aquifer restoration phase. In 

30 addition, continued implementation of mitigation measures, such as perimeter fencing and the 

31 avian-deterrent system, would ensure that impacts to vegetation and terrestrial species would 

32 be minimized during aquifer restoration activities. Because aquifer restoration activities would 

33 produce similar effects on ecology compared to operations, and because the applicant would 

34 continue to implement similar mitigation measures, the potential impacts to vegetation and 

35 terrestrial and aquatic species would not increase beyond those of the operations phase. 

36 Therefore, the potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife during aquifer restoration would 

37 be SMALL. 

38 There would be no expected impacts to protected species during aquifer restoration beyond 

39 those which occurred during the construction and operations phases of the proposed project, 

40 because the existing infrastructure would be in place. As previously stated, no further 

41 disturbance to vegetation or wildlife habitat is expected to occur in the proposed project area. 

42 Additionally, Ute ladies’ tresses have not been identified at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

43 Project area, and the proposed project area is not located within the NLEB white-nose 

44 syndrome zone where take of this species is prohibited; thus, there would be no effect on these 

45 species under Section 7 of the ESA. The overall impact to protected species during aquifer 

46 restoration would be SMALL. 
4-73 

1 4.6.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

2 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that land use impacts (affecting ecology) from 

3 decommissioning an ISR facility would be comparable to, but overall less than, those described 

4 for construction and would further decrease as decommissioning and reclamation proceed. As 

5 described in GEIS Section 4.3.5.4, during decommissioning and reclamation, there would be 

6 temporary land disturbance from soil excavation, recovery and removal of buried piping, and 

7 demolition and removal of structures. Wildlife would be temporarily displaced, but would be 

8 expected to return after decommissioning and reclamation are complete and vegetation and 

9 habitat are reestablished. Wildlife could come in conflict with heavy equipment or vehicles. 

10 Decommissioning and reclamation activities could also result in temporary increases in 

11 sediment load in local streams, but aquatic species would recover quickly as sediment load 

12 decreases. However, revegetation and recontouring would restore habitat previously altered 

13 during construction and operations. As a result, the potential impacts to ecological resources 

14 during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

15 The NRC staff expect that the potential ecological impacts of decommissioning for the proposed 

16 Reno Creek ISR Project would be consistent with the findings described in the GEIS. Potential 

17 impacts would include increased human presence, construction and field equipment presence, 

18 ground vibrations, noise, and land disturbance compared to the aquifer restoration phase, but 

19 be less than the construction phase. The proposed project’s decommissioning would be 

20 phased over approximately the last 12 to 18 months of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

21 lifetime (AUC, 2012a). Stockpiled topsoil would be used to regrade the land to the contours that 

22 existed during the applicant’s prelicensing site characterization efforts, as required by WDEQ, 

23 and be reseeded with native vegetation when the buildings and structures are removed as 

24 described earlier (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1). An additional loss of 4.8 ha [12 ac] of 

25 vegetation communities {59 ha [146 ac] during decommissioning} beyond those disturbed 

26 during the construction phase {54.28 ha [134.14 ac] during construction} would occur (AUC, 

27 2014a). WDEQ requires that project operators reclaim vegetation in accordance with rules and 

28 regulations for final bond release (WDEQ, 2006). WDEQ recommends that the large-scale 

29 mine permit require (i) the collection of baseline vegetation data within land application areas, 

30 (ii) concurrent and interim reclamation in all areas where mining or land disturbance is 

31 completed, (iii) that revegetation success be equivalent to vegetative cover in reference areas 

32 using WDEQ-approved statistical methods, and (iv) that established quantitative and qualitative 

33 vegetation parameters serve as reclamation standards for final bond release (WDEQ, 2014). 

34 However, final permit conditions may change based on the final determination by the WDEQ 

35 (WDEQ, 2006). As explained in draft SEIS Section 4.6.1.1 under construction, sagebrush 

36 shrubland vegetation can be difficult and time consuming to reestablish. For these reasons, the 

37 NRC staff conclude that there would be a MODERATE impact on vegetation from 

38 decommissioning due to the nature of the slower-established plants that compose the 

39 sagebrush shrubland plant community. Once sagebrush shrubland vegetation has been 

40 reestablished to WDEQ-approved reclamation standards for final bond release, this impact 

41 would be SMALL. 

42 In addition to the slight increase of habitat loss compared to the construction phase, during the 

43 decommissioning of the proposed project, wildlife could either come in conflict with heavy 

44 equipment or be disrupted by noise. As previously stated, the applicant is required by WDEQ to 

45 reclaim vegetation for final bond release. The applicant expects that the average number of 

46 daily vehicle round trips would decrease compared to the construction, operations, and aquifer 

47 restoration phases (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7). The greatest source of noise would be 
4-74 

1 experienced in the production units from equipment used during plugging and abandonment of 

2 wells (production, injection, monitoring, and deep disposal), and would be similar to, or less 

3 than, the noise generated during the construction phase (see draft SEIS Section 4.8.1.4; 

4 NRC, 2009). As a result of these impacts, wildlife would likely move elsewhere either on the 

5 Reno Creek ISR Project area or onto other lands. Temporarily displaced wildlife could return to 

6 the Reno Creek ISR Project area after the proposed project’s decommissioning and site 

7 restoration and reclamation are complete. WGFD reviewed the applicant’s reclamation plan 

8 and determined that if the plan is implemented, adequate habitat should be restored for wildlife 

9 when the project area is reclaimed (McMahan, 2013a,b). Further, as required by NRC 

10 regulations, the applicant would be required to submit a decommissioning plan as well as its 

11 restoration action plan for Commission review and approval (AUC, 2012b); these documents 

12 would address ecological impacts such as vegetation restoration. Consequently, the 

13 decommissioning impacts of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project on area ecology would be 

14 similar to those experienced during construction. Thus, the impacts to terrestrial animals and all 

15 aquatic species during decommissioning would be SMALL. 

16 There would be no effects to protected species during decommissioning of the proposed 

17 project. This finding is based on the fact that Ute ladies’ tresses have not been identified at the 

18 proposed project area, and the proposed project area is not located within the NLEB white-nose 

19 syndrome zone where take of this species is prohibited. The overall impact to protected species 

20 during decommissioning would be SMALL. 

21 4.6.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

22 Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would not be licensed 

23 and the land would continue to be available for other uses. Under the No-Action Alternative, 

24 there would be no ISR facility construction, operations, aquifer restoration, or decommissioning 

25 associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project; therefore, there would be no land 

26 disturbance from the proposed project that could impact either vegetation or wildlife populations. 

27 The proposed project area would continue to support vegetation communities and wildlife 

28 habitat typical of the region, as characterized in draft SEIS Section 3.6. Land would continue to 

29 be used for livestock grazing. Grazing of existing vegetation, particularly the grassland 

30 communities, would continue. Under the No-Action Alternative, if current grazing practices 

31 continue, only a few individual species could be affected as a result of land management 

32 decisions (e.g., overgrazing or conflicts between cattle and other species); however, other 

33 species would be likely to relocate to suitable nearby habitats. Therefore, vegetation and 

34 wildlife impacts would be SMALL under the No-Action Alternative. 

35 4.7 Air Quality Impacts 

36 Potential environmental impacts on air quality could occur during all four phases of the 

37 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. These four phases are construction, operations, aquifer 

38 restoration, and decommissioning. This draft SEIS also addresses the environmental impacts 

39 on air quality during the peak year. The peak year accounts for the time when activities 

40 associated with all four phases occur simultaneously and thereby accounts for the maximum 

41 emissions the proposed project would generate in any one year. Draft SEIS Chapter 2 includes 

42 additional information on the applicant’s proposed phased approach. Nonradiological air 

43 emission impacts primarily involve fugitive emissions from vehicles traveling on unpaved roads 

44 and combustion engine emissions from vehicles and diesel equipment. In general, 

45 nonradiological emissions from pipeline system venting, resin transfer, and elution would be 
4-75 

1 expected to be at such low levels that they would be negligible; therefore, such emissions were 

2 not considered in the analysis. In addition, radon could also be released from well system relief 

3 valves, resin transfer, or elution. Potential radiological air impacts, including radon release 

4 impacts, are addressed in the Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts analyses in 

5 draft SEIS Section 4.13.

6 4.7.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

7 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2, Campbell County, Wyoming, where the proposed 

8 Reno Creek ISR Project would be located, is designated as an attainment area for all National 

9 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pollutants and is located in a Class II area for 

10 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) designation. The closest Class I area to the 

11 proposed project is Wind Cave National Park, which is located in Custer County, South Dakota, 

12 approximately 181.9 km [113 mi] to the east. The attainment status of the area surrounding the 

13 proposed project area provides a measure of current air quality conditions and affects 

14 considerations for allowing new emission sources. 

15 Distinctions Between NEPA Analysis and Regulatory Air Permitting 

16 Distinctions between the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended, 

17 analysis in this draft SEIS and air permitting include the roles of the various regulators, the 

18 emission inventory used in the analyses, and the purpose for comparing the emission 

19 inventories and pollutant concentrations to regulatory thresholds. Pursuant to NEPA, the NRC 

20 is responsible for assessing the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project; 

21 however, the NRC does not have the authority to develop or enforce nonradiological air 

22 emissions regulations to control the equipment and machinery that licensees use. The EPA and 

23 the WDEQ have the authority to develop air quality regulations. For the proposed Reno Creek 

24 ISR Project, the authority to enforce these regulations and require any implementation of 

25 mitigation to reduce nonradiological air emissions rests with the WDEQ rather than with the 

26 NRC. To ensure the air quality of Wyoming is adequately protected, in addition to addressing 

27 all NRC regulatory requirements pertaining to radiological emissions, NRC applicants and 

28 licensees must comply with all applicable state and federal air quality regulatory compliance and 

29 permitting requirements. 

30 The applicant plans to submit air quality permit information to WDEQ (see draft SEIS Table 1-2). 

31 Regulatory determinations for air permits (e.g., comparing project emissions to EPA PSD and 

32 Title V thresholds to determine if the source should be classified as a major source) may only 

33 consider stationary sources. This draft SEIS compares the proposed Reno Creek stationary 

34 emissions to the PSD and Title V thresholds. However, this draft SEIS also compares the 

35 combined stationary, mobile, and fugitive emissions from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

36 to these thresholds. The NRC staff opted to consider the inventory from the combined sources 

37 because mobile and fugitive sources account for the majority of the proposed project emissions 

38 (see draft SEIS Table 2-4). Furthermore, the emission inventory that serves as the input for the 

39 proposed Reno Creek site-specific modeling in this draft SEIS includes stationary, mobile, and 

40 fugitive sources. 

41 The NRC staff have characterized the magnitude of air effluents from the proposed project in 

42 part by comparing the emission levels to PSD and Title V thresholds and the modeled 

43 concentrations to regulatory standards such as NAAQS. This characterization is meant to 

44 provide context for understanding the magnitude of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project’s air 
4-76 

1 effluents, which are mostly from mobile and fugitive sources rather than stationary sources and 

2 identify what emissions the analysis should focus on for potential environmental effects. The 

3 comparison of pollutant concentrations to NAAQS and PSD increments in this draft SEIS does 

4 not document or represent a formal determination for air permitting or regulatory compliance, 

5 which is outside the NRC’s jurisdiction. Appendix C, Section C-2 of the draft SEIS contains 

6 additional information on air permitting and the relationship between air permitting and the draft 

7 SEIS analysis. 

8 Potential SEIS Impacts Analyzed with Site-Specific Air Dispersion Modeling 

9 Site-specific air dispersion modeling can be used to analyze the effects of project level 

10 emissions for a variety of pollutants at a variety of receptor locations. The applicant conducted 

11 AERMOD dispersion modeling using the peak year emission levels to predict the NAAQS and 

12 PSD pollutant concentrations at receptors that extended in all directions away from the 

13 proposed project area boundary to form a 60 km × 60 km [37.2 mi × 37.2 mi] modeling domain 

14 (i.e., the modeling domain does not include the proposed project area, except for the receptors 

15 around U.S. Highway 387 that bisects the proposed project area). Two analyses (or runs) were 

16 conducted within the modeling domain: the initial modeling run and the final modeling run. The 

17 initial modeling run used the EPAs regulatory default settings for AERMOD and predicted 

18 pollutant concentrations at all of the receptor locations within the modeling domain. The final 

19 modeling run used the AERMOD dry depletion option and predicted particulate matter PM10

20 pollutant concentrations at the 21 receptor locations with the highest concentrations of that 

21 pollutant from the initial modeling run. Particulate matter PM10 is defined as particles with a 

22 diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. In this draft 

23 SEIS, the NRC staff bases the proposed project impact magnitude determination (i.e., SMALL, 

24 MODERATE, or LARGE) in part on the particulate matter PM10 modeling results that implement 

the dry depletion option1 25 . This is because the majority of the proposed project’s particulate 

26 matter PM10 emissions are from vehicle travel on unpaved roads. The dry depletion option 

27 accounts for the fact that heavier particles (i.e., the particulate matter PM10) from these types of 

28 fugitive emissions tends to settle out of the air relatively quickly as the dust plume disperses 

29 from the source (Countess, 2001). Draft SEIS Appendix C contains additional detailed 

30 information about the draft SEIS site-specific air dispersion modeling including: 

31  The proposed project emission inventory associated with the site-specific air dispersion 

32 modeling categorized in the following classifications: the peak year emissions (see draft 

33 SEIS Appendix C, Section C-3.1.4), the individual phase emissions at the 100 percent 

34 activity level (see draft SEIS Appendix C, Section C-3.1.5), the fugitive dust emissions 

35 (see draft SEIS Section C-3.1.1), the mobile source emissions (see draft SEIS 

36 Appendix C, Section C-3.1.2), and the stationary source emissions (see draft SEIS 

37 Appendix C, Section C-3.1.3). 

38  The modeling domain beyond the proposed project area (see draft SEIS Appendix C, 

39 Section C-4.1.1). 

40  The dry depletion option including the rationale for using these results for the draft SEIS 

41 impact magnitude determination (see draft SEIS Appendix C, Section C-4.1.2). 

 

1

 In addition, Section C-6.1 of draft SEIS Appendix C describes the results of the initial modeling run for the proposed 

project, which does not consider the results from the final modeling run that implements the dry depletion option. 
4-77 

1 Potential SEIS Impacts Analyzed Without Site-Specific Air Dispersion Modeling 

2 The NRC staff determined that for some analyses considered in this draft SEIS, the proposed 

3 project potential impacts could be determined without site-specific air dispersion modeling. 

4 Site-specific modeling was not conducted to assess impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

5 Project emissions to the nearest Class I and sensitive Class II areas because these areas are 

6 distant from proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area and the proposed project area would 

7 produce relatively low emission levels from combined stationary, mobile, and fugitive sources. 

8 The PSD analysis at the highway receptors was not conducted because the analysis in this draft 

9 SEIS is for providing a context for understanding the magnitude of the potential effects of the 

10 proposed project rather than making a regulatory determination associated with air permitting by 

11 WDEQ. The results without the PSD highway receptor analysis (see draft SEIS Table 4-10) 

12 already reveal that the greatest effect from project emissions can be attributed to short term 

13 (i.e., 24-hour time frame) particulate matter emissions. Site-specific modeling of hazardous air 

14 pollutants was not conducted because of the low magnitude of the estimated emissions. Draft 

15 SEIS Appendix C, Section C-4.2 contains additional details concerning the basis for assessing 

16 these impacts without site-specific modeling. 

17 4.7.1.1 Peak Year Analysis 

18 The NRC staff reported in the GEIS that ISR Projects are not major air emission sources and 

19 the impacts would be classified as SMALL if the following conditions are met: (i) the air quality 

20 of the proposed project area’s region of influence was in compliance with the NAAQS, (ii) the 

21 facility was not classified as a major source under EPA’s New Source Review Program or 

22 operating permit programs under the Clean Air Act, and (iii) gaseous emissions were within 

23 regulatory limits and requirements. These conditions reflect the consideration that ISR project 

24 impacts on air quality depend on the emission levels of the proposed project, the existing air 

25 quality at the proposed project area, and the local affected environment (e.g., proximity to 

26 sensitive locations such as Class I areas). (NRC, 2009) 

27 The GEIS emission levels and associated air dispersion modeling provides the basis for the 

28 conclusion in the GEIS that ISRs generally meet the conditions specified in the GEIS for a 

29 SMALL impact classification. The NRC staff conclude that the emission levels for the proposed 

30 Reno Creek ISR Project would not be bounded by the emission levels described in the GEIS for 

31 air quality. The pollutant with the highest emission level for the proposed project is particulate 

32 matter PM10, and the estimated emission levels for this pollutant described in draft SEIS 

33 Section 2.1.1.1.6 are larger than those cited in GEIS Table 2.7-2 (NRC, 2009). The proposed 

34 project generates an estimated 104.57 metric tons [115.27 short tons] of particulate matter PM10

35 during the peak year (see draft SEIS Table 2-4). The GEIS estimated an annual construction 

36 phase fugitive dust level of 10.0 metric tons [11.0 short tons] (NRC, 2009). The GEIS estimate 

37 did not categorize the fugitive dust as particulate matter PM10 or PM2.5 (particles 2.5 micrometers 

38 in diameter and smaller) or provide a peak year emission estimate. For the other pollutants, the 

39 discrepancy between the emission levels for the proposed project and the GEIS is much 

40 smaller. The NRC staff relied on the site-specific emissions and associated air dispersion 

41 modeling to determine impact magnitude for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project rather than 

42 the GEIS analysis because the proposed project emission level for the primary pollutant, 

43 particulate matter PM10, is much greater for this ISR project than the emission level for this 

44 pollutant specified in the GEIS. In addition, the NRC staff relied on the Reno Creek modeling 

45 results rather than the GEIS analysis for the other pollutants because the Reno Creek modeling 

46 used site-specific information. 
4-78 

1 Mitigation 

2 The air emission inventory used in this draft SEIS incorporates the following 

3 applicant-committed mitigation measures: 

4  Tier 1 engines for drill rigs, 

5  Tier 3 engines for construction equipment, 

6  Dust suppression for unpaved roads, 

7  Carpooling, and 

8  Reclamation of disturbed land. 

9 The applicant has committed to utilizing engines with specific tier factors for equipment. The 

10 various tiers refer to a federal program that requires newly manufactured engines to generate 

11 lower pollutant emission levels. Higher tier numbers correlate with stricter emission standards 

12 and lower pollutant levels. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Section C–3.1.6 describes in greater detail 

13 how this is incorporated into the emission inventory. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C-12 

14 describes the effectiveness (i.e., the percentage of emissions reduction) of using engines with 

15 various tier levels. The emission inventory also incorporates two different dust suppression 

16 methods for travel on unpaved roads. The applicant has committed to treating the CPP facility 

17 access road with water and a semiannual application of a chemical dust suppressant. In 

18 addition, the applicant has committed to treating the other unpaved project roads with water. An 

19 85 percent reduction in the fugitive dust emissions is incorporated into the emission inventory 

20 for the treatment that includes chemical dust suppressants, while 50 percent control efficiency is 

21 incorporated into the emission inventory for the use of water alone as a dust suppressant. Draft 

22 SEIS Appendix C, Section C–3.1.6 describes the basis for these control efficiencies and 

23 describes in greater detail how they are incorporated into the emission inventory. The applicant 

24 has also committed to carpooling, thereby reducing the number of vehicles commuters use, 

25 which results in fewer emissions and lower pollutant levels. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C-13 

26 describes the effectiveness of carpooling committed to by the applicant. Also, the applicant has 

27 committed to reclaiming disturbed land during the project lifespan. The amount of fugitive 

28 emissions from wind erosion is a function of the amount of disturbed land. Reclaiming land 

29 results in fewer particulate matter emissions and lower pollutant levels. Draft SEIS Appendix C, 

30 Section C–3.1.6 describes in greater detail how land reclamation is incorporated into the 

31 emission inventory as well as the effectiveness of this mitigation measure. 

32 The applicant identified other mitigation measures (see draft SEIS Table 6-1); however, these 

33 other measures are not credited in the calculation of the emission inventory (i.e., the estimated 

34 pollutant levels were not reduced because of the implementation of this mitigation). 

35 Peak Year Analysis 

36 Draft SEIS Table 4-8 presents the pollutant concentrations associated with the proposed 

37 Reno Creek ISR Project with respect to the NAAQS. Draft SEIS Table 4-9 presents these 

38 concentrations with respect to the PSD increments. The NAAQS and PSD thresholds are 

39 described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2. The forms in draft SEIS Table 4-8 and draft SEIS 

40 Table 4-9 are the same as the forms for the NAAQS and PSD regulations. The forms express 

both the statistical (e.g., maximum, average, 98th 41 percentile) and temporal (e.g., once per year, 

42 over 1 year, over 3 years) nature of the value. As described in the footnotes for draft SEIS 

43 Table 4-8, some of the modeling result forms are not the same as the NAAQS forms. Similarly, 
4-79 

Table 4-8. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for 

the Peak Year for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant 

Average 

Time NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Back-ground 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS 

Limit 

(μg/m3) 

Percent 

of 

NAAQS 

Limit 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

1 hour 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

682.5† 680 1,362.5 40,000 3.4 

8 hour 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

88.4† 378 466.4 10,000 4.7 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Highway 

Run 

1 hour 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

1055.1† 680 1,735.1 40,000 4.3 

8 hour 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

156.3† 378 534.3 10,000 5.3 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

1 hour 

98th percentile of 1-

hour daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 

62.9 21 83.9 188 44.6 

Annual Annual mean 2.4† 6 8.4 100 8.4 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Highway 

Run 

1 hour 

98th percentile of 1-

hour daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 

142.9 21 163.9 188 87.2 

Annual Annual mean 7.5† 6 13.5 100 13.5 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM2.5‡ 

24 hour 98th percentile, 

averaged over 3 years 1.7 8 9.7 35 27.7 

Annual Annual mean, 

averaged over 3 years 0.2 3.4 3.6 12§ 30.0 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM2.5

Highway 

Run 

24 hour 98th percentile, 

averaged over 3 years 3.3 8 11.3 35 32.3 

Annual 

Annual mean, 

averaged over 3 years 0.7 3.4 4.1 12§ 34.2 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10

Final Runǁ

24 hour 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year on average over 3 

years 

18.8 40 58.8 150 39.2 

Annual Annual mean 3.9† 15 18.9 50¶ 37.8 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10

Highway 

Run 

24 hour 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year on average over 3 

years 

54.6 40 94.6 150 63.1 

Annual Annual mean 15.6† 15 30.6 50¶ 61.2 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

1 hour 

99th percentile of 1-

hour daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 

22.9 43.2 66.1 200 33.0 

3 hour 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

37.6† 124.7 162.3 1,300 12.5 

 
4-80 

Table 4-8. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for 

the Peak Year for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Average 

Time NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Back-ground 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS 

Limit 

(μg/m3) 

Percent 

of 

NAAQS 

Limit 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Highway 

Run 

1 hour 

99th percentile of 1-

hour daily maximum 

concentrations, 

averaged over 3 years 

49.2 43.2 92.4 200 46.2 

3 hour 

Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

72.0† 124.7 196.7 1,300 15.1 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014) 

*The form expresses both the statistical (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and temporal (e.g., once per 

year, over 1 year, or over 3 years) nature of the values. 

†The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the 

NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Appendix C, Section C-4.3.1. 

‡Particulate matter PM2.5 is defined as particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

§This table identifies the primary NAAQS limit. The secondary limit is larger (i.e.,15 μg/m3

). Results that meet the 

primary standard would automatically meet the secondary standard. 

ǁFinal modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations. Particulate matter PM10 is 

defined as particles with a diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

¶There is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental 

standard. 

Table 4-9. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and 

Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project Compared to 

the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time PSD Increment Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

PSD Class II 

Increment 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage 

of PSD 

Increment 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Annual Not to be exceeded 

over the year 

2.4† 25 9.6

Particulate 

Matter PM2.5‡ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

5.5† 9 61.1

Annual Not to be exceeded 

over the year 

0.6† 4 15

Particulate 

Matter PM10

Final Run§ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

22.4† 30 74.3

Annual Not to be exceeded 

over the year 

3.9† 17 22.9

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

3 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

37.6† 512 7.3

24 hour Not to be exceeded 

more than once per 

year 

6.3† 91 6.9

Annual Not to be exceeded 

over the year 

0.3† 20 1.5

 
4-81 

Table 4-9. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and 

Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project Compared to 

the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time PSD Increment Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

PSD Class II 

Increment 

(μg/m3) 

Percentage 

of PSD 

Increment 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014) 

*The form expresses both the statistical (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and temporal (e.g., once per 

year, over 1 year, or over 3 years) nature of the values. 

†The modeling result form is not the same as the PSD increment form. The value in this table has a form that 

matches the PSD increment form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Appendix C, 

Section C–4.3.1. 

‡Particulate matter PM2.5 is defined as particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

§Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations. Particulate matter PM10 is 

defined as particles with a diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

1 the footnotes for draft SEIS Table 4-9 identify when the modeling result forms are not the same 

2 as the PSD increment forms. In cases where the modeling form does not match the NAAQS 

3 and PSD increment form, a value was derived from the modeling result that matched the 

4 NAAQS and PSD increment form. The lack of continuity between the model result forms and 

5 the NAAQS and PSD increment forms, as well as the values used to represent project level 

6 concentrations in draft SEIS Table 4-8 and draft SEIS Table 4-9, are described in draft SEIS 

7 Appendix C, Section C–4.3.1. In cases where the modeling form matches the NAAQS or PSD 

8 increment form, no adjustments were necessary. 

9 The values in draft SEIS Table 4-8 are design values. Design values are mathematically 

10 determined pollutant concentrations used by EPA to determine whether an area is in 

11 compliance with the NAAQS. In some cases, a design value does not represent the highest 

12 estimated pollutant concentration. For example, the design value for particulate matter PM2.5 is 

13 an annual mean averaged over 3 years. Unless the annual mean for all 3 years was the same, 

14 at least one of the annual means for a single year would be larger than the design value 

15 (i.e., the average of the annual means over a 3-year period). In such cases, individual year 

16 estimates may provide a more precise statistical representation for predicting impacts than do 

17 design values. However, the NRC staff consider the use of design values an appropriate metric 

18 for the draft SEIS analysis because the purpose of the site-specific air dispersion modeling in 

19 this draft SEIS is to provide a general characterization of the magnitude of air effluents from the 

20 proposed project. 

21 The proposed project’s site-specific air dispersion modeling indicates that peak year pollution 

22 concentration levels are generally low. The peak year concentrations for all pollutants are 

23 below the NAAQS (see draft SEIS Table 4-8). Pollutant concentrations ranged between 3.4 and 

24 87.2 percent of the applicable NAAQS. The 87.2 percent value is associated with the nitrogen 

25 dioxide NAAQS over the 1-hour time frame. 

26 While the NAAQS primarily relate to an area’s attainment classification (see draft SEIS 

27 Section 3.7.2), the PSD increments primarily relate to pollution levels generated by individual 

28 projects. The peak year concentrations for all pollutants are below the allowable PSD 

29 increments (see draft SEIS Table 4-9). Pollutant concentrations ranged between 1.5 and 

30 74.3 percent of the applicable PSD increment. The 74.3 percent value is associated with the 

31 particulate matter PM10 increment for the 24-hour time frame. Fugitive dust sources account 

32 for about 98 percent of the peak year particulate matter PM10 emissions (see draft SEIS 

33 Appendix C, Table C–5) and travel on unpaved roads accounts for about 95 percent of the peak 
4-82 

1 year fugitive dust emissions (see draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C-1). The fact that the highest 

2 percentages relative to the PSD increments occur for the 24-hour threshold rather than the 

3 annual threshold indicates that potential particulate matter impacts from the proposed project 

4 are associated with short-term temporal spikes in emissions; mainly, particulate matter PM10

5 emissions from fugitive dust. For purposes of this air quality analysis, the short term is specified 

6 as 24 hours based on the timeframe for the particulate matter standards in the NAAQS. 

7 All phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would produce greenhouse gas emissions. 

8 Draft SEIS Table 2-5 presents the peak year carbon dioxide emission estimates for the 

9 proposed project. Except for electricity consumption, the only greenhouse gas included in the 

10 emission estimates is carbon dioxide. The NRC staff find the exclusion of other greenhouse 

11 gases from the inventory acceptable because carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas 

12 emitted by the proposed project (AUC, 2014c), and the analysis in this draft SEIS provides a 

13 context for understanding the magnitude of the potential effects of the proposed project rather 

14 than a formal regulatory determination associated with air permitting by WDEQ. The Ambient 

15 Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014c) in Section 2.7 and Appendix A contain 

16 additional information on the greenhouse gas emission estimates presented in draft SEIS 

17 Table 2-5. The estimated carbon dioxide emission level for the stationary sources is lower than 

18 the current EPA permitting threshold, as described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2. In fact, the peak 

19 year emission level for all of the sources (i.e., stationary, mobile, and electric consumption) is 

20 below this threshold. As described in the “Revised Draft Guidance on the Consideration of 

21 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA” (CEQ, 2014), climate 

22 change effects are considered the result of overall greenhouse gas emissions from numerous 

23 sources rather than an individual source. In addition, there is not a strong cause and effect 

24 relationship between where the greenhouse gases are emitted and where the impacts occur. 

25 Because of these two factors, the NRC staff address the contribution of carbon dioxide from the 

26 proposed project to the overall atmospheric greenhouse gas levels and the relevant climate 

27 change effects in draft SEIS Section 5.7 on air quality cumulative effects rather than in this 

28 section, which addresses the air quality effects specifically attributed to the proposed project). 

29 Peak year pollutant concentrations from the proposed project would all be below the NAAQS 

30 and the allowable PSD increments. The NRC staff conclude that the peak year emissions 

31 would have a SMALL impact on air quality because the pollutant concentrations would be low 

32 compared to the NAAQS and PSD thresholds. The NRC staff conclude that the peak year 

33 emissions would result in a SMALL impact on air quality for Class I areas because the emission 

34 levels would be relatively low and the proposed project area is distant from Class I areas. 

35 Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the overall impact to air quality for the peak year for the 

36 proposed project would be SMALL. 

37 Peak Year Analysis in Relation to Individual Phase Analysis 

38 This draft SEIS also considers impacts associated with individual phases of the Reno Creek ISR 

39 Project. The AERMOD air dispersion modeling was conducted for the peak year emission 

40 levels, which accounts for the time when activities associated with all four phases occur 

41 simultaneously and represents the maximum emissions the proposed project would generate in 

42 any single project year. Emissions from a single phase can vary in any given project year and 

43 the 100 percent activity level refers to the largest amount of emissions attributed to that 

44 particular phase for a single project year. Identification of the 100 percent activity level for each 

45 phase was obtained from the detailed information in the Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol 

46 and Results (AUC, 2014c), which provided emission data for individual project years as well as 
4-83 

1 each phase’s contribution to the overall emissions for each project year. Pollutant 

2 concentrations for individual phases were derived from the peak year modeling results (for 

3 concentration) based on the relative emission level of the 100 percent activity level for each 

4 individual phase when compared to the emission level for the peak year. Draft SEIS Table 4-10 

5 presents the estimated annual mass flow rates for the 100 percent activity levels for the 

6 individual phases, which included fugitive (see draft SEIS Table 2-1), mobile (see draft SEIS 

7 Table 2-2), and stationary (see draft SEIS Table 2-3) sources. Draft SEIS Appendix C, 

8 Section C–3.1.6 provides additional details concerning the calculation of the emission inventory. 

9 Draft SEIS Table 4-11 compares the 100 percent activity level emissions for the various phases 

10 to the peak year emissions. Peak year emissions are greater than any of the individual phase 

11 emissions when functioning at the 100 percent activity level. Therefore, the potential air quality 

12 impacts for the individual phases would not be greater than the potential impacts for the peak 

13 year. Pollutant concentration estimates from all sources for the various phases at the 

14 100 percent activity level are compared to NAAQS in draft SEIS Table 4-12 and to PSD 

15 increments in draft SEIS Table 4-13. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Section C–4.3.2 provides 

16 additional details concerning the information associated with the comparison of individual phase 

17 concentrations to NAAQS and PSD increments. 

18 4.7.1.2 Construction Impacts 

19 As discussed in GEIS Sections 4.3.6.1 (i.e., the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region) and 

20 4.4.6.1 (the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region), fugitive dust and 

21 combustion emissions during land-disturbing activities associated with construction would be 

22 expected to be short term (for purposes of this air quality analysis, the short term is specified as 

23 24 hours based on the timeframe for the particulate matter standards in the NAAQS) and 

24 reduced through BMPs (e.g., wetting of roads and reclaiming cleared land areas to reduce dust 

25 emissions). The proposed project area is located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region, 

26 as defined in the GEIS. However the GEIS sections on the Wyoming East Uranium Milling 

27 Region do not analyze PSD impacts to Class I areas. Because the analysis in this SEIS 

28 considers PSD impacts to Class I areas, this draft SEIS also cites the Nebraska-South 

29 Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region sections of the GEIS, which discuss PSD impacts to 

30 Class I areas (specifically Wind Cave National Park). In that analysis, the GEIS estimated ISR31 construction-phase particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NOx) annual 

32 concentrations to be below the NAAQS (between about 1 and 2 percent), the PSD Class II 

33 allowable increments (between about 1 and 9 percent), and the stricter Class I increments 

34 (between 7 and 84 percent). The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that for NAAQS attainment 

35 areas, nonradiological impacts would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

36 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, the NRC staff relied primarily on the site-specific 

37 emissions and associated air dispersion modeling to determine impact magnitude for the 

38 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project because the proposed project emission level for the primary 

39 pollutant, particulate matter PM10, is greater than the emission level for this pollutant specified in 

40 the GEIS. In addition, the NRC staff relied on the Reno Creek modeling results rather than the 

41 GEIS analysis for the other pollutants because the Reno Creek modeling used site-specific 

42 information. 
4-84 

Table 4-10. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per Year) for the 100 Percent 

Activity Levels for Individual Phases from All Emission Sources for the 

Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project

Phase 

Project 

Year Pollutant†

Mass Flow Rates (Metric Tons* per 

Year) for Emission Source 

Total Mass 

Flow Rate 

(Metric 

Tons* Per 

Year) for the 

100 Percent 

Activity 

Level 

Mobile 

Combustion Fugitive‡

Stationary

Combustion§

Construction – 

Facility 

1 

CO 7.56 0 0.73 8.29 

NOx 7.93 0 1.26 9.19 

PM2.5 0.46 2.10 0.06 2.62 

PM10 0.47 19.05 0.06 19.58 

SO2 1.22 0 0.00 1.22 

Construction – 

Wellfield 

5 

CO 35.17 0 0.73 35.90 

NOx 34.52 0 1.26 35.78 

PM2.5 1.99 9.18 0.06 11.23 

PM10 2.05 89.49 0.06 91.6 

SO2 5.46 0 0.00 5.46 

Operations 

3 

CO 3.14 0 0.73 3.87 

NOx 4.87 0 1.26 6.13 

PM2.5 0.28 1.83 0.06 2.17 

PM10 0.29 16.22 0.06 16.57 

SO2 0.71 0 0.00 0.71 

Groundwater 

Restoration 

13 

CO 1.47 0 0.73 2.20 

NOx 2.00 0 1.26 3.26 

PM2.5 0.12 2.17 0.06 2.35 

PM10 0.12 18.45 0.06 18.63 

SO2 0.34 0 0.00 0.34 

Decommissioning/ 

Reclamation 

14 

CO 2.68 0 0.73 3.41 

NOx 5.03 0 1.26 6.29 

PM2.5 0.31 3.44 0.06 3.81 

PM10 0.32 34.36 0.06 34.74 

SO2 0.63 0 0.00 0.63 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014) 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231. 

†CO = Carbon Monoxide, NOx = Nitrogen Oxides, PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, 

PM10 = Particulate Matter between 2.5 and up to 10 micrometers in diameter, and SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide. 

‡Fugitive emissions are limited to particulate matter. 

§Stationary sources emissions are not broken down by phase. The assumption is made that the entire stationary 

combustion emission estimates for the associated individual project year are generated by the one phase rather than 

a combination of several phases. For project year one, the estimated values are lower but unspecified. Therefore, the 

Construction – Facility phase estimate, with the 100 percent activity level occurring in project year one, is considered 

conservative. The mass flow rates of 0.00 short tons per year for sulfur dioxide (SO2) mean that emissions were not 

greater than this level and do not necessarily mean that none of the pollutant was emitted.
4-85 

Table 4-11. Percentage of Emission Levels from the 100 Percent Activity Levels for the 

Various Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the Peak Year 

Emission Levels 

Phase 

Percentage of 100 Percent Activity Level Emissions Relative 

to the Peak Year Emissions 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Nitrogen 

Dioxides 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM2.5* 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10† 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Construction – Facility 21.2 22.6 20.5 18.7 19.7 

Construction – Wellfield 91.9 88.0 87.7 87.6 88.5 

Operations 9.9 15.1 17.0 15.8 11.5 

Aquifer restoration 5.6 8.0 18.3 17.8 5.4 

Decommissioning 8.7 15.5 29.7 33.2 10.3 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014) 

* Particulate matter PM2.5 is defined as particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

†Particulate matter PM10 is defined as particles with a diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than or equal 

to 10 micrometers. 

Table 4-12. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for 

Various Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the NAAQS 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Percentage of NAAQS Limit

Construction 

Facilities 

Construction

Wellfield Operations 

Groundwater

Restoration 

Decommissioning/ 

Reclamation 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

1 hour 2.1 3.3 1.9 1.8 1.8 

8 hour 4.0 4.6 3.9 3.8 3.9 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Highway 

Run 

1 hour 2.3 4.1 2.0 1.8 1.9 

8 hour 4.1 5.2 3.9 3.9 3.9 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

1 hour 18.7 40.6 16.2 13.8 16.3 

Annual 6.5 8.1 6.4 6.2 6.4 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Highway 

Run 

1 hour 28.3 78.0 22.7 17.2 22.9 

Annual 7.7 12.6 7.1 6.6 7.2 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM2.5* 

24 hour 23.9 27.1 23.7 23.7 24.3 

Annual† 28.7 29.7 28.6 28.6 28.8 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM2.5

Highway 

Run 

24 hour 24.8 31.1 24.4 24.6 25.7 

Annual† 29.5 33.4 29.3 29.4 30.1 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10 

Final 

Run‡ 

24 hour 29.0 37.7 28.7 28.9 30.8 

Annual§ 31.5 36.8 31.2 31.4 32.6 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10

Highway 

Run 

24 hour 33.5 58.5 32.4 33.1 38.7 

Annual§ 35.8 57.4 35.0 35.6 40.4 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

1 hour 26.1 31.7 22.9 22.2 22.8 

3 hour 10.2 12.1 9.9 9.7 9.9 
4-86 

Table 4-12. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for 

Various Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the NAAQS (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Percentage of NAAQS Limit

Construction 

Facilities 

Construction

Wellfield Operations 

Groundwater

Restoration 

Decommissioning/ 

Reclamation 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

Highway 

Run 

1 hour 26.4 43.3 24.4 22.9 24.1 

3 hour 10.7 14.5 10.2 9.9 10.2 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014) 

* Particulate matter PM2.5 is defined as particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

†This table identifies the primary NAAQS limit. The secondary limit is larger (i.e.,15 μg/m3

). Results that meet the 

primary standard would automatically meet the secondary standard. 

‡Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations. Particulate matter PM10 is 

defined as particles with a diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

§ There is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental 

standard. 

Table 4-13. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for 

Various Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the PSD Increments 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Percentage of PSD Class II Increment 

Construction 

Facilities 

Construction

Wellfield Operations 

Groundwater

Restoration 

Decommissioning 

and Reclamation 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Annual 2.2 8.4 1.4 0.8 1.5 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM2.5* 

24 hour 12.2 53.3 10.3 11.1 17.8 

Annual 3.0 13.2 2.5 2.7 4.5 

Particulate 

Matter PM10

Final Run†

24 hour 14.0 65.3 11.7 13.3 24.7

Annual 4.3 20.0 3.6 4.1 7.6 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

3 hour 1.4 6.5 0.8 0.4 0.8 

24 hour 1.3 6.1 0.8 0.4 0.7 

Annual 0.3 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 

Source: modified from AUC(2014) 

*Particulate matter PM2.5 is defined as particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller. 

†Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations. Particulate matter PM10 is 

defined as particles with a diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. 

1 To help characterize the magnitude of the proposed project’s air effluents, the emission levels 

2 were compared to regulatory thresholds. The New Source Review Program requires stationary 

3 air pollution sources to obtain permits prior to construction should the source be classified as a 

4 major source. The estimated emission level of NAAQS pollutants for stationary sources for the 

5 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are listed in draft SEIS Table 2-3. The emission estimates in 

6 this table are well below the New Source Review Program threshold of 227 metric tons 

7 [250 short tons] for classification as a major source as described in draft SEIS Appendix C, 

8 Section C–2.2. The pollutant with the highest stationary source emission level is nitrogen 

9 oxides (NOx), which is 1.26 metric tons [1.39 short tons] (see draft SEIS Table 2-3). The NRC 

10 staff also compared the combined stationary, mobile, and fugitive emissions from the proposed 

11 Reno Creek ISR Project to the New Source Review Program thresholds rather than only the 

12 stationary sources because mobile and fugitive sources make up the majority of the proposed 

13 project emissions (see draft SEIS Table 2-4). Draft SEIS Table 4-10 presents the emissions for 

14 the 100 percent activity level for the various phases from all sources (i.e., stationary, mobile, 

15 and fugitive). For the construction phase, the combination of stationary, mobile, and fugitive 

16 annual emissions levels are still lower than the New Source Review Program threshold. The 
4-87 

1 pollutant with the highest total emission level is the wellfield construction phase particulate 

2 matter PM10 at 91.60 metric tons [100.98 short tons] (see draft SEIS Table 4-10). 

3 Air emissions during the construction phase of the proposed project would consist primarily of 

4 fugitive dust and combustion emissions. For this air quality analysis, the construction phase 

5 was divided into two categories: CPP (i.e., facilities) construction and wellfield construction. 

6 The wellfield construction phase would generate more emissions than the facilities construction 

7 phase (see draft SEIS Table 4-10). Therefore, the analysis focused primarily on the wellfield 

8 construction phase. The wellfield construction phase would generate the highest levels of 

9 fugitive dust relative to the other phases (see draft SEIS Table 4-10). Travel on unpaved roads 

10 would generate about 94 percent of the particulate matter PM10 emissions and 92 percent of the 

11 particulate matter PM2.5 emissions with wind erosion accounting for the remaining emissions 

12 (see draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C-10). For the mobile combustion emissions, the wellfield 

13 construction phase would generate the highest levels of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 

14 (NOx), and carbon monoxide when compared with the other phases (see draft SEIS 

15 Table 4-10). The mitigation credited into the peak year emission inventory and the associated 

16 air dispersion modeling as described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1 also applies to the 

17 construction phase. 

18 The pollution concentration levels for the construction phase functioning at the 100 percent 

19 activity level are generally low based on values derived from the proposed project’s site-specific 

20 air dispersion modeling. As described in draft SEIS Table 4-11, the wellfield construction phase 

21 emission levels vary between 87.6 and 91.9 percent of the peak year emission levels depending 

22 on the particular pollutant. For the wellfield construction phase, the pollutant concentrations are 

23 below the NAAQS, ranging between 3.3 and 78.0 percent of the applicable standard (see draft 

24 SEIS Table 4-12). The facilities construction phase emission levels for all pollutants are much 

25 lower than those for the wellfield construction phase. The facilities construction phase emission 

26 levels vary between 18.7 and 22.6 percent of the peak year emission levels depending on the 

27 particular pollutant (see draft SEIS Table 4-11). For the facilities construction phase, the 

28 pollutant concentrations are below the NAAQS, ranging between 2.1 and 35.8 percent of the 

29 applicable standard (see draft SEIS Table 4-12). 

30 The wellfield construction phase pollutant concentrations are all below the applicable PSD 

31 increments, ranging between 1.3 and 65.3 percent of the applicable threshold (see draft SEIS 

32 Table 4-13). For the facilities construction phase, all of the pollutant concentrations are below 

33 the PSD increments, ranging between 0.3 and 14.0 percent of the applicable threshold (see 

34 draft SEIS Table 4-13). 

35 In the draft SEIS, the greenhouse gas emissions were not calculated for individual phases, but 

36 rather they were calculated for the peak year. The same combustion sources that would 

37 generate the non-greenhouse gas emissions also would generate the greenhouse gas 

38 emissions. Peak year emissions for non-greenhouse gas emissions would be greater than any 

39 of the individual phase emissions when functioning at the 100 percent activity level (see draft 

40 SEIS Table 4-11), and therefore, because the activities generating all combustion gas 

41 emissions are the same, peak year greenhouse gas emissions would also be greater than any 

42 of the 100 percent activity levels for the individual phases. The greenhouse gas emissions 

43 associated with the construction phase would represent a fraction of the peak year emissions, 

44 which are below the regulatory thresholds described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2. Therefore the 

45 NRC staff conclude that construction phase emissions would also be below those thresholds. 
4-88 

1 The NRC staff conclusion regarding potential greenhouse gas effects is addressed in draft SEIS 

2 Section 5.7 on air quality effects. 

3 Both the facility and wellfield construction phase pollutant concentrations would be below the 

4 NAAQS and allowable PSD increments. The NRC staff conclude that both facility and wellfield 

5 construction phase emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality because the pollutant 

6 concentrations would be low compared to the NAAQS and PSD thresholds. The NRC staff 

7 conclude that both the facility and wellfield construction phase emissions would result in a 

8 SMALL impact on air quality for Class I areas because the emission levels would be relatively 

9 low and the proposed project area is distant from Class I areas. Therefore, the NRC staff 

10 conclude that the overall impact to air quality for both the facility and wellfield construction 

11 phases for the proposed project would be SMALL. 

12 4.7.1.3 Operations Impacts 

13 GEIS Section 4.3.6.2 stated that operating ISR facilities are not major point source emitters and 

14 are not expected to be classified as major sources under the operation (Title V) permitting 

15 program. Furthermore, the GEIS stated that the primary nonradiological emissions during 

16 operations include fugitive dust and combustion products from equipment, maintenance, 

17 transport trucks, and other vehicles. Additionally, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that any 

18 nonradiological emissions from pipeline system venting, resin transfer, and elution would be 

19 expected to be at such low levels that they would be negligible and were not considered in the 

20 analysis. For NAAQS attainment areas, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

21 nonradiological air quality impacts would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

22 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, the NRC staff relied primarily on the site-specific 

23 emissions and associated air dispersion modeling to determine impact magnitude for the 

24 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project because the proposed projects emission level for the primary 

25 pollutant, particulate matter PM10, would be greater than the emission level for this pollutant 

26 specified in the GEIS. In addition, the NRC staff relied on the Reno Creek modeling results 

27 rather than the GEIS analysis for the other pollutants because the Reno Creek modeling used 

28 site-specific information. 

29 The estimated emission levels of NAAQS pollutants for stationary sources for the proposed 

30 project are listed in draft SEIS Table 2-3. The emission estimates in this table are well below 

31 the Title V or operating permit threshold of 90.7 metric tons [100 short tons] for classification as 

32 a major source in an attainment area, as described in Section C-2.2 of draft SEIS Appendix C. 

33 The pollutant with the highest stationary source emission level is nitrogen oxide at 1.26 metric 

34 tons [1.39 short tons]. The NRC staff also compared the combined stationary, mobile, and 

35 fugitive emissions from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project to the Title V permit thresholds 

36 rather than only the stationary sources. The NRC staff opted to do this because mobile and 

37 fugitive sources account for the majority of the proposed project emissions (see draft SEIS 

38 Table 2-4). For the operations phase, combined stationary, mobile, and fugitive annual 

39 emissions levels are, lower than the Title V threshold. The pollutant with the highest total 

40 emission level is the particulate matter PM10 at 16.57 metric tons [18.27 short tons] (see draft 

41 SEIS Table 4-10). 

42 Air emissions during the operations phase of the proposed project would consist primarily of 

43 fugitive dust and combustion emissions. Of the four phases, the operations phase would 

44 generate the lowest levels of particulate matter (see draft SEIS Table 4-10). Combustion 
4-89 

1 emissions would be low, with estimated values similar to those for the facility construction, 

2 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases (see draft SEIS Table 4-10). The mitigation 

3 credited into the peak year emission inventory and the associated air dispersion modeling as 

4 described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, also applies to the operations phase. 

5 The pollution-concentration levels for the operations phase functioning at the 100 percent 

6 activity level would be low based on values derived from the proposed project’s site-specific air 

7 dispersion modelling. As described in draft SEIS Table 4-11, the operations phase emission 

8 levels vary between 9.9 and 17.0 percent of the peak year emission levels depending on the 

9 particular pollutant. For the operations phase, the pollutant concentrations are below the 

10 NAAQS, ranging between 1.9 and 35.0 percent of the applicable standard (see draft SEIS 

11 Table 4-12). For the PSD analysis, the operations phase pollutant concentrations are below the 

12 PSD increments, ranging between 0.2 and 11.7 percent of the applicable threshold (see draft 

13 SEIS Table 4-13). 

14 In the draft SEIS, the greenhouse gas emissions were not calculated for individual phases, but 

15 rather they were calculated for the peak year. The same combustion sources that would 

16 generate the non-greenhouse gas emissions also would generate the greenhouse gas 

17 emissions. Since peak year emissions for non-greenhouse gas emissions would be greater 

18 than any of the individual phase emissions when functioning at the 100 percent activity level 

19 (see draft SEIS Table 4-11), and therefore, because the activities generating all combustion 

20 emissions are the same, peak year greenhouse gas emissions would also be greater than any 

21 of the 100 percent activity level for the individual phases. The greenhouse gas emissions 

22 associated with the operations phase would represent a fraction of the peak year emissions, 

23 which are below the regulatory thresholds described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2. Therefore, the 

24 NRC staff conclude that operations phase emissions would also be below those thresholds. 

25 Similar to the construction phase, the operations phase pollutant concentrations would all be 

26 below the NAAQS and the allowable PSD increments. The NRC staff conclude that the 

27 operations phase emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality because the pollutant 

28 concentrations would be low compared to the NAAQS and PSD thresholds. The NRC staff 

29 conclude that the operations phase emissions would result in a SMALL impact on air quality for 

30 Class I areas because the emission levels are relatively low and the proposed project area is 

31 distant from Class I areas. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the overall impact to air 

32 quality for the operations phase for the proposed project would be SMALL. 

33 4.7.1.4 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

34 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.6.3, the aquifer restoration phase would employ the same 

35 infrastructure that was used during operations; therefore, air quality impacts from aquifer 

36 restoration would be similar to, or less than, those during operations. Additionally, fugitive dust 

37 and combustion emissions from vehicles and equipment during aquifer restoration would be 

38 similar to, or less than, the dust and combustion emissions during operations. For NAAQS 

39 attainment areas, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that nonradiological air quality impacts 

40 would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

41 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, the NRC staff relied primarily on the site-specific 

42 emissions and associated air dispersion modeling to determine impact magnitude for the 

43 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project because the proposed projects emission level for the primary 

44 pollutant, particulate matter PM10, would be greater than the emission level for this pollutant 
4-90 

1 specified in the GEIS. In addition, the NRC staff relied on the Reno Creek modeling results 

2 rather than the GEIS analysis for the other pollutants because the Reno Creek modeling used 

3 site-specific information. 

4 Air emissions during the aquifer restoration phase of the proposed project would consist 

5 primarily of fugitive dust and combustion emissions. The aquifer restoration phase would 

6 generate the lowest levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

7 relative to the other phases (see draft SEIS Table 4-10). Particulate matter emissions from the 

8 aquifer restoration phase would be low. In fact they would be very similar to the operations 

9 phase values, which are the lowest levels among all the phases (see draft SEIS Table 4-10). 

10 The mitigation credited into the peak year emission inventory and the associated air 

11 dispersion modeling as described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1 also applies to the aquifer 

12 restoration phase. 

13 The pollution concentration levels for the aquifer restoration phase functioning at the 

14 100 percent activity level would be low based on values derived from the proposed project’s 

15 site-specific air dispersion modelling. As described in draft SEIS Table 4-11, the aquifer 

16 restoration phase emission levels vary between 5.4 and 18.3 percent of the peak year emission 

17 levels depending on the particular pollutant. For the aquifer restoration phase, the pollutant 

18 concentrations are below the NAAQS, ranging between 1.8 and 35.6 percent of the applicable 

19 standard (see draft SEIS Table 4-12). For the PSD analysis, the aquifer restoration phase 

20 pollutant concentrations are below the PSD increments, ranging between 0.1 and 13.3 percent 

21 of the applicable threshold (see draft SEIS Table 4-13). 

22 In the draft SEIS, the greenhouse gas emissions were not calculated for individual phases, but 

23 rather they were calculated for the peak year. The same combustion sources that would 

24 generate the non-greenhouse gas emissions also would generate the greenhouse gas 

25 emissions. Peak year emissions for non-greenhouse gas emissions would be greater than any 

26 of the individual phase emissions when functioning at the 100 percent activity level (see draft 

27 SEIS Table 4-11), and therefore, because the activities generating all combustion emissions 

28 are the same, peak year greenhouse gas emissions would also be greater than any of the 

29 100 percent activity levels for the individual phases. The greenhouse gas emissions associated 

30 with the aquifer restoration phase would represent a fraction of the peak year emissions, which 

31 are below the regulatory thresholds described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2. Therefore, the NRC 

32 staff conclude that aquifer restoration phase emissions would also be below those thresholds. 

33 Similar to the construction phase, the aquifer restoration phase pollutant concentrations would 

34 all be below the NAAQS and the allowable PSD increments. The NRC staff conclude that the 

35 aquifer restoration phase emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality because the 

36 pollutant concentrations are low compared to the NAAQS and PSD thresholds. The NRC staff 

37 conclude that the aquifer restoration phase emissions would result in a SMALL impact on air 

38 quality for Class I areas because the emission levels would be relatively low and the proposed 

39 project area is distant from Class I areas. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the overall 

40 impact to air quality for the aquifer restoration phase for the proposed project would be SMALL. 

41 4.7.1.5 Decommissioning Impacts 

42 As discussed in GEIS Section 4.3.6.4, fugitive dust and combustion emissions during 

43 land-disturbing activities from the decommissioning phase would come from many of the same 

44 sources as the construction phase. In the short term (i.e., 24 hours), emission levels could 
4-91 

1 increase given the types and intensities of activity (i.e., demolishing of process and 

2 administrative buildings, excavating and removing contaminated soils, and grading of disturbed 

3 areas). However, such emissions would be expected to decrease as decommissioning 

4 progresses; and therefore, overall, impacts would be similar to, or less than, those associated 

5 with construction. In addition, impacts would be of short duration (i.e., 24 hours); and would be 

6 reduced through BMPs (e.g., wetting of roads and reclaiming cleared land areas to reduce dust 

7 emissions). The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that for NAAQS attainment areas, 

8 nonradiological impacts would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

9 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, the NRC staff relied primarily on the site-specific 

10 emissions and associated air dispersion modeling to determine impact magnitude for the 

11 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project because the proposed projects emission level for the primary 

12 pollutant, particulate matter PM10, would be greater than the emission level for this pollutant 

13 specified in the GEIS. In addition, the NRC staff relied on the Reno Creek modeling results 

14 rather than the GEIS analysis for the other pollutants because the Reno Creek modeling used 

15 site-specific information. 

16 Air emissions during the decommissioning phase of the proposed project would consist primarily 

17 of fugitive dust and combustion emissions. The decommissioning phase would generate more 

18 particulate matter than any other phase except for wellfield construction (see draft SEIS 

19 Table 4-10). Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions for the 

20 decommissioning phase would be similar to the operations phase emissions and would not be 

21 that much greater than the aquifer restoration phases, which would have the lowest levels (see 

22 draft SEIS Table 4-10). The mitigation credited into the peak year emission inventory and the 

23 associated air dispersion modeling as described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1 also applies to the 

24 decommissioning phase. 

25 The pollution concentration levels for the decommissioning phase functioning at the 100 percent 

26 activity level would be low based on values derived from the proposed project’s site-specific air 

27 dispersion modeling. As described in draft SEIS Table 4-11, the decommissioning phase 

28 emission levels vary between 8.7 and 33.2 percent of the peak year emission levels depending 

29 on the particular pollutant. For the decommissioning phase, the pollutant concentrations are 

30 below the NAAQS, ranging between 1.8 and 40.4 percent of the applicable standard (see draft 

31 SEIS Table 4-13). For the PSD analysis, the decommissioning phase pollutant concentrations 

32 are below the PSD increments, ranging between 0.1 and 24.7 percent of the applicable 

33 threshold (see draft SEIS Table 4-13). 

34 In the draft SEIS, the greenhouse gas emissions were not calculated for individual phases, but 

35 rather they were calculated for the peak year. The same combustion sources that would 

36 generate the non-greenhouse gas emissions also would generate the greenhouse gas 

37 emissions. Peak year emissions for non-greenhouse gas emissions are greater than any of the 

38 individual phase emissions when functioning at the 100 percent activity level (see draft SEIS 

39 Table 4-11), and therefore, because the activities generating all combustion emissions are the 

40 same, peak year greenhouse gas emissions would also be greater than any of the 100 percent 

41 activity levels for the individual phases. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 

42 decommissioning phase would represent a fraction of the peak year emissions, which are below 

43 the regulatory thresholds described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2. Therefore, the NRC staff 

44 conclude that decommissioning phase emissions would also be below those thresholds. 
4-92 

1 Similar to the construction phase, the decommissioning phase pollutant concentrations would all 

2 be below the NAAQS and the allowable PSD increments. The NRC staff conclude that the 

3 decommissioning phase emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality because the 

4 pollutant concentrations would be low compared to the NAAQS and PSD thresholds. The NRC 

5 staff conclude that the decommissioning/restoration phase emissions would result in a SMALL 

6 impact on air quality for Class I areas because the emission levels would be relatively low and 

7 the proposed project area is distant from Class I areas. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that 

8 the overall impact to air quality for the decommissioning phase for the proposed project would 

9 be SMALL. 

10 4.7.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

11 Under the No-Action Alternative, the NRC would not license the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

12 Project. Uranium ISR activities would not occur, and the gaseous pollutants associated with 

13 these activities would not be generated. The No-Action Alternative eliminates a source of 

14 gaseous emissions that would contribute to the ambient pollutant concentrations. Therefore, 

15 the NRC staff conclude that there would be no impact to air quality for the No-Action Alternative. 

16 4.8 Noise Impacts 

17 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the noise impacts at an ISR facility may range from 

18 SMALL to MODERATE during all four phases of an ISR project, depending on the distance 

19 between the nearest resident and the activities occurring at the ISR facility (NRC, 2009). Noise 

20 may also impact wildlife in the vicinity of the ISR facility. These impacts would be from the 

21 operation of equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and compressors; from either commuting 

22 worker traffic or material and waste shipments; and from operation of the wellfields, the CPP, 

23 and associated equipment. For workers at an ISR facility, administrative and engineering 

24 controls would be used to maintain noise levels in work areas below Occupational Safety and 

25 Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory limits (29 CFR 1910.95) and would be further 

26 mitigated by use of personal hearing protection. 

27 The potential environmental impacts from noise during construction, operations, aquifer 

28 restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are described in the 

29 following sections. 

30 4.8.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

31 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.8, the majority of existing ambient noise (i.e., background 

32 noise) within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is generated by traffic from State 

33 Highway 387, which traverses the project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1) and by CBM 

34 operations (AUC, 2012a). County Road 22 (Clarkelen/Turnercrest Road) and County Road 25 

35 (Cosner Road) also traverse parts of the proposed project area and contribute to ambient noise. 

36 Dwellings within and in the vicinity of the proposed area that may be impacted by noise 

37 generated by ISR activities are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-1. The Taffner Homestead is 

38 situated at the location of the proposed CCP facility (AUC, 2012a). As described in draft SEIS 

39 Section 3.8, the applicant has acquired the Taffner Homestead. Prior to construction, the 

40 Taffner Homestead would be vacated and thereafter it would not be used as a residence 

41 (AUC, 2014b). The closest occupied offsite residence is approximately 2.0 km [1.25 mi] 

42 southeast of the proposed project boundary (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Wright, Wyoming 

43 (population 1,807), is the closest community to the proposed project, approximately 13 km [8 mi] 
4-93 

1 to the northeast (see draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Other towns within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed 

2 project area include Gillette, Kaycee, Midwest, and Edgerton (see draft SEIS Figure 3-5). 

3 Recreational activities on land within and surrounding the proposed project area could be 

4 sensitive to noise impacts. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2, recreational activities 

5 (primarily hunting) on privately-owned land within the proposed project area is limited and not 

6 allowed without permission of the landowner. In addition, hunting on privately-owned land 

7 would be restricted over the life of the project (AUC, 2012a). A parcel of state-owned land in the 

8 western portion of the project area offers limited potential for recreational activities (primarily 

9 hunting) that could be sensitive to noise impacts (see draft SEIS Figure 3-2). The applicant has 

10 committed to submitting a written request to the BLC to restrict hunting on this parcel of 

11 state-owned land (AUC, 2014a). Other nearby recreational attractions that could be sensitive to 

12 noise impacts include: the Thunder Basin National Grassland, Fort Reno historic site, and the 

13 Bozeman Trail. Although the Thunder Basin National Grassland exists within the proposed 

14 project area, lands encompassed by the Grassland within and surrounding the proposed project 

15 area are privately owned. As with other privately-owned land within and surrounding the 

16 proposed project area, recreational activities on the Grassland within or near the project area 

17 are limited and not allowed without permission of the landowner. The Fort Reno site and the 

18 Bozeman Trail are quite distant from the Reno Creek site and are not expected to be affected 

19 by noise levels from the proposed project. The Fort Reno site is 61 km [38 mi] northwest of the 

20 proposed project area, and the Bozeman Trail passes 19 km [12 mi] west of the project area. 

21 As summarized in draft SEIS Table 1-1, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that depending on 

22 the phase of the facility life cycle, potential impacts on noise in the Wyoming East Uranium 

23 Milling Region could range from SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009). The impact conclusions 

24 that contributed to a greater than SMALL impact in the GEIS finding addressed potential 

25 elevated noise levels that could affect wildlife behavior. In this draft SEIS, the potential impacts 

26 of noise on wildlife (e.g., raptors and Greater sage grouse) are presented in draft SEIS 

27 Section 4.6. Therefore, the following discussion assesses noise impacts at the proposed 

28 Reno Creek ISR Project considering offsite and onsite human receptors (i.e., local residents 

29 and workers). 

30 4.8.1.1 Construction Impacts 

31 The NRC staff stated in the GEIS that potential noise impacts would be greatest during 

32 construction of an ISR facility. The use of drill rigs, heavy trucks, bulldozers, and other 

33 equipment used to construct and operate wellfields, drill wells, construct access roads, and build 

34 the processing facilities would generate noise exceeding undisturbed background levels. Noise 

35 levels are expected to be higher during daylight hours when construction is more likely to occur 

36 and more noticeable in proximity to the operating equipment. For individuals living in the vicinity 

37 of the site, ambient noise levels would return to background at distances more than 305 m 

38 [1,000 ft] from the construction activities. Overall, these types of noise impacts would be 

39 SMALL, given the use of hearing controls for workers and the expected distance of nearest 

40 residents to the site. Traffic noise during construction (e.g., commuting workers; truck 

41 shipments to and from the facility; and construction equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and 

42 compressors) is expected to be localized and limited to highways in the vicinity of the site, 

43 access roads within the site, and roads in the wellfields. The relative increase in noise levels 

44 from passing traffic would be SMALL for the larger roads, but could be MODERATE for lightly 

45 traveled rural roads through smaller communities (NRC, 2009). 
4-94 

1 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, the construction phase of the proposed 

2 Reno Creek ISR Project would involve the use of heavy equipment to create and improve road 

3 surfaces, transport supplies, excavate foundations, erect buildings, and install wells and 

4 pipelines in the wellfields. Equipment such as bulldozers, graders, tractor trailers, excavators, 

5 cranes, and drill rigs would create noise that would be audible above background noise levels. 

6 Construction of processing facilities, pipelines, access roads, deep disposal wells, and the initial 

7 production unit is expected to be completed within 1 year (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1), followed 

8 by phased construction of additional production units during the estimated 11-year operations 

9 phase (AUC, 2012a). 

10 Expected noise levels generated during construction activities at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

11 Project would be most noticeable in proximity to operating equipment, such as drill rigs, heavy 

12 trucks, bulldozers, excavators, and front-end loaders, which can reach noise levels well above 

13 85 decibels (dBA). The applicant has committed to the following mitigation measures to 

14 minimize noise impacts during construction: (i) implementing speed limits on access roads 

15 within the proposed project area; (ii) enforcing speed limits on county roads within the proposed 

16 project area (e.g., Clarkelen Road); (iii) restricting access road construction during nighttime 

17 hours; (iv) restricting drilling to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 8 p.m.) in areas where increased noise 

18 levels could impact nearby residences; and (v) requiring employees working at drilling or 

19 construction sites to wear hearing protection (AUC, 2012a). In addition, the applicant has 

20 committed to implementing a hearing conservation program to ensure that proper personal 

21 protective equipment (PPE) and engineering controls (e.g., sound abatement controls on 

22 operating equipment) are in place to protect workers from potentially damaging noise 

23 (AUC, 2012a). Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that noise levels 

24 remain below guidelines for offsite receptors [e.g., 55-dBA daytime guideline to protect against 

25 interference and annoyance (EPA, 1974)] and below OSHA regulatory limits for workers in 

26 29 CFR 1910.95 (exposure limit for workplace noise of 85 dBA for a duration of 8 hours 

27 per day). 

28 As described previously, the Taffner Homestead located within the proposed project area would 

29 be vacated prior to construction, and, thereafter, it would not be used as a residence. The 

30 closest occupied offsite residence is approximately 2.0 km [1.25 mi] southeast of the proposed 

31 project boundary and is within 3.2 km [2.0 mi] of Production Units 5 and 7 as depicted in draft 

32 SEIS Figure 2-2 and Figure 3-1. These distances exceed the 305-m [1,000-ft] radius for noise 

33 from construction activities to return to background ambient noise levels (NRC, 2009). In 

34 addition, because of decreasing noise levels with distance, construction activities are not 

35 expected to have noise impacts on nearby communities (e.g., Wright, Gillette, Kaycee, Midwest, 

36 and Edgerton). As described previously, recreational activities on privately- and state-owned 

37 land within and surrounding the proposed project area are limited and hunting would be 

38 restricted on land within the proposed project area over the life of the project. 

39 Truck transport of construction materials would be the primary noise source that may potentially 

40 affect the public. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.8, State Highway 387 traverses the 

41 proposed project area and Clarkelen Road provides access to proposed project facilities. 

42 Traffic noise along State Highway 387 and Clarkelen Road would increase during construction 

43 activities due to workers commuting to and from the job site and truck shipments to and from the 

44 facilities during daylight hours. State Highway 387 and Clarkelen Road are line sources of 

45 noise. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.8, the maximum sound levels from heavy trucks 

46 (70 dBA) traveling along State Highway 387 or Clarkelen Road would diminish to approximately 

47 57 dBA at a distance of approximately 480 m [1,575 ft] from the source. At distances beyond 
4-95 

1 480 m [1,575 ft], it is assumed that sound levels generated by heavy trucks would be 

2 approximately 40 dBA. Based on typical land uses within and surrounding the project area 

3 (e.g., rangeland for livestock grazing), sound levels ranging from 40 to 57 dBA are within 

4 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement criteria established in 

5 23 CFR Part 772. These criteria are described in draft SEIS Table 3-20. In addition, few 

6 residences are located within an 8-km [5-mi] radius of the proposed project, and increases in 

7 noise levels associated with passing heavy truck traffic during the construction phase would be 

8 short term (1 year; see draft SEIS Figure 2-1). 

9 In summary, noise levels associated with project-related construction activities would not 

10 adversely impact onsite and offsite human receptors. The only onsite residence (Taffner 

11 Homestead) has been acquired by the applicant and would be vacated prior to construction. 

12 Implementation of mitigation measures, such as using sound abatement controls on equipment 

13 and using personal hearing protection for workers in high noise areas, would ensure that noise 

14 levels remain within guidelines for offsite human receptors and workers. Recreational activities 

15 on privately- and state-owned land within and surrounding the proposed project area are limited 

16 and hunting would be restricted on land within the proposed project area over the life of the 

17 project. During the construction phase, noise levels associated with project-related 

18 transportation activities on State Highway 387 and Clarkelen Road would be within FHWA 

19 noise-abatement criteria at a distance of 480 m [1,575 ft] or greater and would be temporary 

20 (1 year). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the overall site-specific impacts from noise 

21 during construction would be SMALL. 

22 4.8.1.2 Operations Impacts 

23 As stated in the GEIS, during ISR operations, noise-generating activities would occur mainly 

24 indoors within the central uranium processing facilities; therefore, offsite sound levels would be 

25 reduced during the operations phase. Wellfield equipment (e.g., pumps, and compressors) 

26 would be contained within structures (e.g., header houses or satellite facilities), thus limiting the 

27 propagation of noise to offsite individuals. Traffic noise from commuting workers, truck 

28 shipments to and from the facility, and facility equipment would be localized and limited to 

29 highways in the vicinity of the site, access roads within the proposed license area, and wellfield 

30 roads. Relative increases in noise levels from traffic would be SMALL for the larger roads, but 

31 could be MODERATE for lightly traveled rural roads through smaller communities. Thus, the 

32 NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that potential impacts from noise during the operations phase 

33 may range from SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009) 

34 The potential impact from onsite-generated noise during the operations phase of the proposed 

35 Reno Creek ISR project would be less than during the construction phase because fewer 

36 pieces of heavy equipment would be used. However, a variety of mechanical equipment 

37 (e.g., generators, pumps, air compressors, and ventilation systems) at the CPP and in the 

38 production units would generate noise during operations. The applicant has committed to the 

39 following mitigation measures to minimize noise impacts during operations: (i) implementing 

40 speed limits on access roads within the proposed project area; (ii) locating process machinery, 

41 such as pumps, dryers, and generators, within the fully enclosed CPP; and (iii) keeping all 

42 overhead CPP doors closed as much as possible to minimize the propagation of noise to onsite 

43 and offsite receptors (AUC, 2012a). In wellfields, pumps and compressors used for injection, 

44 production, and transfer of lixiviant would be contained within header houses. Likewise, pumps 

45 and compressors used to inject liquid wastes into deep disposal wells would be contained within 

46 buildings constructed around the wells (AUC, 2012b). Mitigation measures, such as the use of 
4-96 

1 sound-abatement controls on operating equipment in the CPP and wellfields, would further 

2 reduce the propagation of noise to onsite and offsite human receptors. Although potential noise 

3 generation during operations of individual production units is expected to be of short duration 

4 (i.e., 2 to 3 years), operations activities would continue over much of the life of the project as 

5 operations are completed in sequentially developed production units (see draft SEIS 

6 Figure 2-1). Noise impacts to workers during operations would be mitigated by implementation 

7 of a hearing conservation program to ensure that OSHA exposure limits in 29 CFR 1910.95 are 

8 not exceeded (AUC, 2012a). This program would include fitting workers with proper PPE and 

9 implementing engineering controls (e.g., protective enclosures around equipment) to protect 

10 workers from potentially damaging noise. 

11 Heavy truck traffic associated with shipments of yellowcake would result in temporary noise. 

12 Shipments of yellowcake would be infrequent (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7) and would have 

13 only a SMALL impact on noise levels on Clarkelen Road and State Highway 387. Traffic noise 

14 from commuting workers on highways in the vicinity of the site and on Clarkelen Road leading to 

15 and from the site would increase during operations when facilities are experiencing peak 

16 employment. However, because of the remote location of the site and lack of human receptors 

17 within and surrounding the project site, noise impacts from passing traffic during operations 

18 would be SMALL. 

19 In summary, much of the noise generated during the operations phase of the proposed project 

20 would be contained within buildings and structures (e.g., the CPP and header houses). 

21 Because of decreasing noise levels with distance, noise from operations activities would have 

22 no impact on residents, communities, or recreational areas that are located more than 305 m 

23 [1,000 ft] from specific noise-generating activities (NRC, 2009). As noted previously, the closest 

24 occupied offsite residence is approximately 2.0 km [1.5 mi] southeast of the proposed project 

25 boundary and approximately 3.2 km [2.0 mi] from the nearest production unit. Noise levels to 

26 workers would be mitigated by use of sound-abatement controls on operating equipment, 

27 adherence to OSHA regulatory limits, and use of personal hearing protection. Heavy truck 

28 traffic associated with yellowcake shipments would be infrequent and result in only short-term 

29 noise on local county roads and state highways. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the 

30 overall site-specific impacts from noise during operations would be SMALL. 

31 4.8.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

32 The GEIS notes that general noise levels during aquifer restoration would be expected to be 

33 similar to, or less than, noise levels during operations. The noise from pumps and other 

34 wellfield equipment contained within buildings would reduce sound levels to offsite receptors. 

35 The existing operational infrastructure would be used, and traffic volume would be less than 

36 during the construction and operations phases. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the 

37 potential impact from noise during aquifer restoration would range from SMALL to MODERATE, 

38 depending on the location of the nearest resident (NRC, 2009). 

39 The NRC staff conclude that, for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, noise generated during 

40 the aquifer restoration phase of the proposed project would either be similar to, or less than, 

41 noise generated during the operations phase. Like the operations phase, mechanical 

42 equipment (e.g., generators, pumps, air compressors, and ventilation systems) at the CPP and 

43 in the production units would generate noise during aquifer restoration. Noise from traffic 

44 associated with aquifer restoration would be limited to delivery of supplies and workers traveling 

45 to and from the site; therefore, there would be fewer vehicular trips than during the operations 
4-97 

1 phase. Mitigation measures that the applicant would implement to minimize noise impacts 

2 during aquifer restoration would be similar to operations and include (i) implementing speed 

3 limits on access roads within the proposed project area; (ii) locating process machinery, such as 

4 pumps, dryers, and generators, within the fully enclosed CPP; and (iii) keeping all overhead 

5 CPP doors closed as much as possible to minimize the propagation of noise to onsite and 

6 offsite receptors. In wellfields, pumps and compressors used for aquifer restoration activities, 

7 such as groundwater transfer and groundwater sweep, would be contained within header 

8 houses. Likewise, pumps and compressors used to inject liquid wastes generated by aquifer 

9 restoration activities into deep disposal wells would be contained within buildings constructed 

10 around the wells (AUC, 2012b). Although potential noise generation during aquifer restoration 

11 of individual production units is expected to be of short duration (e.g., 3 to 4 years), aquifer 

12 restoration activities would continue over much of the life of the project as operations are 

13 completed in sequentially developed production units (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1). 

14 Because the amount of equipment used and the volume of traffic would be less than during the 

15 operations phase, noise impacts during aquifer restoration would remain SMALL. As described 

16 previously, the closest offsite residence is approximately 2.0 km [1.25 mi] southeast of the 

17 proposed project and approximately 3.2 km [2.0 mi] from the nearest production unit. Because 

18 of decreasing noise levels with distance, aquifer restoration activities and associated traffic 

19 would be expected to have only SMALL noise impacts for residences, communities, and 

20 sensitive areas that are located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific noise-generating 

21 activities (NRC, 2009). Mitigation measures, such as the use of sound abatement controls on 

22 operating equipment in the CPP and production units, would further reduce the propagation of 

23 noise to onsite and offsite human receptors. Noise impacts to workers during aquifer restoration 

24 would continue to be mitigated by fitting workers with proper PPE and implementing engineering 

25 controls (e.g., protective enclosures around equipment) to ensure that OSHA exposure limits in 

26 29 CFR 1910.95 are not exceeded (AUC, 2012a). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the 

27 potential impact from noise during aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 

28 4.8.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

29 As stated in the GEIS, general noise levels generated during decommissioning and reclamation 

30 would be similar to the noise generated during construction. Equipment used to dismantle 

31 buildings and milling equipment, remove potentially contaminated soils, or grade the surface as 

32 part of reclamation activities would generate audible noise at above-background levels. This 

33 noise would be temporary, and when decommissioning and reclamation activities are 

34 completed, noise levels would return to baseline, with occasional noise from longer term 

35 monitoring activities. Like the construction phase, the noise level would be greater during 

36 daylight hours when decommissioning and reclamation are more likely to occur and most 

37 noticeable in proximity to the operating equipment. Given the likely distance to nearby residents 

38 {i.e., greater than 305 m [1,000 ft]}, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that noise would not be 

39 discernible to offsite residents or communities. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS 

40 that the impact from noise generated during decommissioning could range from SMALL to 

41 MODERATE (NRC, 2009). 

42 The noise generated during decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would 

43 be similar to or less than that generated during the construction phase. Sources of noise would 

44 include the use of heavy equipment for earthmoving, excavation, and building demolition 

45 activities. In wellfields, the greatest source of noise would be from equipment used during 

46 plugging and abandonment of production, injection, and monitoring wells. Cement mixers, 
4-98 

1 compressors, and pumps would be the largest contributors to noise. Fewer shipments to and 

2 from the proposed project area would occur as decommissioning progresses, resulting in less 

3 noise from traffic. Because of decreasing noise levels with distance, decommissioning activities 

4 and associated traffic would be expected to have only SMALL noise impacts for residences, 

5 communities, and sensitive areas that are located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific 

6 noise-generating activities (NRC, 2009). As noted previously, the closest offsite residence is 

7 approximately 2.0 km [1.25 mi] southeast of the proposed project and approximately 3.2 km 

8 [2.0 mi] from the nearest production unit. Noise impacts to workers during decommissioning 

9 would be mitigated by adherence to OSHA noise regulations implemented through the 

10 applicant’s hearing conservation program (AUC, 2012a). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude 

11 that the potential impact from noise on human receptors during decommissioning would 

12 be SMALL. 

13 4.8.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

14 Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change to sound levels either within the 

15 proposed project area or to surrounding human receptors. Ambient noise levels would continue 

16 to be primarily generated by highway traffic from State Highway 387 and ongoing 

17 CBM operations. 

18 4.9 Historical and Cultural Impacts 

19 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.8, ISR facility construction, operations, aquifer restoration, 

20 and decommissioning phases have the potential to adversely impact historic and cultural 

21 resources (NRC, 2009). Historic and cultural resources can be affected by land disturbances or 

22 be adversely impacted by visual or auditory sensory alterations resulting from the lifespan of an 

23 ISR facility. (NRC, 2009) 

24 The potential environmental impacts on historic and cultural resources from construction, 

25 operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

26 are detailed in the following sections. 

27 4.9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

28 The proposed project encompasses a total area of 2,451 ha [6,057 ac]. The Area of Potential 

29 Effect (APE) for the review of historic and cultural resources at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

30 Project is defined as the area that will be directly or indirectly impacted by construction, 

31 operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning activities. 

32 The direct APE for all phases of the facility would total of 651 ha [1,609 ac] and would coincide 

33 with the footprint of ground disturbance relating to facilities and infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, 

34 access roads, header houses, the CPP, and wellfields) (AUC, 2012a). The space between the 

35 edges of the wellfields and monitoring well rings is also included in the direct impact area for the 

36 proposed project. The indirect APE for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would consist of 

37 the viewshed analysis for an area extending 3.2 km [2 mi] from the proposed project boundary, 

38 and the general local area from which the proposed CPP could be viewed, since the structure 

39 would be the tallest structure for the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). 

40 As previously noted, ISR facility construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

41 decommissioning phases have the potential to adversely impact historic properties 
4-99 

1 (i.e., properties that are listed in, or are eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic 

2 Places (NRHP) and other historic and cultural resources. The NRC staff are also complying 

3 with NHPA requirements through this draft SEIS. The NRC staff have consulted with the 

4 WY SHPO, interested tribes and the applicant when making preliminary determinations on the 

5 identification of historic properties that could be impacted by the proposed project. Draft SEIS 

6 Section 3.9.3 discusses the NRC staff’s preliminary determinations regarding whether a historic 

7 or cultural resource meets the eligibility criteria to be considered a historic property in 

8 accordance with 36 CFR 60.4(a)-(d). As discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.9, after reviewing 

9 recommendations and considering any comments received from other consulting parties, the 

10 NRC staff made preliminary determinations that all the sites, isolates and historic structures 

11 identified in the surveys are ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The NRC staff submitted its 

12 preliminary determinations to WY SHPO for concurrence. The WY SHPO is currently 

13 evaluating these preliminary determinations. 

14 4.9.1.1 Construction Impacts 

15 GEIS Section 4.3.8.1 described ISR facility construction-related impacts, both direct and 

16 indirect, to historical and cultural resources associated with land-disturbing activities. According 

17 to the GEIS, these impacts may range from SMALL to LARGE and are dependent on the 

18 identification of historic and cultural sites in a proposed project area. In addition, GEIS 

19 Section 4.3.8 notes that, as needed, the NRC license applicant would be required, under 

20 conditions in its NRC license, to adhere to procedures regarding the discovery of previously 

21 undocumented cultural resources during all phases of a proposed project. These procedures 

22 typically entail the stoppage of work and the notification of appropriate parties (federal, tribal, 

23 and state agencies) (NRC, 2009). 

24 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, the applicant’s proposed project includes 

25 construction of the CPP and associated infrastructure, such as wellfields, pipelines, power lines, 

26 header houses, ponds, and access roads, and ancillary buildings. Consistent with the GEIS, 

27 construction phase activities that may disturb historic and cultural impacts would include earth 

28 moving activities, trenching, land clearing, etc. Potential impacts on historic and cultural 

29 resources from construction of the proposed project are discussed next. 

30 The NRC staff have evaluated the results of historic and cultural resource surveys conducted for 

31 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and consulted with interested tribes, other interest parties 

32 and the WY SHPO as part of the environmental review (see draft SEIS Section 3.9.3). The 

33 surveys included a Class I and Class III cultural resource investigation and a tribal cultural 

34 survey. Draft SEIS Section 3.9 discusses the NRC’s staff preliminary determinations that the 

35 historic and cultural resources identified were not eligible for listing on the NRHP. The following 

36 section discusses the impact analysis for the historic and cultural resources identified in the 

37 tribal cultural survey and tribal recommendations regarding those resources. 

38 Tribal Cultural Survey 

39 Tribal surveyors conducted a systematic pedestrian reconnaissance of the entire 1,609-acre 

40 direct APE for the Reno Creek ISR project from June 16–20, 2014 and July 7–18, 2014. During 

41 the survey, the tribes recorded data at four previously recorded precontact sites, and one 

42 precontact isolate. Six new sites of religious and cultural significance to Native American Tribes 

43 were identified. The surveyors also recorded 22 new isolated cultural localities. 
4-100 

1 Draft SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2 presents the results of tribal cultural surveys and NRHP eligibility 

2 recommendations for previously recorded archaeological sites, as well as newly discovered 

3 tribal sites identified by representatives of the Crow Creek Sioux, Flandreau Santee Sioux, 

4 Yankton Sioux, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux, 

5 Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Crow Tribe (Apsaalooke), Santee Sioux 

6 Nation, Fort Belknap Tribe, Chippewa Cree Tribe, and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. 

7 Previously Recorded 

8 Revisitation of Previously Recorded Sites 

9 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.9, of the 74 cultural localities identified in the proposed 

10 project area by Class III intensive surveys, none were eligible for listing in the NRHP. While 

11 participating in the tribal cultural survey, some surveyors chose to revisit some of these 

12 previously recorded archaeological sites and isolate locations. In total, tribal representatives 

13 investigated four such sites and revisited one isolated find (48CA7084, 48CA2765, 48CA4267, 

14 48CA7087 and IF 7063-11). As a result, the survey teams recorded 13 cultural artifacts. All of 

15 the newly recorded locations consist of individual artifacts. No new cultural features were 

16 recorded during these revisits. None of the surveying tribes recommended previously recorded 

17 archaeological sites or isolates as eligible for listing in the NRHP. The NRC staff reviewed 

18 these recommendations and concluded the recorded individual artifacts do not change the 

19 ineligible status of these previously inventoried sites and isolates. Therefore, the NRC staff 

20 made a preliminary determination that Sites 48CA7084, 48CA2765, 48CA4267, 48CA7087 and 

21 IF 7063-11 are ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The NRC staff submitted its preliminary 

22 determinations to WY SHPO for concurrence. The WY SHPO is currently evaluating these 

23 preliminary determinations. 

24 The NRC staff’s assessments of the significance of impacts for known archaeological sites 

25 revisited during the tribal cultural surveys are summarized in draft SEIS Table 4-14. In 

26 assessing the significance of impacts to these sites, the NRC staff considered its preliminary 

27 NRHP-eligibility determinations as discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.9 and the locations of 

28 eligible sites within the APE affected by facility construction. 

29 Tribal Sites: New Discoveries 

30 Tribal representatives identified six new sites/feature areas (48CA7249, 48CA7250, 48CA7251, 

31 48CA7252, 48CA7253, and 48CA7254) during the tribal cultural survey. A total of 55 cultural 

32 artifacts and 5 cultural features were recorded. The NRC staff’s NRHP eligibility determinations, 

33 assessment of the significance of impacts, and recommendations for new sites identified during 

34 the tribal cultural survey are summarized in draft SEIS Table 4-19 and discussed in the following 

35 section. In assessing the significance of impacts to these sites, the NRC staff considered its 

36 NRHP eligibility determinations and the location of the sites with respect to the direct APE for 

37 facility construction. 

38 Two of the six newly discovered cultural sites were identified within the proposed Reno Creek 

39 ISR Project area but outside the proposed Reno Creek ISR direct APE. Both of these sites 

40 (48CA7249 and 48CA7250) are located on property owned by the State of Wyoming. Four of 

41 the sites were located within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project direct APE. One of these 

42 sites (48CA7252) is located on property owned by the State of Wyoming, while the remaining 

43 three sites (48CA7251, 48CA7253, and 48CA7254) are located on privately owned property.
4-101 

Table 4-14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

Eligibility and Impact Analysis for Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Isolates, and Newly Recorded Tribal Sites and Isolates Identified During the Tribal Cultural Survey 

State Site 

Number

Associated Tribal 

Resource Number 

Site 

Description 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination* 

Location 

Relative to the 

Direct APE 

Significance 

of Impact* 

Mitigation 

Recommendations* 

48CA2765 TR-002; TR-018, TR019, TR-033, and TR034 Precontact campsite historic trash Not eligible Inside APE SMALL None 48CA4267 TR-010, TR-036, 

TR-037; TR-011 and TR-038; TR-012 

Precontact lithic scatter 

Not eligible Inside APE SMALL None 

48CA7084 TR-001 and TR-014 Precontact 

campsite 

Not eligible Inside APE SMALL None 

48CA7087 No assigned TR # 

(precontact artifacts recorded by Northern Arapaho Tribe) 

Historic artifacts (potential homestead) 

Not eligible Inside APE SMALL None 

48CA7249 N/A Precontact lithic 

scatter 

Not eligible Outside APE SMALL None† 

48CA7250 N/A Precontact lithic 

scatter 

Not eligible Outside APE SMALL None† 

48CA7251 TR-044 Cultural feature 

and Precontact lithic scatter 

Not eligible Inside APE SMALL Avoidance 

48CA7252 TR-045 Cultural features 

and Precontact lithic scatter 

Not eligible Inside APE SMALL Construction Monitoring 

and/or Avoidance 

48CA7253 Stone Circle - Partial 

Tipi Ring 

Cultural feature Not eligible Inside APE SMALL None 

48CA7254 Stone Circle Feature Cultural feature Not eligible Inside APE SMALL None 

*There would be no impact to historic properties in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area based on NRC’s NHRP eligibility determinations. See draft SEIS Section 3.9.3.1. † These sites would not be affected because they are outside of the direct APE. 
4-102 

1 Of the 12 tribes that participated in the survey, the Santee Sioux Tribe and the Northern 

2 Arapaho Tribe provided written recommendations regarding sites of religious or cultural 

3 significance (draft SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.4). The Santee Sioux offered a recommendation 

4 of no adverse effect for the proposed project. The Northern Arapaho Tribe provided 

5 recommendations for 48CA7251 and 48CA7252 as well as for three isolated resource areas. 

6 The NRC staff and WY SHPO do not consider isolated cultural resource areas eligible for listing 

7 in the NRHP. Where discoveries are not considered to be eligible, the NRC staff expect that 

8 construction activities will have no significant impact on any of the sites or isolates located within 

9 the direct APE. The two tribal cultural sites (48CA7249 and 48CA7250) located outside of the 

10 direct APE would not be impacted by the current design plans for the proposed Reno Creek 

11 ISR Project. 

12 The NRC staff conclude that two sites (48CA7251 and 48CA7252) may be affected by the 

13 proposed project due to their location within the direct APE as a result of facility construction. 

14 Avoidance of the sites would reduce impacts. However, as recommended by the Northern 

15 Arapaho Tribe and the NRC staff, AUC could implement a voluntary avoidance and construction 

16 monitoring plan to mitigate potential effects to 48CA7252. Formalized mitigation strategies for 

17 48CA7251 and 48CA7252 could be developed with the applicant in accordance with 

18 36 CFR 800.14(b)(2). The NRC staff’s eligibility determinations and mitigation strategies were 

19 submitted to the WY SHPO for concurrence. The WY SHPO is currently evaluating these 

20 preliminary determinations and recommendations. 

21 Visual Impacts Assessment 

22 The CPP would be the tallest building constructed at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area 

23 and is slated to stand approximately 15.2 m [50 ft] tall. A viewshed study conducted for the 

24 environmental review indicates that the CPP structure will be visible from many elevated areas 

25 within the direct and indirect APE (AUC, 2012a). The NRC staff used Geographic Information 

26 Systems (GIS) analysis to determine if the proposed CPP would be visible at any known historic 

27 properties (eligible properties or properties listed in the NRHP and other historic and 

28 cultural sites. 

29 This assessment reviewed the potential for indirect impacts on new and previously inventoried 

30 cultural sites in an 8 km [5 mi] radius of the proposed CPP location. Previously inventoried site 

31 data was accessed through the WY SHPO. There are no NRHP-listed sites in the proposed 

32 Reno Creek ISR Project area. However, there are nine NRHP eligible sites mapped within 8 km 

33 [5 mi] of the proposed project boundary (draft SEIS Table 4-15). The Pumpkin Buttes TCP is 

34 beyond 8 km [5 mi] from the proposed project boundary. 

35 Of the 11 eligible properties, 3 are multi-component sites, with both historic and prehistoric 

36 components, 2 are historic sites, 4 are prehistoric sites, and 2 are Native American sites of 

37 religious and cultural significance. Historic properties considered eligible for the NRHP under 

38 Criterion D alone were not evaluated for potential visual impacts because integrity of setting is 

39 not often considered a contributing characteristic for properties considered eligible on the basis 

40 of their historic information content. Therefore, the NRC staff assessed Site 48CA1559 (Historic 

41 Homestead and Ranch), and Site 48CA2520 (Historic Dance/Recreation Hall) (draft SEIS 

42 Table 4-15). The 2 historic sites (Site 48CA1559 and 48CA2520) still had extant historic 

43 buildings at the time of their recording. 
4-103 

Table 4-15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Eligibility and Impact Analysis for Historic 

Properties Included in the Visual Impacts Analysis 

 Site 

Number Site Type 

Significance 

of Impact 

Temporal 

Period 

Distance 

to CPP 

CPP 

Visible 

NRHP Eligibility 

Criteria 

48CA1559 Historic 

Homestead and 

Ranch 

Small, no 

visual impact 

1890-

Present 

10.4 km 

[6.5 mi] 

No Recorder: 

Criterion A, C, 

and D 

(SHPO 

Concurrence) 

48CA2520 Historic 

Dance/Recreation 

Hall 

Small, no 

visual impact 

1940-1945 11.2 km 

[7 mi] 

No Recorder: 

Significant 

(Unknown 

Criterion) 

(SHPO 

Concurrence) 

Source: WYCRO Database 

1 The closest site to the proposed CPP location is Site 48CA1559, located 10.4 km [6.5 mi] away. 

2 Site 48CA2520 is the greatest distance from the proposed CPP location at 11.2 km [7 mi] away. 

3 This 360 degree viewshed assessment determined that the proposed CPP location would not 

4 be visible at National Register Eligible (NRE) sites located outside of the proposed project area. 

5 This analysis does indicate that the proposed CPP location will be visible from the southeastern 

6 vantage of the Pumpkin Buttes, which is considered a TCP by BLM. 

7 The NRC staff assessed the potential visual impact to the integrity of setting for the Pumpkin 

8 Buttes. The area between the Pumpkin Buttes and the proposed project currently contains 

9 intrusive modern elements (e.g., public roads and oil drilling stations). The presence of these 

10 intrusions may diminish the qualities of setting, feeling, and association of the Pumpkin Buttes 

11 with potential visual effects. The existence of small modern intrusions already obstruct the 

12 visual line between the proposed CPP location and the Pumpkin Buttes. Therefore, the addition 

13 of the proposed CPP location to this setting would not significantly change the setting of the 

14 Pumpkin Buttes or the qualities of setting and feeling associated with the Pumpkin Buttes based 

15 on the factors that the proposed CPP would not be seen from NRE sites and the presence of 

16 existing intrusive modern elements already obstructs the visual line to the Pumpkin Buttes. In 

17 addition, the applicant has committed to reduce any visual impact of the proposed project by 

18 using neutral paint colors for its proposed facilities (AUC, 2014). The NRC staff conclude that 

19 the impact to the visual setting of historic and cultural resources would be SMALL. 

20 Auditory Impacts Assessment 

21 The auditory impacts assessment of this draft SEIS evaluates the potential for new auditory 

22 changes that may impact historic properties or other historic and cultural sites within or outside 

23 the limits of proposed ground disturbance. GEIS Section 4.3.7.1 determined that activities 

24 associated with construction (and operations) of ISR facilities in the Wyoming East Uranium 

25 Milling Region would not introduce significant audible elements in light of sparse development 

26 and the distance to nearby communities. The GEIS stipulates that noise impacts related to 

27 activities occurring beyond 305 m [1,000 ft] are considered SMALL for residences, communities, 

28 and sensitive areas (NRC 2009). 
4-104 

1 As discussed in the GEIS, impacts to historic and cultural resources resulting from noise would 

2 be greatest during the construction (and potentially decommissioning) phase(s) of an ISR 

3 project due to noise generated by earthmoving, excavation, building construction, and 

4 demolition activities (NRC, 2009). The NRC staff’s NRHP eligibility determinations identified no 

5 historic properties in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (i.e., properties listed in or 

6 considered eligible for listing in the NRHP). An additional nine NRHP-eligible properties are 

7 located between 7.2 to 8 km [4.5 mi and 5 mi] of the proposed project area. 

8 All historic properties and other historic and cultural sites identified by the NRC staff as eligible 

9 for listing in the NRHP are located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from the proposed CPP location. 

10 Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that potential auditory impacts to historic and cultural sites 

11 during construction would be SMALL. 

12 Inadvertent Discovery Plan 

13 The applicant has agreed, under conditions in an NRC license, to adhere to procedures 

14 regarding the discovery of previously undocumented historic and cultural resources during the 

15 project lifetime. Therefore, in order to mitigate or avoid impacts to resources, the applicant has 

16 committed to use an inadvertent discovery plan to address the potential identification of 

17 previously unrecorded historic and cultural resources during ISR facility construction 

18 (AUC, 2012a). If an inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural resources is made, then work 

19 would cease and all appropriate state, tribal, and federal parties must be contacted. Any 

20 discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. 

21 Construction Impacts Conclusion 

22 The NRC staff’s evaluation of historic and cultural resources is based on analyses of the historic 

23 and cultural resource investigation (Greer Services, 2011), the NRC’s Tribal Cultural Survey 

24 (NRC, 2015), and consultation with interested tribes, the applicant and the WY SHPO. As 

25 discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.9, the NRC’s preliminary NRHP eligibility determinations 

26 identified no historic properties in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project direct APE. There are 

27 nine known historic properties located approximately 8 km [5 mi] from the proposed project area 

28 in the indirect APE, but these historic properties will not be visible from the proposed CPP 

29 based on NRC’s viewshed analysis. The Pumpkin Buttes TCP is also located outside the 

30 indirect APE. Based on these factors and applicant’s agreement to use neutral colors and have 

31 an inadvertent discovery plan, the NRC staff conclude that the potential impacts to historic and 

32 cultural resources during the construction phase of the project would be SMALL. 

33 4.9.1.2 Operations Impacts 

34 In GEIS Section 4.3.8.2, the impact of the operations phase of the ISR facility life cycle is 

35 considered SMALL, primarily because activities during operations are generally limited to 

36 previously disturbed areas (e.g. access roads, the CPP, and wellfields). There would be the 

37 potential for impacts to previously undisturbed land areas due to any new construction, 

38 maintenance, and repair. However, in general fewer impacts on historic and cultural resources 

39 are anticipated during operations in comparison to the construction phase due to a reduction in 

40 ground disturbances (NRC, 2009). A key difference between the two phases with regard to 

41 historic and cultural resources is that during operations, access restrictions are present around 

42 active production units, new wells, header houses, and pipelines that limit inadvertent 

43 disturbance of cultural properties. As previously mentioned, the NRC staff’s preliminary NRHP 

44 eligibility determinations for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project found no sites eligible for 
4-105 

1 listing in the NRHP in the direct APE and nine eligible sites in the indirect APE. The operations 

2 phase associated with the proposed project would have fewer visual or auditory impacts to other 

3 historic or cultural properties than construction phase. The applicant has also committed to the 

4 use of an inadvertent discovery plan to address the potential identification of previously 

5 unrecorded historic and cultural resources during ISR facility operations (AUC, 2012a). If an 

6 inadvertent discovery of historical or cultural resources is made, then work would cease and all 

7 appropriate state, tribal, and federal parties would be contacted. Any discovered artifacts will be 

8 inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Based on these factors, the 

9 NRC staff conclude that the potential impacts to historic and cultural resources during the 

10 operations phase of the project would be SMALL. 

11 4.9.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

12 In GEIS Section 4.3.8.3, the impact of the aquifer restoration phase of the ISR facility life cycle 

13 is considered SMALL. The anticipated impacts to historic and cultural resources associated 

14 with this phase would be equivalent to, or less than, those attributed to ISR facility operations 

15 (NRC, 2009). Moreover, potential ground-disturbing activities occurring in this phase will likely 

16 be confined to areas having been disturbed through construction as the impacts are generally 

17 limited to the existing infrastructure and previously disturbed areas (e.g., access roads, the 

18 CPP, and wellfields) (NRC, 2009). 

19 The NRC’s preliminary NRHP eligibility determinations for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

20 Project found no sites in the direct APE and nine sites in the indirect APE that are eligible for 

21 listing in the NRHP. The aquifer restoration associated with the proposed project would have 

22 fewer visual or auditory impacts to other historic or cultural properties like the operations phase. 

23 The applicant has also committed to the use of an inadvertent discovery plan to address the 

24 potential identification of previously unrecorded historic and cultural resources during the aquifer 

25 restoration phase (AUC, 2012a). If an inadvertent discovery of historic or cultural resources is 

26 made, then work would cease and all appropriate state, tribal, and federal parties must be 

27 contacted. Any discovered artifacts would be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 

28 CFR Part 800. Therefore, the aquifer restoration phase of the proposed project would have a 

29 SMALL impact on historic and cultural properties. 

30 4.9.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

31 In GEIS Section 4.3.8.4, the impact of the decommissioning phase of the ISR facility life cycle is 

32 considered SMALL, primarily because decommissioning activities are generally limited to 

33 previously disturbed areas (e.g., access roads, the CPP, and wellfields) and because historic 

34 and cultural resources within the existing area of potential effect are known, potential impacts 

35 can be avoided or lessened by redesign of decommissioning project activities (NRC, 2009). 

36 The GEIS states that decommissioning and reclamation activities would be limited to previously 

37 disturbed areas within an ISR facility (NRC, 2009). Consequently, it is expected that impacts to 

38 any known historic or cultural resources, or other historic or cultural resources inadvertently 

39 discovered during prior phases of the proposed project, would have been mitigated prior to the 

40 decommissioning phase. The NRC staff’s NRHP eligibility determinations for the proposed 

41 Reno Creek ISR Project found no sites in the direct APE that are eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

42 Decommissioning and reclamation activities associated with the proposed project would also 

43 have few visual or auditory impacts to other historic and cultural properties. The applicant has 

44 also committed to the use of an inadvertent discovery plan to address the potential identification 
4-106 

1 of previously unrecorded historic and cultural resources during ISR facility decommissioning 

2 (AUC, 2012a). If an inadvertent discovery of historical or cultural resources is made, then work 

3 would cease and all appropriate state, tribal, and federal parties must be contacted. Any 

4 discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. 

5 Based on the above factors, the NRC staff concluded the impacts to historic or cultural 

6 resources would be SMALL during the decommissioning phase of the proposed Reno Creek 

7 ISR Project. 

8 4.9.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

9 Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would not be 

10 constructed or operated. Therefore, no historic or cultural properties would be adversely 

11 affected by the No-Action Alternative. Ongoing light surficial impacts in the proposed project 

12 area, such as cattle grazing and vehicular traffic, are likely to continue. 

13 4.10 Visual and Scenic Impacts 

14 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that visual and scenic impacts at an ISR facility would be 

15 SMALL during all four phases of an ISR project. These impacts primarily come from use of 

16 equipment such as drill rigs, dust and other emissions from such equipment, construction of the 

17 CPP and storage structures, site and wellfield access roads, land clearing and grading activities, 

18 and lighting for nighttime operations. Such impacts may be mitigated by topography, the use of 

19 color considerations for structures, and dust suppression techniques (NRC, 2009). 

20 Potential environmental impacts on visual and scenic resources from construction, operations, 

21 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are 

22 discussed in the following sections. 

23 4.10.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

24 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.10, the BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

25 classification of landscapes (BLM, 1984, 1986) was considered in assessing the significance 

26 and management objectives of visual impacts. Additionally, according to GEIS Section 3.3.9, 

27 the Wyoming East Uranium Region (including the proposed project area) does not contain any 

28 VRM Class I resources. There are few VRM Class II resources listed within the Wyoming East 

29 Uranium Region (NRC, 2009); however, those sites are approximately 63 km [40 mi] away 

30 (AUC, 2012a). The majority of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region is categorized as 

31 VRM Class III and Class IV (NRC, 2009). 

32 The Pumpkin Buttes are visible from the proposed project area, but range from 12 to 23 km 

33 [7.5 to 14 mi] away. There is a PA between the BLM and the WY SHPO regarding mitigation of 

34 adverse effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be 

35 located at least 8.6 km [5.5 mi] outside the PA boundary and outside the 3.2 km [2mi] Pumpkin 

36 Buttes TCP viewshed boundary (for more information on the Pumpkin Buttes, see draft SEIS 

37 Section 3.9 and 3.10). As described in draft SEIS Section 3.10, the applicant classified the 

38 project area and the 3.2-km [2-mi] buffer surrounding the project area as VRM Class III (AUC, 

39 2012a). Per BLM (1984, 1986), the objective of VRM Class III is to partially retain the existing 

40 character of the landscape, and the level of change to the characteristic landscape should be 

41 moderate. Activities can contrast to basic elements of the characteristic landscape to a 

42 moderate extent in a VRM Class III area, and to a greater extent in a VRM Class IV area. .As 
4-107 

1 previously discussed in draft SEIS Sections 3.7 and 4.7, PSD Class I areas require more 

2 stringent air quality standards that can affect visual impacts. The nearest PSD Class I area is 

3 located at Wind Cave National Park, approximately 181.9 km [113 mi] from the proposed Reno 

4 Creek ISR Project. 

5 4.10.1.1 Construction Impacts 

6 Visual impacts during construction of ISR facilities can result from the presence of equipment 

7 (e.g., drill rig masts or cranes), dust and diesel emissions from construction equipment, and 

8 hillside and roadside cuts. Depending on the location of an ISR facility relative to viewpoints, 

9 such as highways, facility construction and drill rigs may be visible. For nighttime operations, 

10 the drill rigs would be lighted, thus creating a visual impact on elevated areas. Most impacts 

11 would be temporary as equipment is moved and would be mitigated by BMPs (e.g., dust 

12 suppression). Additionally, because these sites would be located in sparsely populated areas 

13 with rolling topography, most visual impacts during construction would not be visible from more 

14 than about 1 km [0.6 mi] away. Therefore, the NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.3.9.1 that 

15 visual and scenic impacts from construction would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

16 Visual impacts related to facilities construction at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would 

17 include access roads, overhead electrical lines, CPP facility, storage ponds, wellhead covers, 

18 header houses, piping, and ancillary buildings (AUC, 2012a). Additional visual impacts would 

19 be related to construction associated with the four Class I deep disposal wells. The tallest 

20 structure would be the CPP. However, the CPP would be constructed at a location already 

21 occupied by a structure. The CPP and associated structures would be painted a neutral color 

22 (AUC, 2012a). 

23 During construction, most impacts to visual resources at the proposed project area would result 

24 from well development, when drilling rig masts contrast with the general topography. Multiple 

25 drill rigs would likely be operating during wellfield construction. Visual impacts from drilling 

26 activities would be temporary (e.g. time for drilling would be less than two years per wellfield). 

27 Once a well is completed and conditioned for use, the drill rig would be moved to a new location 

28 to drill the next hole. In the wellfields, wellheads would be covered to prevent freezing and 

29 protect the wells. These covers would be low structures {1–2 m [3–6 ft] high} and would present 

30 only a slight contrast to the existing landscape. Unless the topography is extremely flat and void 

31 of vegetation, these structures would not be visible from distances of 1 km [0.6 mi] or more. 

32 Visual and scenic impacts from land disturbance associated with facilities construction at the 

33 proposed project area would be short term (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1). The applicant has 

34 stated that temporarily impacted areas would be reclaimed after construction is complete and 

35 debris created during construction would be removed as soon as possible (AUC, 2012a). 

36 Roads and structures would be more long lasting, but would be removed and reclaimed after 

37 operations cease or retained at the request of the land owner. Additionally, roads would be 

38 aligned to the topography, thereby reducing straight line roads as well as cut and fill 

39 requirements (AUC, 2012a). Standard dust control measures (e.g., water application, speed 

40 limits, and coordinating dust-producing activities) would be implemented to reduce visual 

41 impacts from fugitive dust (AUC, 2012a). 

42 As discussed previously, the proposed project would be located more than 181.9 km [113 mi] 

43 from the PSD Class I area at Wind Cave National Park and 63 km [40 mi] away from the 

44 nearest VRM Class II area. The VRM Class III designation for the proposed project area allows 
4-108 

1 for moderate effects to the landscape characteristics. The temporary timeframe (e.g. less than 

2 two years) of construction activities, the applicant’s commitment to clearing and reclaiming the 

3 land, placement of roads, dust suppression methods, speed controls, and neutral paint schemes 

4 would be consistent with the VRM Class III objectives. Based on the remote location of the 

5 proposed project area, the nature of construction activities, and the mitigation measures that 

6 would be used to reduce potential visual and scenic impacts, the NRC staff conclude that visual 

7 and scenic impacts from the proposed project during construction would be SMALL. 

8 4.10.1.2 Operations Impact 

9 Visual impacts during operations at ISR facilities would be less than those from construction 

10 because the wellfield surface infrastructure would have a low profile, and most piping and 

11 cables would be buried. The tallest structures would be expected to include the CPP and power 

12 lines. Because ISR sites are typically located in sparsely populated areas with generally rolling 

13 topography, most visual impacts during operations would be limited to a distance of about 1 km 

14 [0.6 mi] or less. The irregular layout of wellfield surface structures, such as wellhead protection 

15 and header houses, would further reduce visual contrast. BMPs, design (e.g., painting 

16 buildings), and landscaping techniques would be used to mitigate potential visual impacts. 

17 Therefore, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS Section 4.3.9.2 that visual and scenic impacts 

18 from operations would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

19 Most of the pipes and cables associated with wellfield operations at the proposed Reno Creek 

20 ISR Project would be buried to protect them from freezing, and therefore they would not be 

21 visible during operations (AUC, 2012a). The applicant would sequentially phase in wellfields as 

22 the uranium reserves are defined (AUC, 2012a); therefore, there would not be a large expanse 

23 of land undergoing development at one time. Because wellhead covers would typically be low 

24 structures and there is no active drilling in operating wellfields, the overall visual impact of an 

25 operating wellfield would be the same as or less than impacts from construction. 

26 The CPP, header houses, Class I deep disposal wells, access roads, and overhead power lines 

27 at the project would be the main operational facilities and infrastructure affecting the visual 

28 landscape. The visibility of aboveground facilities and infrastructure would depend on the 

29 location of the observer, intervening topography, and distance. The CPP, associated structures, 

30 and wellheads would be painted a neutral color. Also, the applicant would limit nighttime 

31 activities to minimize the need for lighting. As discussed previously and in draft SEIS 

32 Section 4.7, the applicant has committed to implementing standard dust control measures 

33 (e.g., water application and speed limits), which would reduce visual impacts from fugitive dust 

34 during operations activities (AUC, 2012a). 

35 As stated previously, there are no Class I areas in the proposed project area, the closest 

36 Class II area would be 63 km [40 mi] away, and the area is designated a VRM Class III region. 

37 The VRM Class III designation for the proposed project area allows for moderate effects to the 

38 landscape characteristics. Because the CPP, associated structures, and wellheads would be 

39 painted a neutral color, there would be limited nighttime activities, and dust control measures 

40 would be implemented, the NRC staff conclude that the visual and scenic impacts from 

41 operations for the proposed project would be SMALL. 
4-109 

1 4.10.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

2 Aquifer restoration activities at ISR facilities would be expected to take place some years after 

3 the facility has been in operation, and restoration activities would use in-place infrastructure. As 

4 a result, potential visual impacts would be similar to those experienced during operations. 

5 Mitigation measures (e.g., dust suppression) may be used to further reduce visual and scenic 

6 impacts. Therefore, potential impacts from aquifer restoration would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

7 Much of the same equipment and infrastructure used during the operational period of the 

8 proposed project would be employed during aquifer restoration, so impacts to the visual 

9 landscape would be similar to those during operations. As with construction and operations, the 

10 visual impacts associated with aquifer restoration would be consistent with the predominant 

11 VRM Classes III for the region. No modifications to either scenery or topography would occur 

12 during restoration. Standard dust control measures (e.g., water application and speed limits) 

13 would be implemented to further reduce the overall visual and scenic impacts of aquifer 

14 restoration (AUC, 2012a). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the visual and scenic impacts 

15 from aquifer restoration for the proposed project would be SMALL. 

16 4.10.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

17 Because similar equipment would be used and similar activities conducted, potential visual 

18 impacts during decommissioning of ISR facilities would be similar to those impacts experienced 

19 during construction. The greatest potential visual impacts during decommissioning would be 

20 temporary (i.e., 1 to 2 years) as equipment is moved from place to place and mitigated by BMPs 

21 (e.g., dust suppression). Additionally, visual impacts would be minimal, because these sites are 

22 expected to be located in sparsely populated areas of the Wyoming East Uranium Milling 

23 Region, and the impacts would diminish as decommissioning activities decrease and 

24 disturbed surfaces become revegetated. NRC licensees are required to conduct final site 

25 decommissioning and reclamation under an approved site decommissioning plan, with the goal 

26 of returning the landscape to preconstruction conditions. While some roads and slope 

27 modifications may persist beyond decommissioning and reclamation, the NRC staff concluded 

28 in the GEIS that visual and scenic impacts from decommissioning would be SMALL 

29 (NRC, 2009a). 

30 When project operations and aquifer restoration are complete at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

31 Project, the applicant would return all lands disturbed by the ISR facility to their preoperational 

32 land use of livestock grazing and wildlife habitat unless the state justifies and approves an 

33 alternative use (e.g., the landowner may request to retain structures and roads for further use) 

34 (AUC, 2012a). Reclamation would return the landscape to baseline contours and would reduce 

35 the visual impact by removing buildings and associated infrastructure. After reclamation 

36 activities are completed, there would be no restrictions on surface use. Prior to final site 

37 decommissioning, the applicant would submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC, in 

38 accordance with 10 CFR Part 40. 

39 During decommissioning and reclamation activities, temporary impacts to the visual 

40 environment would be similar to or less than those from the construction phase. Equipment 

41 used to dismantle buildings and milling equipment, remove any contaminated soils, or grade the 

42 surface as part of reclamation activities would generate temporary (i.e., one year) visual 

43 contrasts. In the wellfields, the greatest source of visual contrast would be from equipment 

44 used when production and monitoring wells are plugged and abandoned. Temporary visual 

45 contrasts associated with the Class I deep disposal wells would include the dismantling of well 
4-110 

1 housings and the plugging and abandonment of the wells. Visual and scenic resources may be 

2 affected by fugitive dust emissions from decommissioning activities. The applicant has 

3 committed to implementing dust suppression measures (e.g., water application and speed 

4 limits) to reduce dust emissions (AUC, 2012a). Once decommissioning and reclamation 

5 activities are complete, the visual landscape would be returned to baseline conditions, with the 

6 potential exception of equipment related to longer term monitoring activities. Therefore, the 

7 NRC staff conclude that the visual and scenic impacts from decommissioning for the proposed 

8 project would be SMALL. 

9 4.10.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

10 Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and there would 

11 be no change to the existing visual and scenic resources. The existing pipelines, wellfields, and 

12 utility lines within the proposed project area from CBM and gas extraction activities would 

13 remain. No additional structures or uses associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

14 would be introduced to affect the existing viewscapes, and the existing scenic quality would 

15 remain unchanged. 

16 4.11 Socioeconomic Impacts 

17 Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 

18 characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by a 

19 proposed project could affect regional employment, income, and expenditures. Job creation 

20 is characterized by two types: (i) construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in duration 

21 (1 to 2 years), and less likely to have a long-term socioeconomic impact on the region, and 

22 (ii) operations-related jobs in support of facility operations, which have a greater potential for 

23 permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts in a region. 

24 GEIS Section 4.3.10 describes the socioeconomic impacts expected during an ISR facility life 

25 cycle (NRC, 2009). Potential environmental impacts to socioeconomics could occur during all 

26 phases of the facility’s life cycle. The GEIS socioeconomic analysis for the Wyoming East 

27 Uranium Milling Region was based on 2000 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) data. The 

28 socioeconomic analysis presented in this draft SEIS for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

29 socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) is based on 2010 and more recent USCB data 

30 accessed via American FactFinder, USCB 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year 

31 Estimates, and USCB State and County QuickFacts (USCB, 2014). Though specific numbers 

32 will differ between the 2000, 2010, and more recent USCB data, the NRC analysis of 

33 socioeconomics presented in GEIS Section 4.3.10 remains valid for the proposed Reno Creek 

34 ISR Project as explained in the following sections, and expected impacts would be similar in 

35 scale to NRC staff conclusions in the GEIS. 

36 Potential socioeconomic impacts from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

37 decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are discussed in the 

38 following sections. 

39 4.11.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

40 The socioeconomic analysis for the proposed project focuses on the impacts of constructing, 

41 operating, restoring the aquifer, and decommissioning the proposed ISR facility in Campbell 

42 County, Wyoming. The applicant expects to directly employ an estimated 80 workers during the 
4-111 

1 construction phase of the proposed project (AUC, 2014). During the operations phase, the 

2 applicant expects to employ an estimated 92 workers (AUC, 2014). The applicant expects the 

3 workforce to be reduced to an estimated 52 workers during aquifer restoration and further 

4 reduced to an estimated 22 workers during decommissioning (AUC, 2014). Most workers are 

5 expected to come from communities within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed project 

6 area. These communities include Wright and Gillette in Campbell County, Kaycee in Johnson 

7 County, and Midwest and Edgerton in Natrona County. These communities make up the 

8 socioeconomic ROI for the proposed project, which is defined as the area where employees and 

9 their families would reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby affecting the 

10 economic conditions in the region. Casper in Natrona County, the largest city in the region, 

11 is expected to be an important source of equipment, supplies, services, and workers 

12 (AUC, 2012a). 

13 4.11.1.1 Construction Impacts 

14 In GEIS Section 4.3.10.1, the NRC staff discussed the potential impacts to socioeconomics from 

15 construction of an ISR facility. These impacts would result predominantly from employment at 

16 an ISR facility and demands on the existing public and social services, tourism/recreation, 

17 housing, infrastructure (schools, utilities), and the local workforce. In the GEIS, the NRC staff 

18 estimated total peak construction employment at an ISR facility to be about 200 people, 

19 including company employees and local contractors. During surface facility and wellfield 

20 construction, local contractors would generally be used (e.g., drillers, and construction workers), 

21 as available, and local building materials and building supplies would be used to the extent 

22 practical. The NRC staff also estimated an additional 140 indirect jobs may be created to 

23 support the construction of an ISR facility. Indirect jobs represent employees hired by 

24 producers of materials, equipment, and services that are used on the project. (NRC, 2009) 

25 In the GEIS, the NRC staff assumed that most construction workers would choose to live in 

26 larger communities with access to more services. However, the NRC staff expected that some 

27 construction workers would commute from outside the county to the construction site and that 

28 skilled employees (e.g., engineers, accountants, and managers) would come from outside the 

29 local workforce. The potential also exists that some of these employees would temporarily 

30 relocate closer to the project area and contribute to the local economy through purchasing 

31 goods and services and through paying taxes. Depending on where the workforce and supplies 

32 come from, the GEIS determined that potential impacts to towns and communities, in terms of 

33 housing and employment structure, may be SMALL to MODERATE. Given the expected short 

34 duration of construction activities (12 to 18 months), families are not expected to relocate closer 

35 to the project area. For this reason, potential impacts to education and use of local services 

36 was determined to be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

37 Construction of the CCP facilities, deep disposal wells, and the initial production unit at the 

38 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is expected to directly employ 80 people (AUC, 2014). 

39 Based on the smaller number of required construction workers for the proposed project 

40 (80 workers) when compared to the ISR construction workforce estimated in the GEIS 

41 (200 workers) and the nearby proximity of communities that workers would be expected to come 

42 from, the NRC staff conclude that the site-specific impacts of constructing the proposed project 

43 would be smaller than the impacts described in the GEIS. 

44 Because of the small relative size of the ISR construction workforce, the overall potential impact 

45 to socioeconomics from construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be 
4-112 

1 expected to be SMALL. The following subsections describe the construction impacts related to 

2 demographics, income, housing, employment rate, local finance, education, and health and 

3 social services for the proposed project. 

4 4.11.1.1.1 Demographics 

5 Construction of the CPP facilities, initial production unit, and deep disposal wells for the 

6 proposed project would be anticipated to take 2 years (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1). A workforce 

7 of 80 employees engaged directly in construction activities is expected (AUC, 2014). An 

8 additional 24 indirect jobs are expected to be created to support construction activities (AUC, 

9 2012a). Construction workers from outside the ROI are likely to locate in nearby communities 

10 such as Wright and Gillette in Campbell County, Kaycee in Johnson County, and Midwest and 

11 Edgerton in Natrona County. 

12 Increases in population would have the greatest impact on small communities close to the 

13 proposed project area, such as Kaycee (population 263), Midwest (population 404), and 

14 Edgerton (population 195). Based on housing data presented in draft SEIS Table 3-27, all of 

15 the surrounding communities have available housing to manage increases in population. 

16 Likewise, based on school enrollment and student–teacher ratio data presented in draft SEIS 

17 Section 3.11.6, schools have available capacities to manage increases in population. 

18 Furthermore, as described in draft SEIS Section 3.11.7, surrounding communities have 

19 adequate health care and social services to serve increases in population. Due to the short 

20 duration of construction (2 years), the expected construction workforce and supporting 

21 personnel would have a short-term impact on public services and community infrastructure in 

22 surrounding communities. 

23 The construction workforce would be made up predominantly of skilled trades (e.g., carpenters, 

24 electricians, welders, plumbers) and unskilled workers sourced from nearby communities and 

25 counties. The applicant plans to source the labor force for construction from within the 

26 surrounding region to mitigate any burden on public services and community infrastructure in 

27 the nearby towns (AUC, 2012a). Further, due to the short duration of construction (2 years), 

28 construction workers with families would be less likely to relocate their entire families to the 

29 region, thus minimizing impacts from an outside workforce. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude 

30 that the impacts to demographics on nearby communities during the construction phase would 

31 be SMALL.

32 4.11.1.1.2 Income 

33 The applicant has estimated a construction workforce of 80 employees (AUC, 2014). 

34 Construction of the proposed project would preferentially draw upon the labor force within the 

35 region before going outside the region (AUC, 2012a). Construction workers would likely come 

36 from nearby communities such as Wright, Gillette, Kaycee, and Midwest. As noted previously, 

37 the construction workforce would be made up predominantly of skilled trades and unskilled 

38 workers. It is expected that the construction workforce would be paid at rates typical of the 

39 region. Income information, including median household income and per capita income for 

40 Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona Counties, is presented in draft SEIS Section 3.11.2. Because 

41 the construction workforce would be paid at rates typical of the region, the NRC staff conclude 

42 that the overall impacts to income during the construction phase of the proposed project would 

43 be SMALL. 
4-113 

1 4.11.1.1.3 Housing 

2 The number of construction workers would cause a short-term increase in the demand of 

3 temporary (rental) housing units in communities within the ROI. Based on 2010 USCB housing 

4 information, the vacancy rate is approximately 10 percent (1,500 vacant units) in the seven 

5 communities within the ROI with most of the vacant units in Gillette (1,178 vacant units) and 

6 Wright (128 vacant units) (see draft SEIS Section 3.11.3). Hence, any changes in employment 

7 would have little to no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in communities surrounding 

8 the proposed project. Due to the short duration of construction activities (2 years), the number 

9 of construction workers (80 workers), and the availability of housing in the region, there would 

10 be little or no employment-related housing impacts. Therefore, the impact of the proposed 

11 project on housing availability would be SMALL. 

12 4.11.1.1.4 Employment Structure 

13 Construction of the proposed project would create employment opportunities for 80 construction 

14 workers. In addition, the project has the potential to create 24 indirect jobs. As described in 

15 draft SEIS Section 3.11.4, total 2010 county labor forces were estimated to be 32,824 for 

16 Campbell County; 5,937 for Johnson County; and 52,286 for Natrona County (WDAI, 2012). 

17 Unemployment rates in 2011 were 4.6, 7.1, and 5.9 percent in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona 

18 Counties, respectively (WDAI, 2012). Because of the short duration of construction (2 years) 

19 and small size of the construction workforce (80 workers), the effect on employment in the 

20 region is expected to be SMALL. 

21 4.11.1.1.5 Local Finance 

22 Construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR facility would generate some tax revenue in the 

23 local economy through the purchase of goods and services and would contribute to increased 

24 county and state tax revenues through an increased tax base. As described in draft SEIS 

25 Section 3.11.5, the majority of state revenue in Wyoming is generated from a 4 percent 

26 statewide sales tax (WDOR, 2013). Counties may impose two optional taxes, either for general 

27 or specific uses. Each optional tax is limited to a maximum of 1 percent. As described in draft 

28 SEIS Section 3.11.5, 2013 sales and use tax revenues in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona 

29 Counties totaled approximately $183 million, $14 million, and $127.5 million, respectively 

30 (WDOR, 2013). In addition, Wyoming law allows counties to impose a local option lodging tax 

31 of not more than 4 percent. In 2013, lodging tax collections in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona 

32 Counties totaled approximately $432,000, $163,000, and $1.3 million, respectively (WDOR, 

33 2013). Because of the short duration of construction (2 years) and small size of the construction 

34 workforce (80 workers) in relation to the total labor forces in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona 

35 Counties (see previous section), construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR project would 

36 have a SMALL impact on local finances. 

37 4.11.1.1.6 Education 

38 If the construction workforce for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and their families secure 

39 local housing, an increased demand for schools would occur. However, construction workers 

40 are less likely to relocate their entire families to the region, especially given the relatively short 

41 duration (2 years) of construction activities. Based on school enrollment and student–teacher 

42 ratio data presented in draft SEIS Section 3.11.6, school districts have available capacities to 

43 manage increases in school-aged children relocating to the area. The NRC staff conclude that 
4-114 

1 the overall impact on educational services during the construction phase of the proposed project 

2 would be SMALL. 

3 4.11.1.1.7 Health and Social Services 

4 The construction workforce is expected to cause only a small, short-term increase in the 

5 demand for doctors, hospitals, social services, and police during the construction phase of the 

6 proposed project. Because of the short duration of construction (2 years), construction workers 

7 with families would be less likely to relocate their entire families to the region, thus minimizing 

8 impacts on health care and social services. As presented in draft SEIS Section 3.11.7, towns 

9 surrounding the proposed project have adequate medical facilities; social services; and police, 

10 fire, and emergency medical services to accommodate workers and their families. Local 

11 governments are expected to have the capacity to effectively plan for and manage any 

12 increased demands on health and social services because population increases would be small 

13 (80 construction workers). Therefore, impacts to health and social services during the 

14 construction phase of the proposed project would be SMALL. 

15 4.11.1.2 Operations Impacts 

16 GEIS Section 4.3.10.2 describes employment levels during ISR facility operations and assumes 

17 50 to 80 workers would support this phase of the ISR life cycle. Use of local contract workers 

18 and local building materials would diminish, because drilling and facility construction would 

19 diminish. Revenues would be generated from federal, state, and local taxes on the facility and 

20 the uranium produced. Employment types are expected to be more technical during operations, 

21 and as a result, the majority of the operational workforce is expected to be staffed from outside 

22 the region, particularly during initial operations. According to the GEIS, effects on community 

23 services (e.g., education, health care, utilities, shopping, and recreation) during facility 

24 operations would be similar to effects experienced during construction, except fewer people 

25 would be employed for a longer duration. Overall, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

26 potential impacts to socioeconomics from operations would be SMALL to MODERATE 

27 (NRC, 2009). 

28 The operations phase of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is expected to last for 11 years 

29 and employ 92 workers (AUC, 2014). In addition, eight to nine indirect jobs are expected to be 

30 created to support operations of the proposed project (AUC, 2012a). The operations phase 

31 would impact the local economy through creating jobs, purchasing local goods and services, 

32 and increasing county and state tax revenues. Severance tax on the extracted uranium would 

33 also be collected at the state level and would contribute to the State of Wyoming general fund. 

34 The anticipated size of the ISR operations workforce (92 payroll employees) is greater than the 

35 50 to 80 employees analyzed in the GEIS. The following subsections describe the operations 

36 impacts related to demographics, income, housing, employment rate, local finance, education, 

37 and health and social services. 

38 4.11.1.2.1 Demographics 

39 A workforce of 92 employees is expected to be required for the operations phase of the 

40 proposed project (AUC, 2012a). The operations workforce is expected to stay in the area 

41 longer (approximately 11 years) and so workers would be more likely to secure permanent or 

42 semi-permanent housing in the area than the construction workforce. The operations phase 

43 would require a number of specialized workers, such as plant managers, technical 
4-115 

1 professionals, and skilled tradesmen. As described in GEIS Section 4.3.10.2, because of the 

2 highly technical nature of ISR operations (requiring professionals in the areas of health physics, 

3 chemistry, laboratory analysis, geology and hydrogeology, and engineering), the majority 

4 (approximately 70 percent) of the workforce during operations is expected to be staffed from 

5 outside the region (NRC, 2009). Therefore, approximately 64 personnel (92 employees × 0.7) 

6 for the operations phase of the proposed project could be sourced from outside the local area. 

7 The remaining workforce would most likely come from the local labor pool. The increase in 

8 population during the operations phase would spur additional job creation to serve the larger 

9 population. The applicant estimated that eight to nine indirect jobs are expected during the 

10 operations phase of the project (AUC, 2012a). 

11 Based on the size of the operations workforce (92 workers) and the potential addition of eight to 

12 nine (indirect) workers in support of facility operations, demographic conditions in Campbell, 

13 Johnson, and Natrona Counties are not likely to change. The combined effect of approximately 

14 100 new jobs in the region (assuming that all of the direct and indirect workers would relocate to 

15 the ROI) constitutes less than 1 percent of the current combined civilian labor force in Campbell, 

16 Johnson, and Natrona Counties (see draft SEIS Section 3.11.4). Therefore, the impact on 

17 demographic conditions would be SMALL. 

18 4.11.1.2.2 Income 

19 Operations at the proposed project would create skilled positions such as project managers, 

20 plant operators, lab technicians, and drilling contractors. These skilled workers would likely 

21 command salaries that provide income levels equal to or higher than the average local and 

22 statewide income levels. The 2008 to 2012 Wyoming median household income was $56,573 

23 (see draft SEIS Table 3-28). The statewide median household income is less than the 

24 Campbell County median household income of $77,090 and comparable to median household 

25 incomes in Johnson and Natrona Counties ($57,175 and $55,786, respectively) (see draft SEIS 

26 Table 3-28). Therefore, the proposed project would have a positive effect on local average 

27 annual incomes during ISR facility operations. However, because the operations workforce is 

28 small (92 workers) in comparison to the combined labor force in Campbell, Johnson, and 

29 Natrona Counties (see draft SEIS Section 3.11.4), overall impacts to local income during ISR 

30 facility operations would be SMALL. 

31 4.11.1.2.3 Housing 

32 Housing demand is anticipated to increase during operations. The operations workforce is 

33 expected to stay in the area longer, approximately 11 years (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1), and so 

34 would be more likely to secure permanent or semi-permanent housing in the area compared to 

35 the construction workforce. Most workers moving into the area are expected to relocate to the 

36 surrounding towns and communities of Wright, Gillette, Sleepy Hollow, Antelope Valley, Kaycee, 

37 Midwest, and Edgerton. Vacancy rates are currently high (9.4 to 16.9 percent) in Campbell, 

38 Johnson, and Natrona Counties (see draft SEIS Table 3-29). In 2010, there were approximately 

39 1,500 vacant housing units in the 7 communities within the ROI for the proposed project (see 

40 draft SEIS Section 3.11.3). Therefore, the estimated operations workforce (92 workers) would 

41 have little impact on the housing inventory. Because of the small size of the operations 

42 workforce (92 workers) and the workforce indirectly supporting facility operations (8 to 

43 9 workers), impacts to housing during ISR operations at the proposed project would be SMALL. 
4-116 

1 4.11.1.2.4 Employment Structure 

2 As previously discussed, ISR facility operations at the proposed project would generate 92 new 

3 jobs, such as project managers, plant operators, lab technicians, and drill contractors. Most 

4 skilled positions are likely to be filled by people moving into the area rather than providing 

5 employment opportunities for people living in nearby communities. As described in GEIS 

6 Section 4.3.10.2, because of the highly technical nature of ISR operations (requiring 

7 professionals in the areas of health physics, chemistry, laboratory analysis, geology and 

8 hydrogeology, and engineering), the majority (approximately 70 percent) of the workforce 

9 during operations is expected to be staffed from outside the region (NRC, 2009). The proposed 

10 project would provide some jobs to the local labor pool to support ISR facility operations. 

11 However, because the number of skilled workers drawn from areas outside of the ROI would be 

12 relatively small (e.g., 92 workers × 0.7 = 64 workers), ISR facility operations at the proposed 

13 project would not noticeably affect employment rates in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona 

14 Counties. Therefore, the impact on the employment structure would be SMALL. 

15 4.11.1.2.5 Local Finance 

16 Tax revenue would primarily profit Campbell County through the projected 11-year operations 

17 phase. Property taxes would be applied to the value of all equipment the project uses. The 

18 counties and municipalities within the ROI would indirectly benefit from increased sales tax 

19 revenue from the increased population and resultant demand for goods and services. In 

20 addition, the State of Wyoming levies taxes on the value of mineral production (a severance 

21 tax). Wyoming levies a 4 percent uranium mineral severance tax on the taxable value of the 

22 current year’s production. The Wyoming Department of Revenue (Mineral Tax Division) 

23 administers and collects the severance tax. A county gross products tax for mineral production 

24 contributes to local government revenue. The county gross products tax is an ad valorem

25 property tax based on the taxable value of the previous year’s mineral production. The taxable 

26 value of the previous year’s production is assessed by the Wyoming Department of Revenue 

27 (Mineral Tax Division) and certified to county and tax districts. Counties bill and collect this 

28 ad valorem property tax directly from mineral taxpayers based on the state-certified taxable 

29 value and applicable county and tax district mill levies. As described in draft SEIS 

30 Section 8.2.1, the proposed project would generate an estimated $41.5 million in total uranium 

31 production taxes over the 16-year life of the proposed project. Of this estimated total, the State 

32 of Wyoming would receive $16.4 million in severance taxes and Campbell County would receive 

33 $25.1 million in gross product taxes (AUC, 2012a). In addition, an additional $26.75 million in 

34 other state and local taxes (e.g., property and sales taxes) would be generated over the 16-year 

35 life of the project (AUC, 2012a). As further described in draft SEIS Section 3.11.5, sales and 

36 use tax revenues in Campbell County totaled approximately $183 million in 2013 and the 

37 approximate 2013 taxable valuation for all state and locally assessed property in Campbell 

38 County was $5.8 billion. On an annual basis, the increased tax revenue generated by the 

39 proposed project would be small in comparison to total property, sales, and mineral production 

40 taxes in Campbell County. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the tax-revenue impact from 

41 ISR facility operations on local taxing jurisdictions in Campbell County would be positive 

42 and SMALL. 

43 4.11.1.2.6 Education 

44 The added population associated with the additional 92 workers and their families relocating 

45 during operations may have an impact on local public schools and education-related services. 
4-117 

1 The average family size in Wyoming is 2.96 (USCB, 2014). Assuming a 2-parent family, a 

2 conservative upper estimate for the number of school-aged children that may relocate to 

3 the ROI would be 88 children of various ages. The potential increase in school-aged 

4 children would likely be split between the three county school districts in the ROI (see draft SEIS 

5 Section 3.11.6). Comprising various ages and spread across schools and classrooms in the 

6 surrounding communities (kindergarten and grades 1 through 12), the number of children (88) 

7 would not likely have a noticeable effect on student–teacher ratios. Based on student–teacher 

8 ratios, each of the schools within the ROI has some capacity for additional students. Current 

9 student–teacher ratios in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona counties are 13.5 to 1, 10.8 to 1, and 

10 14.1 to 1, respectively (see draft SEIS Table 3-30). However, Campbell County is experiencing 

11 significant growth in student numbers due to ongoing energy development activities. Campbell 

12 County school district officials are working to accommodate current and anticipated growth in 

13 student populations (AUC, 2012a). For example, in 2015, the Campbell County School District 

14 Board of Trustees approved building a new high school in Gillette to accommodate the growing 

15 student population. The NRC staff conclude that the impact on schools and education-related 

16 services during the ISR facility operations phase would be SMALL. 

17 4.11.1.2.7 Health and Social Services 

18 A small increase in demand would be expected for health care and social services during the 

19 operations phase of the proposed project from workers and their families relocating to the ROI. 

20 The estimated size of the operations workforce (92 workers) is only slightly greater than the 

21 estimated size of the construction workforce (80 workers). Therefore, the demand for health 

22 and social services during operations is not expected to differ significantly from those during the 

23 construction phase of the proposed project. The small additional increase in demand that would 

24 occur for the operations phase would likely already have been met during the construction 

25 phase. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.11.7, towns surrounding the proposed project have 

26 adequate medical facilities; social services; and police, fire, and emergency medical services to 

27 accommodate workers and their families. Impacts to health care and social services during 

28 operations would remain SMALL. 

29 4.11.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

30 The NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.3.10.3 that the socioeconomic impact from aquifer 

31 restoration would be similar to impacts experienced during ISR facility operations. This is 

32 because the level of employment and demand on services would not change. The NRC staff 

33 concluded in the GEIS the potential impacts to socioeconomics would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

34 Socioeconomic impacts from the aquifer restoration process at the proposed project area would 

35 be similar to those experienced during ISR facility operations. Initial aquifer restoration of 

36 wellfields would be conducted in conjunction with the operations phase and would not require 

37 additional workers with specialized skills (AUC, 2012a). Restoration of the first wellfields would 

38 commence in year 6 and continue until year 14 or 15. The workforce for aquifer restoration is 

39 estimated to be 52 employees (AUC, 2014). Workers performing aquifer restoration activities 

40 would likely be sourced from the operations phase workforce, and any additional workers would 

41 likely be drawn from the local area. Impacts on demographics; income; housing; employment; 

42 tax revenue; and health, social, and educational services would remain unchanged because it is 

43 likely that workers taken from the operations workforce would have already relocated their 

44 families to the area and temporary workers would not relocate their families to the area. 

45 Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact of aquifer restoration would be SMALL. 
4-118 

1 4.11.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

2 GEIS Section 4.3.10.4 discusses the potential socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning. 

3 Decommissioning and reclamation activities (e.g., dismantling surface structures, removing 

4 pumps, plugging and abandoning wells, and reclaiming and recontouring the ground surface) 

5 would likely draw on a skill set similar to the ISR facility construction workforce. 

6 Decommissioning activities would be expected to be short in duration (24 to 30 months), and so 

7 employment would be temporary. Impacts to employment structure and housing are expected 

8 to be similar to those for construction, due to similar employment levels. The NRC staff 

9 concluded in the GEIS that overall potential impacts to socioeconomics from decommissioning 

10 would be SMALL to MODERATE (NRC, 2009). 

11 Final decommissioning of the CPP facilities, production unit infrastructure, access roads, and 

12 Class I deep disposal wells at the proposed project is expected to take 1 year (AUC, 2012a). A 

13 workforce of 22 employees engaged directly in these activities has been estimated (AUC, 

14 2014). Decommissioning activities for the proposed project could impact the demand for 

15 housing and local infrastructure, as well as health, social, and educational services, if new 

16 workers relocate their families to the local area. However, due to the size of the expected 

17 workforce needed for decommissioning (22 direct employees) and short duration of the 

18 decommissioning phase (1 year), these impacts would be SMALL and further reduced if a 

19 number of the ISR facility operations and aquifer restoration employees remain to assist in the 

20 decommissioning activities. 

21 4.11.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

22 Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would not be 

23 constructed or operated. Socioeconomic conditions in Campbell, Johnson, and Natrona 

24 Counties would not change under the No-Action Alternative 

25 4.12 Environmental Justice 

26 As required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal agencies must consider whether 

27 their actions may cause disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income 

28 populations. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (1994), “Federal Actions to Address 

29 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires 

30 similar analysis. 

31 In response to Executive Order 12898, the Commission issued a “Policy Statement on the 

32 Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions” 

33 (69 FR 52040). The Policy Statement explains that “[T]he Commission is committed to the 

34 general goals set forth in Executive Order 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its 

35 NEPA review process.” 

36 In 1997, the CEQ provided the following guidance relevant to determining when an agency’s 

37 actions may disproportionately affect certain populations (CEQ, 1997): 

38 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects are 

39 measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as other fatal or 

40 nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may include bodily 

41 impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and adverse human health 
4-119 

1 effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or 

2 low-income population is significant (as defined by NEPA) and appreciably exceeds the risk or 

3 exposure rate for the general population or for another appropriate comparison group. 

4 Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately high 

5 environmental impact that is significant (as defined by NEPA) refers to an impact or risk of an 

6 impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority community that 

7 appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. Such effects may 

8 include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts. An adverse 

9 environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both harmful and significant (as 

10 defined by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic environmental impacts, impacts that 

11 uniquely affect geographically dislocated or dispersed minority or low-income populations or 

12 American Indian tribes are considered. 

13 The following environmental justice analysis assesses whether issuing a license for the 

14 proposed Reno Creek ISR project might cause disproportionately high and adverse human 

15 health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. In assessing the 

16 effects, the following CEQ (1997) definitions of minority individuals, minority populations, and 

17 low-income populations were used: 

18 Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following population 

19 groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, 

20 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races meaning individuals who 

21 identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of two or more races, for example, 

22 Hispanic and Asian. 

23 Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when (i) the minority population of an 

24 affected area exceeds 50 percent or (ii) the minority population percentage of the affected area 

25 is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or 

26 other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

27 Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with the 

28 annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Reports, 

29 Series PB60, on Income and Poverty. 

30 4.12.1 Analysis of Impacts 

31 Methodology 

32 The NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license reviews through (i) identifying 

33 minority and low-income populations that may be affected by the proposed construction and 

34 operations of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and (ii) examining any potential human 

35 health or environmental effects on these populations to determine whether these effects may be 

36 disproportionately high and adverse. Consistent with guidance in NRC NUREG–1748 (NRC, 

37 2003a) Appendix C (Environmental Justice Procedures), if a facility is located outside the city 

38 limits or in a rural area, a radius of approximately 6.4 km [4 mi] should be used for the 

39 environmental justice analysis. For the analysis in this draft SEIS, because the proposed 

40 Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in an area that is not considered an urban area, 

41 potentially affected populations who reside within a 6.4-km [4-mi] radius of the proposed project 

42 area are considered. Data on low-income and minority individuals were collected and analyzed 
4-120 

1 at the census block group level within this study area. A block group is the smallest 

2 geographical area used by the U.S. Census Bureau to which census data is collected. 

3 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and a 6.4-km [4-mi] perimeter around the proposed 

4 project area are contained within one block group (Census Tract 1, Block Group 2) within 

5 Campbell County. The U.S. Census Bureau provides race and poverty characteristics for 

6 Census Tract 1, Block Group 2, which is the block group potentially affected by the proposed 

7 project. Draft SEIS Table 4-16 compares the percentage of people living in poverty and minority 

8 populations in the United States, in Wyoming, in Campbell County, and Census Tract 1, Block 

9 Group 2. The NRC environmental justice guidance in NUREG–1748 states, “[i]f the percentage 

10 in the block groups significantly exceeds that of the state or county percentage for either 

11 minority or low-income population, environmental justice will have to be considered in greater 

12 detail. As a general matter, and where appropriate, staff may consider differences greater than 

13 20 percentage points to be significant. Additionally, if either the minority or low-income 

14 population percentage exceeds 50 percent, environmental justice will have to be considered in 

15 greater detail” (NRC, 2003a). As further described in the following paragraphs, no minority or 

16 low-income populations in the block group analyzed exceed 50 percent of the population or are 

17 greater than 20 percentage points more than that of the state or county. Because the minority 

18 and low-income populations in the block group analyzed do not significantly exceed that of the 

19 state or county, and the minority and low-income population does not exceed 50 percent of the 

20 block group, a detailed environmental justice analysis is not required. 

21 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 2000 and 2010 the population of Campbell 

22 County increased to 46,133 from 33,698 (or about 36.9 percent) (draft SEIS Section 3.11.1). 

23 Minority populations are estimated to have increased by approximately 1,800 persons for a total 

24 approximate minority total of 3,200 persons (approximately a 129 percent increase). The 

25 estimated minority population increase in Campbell County may be due to an estimated influx of 

26 persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, which accounts for more than 2,400 individuals, or an 

27 increase in population of about 200 percent from 2000 (USCB, 2016). 

28 According to the most recent 5-year estimate from the US Census Bureau, the population living 

29 below the poverty level was 15.6 percent in the United States and 11.6 percent in Wyoming (the 

30 2014 federal poverty threshold was $23,850 for a family of four). The percentage of people 

31 living below the poverty level within Campbell County is 6.8. This is a decrease from the 

32 2000 Census Data in which 7.6 percent of the persons living in Campbell County were living 

33 below the poverty level (USCB, 2014). 

Table 4-16. Percentage of Population Living in Poverty and Percentage Minority 

Population 2010 to 2014 5-Year Estimate 

Geographic Unit Percent Living in Poverty Percent Minority 

U.S. 15.6 37.2 

Wyoming 11.6 14.3 

Campbell County, Wyoming 6.8 11.7 

Campbell County, Wyoming Census Tract 1, 

Block Group 2 

7.3 15 

Source: USCB, 2016 
4-121 

1 The median household income estimate for Wyoming for the years 2010 to 2014 was $58,252. 

2 Campbell County had a much higher estimated median household income average ($78,609) 

3 and a lower percentage of individuals (6.8 percent) living below the poverty level than the state 

4 averages (USCB, 2016). 

5 The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high and 

6 adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations that 

7 could result from the construction and operations of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

8 Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse 

9 impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 

10 when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

11 population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for 

12 another appropriate comparison group. A disproportionately high environmental effect refers to 

13 an impact or risk of impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority 

14 community that is significant and appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger 

15 community. These effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social 

16 impacts (CEQ, 1997). Some of these potential effects have been identified in resource areas 

17 described in this chapter. For example, increased demand for rental housing during 

18 construction could disproportionately affect low-income populations. Minority and low-income 

19 populations are subsets of the general public residing around the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

20 Project area, and all populations would be exposed to the same health and environmental 

21 effects generated from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

22 activities. 

23 4.12.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

24 GEIS Section 6.1.2 identified no minority populations in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling 

25 Region using 2000 census data (NRC, 2009a). Albany County was the only county in the 

26 Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region that was identified as having a low income population. 

27 As explained in GEIS Section 6.3, the NRC staff anticipated that because the nearest ISR 

28 facility to Albany County would be about 8 km [5 mi] from the county border, that no 

29 environmental justice concerns would be expected for ISR facilities in the Wyoming East 

30 Uranium Milling Region. The NRC staff concluded that no minority and low-income population 

31 located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region would experience a disproportionately high 

32 and adverse impact from ISR facilities. 

33 Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations due to the construction, operations, 

34 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would mostly 

35 consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, employment, and 

36 housing impacts). Noise and dust impacts during construction would be limited to onsite 

37 activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access roads could 

38 experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during construction and operational shift 

39 changes. As construction and operations employment increases at the proposed Reno Creek 

40 ISR Project, employment opportunities for minority and low-income populations may also 

41 increase. Increased demand for rental housing during peak construction could 

42 disproportionately affect low-income populations. However, according to the 2010 census 

43 information, there were more than 1,700 vacant housing units in Campbell County (draft SEIS 

44 Table 3-29), therefore the NRC staff do not anticipate a disproportionate effect on low-income 

45 populations due to lack of availability or inflated rental prices. 
4-122 

1 The percentage of minority and low-income populations living in the affected block group is 

2 similar to the percentage of minority and low-income populations recorded at the state and 

3 county level and well below the national level. Demographic information for Campbell County 

4 and Wyoming, including race and ethnicity, using 2010 census data is provided in draft SEIS 

5 Table 3-27. No minority or low-income populations were identified in the block group where the 

6 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located and encompasses a 6.4-km [4-mi] 

7 perimeter around the proposed project area. Based on this information and the analysis of 

8 human health and environmental impacts presented throughout this chapter, there would be no 

9 disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations from the 

10 construction, operations, aquifer restoration and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek 

11 ISR Project. 

12 Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife 

13 As part of addressing environmental justice associated with license reviews, the NRC also 

14 analyzed the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of special pathway 

15 receptors, including subsistence consumption of fish, native vegetation, surface waters, 

16 sediments, and local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the skin; and 

17 inhalation of plant materials. The special pathway receptors analysis is important to the 

18 environmental justice analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or 

19 cultural practices of minority and low-income populations in the area. 

20 EO 12898 (59 FR 7629) Section 4-4 directs federal agencies, whenever practical and 

21 appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations that 

22 principally rely on fish and wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 

23 consumption patterns to the public. The land within the proposed project area is private and 

24 state-owned, used primarily for agricultural purposes (i.e. cattle grazing), and provides 

25 recreational activities, such as hunting with permission of the land owner (see draft SEIS 

26 Section 3.2). The applicant has stated that they would submit a written request to the Office of 

27 State Lands and Investments, Trust Land Management Division, to request hunting restrictions. 

28 This request would specifically request full restrictive access to both recreational hunters and 

29 shooters (AUC, 2014a) for the small parcel of state-owned land. Hunting on private property 

30 would be allowed at the discretion of the land owner, but restricted within all proposed wellfields 

31 (AUC, 2012a). No commercial crop production takes place within the proposed project area. 

32 Also, as stated in draft SEIS Section 3.6.2, there is no adequate habitat within the proposed 

33 project area to support fish populations; therefore, no analysis was performed for subsistence 

34 consumption of fish. Because land access restrictions would limit hunting, and no fish or crops 

35 on the land are available for consumption, the NRC staff conclude that there is minimal, if any, 

36 risk of radiological exposure through subsistence consumption pathways, as further 

37 described next. 

38 As is the case for the general public, the potential impacts to minority and low-income 

39 populations would be radiological effects. Radiation doses for the general public are described 

40 in draft SEIS Section 4.13 and would be expected to be below regulatory limits. Background 

41 radiological monitoring of soils and sediments, surface water, livestock, fish, and vegetation at 

42 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are described in draft SEIS Sections 3.12.1, 3.6.2, and 

43 7.4. Large game have extensive ranges and are not confined to the proposed project area. 

44 Therefore, the potential for bioaccumulation of radionuclides in these animals would be limited 

45 because they would likely derive only a small fraction of total sustenance from the flora or fauna 

46 in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. The NRC staff have therefore considered 
4-123 

1 special pathways that took into account the potential levels of contaminants in native vegetation, 

2 crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or near the proposed 

3 Reno Creek ISR Project area. However, as previously stated in this section, no minority or 

4 low-income populations were identified in the block group where the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

5 Project would be located or in the 6.4-km [4-mi] perimeter around the proposed project area. 

6 Because (i) there are no minority or low-income populations identified, (ii) the land within and 

7 surrounding the proposed project area is privately owned, (iii) the radiation dose for the general 

8 public would be below regulatory limits, (iv) there is no adequate habitat for fish populations, (v) 

9 the applicant would request a full restriction on hunting for the state-owned land, and (vi) 

10 consumption of large game from hunting, as allowed by land owners, would result in minimal, if 

11 any, risk of radiological exposure, the proposed construction, operations, aquifer restoration, 

12 and decommissioning of the proposed ISR project would not have disproportionately high and 

13 adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations 

14 residing in the vicinity of the proposed Reno Creek project area. 

15 4.12.3 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

16 Under the No-Action Alternative, the ISR facility would not be constructed and operated at the 

17 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. The relative conditions affecting minority and 

18 low-income populations in the vicinity of the proposed project site would remain unchanged. 

19 Therefore, there would be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority and 

20 low-income populations from this alternative. 

21 4.13 Public and Occupational Health 

As described in GEIS Section 4.3.11,1 22 potential radiological and nonradiological effects from 

23 ISR activities may occur during all phases of the ISR facility’s life cycle (NRC, 2009). These 

24 effects may occur during normal operations where proposed activities are executed as planned 

25 or during potential accident conditions when unplanned events can generate additional hazards. 

26 Additionally, the potential hazards and associated effects can be either radiological or 

27 nonradiological. Therefore, the analysis in this section evaluates the radiological and 

28 nonradiological potential public and occupational health and safety effects for normal and 

29 accident conditions in each phase of the ISR facility life cycle. 

30 4.13.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

31 The environmental impacts on public and occupational health and safety for the proposed 

32 project are described in the following sections. 

33 4.13.1.1 Construction Impacts 

34 Construction impacts on public and occupational health and safety were evaluated in GEIS 

35 Section 4.3.11.1. During facility construction, standard construction safety practices would 

36 address nonradiological worker safety. Construction emissions would be primarily from fugitive 

 

1

 The GEIS concluded that potential public and occupational health and safety impacts from ISR activities would not 

significantly vary by region and therefore referred to the in-depth analysis in GEIS section 4.2.11 rather than 

repeating the same discussion for each region. Similarly, in this draft SEIS, the analysis refers to both the regionspecific discussion and the more in-depth discussion in GEIS Section 4.2.11, as appropriate. 
4-124 

1 dust and diesel-powered construction equipment exhaust. Fugitive dust generated from 

2 construction activities and vehicle traffic would be limited by the duration of activities, and 

3 because the average natural levels of radioactivity in soils are low, it would not result in a 

4 radiological dose to workers and the public. Diesel emissions from construction equipment 

5 would also be limited by the duration of activities and be readily dispersed into the atmosphere. 

6 For these reasons, the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that potential impacts to public and 

7 occupational health and safety from construction would be SMALL. (NRC, 2009) 

8 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, construction activities at the proposed Reno Creek 

9 ISR Project would include clearing and grading for roads, building foundations and a surface 

10 impoundment, drilling wells, trenching, laying pipelines, and assembling buildings. Construction 

11 activities for the proposed project would also involve the installation of four Class I deep 

12 disposal wells (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2). Workers could be exposed to low levels of 

13 background radiation during the construction phase by direct exposure, inhalation or ingestion 

14 of radionuclides during well construction, construction activities that disturbed soils, and fugitive 

15 dust from vehicular traffic. These activities are equivalent to the activities analyzed in GEIS 

16 Section 4.3.11. 

17 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project involves drilling wells using a common technique known 

18 as mud rotary drilling (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2). This technique uses fluid moving 

19 through a drill stem, out the drill bit, and back to the surface between the drill stem and host 

20 rock. When the fluid returns to the surface, it passes through a trough to a mud pit, where the 

21 cuttings settle out and the fluid is recycled down the borehole. The applicant would temporarily 

22 hold residual cuttings and drilling fluids in mud pits after drilling and construction activities are 

23 completed. Because the cuttings are taken from very near and within the ore deposits, they 

24 have the potential to be more contaminated than soil samples at the surface. Shortly after 

25 completion of drilling (approximately 30 days), the applicant would backfill with the excavated 

26 soil and grade the mud pits in accordance with WDEQ regulations (AUC, 2012a). 

27 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.12.1.1, the average concentration of radionuclides 

28 measured in the soil within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is low. The mean 

29 radium (Ra-226) concentration of surface soils was 0.037 Bq/g [1.0 pCi/g] and comparable to 

30 expected natural background radioactivity. Fugitive dust generated from facility construction 

31 activities would be of short duration (i.e., 1 year) (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1), and because the 

32 average levels of radioactivity in soils are low, inhalation of fugitive dust would not result in an 

33 increased radiological dose to workers and the public. In addition, the applicant has proposed 

34 implementing standard dust control measures, such as water application, speed limits, or 

35 chemical dust suppression compounds, to reduce and control fugitive dust emissions (AUC, 

36 2012a). Therefore, the NRC staff estimate that the direct exposure, inhalation, or ingestion of 

37 fugitive dust would not result in an increased radiological dose to workers and the general public 

38 during the construction phase of the proposed project. 

39 Radon gas would also be emitted during well development activities. The applicant calculated 

40 the amount of radon released from wellfield development for a single production unit (AUC, 

41 2012b) based on methods described in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003b). Using conservative 

42 estimates, the applicant calculated an annual release of 0.56 GBq [0.015 Ci] (AUC, 2012b). 

43 This represents a negligible fraction (0.004 percent) of the applicant’s estimated single 

44 production unit radon release from all phases at full production (as described in draft SEIS 

45 Section 2.1.1.1.6 and evaluated in draft SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.1) and therefore would not 

46 impact worker or public health and safety. Based on the low average concentration of 
4-125 

1 radionuclides in soils at the proposed site, the proposed mitigation measures that would be 

2 implemented to control fugitive dust, and the negligible amount of radon that would be released 

3 during wellfield development, the NRC staff conclude that the radiological impacts to workers 

4 and the general public from the construction phase for the proposed project would be SMALL. 

5 The potential nonradiological air quality impacts from fugitive dust and diesel emissions

6 including comparisons with health-based standards are evaluated in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.2. 

7 Fugitive dust emissions would occur primarily from travel on unpaved roads and wind erosion. 

8 Construction equipment would be diesel powered and would emit diesel exhaust, which 

9 includes small particles (PM10) and a variety of gases (draft SEIS Table 4-13). In draft SEIS 

10 Section 4.7.1.2, the NRC staff concluded that construction phase air emissions would have a 

11 SMALL impact on air quality because the pollutant concentrations would be low compared to 

12 the NAAQS and PSD thresholds. Additionally, the applicant’s compliance with federal and state 

13 occupational safety regulations would limit the potential nonradiological effects of fugitive dust 

14 and diesel emissions to levels acceptable for workers. Based on the foregoing analysis, the 

15 NRC staff concludes that overall nonradiological impacts on workers and the general public 

16 from the construction phase for the proposed project would be SMALL. 

17 4.13.1.2 Operations Impacts 

18 Operations impacts on public and occupational health and safety were evaluated in 

19 Section 4.3.11.2 of the GEIS. Potential public and occupational radiological effects from normal 

20 operations may result from (i) exposure to radon gas from the wellfields, (ii) ion-exchange resin 

21 transfer operations, and (iii) venting during processing activities. Workers may also be exposed 

22 to airborne uranium particulates from dryer operations and maintenance activities. Potential 

23 public exposures to radiation may occur from the same radon releases and uranium particulate 

24 releases (i.e., from facilities without vacuum dryer technology). Both worker and public 

25 radiological exposures are addressed in NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 20, which requires 

26 licensees to implement an NRC-approved radiation protection program. The NRC periodically 

27 inspects those programs to ensure compliance. Measured and calculated doses for workers 

28 and the public are typically only a fraction of regulatory limits. For these reasons, the NRC staff 

29 concluded in the GEIS that potential radiological impacts to workers and the public from normal 

30 operations would be SMALL. Radiological accident risks could involve processing equipment 

31 failures leading to yellowcake slurry spills, or radon gas or uranium particulate releases. 

32 Consequences of accidents to workers and the public would be generally low, with the 

33 exception of an unmitigated dryer explosion, which could result in a worker dose above NRC 

34 limits. The likelihood of such an accident would be low; therefore, the risk would also be low. 

35 Based on compliance with the required radiological safety program that includes monitoring and 

36 emergency response procedures, the radiological health and safety impacts from a potential 

37 unmitigated accident would be SMALL for the public and, at most, MODERATE for workers. 

38 (NRC, 2009) 

39 Nonradiological worker safety at ISR facilities would be addressed through occupational health 

40 and safety regulations and practices. The potential effect from nonradiological accidents 

41 includes high consequence chemical release events (e.g., of ammonia) that may expose 

42 workers and nearby populations. However, the NRC staff concluded that the likelihood of such 

43 a release would be low, based on historical operating experience at NRC-licensed facilities, 

44 primarily because operators follow chemical safety and handling protocols. Therefore, the NRC 

45 staff concluded in the GEIS that nonradiological impacts from accidents during operations would 

46 be SMALL for the public and, at most, MODERATE for workers. (NRC, 2009) 
4-126 

1 4.13.1.2.1 Radiological Impacts From Normal Operations 

2 The radiological impacts from normal operations involve radiation doses to workers and 

3 members of the public. Operational worker doses occur as a result of the close proximity of 

4 workers to processing solutions, to radon gas released during operations, and to the refined 

5 yellowcake product. Public radiation doses from normal operations occur from radon gas that is 

6 vented from processing facilities and wellfields. Both occupational and public radiation 

7 exposures are monitored and controlled following a radiation protection program that addresses 

8 the NRC safety requirements in 10 CFR Part 20. The following detailed evaluation of the 

9 radiological effects to workers and the public from normal operations at the proposed Reno 

10 Creek ISR Project is based on the NRC staff’s consideration of the generic analyses and 

11 conclusions documented in the GEIS and the NRC staff’s additional site-specific review. 

12 GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.1 provides a summary of doses to occupationally exposed workers at 

13 ISR facilities. As stated, doses would be similar regardless of the facility’s location and are well 

14 within the 10 CFR Part 20 annual occupational dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem]. The largest annual 

15 average dose to a worker at a uranium recovery facility over a 10-year period [1994–2006] was 

16 0.007 Sv [0.7 rem]. More recently, the maximum total dose equivalents reported for 2005 and 

17 2006 were 0.00675 and 0.00713 Sv [0.675 and 0.713 rem]. Similarly, the average and 

18 maximum worker exposure to radon and radon daughter products ranged from 2.5 to 16 percent 

19 of the occupational exposure limit of 4 working-level months. The NRC staff concluded in the 

20 GEIS that the radiological impacts to workers during normal operations at ISR facilities would 

21 be SMALL. 

22 For the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the planned ISR facility design and operations are 

23 consistent with the projects analyzed in the GEIS. To mitigate radiological exposure to workers, 

24 the applicant would (i) provide radiation dosimetry badges to all employees with significant 

25 potential for exposure; (ii) install ventilation designed to limit worker exposure to radon; 

26 (iii) install gamma exposure rate monitors, air particulate monitors, and radon daughter product 

27 monitors to verify that radiation levels are ALARA and in compliance with NRC regulations; and 

28 (iv) conduct work area radiation and contamination surveys to help prevent and limit the spread 

29 of contamination (AUC, 2012b). The applicant’s airborne radiation monitoring program is further 

30 described in draft SEIS Section 7.2.1. Because the applicant’s proposed operations and 

31 radiation safety measures are consistent with the facilities evaluated in the GEIS, the NRC staff 

32 concludes that the radiological impacts to workers would be SMALL. 

33 GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.1 noted that radon gas is emitted from ISR wellfields and processing 

34 facilities during operations and is the only radiological airborne effluent during normal operations 

35 for facilities using vacuum dryer technology (NRC, 2009). The applicant plans to dry yellowcake 

36 using a rotary vacuum dryer (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.). Therefore, during normal 

37 operations, emissions other than radon are not expected. 

38 As discussed in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.1, the potential radiological impacts from radon gas 

39 releases can be evaluated by the MILDOS-AREA computer code (MILDOS), which Argonne 

40 National Laboratory developed for calculating offsite facility radiation doses to individuals and 

41 populations. MILDOS uses a multi-pathway analysis for determining external dose; inhalation 

42 dose; and dose from ingestion of soil, plants, meat, milk, aquatic foods, and water. MILDOS 

43 uses a sector-average Gaussian plume dispersion model to estimate downwind concentrations. 

44 This model typically assumes minimal dilution and provides conservative estimates of downwind 

45 air concentrations and doses to human receptors. GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.1 presented historical 
4-127 

1 data for ISR operations, providing a range of estimated offsite doses associated with six current 

2 or former ISR facilities. For these operations, doses to potential offsite exposure (human 

3 receptor) locations range between 0.004 mSv [0.4 mrem] per year for the Crow Butte facility in 

4 Nebraska and 0.32 mSv [32 mrem] per year for the Irigaray facility in Johnson County, 

5 Wyoming. Each value is well below the 10 CFR Part 20 annual radiation public dose limit of 

6 1 mSv [100 mrem] (NRC, 2009). 

7 In its environmental report, the applicant evaluated the potential consequences of radiological 

8 emissions at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2012a). Sources of radon emanation 

9 the applicant identified and modeled included wellfield development during the construction 

10 phase and CPP and wellfield operations during the operational and aquifer restoration phases 

11 (AUC, 2012b). The applicant described its implementation of the computer code MILDOS that 

12 was used to model radiological impacts on human and environmental receptors (e.g., air and 

13 soil) using site-specific data that included radon (Rn-222) release estimates, meteorological and 

14 population data, and other parameters. The estimated radiological impacts from routine site 

15 activities were compared to applicable public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20 {1 mSv/yr 

16 [100 mrem/yr]}, as well as to baseline radiological conditions (see draft SEIS Section 3.12.1). 

17 The NRC staff review of the applicant’s radiological impact modeling independently verified that 

18 appropriate receptor locations and exposure pathways were modeled, and reasonable input 

19 parameters were used. The applicant also listed the origin of the input parameters and provided 

20 justification for their use. The applicant described the source terms, and the NRC staff review 

21 concluded that the source terms represented scheduled operations at the planned capacities. 

22 The source terms included emissions from wellfield development, CPP and wellfield operations, 

23 and aquifer restoration (AUC, 2012b; 2014a,c). The applicant’s estimated single production unit 

24 maximum annual radon release includes contributions from construction (0.004 percent), 

25 operations (72 percent), and aquifer restoration (29 percent) (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6). 

26 Considering the annual radon releases from the combination of concurrent proposed activities, 

27 the applicant calculated the annual total effective dose equivalents (TEDEs) at the site boundary 

28 at 29 locations surrounding the central plant, 5 residences, 1 site downwind of the CPP, and 

29 1 at an onsite CBM processing station (a total of 36 locations). 

30 Results of the applicant’s modeling (AUC, 2012b) indicated that the maximum offsite TEDE of 

31 0.023 mSv/yr [2.3 mrem/yr] is located at the proposed project boundary east of the CPP and 

32 Production Unit 8. This calculated dose is 2.3 percent of the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 

33 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr]. Thus, the modeling results show that the calculated doses at any 

34 proposed project boundary or at any receptor locations beyond the proposed project area 

35 boundary are below the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit. The maximum TEDE at a residence 

36 was 0.0031 mSv/yr [0.31 mrem/yr] at the Taffner residence (distinct from the Taffner 

37 Homestead) located 3.4 km [2.1 mi] north of the proposed CPP at a location beyond the 

38 proposed project boundary and downwind of venting production units. This is 0.31 percent of 

39 the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr]. Hence, the modeling results 

40 show the calculated TEDEs at nearby receptor locations are well below the public dose limit. 

41 In summary, the potential radiation doses to occupationally exposed workers and members of 

42 the public during normal operations would be SMALL. The applicant is required to implement 

43 an NRC-approved radiation protection program to protect workers and the public and ensure 

44 that radiological doses are ALARA. The applicant’s radiation protection program includes 

45 commitments for implementing management controls, engineering controls, radiation safety 

46 training, radon monitoring and sampling, and audit programs (AUC, 2012b). Calculated public 
4-128 

1 radiation doses from the releases of radioactive materials to the environment are small fractions 

2 of the limit in 10 CFR Part 20 that has been established for the protection of public health 

3 and safety. 

4 4.13.1.2.2 Radiological Impacts From Accidents 

5 GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2 describes and evaluates numerous accident scenarios that may result 

6 in effects to worker and public health and safety and identifies mitigation measures for each 

7 accident scenario. Radiological accident risks may involve processing equipment failures 

8 leading to yellowcake slurry spills, or radon gas or uranium particulate releases. The NRC staff 

9 state in the GEIS that the consequences of these accidents to workers and the public are 

10 generally low, with the exception of a dryer explosion, which may result in a worker dose 

11 exceeding the NRC limits (NRC, 1980). However, the likelihood of such an accident is low, due 

12 to design considerations and operational monitoring; therefore, the NRC staff considered the 

13 risk also to be low. 

14 GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2 also noted that in addition to accident mitigation measures, other 

15 measures would be in place to protect workers and members of the public. Employee 

16 personnel dosimetry programs are required. As part of worker protection, respiratory protection 

17 programs would be in place, as well as bioassay programs that detect uranium intake in 

18 employees. Contamination control programs would be in place, which involve surveying 

19 personnel, clothing, and equipment prior to their removal to an unrestricted area. 

20 As described in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2, a radiological hazard assessment (Mackin et al., 

21 2001) considered three types of accidents, representing the sources containing the higher levels 

22 of radioactivity for all aspects of operations: (i) thickener failure or spill, (ii) pregnant lixiviant and 

23 loaded resin spills (radon release), and (iii) yellowcake dryer accident release. 

24 The following discussion presents an overview of the accident scenarios, as evaluated in the 

25 GEIS, along with site-specific application to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Draft SEIS 

26 Table 4-17 summarizes the potential dose to workers and the public from the accident scenarios 

27 using data adapted from the GEIS. 

28 Thickener Failure and Spill. Thickeners are used to concentrate the yellowcake (U3O8) slurry 

29 before it is transferred to the dryer or packaged for offsite shipment. Yellowcake may be 

30 inadvertently released to the atmosphere through a thickener failure or spill. The accident 

31 scenario evaluated in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2 assumed a tank or pipe leak that releases 

32 20 percent of the thickener inside and outside of the processing building. The estimated doses 

33 to unprotected workers inside the facility from a thickener failure or spill have the potential to 

34 exceed the annual dose limit of 0.05 mSv [5 mrem] if timely corrective measures are not taken. 

Table 4-17. Generic Accident Dose Analysis for ISR Operations 

Accident Scenario Maximum Dose to Workers Maximum Dose to Public 

Thickener spill 50 mSv [5,000 mrem] 0.25 mSv [25 mrem] 

Pregnant lixiviant, resin spill 13 mSv [1,300 mrem] <0.13 mSv [13 mrem] 

Yellowcake dryer release 0.088 Sv [8.8 rem] Generic 

<0.01 Sv [1 rem] 

<1 mSv [100 mrem] 

Data adapted from the GEIS (NRC, 2009) 
4-129 

1 In addition, the applicant is required to implement an NRC-approved radiation protection 

2 program to protect occupational workers and ensure that radiological doses are ALARA. The 

3 applicant’s radiation protection program includes commitments for implementing management 

4 controls, radiation safety training, radon monitoring and sampling, incident response plans 

5 including the use of personal protective equipment, and audit programs (AUC, 2012b). These 

6 protection measures, along with engineering controls such as concrete curbs and sumps to 

7 contain process spills at the CPP, would reduce worker exposures and the resulting doses to a 

8 small fraction of those evaluated. 

9 The analysis of offsite public doses from the thickener failure scenario included a variety of wind 

10 speeds, stability classes, release durations, and receptor distances. A minimum receptor 

11 distance of 500 m [1,640 ft] was selected because it was found to be the shortest distance 

12 between a processing facility and an urban development for current operating ISR facilities. 

13 Offsite, unrestricted doses from such a U3O8 spill could result in a dose of 0.25 mSv [25 mrem], 

14 or 25 percent of the annual public dose limit of 1 mSv [100 mrem], with negligible external doses 

15 based on sufficient distance between the facility and receptor (NRC, 2009). Because the 

16 nearest residence is located 3.4 km [2.1 mi] north of the proposed CPP and 0.68 km [0.42 mi] 

17 beyond the boundary of the proposed project area, the potential dose from a similar accident 

18 scenario involving a thickener failure or spill at the proposed project would be even lower. 

19 Pregnant Lixiviant and Loaded Resin Spills. Process equipment (ion-exchange columns, drying 

20 and packing facilities) would be located on curbed concrete pads to prevent any liquids from 

21 exiting the building via spills or leaks and contaminating the outside environment (NRC, 2009). 

22 The primary radiation source for liquid releases within the facility would be the resulting airborne 

23 radon (Rn-222) released from the liquid or resin tank spill. The applicant also described an 

24 accident involving a process tank failure (AUC, 2012b). The applicant stated that the CPP at 

25 the proposed project would be designed to control and confine liquid spills from tanks should 

26 they occur. The central plant building structure would be designed with a 30-cm [12-in] 

27 surrounding concrete foundation wall to provide broad containment for the facility (AUC, 2012b). 

28 Additional curbing in specific areas designed to contain liquid spills from the leakage or rupture 

29 of a process vessel would direct any spilled solution to a floor sump (see draft SEIS 

30 Section 2.1.1.1.2). The total containment capacity of curbs and sumps at the proposed project 

31 in high risk areas would exceed 110 percent of the largest liquid-containing tank or vessel in that 

32 area of CPP (AUC, 2012b). The floor sump system would be designed to direct any spilled 

33 solutions back into the plant process circuit or to the waste disposal system. Bermed areas, 

34 tank containments, and/or double-walled tanks are designed to perform a similar function for 

35 any process chemical vessels located outside the central plant building (AUC, 2012b). 

36 The radon accident release scenario assumes that a pipe or valve of the ion-exchange system, 

37 containing pregnant lixiviant, develops a leak and releases (almost instantaneously) all present 

Rn-222 at a high activity level {2.96 × 107

 Bq/m3 [8 × 105 38 pCi/L]}. For a 30-minute exposure, the 

39 dose to a worker located inside the central plant performing light activities without respiratory 

40 protection was calculated to be 13 mSv [1,300 mrem], which is below the 10 CFR Part 20 

41 occupational annual dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem]. The applicant’s radiation protection 

42 program’s controls and monitoring measures would be expected to minimize the magnitude of 

43 any such release and further reduce the consequences of this type of accident. Typical control 

44 and monitoring measures would include radiation and occupational monitoring, respiratory 

45 protection, engineering controls, standard operating procedures for spill response and cleanup, 

46 and worker training in radiological health and emergency response (AUC, 2012b). The analysis 

47 did not evaluate public dose; however, because atmospheric transport offsite would reduce the 
4-130 

1 airborne levels by several orders of magnitude, any dose to a member of the public would be 

2 less than the 1 mSv [100 mrem] public dose limit of 10 CFR Part 20. 

3 Yellowcake Dryer Accident Release. Dryers used to produce yellowcake powder from 

4 yellowcake slurry are another potential source of accidental release of radionuclides. A 

5 multiple-hearth dryer is capable of releasing yellowcake powder inside the processing building 

6 as a result of an explosion. This scenario was evaluated in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2 to establish 

7 a bounding condition for other accident scenarios involving dryers. The analysis in the GEIS 

8 assumed that about 4,309 kg [9,500 lb] of uranium yellowcake was released within the building 

9 area housing the dryer and that 1 kg [2.2 lb] was subsequently released as an airborne effluent 

10 to the outside atmosphere as a 100 percent respirable powder. Due to the nature of the 

11 material, most of the yellowcake would rapidly fall out of airborne suspension. For the 

12 occupationally exposed worker using respiratory protection, which is typical during dryer access 

13 and drum-filling operations, the dose was calculated to be 0.088 Sv [8.8 rem], which exceeds 

14 the annual occupational dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem] established in 10 CFR Part 20. The 

15 amount assumed to remain airborne and to be transported outside the building for atmospheric 

16 dispersion to an offsite location was 1 kg [2.2 lb] of yellowcake. The rapid fallout within the 

17 building and the atmospheric dispersion significantly reduced the calculated exposure to 

members of the public to about 6.5 × 10−4 18 Sv [65 mrem] (NRC, 1980), which is less than the 

19 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1 mSv [100 mrem]. 

20 The applicant would use two rotary vacuum dryers with heat-transfer fluid that circulates through 

21 the dryer shell (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6). This configuration separates the heater 

22 combustion source from the dryer itself, thereby substantially reducing the possibility of an 

23 explosion, which is the initiating event for the assumed catastrophic failure and significant 

24 release of yellowcake from the dryer. The combined operational capacity of the proposed 

25 dryers of 1,680 kg [3,700 lb] of yellowcake (AUC, 2012b) is less than half of the dryer capacities 

26 assumed for the preceding explosion accident analysis. This lower capacity would 

27 proportionately reduce the calculated accident dose. Additionally, the size of the proposed 

28 dryer room (AUC, 2012b) is approximately 68 percent of the room size used to calculate the 

29 airborne uranium concentration in the accident analysis. This smaller dryer room would 

30 proportionately increase uranium air concentrations and dose in the accident analysis. Based 

31 on these differences, the NRC staff consider a similar analysis for the proposed project would 

32 lead to lower dose results (but still above the worker dose limit) and therefore would be bounded 

33 by the calculations in Mackin, et al. (2001). Accordingly, the applicant has committed to 

34 implement the recommendations described in Mackin et al. (2001) to lower the likelihood and 

35 consequences of a dryer explosion and fire. Additionally, the NRC would require the applicant 

36 to have emergency response procedures in place to mitigate worker exposures. Emergency 

37 training drills, dosimetry, respiratory protection, contamination control, and decontamination 

38 would all be required elements of the applicant’s radiation protection program that would further 

39 reduce the consequences of a dryer accident. 

40 Accident Analysis Conclusions. In the unlikely event of an unmitigated accident, and depending 

41 on the type of accident, potential doses to workers may result in a MODERATE impact to 

42 occupational health and safety. Typical protection measures, such as radiation and 

43 occupational monitoring, respiratory protection, standard operating procedures for spill response 

44 and cleanup, and worker training in radiological health and emergency response, would be 

45 required as a part of the applicant’s NRC-approved radiation protection program (AUC, 2012b). 

46 These procedures and plans would reduce the radiological consequences to workers from 

47 accidents. Additionally, all accident analyses concluded that there would be a SMALL impact to 
4-131 

1 public health and safety based primarily on the mitigating effects of distance from the facility on 

2 the radiation dose estimates. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the overall radiological 

3 impacts from accidents for the proposed project would be SMALL. 

4 4.13.1.2.3 Nonradiological Impacts From Normal Operations 

5 GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.4 identifies the various chemicals, hazardous and nonhazardous, that 

6 are typically used at ISR facilities. The GEIS also identifies the typical quantities of these 

7 chemicals that are used. The use of hazardous chemicals at ISR facilities is controlled under 

8 several regulations that are designed to provide adequate protection to workers and the public. 

9 The primary regulations applicable to use and storage include the following: 

10  40 CFR Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions. This regulation lists 

11 regulated toxic substances and threshold quantities for accidental release prevention. 

12  29 CFR 1910.119, OSHA Standards (which includes Process Safety Management). 

13 This regulation lists highly hazardous chemicals, including toxic and reactive materials 

14 that have the potential for a catastrophic event at or above the threshold quantity. 

15  40 CFR Part 355, Emergency Planning and Notification. This regulation lists extremely 

16 hazardous substances and their threshold planning quantities for the development and 

17 implementation of emergency response procedures. A list of reportable quantity values 

18 is also provided for reporting releases. 

19  40 CFR 302.4, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification—Designation of 

20 Hazardous Substances. This regulation lists Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

21 Compensation, and Liability Act hazardous substances compiled from the Clean Water 

22 Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Toxic Substances 

23 and Control Act. 

24 Chemicals would be utilized at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project during the operations and 

25 aquifer restoration (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3). The hazardous chemicals and their 

26 associated protective provisions expected to be used at the proposed project are as follows: 

27  Sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), and sodium bicarbonate 

28 (NaHCO3)—Systems utilizing these chemicals would be designed to industry standards. 

29 These chemicals would be stored in tanks inside or outside the CPP. 

30  Hydrochloric acid (HCl), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), or nitric acid (HNO3)—Due to the 

31 quantities that would be used, reporting would be required under 40 CFR 302.4. The 

32 acid storage tanks and distribution systems would be monitored closely and located in a 

33 secondary containment area separate from other process tanks to prevent accidental 

34 mixing with other chemicals. 

35  Hydrogen peroxide [50 percent (H2O2)]—Because the concentration would be 

36 <52 percent, no additional regulatory protective measures would be required. Bulk 

37 storage tanks for the hydrogen peroxide would be located outside the CPP in a 

38 secondary containment basin designed to contain at least 110 percent of the tank 

39 volume. This secondary containment basin would be separate from the containment 

40 basins for other chemical systems. The storage tank would be placarded and located a 
4-132 

1 safe distance away from flammable sources, organic materials, and incompatible 

2 chemicals to avoid potential adverse chemical reactions (AUC, 2012b). 

3  Carbon dioxide (CO2)—Carbon dioxide would be stored adjacent to the plant facilities. 

4 Floor-level ventilation and low-point carbon dioxide monitors would be installed to 

5 prevent a buildup of carbon dioxide in occupied areas (AUC, 2012b). 

6  Oxygen (O2)—Oxygen would be stored near, but a safe distance from, plant facilities or 

7 within wellfield areas. Each vessel would be equipped with safety relief devices and 

8 would be located at least 7.6 m [25 ft] from buildings or as required by applicable 

9 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and OSHA standards. The storage facility 

10 would be designed to meet industry standards in NFPA-502F and OSHA standards for 

11 the installation of bulk oxygen systems on industrial premises (29 CFR 1910.104) 

12 (AUC, 2012b). 

13  Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)—Systems utilizing NaOH would be designed to industry 

14 standards and stored in tanks inside the CPP in a secondary containment basin 

15 designed to contain at least 110 percent of the tank volume. This secondary 

16 containment basin would be separate from the containment basins for other chemical 

17 systems (AUC, 2012b). 

18  Diesel, gasoline, and bottled gases—All bulk quantities of these chemicals would be 

19 stored outside of process areas and away from hazardous material storage areas (AUC, 

20 2012b). All gasoline and diesel storage tanks would be above ground and within 

21 secondary containment structures. If the hydrocarbon storage capacity exceeds 5,000 L 

22 [1,320 gal], the applicant would prepare a Spill Prevention, Control, and 

23 Countermeasure (SPCC) plan in accordance with EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part 112 

24 (AUC, 2012b). In addition, gasoline and diesel storage tanks must comply with 

25 WDEQ requirements. 

26 The typical onsite quantities for some of these chemicals may exceed the regulated minimum 

27 reporting quantities and trigger an increased level of regulatory oversight regarding possession 

28 (type and quantities), storage, use, and disposal practices (NRC, 2009). Storage of these 

29 chemicals must comply with EPA-administered Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 

30 Act (SARA) Title III reporting requirements. Compliance with applicable regulations reduces the 

31 likelihood of a release, which may result in injury or illness to an exposed worker. Because 

32 chemicals used in the ISR process are stored and used in or near plant facilities and wellfields, 

33 offsite impacts of a chemical spill would be SMALL and do not typically pose a significant risk to 

34 the public. Workers involved in a response and cleanup to a chemical spill may experience 

35 MODERATE impacts if the proper emergency and cleanup procedures and worker training were 

36 not available or were inadequate. 

37 In general, the handling and storage of chemicals at the proposed project would follow standard 

38 industrial safety practices. The applicant has committed to developing and implementing 

39 standard operating procedures regarding receiving, storing, handling, and disposing of 

40 chemicals (AUC, 2012b). The applicant is also required to comply with EPA, WDEQ, and 

41 OSHA regulations regarding inspections and the industrial and environmental safety aspects 

42 associated with the use of chemicals. The Wyoming Department of Workforce Services 

43 regulates the industrial safety aspects associated with the use of hazardous chemicals. At the 

44 proposed project, most of the bulk chemicals would be stored in areas at a distance from the 
4-133 

1 processing facilities, which would minimize the risk to public and worker health and safety 

2 (AUC, 2012b). As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, bulk storage tanks for process 

3 chemicals, such as strong mineral acids, sodium hydroxide, and hydrogen peroxide, would be 

4 outside the CPP in concrete secondary containment basins designed to contain 110 percent of 

5 the tank volume plus withstand a 25-year, 24-hour flood event (AUC, 2012b). The secondary 

6 containment basins would be separate from the containment basins for other chemical systems. 

7 The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) identified for use at the 

8 proposed project are consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS. The information the applicant 

9 provided regarding chemicals agrees with the GEIS evaluations and conclusions regarding 

10 potential effects to public or occupational health and safety. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude 

11 that the nonradiological impacts during normal operations for the proposed project would 

12 be SMALL. 

13 4.13.1.2.4 Nonradiological Impacts From Accidents 

14 The risks from accidents associated with the use of the typical hazardous and nonhazardous 

15 chemicals for ISR operations are not different from those for other typical industrial applications. 

16 Potential nonradiological accident impacts include high consequence chemical release events 

17 (e.g., of ammonia) involving both workers and nearby populations. In GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2, 

18 the NRC staff state that the likelihood of such release events would be low based on historical 

19 operating experience at NRC-licensed facilities, primarily due to operators following commonly 

20 applied chemical safety and handling protocols. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

21 nonradiological impacts due to accidents would be SMALL offsite and potentially MODERATE 

22 for workers involved in accident response and cleanup. 

23 GEIS Appendix E, Hazardous Chemicals, provides an accident analysis for the more hazardous 

24 chemicals. This accident analysis indicates that chemicals commonly used at ISR facilities can 

25 pose a serious safety hazard if not properly handled. The GEIS does not evaluate potential 

26 hazards to workers or the public due to specific types of high consequence, low probability 

27 accidents (e.g., a fire or large magnitude sudden release of chemicals from a major tank rupture 

28 or piping system rupture). The application of common safety practices for handling and use of 

29 chemicals is expected to limit the likelihood of these high consequence events to very low 

30 levels. The spills of reportable quantities from chemical bulk storage areas must be reported to 

31 WDEQ in accordance with the Water Quality Division rules and regulations (WDEQ, 2012) and 

32 to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR Part 302 (Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

33 Compensation, and Liability Act). These procedures and reporting requirements would mitigate 

34 the effects of an accident involving hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals. 

35 The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) to be used at the 

36 proposed project do not differ from those evaluated in the GEIS, nor is there any new or 

37 significant information that conflicts with the conclusions drawn in the GEIS regarding the 

38 potential nonradiological impacts on public and occupational health and safety from chemical 

39 accidents. Offsite impacts involving hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals would be SMALL 

40 and do not typically pose a significant risk to the public. Workers involved in a response and 

41 cleanup could experience MODERATE impacts, but training requirements and adherence to 

42 established procedures would reduce the impact to SMALL. Based on the foregoing analysis 

43 and the GEIS conclusions, at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the impacts from potential 

44 accidents for both occupationally exposed workers and members of the public would be SMALL 

45 during operations. 
4-134 

1 4.13.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

2 Aquifer restoration impacts on public and occupational health and safety were evaluated in 

3 GEIS Section 4.3.11.3. Activities occurring during aquifer restoration would overlap similar 

4 activities occurring during operations (e.g., operation of wellfields, wastewater treatment and 

5 disposal). Therefore, the potential impact on public and occupational health and safety would 

6 be similar to the operational impacts. In the GEIS, the NRC staff also stated that the reduction 

7 of some operational activities (e.g., yellowcake production and drying, remote ion-exchange) as 

8 aquifer restoration proceeded would be expected to limit the relative magnitude of potential 

9 worker and public health and safety hazards. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the 

10 overall impacts to workers and the public from aquifer restoration would be SMALL 

11 (NRC, 2009). 

12 The proposed aquifer restoration activities are similar to activities that would take place during 

13 operations (e.g., operation of wellfields, wastewater treatment and disposal). Therefore, the 

14 potential effect on public and occupational health and safety would be similar to the operational 

15 effects. The reduction or elimination of some operational activities (e.g., yellowcake production 

16 and drying) would further limit potential worker and public health and safety hazards. The 

17 radiation doses associated with restoration are included in the operations assessment in draft 

18 SEIS Section 4.13.1.2. Similarly, nonradiological hazards during aquifer restoration are 

19 assessed in draft SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.3. Accident consequences would be smaller than 

20 those evaluated in draft SEIS Sections 4.13.1.2.2 and 4.13.1.2.4. Therefore, for the proposed 

21 project, aquifer restoration would have a localized SMALL occupational impact on workers 

22 (primarily from radon gas) and to the general public. 

23 4.13.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

24 Decommissioning impacts on public and occupational health and safety were evaluated in GEIS 

25 Section 4.3.11.4. During decommissioning, the degree of potential impact decreases as 

26 hazards are reduced or removed, soils and facility structures are decontaminated, and lands are 

27 restored to preoperational conditions. To ensure the safety of workers and the public during 

28 decommissioning, the NRC requires ISR licensees to submit a decommissioning plan for review 

29 and approval. The NRC would then periodically inspect the facility to ensure that the 

30 decommissioning plan is implemented properly. The plan includes details of the radiation safety 

31 program that is implemented during decommissioning activities. The plan is developed to 

32 minimize health and safety hazards and to be compliant with worker and public dose limits in 

33 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts C and D limits. An approved plan would also provide “as low as 

34 reasonably achievable” (ALARA) provisions under 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart B to further ensure 

35 best safety practices are being used to minimize radiation exposures. Adequate protection of 

36 workers and the public during decommissioning would therefore be ensured through NRC 

37 review and approval of the applicant’s decommissioning plan, license conditions, inspection, 

38 and enforcement. Based on the NRC review and approval of the applicant’s decommissioning 

39 plan, the NRC application of any site-specific license conditions, and the NRC inspection and 

40 enforcement actions to ensure compliance with NRC radiation safety requirements, the NRC 

41 staff concluded in the GEIS the potential public and occupational health and safety impacts for 

42 decommissioning would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

43 Prior to decommissioning, the applicant would have to submit a decommissioning plan for NRC 

44 review and approval at least 12 months before any decommissioning activities begin. The plan 

45 would need to include the types of safety information described in the GEIS. The applicant 
4-135 

1 would also be required to comply with any site-specific, NRC-established license conditions. 

2 Additionally, the applicant would be subjected to NRC safety inspections during the course of 

3 decommissioning activities. 

4 The applicant’s proposal does not contain any new or significant information that changes the 

5 conclusions in the GEIS regarding potential effects to public and occupational health and safety 

6 from decommissioning. The majority of safety issues that are addressed during 

7 decommissioning involve radiological hazards at the facility (NRC, 2009). Removal of 

8 nonradiological hazardous chemicals would be conducted in accordance with applicable state 

9 and federal hazardous waste disposal and occupational health and safety requirements. 

10 Decommissioning permits the proposed project area to be released for unrestricted use in 

11 conformance with NRC license conditions and the dose criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. 

12 The criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, limit the dose from radiological contamination that 

13 may exist at the proposed project area after decommissioning is completed to levels that are 

14 sufficiently low to protect public health and safety. 

15 Assuming the NRC review and approval of the applicant’s decommissioning plan, the 

16 applicant’s compliance with any applicable license conditions, and regular NRC inspection and 

17 enforcement activities, the anticipated impact from decommissioning for the proposed project for 

18 the duration of decommissioning activities would be SMALL. 

19 4.13.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

20 Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would not be developed 

21 and there would be no occupational exposure. There would be no additional radiological 

22 exposures to the general public from project-related effluent releases, and there would be no 

23 impact on long-term environmental radiological conditions. Radiation exposure and risk to the 

24 general public would continue to be determined by exposure from natural background, medical25 related exposures, and exposures from existing residual contamination. 

26 4.14 Waste Management 

27 As described in GEIS Section 4.3.12, environmental impacts on waste management could occur 

28 during all phases of the ISR life cycle. The proposed project would generate radiological and 

29 nonradiological liquid and solid materials that must be handled and disposed of properly. The 

30 primary radiological materials that must be disposed of are process-related liquids and 

31 process-contaminated structures, equipment, and soils, all of which are classified as 

32 byproduct material. 

33 Before operations could begin, the NRC requires an ISR facility to have an agreement in place 

34 with a licensed disposal facility to accept byproduct material. The NRC would require by license 

35 condition that the disposal agreement be in place before the initiation of operations and be 

36 maintained for the duration of the license. Premature expiration or termination of the disposal 

37 agreement without timely replacement would be grounds for cessation of operations until a new 

38 agreement is in place. 

39 Environmental impacts on waste management resources during the construction, operations, 

40 aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are 

41 discussed next. The environmental impacts of the proposed waste management actions on 
4-136 

1 other resources are evaluated within the applicable subsections of each impact analysis in 

2 this chapter. 

3 4.14.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1 

4 The types of waste streams that could be generated by the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

5 are discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The primary radiological materials that 

6 could be generated by the proposed project are process-related liquid wastewater and 

7 process-contaminated structures, equipment, and soils, all of which are classified as byproduct 

8 material. As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the applicant has identified the 

9 Pathfinder Mines Shirley Basin, Denison Mines White Mesa, and EnergySolutions Clive facilities 

10 as possible options for disposal of solid byproduct material. The applicant’s preferred method 

11 for disposal of liquid byproduct material is by Class I deep disposal well. The impacts on waste 

12 management from the proposed project with Class I deep disposal wells are described in draft 

13 SEIS Section 4.14.1.1. The impacts of additional wastewater disposal options that have been 

14 used previously by other ISR facilities but were not proposed by the applicant, including 

15 evaporation ponds, land application, surface water discharge, and Class V deep well disposal 

16 are described in draft SEIS Section 4.14.1.3. 

17 4.14.1.1 Disposal Via Class l Deep Disposal Wells 

18 As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of 

19 liquid byproduct material is via Class I deep disposal wells. Potential environmental effects on 

20 waste management from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of 

21 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project using deep Class I deep disposal wells are discussed in 

22 the following sections. 

23 4.14.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

24 Construction impacts on waste management resources were evaluated in GEIS 

25 Section 4.3.12.1. In the GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that waste management impacts from 

26 the construction phase of an ISR facility would be SMALL. Because construction activities 

27 would be on a relatively small scale, and sequential wellfield development would generate a low 

28 volume of construction waste (NRC, 2009). 

29 The primary waste produced in this phase of the ISR facility life cycle would be nonhazardous 

30 solid waste. Examples of nonhazardous construction waste include building materials and 

31 piping. As discussed in draft SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.6 and 3.13.2, the applicant has 

32 proposed to dispose of nonhazardous solid waste at the Campbell County landfill located at 

33 Gillette, Wyoming, approximately 80 km [50 mi] northeast of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

34 Project area. An alternate regional landfill is the Casper, Wyoming, landfill, approximately 

35 135 km [84 mi] southwest of the proposed project area, if additional capacity is needed. As 

36 described in draft SEIS Section 3.13.2, these landfills have available projected capacity over the 

37 duration of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

38 The proposed activities to manage construction waste generated by the proposed project are 

39 discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The proposed project would annually generate a 

volume of 1,590 m3 [2,080 yd3 40 ] of nonhazardous solid waste during the construction phase (draft 

41 SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6), which is 2 percent or less of the annual volume of waste disposed at 

either the Campbell County landfill 106,280 m3

 [138,900 yd3] or the Casper landfill 191,280 m3 42 

[250,000 yd3 43 ] (draft SEIS Section 3.13.2). The total nonhazardous solid waste generated by 
4-137 

1 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project for the duration of the construction phase (9 years) 

(14,310 m3

 [18,720 yd3 2 ]) would account for less than 2 percent of the capacity of the Campbell 

County landfill (764,500 m3

 [1,000,000 yd3 3 ], which is based on multiplying the annual volume of 

4 waste disposed at the landfill by the 18-year landfill capacity projection provided by the 

5 operator) and less than 0.01 percent of the available capacity of the Casper landfill 

(317,000,000 m3

 [414,000,000 yd3 6 ]). Additional details about landfills can be found in draft SEIS 

7 Section 3.13.2. As described in draft SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.6 and 3.13.1, the applicant would 

8 obtain a WDEQ WYPDES permit to discharge well development water into mud pits adjacent to 

9 drilling pads (AUC, 2012b). The permit would require reporting of flow, pH, radium (Ra-226), 

10 uranium, TDS, and total suspended solids (TSS) to the WDEQ. The applicant expects to be 

11 classified as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) based on the volume 

12 of hazardous waste they would generate (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6). The applicant would 

13 transport its hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste facility for disposal (AUC, 2012a). 

14 Because all well development water would be managed onsite using permitted practices, the 

15 small quantities of hazardous waste that would be generated would be stored and disposed in 

16 accordance with applicable regulations, and there is available capacity for offsite disposal of 

17 nonhazardous solid waste, the NRC staff conclude that the impact on waste management from 

18 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL. 

19 4.14.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

20 Operations impacts on waste management resources were evaluated in GEIS Section 2.7. The 

21 GEIS stated that byproduct material generated during the operations phase at an ISR facility 

22 would primarily be liquid consisting of process bleed (1 to 3 percent of the process flow rate). 

23 The NRC staff also noted in the GEIS that byproduct material would be generated from flushing 

24 of eluant to limit impurities, resin transfer wash, filter washing, uranium precipitation (brine), and 

25 plant washdown. Treatment and disposal methods described in the GEIS for liquid byproduct 

26 material at ISR facilities were characterized as effective at reducing the volume of material prior 

27 to disposal at an approved facility. Solid byproduct material would be decontaminated and 

28 released for other use or disposed of at approved waste disposal facilities. The NRC staff 

29 concluded in GEIS Section 4.3.12.2 that the waste management impact from disposal of 

30 byproduct material would be SMALL based on the required preoperational disposal agreement 

31 between an applicant and a licensed byproduct material disposal site, regulatory controls 

32 including applicable permitting, license conditions, inspection practices, facility design 

33 specifications, and management practices including waste treatment, volume reduction, pond 

34 leak detection, and routine monitoring. The impact from hazardous and municipal waste 

35 (nonhazardous solid waste) disposal was expected to be SMALL because of the small volume 

36 of waste generated. The impact from disposal of nonhazardous solid waste was expected to be 

37 SMALL based on the available disposal capacity of municipal solid waste facilities (NRC, 2009). 

38 Liquid byproduct material generated during operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

39 would be composed of production bleed, waste brine streams from elution and precipitation, 

40 resin transfer wash, filter backwash water, and plant washdown water (draft SEIS 

41 Section 2.1.1.1.6). The applicant estimates the maximum production of liquid byproduct 

42 material at any time considering concurrent uranium recovery operations and aquifer restoration 

43 activities to be 545 Lpm [144 gal/min] for the proposed Class I deep disposal well (draft SEIS 

44 Section 2.1.1.1.6). The applicant would treat the liquid byproduct material stream onsite to 

45 remove uranium by ion exchange (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6). As stated in draft SEIS 

46 Section 2.1.1.1.6, the applicant would have to meet applicable EPA, State of Wyoming, and 

47 NRC requirements before injection in a Class I deep disposal well begins. When evaluating 

48 permit applications for Class I deep disposal wells, WDEQ considers the characteristics of the 
4-138 

1 operation, the material proposed to be injected, and the surrounding environment, and 

2 determines whether the proposed injection would satisfy state regulations (WDEQ, 2015b,c). A 

3 WDEQ permit for the four proposed Class I deep disposal wells was granted in June 2015 

4 (WDEQ, 2015a). This permit approves injection of defined radionuclide-bearing materials and 

5 prohibits hazardous waste [as defined by Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and 

6 state regulations] from being injected. Before the permitted wells can be operated, an aquifer 

7 exemption determination must be made by the EPA for the aquifer (or portion thereof) that is the 

8 discharge zone for the injection well. In this regard, EPA would evaluate the aquifer and 

9 determine whether it meets criteria in 40 CFR 146.4 for exemption as an underground source of 

10 drinking water (currently pending). The NRC would require treatment systems to be approved, 

11 constructed, operated, and monitored to ensure release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, 

12 Subparts D and K are met. The applicant would have 4 Class I deep disposal wells with a 

13 capacity of 606 Lpm [160 gal/min] (AUC, 21012b), sufficient to accommodate the applicant’s 

14 estimated 545 Lpm [144 gal/min] (AUC, 21012b) liquid byproduct material production from the 

15 proposed operation. Based on the applicant’s proposal to obtain adequate disposal capacity, as 

16 well as requirements to comply with EPA regulations and WDEQ Class I deep disposal well 

17 permit conditions, and NRC regulations, the NRC staff conclude that the waste management 

18 impacts from the disposal of liquid byproduct material via deep Class I deep disposal wells 

19 during the ISR operations phase would be SMALL. 

20 Solid byproduct material generated during operations could include spent resin, empty chemical 

21 containers and packaging, pipes and fittings, tank or storage pond sediments, contaminated soil 

22 from leaks and spills, and contaminated construction and demolition debris. As discussed in 

23 draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the applicant estimates, during the operational period and 

24 assuming combined operations and aquifer restoration, that the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

Project would produce 76 m3

 [100 yd3 25 ] of solid byproduct material annually from the Class I 

26 deep disposal well (AUC, 21012a). Solid byproduct material would be stored onsite within a 

27 restricted area until sufficient volume is generated for disposal. Based on the disposal options 

28 currently available and the disposal agreement that the NRC requires prior to operations (draft 

29 SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6), the NRC staff conclude that the impacts on waste management from 

30 the disposal of solid byproduct material during the ISR operations phase would be SMALL. 

31 Nonhazardous solid waste generated during operations could include facility trash, septic solids, 

32 and other uncontaminated solid materials (for example, piping, valves, instrumentation, and 

33 equipment). Because the proposed generation rate of nonhazardous solid waste (draft SEIS 

34 Section 2.1.1.1.6) is less than what was evaluated for the construction phase (draft SEIS 

35 Section 4.14.1.1.1), the waste from operating the proposed project would be small percentages 

36 of the annual waste disposed and remaining capacities at either landfill (draft SEIS 

37 Section 3.13.2), therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the impact on waste management would 

38 be SMALL. 

39 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the applicant has stated it expects to be classified 

40 as a CESQG based on the volume of hazardous waste they expect to generate during 

41 operations. The applicant would transport its hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste 

42 facility for disposal (AUC, 2012a). 

43 Based on the type and quantity of byproduct material and waste expected to be generated and 

44 the available capacity for disposal, the NRC staff conclude that the waste management activities 

45 during the ISR operations phase of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL 

46 impact on waste management resources. 
4-139 

1 4.14.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

2 Aquifer restoration impacts on waste management resources were evaluated in GEIS 

3 Section 4.3.12.3. The GEIS described waste management activities that would occur during the 

4 aquifer restoration phase of an ISR project and noted that the same treatment and disposal 

5 options would be implemented as those used during operations. Therefore, the waste 

6 management effects would be similar to those during the operations phase of an ISR project. 

7 Some increase in wastewater volumes could occur, but the increase in volume would be offset 

8 by the decrease in production capacity from the removal of wellfields from production activities. 

9 The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impact on waste management from aquifer 

10 restoration would be similar to the impacts from operations and therefore be SMALL 

11 (NRC, 2009). 

12 For the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the applicant would use the same waste 

13 management systems for aquifer restoration as used during ISR operations with the exception 

14 of additional RO units, as discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. 

15 Liquid byproduct material generated during aquifer restoration is composed of RO brine and 

16 aquifer restoration bleed (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6). The applicant would manage aquifer 

17 restoration wastewater (i.e., liquid byproduct material) by treating the wastewater by reverse 

18 osmosis and reinjecting the treated water (i.e., permeate) back into the aquifer production zone 

19 undergoing restoration (see draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4). This treatment is done to both 

20 restore the water quality in the aquifer and limit the consumptive use of groundwater. As stated 

21 in draft SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.6 and 4.14.1.1.2 for operations, the applicant would have to meet 

22 applicable WDEQ and NRC requirements before injecting the liquid byproduct material into a 

23 Class I deep disposal well. The applicant would have four Class I deep disposal wells with a 

24 capacity of 606 Lpm [160 gal/min] (AUC, 2012b), sufficient to accommodate the applicant’s 

25 estimated maximum 545 Lpm [144 gal/min] (AUC, 2012b) liquid byproduct material production 

26 from the proposed concurrent operations and aquifer restoration activities. Based on the 

27 applicant’s proposal to obtain adequate disposal capacity, as well requirements to comply with 

28 WDEQ Class I deep disposal well permit conditions, EPA and NRC regulations, the NRC staff 

29 conclude that the waste management impacts from the disposal of liquid byproduct material via 

30 Class I deep disposal wells during the ISR aquifer restoration phase would be SMALL. 

31 Solid byproduct material generated during aquifer restoration could include spent resin, empty 

32 chemical containers and packaging, pipes and fittings, tank or storage pond sediments, and 

33 contaminated soil from leaks and spills. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the 

34 applicant estimates, during the operational period and assuming combined operations and 

aquifer restoration, that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would produce 76 m3 [100 yd3 35 ] of 

36 solid byproduct material annually from the Class I deep disposal well (AUC, 2012a). Solid 

37 byproduct material would be stored onsite within a restricted area until sufficient volume is 

38 generated for disposal. Based on the proposed capacity to dispose of liquid byproduct material 

39 in four Class I deep disposal wells and the disposal agreement that the NRC requires prior to 

40 operations (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6), the NRC staff conclude that the waste management 

41 impacts from the generation of byproduct material during the ISR aquifer restoration phase 

42 would be SMALL. 

43 Nonhazardous solid waste generated during aquifer restoration could include facility trash, 

44 septic solids, and other uncontaminated solid materials (for example, piping, valves, 

45 instrumentation, and equipment). Because the proposed generation rate of nonhazardous solid 

46 waste (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6) would be a small percentage of the annual landfill disposal 
4-140 

1 volume and available capacity (draft SEIS Section 3.13.2), the NRC staff conclude that the 

2 impact on waste management would be SMALL. 

3 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the applicant has stated it expects to be classified 

4 as a CESQG based on the volume of hazardous waste they expect to generate during aquifer 

5 restoration. The applicant would transport its hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste 

6 facility for disposal. 

7 Based on the type and quantity of waste expected to be generated and the available 

8 capacity for disposal, and the disposal agreement for solid byproduct material that the NRC 

9 requires prior to operations (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6), the NRC staff conclude that the 

10 waste management activities during the ISR aquifer restoration phase of the proposed project 

11 would have a SMALL impact on waste management resources. 

12 4.14.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

13 Decommissioning impacts on waste management resources were evaluated in GEIS 

14 Section 2.6. The GEIS stated that wastes generated from decommissioning an ISR facility 

15 would be predominantly byproduct material and nonhazardous solid waste. GEIS 

16 Section 4.3.12.4 stated that decommissioning byproduct material (including contaminated 

17 facility demolition materials, process and wellfield equipment, excavated soil, and pond bottoms) 

18 would be disposed of at a licensed facility. As stated previously, to ensure that sufficient 

19 disposal capacity is available for byproduct material (including that generated by 

20 decommissioning activities), the NRC requires a preoperational agreement with a licensed 

21 disposal facility to accept byproduct material for disposal. The NRC staff concluded that the 

22 required preoperational agreement for disposal of byproduct material, the NRC review and 

23 approval of a decommissioning plan and radiation safety program, and the small volume of solid 

24 waste generated for offsite disposal suggest the waste management impacts of an ISR facility 

25 would be SMALL (NRC, 2009). 

26 The anticipated decommissioning activities occurring at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

27 would be comparable to those described in GEIS Section 2.6 and would be conducted in 

28 accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning plan. The applicant proposed to conduct 

29 radiological surveys of decommissioned facilities and equipment and classify materials in 

30 accordance with the applicable disposition of the materials (AUC, 2012b), including 

31 decontamination, recycling and reuse, disposal as byproduct material at a licensed facility, or 

32 disposal as nonhazardous solid waste at a municipal solid waste landfill (AUC, 2012b). 

33 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the applicant’s estimate for solid byproduct 

34 material generated from decommissioning the plant facilities and all wellfields (over a planned 

1-year decommissioning period) is 3,060 m3

 [4,000 yd3 35 ] for the Class I deep disposal well 

36 (AUC, 2012a). As discussed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6, the applicant does not have a 

37 disposal agreement in place with a licensed site to accept solid byproduct material, and as 

38 discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.14.1.1.2, the NRC would require that the applicant enter into a 

39 written agreement with a disposal site to ensure adequate capacity for byproduct material 

40 disposal prior to beginning operations at the site. The applicant has evaluated the following 

41 facilities as potential sites for disposal of byproduct material: the Pathfinder Mines Corporation 

42 facility in Shirley Basin, Wyoming; the White Mesa site in Blanding, Utah; and the 

43 EnergySolutions site in Clive, Utah (draft SEIS Section 3.13.2). Based on the disposal 

44 agreement that the NRC would require by license condition prior to operations, the NRC staff 
4-141 

1 conclude that the impact on waste management from the generation of byproduct material 

2 during decommissioning would be SMALL. 

The applicant estimated that the proposed project would generate 1,530 m3 [2,000 yd3 3 ] of 

4 nonhazardous solid waste from decommissioning over the planned 1-year period (AUC, 2012a). 

This estimated solid waste volume is greater than what was analyzed in the GEIS {715 m3 5 

[935 yd3 6 ]} and thus not bounded by the impact assessment described in the GEIS; therefore, 

7 the NRC staff considered additional site-specific information to evaluate effects. Considering 

8 the permitted landfill disposal capacities of the Campbell County landfill in Gillette, Wyoming, 

9 the Casper landfill (draft SEIS Section 3.13.2), the proposed project duration (draft SEIS 

10 Figure 2.1), and the capacity analysis in draft SEIS Section 4.14.1.1.1 that demonstrates 

11 construction waste at approximately the same annual volume for 9 years would be a small 

12 fraction of available capacity, the NRC staff conclude that there would be sufficient landfill 

13 capacity at the time of decommissioning for an additional year of disposal. Based on this 

14 capacity analysis, the NRC staff conclude that the potential impacts of the proposed Reno 

15 Creek ISR Project on nonhazardous solid waste management resources would be SMALL. 

16 The applicant estimates that the volume of hazardous waste generated from decommissioning 

17 activities would allow the operation to meet the WDEQ definition of a CESQG (draft SEIS 

18 Section 2.1.1.1.6). The hazardous waste streams from decommissioning would be similar to 

19 the waste streams generated during the ISR construction phase and could include used oil, 

20 batteries, and cleaning solvents. The applicant would have in place a hazardous material 

21 program that complies with applicable EPA and WDEQ requirements for its handling, storage, 

22 and disposal at approved facilities. Because the volume of hazardous waste generated by the 

23 proposed project would be small and the waste would be handled, stored, and disposed of in 

24 accordance with applicable regulations, the NRC staff conclude that the impacts on waste 

25 management would be SMALL. 

26 In summary, the NRC staff conclude that the impacts to waste management resources during 

27 the decommissioning phase of the proposed project for the Class I deep disposal well would be 

28 SMALL for all materials based on the type and quantity of waste expected to be generated and 

29 the available capacity for disposal. 

30 4.14.1.2 Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options 

31 Although the applicant has received an aquifer exemption from EPA to allow operation of the 

32 permitted Class I deep disposal wells, the NRC staff have identified additional waste disposal 

33 options. Because these options are hypothetical and not proposed by the applicant, this section 

34 broadly evaluates the environmental effects on any resource area that would be affected by 

35 implementing the alternate wastewater disposal options identified in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.2. 

36 All of these alternative wastewater disposal options would involve treatment of the wastewater 

37 resulting in the generation of solid waste, which also must be managed. 

38 In the alternative wastewater disposal options considered in the following sections, the footprint 

39 of the disposal system would increase relative to disposal by Class I deep disposal wells (the 

40 applicant’s proposed waste disposal option) (draft SEIS Section 4.14.1.1). Increasing the size 

41 of the proposed facility would lead to more land disturbance and would increase the use of 

42 construction equipment, with an anticipated increase in potential effects to resource areas, such 

43 as ecological and wetland systems, cultural and historical resources, and nonradiological air 

44 quality. Because the license application currently relies on Class I deep disposal wells for 

45 disposal of liquid byproduct material, the applicant would have to amend its license application 
4-142 

1 to select one of these alternative wastewater disposal options. The NRC staff would perform an 

2 additional environmental and safety review before deciding whether to grant or deny the license 

3 amendment request for the new wastewater disposal option. The applicant would survey the 

4 areas to be affected prior to construction, and the applicant and the NRC staff would consult 

5 with agencies such as the WY SHPO, WGFD, and FWS, as appropriate. Mitigation measures, 

6 such as avoidance of sensitive areas or documentation of cultural resources, would be 

7 discussed and implemented, as appropriate, as part of these consultations. If mitigation 

8 measures were implemented, the estimated impacts would be SMALL. 

9 4.14.1.2.1 Evaporation Ponds 

10 Evaporation ponds are an alternate wastewater disposal method. The types of waste streams 

11 and the infrastructure necessary for the use of evaporation ponds as a wastewater disposal 

12 option are described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.1. The type and volume of wastewater that 

13 would be disposed in an evaporation pond would be the same as described in draft SEIS 

14 Section 4.14.1.1 for disposal by injection into a Class I deep disposal well. Before the applicant 

15 could begin disposing wastewater into an evaporation pond system, the NRC staff would 

16 review the design and construction of the ponds and monitoring system against the criteria in 

17 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A (NRC, 2003b, 2008) taking into consideration EPA criteria in 

18 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W. The applicant would be required to demonstrate that the 

19 evaporation ponds could be designed, operated, and decommissioned to prevent migration of 

20 wastewater to subsurface soil, surface water, or groundwater. The applicant would also be 

21 required to demonstrate that monitoring requirements would be established to detect migration 

22 of contaminants to groundwater. The NRC staff would establish needed license conditions to 

23 ensure that the applicant met the necessary requirements. 

24 Individual evaporation ponds could have a surface area of up to 16.2 ha [40 ac], and the total 

25 pond system could be as much as 270 ha [670 ac]]. During the ISR operations period for the 

26 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, this area would be fenced to exclude wildlife and livestock. 

27 A 270 ha [670 ac] footprint would be 11 percent of the total permitted area {2,452 ha [6,057 ac]} 

28 for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, but it would be much larger than the footprint for a 

29 CPP without evaporation ponds {0.652 ha [1.61 ac] as described in AUC, 2012a}. The 

30 additional land disturbance required to install an evaporation pond system for wastewater 

31 disposal would be similar in scale for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. It is also 

32 anticipated that the applicant would need to have at least one other wastewater disposal option 

33 or additional storage capacity during the winter months in Wyoming because of the low 

34 evaporation rates during that season. 

35 Although a wastewater disposal option that uses an evaporation pond system would increase 

36 the facility footprint relative to Class I deep disposal wells, the total amount of disturbed and 

37 fenced land would be small compared to the permitted area and comparable to the generic 

38 conditions evaluated in the GEIS with respect to land use. For these reasons, the overall 

39 impact on land use associated with an evaporation pond system would be SMALL. 

40 Construction of an evaporation pond system would require earthmoving equipment, such as 

41 bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site and construct the impoundment. The 

42 equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive dust emissions during construction that 

43 could have a temporary effect on nonradiological air quality. Depending on how the applicant 

44 elected to phase in the pond system, these effects could extend into the operational phase of 

45 the facility as well. Mitigation measures, such as wetting unpaved roads, would minimize 

46 fugitive dust, and the anticipated impacts to nonradiological air quality would be SMALL. The 
4-143 

1 applicant may also need to obtain a National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

2 (NESHAP) review to evaluate whether the anticipated radiological releases to air from the 

3 evaporation ponds would meet the criteria in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W. The applicant would 

4 also be required to have an NRC-approved air monitoring system for the wastewater disposal 

5 system. Keeping the pond wet to reduce dust and radon emissions would effectively reduce 

6 potential air emissions. Therefore, the estimated impacts on radiological air quality would 

7 be SMALL. 

8 Evaporation ponds designed and constructed following NRC guidance (NRC, 2008) would 

9 utilize clay or geotextile liners to reduce the potential for infiltration into the subsurface. An 

10 NRC-approved monitoring system would be installed to detect leaks from the ponds, and the 

11 applicant would also implement an NRC-approved inspection plan for the ponds (NRC, 2008). 

12 Based on these measures, the estimated impacts on surface water and groundwater resources 

13 would be SMALL. 

14 The evaporation ponds would be constructed at the same time and with the same mitigation 

15 measures described in draft SEIS Section 4.6 (Ecological Resources) for the construction of the 

16 rest of the facility. For these reasons, the estimated impact on ecological resources from an 

17 evaporation pond disposal system would be the same as identified in draft SEIS Section 4.6 and 

18 could be reduced to SMALL. 

19 At the conclusion of proposed operations, the NRC requires the licensee to submit a 

20 decommissioning plan (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5) for NRC review (NRC, 2003b). The NRC 

21 staff would conduct detailed technical and environmental reviews of the proposed 

22 decommissioning plan. Decommissioning evaporation ponds would produce additional solid 

23 byproduct material for disposal relative to the proposed project. All of the pond liners and 

24 berms, as well as accumulated precipitates and sludge, would be classified as solid byproduct 

25 material. These solids would need to be transported to a licensed facility for disposal as part of 

26 the decommissioning program. This would increase the total amount of decommissioning 

27 byproduct material, increasing the number of truck trips needed to transport the materials to a 

28 disposal facility. The NRC staff expects the required pre-operational disposal agreement would 

29 ensure disposal capacity would be available for solid byproduct material. Based on this 

30 analysis, the potential impacts on waste management from decommissioning evaporation ponds 

31 would be SMALL. 

32 4.14.1.2.2 Land Application 

33 Under the land application alternate wastewater disposal option, the liquid effluent would need 

34 to be treated to meet NRC release requirements in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and 

35 Appendix B as well as WDEQ requirements imposed by a WYPDES permit (NRC, 2003b). The 

36 waste streams and infrastructure necessary for land application are described in draft SEIS 

37 Section 2.1.1.2.3. The NRC would establish license conditions to ensure land application 

38 activities were conducted safely and would verify compliance with the conditions by inspection. 

39 The applicant would need to implement an NRC and WDEQ-approved program for monitoring 

40 land application effluent, and potentially affected environmental media including groundwater, 

41 surface water, soil, vegetation, and livestock. The monitoring program would report the 

42 radiological and chemical constituent levels and trends to the NRC and WDEQ. Within their 

43 respective oversight roles, the NRC and WDEQ would evaluate the results against applicable 

44 license or permit conditions and regulatory requirements to protect public health and safety and 

45 the environment. At the time of decommissioning, the applicant would need to demonstrate that 
4-144 

1 the soils in land application areas meet the criteria in 10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A before the 

2 NRC would terminate the license and allow unrestricted use of the site. 

3 Land application areas can vary in size depending on the site-specific conditions such as 

4 wastewater flow rates and climate. Large areas may be needed to provide sufficient capacity to 

5 accommodate flow rates and maintain soil concentrations below regulatory levels while avoiding 

6 ponding, runoff, and infiltration to shallow groundwater. The wastewater may require additional 

7 treatment to meet NRC and WYPDES regulations, and this would include facilities such 

8 as an ion-exchange circuit, reverse osmosis, radium-settling basins, storage ponds, and 

9 backup ponds. 

10 For a facility the size of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the NRC staff estimated land 

11 application areas of approximately 894 ha [2,209 ac] with an additional 116 ha [286 ac] of ponds 

12 for wastewater treatment and storage (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.2). Under these conditions, 

13 land application would have the largest surface disturbance footprint of the wastewater disposal 

14 options evaluated in this draft SEIS (draft SEIS Table 2-7). This footprint would account for 

15 41 percent of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area of 2,451 ha [6,057 ac] (draft SEIS 

16 Section 2.1.1.1.2), and would be much larger than the land disturbed by the proposed project 

17 involving four Class I deep disposal wells {62.4 ha [154.3 ac]} (draft SEIS Section 4.2.1.1). 

18 During operations the NRC staff assumes land application areas would be fenced to exclude 

19 wildlife and livestock. Additionally, if additional storage capacity is not provided (included in the 

20 NRC staff’s facility footprint estimates) the applicant may need to have at least one other 

21 wastewater disposal option during the winter months in Wyoming when evaporation rates would 

22 be low and the ground would be frozen or covered by snow. The estimated amount of disturbed 

23 and fenced land is larger than what was considered in the GEIS and is a greater proportion of 

24 the total project area than what was considered in GEIS. Based on the large restricted area, the 

25 NRC staff concludes that the overall impacts on land use associated with wastewater disposal 

26 by land application would be MODERATE. 

27 Constructing the land application areas would require limited use of earthmoving equipment to 

28 install pipelines, small berms, access roads, and fencing. Constructing related treatment 

29 facilities, basins, and storage reservoirs would require more earthmoving equipment, such as 

30 bulldozers, scrapers, backhoes, and trucks to prepare the site and construct the impoundments, 

31 but this would occur over a smaller parcel of land. Because the NRC staff assumes the land 

32 application areas would be fenced, the restricted access would have a MODERATE impact on 

33 land use, whereas the potential construction impacts on soils and ecology would be SMALL. 

34 The construction equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive dust emissions that 

35 could affect nonradiological air quality. As described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1, construction 

36 phase air emissions would have a SMALL impact on air quality because the pollutant 

37 concentrations would be low compared to the NAAQS and PSD thresholds. 

38 During operations, there is the potential for radiological releases to air and both radiological and 

39 nonradiological wastewater constituent accumulation in soils at land application areas. Treated 

40 wastewater would have low levels of radioactivity and radon fluxes would be low based on 

41 estimates for similar land application areas (NRC, 1997; 2003b). An NRC-approved radiation 

42 protection program and required operational monitoring to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 

43 Part 20 effluent and dose limits would limit the potential radiological impacts to the public and 

44 workers to SMALL. Monitoring and oversight of nonradiological constituents by WDEQ 

45 associated with the required WYPDES permit would mitigate the potential impacts to public and 

46 occupational health, soils, water resources, and ecology. As described in draft SEIS 

47 Section 4.6.1.1.2, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project with the associated wastewater 
4-145 

1 storage ponds supporting four Class I deep disposal wells would have a SMALL impact on 

2 avian species of concern. The land application wastewater disposal option would have 

3 increased potential for avian impacts (MODERATE) because there would be additional 

4 wastewater storage and treatment ponds that could attract birds, and effects to individual birds 

5 are possible if unmitigated direct exposure to undiluted wastewater solutions occurs (draft SEIS 

6 Section 4.6.1.1.2). If avian mitigation measures and regulatory controls effectively eliminate or 

7 reduce exposures to undiluted wastewater solutions to a small number of individual animals, the 

8 impacts could be reduced to SMALL. 

9 At the conclusion of proposed operations, the NRC requires the licensee to submit a 

10 decommissioning plan (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5) for NRC review (NRC, 2003b). The NRC 

11 staff would conduct detailed technical and environmental reviews of the proposed 

12 decommissioning plan. Decommissioning the land application facilities would produce 

13 additional solid byproduct material and nonhazardous solid waste for disposal relative to the 

14 proposed project. This would include the removal of additional wastewater treatment facilities, 

15 pond liners and berms associated with radium-settling basin(s), and accumulated pond 

16 sediments. The NRC staff expects the required pre-operational disposal agreement would 

17 ensure disposal capacity would be available for solid byproduct material and the increased 

18 nonhazardous solid waste could be accommodated by available landfill capacity. Based on this 

19 analysis, the potential impacts on waste management from decommissioning the radium-settling 

20 basin(s) and other storage facilities associated with treating wastewater for disposal by land 

21 application would be SMALL. 

22 4.14.1.2.3 Surface Water Discharge 

23 For surface discharge of wastewater to be used as an alternate wastewater disposal option, the 

24 applicant would be required to meet the release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K 

25 and Appendix B. The applicant would also be required to obtain a surface water discharge 

26 permit from WDEQ. In accordance with EPA regulations, the applicant would not be allowed to 

27 discharge process wastewater to navigable waters of the United States (NRC, 2003b). The 

28 applicant would need to develop storage capabilities prior to treatment to 10 CFR Part 20 

29 standards. In addition, the applicant would need to characterize and remediate any residual 

30 radioactivity at the discharge point or from storage facilities (tanks, impoundments), radium 

31 settling basins, and related liners and sludge above NRC limits as part of the decommissioning 

32 of the facility (NRC, 2003b; Sanford Cohen and Associates, 2008). 

33 Establishing the discharge point for the treated effluent would likely require short-term (during 

34 construction) use of earthmoving equipment to install pipelines, small berms, access roads, and 

35 fencing to exclude livestock and wildlife. The amount of land to be fenced for the discharge 

36 point alone would be limited, and the estimated impact on land use would likely be SMALL. As 

37 is the case with both land application and a deep Class V disposal well, the wastewater 

38 would likely require treatment to meet state surface water discharge permit requirements. This 

39 would require use of treatment facilities to provide an ion-exchange circuit, reverse osmosis, 

40 and additional impoundments, including radium-settling basins, storage ponds, backup ponds, 

41 and possibly additional storage facilities, to maintain separate waste streams for process 

42 wastewater {64 ha [158 ac]} (Table 2-7). These treatment facilities would also be fenced to 

43 exclude wildlife and livestock and limit public access. The amount of land needed for the 

44 wastewater treatment facilities would be less than that needed for land application (see draft 

45 SEIS section 2.1.1.2) and greater than what would be needed for deep Class V disposal wells. 

46 As with evaporation ponds, land application, and Class V disposal wells, the increased footprint 

47 for the additional wastewater treatment facilities needed to meet state surface water discharge 
4-146 

1 requirements would be small relative to the entire project area {2,452 ha [6,057 ac]}, but large 

2 relative to the footprint of the CPP {0.652 ha [1.61 ac]} (AUC, 2012a). Overall, the disturbed 

3 area needed to accommodate the addition of wastewater treatment would be about 3 percent of 

4 the project area and would have a SMALL impact on land use. 

5 Constructing the wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., radium-settling basins) would require 

6 earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site and 

7 construct the impoundment(s). This would be similar to the proposed project (with deep Class I 

8 disposal well) because wastewater treatment facilities are included in the plans for the proposed 

9 Reno Creek ISR Project. The equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive dust 

10 emissions during construction that could temporarily affect nonradiological air quality. As 

11 described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1, construction phase air emissions would have a SMALL 

12 impact on air quality because the pollutant concentrations would be low compared to the 

13 NAAQS and PSD thresholds. The applicant may also need to consider emissions of 

14 radionuclides such as radon from the surface discharge points. Because the NRC regulations 

15 and WDEQ permit would require the applicant to monitor and maintain low radionuclide 

16 concentrations for the treated wastewater, the estimated impacts on radiological air quality 

17 would be SMALL. 

18 The proposed Reno Creek ISR facility and wellfields would be developed in the Upper Belle 

19 Fourche drainage basin (AUC, 2012b). Intermittent ephemeral gullies at the site that are 

20 located in this drainage basin would likely be used if surface water discharge were pursued. 

21 Surface discharge into these gullies could result in increased erosion and suspended sediments 

22 in the existing stream channel. Sediment loads would likely taper off quickly both in time and 

23 distance; therefore, the long-term impact would be SMALL. 

24 As noted previously, the applicant would not be allowed to discharge treated wastewater into 

25 navigable waters of the United States. A recent wetlands delineation survey identified 17.13 ha 

26 [42.31 ac] of potential wetlands in the Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2012a) area. These 

27 wetlands primarily include tributaries of the Belle Fourche River. A permit under Section 404 of 

28 the Clean Water Act would be required for discharges of dredged or fill material into a wetland 

29 or water of the U.S. exceeding 0.2 ha [0.5 ac]. The NRC staff assumes that, if the applicant 

30 pursued surface discharge of treated effluent, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would 

31 avoid surface discharge points that might disturb any of these wetlands areas, and potential 

32 impacts to these wetlands from surface discharge of treated wastewater would be SMALL. 

33 During operations, the applicant would be required to routinely monitor the soils and discharged 

34 water to ensure that the applicable limits are met. Therefore, it is not anticipated that 

35 decommissioning the surface discharge point would identify elevated areas of radioactivity that 

36 would require remediation and thereby result in additional solid byproduct material for disposal. 

37 At the conclusion of proposed operations, the NRC requires the licensee to submit a 

38 decommissioning plan (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5) for NRC review (NRC, 2003b). The NRC 

39 staff would conduct detailed technical and environmental reviews of the proposed 

40 decommissioning plan. As with the Class V disposal well, land application, and evaporation 

41 pond disposal options, decommissioning the wastewater treatment facilities for the surface 

42 discharge disposal option would produce additional solid byproduct material and nonhazardous 

43 solid waste for disposal relative to the proposed project. This would include the removal of 

44 additional wastewater treatment facilities, pond liners and berms associated with radium-settling 

45 basin(s), and accumulated pond sediments. The NRC staff expects that the required pre46 operational disposal agreement would ensure disposal capacity would be available for solid 
4-147 

1 byproduct material, and the increased nonhazardous solid waste could be accommodated by 

2 available landfill capacity. Based on this analysis, the potential impacts on waste management 

3 from decommissioning the radium-settling basin(s) and other storage facilities associated with 

4 treating wastewater for disposal by surface discharge would be SMALL. 

5 4.14.1.2.4 Class V Disposal Well 

6 The potential impacts associated with wastewater disposal through a Class V disposal well 

7 would be similar to those associated with the proposed project (disposal via a Class I deep 

8 disposal well). Under the terms of a Class V disposal well permit issued by WDEQ, however, 

9 the wastewater would require additional treatment to meet class of use or federal drinking water 

10 standards (whichever is more stringent) prior to injection because disposal would be in an 

11 aquifer that lies above or below an aquifer that is a supply of drinking water. 

12 The potential impacts associated with constructing, operating, and decommissioning the 

13 necessary wastewater treatment facilities would be similar to those described in the previous 

14 section for discharge to surface water (draft SEIS Section 4.14.1.2.2) but the land needed for 

15 the treatment facilities would be less. Although the footprint of a set of four Class V wells alone 

16 would be small {2.0 ha [5.0 ac], (draft SEIS Table 2-7)}, the wastewater would likely require 

17 additional treatment to meet the necessary discharge requirements (Class of Use or federal 

18 drinking water standards). This treatment would require facilities providing an ion-exchange 

19 circuit, reverse osmosis, and additional impoundments including radium settling basins, storage 

20 ponds, and backup ponds {28 ha [69 ac]}. These treatment facilities would be fenced to exclude 

21 wildlife and livestock and would limit public access. The amount of land needed for the 

22 wastewater treatment facilities would be similar to that for surface discharge or land application, 

23 although disposal wells would require less storage capacity due to their continuous operation 

24 throughout the year relative to the other options. The increased footprint of the additional 

25 wastewater treatment facilities would be small relative to the entire project area {2,452 ha 

26 [6,057 ac]}, but large relative to the footprint of the CPP {0.652 ha [1.61 ac]} (AUC, 2012a). The 

27 current proposed project identifies as much as 62.3 ha [154 ac] of disturbed land for the 

28 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Overall, the amount of disturbed land to accommodate 

29 addition of a wastewater treatment facility would be smaller than the disturbed land estimated 

30 for the proposed project (approximately half), and would be small relative to the project area, 

31 and therefore would have a SMALL impact on land use. 

32 Constructing the wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., radium-settling basins) would require 

33 earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site and 

34 construct the impoundment(s). The equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive 

35 dust emissions during construction that could have an adverse effect on nonradiological air 

36 quality. As described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1, construction phase air emissions would have 

37 a SMALL impact on air quality because the pollutant concentrations would be low compared to 

38 the NAAQS and PSD thresholds. 

39 The applicant would also need to consider emissions of radionuclides such as radon during the 

40 wastewater treatment process. These emissions would be included as part of the NRC41 approved monitoring plan for the facility, and the anticipated impacts to occupational and public 

42 health and safety would be SMALL. 

43 At the conclusion of proposed operations, the NRC requires the licensee to submit a 

44 decommissioning plan (draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5) for review (NRC, 2003b). The NRC staff 
4-148 

1 would conduct detailed technical and environmental reviews of the proposed decommissioning 

2 plan. As with the surface discharge, land application, and evaporation pond disposal options, 

3 decommissioning the wastewater treatment facilities for the Class V disposal well option would 

4 produce additional solid byproduct material and nonhazardous solid waste for disposal relative 

5 to the proposed project. This would include the removal of additional wastewater treatment 

6 facilities, pond liners and berms associated with radium-settling basin(s), and accumulated pond 

7 sediments. The NRC staff expects the required pre-operational disposal agreement would 

8 ensure disposal capacity would be available for solid byproduct material and the increased 

9 nonhazardous solid waste could be accommodated by available landfill capacity. Based on this 

10 analysis, the potential impacts on waste management from decommissioning the radium-settling 

11 basin(s) and other storage facilities associated with treating wastewater for disposal by Class V 

12 deep disposal well would be SMALL.

13 4.14.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

14 Under the No-Action Alternative, the Reno Creek ISR project would not be developed, and 

15 therefore there would be no waste generated from the construction, operations, aquifer 

16 restoration, or decommissioning of the project. There would be neither Class I deep disposal 

17 well injection of liquid byproduct material nor disposal of solid byproduct material, hazardous 

18 waste, or nonhazardous solid waste onsite or offsite. Therefore, there would be no effect on 

19 waste management from the No-Action Alternative.

20 4.15 References 

21 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. “Standards for 

22 Protection Against Radiation.” 

23 

24 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 

25 Appendix A. “Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 

26 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 

27 Processed Primarily from their Source Material Content.” 

28 23 CFR Part 772. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 772. “Procedures for 

29 Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.” 

30 29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910. “Occupational 

31 Safety and Health Standards.” 

32 40 CFR Part 68. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 68. 

33 “Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions.” 

34 40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112. 

35 “Oil Pollution Prevention.” 

36 40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

37 Part 144. “Underground Injection Control Program.” 

38 40 CFR Part 302. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

39 Part 02. “Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification.” 

40 40 CFR Part 355. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 355. 

41 “Emergency Planning and Notification.” 
4-149 

1 70 FR 12710. “Final List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not 

2 Apply.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register. Vol. 70, No. 49. 2005 

3 APLIC. “Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 

4 2006.” ML12243A391. Washington, DC: Edison Electric Institute; Sacramento, California: 

5 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and the California Energy Commission. 2006. 

6 AUC. “Responses to Open/Confirmatory Items.” ML15119A314. Lakewood, Colorado: 

7 AUC LLC. 2015 

8 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

9 Environmental Report Round 1.” ML14169A450 and ML14169A449. Lakewood, Colorado: 

10 AUC LLC. 2014a. 

11 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

12 Technical Report Round 1.” ML14169A447. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014b. 

13 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

14 Environmental Report Round 2.” ML15002A082. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014c. 

15 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

16 Environmental Report.” ML12291A332 and ML12291A335. Lakewood, Colorado: 

17 AUC LLC. 2012a. 

18 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

19 Technical Report.” ML12291A009 and ML12291A010. Lakewood, Colorado: 

20 AUC LLC. 2012b. 

21 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

22 Technical Report, Addendum 4-B, UIC Class I Deep Disposal Well Permit Application.” 

23 ML12291A077. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2012c. 

24 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

25 Technical Report, Addendum 2.6-A_B_C.” ML12291A015. Lakewood, Colorado: 

26 AUC LLC. 2012d. 

27 BLM. “Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Buffalo 

28 Field Office Planning Area.” Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field 

29 Office. 2015. <https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front30 office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=

31 48300> (16 February 2015) 

32 BLM. “NRC Data Request.” Email from William Ostheimer, Biologist, BLM Buffalo Field Office 

33 to Jill Caverly, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML16165A355 Attachments: 

34 NRC_RenoCk_Raptor_GSG, Reno_Raptor.xlsx, and Reno_SG. Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of 

35 Land Management. 2014. 

36 BLM. “Environmental Assessment for Uranerz Energy Corporation's Proposed Hank Unit 

37 Uranium In-Situ Recovery Project, Campbell County, Wyoming.” WY–070–EA13–226. Buffalo, 

38 Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office. 2013. 
4-150 

1 BLM. “Interim Management Guidance for Migratory Bird Conservation Policy on Wyoming 

2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Administered Public Lands Including the Federal Mineral 

3 Estate.” Instruction Memorandum No. WY–2013–005. Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Department 

4 of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2012. 

5 BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications, 

6 Volume 1 of 2, Chapters 1 – 4.” Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2010. 

7 <http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/hpdo/Wright8 Coal/feis.Par.33083.File.dat/01WrightCoalVol1.pdf> (4 March 2016). 

9 BLM. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Dewey Conveyor Project.” ML12209A089. 

10 DOI–BLM–MT–040–2009–002–EIS. Belle Fourche, South Dakota: U.S. Department of Interior, 

11 Bureau of Land Management Field Office. 2009. 

12 BLM. “Visual Resource Inventory.” Manual H–8410–1. ML12237A196. Washington, DC: 

13 Bureau of Land Management. 1986. 

14 BLM. “Visual Resource Management.” Manual 8400. ML12237A194. Washington, DC: 

15 Bureau of Land Management. 1984. 

16 CEQ. “Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of 

17 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews.” 

18 Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. 2014. 

19 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance> (13 

20 February 2015). 

21 Connelly, J. W., S. Knick, M. Schroeder, S. Stiver. “Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage22 grouse and Sagebrush Habitats.” 2004. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western Association of Fish 

23 and Wildlife Agencies. 

24 Countess, R. “Methodology for Estimating Fugitive Windblown and Mechanically Resuspended 

25 Road Dust Emissions Applicable for Regional Scale Air Quality Modeling.” ML13213A294. 

26 Westlake Village, California: Countess Environmental. 2001. 

27 EPA. “Re: AUC LLC Class III Aquifer Exemption Request, Reno Creek ISR, Lower Wasatch 

28 Formation, Campbell County, Wyoming.” Letter to K. Frederick, Wyoming Department of 

29 Environmental Quality Water Quality Division from D. O’Conner, Environmental Protection 

30 Agency Region 8. Denver, Colorado: EPA. October, 2015. 

31 EPA. “National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Aquatic Life Criteria Table.” 

32 Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. 

33 <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm#notes> 

34 (2 February 2015). 

35 FHWA. “Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations.” FHWA–HEP–06–016. 

36 ML12241A397. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of 

37 Transportation. 2004. 

First American Title. “Warranty Deed: Township 42 North, Range 74 West, 6th 38 P.M., Section 1: 

39 Lot 12.” Gillette, Wyoming. 2015. 
4-151 

1 FWS. “List of Threatened and Endangered Species That May Occur in Your Proposed Project 

2 Location, and/or May Be Affected By Your Proposed Project.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Fish 

3 and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office. 2016a. 

4 <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/> (18 February 2016). 

5 FWS. “Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat 

6 and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions.” Bloomington, Minnesota: U.S. Fish and 

7 Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional Office. 2016b. 

8 <http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/BOnlebFinal4d.pdf> (18 February 

9 2016). 

10 FWS. “In Reply Refer To: 06E13000-2013-EC-0069 and 06E13000-2015-CPA-0086.” Letter 

11 [from FWS] (March 6) to Lydia Chang, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Cheyenne, 

12 Wyoming: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015a. 

13 FWS. “Species of Concern, Raptors in Wyoming.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Department of 

14 Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological Services. 2015b 

15 <http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/Species/Raptors.php> (17 February 2015). 

16 FWS. “Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final 

17 Report.” Denver, Colorado: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. 

18 FWS. “Birds of Management Concern and Focal Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

19 Migratory Bird Program.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. 

20 <https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/BMC%20Focal%20Specie

21 s%20November%202011.pdf> (15 April 2014) 

22 FWS. “Reserve Pit Management: Risks to Migratory Birds.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: U.S. Fish 

23 and Wildlife Service, Region 6. 2009. 

24 FWS. Letter (September 5) from Mike Stempel, Assistant Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie 

25 Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Patrice Bubar, Deputy Director, U.S. Nuclear 

26 Regulatory Commission. ML072540098. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

27 2007. 

28 Greer Services. “An Intensive Cultural Resource Survey of the AUC LLC, Reno Creek Uranium 

29 Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, Report 7063.” Redacted. ML16175A481. 2011. 

30 Heidel, Bonnie. “2012 Wyoming Plant Species of Concern List.” Laramie, Wyoming: University 

31 of Wyoming. 2012. <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/soc-plants/2012_plant_soc.pdf> 

32 (23 July 2013). 

33 Heidel, Bonnie. “Survey of Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies’ tresses) in Eastern Wyoming 

34 (Campbell, Converse, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara and Platte counties) 2005–2006.” 

35 Laramie, Wyoming: U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2007 

36 <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/wynddreports/u07hei04wyus.pdf> 

37 (27 June 2014). 

38 Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc. “Campbell County Coal Belt Transportation Study.” 

39 ML12240A251. Gillette, Wyoming: Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc. 2010. 
4-152 

1 Mackin, P.C., D. Daruwalla, J. Winterle, M. Smith, and D.A. Pickett. NUREG/CR–6733, “A 

2 Baseline Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

3 Licensees.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. September 2001. 

4 McMahan, L. “Re: Reno Creek ISR Project Application for a Permit to Mine, TFN 5 4/150, 

5 Technical Review Round 1.” Letter (August 13) to James Viellenave, AUC LLC, Reno Creek. 

6 Sheridan, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2013a. 

7 McMahan, L. “Re: Reno Creek ISR Project Application for a Permit to Mine, TFN 5 4/150, 

8 Round 2 Technical Review.” Letter (December 9) to James Viellenave, AUC LLC, Reno Creek. 

9 ML14015A221. Sheridan, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2013b. 

10 Neal, M.C., J.P. Smith, and S.J. Slater. “Artificial Nest Structures as Mitigation for Natural-Gas 

11 Development Impacts to Ferruginous Hawks (Buteo regalis) in South-Central Wyoming.” BLM 

12 Technical Note 434. Salt Lake City, Utah: HawkWatch International, Inc. for U.S. Department 

13 of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2010. 

14 <http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/TN434.pdf> (26 February 2014). 

15 NRC. “Request for Information Regarding Endangered or Threatened Species and Critical 

16 Habitat for the Proposed License Application for Reno Creek In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, 

17 AUC, LLC (Docket No. 040-09092).” ML13268A438. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

18 Regulatory Commission. 2013. 

19 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

20 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244 and ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

21 Regulatory Commission. May 2009. 

22 NRC. NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment 

23 Retention Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Rev. 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

24 Regulatory Commission. November 2008. 

25 NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 

26 NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. August 2003a. 

27 NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

28 Applications—Final Report.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

29 June 2003b. 

30 NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 

31 Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” Washington, DC: 

32 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. February 1997. 

33 NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

34 Project M–25.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. September 1980. 

35 Sanford Cohen and Associates. “Final Report Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings 

36 Impoundment Technologies.” ML12237A191. Vienna, Virginia: Sanford Cohen and 

37 Associates. 2008. 
4-153 

1 USCB. “American FactFinder, Census 2000 and 2010, 2008–2012 American Community 

2 Survey 5-Year Estimate, State and County QuickFacts.” Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

3 2014. <http://factfinder.census.gov>; <http://quickfacts.census.gov> (17 April 2012). 

4 WDAI. “Wyoming Employment, Income, and Gross Domestic Product Report.” 

5 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2012. 

6 <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/i&e/Inc_Emp_Report10.pdf> (12 February 2014). 

7 WDEQ. “Draft Underground Injection Control Permit.” Permit 09-621. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

8 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality-Water Quality Division. 2015a. 

9 WDEQ. “Quality Standards for Wyoming Groundwaters.” Rules and Regulations, Water Quality 

10 Program, Chapter 8. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2015b. 

11 WDEQ. “Underground Injection Control Program Class I and V Wells.” Rules and Regulations, 

12 Water Quality Program, Chapter 27. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2015c. 

13 WDEQ. “Guideline No. 2, Vegetation Requirements for Exploration by Dozing, Regular Mines, 

14 and In Situ Leaching.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental 

15 Quality-Land Quality Division. 2014. 

16 WDEQ. “Noncoal In Situ Mining,” Rules and Regulations, Land Quality – Non Coal Program, 

17 Chapter 11. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2013a. 

18 WDEQ. “Guideline No. 4, In Situ Mining Noncoal” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department 

19 of Environmental Quality-Land Quality Division. 2013b. 

20 WDEQ. “Storage Tanks.” Rules and Regulations, Water Quality Division Program, Chapter 17. 

21 Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDEQ. 2012. 

22 WDEQ. “Noncoal Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3 – Noncoal Mine Environmental 

23 Performance Standards.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental 

24 Quality Land Quality Division. 2006. 

25 WDEQ. “Guideline No. 5, Wildlife.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of 

26 Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 1994. 

27 WDOR. “State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2013 Annual Report.” Cheyenne, 

28 Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Revenue. 2013. 

29 WGFD. “Raptor Nest Seasonal Timing and Spatial Buffers.” Email from Andrea Orabona, 

30 Biologist, WGFD to Amy Hester, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis. ML16162A741 

31 Attachments: WGFD Raptor Survey Dates, Disturbance-free Dates, & Buffers.pdf. Lander, 

32 Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2014. 

33 WGFD. Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection. EO No. 2011-5. ML13015A702. 

34 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department, State of Wyoming Executive 

35 Department. 2011. 
4-154 

1 WGFD. “Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan 2010.” ML12241A410. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

2 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010. 

3 <http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/SWAP_2010_FULL_OCT0003090.pdf

4 > (20 January 2014). 

5 WGFD. “A Conservation Plan for Bats in Wyoming.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game 

6 and Fish Department. 2005. 

7 <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Wildlife/Nongame/WYBAT_CONSERVATION

8 PLAN.pdf> (16 February 2016). 

9 WGFD. “Fencing Guidelines for Wildlife.” Revised Version, Habitat Extension Bulletin No. 53. 

10 Sheridan, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2004. 

11 <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Extension%20Bulletins/B53-Fencing12 Guidelines-for-Wildlife.pdf> (17 February 2016) 

13 WGFD. “Duck Habitat Needs and Development.” Habitat Extension Bulletin No. 4. 

14 Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 1994. 

15 <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Extension%20Bulletins/B4-Duck16 Habitat-Needs-and-Development.pdf> 

17 (17 February 2016) 

18 WYDOT. 2013 Vehicle Miles Book. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of 

19 Transportation, Planning Program. 2013a. 

20 WYDOT. “2013 Automatic Traffic Recorder Report.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming 

21 Department of Transportation Planning Program. 2013b. 

22 Zollinger, R. “2014 North Dakota Weed Control Guide, General Information.” W–253. 

23 Fargo, North Dakota: North Dakota State University Extension Service. 2014. 

24 <http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/weeds/weed-control-guides/nd-weed-control-guide-1> 

25 (17 February 2016). 
5-1 

1 5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

2 5.1 Introduction 

3 The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

4 defines cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

5 impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

6 actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other 

7 actions” [Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1508.7]. Cumulative effects or 

impacts1 8 can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

9 period of time. A proposed project could contribute to cumulative effects when its environmental 

10 impacts overlap with those of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. For 

11 this draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), other past, present, and future 

12 actions considered in the analysis for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area include (but 

13 are not limited to) coal mining, coalbed methane (CBM) development, oil and gas production, 

14 other in situ uranium recovery (ISR) operations, conventional uranium mining and milling, wind 

15 farms, and cattle and sheep grazing. 

16 The analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project was based on publicly available 

17 information on existing and proposed projects, information in the Generic Environmental Impact 

18 Statement for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (GEIS) (NRC, 2009), general knowledge 

19 of the conditions in Wyoming and in the nearby communities, and reasonably foreseeable future 

20 actions that could occur. The primary activity in the area is mineral mining and oil and gas 

21 development, although interest in these developments has not necessarily been realized into 

22 active projects due to fluctuation in market prices for these products. There are also several 

23 ISR and conventional uranium projects within the vicinity {24 kilometers (km) [15 miles (mi)]} of 

24 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project that are in various stages of prelicensing, licensing, 

25 operations, or decommissioning. 

26 The GEIS (NRC, 2009) provides an example methodology for conducting a cumulative impacts 

27 assessment. Draft SEIS Section 5.1.1 describes other past, present, and reasonably 

28 foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative impacts analysis. The methodology 

29 used to conduct the cumulative impacts analysis in this draft SEIS is provided in draft SEIS 

30 Section 5.1.2. 

31 Preconstruction Activities 

32 On September 15, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a final 

33 rule in the Federal Register (76 FR 56951) to clarify the definitions of “commencement of 

34 construction” and “construction” with respect to materials licensing actions conducted under the 

35 NRC’s regulations. This final rule became effective on November 14, 2011. The parts of the 

36 final rule that are applicable to the NRC’s licensing action for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

37 project are in 10 CFR 40.4 (Definitions) [repeated in 10 CFR 51.4 (Definitions)] and 

38 10 CFR 51.45 (Environmental Report). The applicable definitions in 10 CFR 40.4 follow. 

39 Commencement of construction means taking any action defined as ‘‘construction’’ or any other 

40 activity at the site of a facility subject to the regulations in this part (i.e., 10 CFR Part 40) that 

 

1

For the purposes of this analysis, “cumulative impacts” is deemed to be synonymous with “cumulative effects.” 
5-2 

1 has a reasonable nexus to (i) radiological health and safety or (ii) common defense and 

2 security. Construction means the installation of wells associated with radiological operations 

3 (e.g., production, injection, or monitoring well networks associated with ISR or other facilities); 

4 the installation of foundations; or in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing for any 

5 structure, system, or component of a facility or activity subject to the regulations in this part that 

6 are related to radiological safety or security. 

7 The activities defined below are not considered part of “construction,” and are alternately 

8 referred to by the NRC staff as “site preparation” or “preconstruction” activities. The listed 

9 activities also are not considered by the NRC to be part of the proposed action. All 

10 preconstruction activities are addressed under each resource area as part of the cumulative 

11 impacts analyses. Note that activities included under the definition of construction are 

12 considered to be part of the proposed action for the purposes of evaluating the environmental 

13 impacts of a proposed project. The term “construction” does not include any of the following: 

14  Changes for temporary use of the land for public recreational purposes 

15  Site exploration, including necessary borings to determine foundation conditions or other 

16 preconstruction monitoring to establish background information related to the suitability 

17 of the site, the environmental impacts of construction or operations, or the protection of 

18 environmental values 

19  Preparation of the site for construction of the facility, including clearing of the site, 

20 grading, installation of drainage, erosion and other environmental mitigation measures, 

21 and construction of temporary roads and borrow areas 

22  Erection of fences and other access control measures that are not related to the safe 

23 use of, or security of, radiological materials subject to this part 

24  Excavation 

25  Erection of support buildings (e.g., construction equipment storage sheds, warehouse 

26 and shop facilities, utilities, concrete mixing plants, docking and unloading facilities, and 

27 office buildings) for use in connection with the construction of the facility 

28  Building of service facilities (e.g., paved roads, parking lots, railroad spurs, exterior utility 

29 and lighting systems, potable water systems, sanitary sewerage treatment facilities, and 

30 transmission lines) 

31  Procurement or fabrication of components or portions of the proposed facility occurring 

32 at other than the final, in-place location at the facility 

33  Taking any other action that has no reasonable nexus to 

34 (i) Radiological health and safety 

35 (ii) Common defense and security 
5-3 

1 5.1.1 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

2 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in the Wyoming East Uranium Milling 

3 Region as defined by the GEIS (NRC, 2009). This region encompasses large portions of 

4 northeastern Wyoming including the Powder River Basin (PRB). The PRB covers 

approximately 26,000 km2

 [10,000 mi2 5 ] of land and holds the largest deposits of coal in the 

6 United States, as well as significant reserves of uranium and other natural resources (i.e., oil 

7 and gas). As such, there has been, and continues to be, substantial extraction activities 

8 throughout the PRB. While CBM extraction was a dominant activity in the region for many 

9 years, the region has recently experienced a decline in CBM activity and an increase in oil and 

10 gas production as the result of evolving oil and gas drilling extraction techniques. 

11 Federal agencies have completed several environmental impact statements (EISs) related to 

12 activities within the PRB Region. Most of these EISs are related to resource management 

13 actions on federal lands administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or 

14 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and are focused on improving natural resource conditions and 

15 reducing adverse impacts from various human-related activities. The various past, present, and 

16 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

17 are discussed in the next sections. 

18 5.1.1.1 Uranium Recovery Sites 

19 Uranium was discovered in the Wyoming PRB region in 1952 (Love, 1952). Since that time, 

20 numerous uranium recovery sites have been located in the region; however, after exploratory 

21 activities, many were not considered economically viable. Using the ISR method, approximately 

22 20,412 metric tons [45 million lb] of uranium have been mined in the PRB region to date 

23 (BLM, 2011). In response to the regional availability of uranium, several uranium mines are 

24 proposed in the PRB, but due to the fluctuating price, they have not become operational. The 

25 number of projected uranium mines that may become operational would depend on several 

26 factors, including changes to the market price of uranium, NRC licensing, and state approval of 

27 permits. According to the BLM PRB Coal Review (2011), uranium production through 2020 is 

28 estimated to be 7,200 metric tons [15.9 million lb] per year as proposed developments, primarily 

29 in the Pumpkin Buttes District in southwestern Campbell County, become operational. 

30 Draft SEIS Table 5-1 lists known past, existing, and potential uranium recovery sites within 

31 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR project area. There are five potential ISR 

32 projects (in prelicensing, licensing, or operational phases) within 24 km [15 mi] of the proposed 

33 Reno Creek ISR Project area (see draft SEIS Table 5-1). Within the larger area of 

34 approximately 80 km [50 mi], there are 14 past, existing, and potential uranium recovery or 

35 disposal sites (see draft SEIS Figure 5-1). 

36 As indicated in draft SEIS Table 5-1, there are two conventional uranium mining sites that are 

37 undergoing decommissioning: Bear Creek Uranium Recovery Project (Bear Creek) and 

38 Highlands Uranium Recovery Facility (Highlands). Bear Creek is owned by Bear Creek 

39 Uranium Company and is located approximately 39.3 km [24.4 mi] south of the proposed project 

40 area. Highlands is owned by Exxon Mobil Corporation and is located in Converse County, 

41 Wyoming, approximately 62.5 km [39.3 mi] south of the proposed project area. Both the Bear 

42 Creek and Highlands decommissioning activities are being performed under NRC license 

43 (licenses SUA–1310 and SUA–1139, respectively).
5-4 

Table 5-1. Past, Existing, and Potential Uranium Recovery Sites Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek 

ISR Project 

Site Name Company/Owner Type County, State Status 

Approx. 

Distance 

km [mi] Direction 

Allemand-Ross Uranium One ISRExpansion Johnson, WY Letter of Intent 5/31/2013 31.2 [19.4] SSW 

Bear Creek Bear Creek Uranium 

Co. 

Conventional Converse, WY Decommissioning 39.3 

[24.4] 

S 

Highland Exxon Mobil Conventional Converse, WY Decommissioning 62.5 

[38.8] 

SSE 

Ludeman Uranium One ISRExpansion Converse, WY Acceptance Review of 

applicant submitted 

responses to 

Requests for 

Additional 

Information 

79.6 

[49.5] 

S 

Moore Ranch Uranium One ISRExpansion Campbell, WY Licensed, Not Operating 13.3 [8.3] SW 

Nichols Ranch and Nichols 

Hank Unit 

Uranerz ISR-New Johnson and 

Campbell, WY 

Licensed, 

Operating 

20 [12.4] NW 

Jane Dough Uranerz ISRExpansion Johnson and Campbell, WY Technical Review Ongoing 20 [12.4] NW 

North Butte - Brown Ranch Cameco ISRExpansion Campbell, WY Licensed, Operating 14.1 [22.7] NW and WSW 

Ruth Cameco ISRExpansion Johnson, WY Nonoperational 14.1 [22.7] NW and WSW 

Reynolds Ranch Cameco ISRExpansion Converse, WY Nonoperational 55.8 [34.7] S 

Ruby Ranch Cameco ISRExpansion Campbell, WY Letter of Intent 6/24/2013, 

Application 

Expected FY16 

9.3 [5.8] NW 

Smith Ranch-Highland Cameco ISRExpansion Converse, WY Technical Review Ongoing-License 

Renewal 

62.5 

[38.8] 

S 

Spook DOE Conventional Johnson, WY UMTRCA Title 1 

Disposal Site 

43.4 [27] S 
5-5 

Table 5-1. Past, Existing, and Potential Uranium Recovery Sites Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek 

ISR Project (Continued) 

Site Name Company/Owner Type County, State Status 

Approx. 

Distance 

km [mi] Direction 

Willow Creek-Irigaray and 

Christiansen Ranch 

Uranium One ISR-restart Johnson and 

Campbell, WY 

Licensed, 

Operating 

30.8 

[19.1] 

NW 

Sources: EPA, 2016; NRC, 2015a,b, 2016 
5-6 

Figure 5-1. Potential and Existing Uranium Milling and Mining Sites Within 80 km 

[50 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (AUC, 2012a) 
5-7 

1 Additionally, the Spook facility is a Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) 

2 Title I site located in Johnson County, Wyoming, which is approximately 43.4 km [27 mi] 

3 south-southeast of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. The UMTRCA Title I program 

4 established a joint federally and state-funded program for remedial action at abandoned mill 

5 tailings sites where tailings resulted largely from production of uranium for the U.S. weapons 

6 program. Under Title I, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for cleanup and 

7 remediation of these abandoned sites. The NRC is required to evaluate DOE’s design and 

8 implementation for remediation and, after remediation is complete, concur that the sites meet 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. In 1993, DOE became a licensee of 

10 the NRC under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.28. This occurred after the NRC 

11 concurred in the completion of construction and surface cleanup at the inactive tailings site and 

12 accepted DOE’s plan for long-term surveillance and maintenance at the Spook site. 

13 As noted in GEIS Section 5.1 uncertainties exist related to the cumulative effects of mineral 

14 production (which includes ISR) due to varying extraction technologies, design of long-term 

15 monitoring programs, and the effectiveness of predictive models. However, the likelihood of 

16 mining projects, milling projects or both being collocated has the potential to impact the 

17 surrounding environment. The various activities associated with uranium production would 

18 likely impact multiple resources areas (e.g. land use, ecology, and groundwater) (NRC, 2009). 

19 5.1.1.2 Coal Mining 

20 In the 1970s and 1980s, the PRB emerged as a major coal-producing region, and comprises 

21 over 90 percent federally owned land (BLM, 2011). The Powder River Regional Coal Team 

22 decertified the Powder River Federal Coal Region as a federal coal production region in 1990, 

23 which allowed leasing to occur in the region on an application basis. Because of this 

24 decertification, U.S. coal production increased 11 percent, from 1.03 billion tons [1.14 billion T] 

25 produced in 1990 to 1.15 billion tons [1.27 billion T] produced in 2007 (BLM, 2009a). Between 

26 1990 and 2008, the BLM Wyoming State Office held 25 competitive lease sales and issued 

27 19 new federal coal leases containing more than 5.17 billion tons [5.7 billion T] of coal using the 

28 “lease by application” process (BLM, 2005a, 2011, 2013a). In 2009, PRB coal mines produced 

29 444 million metric tons [489 million short tons] of coal (BLM, 2011). As of 2008, there were 

30 13 operating coal mines in the Wyoming PRB area. These mines make up more than 

31 96 percent of the coal produced in Wyoming each year (BLM, 2005a, 2011, 2013a). Prior to 

32 2008, there had been several annual production declines but with an overall trend of increasing 

33 production (BLM, 2011). In the years since 2008, coal production in Wyoming has decreased 

34 compared to pre-2008 years (Center for Energy Economics and Public Policy, 2015) but with an 

35 overall trend of year-on-year increases. Although difficult to accurately predict, existing coal 

36 mining operations are expected to continue. 

37 In 2003, the cumulative disturbed land area of the PRB attributable to coal mines totaled nearly 

38 90,070 hectares (ha) [222,568 acres (ac)] (BLM, 2010). This area is projected to increase to 

39 174,785 ha [434,374 ac] by 2020 if the upper coal production estimates are met (BLM, 2010). 

40 The 2020 estimates take into account other developments related to coal, which include 

41 railroads, coal-fired power plants, major (230 kV) transmission lines, and coal technology 

42 projects. Specific coal mining activities would account for approximately 35 percent of the total 

43 disturbed area (BLM, 2010). Surface mining of coal can cause adverse impacts to land use, 

44 geology and soils, water resources, ecology, air quality, noise, historic and cultural resources, 

45 visual and scenic resources, socioeconomics, and waste management. Draft SEIS Table 5-2 
5-8 

1 lists 14 surface coal mines within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR site. No 

2 underground coal mines are located within this area. 

3 There are two coal-fired power plants currently under construction (Basin Electric’s Dry Fork 

4 project and Black Hills Corporation’s WYGEN 3 project), which are projected to be operational 

5 in 2020 and 2030. No additional coal-fired power plants are currently being planned for the 

6 Wyoming PRB, and given the uncertainty of current and potential air quality regulations, no 

7 additional plants are projected for operation by 2020 (BLM, 2011). 

8 5.1.1.3 Oil and Gas Production 

9 The application of improved technology and the emergence of unconventional plays (i.e., oil 

10 fields) led to an oil production increase of 19 percent from 2013 through the first three quarters 

11 of 2014 in the Wyoming PRB (WSGS, 2015). Directional and horizontal drilling, as well as 

12 hydraulic fracturing in unconventional plays, resulted in a nationwide surge in production 

13 between 2012 and 2014; however, U.S. oil production outpaced demand and is being adversely 

14 affected by low oil prices (EIA, 2015). U.S. natural gas production increased 35 percent 

15 between 2005 and 2013 and is expected to continue to increase through 2040 (EIA, 2015). 

16 There are approximately 5,854 oil and gas production wells in Campbell County, Wyoming, 

17 with a total of 32,967 oil and gas wells on file in the state. These wells account for 

Table 5-2. Coal Mines Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Site Name Company Owner Type 

County, 

State 

Approximate 

Distance km [mi] Direction

Antelope Cloud Peak Energy, 

LLC 

Surface Converse, 

WY 

29.6 [18.4] SE 

Buckskin Buckskin Mining Co. Surface Campbell, WY 29.8 [18.5] NNE 

Belle Ayr Alpha Coal West Inc. Surface Campbell, WY 49.2 [30.6] NNE 

Black Thunder Thunder Basin Coal 

Co. LLC 

Surface Campbell, WY 26.1 [16.2] ENE 

Caballo Peabody Caballo 

Mining, LLC 

Surface Campbell, WY 55.2 [34.3] NNE 

Coal Creek Thunder Basin Coal 

Co. LLC 

Surface Campbell, WY 40.1 [24.9] NE 

Cordero Rojo 

Complex 

Cloud Peak Energy, 

LLC 

Surface Campbell, WY 45.7 [28.4] NNE 

Dave Johnston Glenrock Coal Co Surface Campbell, WY 64.2 [39.9] SSW 

Dry Fork Western Fuels of 

Wyoming, Inc. 

Surface Campbell, WY 77.6 [48.2] NNE 

Eagle Butte Alpha Coal West Inc. Surface Campbell, WY 78.4 [48.7] NNE 

KFX plant/Fort 

Union 

Green Bridge 

Holdings, Inc. 

Surface Campbell, WY 76.9 [47.8] NNE 

North Antelope 

Rochelle 

Peabody Energy Surface Campbell, WY 29.6 [18.4] E 

Rawhide Peabody Energy Surface Campbell, WY 81.3 [50.5] NNE 

Wyodak Wyodak Resources 

Develop. Corp. 

Surface Campbell, WY 71.4 [44.4] NNE 

Source: WMA, 2015a 
5-9 

1 approximately 1,729,174 barrels of oil in a high-yielding production month. In 2013, Campbell 

2 County was the state’s leading producer of crude oil with 13 million barrels. Wyoming is 

3 projected to have produced 75 million barrels of oil in 2014, compared to the 63 million barrels 

4 of oil produced in 2013 (WSGS, 2015). In 2013, the number of horizontal oil well permit 

5 applications in Campbell County doubled to 416, and Converse County experienced a 

6 42 percent increase to 464 (WSGS, 2015). Wyoming’s natural gas production decreased 

7 9 percent from 2012 to 2013 (WSGS, 2015). In 2003, the cumulative disturbed land area in the 

8 PRB from oil and gas, CBM, and related development was nearly 76,081 ha [188,000 ac]. Prior 

9 to 2015, increased development associated with extraction of these energy resources resulted 

10 in a total of 123,429 ha [305,000 ac]. The depth to producing gas and oil-bearing horizons 

11 generally ranges from 1,219 to 4,115 m [4,000 to 13,500 ft], but some wells are as shallow as 

12 76.2 m [250 ft] (BLM, 2005a, 2011, 2013a). 

13 Regional oil and gas exploration, production, disposal, and pipeline construction could 

14 potentially generate cumulative impacts. Construction of wells (production and disposal) 

15 necessitates the building of temporary access roads to reach and construct 1.2-ha [3-ac] drill 

16 pads for each drill site (BLM, 2009a). At that time, there would be a temporary increase in 

17 fugitive dust emissions due to the use of heavy machinery. During oil well production, the 

18 region would have an increase in traffic on county-maintained paved roads from oil trucks 

19 moving product to a refinery. For more information on the effects on land use and 

20 transportation from oil and gas exploration, see draft SEIS Sections 5.2 and 5.3, and for 

21 information on induced seismicity associated with waste water associated with oil and gas 

22 production, see draft SEIS Section 5.4. 

23 5.1.1.4 Coalbed Methane Development 

24 The CBM gas extraction removes natural gas from coal beds. Since 2008 this form of mining is 

25 common in the PRB, but has been in decline (WMA, 2015a). Currently CBM activities account 

26 for 18 percent of Wyoming’s natural gas production. The decline is due to (i) the drop in natural 

27 gas prices worldwide, (ii) the depletion of reservoirs, and (iii) competition from unconventional 

28 gas resources. Most of the remaining reserves in the PRB are currently not economically viable 

29 for development. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) is in the 

30 process of reviewing options for the “orphaned” CBM wells that were abandoned but still remain 

31 in the PRB region (WSGS, 2014). For active CBM mining, recovery and infrastructure involves 

32 the installation of facilities that include access roads; pipelines for gathering gas and produced 

33 water; electrical utilities; facilities for measuring and compressing recovered gas; facilities for 

34 treating, discharging, disposing of, containing, or injecting produced water; and pipelines to 

35 transport gas (high-pressure transmission pipelines). The wells are collocated on a well pad 

installed in a 32-ha [80-ac] spacing pattern {8 pads per 259 ha [1 mi2 36 ]}. The overall life of each 

37 well is approximately 7 to 10 years, after which pipes are abandoned in place and well sites are 

38 reclaimed (NRC, 2009). 

39 There are 324 permitted or completed CBM wells within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed 

40 Reno Creek ISR Project. The target coal seams occur approximately 192 and 434 m [631 and 

41 1,424 ft] below ground surface. The CBM formation is separated vertically from the uranium 

42 production zone that would be used for ISR activities at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

43 by 61 m [200 ft]. (AUC, 2012a) 
5-10 

1 5.1.1.5 Wind Power 

2 The southern portion of Wyoming has the greatest potential for wind energy. However, 

3 Campbell and Converse Counties also offer potential to support commercial-scale wind 

4 generation projects. There are five projects in the PRB within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed 

5 Reno Creek ISR Project: 

6  PacifiCorp’s Glenrock, Glenrock III, and Rolling Hills Wind Projects provide power in the 

7 Wyoming PRB. Construction was completed on Glenrock’s 66 1.5-MW turbines in 2008, 

8 on another 26 1.5-MW turbines for Glenrock III in 2009, and for 66 1.5-MW turbines for 

9 Rolling Hills in 2009. The wind farm cluster is located on 121 ha [300 ac] of the 

10 reclaimed Dave Johnston Coal Mine, approximately 64 km [40 mi] south of the proposed 

11 Reno Creek ISR Project area, generating up to 237 MW of energy (PacifiCorp, 2011a,b). 

12  Duke Energy (doing business as Three Buttes Windpower, LLC) completed the 

13 Campbell Hill Windpower Project and began commercial operations in December 2009. 

14 The Campbell Hill Windpower Project would be located approximately 72 km [45 mi] 

15 southwest of the proposed Reno Creek ISR project in Converse County and consists of 

16 66 wind turbines generating 99 MW (PacifiCorp, 2015). 

17  Duke Energy built the Top of the World Wind Energy Project, a 200-MW wind farm 

18 consisting of 110 turbines located approximately 72 km [45 mi] south of the proposed 

19 Reno Creek ISR Project area. The project began commercial operation in 2010 

20 (Duke Energy, 2015). 

21 Additionally, Third Planet Windpower has proposed a 150-MW wind project with 100 1.5-MW 

22 turbines. This proposed project, the Reno Junction Wind Project, would straddle a north-south 

23 stretch of Wyoming State Highway (SH) 50 approximately 5 km [3 mi] west of the proposed 

24 Reno Creek ISR project area. The company received a construction and operations permit from 

25 the Wyoming Industrial Siting Council in July 2010, but did not begin construction within three 

26 years of the date of the permit. Therefore, the permit was revoked in August 2013. No other 

27 proposed wind energy projects have been identified in the Wyoming PRB area (WDEQ, 2015). 

28 Land disturbance for wind energy projects results from development of access roads, a turbine 

29 assembly pad, and a foundation pad for each wind turbine tower. Additional land disturbances 

30 result from installation of transformers and substations, underground electric and fiber optic 

31 communications cables, one or more operations and maintenance facilities, meteorological 

32 towers, and transmission lines connecting the project to the regional grid. Much of the 

33 disturbance area is reclaimed immediately following construction, with long-term disturbance 

34 associated with permanent facilities (i.e., access roads, support facilities, and tower 

35 foundations). Wind-generating projects have an expected life of approximately 25 years, which 

36 could be extended based on market conditions and the overall condition of the infrastructure. 

37 Some re-disturbance would occur at the time of decommissioning, followed by final reclamation 

38 (BLM, 2011). 
5-11 

1 5.1.1.6 Transportation Projects 

2 Powder River Basin Expansion Project 

3 The Dakota Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad filed an application to construct the 

4 Powder River Basin Expansion Project with the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) in 

5 February 1998. The project seeks approval to construct and operate a new rail line and 

6 associated facilities in east-central Wyoming and southwest South Dakota (STB, 2001). As 

7 noted in draft SEIS Section 5.3, the project would require the construction of temporary roads to 

8 access the rail line right-of-way (ROW), increasing project-related construction traffic and 

9 potential accidents along the new rail line corridor. Potential effects from construction of this 

10 project would be similar to effects from construction of roads evaluated for ISR facilities 

11 described throughout draft SEIS Chapter 4, including fugitive dust emissions, noise, incidental 

12 wildlife or livestock kills, increased sedimentation and degradation of surface water quality, and 

13 land surface and habitat disturbances. If approved and completed, the project will add coal14 hauling rail capacity and establish a dedicated, direct route to transport coal from the PRB to 

15 Midwest markets. The extension will add 418 km [260 mi] of rail line and connect the northern 

16 DM&E line to operating coal mines located south of Gillette, Wyoming. At this time, Canadian 

17 Pacific—DM&E’s parent company—has not yet decided whether to build the extension. The 

18 decision to build is contingent on several factors: (i) acquiring the necessary ROW to build the 

19 line, (ii) executing agreements with PRB mining companies for the right of DM&E to operate 

20 loading tracks and facilities, (iii) securing contractual commitments from prospective coal 

21 shippers to ensure that revenues from the proposed line are economical, and (iv) arranging 

22 financing for the project. 

23 5.1.1.7 Other Mining 

24 Sand and gravel, bentonite, and clinker (scoria) have been and are being mined in the PRB. 

25 Aggregate, which consists of sand, gravel, and stone, is used in the construction industry. In 

26 the PRB, the largest identified aggregate operation is located in northern Converse County. It 

27 has a total disturbance area of approximately 27 ha [67 ac], of which 1.6 ha [4 ac] have been 

28 reclaimed. Bentonite is weathered volcanic ash that is used in a variety of products, including 

29 drilling mud and cat litter, because of its absorbent properties. There are three major 

30 bentonite-producing districts in and around the PRB. Clinker is used as road surfacing material 

31 and is found in extensive areas in the Wyoming PRB. Clinker is also used as aggregate where 

32 alluvial terrace gravel or in-place granite or other igneous rock is not available. Clinker 

33 generally is mined in Converse and Campbell Counties in the PRB (BLM, 2005a, 2011, 2013a). 

34 Aggregate mines can vary in size and location depending on the need of the industries relying 

35 on the products. BLM did not evaluate effects of mining operations beyond surface 

36 disturbances (BLM, 2011). However, the NRC staff assume that other mining operations would 

37 use existing transportation corridors, but depending on project location, some access roads may 

38 be constructed. Examples of the potential effects of construction include increases in noise and 

39 fugitive dust. At the current mining rates within Wyoming, and more specifically the PRB, sand 

40 and gravel, bentonite, and clinker mining is expected to continue for the next 15 to 20 years 

41 (WMA, 2015b). 
5-12 

1 5.1.1.8 Environmental Impact Statements as Indicators of Past, Present, and 

2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

3 Draft and final EISs prepared by federal agencies, which cover a reasonable time period serve 

4 as indicators of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The NRC staff relied on 

5 information in GEIS Section 5.3.2 (NRC, 2009) and other publicly available information, 

6 including several EISs identified for projects within the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region 

7 (see draft SEIS Table 5-3) to determine past, present, reasonably foreseeable future actions 

8 within an 80-km [50-mi] radius around the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. These EISs were 

9 prepared for mineral mining and energy activities and actions that focus on improving natural 

10 resource conditions and reducing adverse impacts from various human-related activities. 

Table 5-3. Draft and Final National Environmental Policy Act Documents Related to 

the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region 

Date Agency Title 

1/17/2003 BLM Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment 

for the Powder River Basin Oil and Gas Project 

6/24/2005 BLM Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy 

Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States 

8/17/2007 USFS Thunder Basin Analysis Area Vegetation Management, To Implement 

Best Management Grazing Practices and Activities, Douglas Ranger 

District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and Thunder Basin 

National Grassland, Campbell, Converse, and Weston Counties, WY 

8/17/2009 BLM South Gillette Area Coal Lease Applications, WYW172585, 

WYW173360, WYW172657,WYW161248, Proposal to Lease Four 

Tracts of Federal Coal Reserves, Belle Ayr, Coal Creek, Caballo, and 

Cordero Rojo Mines, Wyoming Powder River Basin, Campbell 

County, WY 

10/16/2009 USFS Thunder Basin National Grassland Prairie Dog Management Strategy, 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment #3, Proposes to 

Implement a Site-Specific Strategy to Manage Black-Tailed Prairie Dog, 

Douglas Ranger District, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests and 

Thunder Basin National Grassland, Campbell, Converse, Niobrara, and 

Weston Counties, WY 

7/30/2010 BLM Wright Area Coal Lease Project, Applications for Leasing Six Tracts of 

Federal Coal Reserves Adjacent to the Black Thunder, Jacob Ranch, 

and North Antelope Rochelle Mines, Wyoming Powder River Basin, 

Campbell County, WY 

8/27/2010 NRC Moore Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery (ISR) Project, Proposal 

to Construct, Operate, Conduct Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommission an In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Facility, NUREG–1910, 

Campbell County, WY 

1/27/2011 NRC Nichols Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery (ISR) Project, Proposal to 

Construct, Operate, Conduct Aquifer Restoration, and Decommission 

and In-Situ Recovery Uranium Milling Facility, Campbell and 

Johnson Counties, WY 

5/29/2015 BLM Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Buffalo Field Office Planning Area, WY 

Source: EPA, 2016 
5-13 

1 5.1.2 Methodology 

2 In calculating and assessing potential cumulative impacts, the NRC staff developed a 

3 methodology that follows the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance (NRC, 2009; 

4 CEQ, 1997). 

5 1. Identify the potential environmental impacts of the federal action, and evaluate the 

6 incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

7 foreseeable future actions for each resource area. Potential environmental impacts are 

8 discussed and analyzed in draft SEIS Chapter 4. 

9 2. Identify the geographic scope for the analysis for each resource area. This scope will 

10 vary from resource area to resource area, depending on the geographic extent over 

11 which the potential impacts may occur. 

12 3. Identify the timeframe for assessing cumulative impacts. The selected timeframe begins 

13 with NRC acceptance of the application for an NRC license to operate the proposed 

14 Reno Creek ISR Project in June 2013. The cumulative impacts analysis timeframe ends 

15 in 2030, the date estimated for license termination after completion of the 

16 decommissioning period (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1). 

17 NRC licenses for ISR facilities are typically granted for a 10-year period. The proposed 

18 Reno Creek ISR Project has an estimated 11-year production lifespan with a total 

19 timeframe of 16 years, including construction and decommissioning (see draft SEIS 

20 Figure 2-1). If NRC grants an NRC license, the applicant will have to apply for license 

21 renewal before the initial license period expires to continue operations. 

22 4. Identify ongoing and prospective projects and activities that take place or may take place 

23 in the area surrounding the project site. These projects and activities are described in 

24 draft SEIS Section 5.1.1. 

25 5. Assess the cumulative impacts for each resource area from the proposed project, and 

26 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. This analysis would take 

27 into account the environmental impacts of concern identified in Step 1 and the 

28 resource-area-specific geographic scope identified in Step 2. 

29 The following terms describe the level of cumulative impact: 

30 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would 

31 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource 

32 considered. 

33 MODERATE: The environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not destabilize, 

34 important attributes of the resource considered. 

35 LARGE: The environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize 

36 important attributes of the resource considered. 
5-14 

1 The NRC staff recognize that many aspects of the activities associated with the proposed 

2 Reno Creek ISR Project would have SMALL impacts on the affected resources. It is possible, 

3 however, that an impact that may be SMALL by itself, but could result in a MODERATE or 

4 LARGE cumulative impact when considered in combination with the impacts of other actions on 

5 the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or imperiled, even a SMALL 

6 individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates the overall resource 

7 decline. The NRC staff determined the appropriate level of analysis that was merited for each 

8 resource area potentially affected by the proposed project. The level of analysis was 

9 determined by considering the impact level to the specific resource, as well as the likelihood that 

10 the quality, quantity, and stability of the given resource could be affected. 

11 Draft SEIS Table 5-4 summarizes the potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Reno Creek 

12 ISR Project on environmental resources the NRC staff identified and analyzed for this draft 

13 SEIS, which are then detailed in the subsequent sections. The potential cumulative impacts 

14 take into account the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities identified in draft 

15 SEIS Section 5.1.1. 

Table 5-4. Potential Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources 

Resource Category 

Site Specific 

Impact Comment and Cumulative Impact 

Land Use SMALL The proposed project would have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to land use. 

Transportation SMALL The proposed project would have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to transportation. 

Geology and Soils SMALL The proposed project would have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to geology and soils. 

Water Resources 

Surface Water and 

Wetlands 

SMALL The proposed project would have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to surface water and wetlands. 

Groundwater SMALL The proposed project would have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to groundwater. 

Ecological Resources 

Terrestrial Ecology SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The proposed project would have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the SMALL to 

MODERATE cumulative impacts on terrestrial 

ecological resources. Note that Greater sagegrouse is the only species that has a MODERATE 

impact. 

Aquatic Ecology SMALL The proposed project would have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the SMALL 

cumulative impacts on aquatic ecological resources.

 
5-15 

Table 5-4. Potential Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources (Continued) 

Resource Category 

Site Specific 

Impact Comment and Cumulative Impact 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

SMALL The proposed project would have no effect on 

federally listed, proposed, and candidate species, 

and a SMALL incremental effect on other species of 

concern when added to the SMALL cumulative 

impacts. 

Air Quality 

Near-Field Air Quality SMALL The proposed project would have a SMALL impact 

when added to the MODERATE cumulative impacts 

on the near-field air quality. 

Far-Field Air Quality SMALL The proposed project would have a SMALL impact 

when added to the MODERATE TO LARGE 

cumulative impacts on the far-field air quality. 

Impacts from past and present actions would be 

MODERATE. Because of uncertainty associated 

with impacts from reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, future impacts could be as much as 

LARGE. 

Climate Change SMALL The proposed project, in terms of greenhouse gas 

emissions, would have a SMALL impact when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative impact from 

other greenhouse gas emissions. The overall effect 

of projected climate change on the proposed Reno 

Creek ISR Project (i.e., the overlap of 

environmental impacts from climate change and the 

proposed project) would be SMALL. 

Noise SMALL The proposed project is likely to have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to noise. 

Historic and Cultural SMALL The proposed project is likely to have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the SMALL to 

MODERATE cumulative impacts to historic and 

cultural resources. 

Visual and Scenic SMALL The proposed project is likely to have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the SMALL 

cumulative impacts to visual and scenic resources. 

Socioeconomics SMALL to 

MODERATE 

The proposed project is likely to have a SMALL to 

MODERATE incremental effect when added to the 

SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impacts to 

socioeconomics. A MODERATE cumulative impact 

could occur if a disproportionate number of 

employees at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

elect to relocate and reside in smaller communities 

close to the proposed project. 
5-16 

Table 5-4. Potential Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources (Continued) 

Resource Category 

Site Specific 

Impact Comment and Cumulative Impact 

Environmental 

Justice 

No 

disproportionately 

high and adverse 

impacts on 

minority and lowincome 

populations 

The proposed project would have no 

disproportionately high and adverse impacts on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Public and 

Occupational Health 

and Safety 

SMALL The proposed project is likely to have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the SMALL 

cumulative impacts to public and occupational 

health and safety. 

Waste Management SMALL The proposed project is likely to have a SMALL 

incremental effect when added to the SMALL 

cumulative impacts to waste management. 

1 5.2 Land Use 

2 The NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts on land use within a 16-km [10-mi] radius of the 

3 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, comprising a land area of approximately 81,350 ha 

4 [201,000 ac]. The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts is 2012 to 2030, as 

5 described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.2. Land use impacts result from (i) land disturbance; 

6 (ii) interruption, reduction, or impedance of livestock grazing and open wildlife areas; and 

7 (iii) land access. The cumulative impacts on land use were not assessed beyond 16 km [10 mi] 

8 from the project area because, at that distance, the impacts on land use from the proposed 

9 project would be expected to be minimal. The majority of land within a 16-km [10-mi] radius of 

10 the proposed project area is privately- or state-owned and is classified as agricultural land (see 

11 draft SEIS Figure 3-1). Land use within the land use cumulative impact assessment study area 

12 is predominantly rangeland used for livestock grazing. Within this study area, activities on both 

13 public and private lands (e.g., livestock grazing, uranium recovery, oil and gas production, and 

14 CBM development) are ongoing and projected to continue in the future. 

15 Cumulative impacts from the loss of rangeland in the land use study area from existing and 

16 potential activities include a decrease in the area available for foraging, loss of forage or 

17 cropland productivity, loss of animal unit months (AUMs), and loss of water-related range 

18 improvements (e.g., improved springs, water pipelines, or stock ponds). Other than in 

19 un-reclaimed areas, these impacts would be reduced after portions of the proposed Reno Creek 

20 ISR Project area have been reclaimed. Another impact could be dispersal of noxious and 

21 invasive weed species both within and beyond areas where the surface had been disturbed, 

22 which reduces the area of desirable grazing by livestock. 

23 Minimal surface disturbance would occur as a result of preconstruction activities associated with 

24 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Preconstruction activities including topsoil stripping, 

25 excavation, backfilling, compacting, and grading to prepare a level site would disturb 

26 approximately 6.3 ha [15.5 ac] to accommodate the central processing plant (CPP) building, 

27 office/maintenance building, storage areas, backup pond, and parking area (AUC, 2014). 

28 These areas would be fenced to control access. Preconstruction activities would also include 

29 construction of access roads to access the initial production unit. The estimated surface 
5-17 

1 disturbance associated with access road construction is approximately 0.8 ha [2 ac] 

2 (AUC, 2014). As discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.2.1, potential land use impacts related to the 

3 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL for all stages of the ISR project lifecycle 

4 (i.e., construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning). The proposed project 

5 would disturb 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] during the project lifecycle. This amount of land would also be 

6 fenced from grazing at different times over the project lifecycle. Over the life of the proposed 

7 project (including preconstruction), the amount of land that would be disturbed and fenced 

8 would be small in comparison to the available grazing land within the land use study area 

9 {i.e., land within a 16-km [10-mi] radius of the proposed project area}. 

10 Past, ongoing, and future conventional uranium mines and ISR facilities within the land use 

11 study area and within the broader regional area are described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.1. 

12 The Nichols Ranch ISR facility lies 20 km [12.4 mi] to the northwest and is the closest 

13 operational ISR facility to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. However, the Nichols Ranch 

14 facility lies outside the land use study area. Two potential ISR facilities, Moore Ranch and 

15 Ruby Ranch, are located within the land use study area (see draft SEIS Table 5-1 and 

16 draft SEIS Figure 5-1). Moore Ranch, which is 13.3 km [8.3 mi] to the southwest, has an NRC 

17 license but is not currently operating. Ruby Ranch is 9.3 km [5.8 mi] to the northwest and is 

18 expected to submit an NRC license application for an ISR facility in 2016. If developed and 

19 operated, these two potential facilities would have impacts on land use (i.e., surface 

20 disturbances) within the land use study area. An estimated 61 ha [150 ac] was estimated to be 

21 potentially disturbed during development of the potential Moore Ranch ISR Project (NRC, 

22 2010). To assess the projected land area that would be affected by development of the 

23 potential Ruby Ranch project, the NRC staff assumed that approximately the same area 

24 affected by the proposed project {62.4 ha [154.3 ac]} would also apply. Similar to the proposed 

25 Reno Creek ISR Project, the amount of land area affected is small in comparison to the land 

26 use study area of 80,400 ha [199,000 ac]. 

27 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.2.3, extensive oil and gas production activities surround 

28 the proposed project area. Locations of oil and gas fields and associated wells in the land use 

29 study area are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-4. Producing oil and gas fields within 8 km [5 mi] of 

30 the proposed project area are listed in draft SEIS Table 3-5. Two producing oils wells and two 

31 permanently abandoned wells are located within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area 

32 (see draft SEIS Figure 3-4). The producing wells are in the northeast part of the proposed 

33 project area in the K-Bar Field. Impacts on land use from continued oil and gas development in 

34 the land use study area would include construction of temporary access roads and 1.2-ha [3-ac] 

35 drill pads for each drill site (BLM, 2009a). 

36 As further described in draft SEIS Section 3.2.3, there is extensive CBM production within and 

37 surrounding the proposed project area (see draft SEIS Figure 3-3). For example, there are 

38 324 wells used for CBM production within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed project area. Of these 

39 324 wells, 46 are within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. Impacts on land use from 

40 continued CBM development in the land use study area would include land disturbance and 

41 access restrictions associated with CBM infrastructure and facilities. CBM facilities and 

42 infrastructure include access roads; well pads; pipelines for gathering gas and produced water; 

43 electrical utilities; facilities for measuring and compressing recovered gas; facilities for 

44 treating, discharging, disposing of, containing, or injecting produced water; and pipelines to 

45 transport gas. 
5-18 

1 Existing wind energy operations in the region are located in the PRB south and southwest of the 

2 land use study area (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.5). The nearest wind energy projects to the 

3 land use study area are located in Converse County approximately 64 to 72 km [40 to 45 mi] 

4 from the proposed project area. The proposed Reno Junction Wind Project would be located 

5 approximately 5 km [3 mi] west of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. Development of 

6 wind energy projects is generally compatible with other land uses, including livestock grazing, 

7 recreation, and oil and gas production activities (BLM, 2005b). Much of the disturbance area 

8 associated with development of wind energy projects is reclaimed immediately following 

9 construction, with long-term disturbance associated with permanent facilities (i.e., access roads, 

10 support facilities, and tower foundations) (BLM, 2011). 

11 Proposed transportation projects, such as the proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project, would 

12 have an impact on the use of privately-owned agricultural land and mineral and mining rights on 

13 federal lands in Wyoming. State-owned lands and utility corridors are also expected to have 

14 impacts. Construction of the rail extension would involve direct and indirect takings of privately 

15 held land and the potential destruction of wells, windmills, corrals, fencing, outbuildings, 

16 irrigation systems, and other capital improvements. Access roads, hauling roads, and borrow 

17 pits would be built. DM&E would be required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to 

18 private agricultural and ranch lands, federal lands, state lands, and utility corridors. DM&E 

19 would negotiate these mitigation measures with landowners and federal and state agencies 

20 STB, 2001). DM&E would be required to restore all federal, state, and privately held agricultural 

21 lands disturbed by the project to preconstruction conditions as promptly and fully as possible 

22 (STB, 2001). 

23 The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on land use within the land use 

24 study area resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be 

25 MODERATE. This finding is based on the assessment of existing and potential impacts on land 

26 use within the land use study area from the following actions: 

27  Land disturbance and restrictions on livestock grazing from development of potential 

28 ISR projects; 

29  Land disturbance from existing and potential oil and gas production and development; 

30  Land disturbance and restrictions on livestock grazing from existing and potential CBM 

31 development; and 

32  Direct and indirect taking of privately held land for development of transportation 

33 projects, such as the DM&E PRB Expansion Project. 

34 Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to have a noticeable 

35 impact on land use within the land use study area. There are no coal mines within the land use 

36 study area. Potential wind energy projects, such as the Reno Junction Wind Project, are 

37 generally compatible with the primary land use in the study area (i.e., livestock grazing) 

38 (BLM, 2005b). 

39 5.2.1 Summary 

40 The estimated land disturbance of 62.4 ha [154.3 ac] for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

41 is a small amount of land in comparison to the land use study area of 81,350 ha [201,000 ac]. 
5-19 

1 About this same amount of land would be fenced over the life of the proposed project to restrict 

2 livestock grazing and big game and public access to the ISR facilities, infrastructure, and 

3 wellfields. As wellfield production ends, fencing would be removed and the land would be 

4 reclaimed. At the end of operations, the applicant would decommission the site and restore the 

5 land to its previous use (with the possible exception of access roads that land owners may 

6 request to remain) in accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning plan (see draft SEIS 

7 Section 2.1.1.1.5). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

8 Project would add a SMALL incremental effect to the MODERATE impacts to land use from 

9 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the land use study area, 

10 resulting in an overall MODERATE cumulative impact in the land use study area. 

11 5.3 Transportation 

12 Cumulative impacts on transportation systems of Campbell, Johnson, and Converse Counties, 

13 Wyoming, were identified and evaluated. This geographic area was selected because major 

14 transportation routes within the region (both Interstate and U.S. Highways) occur within these 

15 three counties. Local highways, existing county roads, and access roads were the focus of this 

16 analysis over the 2012 to 2030 timeframe. 

17 The major road network in the Wyoming PRB as a whole is sparse, which is consistent with the 

18 low population density. Primary access to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project from nearby 

19 communities is from State Highway 387, which traverses the proposed project area. Two 

20 transportation routes (State Highways 50 and 59) are available to access the proposed project 

21 area from the city of Gillette, located approximately 66 km [41 mi] to the north. State Highway 

22 50 runs south from Gillette and connects with State Highway 387, approximately 7.2 km [4.5 mi] 

23 west of the proposed project area. State Highway 59 also runs south from Gillette and connects 

24 with State Highway 387 at Wright, located approximately 12 km [7.5 mi] northeast of the 

25 proposed project area. 

26 Potential environmental impacts from transportation associated with the proposed Reno Creek 

27 ISR Project are described in draft SEIS Section 4.3. As analyzed in that section, all phases 

28 (i.e., construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) of the proposed 

29 Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL impact on transportation. Potential impacts 

30 would be from workers commuting to and from the site and from the shipment of materials and 

31 chemicals on and off the site. During preconstruction activities associated with the proposed 

32 Reno Creek ISR Project, the applicant estimated that 12 vehicles per day would travel to and 

33 from the proposed project area (AUC, 2014). Vehicle traffic would include passenger vehicles, 

34 light duty trucks, and commercial delivery and pickup vehicles. Given the relatively minor 

35 increase in traffic (12 vehicles per day), the potential environmental impacts on transportation 

36 during preconstruction are expected to be SMALL. 

37 In the cumulative impacts transportation study area, transportation would be impacted by 

38 ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future activities. These activities include livestock grazing, 

39 uranium exploration and mining, and oil and gas exploration and development. The many 

40 unimproved, two-track dirt roads and one lane gravel roads in the cumulative impacts 

41 transportation study area were constructed to access livestock grazing lands, to facilitate natural 

42 resource exploration and extraction, to provide access to recreational areas, and for off-road 

43 vehicle recreational activities. County roads in the transportation study area have intermittently 

44 provided access for uranium exploration and mining, as well as oil and gas exploration activities, 

45 since the mid-1970s. Reasonably foreseeable future uranium, oil, and gas exploration would 
5-20 

1 result in additional trucks and heavy equipment using existing county roads. For example, 

2 within approximately 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, there are 

3 14 past, existing, and potential uranium recovery or disposal sites (see draft SEIS 

4 Section 5.1.1.1). At each site, the transportation requirement and potential transportation 

5 impacts would be comparable to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (see draft SEIS 

6 Sections 3.3 and 4.3). In addition to potential traffic impacts, the existing or planned ISR 

7 facilities would require construction of new road surfaces or improvement of existing roads. 

8 Therefore, the number of roads and road networks in the transportation study area would grow 

9 concurrently with the natural resource exploration and extraction activities with a related 

10 increase in traffic and the potential for accidents involving yellowcake and byproduct transport. 

11 The Campbell County Coal Belt Transportation Study evaluated the existing roadway network to 

12 develop a comprehensive transportation plan that services the primary coal, oil, and gas 

13 production areas within Campbell County (Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc., 2010). Based on 

14 Wyoming Department of Transportation (WY DOT) automated daily traffic count information on 

15 state highways in Campbell County, the study estimated a rural 2-lane highway hourly capacity 

16 of 1,375 vehicles per hour. This estimate accounted for known roadway conditions such as 

17 terrain, grade, truck traffic, and peak hour volumes. The study concluded that present traffic 

18 volumes on roads in Campbell County are low when compared to existing capacity and that the 

19 existing roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate projected future increases in 

20 traffic levels (Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc., 2010). Additionally, the study provided a series 

21 of recommendations for road system improvements in 5-year increments through 2020 

22 and beyond. 

23 Wind energy projects (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.5) and transportation projects (see draft 

24 SEIS Section 5.1.1.6) would also have an impact on transportation resources in the cumulative 

25 impacts study area. Wind energy projects would impact transportation on local roads; however, 

26 these impacts would be temporary. During the 1- to 2-year construction period for a wind 

27 energy project, the vehicles of 100 to 150 workers and vehicles used to transport construction 

28 equipment, blades, turbine components, and other materials to the site would cause a relatively 

29 short-term increase in the use of local roadways. Shipments of materials, such as gravel, 

30 concrete, and water, are not expected to significantly affect local primary and secondary road 

31 networks. Shipments of overweight and/or oversized loads are expected to cause temporary 

32 disruptions on primary and secondary roads used to access construction sites. It is possible 

33 that local roads could require fortification of bridges and removal of obstructions to 

34 accommodate overweight and oversized shipments. Once completed, wind energy projects 

35 would require a relatively low number of workers to operate and maintain. For example, the 

36 operation and maintenance of an 180-MWcapacity wind energy project with about 150 turbines 

37 would require 10 to 20 workers. Consequently, transportation activities would be limited to a 

38 small number of daily trips by pickup trucks, medium-duty vehicles, or personal vehicles. 

39 Shipments of large components required for equipment replacement in the event of major 

40 mechanical breakdowns are expected to be infrequent. Transportation activities during site 

41 decommissioning would be similar to those during construction but would involve a much 

42 smaller workforce. Heavy equipment would be required for dismantling turbines and towers, 

43 breaking up tower foundations, and regrading and recontouring the site (BLM, 2005).

44 Two major rail lines serve the Wyoming PRB area. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 

45 (BNSF) Railroad enters Sheridan County, Wyoming, from Montana, which runs south to Gillette 

46 in Campbell County, Wyoming, and proceeds southeasterly to South Dakota. A secondary 

47 route jointly operated by BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), primarily serving coal trains 
5-21 

1 from PRB mines, heads south from Gillette into Converse County toward Douglas where it splits 

2 into southerly and easterly branches. The typical ROW corridor for the railroad in the Wyoming 

3 PRB area is 122 m [400 ft] wide (BLM, 2012a). Recent coal train traffic averages approximately 

4 160 coal unit trains per day (total outbound and returning). 

5 The proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project would have impacts on transportation in 

6 Wyoming. The project would require the construction of temporary roads to access the rail line 

7 ROW. The extension would add 418 km [260 mi] of rail line and connect the northern DM&E 

8 line in South Dakota to operating coal mines located south of Gillette in the cumulative impacts 

9 study area. DM&E has proposed mitigation measures as part of the proposed PRB Expansion 

10 Project to address potential adverse impacts to transportation. To the extent possible, DM&E 

11 would confine all project-related construction traffic to a temporary access road within the ROW 

12 or established public roads. Any temporary access roads constructed outside the rail line ROW 

13 would be removed and the land reclaimed upon completion of construction. As a result of road 

14 closures after construction and during operation of railyards, DM&E would provide or develop 

15 alternative access for the safe movement of farm and ranch equipment and livestock to fields 

16 and pastures (STB, 2001). 

17 Regional and local highways in the transportation cumulative impacts study area have sufficient 

18 capacity to accommodate the traffic of ongoing actions and increases in traffic from other 

19 reasonably foreseeable future actions. However, county roads would be impacted. County 

20 roads have been used to access uranium exploration and mining and oil and gas exploration 

21 activities in the transportation study area since the mid-1970s. Reasonably foreseeable future 

22 uranium, oil, and gas exploration and development in the transportation study area would result 

23 in additional trucks and heavy equipment using existing county roads. Construction and 

24 operation of potential wind energy and transportation projects would also impact county roads in 

25 the transportation study area. Transportation impacts would be most significant during the 

26 construction phase of wind energy, oil and gas exploration, and transportation projects because 

27 construction activities involve more workers and deliveries of materials and equipment. The 

28 NRC staff conclude that the cumulative impact on transportation within the transportation study 

29 area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be 

30 MODERATE. 

31 5.3.1 Summary 

32 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.3.1, regional and local highways used to access the 

33 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project could accommodate the additional projected traffic from the 

34 proposed project. However, projected daily traffic on Clarkelen Road, the county road providing 

35 access to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, would experience a noticeable increase over 

36 existing traffic. The applicant has committed to mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the 

37 county road system potentially affected by the proposed project. Mitigation measures include 

38 (i) improving signage; (ii) enforcing speed limits; and (iii) performing routine assessments of 

39 road conditions (AUC, 2012a). The applicant has also committed to work with Campbell County 

40 to provide necessary upgrades to affected portions of the county road system (AUC, 2012a). 

41 Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project will have a 

42 SMALL incremental effect on transportation when added to the MODERATRE impact from all 

43 the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the transportation 

44 study area. 
5-22 

1 5.4 Geology and Soils 

2 Cumulative impacts on soils and geology were assessed within the Wyoming PRB region and 

3 the counties that border the southern portion of Campbell County. This area was chosen as the 

4 geographic boundary for the analysis of cumulative impacts on soils and geology because the 

5 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be located in the southern portion of Campbell County, 

6 with Converse County located directly to the south and Weston and Johnson Counties to the 

7 east and west, respectively. The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts begins in 

8 2012 and terminates in the year 2030. 

9 Preconstruction activities (e.g., topsoil stripping, excavation, backfilling, compacting, and 

10 grading to prepare a level site) would disturb a minimal amount of soil (AUC, 2014). Topsoil 

11 would be stripped, stockpiled, and stabilized to accommodate any ancillary buildings or parking 

12 areas. In addition, topsoil stockpile stabilization would minimize erosion for later use in the 

13 decommissioning phase (AUC, 2014). As assessed in draft SEIS Section 4.4, all phases of the 

14 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL impact on geology and soils. The 

15 primary impacts on geology and soils would result from earthmoving activities during the 

16 construction phase. Earthmoving activities that might affect soils include the clearing of ground 

17 and topsoil and preparing surfaces for the CPP, header houses, access roads, drilling sites, 

18 excavating and backfilling trenches and pipelines, and associated structures. Operations at the 

19 proposed project may produce spills of process fluids or chemical materials that may 

20 contaminate soils. Required monitoring and mitigation, such as spill prevention and cleanup 

21 programs, would reduce these potential soil impacts (see draft SEIS Chapters 6 and 7). 

22 Subsurface impacts, such as subsidence and activation of nearby faults, would not occur at the 

23 proposed project area, because of the relatively small net withdrawal of fluids from production 

24 zone aquifers and because of the low pressures during operations relative to those needed to 

25 produce small earthquakes. As described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.1, there are four potential 

26 ISR projects (in prelicensing, licensing, or operational phases) within 24 km [15 mi] of the 

27 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (see draft SEIS Table 5-1). Within the larger area of 

28 approximately 80 km [50 mi], there are 14 past, existing, and potential uranium recovery or 

29 disposal sites (see draft SEIS Figure 5-1). Development of future ISR projects in the geological 

30 and soil resources study area would have impacts on geology and soils due to increased 

31 vehicle traffic, clearing of vegetated areas, soil salvage and redistribution, discharge of ISR32 produced groundwater, and construction and maintenance of project facilities and infrastructure 

33 (e.g., roads, well pads, pipelines, industrial sites, and associated ancillary facilities). The NRC 

34 staff assume that the development of future ISR projects within the cumulative impacts study 

35 area would be similar to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, with similar potential for surface 

36 impacts to geology and soils. The construction and operation of the infrastructure for these 

37 future projects, however, would be subject to the same monitoring, mitigation, and response 

38 programs required to limit potential surface impacts (e.g., erosion and contamination from spills) 

39 as those for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Reclamation and restoration of disturbed 

40 areas would mitigate loss of soil and soil productivity associated with ISR activities. 

41 Other historical, present, and future natural resource development activities that relate to 

42 geology and soils include stock grazing, coal mining, and oil and gas and CBM development. 

43 As described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.2, the Wyoming East Uranium Milling Region has 

44 16 currently active surface coal mines. The closest coal mines to the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

45 Project area are the North Antelope, Rochelle, and Black Thunder coal mines, approximately 

46 26 km [16 mi] to the east (see SEIS Table 5-2). These mines produce from the Anderson/Big 

47 George coal seams within the Fort Union Formation. Although there have been several annual 
5-23 

1 production declines, existing coal mining operations are expected to continue over the 

2 timeframe for the analysis of cumulative effects (i.e., until 2030). Geologic formations hosting 

3 potential CBM reserves are present in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project (see draft 

4 SEIS Section 3.4.1.2). However, the region has experienced a decline in CBM activity and 

5 activities are anticipated to continue to decline through the 2030 timeframe. 

6 Surface-disturbing activities related to livestock grazing, coal mining, oil and gas, and CBM 

7 exploration activities, such as construction of new access roads and drill pads and overburden 

8 stripping, would have direct effects on geological resources. Direct effects on geology from 

9 these activities would be limited to excavation and relocation of disturbed bedrock and 

10 unconsolidated surficial materials associated with surface disturbances. Impacts from these 

11 activities include loss of soil productivity due primarily to wind erosion, changes to soil structure 

12 from soil handling, sediment delivery to surface water resources (i.e., runoff), and compaction 

13 from equipment and livestock pressure. Reclamation and restoration of soils disturbed by 

14 historic livestock grazing and exploration activities would mitigate loss of soil and soil 

15 productivity, and salvaged and replaced soil would become viable soon after vegetation is 

16 established. However, indirect long-term effects, such as cross-contamination of aquifers, may 

17 occur if boreholes associated with oil and gas and CBM exploration are not properly abandoned 

18 (see draft SEIS Section 3.4.1). 

19 Deep injection of wastewater into geologic strata beneath usable aquifers is one of the 

20 commonly used methods to dispose of wastewater from industrial activities such as hydraulic 

21 fracking, oil and gas production, and ISR operations. As noted in draft SEIS Sections 5.1.1.1 

22 and 5.1.1.3, oil and gas production and ISR operations are common in the cumulative impact 

23 geology and soils study area. Recent studies in the central and eastern United States, 

24 especially Oklahoma and Texas (e.g., Ellsworth, 2013; Weingarten et al., 2015; Karanen et al., 

25 2013) have shown that high-pressure and high-volume injection of wastewater may be 

26 responsible for a substantial increase in seismic (earthquake) activity. Many of the wastewater 

27 induced earthquakes in the central and eastern United States have been intense enough to 

cause noticeable ground shaking. Ellsworth (2013) noted that the number of MW 3.01 28 and larger 

29 earthquakes in these areas have increased fivefold since about 2009, corresponding to the 

30 large increase in the number of Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II wastewater 

31 injection wells (wells used exclusively to inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas 

32 production). This dramatic rise in seismicity correlates with the expansion of domestic oil and 

33 gas production from fracking and, and more directly from the use of deep well injection to 

34 dispose of wastewaters from oil and gas production. In addition, the increase in seismicity may 

35 be related to the increase in injection rates and volumes in these wells. A recent statistical 

36 analysis of the location and timing of earthquakes across the central and eastern United States 

37 and their relationship to the location and operational parameters (e.g., injection rates, injection 

38 volumes) of UIC Class II injection wells by Weingarten et al. (2015) concludes that the entire 

39 increase in earthquake rates since 2009 is associated with deep well injection. 

40 Although the studies described above have focused on UIC Class II wells in the central and 

41 eastern United States, the cause and effect mechanisms of induced seismicity may also be 

42 possible near UIC Class I injection wells in the western United States, including the cumulative 

43 impacts study area for geology and soils in eastern Wyoming. Both UIC Class I and Class II 

 

1

Magnitude in this SEIS is given as moment magnitude (abbreviated MW), which measures the size of an 

earthquakes based on total energy released. The MW scale was developed in the 1970s Hanks and Kanamori (1979) 

to succeed the 1930s-era Richter magnitude scale (ML). 
5-24 

1 wells are completed to similar depths, with an average depth of more than 4,000 ft [1,220 m] 

2 below ground surface, and both UIC Class I and Class II wells are capable of injecting similarly 

3 large volumes of wastewater at similar injection rates. For UIC Class I wells, EPA regulations 

4 include minimum criteria for siting hazardous waste injection wells, requiring that wells must be 

5 limited to areas that are geologically suitable [at 40 CFR § 146.62(b)]. According to these 

6 regulations, the UIC Director (i.e., the delegated state or EPA) is required to determine geologic 

7 suitability based upon an “analysis of the structural and stratigraphic geology, the hydrogeology, 

8 and the seismicity of the region.” In Wyoming, the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

9 Quality (WDEQ) implements the UIC program for Class I wells. The WOGCC has primacy on 

10 Class II wells and maintains a catalog on activities (e.g., dates, quantities of fluid injected, 

11 pressure, and targeted geologic formations) occurring at each well. 

12 In 2014, the Wyoming State Geological Survey (WSGS) reviewed existing seismic data to 

13 quantify the potential relationship between earthquakes and injection and disposal well activity 

14 in Wyoming (Larsen and Wittke, 2014). The WSGS maintains a database of earthquake events 

15 and receives real-time notices from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Advance 

16 National Seismic System (ANSS) Composite Earthquake Catalog. In this study, the ANSS 

17 earthquake data and WDEQ and WOGCC injection well information from 1984 to 2013 were 

18 evaluated. This time period contained the best and most reliable ANSS earthquake data 

19 available for Wyoming. The WSGS identified six disposal sites containing either UIC Class II 

20 wells or a combination of UIC Class I and II wells that warranted interpretation for potential 

21 induced seismicity. WSGS concluded that the earthquakes that occurred at five of the sites 

22 were most likely the result of natural causes (e.g., volcanic activity or movement along a fault) 

23 and unrelated to injection or disposal well activities (Larsen and Wittke, 2014). At the remaining 

24 site, near Bairoil, Wyoming in Sweetwater, County, WSGS concluded that further evaluation is 

25 necessary to determine if some induced seismicity has occurred, or if seismic events recorded 

26 at the site are triggered by natural phenomenon. As documented in Larsen and Wittke (2014), if 

27 in the future there are areas with high seismic activity and/or a significant seismic event occurs 

28 in the vicinity of active injection or disposal wells, the WSGS would report it to the WOGCC and 

29 WDEQ and conduct further investigations to determine if induced seismicity is a possible cause. 

30 Based on the results of the foregoing WSGS study, the NRC staff conclude that Class I disposal 

31 wells within the cumulative impact study area for geology and soils are unlikely to contribute to 

32 induced seismicity. 

33 Impacts to geology and soils from wind energy projects, such as the potential Reno Junction 

34 Wind Project, include use of geologic resources (e.g., sand and gravel), activation of geologic 

35 hazards (e.g., landslides and rockfalls), and increased soil erosion. Sand and gravel and/or 

36 quarry stone would be needed for access roads. Concrete would be needed for buildings, 

37 substations, transformer pads, wind tower foundations, and other ancillary structures. These 

38 materials would be mined as close to the potential wind energy site as possible. Tower 

39 foundations would typically extend to depths of 12 m [40 ft] or less. The diameter of tower 

40 bases is generally 5 to 6 m [15 to 20 ft], depending on the turbine size. Construction activities 

41 can destabilize slopes if they are not conducted properly. Soil erosion would result from 

42 (i) ground surface disturbance to construct and install access roads, wind tower pads, staging 

43 areas, substations, underground cables, and other onsite structures; (ii) heavy equipment traffic; 

44 and (iii) surface runoff. Any impacts to geology and soils would be largely limited to the 

45 proposed project area. Erosion controls that comply with county, state, and federal standards 

46 would be applied. Operators would identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce 

47 slope instability. Implementation of BMPs would limit the impacts from earthmoving activities. 

48 Foundations and trenches would be backfilled with originally excavated material, and excess 

49 excavation material would be stockpiled for use in reclamation activities (BLM, 2005). The 
5-25 

1 proposed PRB Expansion Project would have a significant impact on the geology and soils of 

2 Wyoming (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.6). Along the route of the proposed rail line, geology 

3 and soils would be disturbed by increased traffic, clearing of vegetated areas, and soil salvage 

4 and redistribution. To limit the impacts, DM&E has proposed mitigation measures as part of the 

5 proposed PRB Expansion Project to address potential adverse impacts on geology and soils. 

6 DM&E would limit ground disturbance to only the areas necessary for project-related 

7 construction activities and would commence reclamation of disturbed areas as soon as 

8 practicable after project-related construction ends. During project-related earthmoving activities, 

9 DM&E would stockpile topsoil for application during reclamation to minimize erosion, and would 

10 implement appropriate erosion control measures at these stockpiles. DM&E would be required 

11 by state permitting agencies to restore and revegetate soils disturbed by the project to 

12 preconstruction conditions as promptly and fully as possible (STB, 2001). 

13 Surface-disturbing activities associated with ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future energy 

14 resource exploration and development (i.e., uranium, oil and gas, coal, and CBM), wind energy, 

15 and transportation projects would have direct impacts on geology and soils. Therefore, the 

16 NRC staff determine that the cumulative impacts on geology and soils within the study area 

17 resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be 

18 MODERATE. Direct impacts would result from increased traffic, clearing of vegetated areas, 

19 soil salvage and redistribution, and construction of project facilities and infrastructure. In 

20 addition, induced seismicity resulting from surface coal mining activities could have direct 

21 impacts on geology and soils. Indirect impacts, such as cross-contamination of aquifers, may 

22 also occur if boreholes associated with uranium and oil and gas and CBM exploration are not 

23 properly abandoned. 

24 5.4.1 Summary 

25 The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would contribute a SMALL 

26 incremental effect on the MODERATE cumulative impacts to geology and soils resulting from 

27 past, present, and future actions, including ISR projects, CBM projects, oil and gas operations, 

28 surface coal mining activities, and development of wind energy and transportation projects, as 

29 identified in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1. Several factors contribute to the SMALL finding: (i) the 

30 limited land area the proposed project would disturb as described in draft SEIS Section 4.4.1; 

31 (ii) the systems and procedures that would be in place to monitor and clean up soil 

32 contamination resulting from spills and leaks (see draft SEIS Chapter 6); (iii) available 

33 information showing a low potential for injection of process-related wastewater in Class I deep 

34 disposal wells to induce seismicity (i.e., earthquakes) in Wyoming, as documented in Larsen 

35 and Wittke (2104); and (iv) the reclamation and decommissioning that would take place to return 

36 the proposed project area to preproduction conditions through return of topsoil, removal of 

37 contaminated soils, and reestablishment of vegetation. 

38 5.5 Water Resources 

39 The impact to surface and groundwater resources was evaluated within an 80-km [50-mi] radius 

40 of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The 80-km [50-mi] radius for the water resources 

41 study area encompasses the watersheds that would be potentially impacted by past, present, 

42 and reasonably foreseeable future actions (see draft SEIS Figure 3-12). The timeframe for the 

43 analysis is 2012 to 2030. 
5-26 

1 5.5.1 Surface Water and Wetlands 

2 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area straddles the water divide between the Upper Belle 

3 Fourche River and the Antelope Creek drainage basins (see draft SEIS Figure 3-11). 

4 Approximately 80 percent of the proposed project area drains into the Upper Belle Fourche 

5 River, and the remaining portion, on the eastern edge, drains into the Antelope Creek basin. All 

6 drainage channels within the proposed project area are ephemeral in nature, flowing for short 

7 durations in response to snowmelt or local precipitation events. In draft SEIS Section 4.5.1, the 

8 NRC staff concluded that the environmental impacts to surface water resources during all 

9 phases (i.e., construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning) of the 

10 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL. This finding was based on features and 

11 measures that would minimize impacts to surface water and wetlands including: (i) limited 

12 surface disturbances; (ii) low regional precipitation and minimal average seasonal runoff; 

13 (iii) mitigation measures to control runoff such as installation of sediment control features 

14 (e.g., sediment logs, silt fences, and straw bales); and (iv) the applicant’s adherence to 

15 Wyoming Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WYPDES) permit requirements, which would 

16 include implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permit. The 

17 WYPDES permit would protect surface water by limiting the discharge volume and prescribing 

18 concentration limits to discharged water. 

19 In addition to the impacts from the proposed project, the applicant has also identified actions 

20 that would occur as part of the preconstruction activities (see draft SEIS Section 5.1). The 

21 primary impact to surface water and wetlands from preconstruction activities would be 

22 degradation of surface water quality from increasing suspended sediment concentrations in 

23 runoff due to vegetation removal and soil disturbance (AUC, 2014). During preconstruction, the 

24 applicant has committed to using sediment control features, such as sediment logs, silt fences, 

25 and straw bales, to reduce the sediment load in runoff from disturbed areas until vegetation can 

26 be reestablished (AUC, 2014). In addition, to minimize impacts to ephemeral stream channels, 

27 the applicant has committed to constructing access roads in a manner to avoid ephemeral 

28 stream channels where possible (AUC, 2014). 

29 Numerous past, existing, and potential ISR facilities are present within an 80-km [50-mi] radius 

30 of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.1). Potential future ISR 

31 projects would necessitate new roads, power lines, facilities construction, underground pipeline 

32 installation, and well drilling, all of which could have adverse effects on surface water and 

33 wetlands. Impacts to surface water and wetlands at existing and potential ISR projects would 

34 be subject to mitigation through BMPs, required WYPDES stormwater permits, and permits 

35 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for any activities that could potentially 

36 disturb jurisdictional wetlands. In addition, all NRC-licensed ISR projects (past, existing, and 

37 potential) would be subject to NRC and WDEQ decommissioning requirements to reclaim and 

38 restore affected areas and resources (e.g., land, groundwater, and surface water) to 

39 preoperational conditions. 

40 Within this water resources study area, a principal contributor to potential surface water impacts 

41 is CBM dewatering activities, which results in ponding in manmade reservoirs or stock ponds 

42 and permitted discharge sites. There is extensive CBM production within and surrounding the 

43 proposed project area. As described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.4, there are 324 permitted or 

44 completed CBM wells within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The PRB 

45 Coal Review (BLM, 2008) provides a summary of the cumulative surface water resource effects 

46 in the Wyoming PRB area for future years 2020 and 2030 as a result of ongoing CBM 
5-27 

1 development. BLM estimated that 9 to 52 percent of CBM-produced water would contribute to 

2 surface water flows, and perennial flows would be likely to develop in former ephemeral 

3 channels (BLM, 2008). CBM-produced water would increase the availability of surface waters 

4 for irrigation and other purposes for downstream users. BLM noted that noticeable changes in 

5 water quality would occur in the main channel drainages during periods of low flow and that 

6 sodic (high in sodium) soils and salinity are key water quality parameters because of their 

7 impact on water used for irrigation. BLM projected that the concentrations of suspended 

8 sediments in surface water would likely rise above baseline levels from increased flow and 

9 surface water runoff from disturbed areas. WDEQ adopted the Most Restrictive Proposed Limit 

10 for sodicity and salinity into its WYPDES permitting process to mitigate potential water quality 

11 impacts to downstream users. The BLM estimated in the PRB Coal Review that 20 percent of 

12 CBM discharges infiltrate the surface, indicating that 33 million L [8.6 million gal] infiltrated the 

13 surface in 2009 (BLM, 2011). 

14 Surface water quality within the 80-km [50-mi] area of the proposed project area may be 

15 impacted by conventional oil and gas development, rangeland grazing, wind energy projects, 

16 and transportation projects. Cattle grazing is a source of nonpoint pollution to streams and 

17 wetlands. However, this potential impact to surface water quality in streams and wetlands 

18 would only occur during heavy rain events and would therefore be intermittent. In addition, poor 

19 management of livestock grazing (e.g., overgrazing) could restrict flow in ephemeral streams 

20 due to erosion and sedimentation from decreased vegetative cover in drainage areas. 

21 Oil wells are located throughout Campbell, Converse, Johnson, and Weston Counties within the 

22 water resources study area; oil wells within 16 km [10 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

23 Project area are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-4. Impacts to surface waters and wetlands from 

24 oil and gas exploration activities would be from surface runoff as new access roads and drill 

25 pads are constructed. Runoff degrades surface water quality, causes erosion, and leads to 

26 siltation of streambeds and wetlands. Operators must obtain construction and industrial 

27 WYPDES permits from the WDEQ prior to conducting oil and gas exploration and production 

28 activities. WYPDES permits include plans and programs for spill prevention and cleanup, 

29 erosion control, and stormwater runoff control. These plans and programs significantly mitigate 

30 the potential impacts to surface sediment load and turbidity from exploration activities. In 

31 addition, USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 permits are also required for any disturbances in 

32 or near jurisdictional wetlands. Section 404 permits include provisions that must be followed to 

33 mitigate impacts when conducting activities in and near jurisdictional wetlands. 

34 Impacts to surface waters and wetlands from potential wind energy projects in the western 

35 United States, such as the Reno Junction Wind Project, may include changes in water quality 

36 and alteration of natural flow systems. The quality of surface water could be degraded by soil 

37 erosion and stormwater runoff from construction activities that disturb the ground surface, and 

38 by heavy equipment traffic. Surface water flow could be diverted by access road systems or 

39 stormwater control systems. Operation of a wind energy project uses very small amounts of 

40 water and results in virtually no discharges to surface water. Operators of these facilities 

41 implement stormwater management plans to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and 

42 prevent offsite migration of contaminated stormwater or increased soil erosion (BLM, 2005). 

43 The DM&E PRB Expansion Project would have a significant impact on surface water and 

44 wetlands, if completed. DM&E has proposed mitigation measures to address potential adverse 

45 impacts on surface waters and wetlands within the PRB Expansion Project area. Before 

46 project-related construction could begin, DM&E must obtain all federal permits, including Clean 
5-28 

1 Water Act Section 404 permits and USACE permits required for project-related alteration or 

2 encroachment of wetlands, streams, and rivers. In addition, DM&E must obtain WYPDES 

3 permits for regulation of stormwater discharges to surface waters. DM&E would employ BMPs, 

4 such as silt screens and straw bale dikes, to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, runoff, and 

5 surface instability during project-related construction. These mitigation measures would 

6 minimize sedimentation into streams and wetlands (STB, 2001). 

7 Livestock grazing is expected to continue in the water resources study area (see draft SEIS 

8 Section 5.2) and as such will continue to have the potential to degrade water quality in streams 

9 and wetlands Construction activities associated with other ongoing and reasonably 

10 foreseeable future actions, including uranium and oil and gas exploration and development, 

11 CBM activities, wind energy projects, and transportation projects, would have potential impacts 

12 on surface water and wetland resources in cases where surface water features are present. All 

13 of these activities would necessitate construction of new roads, power lines, facilities, and 

14 infrastructure, which would have the potential to degrade water quality and alter natural surface 

15 water flow systems. Therefore, the NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on 

16 surface water and wetlands within the surface water study area resulting from past, present, and 

17 reasonably foreseeable future actions would be MODERATE. 

18 5.5.1.1 Summary 

19 In draft SEIS Section 4.5.1, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts on surface water 

20 resources during all phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL. 

21 Potential impacts to surface waters at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be mitigated 

22 through proper planning and design of facilities and infrastructure, the use of proper 

23 construction methods, and implementation of BMPs (see draft SEIS Section 4.5.1). Prior to 

24 construction of the proposed project, the applicant must also obtain a construction and industrial 

25 stormwater WYPDES permits from WDEQ. The WYDPES permit would include plans and 

26 programs for spill prevention and cleanup, erosion mitigation, surface water monitoring, and 

27 stormwater runoff control. Based on the foregoing analysis, the NRC staff conclude that the 

28 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would contribute a SMALL incremental cumulative effect to 

29 the MODERATE cumulative impact on surface water and wetland resources from all other past, 

30 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the surface water study area. 

31 5.5.2 Groundwater 

32 Assessments of the environmental impacts to groundwater resources from the proposed 

33 Reno Creek ISR Project are discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2. The potential for groundwater 

34 impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would occur during all phases of the ISR 

35 facility lifecycle but primarily during the operations and aquifer restoration phases. 

36 Consumptive groundwater use during construction at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

37 area would be generally limited to dust control, cement mixing, pump testing, and well drilling 

38 and completion. Likewise, consumptive groundwater use during decommissioning would be 

39 generally limited to dust control, well plugging, and revegetation and reclamation of disturbed 

40 areas. Potential groundwater quality impacts during well installation would be minimized by 

41 directing drilling fluids and muds into mud pits to control the spread of fluids. In addition, the 

42 quantities of drilling fluids would be minimized by using the minimum quantity of water that is 

43 technically practicable for well drilling and development. Poor well completion techniques, lack 

44 of well integrity, and improper well plugging and abandonment can result in the mixing of 
5-29 

1 groundwater between the production zone and surrounding aquifers and thus affect the 

2 groundwater quality in overlying and underlying aquifers. Should this occur these effects would 

3 be mitigated by measures such as (i) implementing onsite geologic oversight during well drilling, 

4 installation, and abandonment phases; (ii) ensuring that injection, production, and monitoring 

5 wells pass mechanical integrity testing (MIT); and (iii) using well construction and plugging and 

6 abandonment techniques approved by WDEQ (AUC, 2012a). 

7 Potential groundwater impacts during the operations and aquifer restoration phases of the 

8 proposed project would be mitigated and reduced through implementation of leak detection, spill 

9 prevention, and cleanup programs, groundwater monitoring programs, periodic MIT of wells, 

10 and adherence to WDEQ UIC permit requirements. The applicant has committed to monitoring 

11 all domestic and stock wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of wellfields and providing replacement wells in 

12 the event of significant drawdown or degradation of water quality in these wells. The applicant’s 

13 excursion monitoring program would ensure the protection of water quality in aquifers overlying 

14 the production zone aquifer. After uranium production and aquifer restoration are completed 

15 and groundwater withdrawals are terminated at the proposed project area, groundwater levels 

16 would recover with time. As described in draft SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.3, the applicant’s 

17 groundwater model predicted 2.13 to 3.35 m [7 to 11 ft] of residual drawdown within the 

18 proposed project area 5 years after aquifer restoration is completed (AUC, 2012b). 

19 Groundwater restoration would restore impacted aquifers to acceptable water quality levels as 

20 specified in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). In draft SEIS Section 4.5.2, the NRC 

21 staff concluded that because the applicant is required to install monitoring wells around and 

22 within the proposed wellfield locations and implement corrective actions or mitigative measures 

23 in the event that groundwater quantity and quality impacts are detected, the potential impacts on 

24 groundwater resources would be SMALL. 

25 In addition to the impacts from the proposed project, the applicant has also identified actions 

26 that would occur as part of the preconstruction activities (see draft SEIS Section 5.1). An 

27 activity which could affect groundwater includes installing a potable water well system. Any well 

28 constructed would be permitted through the WDEQ permitting process. The applicant did not 

29 specify which subsurface aquifer unit the well would access. The applicant states that the 

30 hydrogeologic layers directly associated with the proposed project would not be affected by this 

31 preconstruction activity (AUC, 2014). The NRC staff conclude that because preconstruction 

32 activities associated with groundwater would include installation of a single well, and that well 

33 would be constructed and operated under WDEQ permitting criteria the impact to groundwater 

34 from preconstruction activities would be SMALL. 

35 The applicant has been authorized by WDEQ to drill, complete, and operate four Class I deep 

36 disposal wells to dispose of treated liquid waste streams into the Upper Cretaceous Teckla and 

37 Teapot Sandstones at depths of approximately 2,130 and 2,400 m [7,000 and 7,860 ft] below 

38 ground surface (WDEQ, 2015). In draft SEIS Section 4.5.2, the NRC concluded that potential 

39 impacts to deep aquifers used for liquid waste disposal at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

40 area would be SMALL because (i) the target aquifers for Class I deep well disposal (i.e., the 

41 Teckla and Teapot Sandstones) are confined above and below by sufficiently thick and 

42 continuous low-permeability layers, (ii) groundwater quality in the target aquifers is highly saline 

43 and thus not suitable for domestic, stock, or agricultural uses, and (iii) Class I deep well disposal 

44 operational monitoring requirements would ensure that the impact of deep disposal wells on 

45 surrounding formations is evaluated regularly and that appropriate measures are taken to 

46 correct failure of the disposal system. 
5-30 

1 Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

2 Population growth, ongoing and planned ISR facilities, oil and gas exploration, coal and CBM 

3 development, wind energy projects, and transportation projects activities may contribute to 

4 impacts on groundwater resources within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Reno Creek 

5 ISR Project area. 

6 Population Growth 

7 As discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.11.1, populations in counties and communities in the 

8 socioeconomic region of influence for the proposed project are projected to increase in the 

9 coming years. For example, between 2010 and 2030, the populations of Campbell, Johnson, 

10 and Natrona counties are projected to increase by approximately 43 percent, 22 percent, and 

11 17 percent, respectively. These projected population increases would create an increased 

12 demand for groundwater for municipal and industrial use. Most population growth within 80 km 

13 [50 mi] of the proposed project would occur in larger communities such as Gillette and Wright in 

14 Campbell County. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.2, formations stratigraphically 

15 below the Wasatch Formation (the host for uranium mineralization at the proposed Reno Creek 

16 ISR Project area) are used for municipal and industrial water supply. These formations include: 

17  The Fort Union Formation, which is a source of municipal water supply for the cities of 

18 Gillette and Wright; 

19  The Lance Formation and Fox Hills Sandstone sequence, which is a source of industrial 

20 water supply at Rozet (east of Gillette) and the Hilight Field in southeastern Campbell 

21 County and a source of municipal water supply for the city of Gillette; and 

22  The Madison Formation, which is a source of municipal water supply for the city 

23 of Gillette. 

24 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.5.2.3, the production zone within the Wasatch Formation 

25 at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is separated from underlying aquifers (i.e., the 

26 Fort Union Formation and Lance and Fox Hills Sandstone sequence) by an approximately 46 to 

27 76 m [150 to 250 ft] thick aquitard consisting of laterally continuous silt and mudstone. In 

28 addition, the target aquifers for Class I deep well disposal (i.e., the Teckla and Teapot 

29 Sandstones) are hydraulically confined above and below by thick and continuous 

30 low-permeability layers, which would minimize potential impacts to overlying aquifers, such as 

31 the Lance and Fox Hills Sandstone sequence, and underlying aquifers, such as the Madison 

32 Formation. As described in draft SEIS Section 4.5.2, the target aquifers for deep well disposal 

33 are overlain by the Lewis Shale (Pierre Shale), a low-permeability marine shale with an 

34 approximate thickness of 274 m [900 ft] in the proposed project area, and underlain by the 

35 Steele Shale, a low-permeability marine shale with an approximate thickness of 152 m [500 ft] in 

36 the proposed project area. 

37 ISR Facilities 

38 Numerous existing and potential ISR facilities are present within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the 

39 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (see draft SEIS Figure 5-1). Confined sandstone beds in the 

40 Fort Union Formation are the uranium-bearing production aquifers at ISR facilities south of the 

41 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area in Converse County. These facilities include Smith 
5-31 

1 Ranch, Reynolds Ranch, and Ludeman. Impacts on groundwater resulting from interactions of 

2 ISR activities at these facilities and the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are not likely because 

3 these activities would be conducted in stratigraphically separated aquifers. Confined sandstone 

4 units in the Wasatch Formation are the uranium-bearing production aquifers at ISR facilities in 

5 the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District in southwestern Campbell County and southeastern 

6 Johnson County. In addition to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, these facilities include 

7 Moore Ranch, Nichols Ranch, Jane Dough, Willow Creek - Irigaray, and Willow Creek - 

8 Christensen Ranch. The production aquifer within the Wasatch Formation at the proposed 

9 Reno Creek ISR Project is known to be continuous for some kilometers within the proposed 

10 project area. However, it is unknown whether the Reno Creek production aquifer is 

11 stratigraphically connected to uranium-bearing production aquifers at other nearby ISR facilities 

12 in Campbell and Johnson counties. Because sandstone units in the Wasatch Formation were 

13 deposited in a fluvial depositional system (i.e., deposits produced by the action of a stream or 

14 river), it is unlikely that production aquifers are continuous over long distances (e.g., more than 

15 approximately 8 km [5 mi]). ISR licensees are required to implement excursion detection, 

16 control, mitigation, and remediation plans under NRC regulations to reduce the potential effect 

17 on groundwater quality. 

18 Oil and Gas Exploration 

19 The PRB has been extensively explored and developed for oil and gas. As noted in draft SEIS 

20 Section 5.1.1.3, there are approximately 5,854 oil and gas production wells in Campbell County. 

21 Oil and gas wells and associated oil and gas fields within a 16-km [10-mi] radius of the 

22 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are shown in draft SEIS Figure 3-4. Impacts on groundwater 

23 resulting from interaction of ISR activities and oil and gas exploration and production are not 

24 likely because these activities are conducted in stratigraphically separated aquifers. ISR 

25 activities at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area would take place in sandstone aquifers 

26 in the Wasatch Formation at depths of 55 to 128 m [180 to 420 ft]. Within 8 km [5 mi] of the 

27 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, oil and gas production is from Cretaceous formations 

28 below the Lewis Shale (Pierre Shale) at depths ranging from approximately 2,350 to 3,850 m 

29 [7,710 to 12,630 ft] (see draft SEIS Table 3-5). 

30 Coal Mining and CMB Development 

31 There is extensive coal mining and CBM development within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the 

32 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.4.1.2, coal mines are 

33 located approximately 12.9 km [8 mi] east of Wright, Wyoming, along the north-south trending 

34 outcrop of the Fort Union Formation. The closest coal mines to the proposed project area are 

35 the North Antelope, Rochelle, and Thunder Basin coal mines, approximately 26 km [16 mi] to 

36 the east. These coal mines produce from the Anderson/Big George coal seams, which are 

37 within the Fort Union Formation. In addition, there is extensive CBM production within and 

38 surrounding the proposed project area. As described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.4, there are 

39 324 permitted or completed CBM wells within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

40 Project. The CBM production that is present within the proposed project area is from the 

41 Anderson/Big George Coal. The Anderson/Big George Coal seams are approximately 305 to 

42 335 m [1,000 to 1,100 ft] below ground surface in the proposed project area and approximately 

43 183 m [600 ft] below the base of the production aquifer. 

44 The PRB Coal Review (BLM, 2008) provides a summary of the cumulative groundwater 

45 resource effects in the Wyoming PRB area for future years 2020 and 2030 as a result of 
5-32 

1 ongoing coal mine dewatering and CBM development. The BLM estimated that CBM 

2 development would remove about 37 million ha-m [3 million acre-feet], less than 0.3 percent of 

3 the total recoverable groundwater {1.7 billion ha-m [nearly 1.4 billion acre-feet]} in the Wasatch 

4 and Fort Union Formations within the PRB. An estimated 15 to 33 percent of the removed 

5 groundwater would infiltrate the surface and recharge the shallow aquifers above the coal zones 

6 (BLM, 2008). BLM predicted that within the PRB, the redistribution of pressure within the coals 

7 after CBM water production ended would allow the hydraulic pressure head to recover within 

8 approximately 15 m [50 ft] or less of preproject levels within 25 years after project completion 

9 (BLM, 2003). The complete recovery of water levels would take tens to hundreds of years, 

10 depending on the specific location. BLM (2003) noted that the areal extent and magnitude of 

11 drawdown effects on coal zone aquifers and overlying or underlying sand units in the Wasatch 

12 Formation would be limited by the discontinuous nature of different coal zones within the 

13 Fort Union Formation and sandstone layers within the Wasatch Formation. This is consistent 

14 with a groundwater monitoring study conducted by the WSGS and the BLM (Clarey, 2009). 

15 One well cluster used in the study was the All Night Creek well cluster that is located within the 

16 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. The maximum reported drawdown in the Big George 

17 Coal Seam within the Fort Union Formation was approximately 183 m [600 ft]. However, zero 

18 to minimal drawdown was observed in the overlying sand aquifers, one of which is equivalent 

19 to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project production zone aquifer (PZA) within the Wasatch 

20 Formation. Therefore, this study confirms that the PZA within the proposed Reno Creek 

21 ISR Project area is hydrologically separated from coal zones within the underlying 

22 Fort Union Formation. 

23 Wind Energy Projects 

24 Impacts to groundwater from existing and potential wind energy projects within an 80-km [50-mi] 

25 radius of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.5) would not 

26 be noticeable. During construction of wind energy projects, water would be required for mixing 

27 of concrete for tower foundations and support facilities and for dust control along access roads 

28 and other areas of disturbance around the turbines. Disturbed areas would be revegetated and 

29 reclaimed immediately following construction. Once a wind energy project is operating, minimal 

30 quantities of groundwater are needed (BLM, 2005b, 2011). 

31 Transportation Projects 

32 The proposed PRB Expansion Project (a railroad expansion project) would have an impact on 

33 groundwater. Groundwater would be used to suppress dust during rail and bridge construction 

34 activities. Once operational, the PRB Expansion Project would use negligible amounts of 

35 groundwater. Water demand during construction activities would be supplied by existing 

36 municipal and private wells. DM&E (the project proponent) would ensure that any wells that 

37 may be affected by project-related construction or preconstruction activities are appropriately 

38 protected or capped to prevent well and groundwater contamination. If wells are located on 

39 private land, DM&E would secure permission from the landowner before undertaking any 

40 actions (STB, 2001). 

41 The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on groundwater resources within the 

42 water resources study area resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

43 actions is MODERATE. This finding is based on ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future 

44 actions that would (i) increase demand on regional aquifers used for municipal and industrial 

45 purposes, such as the Fort Union Formation, the Lance Formation/Fox Hills Sandstone aquifer 
5-33 

1 sequence, and the Madison aquifer; (ii) impact groundwater quality and quantity in the Wasatch 

2 Formation, which hosts uranium deposits in the Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District and is also a 

3 source of water supply for domestic and stock watering purposes in the study area; and 

4 (iii) potentially affect water quality in deep geologic formations that are used for disposal of liquid 

5 wastes. In addition, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as ISR, wind 

6 energy projects, and transportation projects, would use groundwater to construct concrete 

7 foundations and support facilities and for dust suppression during construction and operations 

8 activities, which would potentially impact water quantity in regional and local aquifers in the 

9 study area. 

10 In draft SEIS Sections 4.5.2.1.1 and 4.5.2.1.2, the NRC staff concluded that the potential 

11 impacts on groundwater resources from constructing and operating the proposed Reno Creek 

12 ISR Project would be SMALL. The NRC staff determined that preconstruction impacts to 

13 groundwater are SMALL. ISR licensees are required to implement excursion detection, control, 

14 mitigation, and remediation plans under NRC regulations to reduce the potential impact on 

15 groundwater quality and quantity outside the exempted production zone. WDEQ permitting 

16 requirements would protect groundwater in aquifers used for deep well disposal of liquid 

17 byproduct from the proposed project. After uranium production and aquifer restoration are 

18 completed and groundwater withdrawals are terminated at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

19 Project, groundwater levels would recover with time. Groundwater restoration would restore 

20 impacted aquifers at the proposed project to acceptable water quality levels. 

21 5.5.2.1 Summary 

22 In summary, based on the foregoing analysis, the potential impact of the proposed project on 

23 the existing and future use and quality of water would be minimal. Impacts to groundwater 

24 resulting from interaction between ISR activities at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area 

25 and CBM and oil and gas production are unlikely because the ISR production zone is separated 

26 from underlying coal and oil and gas bearing formations by hundreds to thousands of meters 

27 [hundreds to thousands of feet]. Impact to groundwater resulting from interaction between 

28 ISR activities at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area and other ISR facilities in the 

29 Pumpkin Buttes Uranium District is unlikely because the host formation for uranium 

30 mineralization (i.e., the Wasatch Formation) is unlikely to be continuous over long distances 

31 (e.g., more than approximately 8 km [5 mi]). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the 

32 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would contribute a SMALL incremental effect to the 

33 MODERATE cumulative impacts to groundwater resources when added to all other past, 

34 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the groundwater study area.

35 5.6 Ecological Resources 

36 The geographic study area considered for the analysis of cumulative impacts to ecology is an 

37 80-km [50-mi] radius from the center of the proposed project. Because the proposed project 

38 area is within the Wyoming PRB, the NRC staff summarize impacts that are occurring in the 

39 Wyoming PRB in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1. The Wyoming PRB is dominated by sagebrush 

40 shrubland and mixed-grass prairie (BLM, 2005a). The basin is currently experiencing rapid 

41 population and industry growth due to various types of energy development activities, and this 

42 trend is projected to continue in the future. As such, ecosystems and species within the 

43 Wyoming PRB are subject to varying levels of incremental impacts associated with this 

44 expansion. The timeframe selected for the analysis begins in 2012, when the applicant 

45 submitted a license application to the NRC for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, and ends 
5-34 

1 in 2040, which represents the license termination at the end of the decommissioning period plus 

2 a 10-year restoration period for woody vegetation species (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the 

3 estimated operating life of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project). No impacts to biota would be 

4 expected from the proposed project beyond 2040. Data sets prior to 2012 are utilized to 

5 demonstrate historical trends. 

6 5.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology 

7 Activities occurring in the PRB include livestock grazing (cattle and horses), wildlife herd 

8 management, hunting, uranium recovery, CBM production, wind energy, and oil and gas 

9 exploration. In addition, a regional transportation project is planned for transporting coal. As 

10 discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.6, potential effects to ecological resources, both flora and 

11 fauna, include reduction in wildlife habitat and forage productivity, modification of existing 

12 vegetative communities, degradation of water quality, and potential spread of invasive species 

13 and noxious-weed populations. Impacts to wildlife could involve loss, alteration, and 

14 incremental habitat fragmentation; displacement of and stresses on wildlife; and direct and 

15 indirect mortalities. 

16 5.6.1.1 Vegetation 

17 Most of the sagebrush lands in the region have been changed by land uses, such as livestock 

18 grazing, agriculture, or resource extraction. Habitat disturbance associated with these regional 

19 activities also affects vegetation by promoting the spread of noxious weeds and fragmenting 

20 vegetative communities. Grasses and noxious weeds tend to replace sagebrush after 

21 disturbances. Loss and degradation of native sagebrush shrubland habitats has imperiled 

22 much of this ecosystem type as well as sagebrush-obligate species, including the Greater 

23 sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (Becker, et al., 2009; Taylor, et al., 2012). Due to 

24 the larger area that is disturbed for linear facilities (e.g., pipeline rights-of-way and oil- and 

25 gas-related road systems), the potential for spread of noxious weeds is higher when compared 

26 to the development of site facilities (e.g., ISR facilities, mines, or power plants) (BLM, 2013). 

27 Site reclamation requirements of WDEQ-approved permits would mitigate effects from projects 

28 occurring in the Wyoming PRB. In addition, WDEQ permit requirements for CBM discharge 

29 water to ephemeral drainages would mitigate potential water quality effects to riparian and 

30 wetland vegetation from projects occurring in the Wyoming PRB (BLM, 2013). 

31 The known mineral- and energy-development activities (including wind energy projects, 

32 transportation projects, and coal, oil, and gas extraction developments) that occur within the 

33 Wyoming PRB are summarized in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1. Potential effects on vegetation from 

34 these activities are consistent with those potential effects discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.6. 

35 As noted in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1, BLM conducted a cumulative effects study for the 

36 Wyoming PRB through 2030. This study included a cumulative effects analysis for vegetation 

37 and wildlife. BLM estimated that approximately 171,471 ha [423,716 ac] (approximately 

38 5.2 percent) of the vegetation in the Wyoming PRB Coal Review study area, including wetland 

39 and riparian vegetation, will have been disturbed by 2030 from all mineral, energy (excluding 

40 wind), and transportation projects (BLM, 2013). BLM estimated that 60 percent of these 

41 disturbances would occur in sagebrush shrubland communities. BLM also estimated that by 

42 2030, approximately 58 percent of these disturbances would be reclaimed, and that the 

43 remaining disturbed area would be reclaimed incrementally or following a project’s completion, 

44 depending on the type of development activity and permit requirements (BLM, 2013). 
5-35 

1 To assess the extent of cumulative disturbed vegetation within the 80-km [50-mi] study area 

2 around the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the NRC staff assume the same percentage of 

3 vegetation disturbance (including wetland and riparian vegetation) as the BLM Wyoming PRB 

4 estimate for mineral, energy (excluding wind), and transportation projects. Using a conservative 

5 estimate of 1 ha [2.47 ac] of disturbance per megawatt (MW) of wind energy produced, an 

6 additional 0.2 percent {536 ha [1,325 ac]} of land could be disturbed from development of wind 

7 energy projects within 80-km [50-mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (see draft SEIS 

8 Section 5.1.1.5) (Denholm et al., 2009). These disturbances would total approximately 

9 106,313 ha [262,706 ac] of vegetation within the 80-km [50-mi] radius around the proposed 

10 Reno Creek ISR Project. Assuming 58 percent of these disturbances would be reclaimed by 

11 2030 per BLM’s estimates; the remaining 44,652 ha [110,337 ac], or about 2.2 percent of the 

12 study area, of vegetation would still be disturbed at the end of 2030. The NRC staff anticipate 

13 that the previously described requirements of WDEQ-approved permits (i.e., weed 

14 management, revegetation, and discharge water quality control) would ensure that vegetation 

15 and habitats support a stable ecosystem (BLM, 2012a; WDEQ, 2006). However, as described 

16 in draft SEIS Sections 4.6.1.1 and 4.6.1.4, reestablishing mature sagebrush vegetation 

17 communities to pre-disturbance productivity levels could take 10 or more years (Connelly et al., 

18 2004; BLM, 2010; 2015a). Therefore, these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

19 actions would have a SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impact on vegetation. 

20 Vegetation within the proposed project area is primarily the big sagebrush shrubland plant 

21 community. Draft SEIS Sections 3.6.1 and 4.6.1 describe and analyze the ecological conditions 

22 and impacts on ecology from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. As discussed in draft SEIS 

23 Section 4.6.1, the potential impact on vegetation, taking into account the applicant’s proposed 

24 mitigation measures from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, would be SMALL. However, 

25 the potential impacts that may occur to vegetation during and following the decommissioning 

26 phase of the proposed project may be SMALL to MODERATE until such time as sagebrush 

27 shrubland vegetation has been reestablished equivalent to vegetative cover in reference areas 

28 (see draft SEIS Section 4.6.1.4). After reestablishment the impact would be SMALL. 

29 The applicant stated that the entire amount of estimated vegetation disturbance over the life 

30 of the proposed project {approximately 59 ha [146 ac]} includes preconstruction activities 

31 (AUC, 2014). Of the disturbed vegetation, approximately 4.9 ha [12.2 ac] of big sagebrush 

32 shrubland would be disturbed during preconstruction activities, such as excavating the backup 

33 storage pond, erection of fences, installing a potable water well system, and building a sanitary 

34 sewerage treatment facility (AUC, 2014). The applicant also stated that disturbances from 

35 preconstruction activities would be reclaimed either during the phased construction or during 

36 decommissioning (AUC, 2014). As stated in draft SEIS Section 5.6, the NRC staff does not 

37 expect effects on biota beyond 2040. Because of the relatively small amount of vegetation that 

38 would be disturbed from the proposed project, including preconstruction, when added to the 

39 vegetation disturbances expected from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

40 actions from projects within the 80-km [50-mi] radius around the proposed project, the proposed 

41 Reno Creek ISR Project would contribute a SMALL incremental effect on vegetation impacts to 

42 the SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impact to vegetation. 

43 5.6.1.2 Wildlife 

44 In the 80-km [50-mi] radius surrounding the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, potential 

45 impacts from other ISR facilities to wildlife would be similar to those described in draft SEIS 

46 Sections 4.6.1.1 and 5.6.1, including loss, alteration, or incremental fragmentation of habitat; 
5-36 

1 displacement of and stresses on wildlife; modification of prey and predator communities; and 

2 direct or indirect mortalities. Other similar potential effects in this area (e.g., habitat loss, habitat 

3 fragmentation, and noise disturbance) would also likely occur from conventional mining or oil 

4 and gas extraction activities. Wind energy projects have the potential to increase mortalities to 

5 birds and bats from collisions with wind turbine blades, particularly in bird migration routes. 

6 BLM reported that the number of bird and bat collisions at wind energy projects is generally 

7 relatively small, when compared with collisions from other human-made structures (BLM, 

8 2005a). These past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Wyoming PRB 

9 (discussed in draft SEIS Section 5.6.1) could result in the disturbance of tens of thousands of 

10 acres; nonetheless, reclamation of disturbed areas would proceed concurrently with operations 

11 during mining and drilling projects, which would mitigate these impacts. 

12 The cumulative effects of these projects can influence habitats indirectly or directly, thereby 

13 affecting wildlife. For example, an indirect effect would be the alteration of the natural regime, 

14 which could change the frequency of land-clearing fires that can significantly reduce the growth 

15 of sagebrush shrubland vegetation, thus reducing the amount of habitat necessary to support 

16 sagebrush obligate species (Naugle et al., 2009). An example of a direct effect is a reduction in 

17 the long-term viability of the Greater sage-grouse due to loss of sagebrush habitat. Greater 

18 sage-grouse is a species that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) previously considered for 

19 listing on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and which continues to be at risk because of 

20 population declines related to habitat loss and degradation. Because of its spatial extent, oil 

21 and gas development is regarded as playing a major role in the decline of the sage-grouse 

22 species (BLM, 2015a; Taylor et al., 2012). As stated in draft SEIS Sections 3.6.1.2.3, 3.6.3, and 

23 4.6.1.1, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is not located within a designated core 

24 population area for the Greater sage-grouse. However, core population areas are located within 

25 the 80-km [50-mi] radius surrounding the proposed project area, primarily to the east in Weston 

26 County and the west in Johnson County. Therefore, because oil and gas development activities 

27 are occurring in the 80-km [50-mi] radius surrounding the proposed project area, there are 

28 currently MODERATE cumulative impacts to the Greater sage-grouse. 

29 BLM estimates that approximately 171,272 ha [423,716 ac] of the PRB Coal Review study area, 

30 or approximately 5.2 percent, is habitat for terrestrial species (e.g., big game, upland game 

31 birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, nongame and migratory birds, small- and 

32 medium-sized mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) that could be disturbed by 2030 (BLM, 

33 2013). As noted in draft SEIS Section 5.6.1.1, the NRC staff assume that approximately 44,652 

34 ha [110,337 ac], or about 2.2 percent, of habitat would be disturbed at the end of 2030 within 

35 the 80-km [50-mi] radius surrounding the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. There are no 

36 crucial big game habitats or migration corridors located within 30.6 km [19 mi] of the proposed 

37 Reno Creek ISR Project area, although pronghorn, mule deer, elk, and white-tailed deer are 

38 residents of the Wyoming PRB. Big game have been observed occupying areas adjacent to 

39 and within active mining operations, suggesting that some animals may become habituated to 

40 such disturbances (BLM, 2010). Development activities in the Wyoming PRB could potentially 

41 reduce wildlife populations if habitats adjacent to land in the 80-km [50-mi] radius around the 

42 proposed project are at, or near, their carrying capacity (e.g., the maximum population an area 

43 will support) for a species, considering that there may be an unavoidable reduction or alteration 

44 of existing habitats (BLM, 2013). For some species that require specific conditions for their 

45 habitats (e.g., small mammals), future populations would be strongly influenced by the quality 

46 and composition of the remaining habitats. However, as stated in draft SEIS Section 5.6.1.1 for 

47 vegetation, the NRC staff assume that WDEQ-approved permit requirements would ensure that 

48 the reclamation goals of projects achieve revegetation and that habitats would support a stable 

49 ecosystem (e.g. BLM, 2012a; WDEQ, 2006). WDEQ may also enforce other mitigation 
5-37 

1 measures for projects such as speed limits, fencing and overhead power line construction 

2 techniques that limit effects on wildlife, and timing and buffer stipulations. In addition, the NRC 

3 staff assume that project operators would comply with FWS requirements under the Migratory 

4 Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Therefore, the 

5 overall cumulative impact to big game, upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, 

6 nongame and migratory birds, small- and medium-sized mammals, reptiles, and amphibians 

7 would be SMALL. 

8 As discussed in draft SEIS Sections 4.6.1.1 through 4.6.1.4, the NRC staff determine that the 

9 potential impacts to wildlife that may occur during all phases of the proposed project are 

10 expected to be SMALL. This finding is based on (i) the total land disturbance during the life of 

11 the proposed project {approximately 62 ha [154 ac], or about 2.5 percent of the proposed 

12 project area (AUC, 2012a)}, (ii) the applicant’s phased approach, which would reduce the 

13 amount of habitat affected at one time (see draft SEIS Chapter 2 for more information on a 

14 phased approach), (iii) the applicant’s commitment to use mitigation measures that would 

15 reduce effects on wildlife (e.g., ensure speed limits, use designated roads, and construct 

16 overhead power lines in accordance with Avian Power Line Interaction Committee standards), 

17 and (iv) the applicant’s commitments to reseed and revegetate disturbed areas and follow a 

18 WDEQ-approved reclamation plan. As stated in draft SEIS Section 5.6.1.1 for cumulative 

19 impacts on vegetation, preconstruction land disturbances are included in the 62 ha [154 ac] the 

20 NRC staff evaluated in draft SEIS Section 4.6. Therefore, preconstruction activities would not 

21 change the SMALL impact determination for the proposed project. Thus, the proposed Reno 

22 Creek ISR Project’s incremental impacts to cumulative impacts would be SMALL when added to 

23 the SMALL cumulative impacts on terrestrial wildlife from all past, present, and reasonably 

24 foreseeable future actions in the cumulative impact study area. However, for the reasons 

25 detailed in this section, cumulative impacts to the Greater sage-grouse would continue to 

26 be MODERATE. 

27 5.6.2 Aquatic Ecology 

28 In the PRB, CBM and coal mining projects use or manage the majority of water resources as 

29 part of their operations (BLM, 2013). BLM estimated that the small remaining amounts of 

30 surface water flow from these projects would discharge into intermittent and ephemeral streams 

31 in four subwatersheds (Antelope Creek, Little Powder, Upper Belle Fourche, and Upper 

32 Cheyenne) but would have little or no effect on stream flows due to high evaporation and 

33 infiltration rates before the discharges reach the streams. As stated in draft SEIS Section 5.5.1, 

34 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area straddles the water divide between the Upper Belle 

35 Fourche River and the Antelope Creek drainage basins. BLM determined that the contribution 

36 of coal-related development under a high-production scenario in year 2030 would have low 

37 effects on fish in the Antelope Creek and Upper Belle Fourche River watersheds, and are not 

38 expected to significantly impact surface water quality (BLM, 2013). This finding is based on 

39 past surface water monitoring sampling conducted in receiving streams. Therefore, BLM 

40 expects that effects on fisheries from coal-related projects are expected to be low in perennial 

41 streams in the Upper Belle Fourche River and the Antelope Creek subwatersheds (BLM, 2013). 

42 BLM anticipate cumulative effects from sedimentation of other reasonably foreseeable future 

43 actions would be short-term (i.e. during surface disturbance activities) and localized. BLM 

44 expect sediment input into water bodies would stop and water quality would return to 

45 background concentrations after surface disturbance activities end (BLM, 2013). BLM also 

46 anticipates that construction and operation of reasonably foreseeable future activities within the 

47 PRB would not occur within stream channels and would not result in removal of ponds or 
5-38 

1 reservoirs; thus, no direct loss or alteration of aquatic habitat would occur (BLM, 2013). To 

2 assess the extent of impacted aquatic resources as a result of the projects discussed in draft 

3 SEIS Section 5.1.1, the NRC staff assume that the effects from all projects including wind 

4 energy projects would also not result in direct loss or alteration of aquatic habitat. Because the 

5 majority of the water uses in the PRB are for coal-related projects which are not expected to 

6 significantly impact surface water quality, the NRC staff conclude that the cumulative impact on 

7 aquatic ecology resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 

8 80-km [50-mi] radius surrounding the proposed project area would be SMALL. In addition, all 

9 proposed activities in the study area would be regulated by a WYPDES permit and would 

10 comply with federal and state water quality regulations, which would reduce impacts on 

11 aquatic ecology. 

12 As described in draft SEIS Sections 4.6.1.1.1 and 4.6.1.1.2, because of the limited and 

13 ephemeral nature of surface water at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, the 

14 occurrence of aquatic species is also limited. No loss of aquatic habitat would result from 

15 planned ISR activities during any phase of the proposed project. In addition, no surface water 

16 would be diverted, no process water would be discharged into an aquatic habitat, and 

17 stormwater runoff would be managed through the SWPPP and the WYPDES permit (as 

18 discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1). Therefore, during all phases of the proposed 

19 Reno Creek ISR Project lifecycle, the potential impacts to aquatic species and habitats would be 

20 SMALL as described in draft SEIS Sections 4.6.1 through 4.6.4. As stated in draft SEIS 

21 Sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2, no additional land disturbances beyond those evaluated and analyzed 

22 for the life of the proposed project in draft SEIS Section 4.6 {62 ha [154 ac]} would occur from 

23 preconstruction activities. Therefore, no additional potential impacts on aquatic resources, such 

24 as additional erosion and vegetation removal in riparian areas, would occur as a result of the 

25 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project from preconstruction activities. 

26 The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL 

27 incremental effect on aquatic ecology when added to the SMALL cumulative effects from all 

28 other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the cumulative impacts study 

29 area. This conclusion is based on the limited and ephemeral nature of surface water features 

30 within the proposed project area as described in other sections of this draft SEIS, and because 

31 of the mitigation requirements associated with the required regulatory permits and licenses.

32 5.6.3 Protected Species and Species of Concern 

33 A number of protected species and species of concern are or could be potentially present within 

34 the PRB and 80-km [50-mi] radius surrounding the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area 

35 including the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid, Northern long-eared bat, Sprague’s pipit, bald eagle, 

36 black-tailed prairie dog, and the mountain plover (BLM, 2009b; WGFD, 2010; see draft SEIS 

37 Section 3.6.3). For the purposes of this cumulative assessment, protected species and species 

38 of concern are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional level of 

39 protection by law, regulation, or policy. This includes federally listed species that are protected 

40 under the ESA, or are considered candidates for such listing by the FWS, BLM, and WGFD 

41 species of greatest conservation need. Draft SEIS Table 3-15 lists species of concern that 

42 could occur in Campbell County. Other species of concern could occur within the 80-km [50-mi] 

43 radius around the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Potential impacts to terrestrial protected 

44 species and species of concern from regional projects in the 80-km [50-mi] radius around the 

45 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be similar to those discussed in draft SEIS Section 

46 5.6.2 for nongame wildlife (e.g., small mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles). Increased 
5-39 

1 activity and noise from projects that occur within potential habitat for these species, especially 

2 during respective breeding seasons, could decrease a species’ use of a habitat or the overall 

3 suitability of a habitat (BLM, 2009b). However, given the location of development activities 

4 compared with the geographical occurrence of many of these species, and with mitigating 

5 permit requirements and state policies and federal regulations in place (e.g., the ESA and 

6 MBTA), the cumulative impacts to all protected species would be SMALL. 

7 5.6.4 Summary 

8 As discussed in draft SEIS Sections 3.6.3 and 4.6.1.1, no federally listed threatened or 

9 endangered plant species or critical habitat are known to occur within the proposed project area. 

10 Although the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), a federally threatened species, could potentially 

11 occur within the proposed project area, the proposed project area is not located within the 

12 white-nose syndrome zone and accidental take of the NLEB from otherwise lawful activities in 

13 areas not yet affected by white-nose syndrome is not prohibited under the ESA (FWS, 2016). 

14 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an unacceptable take under Section 7 of the 

15 ESA. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.6.1.1, five FWS species of conservation concern 

16 and FWS management concern and one FWS species of management concern were observed 

17 during the applicant’s baseline wildlife surveys within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek 

18 ISR Project area. Several other species of concern, including FWS species of concern 

19 previously discussed (bald eagle, black-tailed prairie dog, and mountain plover) could potentially 

20 occur within the proposed project area (see draft SEIS Table 3-15). However, for reasons 

21 explained in draft SEIS Sections 4.6.1.1 through 4.6.1.4, due to applicant commitments and 

22 mitigation measures, federal regulations and state policies and permit requirements, the NRC 

23 staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL impact on 

24 protected species and species of concern. As explained in draft SEIS Sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2, 

25 no additional potential impacts on ecology beyond those that were evaluated for the proposed 

26 project would occur as a result of preconstruction activities. Therefore, incremental impacts 

27 would also be SMALL when added to the SMALL cumulative impacts to protected species and 

28 species of concern from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 

29 80-km [50-mi] radius surrounding the proposed project area.

30 5.7 Air Quality 

31 The NRC staff assessed the cumulative impacts to air quality primarily within an 80-km [50-mi] 

32 radius of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Much of this area, hereafter called the region of 

33 influence, consists of land from Campbell, Converse, and Johnson Counties. The region of 

34 influence also includes smaller sections of land from Crook, Natrona, Niobrara, and Weston 

35 Counties (draft SEIS Figure 5-1). For purposes of this draft SEIS, the assessment of impacts 

36 within the region of influence will be called the near-field analysis, and the assessment of 

37 impacts beyond the region of influence (i.e., at the nearest Class I area) will be called the 

38 far-field analysis. The nearest Class I area to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is Wind 

39 Cave National Park, which is located in Custer County, South Dakota, about 181.9 km [113 mi] 

40 away (AUC, 2012a). The timeframe for the air quality cumulative impacts analysis runs from 

41 2012 to 2030. 

42 5.7.1 Non-Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

43 As described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

44 activities that may contribute to pollutant emissions include uranium exploration and extraction, 
5-40 

1 oil and gas exploration and production, coal mining and CBM operations, wind energy projects, 

2 and transportation projects. Air pollutants emitted by these sources potentially have cumulative 

3 impacts within the region. Those potential impacts include, but are not limited to, particulate 

4 matter from travel on unpaved roads and disturbed land and carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, 

5 sulfur dioxide, particulates, and volatile organic compounds from various types of combustion 

6 emissions. Air pollutants can also be transported from emission sources outside the region. 

7 This assessment first considers impacts for the near-field, followed by impacts for the far-field. 

8 The NRC staff based the cumulative impact determination in part on the site-specific project 

level modeling that implements the dry depletion option2 9 . 

10 5.7.1.1 Near-Field Analysis 

11 The effects of past and present activities on the air quality in the region of influence (i.e., the 

12 near-field) are represented in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) compliance 

13 status and air monitoring results. EPA evaluates the NAAQS compliance status of an area on 

14 an ongoing basis. As described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2, EPA currently designates the entire 

15 area within the region of influence as an attainment area for all pollutants. WDEQ operates and 

16 maintains a network of ambient air quality monitoring stations whose primary purpose is to 

17 evaluate compliance with the NAAQS. Results from these monitoring stations provide EPA 

18 information for determining the NAAQS compliance status. The region of influence for the 

19 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project contains six of these monitoring stations. The Wyoming 

20 Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2014 reports that the monitoring results for these 

21 six monitors are in compliance with the NAAQS (WDEQ, 2014). The near-field analysis does 

22 not include air quality issues associated with Class I or sensitive Class II areas (e.g., visibility) 

23 because the region of influence contains no Class I or sensitive Class II areas. 

24 The next part of the analysis considers the various reasonably foreseeable future actions within 

25 the region of influence, starting with other ISR facilities. According to information in draft SEIS 

26 Table 5-1, there are six ISR projects within the region of influence that are either in the 

27 prelicensing stage or are licensed and not operating. The analysis in this draft SEIS assumes 

28 that various stationary, mobile, and fugitive emissions from these ISRs would be managed and 

29 mitigated in a manner similar to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Three ISRs would be 

30 located within 20 km [12.4 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. For the purposes of 

31 evaluating the cumulative effect of these projects, the NRC staff assumed that these other ISR 

32 projects would be developed in a phased approach (see draft SEIS Chapter 2 for more 

33 information) similar to that of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The potential for the 

34 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project impacts to overlap with the other ISR projects is reduced by 

35 several factors, and any consideration of overlapping impacts between ISR projects needs to 

36 account for these factors: 

37  Preconstruction activities vary between 5.4 to 17.5 percent of the peak year emission 

38 levels depending on the particular pollutant (see draft SEIS Appendix C Table C–5). 

39  Mobile and fugitive sources generate the vast majority of ISR emissions (see draft SEIS 

40 Table 2-4), and these types of sources do not generate emissions continuously. 

 

2

 In addition, Section C-6.2 of draft SEIS Appendix C includes the cumulative effect impact magnitude determination 

that relies only on the initial site-specific modeling run (i.e., does not consider the results from the final modeling run 

that implements the dry depletion option). 
5-41 

1  Particulate matter PM10 (i.e., particles larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 

2 10 micrometers in diameter) is the primary pollutant generated by ISR activities (see 

3 draft SEIS Table 2-4). Based on the information in Tables C-1 and C-5 in draft SEIS 

4 Appendix C, 93 percent of the proposed project’s particulate matter PM10 emissions 

5 would be from mechanically-generated sources (i.e., fugitive emissions from 

6 travel on unpaved roads). Heavier particles (i.e., particulate matter PM10) from 

7 mechanically generated fugitive emissions are the type of emission most likely to be 

8 removed from the air close to the generating source (Countess, 2001). 

9  ISR emissions vary over the lifetime of the project. As depicted in Table C-1 and 

10 Table C-3 of draft SEIS Appendix C, many of the project years generate much lower 

11 emission levels than the peak year. 

12 Draft SEIS Table 5-1 identifies 14 coal mines within the region of influence and provides the 

13 distance and direction from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. As described in draft SEIS 

14 Section 5.1.1.2, although it is difficult to predict, existing coal mining operations are expected to 

15 continue with some increases in production from 2009 levels. 

16 The predominant wind direction is a major consideration when assessing potential overlapping 

17 impacts with coal mines. Thirteen of the coal mines are located to the east of the proposed 

18 Reno Creek ISR Project with the closest mine located 26.1 km [16.2 mi] away. Because of the 

19 predominant wind direction (see draft SEIS Table 3-27), pollutants would travel from the 

20 proposed project area to these coal mines rather than from these coals mines to the proposed 

21 project area. In terms of overlapping effects, the air quality at these coal mines would 

22 experience the additional emissions from the single proposed ISR project rather than the air 

23 quality at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project experiencing the additional emissions from 

24 thirteen coal mines. There is one coal mine located 64.2 km [39.9 mi] to the south-southwest 

25 where the predominant wind direction would transport pollutants from the coal mine towards the 

26 proposed project area. In this one case, any overlapping effects would be experienced at the 

27 proposed project rather than at the coal mine. Because pollutants disperse as they travel, the 

28 distance between the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and this one coal mine reduces the 

29 potential for overlapping impacts. 

30 Oil and gas production, as well as CBM development, occurs in the region of influence. 

31 Extraction of these resources typically involves well installation and operation activities that 

32 generate combustion emissions from mobile sources and fugitive dust from travel on unpaved 

33 roads and disturbed land. The analysis in this draft SEIS assumes that various stationary, 

34 mobile, and fugitive emissions would be managed and mitigated in a manner similar to the 

35 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. As depicted in draft SEIS Figure 5-1, highly favorable areas 

36 for oil and gas development occur about 8.0 km [5 mi] from the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

37 Project. Potential overlap between the proposed Reno Creek project and oil and gas resource 

38 projects can be characterized in a similar manner to interactions between the proposed Reno 

39 Creek ISR Project and other ISR projects described earlier. Although CBM development is 

40 common in the PRB, this form of mining has been declining since 2009. 

41 The proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project would affect air quality in eastern Wyoming and 

42 southwestern South Dakota. Mitigation measures have been recommended as part of the 

43 proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project to address potential adverse effects on air quality 

44 (STB, 2001). DM&E would be required to meet EPA emission standards for diesel-electric 

45 locomotives. To the extent practicable, DM&E would adopt fuel-saving practices, such as 

46 throttle modulation, dynamic braking, increased use of coasting trains, and shutting down 
5-42 

1 locomotives when not in use for more than an hour, to reduce overall emissions during 

2 project-related operations. To minimize fugitive dust emissions during project-related 

3 construction activities, DM&E would implement fugitive dust suppression controls, such as 

4 spraying water, tarp covers for haul vehicles, and installation of wind barriers. Again, potential 

5 overlap of impacts is reduced because 

6  Emissions from the DM&E PRB Expansion Project are spread out over a large area 

7 rather than localized at one location. 

8  Both the proposed project and the DM&E Expansion Project do not continuously 

9 generate emissions. 

10  The predominant wind direction would transport pollutants from the proposed 

11 Reno Creek ISR project to the expansion project area. 

12 The NRC staff conclude that the cumulative impact on air quality within the region of influence 

13 resulting from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE 

14 because the ambient pollutant concentrations are noticeable but not destabilizing. As described 

15 in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2, EPA currently designates all of the area within the Reno Creek 

16 region of influence as attainment areas for all pollutants. Ambient air concentrations applicable 

17 to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area are below NAAQS (see draft SEIS Table 3-17). 

18 Based on the description of the reasonably foreseeable future actions in this section, the NRC 

19 staff expect this trend to continue within the region of influence for the proposed Reno Creek 

20 ISR Project. 

21 Cumulative impacts on air quality for the near-field include incremental effects from the 

22 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and 

23 reasonably foreseeable future actions. The NRC staff conclude in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1 that 

24 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL effect on air quality. As stated in 

25 the preceding paragraph, the NRC staff conclude that the impact on air quality within the region 

26 of influence for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project resulting from past, present, and 

27 reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. When combining the incremental 

28 impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project with all other impacts from other past, 

29 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region of influence, the NRC staff 

30 conclude that the cumulative impact for the near-field would be MODERATE. Draft SEIS 

31 Table 4-9 presents the impacts of the project combined with the current background ambient air 

32 pollutant concentrations (i.e., the impacts from past and present emissions). Based on the 

33 description in this section of the SEIS concerning the possible overlap of impacts between the 

34 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and the reasonably foreseeable future actions, the NRC staff 

35 expect the existing ambient air quality conditions in the region of influence for the proposed 

36 Reno Creek ISR Project to continue in a similar manner. Draft SEIS Appendix C Section C-5 

37 contains additional information on the draft SEIS approach for the near-field analysis. 

38 5.7.1.2 Far-Field Analysis 

39 The collective emissions generated from all of the sources within the region of influence have 

40 the potential to affect receptors outside of the region of influence (i.e., the far-field). Analyses of 

41 the effects from regional emissions often focus on Class I areas since these areas have the 

42 greatest level of protection (i.e., the most stringent standards) under the PSD program (see draft 

43 SEIS Section 3.7.2.1). The nearest Class I area to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is 

44 Wind Cave National Park located in Custer County, South Dakota, about 181.9 km [113 mi] 
5-43 

1 away (AUC, 2012a). Wind predominantly blows from the west-southwest and southwest which 

2 transports emissions from the proposed project towards Wind Cave National Park. 

3 Wind Cave National Park, as well as the entire state of South Dakota, is in attainment 

4 (40 CFR 81.342). In 2005, a monitoring station was established at Wind Cave National Park to 

5 determine air pollution background levels and whether the site was affected by the long-range 

6 transport of air pollutants, such as pollution from increased oil and gas development in 

7 Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana (SDDENR, 2015). According to the South Dakota Ambient 

8 Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan (SDDENR, 2015), pollutant concentrations at the Wind 

9 Cave site are below the applicable NAAQS. In fact, the particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5 

10 concentrations are the lowest in the state. 

11 In addition to attainment status, air quality at Class I areas also considers visibility impairment. 

12 Visibility impairment occurs when the pollution in the air either scatters or absorbs the light. 

13 Both natural and man-made sources contribute to air pollution, which may impair visibility. 

14 Natural sources include windblown dust and smoke from fires, while man-made sources include 

15 electric utilities (i.e., power plants), industrial fuel burning, and motor vehicles. The closest 

16 Class I area to the proposed project (i.e., Wind Cave National Park) has experienced visibility 

17 impacts. The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Regional Haze 

18 State Implementation Plan (SDDENR, 2011) provided pollution emission inventories and 

19 modeling results and also identified the sources of the pollutants that affect visibility. This plan 

20 identified sulfate, nitrate, and organic carbon as the major contributors to visibility impairment at 

21 Wind Cave National Park. The modeling indicates that only about 3 percent of the sulfur dioxide 

22 pollution affecting visibility at Wind Cave National Park comes from sources within South Dakota 

23 and at most, about 10 percent of the nitrogen dioxide pollution comes from sources within 

24 South Dakota. The state that contributes the most sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide pollution 

25 that affects visibility at this Class I area is Wyoming. 

26 The preceding paragraph characterizes the current impacts at Wind Cave National Park. Future 

27 impacts are less well defined. In 2014, BLM published the most recent version of the PRB Coal 

28 Review (BLM, 2014a). BLM developed this document to provide a regional air emission 

29 inventory and associated modeling results for the PRB that could be used in NEPA 

30 assessments. The PRB Coal Review developed regional emission inventories for 2008 (the 

31 base year), 2020, and 2030 and conducted modeling based on these three inventories for 

32 several locations, including Wind Cave National Park. The information derived from the regional 

33 PRB modeling primarily relates to changes in pollution concentrations caused by variations in 

34 emissions levels over time from all of the emission sources within the region. The trend at the 

35 regional level is that both the 2020 and 2030 modeled concentrations for all pollutants remain 

36 unchanged or tend to decrease relative to the 2008 base year (BLM, 2014a). In the recently 

37 published final EIS for the Buffalo Regional Management Plan, which assessed impacts from 

38 emissions generated in Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties, BLM noted concerns about 

39 the quality of the emission inventory and modeling in the PRB Coal Review (BLM, 2015a). BLM 

40 stated in the final EIS that they would not be using the PRB Coal Review air quality analysis to 

41 inform planning decisions for the Buffalo Regional Management Plan or for future projects in the 

42 planning area (BLM, 2015a). 

43 At this time, the NRC staff has not identified an appropriate information source to replace the 

44 PRB Coal Review air quality analysis. However, the NRC is aware of efforts currently underway 

45 that may provide additional relevant data. For example, BLM, in cooperation with the Forest 

46 Service, will develop an EIS for a large scale oil and gas project in Converse County proposing 

47 to drill approximately 5,000 oil and natural gas wells in Converse County in an area 
5-44 

1 encompassing approximately 1.5 million acres over a 10-year period (BLM, 2014b). Also, 

2 efforts by BLM are underway in South Dakota to conduct regional modeling to assess impacts 

3 to air quality and air quality related values (BLM, 2015b). Should those documents become 

4 available prior to publication of the final SEIS, then the NRC staff would consider any 

5 relevant information. 

6 The NRC staff conclude that current far-field impacts are MODERATE because of the visibility 

7 impacts experienced at Wind Cave National Park. Based on the currently available information, 

8 the NRC staff expect future impacts to continue at a similar level. However, based on known 

9 flaws in the currently available information (BLM, 2015a), the NRC staff acknowledge the 

10 possibility that future impacts to air quality could be LARGE. Therefore, the NRC staff 

11 determine that the far-field cumulative impacts on air quality resulting from other past, present, 

12 and reasonably foreseeable future actions could range from MODERATE to LARGE. 

13 Although there is uncertainty concerning future impacts to the far-field, the contribution of the 

14 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project to the far-field impacts is better understood. Uranium 

15 extraction only contributes a small portion of the overall emissions in the southern portion of the 

16 PRB (i.e., Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan Counties). The only pollutant generated from 

17 uranium extraction activities that contributes more than one percent to the overall emission 

18 levels is nitrogen dioxide at two percent (BLM, 2015a). These percentages are based on all of 

19 the uranium extraction projects in the southern portion of the PRB. Draft SEIS Table 5-1 

20 identifies nine active projects within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek project. Based 

21 on a comparison of the project and regional emission levels, the NRC staff conclude that the 

22 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL effect on the far-field air quality. When 

23 combining the incremental impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project with all the 

24 impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the region of 

25 influence, the NRC staff conclude that the cumulative impact for the far-field would be 

26 MODERATE to LARGE. Section C-5 of the draft SEIS Appendix C contains additional 

27 information on the draft SEIS approach for the far-field analysis. 

28 5.7.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change 

29 5.7.2.1 Global Climate Change and Contribution to Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Levels 

30 The impact magnitude resulting from a single source or a combination of greenhouse gas 

31 emission sources over a larger region must be placed in geographic context for the 

32 following reasons: 

33  The environmental impact is global rather than local or regional. 

34  The effect is not particularly sensitive to the location of the release point. 

35  The magnitude of individual greenhouse gas sources related to human activity, no 

36 matter how large compared to other sources, are small when compared to the total mass 

37 of greenhouse gases resident in the atmosphere. 

38  The total number and variety of greenhouse gas emission sources is extremely large, 

39 and the sources are ubiquitous. 

40 Consequently, the NRC staff determined that an appropriate approach to address the 

41 cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions (including carbon dioxide) is to recognize that 
5-45 

1  Greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change. 

2  Climate change is best characterized as the result of numerous and varied sources, 

3 each of which might seem to make a relatively small addition to global atmospheric 

4 greenhouse gas concentrations. 

5  A carbon footprint is a relevant factor in evaluating potential impacts of an alternative. 

6  Analysis may include both the proposed project’s contribution to atmospheric 

7 greenhouse gas levels and the potential effects of climate change on the 

8 proposed project. 

9 These concepts are more fully developed in the “Revised Draft Guidance on the Consideration 

10 of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA” (CEQ, 2014). 

11 Evaluation of cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions requires the use of a global 

12 climate model. The U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) report (GCRP, 2014) 

13 provides a synthesis of the results of numerous climate modeling studies. The NRC staff 

14 conclude that the cumulative impacts of greenhouse emissions around the world as presented 

15 in the GCRP report are an appropriate basis for its evaluation of cumulative impacts. Based 

16 primarily on the scientific assessments of the GCRP and National Research Council, the EPA 

17 Administrator issued a determination in 2009 (74 FR 66496) that greenhouse gases in the 

18 atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare, based on 

19 observed and projected effects of greenhouse gases, their effect on climate change, and the 

20 public health and welfare risks and effects associated with such climate change. Based on the 

21 effects set forth in the GCRP report and the CO2 emissions threshold criteria and general 

22 approach implemented in the final EPA “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V 

23 Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule” (75 FR 31514), the NRC staff conclude that the national and 

24 worldwide cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions are noticeable but not destabilizing 

25 (i.e., MODERATE). As described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2.2, the U.S. Supreme Court 

26 invalidated the portions of the Tailoring Rule stating that sources could be subject to EPA air 

27 permitting based solely on greenhouse gas emissions; however the Supreme Court did not 

28 invalidate the emission threshold criteria established in the Tailoring Rule or the general 

29 approach implemented by EPA. 

30 Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

31 The NRC staff consider that the proposed project generates low levels of greenhouse gases 

32 relative to other sources. Draft SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.6, 3.7.2.2, and 4.7 describe greenhouse 

33 gas emissions. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would generate an estimated total of 

34 41,719 metric tons [45,987 short tons] of carbon dioxide (see Table 2-5). As described in draft 

35 SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, the total amount of greenhouse gases associated with the proposed 

36 project would be below the thresholds identified by EPA. For purpose of this draft SEIS, the 

37 total emissions of the proposed project would be from both direct and indirect sources. Direct 

38 sources are those directly associated with the proposed project (e.g., emissions from diesel 

39 engines onsite) and would contribute 5,956 metric tons [6,565 short tons] of carbon dioxide to 

40 the total peak year emission estimate (draft SEIS see Table 2-5). Indirect sources include only 

41 offsite production of electricity consumed by the proposed project and would contribute 

42 35,763 metric tons [39,422 short tons] of carbon dioxide to the total peak year estimate (draft 

43 SEIS see Table 2-5). The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 

44 proposed project can be attributed to the one indirect source. For NEPA reviews, the CEQ 
5-46 

1 guidance identifies 25,000 metric tons [27,558 short tons] of carbon dioxide equivalents as a 

2 reference point for determining whether quantitative analysis is appropriate and considering 

3 whether the proposed project potentially emits large levels of greenhouse gases (CEQ, 2014). 

4 The proposed project’s emissions from direct sources would be below this CEQ reference point. 

5 Because emission estimates are below EPA thresholds and the CEQ reference point, the NRC 

6 staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would generate low levels of 

7 greenhouse gases relative to other sources (i.e., the project is not considered a large emitter or 

8 source of greenhouse gases) and would have a SMALL impact on air quality in terms of 

9 greenhouse gas emissions. 

10 Mitigation is one response strategy for addressing climate change. The emission inventory for 

11 the proposed project described in the preceding paragraph includes mitigation (e.g., carpooling). 

12 As described in draft SEIS Table 2-5, combustion emissions from mobile sources would make 

13 up the majority of direct carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed project. The applicant has 

14 committed to implementing a carpooling program, which would reduce the amount of carbon 

15 dioxide emissions associated with workers traveling to and from the proposed project area. 

16 Draft SEIS Appendix C Table C-13 specifies a 65.4 percent reduction in vehicle emissions from 

17 commuting as a result of carpooling. Draft SEIS Table 6-2 identifies other potential mitigation 

18 measures identified by the NRC but not committed to by the applicant. These mitigation 

19 measures include minimizing unnecessary travel and minimizing vehicle and equipment idle 

20 time. The NRC staff acknowledge that any reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at the 

21 project level would be reflected in a reduction of the overall greenhouse gas levels. However, 

22 the need to implement mitigation for a given project should take into account the relative amount 

23 of greenhouse gases produced by that project. As described in the preceding paragraph, the 

24 NRC staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would generate low levels of 

25 greenhouse gases relative to other sources. 

26 Cumulative impacts include the incremental effects from the proposed project when added to 

27 the aggregate effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The 

28 NRC staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL 

29 incremental impact on air quality in terms of greenhouse gas emissions when added to the 

30 MODERATE cumulative impacts anticipated from other greenhouse gas emissions from past, 

31 present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Because emission estimates are below 

32 EPA thresholds and the CEQ reference point, the NRC staff conclude that the proposed 

33 Reno Creek ISR Project would generate low levels of greenhouse gases relative to other 

34 sources (i.e., the project is not considered a large emitter or source of greenhouse gases) and 

35 would have a SMALL impact on air quality in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The NRC 

36 staff conclude that the national and worldwide impacts associated with greenhouse gas 

37 emissions are MODERATE because of the effects as described in the GCRP report and the 

38 general approach to addressing carbon dioxide emissions in the EPA Tailoring Rule, which 

39 established emission criteria thresholds and did not call for immediate action such as closure of 

40 greenhouse gas-emitting facilities (portions of the Tailoring Rule that were not invalidated by the 

41 U.S. Supreme Court). The NRC staff further conclude that the cumulative impacts would be 

42 noticeable but not destabilizing (i.e., MODERATE), with or without the greenhouse gas 

43 emissions of the proposed project. 

44 As described earlier in this draft SEIS section, the carbon footprint of the various alternatives is 

45 a relevant factor when evaluating potential impacts for the various alternatives. The No-Action 

46 Alternative eliminates the proposed project as a source of gaseous emissions that would 

47 contribute to the ambient greenhouse gas levels. The elimination of all project-level greenhouse 
5-47 

1 gas emission distinguishes the No-Action Alternative from the proposed action alternative which 

2 would generate low levels of greenhouse gases relative to other sources. 

3 5.7.2.2 Potential Effect of Climate Change on the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

4 The NRC staff acknowledge that climate change may have impacts across a wide variety of 

5 resource areas, including air, water, ecological, and human health. The GCRP describes these 

6 potential impacts in the report Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

7 Third National Climate Assessment (GCRP, 2014). In this section, the discussion of impacts 

8 from climate change on the environment focuses on those aspects of climate change that may 

9 affect the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (i.e., areas where the impacts of climate change 

10 and the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project overlap). 

11 While there is general agreement in the scientific community that some climate change is 

12 occurring, considerable uncertainty remains in the magnitude and direction of some of the 

13 changes, especially predicting trends in a specific geographic location. As described in draft 

14 SEIS Section 3.7.2, the recent report from the GCRP served as a source for climate change 

15 information (GCRP, 2014). 

16 Based on the information in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2, the overall effect of projected climate 

17 change on the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL. The temperature and 

18 precipitation projections discussed in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2.2 extend to the latter part of this 

19 century. Any changes in temperature and precipitation over the much shorter project lifespan 

20 are expected to be smaller. Much of the activity associated with ISR occurs below ground, 

21 whereas temperature and precipitation are parameters primarily associated with the surficial 

22 and atmospheric environment. Changes to groundwater availability are another potential 

23 overlapping effect with climate change since the proposed project would utilize groundwater. 

24 For example, in draft SEIS Section 2.1.2, the NRC staff estimate that the annual aquifer 

restoration water use would be about 0.20 million m3 25 [52 million gal]. However, potential 

26 changes to the proposed project area environment and resources, such as groundwater 

27 availability, are not expected to be altered over the lifespan of the project in a manner that would 

28 change the magnitude of the environmental impacts from what has already been evaluated in 

29 this draft SEIS. 

30 Resilience to climate change impacts can be a factor that distinguishes alternatives. As 

31 described in the preceding paragraph, changes to groundwater availability are a potential 

32 overlapping effect with climate change since the proposed project would utilize groundwater. 

33 The No-Action Alternative eliminates the need to utilize groundwater to support ISR activities. 

34 Therefore, the No-Action Alternative is more resilient to climate change impacts in terms of 

35 water usage than the proposed project because the No-Action Alternative does not utilize any 

36 groundwater. 

37 As described in draft SEIS Section 5.7.2.1, mitigation is one response strategy for addressing 

38 climate change. The other major response strategy is adaptation, which refers to actions to 

39 prepare for and adjust to new conditions created by climate change. As described previously in 

40 this section of the draft SEIS, the NRC staff consider the overall effect of projected climate 

41 change in relation to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project to be SMALL. The NRC staff are 

42 not aware of any adaption measures for climate change impacts associated with the proposed 

43 Reno Creek ISR project. 
5-48 

1 5.8 Noise 

2 The geographic boundary of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project for the cumulative impacts 

3 assessment from noise was assessed within an 8-km [5-mi] radius. This boundary was chosen 

4 because noise dissipates quickly from the source. As stated in GEIS Section 4.3.7, sound 

5 levels as high as 132 dBA will taper off to the lower limit of human hearing (20 dBA) at a 

6 distance of 6 km [3.7 mi] in this region (NRC, 2009). The timeframe for the analysis is from 

7 2012 to 2030. 

8 Noise associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project includes the operation of 

9 equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and compressors; traffic due to commuting workers or 

10 material/waste shipments; and wellfield and the CPP operations. This draft SEIS has identified 

11 these noise impacts for all phases of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project as SMALL (see 

12 draft SEIS Section 4.8). During preconstruction, noise impacts would be similar to those 

13 described for the construction phase (i.e., SMALL) (AUC, 2014). 

14 The GEIS noted that noise would not be discernible to an offsite person at distances of greater 

15 than 300 m [1,000 ft] (NRC, 2009). There are currently six occupants living in five residences 

16 outside the proposed project area. The closest offsite residences are located approximately 

17 2.0 km [1.25 mi] southeast and 2.7 km [1.7 mi] east of the proposed project area. Because the 

18 closest residents live beyond 300 m [1,000 ft] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, 

19 there would be no noise impact above background levels. 

20 Present and reasonably foreseeable future noise-generating activities in the cumulative noise 

21 impacts study area would primarily be from operating heavy equipment and traffic noise 

22 associated with (i) oil and gas and CBM operations, (ii) ISR operations, and (iii) wind 

23 energy projects. 

24 There are 324 CBM wells within 3.2 km [2 mi] and 46 oil and gas producing wells within 8 km 

25 [5 mi] of the proposed project area (see draft SEIS Section 3.2). Oil and gas and CBM 

26 operations generate noise during construction of drill pads, well drilling, and operation of 

27 compressor stations. Noise levels associated with operation of compressor stations would be 

28 expected to be below 55 dBA at distances of 488 m [1,600 ft] and beyond (BLM, 2003). Noise 

29 levels associated with drill pad construction and well drilling would be expected to decrease to 

30 54 dBA at 610 m [2,000 ft] from the drill site (BLM, 2003). A noise level of 55 dBA is the level 

31 that protects human receptors against interference and annoyance with an adequate margin of 

32 safety (EPA, 1974). 

33 At this time, no future ISR projects have been identified within the cumulative noise impacts 

34 study area {i.e., within an 8-km [5-mi] radius of the proposed Reno Creek ISR site}. However, 

35 there are five potential ISR projects (in prelicensing, licensing, or operational phases) within 

36 24 km [15 mi] of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (see draft SEIS Table 5-1). These 

37 operating and potential ISR projects could contribute to noise within the study area from 

38 additional traffic on State Highway 387 from commuting workers, construction and operations 

39 deliveries, and yellowcake and byproduct transport. State Highway 387 traverses the 

40 cumulative noise impacts study area and is a primary regional highway providing access to 

41 operating and potential ISR projects located south and southwest of Gillette and west of Wright 

42 (see draft SEIS Figure 5-1). 

43 Construction of a wind energy project, such as the potential Reno Junction Wind Project, would 

44 produce noise from activities including access road construction, grading, drilling and blasting 
5-49 

1 (for tower foundations), construction of ancillary structures, cleanup, and revegetation. In 

2 general, construction activities would last for a short period (e.g., 1 to 2 years) and would occur 

3 during the day; accordingly, potential noise impacts would be temporary and intermittent in 

4 nature. Noise generated by turbines, substations, transmission lines, and maintenance 

5 activities during the operational phase of a wind energy project would approach typical 

6 background levels for rural areas at distances of 610 m [2,000 ft] or less. Like construction 

7 activities, decommissioning activities would occur during the day and would last for a short 

8 period compared with wind turbine operation, and therefore the potential impacts would be 

9 temporary and intermittent in nature (BLM, 2005). 

10 Noise may also have impacts on wildlife. For further information on the cumulative impacts on 

11 terrestrial ecology and applicant mitigation measures and monitoring, see draft SEIS Section 5.6 

12 and Chapters 6 and 7 (Mitigation and Monitoring, respectively). 

13 The NRC staff has concluded that the cumulative impact of noise within the study area resulting 

14 from all ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be MODERATE. There are 

15 extensive oil and gas and CMB operations in the cumulative impact study area that contribute to 

16 noise above background levels. Existing and potential ISR projects could contribute to traffic 

17 noise along State Highway 387, which traverses the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area, 

18 from commuting workers, equipment and materials deliveries, and yellowcake and byproduct 

19 transport. During operation of potential wind energy projects, such as the Reno Junction Wind 

20 Project, noise generated by turbines, substations, transmission lines, and maintenance activities 

21 would approach typical background levels for rural areas at distances of 610 m [2,000 ft] or 

22 beyond (BLM, 2005). 

23 5.8.1 Summary 

24 In summary, there are few human noise receptors (e.g., residences or communities) in the 

25 cumulative impacts noise study area. As described in SEIS Sections 4.8.1 and 4.6.1, noise 

26 generated by construction and operations activities at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

27 would dissipate or be reduced by mitigation measures before reaching onsite and offsite human 

28 receptors. Additionally, noise levels would be mitigated by administrative and engineering 

29 controls to maintain noise levels in work areas below Occupational Safety and Health 

30 Administration (OSHA) regulatory limits. The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Reno 

31 Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental effect on noise when added to the 

32 MODERATE cumulative impacts from all ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 

33 the noise study area. 

34 5.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 

35 Cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources were assessed within a 16-km [10-mi] 

36 radius of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. This area delineates the geographic boundary 

37 utilized for the cumulative analysis of historic and cultural resources and will be referred to as 

38 the “historic and cultural resources study area.” The historic and cultural resource study area 

39 covers a larger spatial extent than either the direct or indirect Area of Potential Effect (APE) in 

40 order to evaluate activities outside of the proposed project area. The assessment of cumulative 

41 impacts on historic and cultural resources beyond 16 km [10 mi] was not undertaken because, 

42 at this distance, the impacts on historic and cultural resources from the proposed Reno Creek 

43 ISR Project on other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimal. 

44 The timeframe for this analysis is 2012 to 2030, based on the estimated operating life of this 

45 proposed project. 
5-50 

1 Potential impacts to cultural and historic resources could result from energy development, 

2 erosion, and grazing activities. Additionally, activities on both public and private lands include 

3 oil, gas, CBM, and coal development. These activities are ongoing and are projected to expand 

4 in the future. Impacts from these activities would result primarily from the loss or damage to 

5 historical, cultural, and archaeological resources, but also from temporary restrictions on access 

6 to these resources. All applicants for ISR facilities would conduct appropriate historic and 

7 cultural resource surveys as part of pre-license application activities. Impacts to cultural 

8 resources can be minimized for proposed projects located on federal or tribal lands or that are 

9 part of a federal action, because such projects are subject to the National Historic Preservation 

10 Act (NHPA), the Section 106 consultation process, and other applicable statutes. 

11 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have the potential for cumulative 

12 effects on historic and cultural resources identified in the cumulative impacts study area include 

13 uranium exploration and extraction, oil and gas exploration, coal mining, CBM, wind energy 

14 projects, transportation projects, and other aggregate mining (see draft SEIS Sections 5.1.1.1 

15 through 5.1.1.7). Historic and cultural resources may be affected by the consequences of 

16 nearby projects, such as erosion, destabilization of land surfaces, increased area access, and 

17 increased vibration from locomotive and heavy truck traffic. 

18 As new developments start, it is anticipated that activities associated with surface-disturbing 

19 activities would be surveyed for historic and cultural resources, as appropriate. Surveys by 

20 professional archaeologists and cultural specialists would identify and evaluate National 

21 Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility prior to proposed project construction. In addition, 

22 identification of properties of importance to Native American tribes will also need to be 

23 undertaken as part of consultation. If NRHP-eligible sites are found, appropriate levels of 

24 evaluation and mitigation would be required prior to construction. 

25 Within the historic and cultural resources study area there are four ISR facilities in various 

26 stages of prelicensing, are licensed, or are operating (proposed Jane Dough ISR Project, 

27 proposed Ruby Ranch ISR Project, Moore Ranch ISR Project, and Nichols Ranch ISR Project, 

28 see draft SEIS Table 5-1). The proposed Jane Dough ISR Project and proposed Ruby Ranch 

29 ISR Project are in prelicensing, Moore Ranch ISR Project was licensed but is not currently 

30 operating, and Nichols Ranch ISR Project is licensed and operating. Because both the 

31 proposed Jane Dough ISR Project and proposed Ruby Ranch ISR Project are not licensed at 

32 this time, there is no information available regarding the presence or absence of archeological 

33 sites eligible for the NRHP. However, any potential impacts to historic and cultural resources at 

34 these proposed sites would likely be minimized, since these projects would be subject to the 

35 NHPA, Section 106 consultation process, and applicable statutes. The historic and cultural 

36 resource analysis for the Moore Ranch ISR Project indicated that no sites in the direct APE 

37 were eligible for the NRHP (NRC, 2010). However, as noted, the Moore Ranch ISR Project has 

38 been licensed but is not currently operating. The operating Nichols Ranch ISR Project has one 

39 archaeological site at the Nichols Ranch Unit and seven archaeological sites at the Hank Unit 

40 eligible for listing on the NRHP. However, the licensee has committed to avoiding the site on 

41 the Nichols Ranch Unit. Of the seven NRHP-eligible sites at the Hank Unit, there would be an 

42 adverse effect to the visual setting of five traditional cultural properties (TCPs), which include 

43 the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. These sites would be marked, fenced, and avoided. Mitigation for 

44 the Pumpkin Buttes TCP would be conducted in accordance with a Programmatic Agreement 

45 (PA) between the BLM and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WY SHPO), which 

46 applies to BLM-administered lands and federal uranium leaseholders extracting uranium from 

47 federally owned subsurface minerals within 3.2-km [2-mi] of the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. 
5-51 

1 Archaeological and historic sites and artifacts are present near the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

2 Project area; therefore, any present and future projects could potentially cause adverse impacts 

3 to these sites and artifacts in the absence of appropriate mitigative strategies. However, with 

4 recommended strategies in place (e.g., avoidance or construction monitoring) the impact would 

5 be SMALL to MODERATE. Therefore, the NRC staff have determined that the cumulative 

6 impact on historic and cultural resources within the historic and cultural resources study 

7 area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is SMALL 

8 to MODERATE. 

9 The analysis of cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources at the proposed project 

10 focused on identification of archeological sites and the assessment and implementation of 

11 mitigative measures to protect resources within both the direct and indirect APE. As described 

12 in draft SEIS Section 4.9.1, archaeological field investigations of the proposed project identified 

13 74 cultural localities. None of these 74 cultural localities were recommended or determined 

14 eligible for listing on the NRHP. Tribal survey teams identified 6 new cultural sites and 

15 22 isolated cultural artifact locations. As stated in draft SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.5, the NRC staff 

16 have determined that none of the sites are eligible for listing in the NRHP. However, following 

17 tribal government consultation, the NRC staff have recommended mitigation procedures for 

18 ineligible tribal resources (48CA7251 and 48CA7252) that would be subject to ground-disturbing 

19 activities from the proposed project (e.g., avoidance and construction monitoring). The NRC 

20 staff have determined that avoidance is possible for 48CA7251. However, avoidance may not 

21 be possible for 48CA7252 based on proposed project plans. As presented in draft SEIS 

22 Section 4.9.1, the Northern Arapaho Tribe has recommended that construction monitoring by a 

23 tribal member could serve to mitigate the possible adverse effect to 48CA7252. The applicant 

24 has also committed to the use of an inadvertent discovery plan to address the potential 

25 identification of previously unrecorded historic and cultural resources during all phases of the 

26 proposed project (AUC, 2012a). The inadvertent discovery plan typically entails the stoppage of 

27 work and the notification of appropriate parties (federal, tribal, and state agencies) (NRC, 2009). 

28 Within the historic and cultural resources study area for this cumulative impacts analysis are the 

29 Pumpkin Buttes, located approximately 12 km [7.5 mi] from the proposed project area boundary. 

30 The Pumpkin Buttes have been identified as a TCP and have potential cultural affiliation with 

31 nine Tribes (SWCA, 2006). As previously stated, there is a PA between the BLM and the 

32 WY SHPO regarding mitigation of adverse effects to the Pumpkin Buttes TCP. The proposed 

33 Reno Creek ISR Project would be located at least 8.6 km [5.5 mi] outside of the PA boundary. 

34 While the TCP is outside of the PA boundary, the Pumpkin Buttes are visible from most of the 

35 Reno Creek ISR Project. Although not required by the PA, the applicant has committed to 

36 reduce the visual impact by using neutral paint colors for its proposed facilities and 

37 infrastructure (AUC, 2014). 

38 The NRC staff assessed the potential visual impact to the integrity of setting for the Pumpkin 

39 Buttes. The area between the Pumpkin Buttes and the proposed project currently contains 

40 intrusive modern elements (e.g., public roads and oil drilling stations). The existence of small 

41 modern intrusions already obstructs the visual line between the proposed project and the 

42 Pumpkin Buttes. Therefore, the addition of the proposed project to this setting would not 

43 significantly change the setting of the Pumpkin Buttes or the qualities of setting and feeling 

44 associated with the Pumpkin Buttes. Due to the distance between the proposed project and the 

45 Pumpkin Buttes (outside the PA boundary), the current surface-disturbing activities in the area 

46 (e.g., oil and gas exploration, coal mining, and CBM exploration), and the presence of existing 

47 intrusive modern elements already obstructing the visual line to the Pumpkin Buttes, the NRC 
5-52 

1 staff conclude that the impact to the visual setting of historic and cultural resources would 

2 be SMALL. 

3 5.9.1 Summary 

4 As discussed previously in draft SEIS Section 4.9.1, the NRC staff concluded that the project 

5 activities would have a SMALL impact because: (i) archaeological field investigations within the 

6 direct APE area identified no historic and cultural sites that are recommended as eligible for 

7 listing in the NRHP; (ii) impacts to eligible historic and cultural sites in the indirect APE would 

8 result in negligible effects due to the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures; (iii) the applicant 

9 has committed to using neutral paint schemes for the proposed project facilities and 

10 infrastructure, and (iv) the applicant agreed to an inadvertent discovery plan that would mitigate 

11 the potential adverse effect on future sites. As a result, the NRC staff conclude that the 

12 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental impact on historic and 

13 cultural resources when added to the SMALL to MODERATE cumulative impact from all other 

14 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

15 5.10 Visual and Scenic Resources 

16 Cumulative impacts to visual and scenic resources were assessed within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius 

17 of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Beyond this distance, any changes to the landscape 

18 would be in the background distance zone for the purposes of Visual Resource Management 

19 (VRM) defined by BLM, and would be either unobtrusive or imperceptible to viewers (BLM, 

20 1984, 1986). The timeframe for the analysis is 2012 to 2030. 

21 At present, human-made features within and in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project 

22 area include roads, power lines, telephone and electric lines and poles, ranch residences, fence 

23 lines, a CBM compressor station, pumpjacks, and reservoirs. The primary visual features on 

24 the landscape (i.e., the background distance zone) are oil and gas production facilities, which 

25 are visible due to their vertical profile (i.e., they are taller than ISR wellheads). Energy 

26 development is expected to continue over the next 20 years within the PRB region. Past, 

27 present and reasonably foreseeable future projects could include construction of uranium 

28 recovery facilities, transportation infrastructure, a coal-fired power plant, major transmission 

29 lines, coal technology projects, oil and gas facilities, and CBM processing plants. Each of these 

30 activities could have an impact on visual and scenic resources, although these would be 

31 anticipated to be developed in the background distance zone {i.e., greater than 3.2-km [2-mi]) 

32 away. As described in draft SEIS Sections 5.1.1.1 through 5.1.1.7, the operating and proposed 

33 projects (i.e., uranium recovery, coal, oil and gas, CBM, wind, transportation, and aggregate 

34 mining) are not within the visual and scenic cumulative impacts study area. Therefore, the NRC 

35 staff conclude that the cumulative impact from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

36 actions on visual and scenic resources in the study area would be SMALL. 

37 With respect to potential cumulative effects, resource development in the vicinity of the 

38 proposed project may affect the visual and scenic resources associated with the Pumpkin 

39 Buttes TCP and any associated TCPs. The viewshed (from the location of the proposed CPP) 

40 for the general area is classified by BLM as a VRM Class III resource, with no VRM Class I 

41 areas nearby. As discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.10.1.1, the proposed project activities 

42 would have a SMALL impact because the most effect on visual and scenic resources would be 

43 temporary (e.g. less than 2 years construction per wellfield and removal of buildings and 

44 infrastructure during decommissioning). During operations all pipes and cables would be 
5-53 

1 buried and therefore not visible. The applicant has also committed to implementing mitigation 

2 (e.g., reclaiming and reseeding areas, using dust suppression methods, and using neutral paint 

3 colors for structures), which would reduce the visual and scenic impacts associated with the 

4 proposed project and would be consistent with the VRM Class III objectives (AUC, 2012a). 

5 Furthermore, the proposed project would be located more than 181.9 km [113 mi] from the PSD 

6 Class I area at Wind Cave National Park and 63 km [40 mi] away from the nearest VRM Class II 

7 area. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that visual and scenic impacts from the proposed 

8 project for all project phases would be SMALL. 

9 5.10.1 Summary 

10 Due to the structures and infrastructure currently present within the study area, the anticipated 

11 continuation of energy development activities and associated continued use of the current 

12 infrastructure, and the remote location of the proposed project in relation to other potential 

13 projects in the area, the NRC staff has concluded that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

14 would have a SMALL incremental effect on visual and scenic resources when added to the 

15 SMALL cumulative impacts from all past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 

16 the visual and scenic resources study area. 

17 5.11 Socioeconomics 

18 As described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.2, the timeframe for this cumulative impacts analysis for 

19 socioeconomics resources begins in 2013 and ends in 2030. The following socioeconomic 

20 indicators were evaluated as part of the analysis: 

21  Population 

22  Employment 

23  Housing 

24  School enrollment 

25  Public services 

26  Local Finance 

27 The geographic boundary varies for the socioeconomic resource indicators listed above and is 

28 described as part of the analysis for each indicator. The potential socioeconomic impacts for 

29 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL as described in draft SEIS 

30 Section 4.11. 

31 5.11.1 Population 

32 The geographic boundary, or study area, for the cumulative population analysis includes 

33 Campbell County and surrounding counties (Johnson, Natrona, Converse, and Weston). 

34 Population change over time is generally an excellent indicator of cumulative social and 

35 economic change in a given area. Population changes and projections for counties within the 

36 geographic boundary for the cumulative population analysis are shown in draft SEIS Table 5-5. 

37 Population in all of the counties within the cumulative population analysis study area increased 

38 from 2000 to 2010. The greatest increases in population from 2000 to 2010 occurred in 

39 Campbell and Johnson counties, with percentage increases of 36.9 and 21.1, respectively. 

40 Population in all of the counties is projected to continue to increase in 2020 and 2030. The 
5-54 

Table 5-5. 2000–2010 Population Change and 2020/2030 Populations Projections 

for Counties Within the Geographic Boundary for the Cumulative 

Population Analysis 

State/County 

2000 

Census 

2010 

Census 

Percent 

Change 

2000/2010 

Population 

Projections 

2020 2030 

State of Wyoming 493,782 563,626 14.1 622,360 668,830 

Campbell County 33,698 46,133 36.9 56,890 66,060 

Johnson County 7,075 8,569 21.1 9,450 10,450 

Natrona County 66,533 75,450 13.4 82,490 88,320 

Converse County 12,052 13,833 14.8 15,950 17,270 

Weston County 6,644 7,280 9.6 7,900 8,120 

Sources: USCB, 2014; WDAI, 2011 

1 greatest percentage increase in population is projected for Campbell County, with projected 

2 increases of 23.3 percent from 2010 to 2020 and 16.1 percent from 2020 to 2030. 

3 If the reasonably foreseeable future actions described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1 go forward 

4 and become functional within the boundary of the cumulative population analysis study area, 

5 workers would be needed to build and operate these facilities. These future actions include 

6 potential wind energy projects, such as the Reno Junction Wind Project, and proposed 

7 transportation projects, such as the DM&E PRB Expansion Project. Additional workers would 

8 also be needed to staff any expansion in uranium, oil and gas, coal, and CBM extraction 

9 projects. It is likely that any additional workers would desire to live closer to their places of 

10 employment and become active in their communities. The town of Wright (population 1,807) 

11 and the cities of Gillette (population 29,087) and Casper (population 55,318) may see 

12 population increases associated with these future actions in the population study area. 

13 Assuming that energy and transportation projects are developed and constructed, the addition 

14 of new workers in these communities would have a MODERATE cumulative impact on 

15 population. The relatively small pool of workers associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

16 Project (80 short-term positions during construction, 92 positions during operations, 52 positions 

17 during aquifer restoration, and 22 positions during decommissioning) would have only a SMALL 

18 incremental impact on population. If a disproportionate number of workers associated with the 

19 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project elect to reside in small towns close to the proposed project, 

20 such as Wright, the incremental impact on population could be MODERATE. 

21 5.11.2 Employment 

22 The geographic boundary (study area) for the cumulative employment analysis includes 

23 Campbell County and surrounding counties (Johnson, Natrona, Converse, and Weston). While 

24 no individual county employment projections are available, the latest long-term occupational and 

25 industry projections from the Research and Planning Section of the Wyoming Department of 

26 Workforce Services (WDWS) indicate that Wyoming’s job market will expand during the 10-year 

27 period from 2012 to 2022 (WDWS, 2014a,b). Long-term industry projections indicate that total 

28 employment across all industries is expected to increase by an estimated 35,842 jobs 

29 (12.9 percent) from 2012 to 2022 (WDWS, 2014a). However, over this 10-year period, total 

30 employment in the mining industry is expected to increase by only 1,114 jobs (4.0 percent). 

31 Employment in mining other than oil and gas extraction is expected to decline by an estimated 

32 565 jobs (-5.7 percent) from 2012 to 2022. This decline in employment is due to current and 
5-55 

1 expected contraction in CBM extraction and coal mining (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.2 

2 and 5.1.1.4). 

3 The cumulative employment analysis study area may experience an increased rate of 

4 employment from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may occur (see draft 

5 SEIS Section 5.1.1). If the potential Reno Junction Wind Project and the proposed DM&E PRB 

6 Expansion Project are financed and developed, workers would be needed to build and operate 

7 these projects. Wind energy projects are expected to employ 100 to 150 workers during a 1- to 

8 2-year construction period and 10 to 20 workers to operate and maintain the projects (BLM, 

9 2005). The proposed DM&E project would employ more than 900 workers over the 2- to 3-year 

10 construction phase (STB, 2001). However, only a small portion of the overall workforce would 

11 be located in a single location at any one time. Once a particular phase of the DM&E project is 

12 complete, workers would relocate to other job locations (STB, 2001). Workers may also be 

13 required to staff potential ISR facilities in the study area (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.1). It is 

14 assumed that potential ISR facilities would employ the same number of workers as the 

15 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (80 during construction, 92 during operations, 52 during 

16 aquifer restoration, and 22 during decommissioning). The projected job growth related to 

17 reasonably foreseeable future actions would result in SMALL to MODERATE cumulative 

18 impacts on employment in the study area. Based on the estimated number of workers expected 

19 for the proposed project, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL 

20 incremental impact on employment in the study area.

21 5.11.3 Housing 

22 The geographic boundary (Study area) for the cumulative housing analysis includes Campbell 

23 County and surrounding counties (Johnson, Natrona, Converse, and Weston). Housing would 

24 be required to accommodate workers moving into the study area to staff ongoing and 

25 reasonably foreseeable future actions (e.g., oil and gas and CBM operations, ISR operations, 

26 and wind energy and transportation projects). Smaller communities in the study area, such as 

27 Wright, could experience housing impacts due to limited housing availability. Assuming, 

28 however, that new employees and their families relocate to one of the larger communities, such 

29 as Gillette, there would be adequate housing to absorb the influx of facility workers from 

30 ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Therefore, the cumulative impact on 

31 housing from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area would be 

32 expected to be SMALL. Given the estimated number of potential Reno Creek ISR Project 

33 employees (80 during construction, 92 during operations, 52 during aquifer restoration, and 

34 22 during decommissioning), there would be a SMALL incremental impact to housing markets, 

35 prices, and real estate development in larger communities such as Gillette. However, housing 

36 impacts may be MODERATE if a disproportionate number of employees at the proposed Reno 

37 Creek ISR Project elect to reside in smaller communities, such as Wright. 

38 5.11.4 Education 

39 Campbell County School District #1, Johnson County School District #1, and Natrona County 

40 School District #1 represent the geographic boundary (study area) for the school enrollment 

41 resource analysis. These school districts were selected because most permanent Reno Creek 

42 ISR Project employees would be likely to live in one of these school districts. Most of the 

43 construction workforce, however, in not expected to relocate entire families during the relatively 

44 brief construction phase (2 years). Student enrollment in these school districts totaled 

45 22,742 students in 2014 with 8,705 students in Campbell County School District #1, 

46 1,287 students in Johnson County School District #1, and 12,750 students in Natrona County 
5-56 

1 School District #1 (see draft SEIS Table 3-30). The Wright public schools within the Campbell 

2 County School District #1 are the closest schools to the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and 

3 had a total enrollment of 506 students during the 2012–2013 school year (WDOE, 2014). 

4 Most of the construction workforce for the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

5 described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1 is not expected to relocate entire families into the school 

6 enrollment study area. The construction phases of future actions, such as wind projects, ISR 

7 facilities, and transportation projects, are relatively brief, ranging from 1 to 3 years. During 

8 operations of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions, new employees would be 

9 more likely to move their families and send their children to schools in the study area. The 

10 potential increase in school-aged children would likely be split between the school districts in the 

11 school enrollment study area. Based on the number of permanent employees needed to 

12 operate reasonably foreseeable future actions (e.g., 92 for ISR facilities, 10 to 20 for wind 

13 projects, and about 12 for transportation projects), cumulative impacts to school enrollment are 

14 expected to be SMALL. Based on the number or workers (92) estimated for the operations 

15 phase, the proposed project would have a SMALL incremental impact on school resources in 

16 the school enrollment study area. However, school enrollment impacts may be MODERATE if a 

17 disproportionate number of employees at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project elect to reside 

18 in smaller communities close to the proposed project, such as Wright.

19 5.11.5 Public Services 

20 The geographic boundary (study area) for the cumulative public services analysis includes 

21 Campbell County and surrounding counties (Johnson, Natrona, Converse, and Weston). There 

22 may be incremental impacts to local government facilities and public services as population 

23 increases in affected counties and communities, which generally result in across-the-board 

24 increases in the demand on services. Even small changes in population size may result in 

25 additional demand for health and human services, such as doctors, hospitals, police, and fire 

26 response. Additionally, the various reasonably foreseeable future actions described in draft 

27 SEIS Section 5.1.1 may result in increased demand for specific services (e.g., road 

28 maintenance). Operational impacts to public services and public infrastructure, as a result of 

29 the workers relocating with their families, would be area-specific, and may be long-term 

30 (10 years or longer). As described in draft SEIS Section 3.11.7, there are a number of existing 

31 medical and emergency facilities that would be capable of handling support for an increased 

32 population. Additionally, the State of Wyoming has numerous social services offices located 

33 throughout the state. The Wyoming Department of Health has a Public Health Nursing office in 

34 Gillette. This office provides primary and preventative health services, including family planning; 

35 immunizations; Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and 

36 maternal and family health. The Wyoming Department of Family Services has a local office in 

37 Gillette, which provides assistance for connecting with community resources; reporting child and 

38 adult abuse and neglect; and applying for programs, including Supplemental Nutrition 

39 Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Medicaid. 

40 The Wyoming Department of Family Services also has foster care coordinators located in all the 

41 counties in the cumulative public services study area. It is not anticipated that additional 

42 population from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions would stress the current 

43 social services capabilities in the public services study area. Therefore, cumulative impacts to 

44 public services would be expected to be SMALL. Given the number of workers required for the 

45 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project (80 during construction, 92 during operations, 52 during 

46 aquifer restoration, and 22 during decommissioning), incremental impacts on public services 

47 from the proposed project would be SMALL. 
5-57 

1 5.11.6 Local Finance 

2 The geographic boundary (study area) for the cumulative local finance analysis is Campbell 

3 County. Tax revenue would accrue mainly in Campbell County and to the State of Wyoming; 

4 and because of the structure of the tax system, taxes may not accrue or be distributed to the 

5 localities proportionate to the population/public service impacts experienced by those entities. 

6 The tax system in place helps capture tax revenue during construction, operations, and 

7 decommissioning of industrial facilities. Additionally, a county ad valorem tax from current and 

8 future mineral extraction operations would contribute to local government revenue. Indirectly, 

9 counties and municipalities would benefit from increased sales and property tax revenue from 

10 increases in population and resultant demand for goods, services, and housing. If reasonably 

11 foreseeable future actions, such as wind energy, ISR projects, and transportation projects, are 

12 constructed and operated, there would be a MODERATE cumulative impact on local finance. In 

13 draft SEIS Section 4.11.1.2.5, the NRC staff concluded that the tax revenue impact from the 

14 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project operations on taxing jurisdictions in Campbell County would 

15 be SMALL. Therefore, contributions from the proposed project are expected to have a SMALL 

16 incremental impact on local finance.

17 5.11.7 Summary 

18 In summary, the NRC staff determined that the cumulative impact on socioeconomic resources 

19 resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions ranges from SMALL to 

20 MODERATE. Impacts to population and local finance would be MODERATE; impacts to 

21 employment would be SMALL to MODERATE, and impacts to housing, education, and public 

22 services would be SMALL. 

23 The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would have a SMALL to 

24 MODERATE incremental effect on socioeconomic resources when considered with other past, 

25 present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Impacts to population, housing, and education 

26 would be SMALL to MODERATE, while impacts to employment, public services, and local 

27 finance would be SMALL. 

28 5.12 Environmental Justice 

29 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions described in draft SEIS Section 5.1.1 

30 could potentially contribute to cumulative disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

31 environmental effects in the PRB. However, the geographic area considered in this cumulative 

32 environmental justice analysis includes a 6.4-km [4-mi] radius around the proposed Reno Creek 

33 ISR Project, consistent with the NRC guidance described in draft SEIS Section 4.12.1. Potential 

34 impacts to minority and low-income populations from the construction, operations, aquifer 

35 restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are discussed in 

36 draft SEIS Section 4.12. 

37 No minority and low-income populations have been identified as residing near the proposed 

38 Reno Creek ISR Project. The percentage of minority and low-income populations living within a 

39 6.4-km [4-mi] radius of the proposed project area are comparable to the percentage of those 

40 minority and low-income populations recorded at the county and state level, and less than half 

41 of the national level. The NRC staff concluded in draft SEIS Section 4.1.2 that there would be 

42 no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations from 

43 the construction, operations, aquifer restoration and decommissioning of the proposed 
5-58 

1 Reno Creek ISR Project. In addition, no special pathway receptors or traditional or cultural 

2 practices of minority and low-income populations were identified. 

3 5.12.1 Summary 

4 In summary, based on the finding that there are no minority or low-income populations within 

5 the a 6.4-km [4-mi] radius around the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, and the findings of the 

6 analysis of human health and environmental impacts presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this draft 

7 SEIS, the NRC staff conclude that any impacts from the construction, operations, aquifer 

8 restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project when added to other 

9 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the area, would not result in 

10 disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations. 

11 5.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety 

12 Cumulative effects on public and occupational health and safety were evaluated within an 

13 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. This distance was chosen to be 

14 inclusive of areas in the region where uranium milling has been practiced. The timeframe for 

15 the analysis is 2012 to 2030 (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating life of 

16 the facility). 

17 The public and occupational health and safety impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

18 Project would be SMALL and are discussed in detail in draft SEIS Section 4.13.1. During 

19 normal activities associated with all phases of the project lifecycle, radiological and 

20 nonradiological worker and public health and safety impacts would be SMALL. Annual 

21 radiological doses to the population within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project would be far 

22 below applicable NRC regulations. For accidents, radiological and nonradiological impacts to 

23 workers may be MODERATE if the appropriate mitigation measures and other procedures 

24 intended to ensure worker safety are not followed. Typical protection measures, such as 

25 radiation and occupational monitoring, respiratory protection, standard operating procedures for 

26 spill response and cleanup, and worker training in radiological health and emergency response, 

27 would be required as a part of the applicant’s NRC-approved Radiation Protection Program 

28 (AUC, 2012b). These procedures and plans would reduce the overall radiological and 

29 nonradiological impacts to workers from accidents to SMALL. 

30 Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future uranium recovery facilities in the vicinity of the 

31 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and within the broader regional area are described in draft 

32 SEIS Section 5.1.1 and Table 5-1. Within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed Reno Creek 

33 ISR Project, there are several licensed ISR facilities (draft SEIS Section 3.12.2). 

34 Willow Creek–Irigaray and Christensen Ranch ISR facilities in Johnson County, Wyoming; the 

35 Smith Ranch ISR facility in Converse County, Wyoming; and Nichols Ranch ISR facility in 

36 Campbell County, Wyoming (including the Hank Unit), are licensed and operating. Moore 

37 Ranch ISR facility located in Campbell County, Wyoming, is licensed but currently 

38 nonoperational. The North Butte ISR satellite in Campbell County, Wyoming, is licensed and 

39 operating. The Ruth ISR satellite in Johnson County, Wyoming, and the Reynolds Ranch ISR 

40 satellite in Converse County, Wyoming, are licensed but are currently nonoperational. 

41 Additionally, several inactive and decommissioned conventional uranium mills are in the 80-km 

42 [50-mi] radius. However, because of their relative distances, none of these projects are 

43 considered to represent an appreciable additional source of radiation exposure in and around 

44 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area that would significantly increase the estimated 
5-59 

1 radiation exposure from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Other than CBM activities, 

2 there are no major sources of nonradioactive, chemical releases to the atmosphere or water3 receiving bodies in the immediate area surrounding the proposed project area. The potential 

4 effects from nonradiological releases to the atmosphere and water resources are described in 

5 draft SEIS Sections 5.7 and 5.5. 

6 In addition, four ISR expansions are in the planning or licensing stages: Ludeman (Uranium 

7 One: Willow Creek), Jane Dough (Uranerz: Nichols Ranch), Allemand Ross (Uranium One: 

8 Willow Creek), and Ruby Ranch (Cameco: Smith Ranch-Highland). The applicant has also 

9 identified a potential ISR project, Collins Draw in Campbell County (in between Nichols Ranch 

10 and Moore Ranch sites); however, the NRC staff have not received a letter of intent to submit a 

11 proposal for this site. If constructed and operated, all of these facilities would have similar 

12 radiological and nonradiological impacts on public and occupational health and safety to those 

13 at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. These facilities would result in localized incremental 

14 increases in annual radiological doses to the nearby populations; however, these radiological 

15 doses are not expected to significantly overlap and increase those of other facilities and are not 

16 expected to affect the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, as described in the following analysis. 

17 As stated in draft SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.1, during normal operations, radon (Rn-222) would be 

18 the only significant radionuclide released at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The primary 

19 sources of radon (Rn-222) would be wellfield venting and process operations at the CPP 

20 (predominantly via vent stacks on the ion-exchange columns and various tanks). As further 

21 described in draft SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.1, the applicant’s maximum calculated dose to a 

22 member of the public is at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project boundary at a location east of 

23 the CPP and Production Unit 8 and northeast of Production Unit 11. This maximum calculated 

24 dose is 0.023 mSv/yr [2.3 mrem/yr] and is within the range of results from similar calculations 

25 at other operating ISR facilities in the United States (NRC, 2009). Beyond the site boundary, 

26 the magnitude of the applicant’s dose estimates for residences at various locations and 

27 distances is significantly reduced and consistent with the NRC staff expectations [the airborne 

28 radon (Rn-222) becomes more dispersed as the distance from release points increases]. The 

29 applicant’s maximum calculated dose at a nearby residence is 0.0031 mSv/yr [0.31 mrem/yr]. 

30 This residence is located approximately 2.4 km [1.5 mi] downwind from venting production units. 

31 The low magnitude of these calculated doses and the significant attenuation of dose with 

32 distance support the NRC staff’s conclusion that the combined exposures from the proposed 

33 Reno Creek ISR Project and other operating and potential ISR facilities in the study area would 

34 remain far below the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1.0 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] and have a 

35 negligible contribution to the 6.2 mSv [620 mrem] average yearly dose received by a member of 

36 the public from all sources. 

37 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.1, both worker and public radiological exposures 

38 are addressed in the NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 20. These regulations apply to all 

39 licensed ISR facilities. Licensees are required to implement an NRC-approved radiation 

40 protection program to protect occupational workers and ensure that radiological doses are “as 

41 low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA). For example, the applicant’s radiation protection 

42 program includes commitments for implementing management controls, engineering controls, 

43 radiation safety training, radon monitoring and sampling, and audit programs (AUC, 2012b). 

44 Measured and calculated doses for workers and the public are commonly only a fraction of 

45 regulated limits. GEIS analysis of three separate accident scenarios (thickener failure and spill, 

46 pregnant lixiviant and loaded resin spills, and yellowcake dryer accident release) would also 

47 result in hypothetical public doses that are less than the NRC regulatory limits and would 
5-60 

1 produce SMALL potential impacts (NRC, 2009) (see draft SEIS Section 4.13.1.2.2). The 

2 estimated worker dose resulting from an unmitigated accident exceeds the NRC limits; however, 

3 such accidents are unlikely and would be expected to be prevented by safety procedures 

4 and practices. 

5 The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) proposed for use at the 

6 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project do not differ from those evaluated in the GEIS. The use of 

7 hazardous chemicals at ISR facilities is controlled under several regulations (see draft SEIS 

8 Section 4.13.1.2.3 for a list of these regulations) that are designed to provide adequate 

9 protection to workers and the public. The handling and storage of chemicals at these facilities 

10 would follow standard industrial safety standards and practices. Industrial safety aspects 

11 associated with the use of hazardous chemicals are regulated by the WDEQ and Wyoming 

12 Department of Workforce Services. Nonradiological worker safety would be addressed through 

13 occupational health and safety regulations and practices. 

14 Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the proposed 

15 Reno Creek ISR Project that could contribute to nonradiological public and occupational health 

16 and safety impacts include oil and gas exploration, coal mining, and other mineral extraction 

17 activities (draft SEIS Section 5.1.1). Increased hazards to human health and safety would occur 

18 during development and operation of these projects from the inherent hazards associated with 

19 construction, operations, and maintenance activities. However, these hazards would be 

20 minimized by implementation of various mitigations, including complying with industry 

21 standards, using proper equipment, implementing access controls, developing and 

22 implementing health and safety programs involving procedures and training for normal 

23 operations and emergencies, and complying with applicable federal and state occupational and 

24 public safety regulations (BLM, 2012, 2003). Hazardous materials that are likely to be used 

25 during these ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future projects include diesel fuel, gasoline, 

26 explosives, hydraulic fluids, motor oil/grease, solvents, water and well treatment chemicals, 

27 lead-acid batteries, biocides, herbicides, and compressed gasses used for welding 

28 (e.g., acetylene or propane) (BLM, 2012b). A large-scale release of diesel fuel or several of the 

29 other substances used at the projects may have implications for public health and safety. The 

30 location of the release would be the primary factor in determining its importance. Involved 

31 workers are the most likely to be affected by accidents involving hazardous materials; however, 

32 the risks of such incidents would be limited by the implementation of common safety practices 

33 and regulatory controls (BLM, 2012b, 2003). Based on the remote location of these other 

34 activities, the NRC staff concludes that the probability of a release within a populated area that 

35 could result in public injury or fatality would be low. 

36 The potential impacts to public and occupational health and safety from preconstruction 

37 activities would include fugitive dust, combustion emissions, noise, and occupational hazards 

38 (draft SEIS Section 5.1). Based on the 10 CFR 40.4 definition of construction, the NRC 

39 considers prelicense construction activities with no nexus to radiological health and safety (or 

40 common defense and security) as preconstruction. Therefore, no radiological safety impacts 

41 from preconstruction are expected. Because preconstruction activities would be similar to the 

42 construction activities already evaluated for the proposed project and incorporated into the 

43 cumulative impact analysis, and the preconstruction effects would be short-term (limited to the 

44 duration of the activities) and similar or less than the effects from the proposed construction, the 

45 NRC staff consider these effects already addressed in the cumulative impact analysis. Based 

46 on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on public 

47 and occupational health and safety in the study area resulting from all past, present, and 
5-61 

1 reasonably foreseeable future actions would be SMALL. As described in in the preceding 

2 analysis, the estimates of combined radiological exposures from currently operating and 

3 proposed future ISR facilities in the study area are far below the regulatory public dose limit of 

4 1.0 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] and have a negligible contribution to the 6.2 mSv [620 mrem] average 

5 yearly dose for a member of the public from all sources. Nonradiological exposures to workers 

6 and the general public from hazardous chemicals and materials resulting from past, present, 

7 and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimized by the application of common 

8 safety practices and compliance with applicable federal and state occupational and public 

9 safety regulations. 

10 5.13.1 Summary 

11 In conclusion, the overall cumulative impacts are the incremental impacts from the proposed 

12 Reno Creek ISR Project when added to the impacts from past, present, and reasonably 

13 foreseeable future actions, such as other ISR facilities and CBM operations. As described in 

14 the preceding analysis, the incremental direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Reno Creek 

15 ISR Project would be SMALL and the impacts from all past, present, and reasonably 

16 foreseeable future actions would also be SMALL. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the 

17 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would contribute a SMALL incremental impact on the SMALL 

18 cumulative impacts to public and occupational health when added to all other past, present, and 

19 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area, assuming all appropriate mitigations 

20 mentioned previously would be implemented. 

21 5.14 Waste Management 

22 The cumulative impacts on waste management resources are considered within an 80-km 

23 [50-mi] radius of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project ISR Project area. This distance was 

24 chosen to encompass nearby operating ISR facilities that could generate nonhazardous solid 

25 waste that would be destined for disposal at the same facility expected to be used by the 

26 proposed Reno Creek ISR project for disposal of similar waste. The timeframe for the analysis 

27 is 2012 to 2030 (see draft SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating life of the facility). 

28 Waste management impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL and 

29 are discussed in detail in draft SEIS Section 4.14.1. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

30 would generate radiological and nonradiological liquid and solid wastes that must be handled 

31 and disposed of properly. Waste streams and the types and volumes of wastes to be disposed 

32 are described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The primary radiological materials that must 

33 be disposed are process-related liquid and solid byproduct material (for example, waste 

34 treatment solids, process-contaminated structures and soils). As discussed in draft SEIS 

35 Section 4.14.1.1.2, liquid byproduct material generated during operations is composed of 

36 production bleed, waste brine streams from elution and precipitation, resin transfer wash, filter 

37 backwash water, plant washdown water, and aquifer restoration water. Liquid byproduct 

38 material would be treated onsite using ion exchange followed by deep disposal in Class I deep 

39 disposal wells. State- and federal-permitting actions, NRC license conditions, and NRC and 

40 state inspections ensure that proper waste disposal practices would be used to comply with 

41 safety and environmental requirements to protect workers, the public, and the environment. 

42 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.14.1, the overall impacts from the disposal of 

43 process-related liquid byproduct material at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be 

44 SMALL based on the applicant’s commitment to provide adequate onsite disposal capacity in 
5-62 

1 WDEQ-permitted Class I deep disposal wells and compliance with applicable permits and 

2 regulations. In addition, impacts associated with disposal of solid byproduct material would be 

3 SMALL based on the required preoperational disposal agreement made between the licensee 

4 and the licensed disposal facility that would ensure adequate disposal capacity is available for 

5 the duration of the project. Hazardous waste disposal impacts at the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

6 Project would be SMALL based on the low volumes of waste generated and disposal in 

7 accordance with applicable regulations. Impacts from disposal of nonhazardous solid waste 

8 would be SMALL during the construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

9 phases of the proposed project based on estimated volumes and the available capacity of local 

10 municipal solid waste landfills. 

11 Past, present and reasonably foreseeable uranium recovery facilities in the vicinity of the 

12 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and within the broader regional area are described in draft 

13 SEIS Section 5.1.1. As noted previously, within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed 

14 Reno Creek ISR Project, there are three operating ISR facilities (Willow Creek, Smith Ranch, 

15 Nichols Ranch) and one ISR facility that is licensed but not operating (Moore Ranch). 

16 Additionally there are two operating ISR expansions (North Butte, Reynolds Ranch) and five 

17 other ISR expansions that are in the planning or licensing stages. These current and potential 

18 facilities would generate solid and liquid wastes similar to the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

19 Project, which could contribute to waste management effects within the cumulative impacts 

20 study area. The applicant has also identified a potential ISR project, Collins Draw in Campbell 

21 County (located in between Nichols Ranch and Moore Ranch sites); however, the NRC has not 

22 received a letter of intent to submit an application for this site. 

23 Generation of nonhazardous solid waste at operating or planned ISR facilities and expansions 

24 could impact landfill resources in the cumulative impacts study area. Considering the analysis 

25 timeframe and study area, the NRC staff estimated the cumulative volume of nonhazardous 

26 waste generated by those licensed or planned ISR facilities and expansions expected to 

27 dispose of their waste at the Campbell County landfill in Gillette. The NRC staff identified four 

28 ISR projects (Willow Creek, Nichols Ranch, Moore Ranch, and Reno Creek) and six expansions 

29 (North Butte, Ruth, Ruby Ranch, Allemand-Ross, Ludeman, and Jane Dough) that met this 

30 analysis criterion. Estimates of total nonhazardous solid waste for the facility lifecycle were 

available for the following licensed or planned ISR Projects: Reno Creek {29,580 m3 31 

[38,660 yd3

]} (draft SEIS Section 2.2.1.1.6); Nichols Ranch {7,960 m3 [10,400 yd3 32 ]} (NRC, 

2011); and Moore Ranch {21,470 m3

 [28,060 yd3 33 ]) (NRC, 2010). The waste volumes for the 

34 remaining ISR facilities or expansions were estimated by the NRC staff from available 

35 information. The NRC staff estimated the nonhazardous waste volume for the Willow Creek 

36 ISR Project by calculating the average of the waste volumes for three previously mentioned 

ISR sites {19,670 m3

 [25,710 yd3 37 ]}. Additionally, the NRC staff assumed the nonhazardous solid 

38 waste volume from ISR expansions (that is, adding wellfields and in some cases ion exchange 

39 facilities without a central processing plant) would produce half of the amount of waste as a full 

40 ISR project. This assumption is based on the relative decommissioning waste volumes 

41 documented in the GEIS (Table 2.6-1) (NRC, 2009) for processing plant facilities and wellfields. 

42 Thus, the NRC staff estimated the total nonhazardous waste volume for the six licensed or 

planned ISR expansions {59,010 m3

 [77,130 yd3 43 ]} by calculating half of the previously described 

three facility average waste volume {of 19,670 m3

 [25,710 yd3 44 ]} (assumed by the NRC staff to 

45 be a representative waste volume for a full ISR project) and multiplying by six expansions. 

46 Considering all the preceding estimates, the resulting cumulative nonhazardous waste volume 

47 from the applicable licensed or planned ISR facilities and expansions in the study area within 

the vicinity of the Gillette landfill is 137,700 m3

 [180,000 yd3 48 ]. This volume is approximately 

7 percent of the remaining capacity of the Gillette landfill of 1.9 million m3

 [2.5 million yd3 49 ] 
5-63 

1 {calculated as the product of 18 years of remaining capacity and the average annual disposal 

volume of 106,280 m3

 [138,900 yd3 2 ] from draft SEIS Section 3.13.2}. 

3 Because the total estimated volume of nonhazardous solid waste from the proposed 

4 Reno Creek ISR Project when added to other current and proposed ISR projects in the region is 

5 a small fraction of the remaining capacity of the Campbell County landfill in Gillette, Wyoming, 

6 the NRC staff conclude that the cumulative impact would be SMALL. 

7 Generation of solid byproduct material at the planned and potential ISR facilities and 

8 expansions in the cumulative impacts study area could impact licensed disposal facility 

9 resources. Before ISR operations begin, the NRC requires ISR facilities to have an agreement 

10 in place with a licensed disposal facility to accept byproduct material, thereby ensuring 

11 adequate capacity is available. These agreements limit the impact on byproduct material waste 

12 management resources to SMALL for the proposed project and any other operating or planned 

13 ISR facilities. 

14 Liquid byproduct material is typically managed at ISR facilities using onsite resources such as 

15 Class I deep disposal wells. The applicant has been granted a permit from WDEQ for 

16 four Class I deep disposal wells for disposal of liquid byproduct material (draft SEIS 

17 Section 2.1.1.1.6). Additional deep disposal well use in the region by other operating or planned 

18 ISR facilities is expected as additional ISR facilities are licensed. The WDEQ-permitting 

19 process for these wells evaluates the suitability of proposals to ensure that groundwater 

20 resources are protected and potential environmental effects are limited to acceptable levels. 

21 Based on the assumption that WDEQ would not permit deep injection wells that would have a 

22 significant potential to impact groundwater resources, the NRC staff conclude that the 

23 cumulative impacts of using Class I deep disposal wells for the proposed project, along with the 

24 potential impacts from present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would be SMALL. 

25 Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the vicinity of the proposed 

26 Reno Creek ISR Project area, such as oil and gas production (draft SEIS Sections 5.1.1.3 

27 and 5.1.1.4) and coal mining (draft SEIS Section 5.1.1.2), would produce additional 

28 nonradiological waste materials. These projects would use and generate hazardous materials 

29 and would need to dispose of solid and hazardous wastes. Each project would also be 

30 responsible for complying with applicable federal and state regulations and site-specific 

31 permitting requirements or conditions that control management of generated wastes. A recent 

32 evaluation of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the PRB (BLM, 2011) 

33 projected future development trends for conventional oil and natural gas, CBM, and coal mining 

34 to year 2030. Conventional oil and natural gas production was projected to increase from the 

35 present to year 2030 (BLM, 2011). CBM production is currently below levels that were 

36 previously projected (BLM, 2003) and were expected to decline between the current timeframe 

37 and 2030. Coal mining was noted as declining since 2009 and, while future uncertainties were 

38 noted, projected to increase by 2030 to at least the previous peak (2009) levels (low estimate) 

39 or increase by as much as 38 percent above 2009 production levels (high estimate). These 

40 projections suggest that the level of activity, and therefore combined waste generation from 

41 these activities, is unlikely to increase during the timeframe of the analysis. Additionally, coal 

42 mines are not large generators of hazardous waste (BLM, 2012b), and therefore hazardous 

43 waste generation and potential effects to disposal resources are not expected to change from 

44 these activities. Regarding the generation of nonhazardous solid waste, the annual volumes 

disposed at local landfills {106,280 m3

 [138,900 yd3] at Campbell County landfill and 191,280 m3 45 

[250,000 yd3 46 ] at the Casper landfill} reflect the current regional cumulative demand for disposal 
5-64 

1 capacity, and the available landfills have projected capacity to operate beyond year 2030 (draft 

2 SEIS Section 3.13.2). Therefore, potential impacts from other ongoing and reasonably 

3 foreseeable future activities in the vicinity of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area on 

4 these resources would be SMALL. 

5 The potential impacts on waste management resources from preconstruction activities would 

6 include generating wastes similar to the wastes produced during the construction phase that 

7 would require handling, storage, and disposal (AUC, 2014). These include normal construction 

8 debris that would be classified as nonhazardous solid waste, hazardous waste, used oil, and 

9 domestic sewage. Because preconstruction precedes operations, no byproduct material would 

10 be produced. Because preconstruction activities are similar to the construction activities already 

11 evaluated for the proposed project and incorporated into the cumulative impact analysis, and 

12 the preconstruction effects would be short-term (limited to the 26-week duration of the activities) 

13 with similar or lower waste generation than the proposed construction, the NRC staff consider 

14 these SMALL impacts are already adequately addressed in the cumulative impact analysis. 

15 Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on 

16 waste management resources resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

17 future actions in the study area is SMALL. As described in the preceding analysis the required 

18 disposal agreements for byproduct material from NRC-licensed ISR facilities would ensure 

19 disposal capacity is available to all ISR facilities prior to operations. The projected volume of 

20 nonhazardous solid waste from the proposed Reno Creek ISR project, when combined with 

21 other current and potential future ISR facilities, is a small percentage of available disposal 

22 capacity over the duration of the proposed project. Projected trends for oil and gas, CBM, and 

23 coal mining indicate these other regional activities suggest declining production except for coal, 

24 which could grow modestly between the current timeframe and year 2030. Preconstruction 

25 activities at ISR facilities would generate wastes similar to construction at similar or lower rates 

26 for a limited time and would therefore not significantly change the waste management impacts. 

27 5.14.1 Summary 

28 The overall cumulative impacts are the incremental impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

29 Project when added to the impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

30 actions. As described in the preceding analysis, the incremental impacts of the proposed 

31 Reno Creek ISR Project would be SMALL and the impacts from all past, present, and 

32 reasonably foreseeable future actions would also be SMALL. Therefore, the NRC staff 

33 conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would contribute a SMALL incremental 

34 impact on the SMALL impacts on waste management resources from other past, present, and 

35 reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area (assuming all appropriate mitigations 

36 are followed) and, therefore, the overall cumulative impact on waste management resources 

37 would be SMALL. 

38 5.15 References 

39 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of 

40 Source Material.” 

41 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental 

42 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
5-65 

1 40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

2 Part 81.342, “South Dakota.” 

3 40 CFR 1508.7. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508.7, 

4 “Cumulative Impacts.” 

5 74 FR 66496. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases.” 

6 Federal Register. Vol. 74, No. 239. pp. 66496–66546. 

7 75 FR 31514. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

8 Rule.” Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 106. pp. 31514–31608. 

9 76 FR 56951. “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Materials Licensees: Federal 

10 Register. Vol. 76, No. 179. pp. 56951–56966. 

11 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

12 Environmental Report Round 1.” ML14169A450 and ML14169A449. Lakewood, Colorado: 

13 AUC LLC. 2014. 

14 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

15 Environmental Report.” ML12291A332 and ML12291A335. Lakewood, Colorado: 

16 AUC LLC. 2012a. 

17 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

18 Technical Report.” ML12291A009 and ML12291A010. Lakewood, Colorado: 

19 AUC LLC. 2012b. 

20 Becker, J.M., C.A. Duberstein, J.D. Tagestad, and J.L. Downs. “Sage-Grouse and Wind Energy: 

21 Biology, Habits, and Potential Effects of Development.” ML13011A248. Prepared for the 

22 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind and 

23 Hydropower Technologies Program. Contract DE–AC05–76RL018302009. 2009. 

24 BLM. “Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Buffalo 

25 Field Office Planning Area.” Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field 

26 Office. 2015a. <https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front27 office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=

28 48300> (28 March 2016) 

29 BLM. “South Dakota Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

30 Statement.” Belle Fourche, South Dakota: Bureau of Land Management. 2015b. < 

31 http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/south_dakota_field/rmp/prmp_feis.html> (19 Dec 2015). 

32 BLM. “Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Air Quality Effects.” 

33 Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, High Plains District Office. 2014a. 

34 <http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/programs/energy/coal/prb/coalreview/task3a.Par.882

35 2.File.dat/Task3Afinal.pdf> (13 February 2015). 
5-66 

1 BLM. “BLM to Initiate Environmental Impact Statement for Converse County Oil and Gas 

2 Project.” Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2014b. < 

3 http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/news_room/2014/may/16cfo-converse.html> (19 Dec 2015) 

4 BLM. “Task 3D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Environmental 

5 Effects.” Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, High Plains District Office. 2013. 

6 <http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/programs/energy/coal/prb/coalreview/task_3d_updat

7 e__12.Par.14742.File.dat/03F-Task3D.pdf> (28 February 2016). 

8 BLM. “Wyoming Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Reclamation Policy.” Instruction 

9 Memorandum No. WY-2012-032. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2012a. 

10 <http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/programs/reclamation.Par.60413.File.dat/wy2012-

11 032w-atch.pdf> (4 March 2016). 

12 BLM. “Task 1D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Current Environmental 

13 Conditions, Section 2.9 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste.” Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of 

14 Land Management. 2012b. 

15 <http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/programs/energy/coal/prb/coalreview.Par.84563.File.

16 dat/Task1D-13chap2-9.pdf> (26 February 2015). 

17 BLM. “Task 2 Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review – Past and Present and 

18 Reasonably Foreseeable Development Activities.” Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of Land 

19 Management, High Plains District Office. 2011. 

20 <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview

21 /task_2_update__120.html> (13 February 2015). 

22 BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Wright Area Coal Lease Applications, 

23 Volume 1 of 2, Chapters 1 – 4.” Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2010. 

24 <http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/hpdo/Wright25 Coal/feis.Par.33083.File.dat/01WrightCoalVol1.pdf> (4 March 2016). 

26 BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the South Gillette Area Coal Lease 

27 Applications.” WYW172585, WYW173360, WYW172657, and WYW161248. Cheyenne, 

28 Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2009a. 

29 <http://www.blm.gov/publish/content/wy/en/info/NEPA/documents/hpd/SouthGillette.html> 

30 (4 April 2016). 

31 BLM. “Update Of The Task 3D Report For The Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative 

32 Environmental Effects.” Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, High Plains District 

33 Office. 2009b. 

34 <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview

35 /task_3d_update__12.html> (24 April 2010). 

36 BLM. “Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

37 Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office.” 

38 ML12209A103. Rawlins, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office. 2008.
5-67 

1 BLM. “Task 1D Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Current Environmental 

2 Conditions.” Casper, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2005a. 

3 <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/programs/energy/Coal_Resources/PRB_Coal/prbdocs/coalreview

4 /Task1D.html> (23 February 2015). 

5 BLM. “Chapter 5: Potential Impacts of Wind Energy Development and Analysis of Mitigation 

6 Measures.” Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy 

7 Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. FES 05-11. 

8 ML12243A271. Washington, DC: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the 

9 Interior. 2005b. 

10 BLM. “Final Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for the Powder 

11 River Basin Oil and Gas Project.” Buffalo, Wyoming: Bureau of Land Management. 2003. 

12 <http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/documents/bfo/prb_eis.html> (27 August 2013) 

13 BLM. “Visual Resource Inventory.” Manual H–8410–1. ML12237A196. Washington, DC: 

14 Bureau of Land Management. 1986. 

15 BLM. “Visual Resource Management.” Manual 8400. ML12237A194. Washington, DC: 

16 Bureau of Land Management. 1984. 

17 Center for Energy Economic and Public Policy. “The Impact of the Coal Economy on 

18 Wyoming.” Department of Economics and Finance. Laramie, Wyoming: University of 

19 Wyoming. .2015 

20 CEQ. “Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of 

21 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews.” 

22 Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. 2014. 

23 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghg-guidance> 

24 (13 February 2015). 

25 CEQ. “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act.” 

26 ML13343A349. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental 

27 Quality. 1997. 

28 Clarey, K. E., 2009. “1993–2006 Coalbed Natural gas (CBNG) Regional Groundwater 

29 Monitoring Report: Powder River Basin, Wyoming,” Wyoming State Geological Survey, Open 

30 File Report, 2009–10, July 19, 2009. 

31 Connelly, J. W., S. Knick, M. Schroeder, S. Stiver. “Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage32 grouse and Sagebrush Habitats.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Western Association of Fish and 

33 Wildlife Agencies. 2004. 

34 Countess, R. “Methodology for Estimating Fugitive Windblown and Mechanically Resuspended 

35 Road Dust Emissions Applicable for Regional Scale Air Quality Modeling.” ML13213A294. 

36 Westlake Village, California: Countess Environmental. 2001. 
5-68 

1 Denholm, P., M. Hand, M. Jackson, and S. Ong. “Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind 

2 Power Plants in the United States.” Technical Report NREL/TP-6A2-45834. 2009. Golden, 

3 Colorado: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

4 <http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf> (31 March 2016). 

5 Duke Energy. “Top of the World Windpower.” 2015. <http://www.duke6 energy.com/commercial-renewables/top-of-the-world-windpower.asp> (5 August 2015). 

7 Ellsworth, W.L. “Injection-induced Earthquakes.” Science. Vol. 341, No. 6142. 2013. 

8 EPA. “Environmental Impact Database.” Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

9 Agency. 2016. <https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa10 II/public/action/eis/search/search#results> (31 March 2016). 

11 EPA. “Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Health and Welfare 

12 With an Adequate Margin of Safety.” EPA 550/9-74-005. ML12241A393. Washington, DC: 

13 EPA. 1974. 

14 FWS. “Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat 

15 and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions.” Bloomington, Minnesota: U.S. Fish and 

16 Wildlife Service, Midwest Regional Office. 2016. 

17 <http://www.fws.gov/Midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/BOnlebFinal4d.pdf> 

18 (18 February 2016). 

19 GCRP. “Highlights of Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

20 Assessment.” Washington, DC: U.S. Global Change Research Program, U.S. Government 

21 Printing Office. 2014. 

22 Hanks, T.C. and H. Kanamori. “A moment magnitude scale.” Journal of Geophysical Research. 

23 Vol. 84. pp. 2,348–2,350. 1979. 

24 Karanen, K.W., M. Weingarten, G.A. Abers, B.A. Bekins, and S. Ge. “Sharp increase in central 

25 Oklahoma seismicity since 2008 induced by massive wastewater injection.” Science. Vol. 345, 

26 No. 6195. pp. 448–451. 2014. 

27 Larsen, M.C. and S.J. Wittke. “Relationships Between Injection and Disposal Well Activities and 

28 Known Earthquakes in Wyoming, from 1984 to 2013.” Wyoming State Geological Survey Open 

29 File Report 2014-05. Laramie, Wyoming: Wyoming State Geological Survey. 2014. 

30 Love, J.D. “Preliminary report on uranium deposits in the Pumpkin Buttes Area, Powder River 

31 Basin, Wyoming.” Circular 176. Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. 1952. 

32 <http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir176> (5 August 2015). 

33 Naugle, D.E, K.E. Doherty, B. Walker, M.J. Holloran, and H.E. Copeland. “Energy Development 

34 and Greater Sage-Grouse.” Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape 

35 Species and Its Habitats (Studies in Avian Biology. Vol. 38). S.T. Knick and J.W. Connelly, eds. 

36 Berkeley, California: University of California Press. pp. 489–503. 2011 
5-69 

1 NRC. “License Applications for New Uranium Recovery Facilities, Expansions, Restarts, and 

2 Renewals.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2016. 

3 <http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/license-apps/ur-projects-list-public.pdf> 

4 (4 April 2016) 

5 NRC. “Locations of Uranium Recovery Sites Undergoing Decommissioning.” Washington, DC: 

6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015a. <http://www.nrc.gov/info7 finder/decommissioning/uranium/> (4 April 2016). 

8 NRC. “Locations of Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

9 Commission. 2015b. <http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/materials/uranium/index.html> 

10 (4 April 2016). 

11 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 2. “Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch 

12 ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming, Supplement to Generic 

13 Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Final Report.” 

14 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2011. 

15 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 1, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Moore Ranch 

16 ISR Project in Campbell County, Wyoming.” Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

17 Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report. ML102290470. 

18 Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials 

19 and Environmental Management Programs. August 2010. 

20 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

21 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244 and ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

22 Regulatory Commission. May 2009. 

23 PacifiCorp. “Three Buttes Windpower.” Portland Oregon: PacifiCorp. 2015. 

24 <http://www.pacificorp.com/es/re/tb.html> (5 August 2015). 

25 PacifiCorp. “Our Wind Energy Resources.” Portland Oregon: PacifiCorp. 2011a. 

26 <http://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pacificorp/doc/Energy_Sources/12-

27 35_PC_RenewableEnergyFlyer.pdf> (5 August 2015). 

28 PacifiCorp. “Glenrock III Wind Project.” Portland Oregon: PacifiCorp. 2011b. 

29 <http://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pacificorp/doc/Energy_Sources/EnergyGeneration_Fac

30 tSheets/RMP_GFS_Glenrock_III.pdf> (5 August 2015). 

31 SDDENR. “South Dakota Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Plan 2015.” South Dakota 

32 Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2015. 

33 <http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/aqnews/Annual%20plan%202015%20Final.pdf> 

34 (18 December 2015). 

35 SDDENR. “South Dakota’s Regional Haze State Implementation Program.” ML12243A371. 

36 Pierre, South Dakota: South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2011.
5-70 

1 STB. “Final Environmental Impact Statement, Finance Docket No. 33407—Dakota, 

2 Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation, Construction into the Powder River Basin, Powder 

3 River Basin Expansion Project.” ML12243A381. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation 

4 Board, Section of Environmental Analysis. 2001. 

5 Taylor, R.L., D.E. Naugle, and L.S. Mills. “Viability analyses for conservation of sage-grouse 

6 populations: Buffalo Field Office, Wyoming, Final Report.” Missoula, Montana: University of 

7 Montana. 2012. <http://www.powderriverbasin.org/assets/Uploads/files/cbm-studies/PVA8 Sage-Grouse-FinalReport.pdf> (15 May 2015). 

9 WDEQ. “Reno Junction Wind Energy Project.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of 

10 Environmental Quality. 2015. <http://deq.wyoming.gov/isd/application-permits/resources/reno11 junction-wind-energy-project/> (5 August 2015). 

12 WDEQ. “Wyoming Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2014.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

13 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2014. 

14 WDEQ. “Noncoal Rules and Regulations, Chapter 3 – Noncoal Mine Environmental 

15 Performance Standards.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental 

16 Quality Land Quality Division. 2006. 

17 WDOE. “Fall Enrollment Summary By School By Grade for: 2012–13.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

18 Wyoming Department of Education. 2014. 

19 WDWS. “Wyoming Long-Term Industry Projections, 2012-2022.” Casper, Wyoming: Wyoming 

20 Department of Workforce Services. 2014a. <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/projections/2014/long21 term-industry-2012-2022.htm> (8 March 2016) 

22 WDWS. “Wyoming Long-Term Occupational Projections, 2012-2022.” Casper, Wyoming: 

23 Wyoming Department of Workforce Services. 2014b. 

24 <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/projections/2014/long-term-occupational-2012-2022.htm> 

25 (8 March 2016) 

26 WGFD. “Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan 2010.” ML12241A410. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

27 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010. 

28 Weingarten, M., S. Ge, J.W. Godt, B.A. Bekins, and J.L. Rubinstein. “High-rate injection is 

29 associated with the increase in U.S. mod continent seismicity.” Science. Vol. 348. 

30 pp. 1,336–1,339. 2015. 

31 WMA. “The 2014–2015 Concise Guide to Wyoming Coal.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming 

32 Mining Association. 2015a. <http://www.wyomingmining.org/wp33 content/uploads/2014/09/2014-15-Concise-Guide-to-Wyoming-Coal.pdf> (1 April 2016). 

 
5-71 

1 WMA. “Recent News: Bentonite.” Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Mining Association. 2015b. 

2 <http://www.wyomingmining.org/minerals/bentonite/> (24 August 2015). 

3 WSGS. “Wyoming’s Oil and Gas Resources, Summary Report.” Laramie, Wyoming: Wyoming 

4 State Geologic Survey. 2015. <http://www.wsgs.wyo.gov/products/wsgs-2015-oilgas5 summary.pdf> (4 April 2016).

6 WSGS. “Wyoming’s Oil and Gas Resources, Summary Report.” Laramie, Wyoming: Wyoming 

7 State Geologic Survey. 2014. <http://www.wsgs.gov/Public-Info/OnlinePubs/doc/Oil-and-Gas8 Summary.pdf > (5 August 2015).

6-1 

1 6 MITIGATION 

2 6.1 Introduction 

3 The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities 

4 (NRC, 2009) described potential mitigation measures that a licensee or facility operator might 

5 use to reduce potential adverse impacts associated with construction, operations, aquifer 

6 restoration, and decommissioning of an in situ recovery (ISR) milling facility. Under Title 40 of 

7 the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 40 CFR 1508.20, the Council on Environmental Quality 

8 defines mitigation to include activities that 

9  avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of a certain action; 

10  minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its 

11 implementation; 

12  rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

13  reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

14 during the life of the action; and 

15  compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

16 environments. 

17 Mitigation measures are those actions or processes that would be implemented to control and 

18 minimize potential adverse impacts from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

19 decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Potential mitigation measures 

20 can include general best management practices (BMPs) and more site-specific 

21 management actions. 

22 BMPs are processes, techniques, procedures, or considerations that can be used to effectively 

23 avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts. While BMPs are not regulatory requirements, 

24 they can overlap with and support such requirements. BMPs will not replace any U.S. Nuclear 

25 Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements or other federal, state, or local regulations. 

26 Management actions are active measures that a licensee or facility operator specifically 

27 implements to reduce potential adverse impacts to a specific resource area. These actions 

28 include compliance with applicable government agency stipulations or specific guidance, 

29 coordination with governmental agencies or interested parties, and monitoring of relevant 

30 ongoing and future activities. If appropriate, corrective actions could be implemented to limit the 

31 degree or magnitude of a specific action leading to an adverse impact (reducing or eliminating 

32 the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations) and repairing, rehabilitating, 

33 or restoring the affected environment. The licensee may also minimize potential adverse 

34 impacts by implementing specific management actions, such as programs, procedures, and 

35 controls for monitoring, measuring, and documenting specific goals or targets and, if 

36 appropriate, instituting corrective actions. The management actions may be established 

37 through standard operating procedures that appropriate local, state, and federal agencies 

38 (including NRC) review and approve. The NRC may also establish requirements for 

39 management actions by identifying license conditions. These conditions are written specifically 
6-2 

1 into the NRC license and then become commitments that are enforced through periodic NRC 

2 inspections. 

3 The mitigation measures that AUC LLC (AUC) proposed to reduce and minimize adverse 

4 environmental impacts at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are summarized in this draft 

5 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in Section 6.2. Based on the potential 

6 impacts identified in Chapter 4 of this draft SEIS, the NRC staff have identified additional 

7 potential mitigation measures for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. These mitigation 

8 measures are summarized in draft SEIS Section 6.3. The proposed mitigation measures 

9 provided in this chapter do not include environmental monitoring activities. Environmental 

10 monitoring activities are described in draft SEIS Chapter 7. 

11 6.2 Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC 

12 The applicant identified mitigation measures in its license application (AUC, 2012a,b) as well as 

13 in response to the NRC staff’s requests for additional information (RAIs) (AUC, 2014a–c). Draft 

14 SEIS Table 6-1 lists the mitigation measures proposed for each resource area. Because many 

15 of the applicant’s proposed mitigation measures would apply to all four phases of the ISR 

16 process, they are listed together in the table. 

17 6.3 Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC 

18 The NRC staff have reviewed the mitigation measures the applicant proposed and has identified 

19 additional mitigation measures that could potentially reduce impacts (draft SEIS Table 6-2). The 

20 NRC has the authority to address unique site-specific characteristics by identifying license 

21 conditions, based on conclusions reached in the safety and environmental reviews. These 

22 license conditions could include additional mitigation measures, such as modifications to 

23 required monitoring programs. While the NRC cannot impose mitigation outside its regulatory 

24 authority under the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC staff have identified mitigation measures in 

25 draft SEIS Table 6-2 that could potentially reduce the impacts of the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

26 Project. These additional mitigation measures are not requirements being imposed upon the 

27 applicant. For the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act, and consistent with 10 

28 CFR 51.71(d) and 51.80(a), the NRC is disclosing measures that could potentially reduce or 

29 avoid environmental impacts of the proposed project. 
6-3 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Land Use Land Disturbance Restore and re-seed disturbed areas as soon as practicable with an 

approved seed mix designed to stabilize soils from erosion and reduce the 

potential for exotic invasive plants. 

Reclaim compacted soils and reestablish vegetation in areas disturbed by 

drilling, pipeline installation, road installation, and facility construction, as 

soon as construction activities are completed. 

Restrict normal vehicular traffic to designated roads, and keep traffic in 

wellfields to a minimum. 

Develop wellfields sequentially, and restore and reclaim wellfields in interim 

steps to minimize land area impacted at any one time. 

Use existing county roads and oil and gas development access roads, to the 

extent possible, to minimize construction of new access roads. 

Construct secondary and tertiary access roads to be as narrow as 

practicable to minimize disturbance. 

Construct roads using techniques that will minimize erosion, such as building 

stream crossings at right angles with adequate culvert installation and 

minimizing cut and fill during access road construction. 

Use common corridors when locating access roads, pipelines, and utilities. 

Access 

Restrictions 

Construct fences around processing facilities, radium settling and storage 

ponds, and deep disposal wells. 

Construct temporary fencing around production wellfield patterns, and 

remove fencing after operations and reclamation of each wellfield 

is completed. 

Execute agreements with surface owners/lessees to provide mitigation or 

compensation for temporary loss of areas currently used for livestock 

grazing or crop production. 

Limit access to monitoring wells, Class I deep disposal wells, and header 

houses by (i) covering each monitoring well with a locking device, (ii) 

securing the well head and pumping equipment for Class I deep disposal 

wells within locked buildings, and (iii) securing header houses within the 

fenced area of the wellfield. 

Implement fencing construction techniques to minimize habitat alteration and 

impediments to large game migration. 

Work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Division, and private landowners to limit recreational activities (primarily 

hunting) within the proposed project area, to the extent practicable. 

Mineral Rights Develop working relationships with the oil and gas production companies 

operating within the proposed project area (currently Williams Production 

RMT Company, Yates Petroleum Corporation, Lance Oil and Gas Company, 

and Bill Barrett Corporation) to help minimize potential conflicts over 

infrastructure placement and utilization. 

Develop working relationships with other mineral production companies that 

become operational during the life of the project. 

 
6-4 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Transportation Transportation 

Safety 

Maintain access roads, and impose speed limits to minimize or eliminate 

accidents and collisions. 

Improve signage on affected portions of Clarkelen/Turnercrest Road and 

Highway 387. 

Implement speed limits on access roads within the proposed project area. 

Enforcement of speed limits on county roads for applicant employees 

and contractors. 

Implement a carpooling plan for employees to the proposed project area to 

reduce wear on roads and reduce air quality emissions. 

Comply with all applicable U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and 

U.S. Department of Transportation packaging and transportation 

requirements for all shipments of yellowcake, process chemicals, ionexchange resins, fuel, and radioactive materials to mitigate the potential 

impacts of a transportation accident. 

Use dedicated tanker trucks for transporting uranium-loaded or uraniumstripped resins between the central processing plant and satellite facilities. 

Survey the exterior and cab of the shipping truck for radiological 

contamination prior to each shipment of uranium-loaded or uranium-stripped 

resin or yellowcake. 

Equip both the transport vehicle and shipping facilities with communication 

devices that allow direct communication with the shipper or receiver. 

Emergency 

Response 

Communicate with local and state authorities on transportation and 

emergency response training and procedures. 

Use standard operating procedures for transportation and 

emergency response. 

Train drivers on transportation accident response based on the specific 

material(s) shipped. The transport companies will also have standing 

contracts with environmental emergency response contractors for 

spill cleanup. 

Supply both shipping and receiving facilities with emergency response kits. 

Ensure each resin or yellowcake transport vehicle carries an emergency spill 

kit that would help contain material in the event of a spill. 

Maintain shipping records (bill of lading) to identify the characteristics and 

quantity of material shipped. 

Notify the NRC if a radiological accident occurs, pursuant to requirements of 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 Part 20. 
6-5 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Geology and 

Soils 

Soil Disturbance 

and 

Contamination 

Salvage topsoil in stockpiles on the leeward side of hills, in accordance with 

the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) guidelines and 

conditions of the WDEQ Permit to Mine. 

Slope topsoil stockpiles with a 3:1 grade or flatter, and revegetate as 

soon as practicable using an approved seed mix to minimize wind and 

water erosion. 

Temporarily store subsoil from mud pit excavations separately from topsoil 

stockpiles, and redeposit subsoil as mud pit backfill when the use of the mud 

pit is complete. 

Reuse subsoil from facility construction activities in areas such as the 

backup storage pond and primary access road embankments. 

Reestablish temporary or permanent native vegetation as soon as possible 

after disturbance, typically within one construction season. 

Decrease runoff from disturbed areas by using structures to temporarily 

divert and/or dissipate surface runoff from undisturbed areas. 

Retain sediment within the disturbed areas by using silt fencing, sediment 

logs, and hay bale check dams. 

Fill pipeline and utility trenches with appropriate material, and regrade 

surfaces soon after completion. 

Design drainages to minimize the potential for erosion by routing stormwater 

away from disturbed areas. 

Use existing roads, limit secondary and tertiary road widths, and implement 

a single-direction-of-travel policy to access wellfield facilities to minimize 

soil compaction. 

Use a spill prevention and cleanup plan to minimize soil contamination from 

vehicle accidents and/or wellfield spills or leaks. 

Protect production wellfields and monitoring wells from flooding by installing 

cement seals around well casings and using watertight well caps. 

Collect and monitor soils and sediments for potential contamination, 

including areas treated for dust control with chemical dust suppression 

compounds used to transport routes for yellowcake and ion-exchange resins 

and wellfield areas where spills or leaks are possible. 

Remove and dispose of contaminated soil in accordance with NRC and 

state requirements. 

Obtain either the industrial or individual Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (WYPDES) permit, in accordance with WDEQ 

regulations, and implement mitigation measures to control erosion, runoff, 

and sedimentation. 

Monitoring and maintaining injection pressures in Class I and Class III 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells at a level that does not exceed 

fracture pressures specified in its UIC permit. 
6-6 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Surface Water 

Resources 

Erosion, Runoff, 

and 

Sedimentation 

Minimizing surface water crossings and avoid wetlands during 

road construction. 

Construct access roads perpendicular to the direction of surface water flow, 

and minimize cut and fill during access road construction. 

Follow U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) construction practices to 

reduce potential impacts to wetlands. 

Refrain from consuming or discharging to surface waters. 

Obtain USACE permits and authorization from WDEQ when filling and 

crossing jurisdictional waters. 

Obtain an industrial WYPDES permit, in accordance with WDEQ regulations, 

and implement mitigation measures to control erosion, runoff, and 

sedimentation. 

Construct the central processing plant and supporting buildings outside the 

100-year floodplain, and install a flood control diversion channel designed to 

redirect runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour precipitation event. 

Design drainage structures to route stormwater runoff away from structures, 

roads, the backup storage pond, parking areas, and chemical storage areas. 

Construct a system of structures, such as straw bales, collector ditches, and 

engineered diversion structures or berms to protect facilities and 

infrastructures (e.g., storage ponds, access roads, plant-to-plant pipelines, 

wellfields) that will be located within the 100-year inundation boundary to 

protect them from flood damage. 

Recontour land surfaces to restore surface drainage to blend with the natural 

terrain after completion of the proposed in situ recovery (ISR) project. 

Spills and Leaks Develop and implement spill-response procedures to correct and remediate 

accidental spills. 

Provide containment curbs around and collection sumps in containment 

areas designed to contain the largest liquid-containing vessel. 

Equip wellfield facilities with leak detection equipment, which will signal 

alarms at the central processing plant. 

Perform weekly inspections of wellfield facilities and well heads. 

Construct the backup storage pond to meet the requirements for lining 

systems under WDEQ Water Quality Rules and Regulations and for 

embankment retention systems under NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11. 

Place liners, underdrains, and leak-detection systems underneath ponds 

associated with water treatment or storage of untreated or partially treated 

water (i.e., radium settling ponds, spare ponds, and central plant pond), and 

place liners underneath ponds that contain treated water (i.e., storage ponds 

and spare storage ponds). 

Bury pipelines to avoid freezing, and monitor pipeline pressures to 

detect leaks. 

Report all regulated substance spills that occur at the proposed project to the 

WDEQ, in accordance with Administrative Rules of WDEQ, and remediate in 

accordance with state requirements. 
6-7 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Groundwater 

Resources 

Water Use Obtain Class III UIC permit and aquifer exemption. 

After obtaining a Class I UIC permit for deep well disposal of treated liquid 

wastes, construct Class I deep disposal wells to comply with WDEQ Class I 

disposal well construction standards. 

Monitor process effluents injected into Class I deep disposal wells to comply 

with (i) release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K, and (ii) the 

drinking water standards, or contaminant-specific background concentrations 

for constituents regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, whichever is 

greater, if proposed injection zones are underground sources of drinking 

water {i.e., have total dissolved solids concentrations below 

10,000 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) [10,000 parts per million (ppm)]}, unless 

the applicant applies for and is granted an aquifer exemption. 

Minimize consumptive use of groundwater during operations and 

groundwater restoration phases. 

Obtain water appropriation permits to utilize groundwater from the 

overlying aquifer. 

Monitor private domestic, livestock, and agricultural wells, as appropriate, 

during operations, and provide alternative sources of water to landowners in 

the event of significant drawdown to wells within and adjacent to the 

proposed project area. 

Spills and Leaks Obtain construction and industrial WYPDES permits from the WDEQ, which 

require reporting of spills of petroleum products or hazardous chemicals. 

Develop and implement spill response procedures to correct and remediate 

accidental spills. 

Construct production and monitoring wells using methods approved by the 

WDEQ for construction requirements. 

Construct the backup storage pond lining system to meet the requirements 

of the WDEQ Water Quality Rules and Regulations, so that it is appropriate 

to the pond usage and contents to prevent potential infiltration of liquid waste 

into soil and shallow aquifers. 

Bury pipelines to avoid freezing, and monitor pipeline pressures to 

detect leaks. 

Report all regulated substance spills that occur at the site to the WDEQ, and 

remediate in accordance with state requirements. 

Install leak detection and warning systems in all wellfield facilities. 
6-8 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Excursions No new stock or drinking water wells will be located in the proposed ISR 

operation areas and none would be completed in the ore bearing aquifer 

where production will occur. 

Ensure that any future stock wells would be completed in either shallower or 

deeper sands that are not impacted by ISR operations, or provide another 

source of stock water. 

Conduct precise and periodic mechanical integrity testing of all production 

and monitoring wells prior to and during their use, to limit the likelihood of 

well integrity failure during operations. 

Properly plug and abandon all boreholes in the project area and within 

proximity to well fields if leakage through old boreholes is a potential problem 

prior to the initiation of ISR operations. 

Collect detailed lithologic and hydrogeological data in each proposed 

wellfield prior to ISR operations to ensure hydraulic control of the 

production zone. 

Plug wells in accordance with WDEQ and Wyoming State Engineer’s 

Office requirements. 

Plug and abandon or mitigate any of the following, should they pose a 

potential to impact the control and containment of wellfield solutions within 

the proposed project area: (i) historical wells and exploration holes, (ii) holes 

drilled by the applicant for delineation and exploration, and (iii) any well 

failing mechanical integrity testing. 

Adjust production bleed rate so that the inward flow gradient is maintained to 

prevent lixiviant excursions. 

Conduct ISR operations only in confined portions of production aquifers. 

Restoration/ 

Reclamation 

Install monitoring wells within and encircling the production zone for early 

detection of potential horizontal excursions. 

Install monitoring wells in aquifers above and below the production aquifer 

for early detection of potential vertical excursions. 

Implement corrective actions, and provide required notifications and reports 

to the NRC, in the event of an excursion. 

Submit wellfield operational plans, including well layouts for NRC and WDEQ 

approval before conducting operations in wellfields. 

Return groundwater quality in the production zone to NRC-approved 

groundwater protection standards upon completion of ISR operations as 

required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). 

Plug and abandon all monitoring and production wells in accordance with 

applicable federal and state regulations, as part of 

decommissioning activities. 
6-9 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Ecology Restoration/ 

Reclamation 

Minimize disturbance of surface areas and vegetation, where possible (also 

benefits wildlife). 

Construct any new roads, power lines, and pipelines in the same aboveground and below-ground corridors, to the extent possible, to reduce overall 

vegetation and wildlife habitat disturbance and minimize new 

surface disturbance. 

Salvage topsoil to minimize erosion. 

Restore creek channels, wetland habitat, and sagebrush and other shrubs to 

reduce impacts to native species and their habitat. 

Restore diverse landforms and topsoil replacement, and construct brush 

piles, snags, and/or rock piles to enhance habitat for wildlife. 

Impose dust control measures, as described in draft SEIS Section 4.7 (Air 

Quality) to limit dust deposition on vegetation, both on and offsite, affecting 

the forage ability for obligate species. 

Implement weed control, as needed, to limit the spread of noxious, invasive, 

and nonnative species on disturbed areas. 

Reestablish temporary or permanent native vegetation as soon as possible 

after disturbance. 

Minimize the spread of undesirable, invasive, and nonnative species (weeds) 

in disturbed areas. 

Transmission 

Lines 

Design any new power lines to follow the 2006 Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee guidelines to reduce bird injuries and mortalities. 

Reduce Human 

Disturbances 

Follow the land use mitigation measures for land disturbance activities 

and access restrictions, which will also minimize impacts to vegetation 

and wildlife. 

Enforce speed limits to minimize collisions with wildlife. 

Prepare a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)-approved migratory bird 

monitoring and mitigation plan to minimize conflicts between nest sites 

and project-related activities, if direct impacts to raptors and migratory 

birds occur. 

Prepare a FWS-approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan prior to 

construction and operations. 
6-10 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Air Quality Fugitive Dust and 

Combustion 

Emissions From 

Construction 

Equipment and 

Vehicles 

Minimize land surface disturbance by constructing secondary and tertiary 

access roads as narrowly as practicable to reduce fugitive dust. 

Use drill rigs with engines no larger than 300 horsepower (except for the 

deep well drill rig) to limit combustion emissions. 

Use Tier 1 drill rig engines and Tier 3 construction equipment engines to limit 

combustion emissions. 

Use water or chemical dust suppression compounds to minimize fugitive 

dust generated from onsite unpaved roads. 

Impose speed limits to reduce vehicle emissions and dust generated 

by vehicles. 

Implement a single-direction-of-travel policy on roads that access wellfield 

facilities to limit dust generated by vehicles. 

Implement an employee carpooling policy. 

Restore or reseed disturbed areas promptly to limit the exposed/disturbed 

area at any given time. 

Coordinate construction and transportation activities to reduce maximum 

dust levels. 

Maintain vehicles to meet applicable EPA emission standards. 

Noise Exposure of 

Workers and 

Public to Noise 

Avoid construction activities during the night. 

Impose speed limits to reduce vehicle noise. 

Use sound abatement controls on operating equipment and facilities, such 

as locating process machinery inside, and restrict drilling to daytime hours 

(7 a.m. to 8 p.m.) in areas where the annoyance noise threshold could be 

exceeded at nearby residences. 

Use personal hearing protection for workers in high noise areas. 

Adhere to regulatory timing and spatial restrictions with regard to 

construction activities near raptor nests. 

Locate all planned facilities outside of BLM-recommended buffer zones of 

raptor nests identified within the project area. 

Follow an FWS-approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan to reduce 

conflicts between active raptor nests and project-related activities. 

Cultural and 

Historic 

Resources 

Disturbance of 

Prehistoric 

Archaeological 

Sites and Sites 

Eligible for Listing 

on the National 

Register of 

Historic Places 

(NRHP) 

Prepare an Unanticipated Discovery Plan to manage AUC’s activities in the 

event of a discovery of cultural resources during any phase of the project. 

Prepare an internal cultural resources management plan, if cultural 

resources are identified in the area of potential effect or if areas with a high 

potential to contain cultural material are identified. 

Cease any work upon the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources 

during any phase of the project until the resources can be evaluated by a 

professional archaeologist. 

Use existing roads, to the maximum extent feasible, to avoid additional 

surface disturbance. 
6-11 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Visual and 

Scenic 

Potential Visual 

Intrusions in the 

Existing 

Landscape 

Character 

Follow the land use mitigation measures for land disturbance activities, 

which will also minimize impacts to vegetation and wildlife. 

Cover wellheads with low structures that present low contrast with 

existing landscape. 

Reclaim disturbed areas, and remove debris after construction is complete. 

Remove and reclaim roads and structures after operations are complete. 

Select building materials and paint that complement the natural environment. 

Consider landscape topography to conceal wellheads, plant facilities, access 

roads, and other areas of disturbance from public vantage points. 

Use standard dust control measures, including water or chemical dust 

suppression compound application, speed limits, and coordinating dustproducing activities to reduce visible fugitive dust. 

Limit nighttime activities to reduce lighting needs. 

Consider using exterior lighting only where needed, limiting the height of 

exterior lighting units, and using shielded or directional lighting to limit 

lighting to where it is needed and without jeopardizing site security and/or 

worker safety. 

Socioeconomics Effects on 

Surrounding 

Communities 

Preferentially source the labor force from the surrounding region to reduce 

any burden on public services and community infrastructure (e.g., housing, 

schools) in nearby towns. 

Public and 

Occupational 

Health and 

Safety 

Effects From 

Facility 

Construction 

Implement standard dust control measures, such as water application and 

speed limits, to reduce and control fugitive dust emissions. 

Comply with federal and state occupational safety regulations to limit 

nonradiological impacts of fugitive dust and diesel emissions to 

acceptable levels. 
6-12 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Effects From 

Facility Operation 

Communicate with local and state authorities on transportation of material 

shipments and provide emergency response training and procedures for 

local emergency personnel. 

Design buildings and structures to the 2,500-year seismic probability 

standards in the International Building Code. 

Store hazardous chemicals away from incompatible chemicals and away 

from areas populated by workers to reduce the risk of injury during an 

accidental release. 

Reduce radiological exposure to workers by (i) installing ventilation designed 

to limit worker exposure to radon; (ii) installing gamma exposure rate 

monitors, air particulate monitors, and radon daughter product monitors to 

verify that expected radiation levels are not exceeded; and (iii) conducting 

work area radiation and contamination surveys. 

Use pressurized down-flow ion-exchange columns, pressure piping, and 

vacuum dryer technology during normal operations to limit radiological 

emissions other than radon gas. 

Comply with an NRC-approved Radiation Protection Program that would 

include routine radiation surveys, respiratory protection, standard operating 

procedures for spill response and cleanup, and worker training in radiological 

health and emergency response. 

Monitor radiation workers via use of dosimeters and area air sampling to 

ensure that radiological doses remain within regulatory limits and as low as 

reasonably achievable. 

Implement engineering controls, such as concrete curbs and sumps, to 

contain process spills resulting from accidents. 

Perform radiological surveys, soil sampling, and analysis during and 

following accidents from radioactive material shipments to confirm cleanup, 

and provide a report to the NRC to verify that contaminants have been 

removed, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2202 and 20.2203. 

Comply with applicable EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

and WDEQ regulations concerning the use, inspection, and storage of 

hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals. 

Develop and implement standard operating procedures regarding receiving, 

storing, handling, and disposing of chemicals. 

Waste 

Management 

Disposal/Capacity Establish a solid byproduct material disposal agreement with a licensed 

facility prior to the start of operations. 

Dispose of all soil contaminated by leaks or spills at an off-site licensed 

disposal facility. 

Dispose of all petroleum-contaminated soil potentially generated at a WDEQ 

licensed facility. 
6-13 

Table 6-1. Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by AUC (Continued)

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Waste Reduction Recycle wastewater to reduce the amount of water needed for facilities and 

the amount of wastewater that could require disposal. 

Use decontamination techniques that reduce waste generation. 

Institute preventive maintenance and inventory management programs to 

minimize waste from breakdowns and overstocking. 

Develop a standard operating procedure to maximize the amount of 

recycling; minimize the production of hazardous waste; and for the 

collection, sorting, and temporary storage of all solid, non-hazardous 

solid waste. 

Salvage extra materials, and use them for other construction activities. 

Waste Storage 

and Containment 

Avoid using hazardous materials when possible. 

Store and properly label hazardous chemicals in an appropriate area away 

from byproduct material to prevent any potential release. 

Isolate byproduct material inside a restricted area until a full shipment can be 

transferred to an NRC-approved disposal site. 

Install curbs or berms on all liquid waste storage areas. 

Install leak detection and warning systems in all liquid waste facilities. 

Develop a spill prevention plan for petroleum products and other 

hazardous materials. 

Ensure that equipment is available to respond to spills, and identify the 

location of such equipment. Inspect and replace worn or damaged 

components. 

Table 6-2. Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Land Use Land Disturbance Use best management practices (BMPs) to control waste disposal, erosion, 

and runoff to limit the effect of facility operation on surrounding land use. 

Transportation Transportation 

Safety 

Use accepted industry codes and standards for handling and transporting 

hazardous chemicals. 

Implement safe driving training for personnel and truck drivers. 

Use check-in/check-out or global positioning satellite technology to track 

shipments. 

Geology and 

Soils 

Soils Maintain a log of all spills occurring at the site, whether or not these spills 

are reportable to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) per Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 Part 40.60. 

Implement alternatives or mitigation measures to manage drilling fluid during 

well drilling operations, including (i) lining mud pits with an impermeable 

membrane, (ii) disposing of potentially contaminated drilling mud and other 

fluids offsite, and (iii) using portable tanks or tubs to contain drilling mud and 

other fluids. 

Surface Water 

Resources 

Water Quality Collect monthly preoperational water quality samples from streams and 

quarterly preoperational water quality samples from impoundments. 

 
6-14 

Table 6-2. Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC (Continued) 

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Groundwater 

Resources 

Contamination and 

Excursions 

Locate all boreholes and wells within 305 meters [1,000 feet] of a wellfield, if 

possible, and properly plug and abandon them. 

Submit results of the hydrogeological characterization and aquifer pump 

tests (hydrologic test data packages) for NRC review and written verification 

or approval prior to development of any proposed wellfields. 

Prior to in situ recovery operations in partially saturated portions of the 

aquifer, require the applicant to demonstrate the ability to detect and 

remediate excursions in partially saturated production zones. 

Monitor potential mobilization and migration of contaminants from 

abandoned open-pit mines into production zones during aquifer restoration. 

Ecology Restoration/Recla

mation 

Use weed control techniques that incorporate BMPs approved by Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). 

Fencing and 

Screening 

Cover vent pipes with either netting or other methods to prevent bats, birds, 

or small mammals from being trapped. 

Transmission 

Lines 

Bury transmission lines after step-down to minimize risks to raptors and 

large birds. 

Adhere to timing and spatial restrictions within specified distances of 

occupied and unoccupied migratory bird and raptor nests, as determined by 

appropriate regulatory agencies [e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 

Wyoming Game and Fish Division, and Bureau of Land Management]. 

Develop a written FWS-reviewed bird mitigation and monitoring plan that is 

incorporated into the mine permit before beginning project activities. 

Reduce Human 

Disturbances 

Allow snakes and lizards that are encountered to retreat. 

Inform employees of applicable wildlife laws and penalties associated with 

unlawful taking and harassment of wildlife. 

Train employees on (i) the types of wildlife in the area susceptible to 

collisions with motor vehicles, (ii) the circumstances when collisions are 

most likely to occur, and (iii) measures that should be taken to avoid 

wildlife–vehicle collisions. 

Sign and gate, as needed, all new and improved roads related to the 

proposed project to minimize public traffic. 

Comply with applicable state and local requirements to design or treat mud 

pits and ponds to prevent the development of favorable mosquito habitat (to 

reduce possible transmission of West Nile virus). 
6-15 

Table 6-2. Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC (Continued) 

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Air Quality Fugitive Dust and 

Combustion 

Emissions from 

Construction 

Equipment and 

Vehicles 

Implement fuel-saving practices, such as minimizing vehicle and equipment 

idle time. 

Utilize fossil-fuel vehicles that meet the latest emission standards. 

Utilize newer, cleaner-running equipment (e.g., using drill rig engines and 

construction equipment engines with higher tier levels than the applicant 

specified in draft SEIS Table 6-1). 

Utilize add-on controls such as catalyst and diesel particulate filters for the 

drill rigs. 

Minimize unnecessary travel. 

Ensure that diesel-powered construction equipment and drill rigs are 

properly tuned and maintained. 

Limit access to construction sites, staging areas, and wellfields to authorized 

vehicles only, through designated treated roads. 

Pave or put gravel on dirt roads and parking lots, if appropriate. 

Implement a fugitive dust control plan. 

Cover trucks carrying soil and debris to reduce dust emissions from the 

back of trucks. 

Burn low-sulfur fuels in all diesel engines and generators. 

Train workers to comply with the speed limit, use good engineering 

practices, minimize disturbed areas, and employ other BMPs, 

as appropriate. 

To the extent practicable, avoid conducting soil-disturbing activities, and 

travel on unpaved roads during periods of unfavorable meteorological 

conditions (e.g., high winds). 

Implement any permit conditions identified in the WDEQ air permit, 

if applicable. 

Limit the numbers of hours in a day that effluent-generating activities can 

be conducted. 

Perform road maintenance (i.e., promptly remove earthen material on 

paved roads). 

Apply erosion mitigation methods on disturbed lands. 

Noise Exposure of 

Workers and the 

Public to Noise 

Maintain noise levels in work areas to below Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration regulatory limits. 

Cultural and 

Historic 

Resources 

Disturbance of 

Prehistoric 

Archaeological 

Sites and Sites 

Eligible for Listing 

on the National 

Register of 

Historic Places 

(NRHP) 

Stop work upon discovery of previously undocumented historic and cultural 

resources, and notify appropriate federal, tribal, and state agencies with 

regard to mitigation measures. 

Develop an agreement outlining the mitigation process for each affected 

resource and why sites cannot be avoided, if required. 

Prior to construction, develop an Unexpected Discovery Plan that will outline 

the steps required in the event that unexpected historical and cultural 

resources are encountered at the site. 

Submit a decommissioning plan for NRC review to ensure compliance with 

Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act during the 

decommissioning phase. 
6-16 

Table 6-2. Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by the NRC (Continued) 

Resource Area Activity Proposed Mitigation Measures 

Visual and 

Scenic 

Potential Visual 

Intrusions in the 

Existing 

Landscape 

Character 

Limit the number of drill rigs operating during wellfield construction. 

To the extent possible, use existing secondary roads within the project area 

to access wellfields, and other facility infrastructure. 

Socioeconomics Effects on 

Surrounding 

Communities 

Coordinate emergency response activities with local authorities, fire 

departments, medical facilities, and other emergency services before 

operations begin. 

Occupational 

and Public 

Health and 

Safety 

Effects from 

Facility Operation 

Use high-efficiency particulate air filters or similar controls for particulates. 

Design task procedures to reduce potential accidents. 

Develop contingency plans with county and municipal governments to 

ensure adequate medical, fire, and emergency services are available in 

case of a major accident. 

Waste 

Management 

Disposal Capacity Dispose of decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste at the Casper 

landfill in the event that the disposal capacities of local landfills are limited or 

otherwise unavailable at the time of decommissioning. 

1 6.4 References 

2 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. “Standards for 

3 Protection Against Radiation.” 

4 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. “Domestic Licensing 

5 of Source Material.” 

6 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. Appendix A. “Criteria 

7 Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes 

8 Produced by the Extraction and Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed 

9 Primarily from their Source Material Content.” 

10 10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. “Environmental 

11 Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

12 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

13 Part 1508. “Terminology and Index.” 

14 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

15 Environmental Report Round 1.” ML14169A450 and ML14169A449. Lakewood, Colorado: 

16 AUC LLC. 2014a. 

17 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

18 Technical Report Round 1.” ML14169A447. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014b. 

19 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

20 Environmental Report Round 2.” ML15002A082. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014c. 
6-17 

1 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

2 Environmental Report.” ML12291A335 and ML12291A332. Lakewood, Colorado: 

3 AUC, LLC. 2012a. 

4 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

5 Technical Report.” ML12291A009 and ML12291A010. Lakewood, Colorado: 

6 AUC, LLC. 2012b. 

7 Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. “Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power 

8 Lines: The State of the Art in 2006.” ML12243A391. Washington, DC: Edison Electric 

9 Institute; and Sacramento, California: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and the 

10 California Energy Commission. 2006. 

11 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

12 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244 and ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

13 Regulatory Commission. May 2009.

7-1 

1 7 ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAMS 

2 7.1 Introduction 

3 As discussed in Section 8.0 of NUREG–1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In 

4 Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (GEIS) (NRC, 2009), monitoring programs are developed 

5 for in situ uranium recovery (ISR) facilities to verify compliance with standards for the protection 

6 of worker health and safety in operational areas and for protection of the public and environment 

7 beyond the facility boundary. Monitoring programs provide data on operational and 

8 environmental conditions so that prompt corrective actions can be implemented when adverse 

9 conditions are detected. Thus, these programs help to limit potential environmental impacts at 

10 ISR facilities and the surrounding areas. 

11 Required monitoring programs or those proposed in the license application, can be modified to 

12 address unique site-specific characteristics by adding license conditions to address finding from 

13 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety and environmental reviews. The NRC 

14 staff are conducting the safety review of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, which will be 

15 documented in a Safety Evaluation Report (SER), and any license conditions resulting from the 

16 safety review would be discussed in the final supplemental environmental impact statement 

17 (SEIS). The description of the proposed monitoring programs for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

18 Project is organized as follows: 

19  Radiological Monitoring (Section 7.2) 

20  Physiochemical Monitoring (Section 7.3) 

21  Ecological Monitoring (Section 7.4) 

22 The occurrence of spills and leaks at ISR facilities is considered in GEIS Section 2.11.2 (NRC, 

23 2009), and the management of spills and leaks is not part of the routine environmental 

24 monitoring program described herein. Rather, spills and leaks, including the design of the 

25 infrastructure to detect leaks, are described in the NRC SER.

26 7.2 Radiological Monitoring 

27 This section discusses AUC LLC’s (hereafter AUC, or the applicant) proposed radiological 

28 monitoring program, as described in its license application (AUC, 2012a,b), supporting 

29 documents for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, and subsequent responses to NRC 

30 requests for additional information (RAIs) (AUC, 2014a,b). The purpose of the monitoring 

31 program is to (i) characterize and evaluate the radiological environment, (ii) provide data on 

32 measurable levels of radiation and radioactivity, and (iii) provide data on the principal pathways 

33 of radiological exposure to the public (NRC, 2003). 

34 In accordance with NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

35 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7, a preoperational monitoring program is required to 

36 establish facility baseline conditions. After establishing the baseline program, ISR facility 

37 operators must conduct an operational monitoring program to measure or evaluate compliance 

38 with standards and to evaluate environmental impacts of an ISR facility under operational 

39 conditions. In accordance with 10 CFR 40.65, the applicant must submit to NRC a semiannual 

40 effluent and environmental monitoring report (AUC, 2012b). This report would specify the 

41 quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas in liquid and in 
7-2 

1 gaseous effluents during the previous 6 months of operation. The applicant-supplied report 

2 would also provide other NRC-required information to estimate the maximum potential annual 

3 radiation doses to the public resulting from effluent releases. Although not a requirement, NRC 

4 Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980) provides guidance for establishing a radioactive effluent 

5 and environmental monitoring program for uranium mills (which include ISR facilities) that are 

6 acceptable to the NRC staff. 

7 The results of the applicant’s baseline radiological monitoring program are presented in draft 

8 SEIS Section 3.12.1. The following sections briefly describe the applicant’s proposed 

9 operational monitoring program. 

10 7.2.1 Airborne Radiation Monitoring 

11 The applicant proposes to conduct continuous air particulate sampling at five air monitoring 

12 sample locations (draft SEIS Figure 7-1). There are three onsite stations (AM 2, AM 4-2, and 

13 AM 7), one offsite station (AM 6-2) located approximately 1.7 km [1.1 mi] west of the 

14 southwestern boundary of the proposed project area, and one offsite station (AM 8) located 

15 approximately 2.1 km [1.3 mi] east of the southeastern boundary of the proposed project area 

16 (AUC, 2014b, 2015a). The air particulate monitoring program would be conducted using solar 

17 powered stations employing electronic air flow control and sensors to detect changes in dust 

18 loading and other important parameters, such as temperature and barometric pressure (AUC, 

19 2014b). The filters from air samplers would be exchanged monthly and composited quarterly. 

20 The composited filters would be analyzed to calculate quarterly average radionuclide air 

21 concentrations for total uranium, thorium (Th-230), radium (Ra-226), and lead (Pb-210), in 

22 accordance with Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980; AUC, 2012a, 2014b). 

23 The applicant proposes to measure ambient radon (Rn-222) concentrations in air using 

24 Radtrack passive track-etch detectors at each of the five air monitoring station locations (AUC, 

25 2012a, 2014b). Additionally, consistent with Regulatory Guide 4.14 and NUREG–1569 (NRC, 

26 2003, 1980), radon (Rn-222) concentrations would be measured quarterly over a 1-year period 

27 (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). 

28 To monitor exposure to uranium particulates within the central processing plant (CPP), the 

29 applicant proposes to collect air samples on a monthly basis in accordance with Regulatory 

30 Guide 8.25. The applicant would also monitor the CPP area for radon (Rn-222) and its progeny 

31 in accordance with Regulatory Guide 8.30. Initial sampling would determine specific monitoring 

32 locations and frequency. Sampled areas exceeding 10 percent of the 10 CFR Part 20 

33 occupational annual dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem] would be monitored monthly, while all other 

34 areas would be monitored quarterly (AUC, 2012a,b). 

35 The applicant would also have an external personnel radiation monitoring program. 

36 Occupational exposure to gamma and beta radiation would be measured using 

37 thermoluminescent or optically stimulated dosimeters. During initial operations, workers would 

38 be monitored to establish an adequate exposure history, and then the applicant may discontinue 

39 monitoring workers that show no likelihood for exceeding 10 percent of the allowable 

40 occupational dose limit (AUC, 2012a). 
7-3 

Figure 7-1. Locations of Operational Air Monitoring Stations at the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project Area 

(AUC, 2014a) 
7-4 

1 7.2.2 Soils and Sediment Monitoring 

2 Samples of surface soil from a 0–5 cm [0–2 in] depth would be collected annually at the air 

3 monitoring sampling sites (see draft SEIS Figure 7-1). The samples would be analyzed for total 

4 uranium, radium (Ra-226), thorium (Th-230), and lead (Pb-210) (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). 

5 Sediments will also be collected annually at each of the surface water-sampling sites 

6 established for pre-operational surface water monitoring (see draft SEIS Figure 3-14). The 

7 sediment samples would be analyzed for total uranium, thorium (Th-230), radium (Ra-226), and 

8 lead (Pb-210) (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). The maximum lower limits of detection for the analyses 

9 would be consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980), unless 

10 matrix interferences prohibit attainment of these low-detection-limit goals. 

11 7.2.3 Vegetation, Food, and Fish Monitoring 

12 During the grazing season, the applicant collected vegetation samples quarterly at three 

13 locations in the northeastern area of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area (AUC, 2012a). 

14 Composite samples of the vegetation were analyzed for radium (Ra-226), uranium, thorium 

15 (Th-230), lead (Pb-210), and (polonium) Po-210 (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). In response to an NRC 

16 RAI, AUC has committed to collecting additional vegetation samples prior to preconstruction 

17 activities at least three times during the grazing season in grazing areas in three different 

18 sectors that would have the highest predicted air particulate concentrations due to operations 

19 (AUC, 2014b). 

20 In January 2015, the applicant collected three livestock meat samples as part of the baseline 

21 assessment of radiological conditions (AUC, 2015a). Food sampling was analyzed for uranium, 

22 thorium (Th-230), radium (Ra-226), lead (Pb-210), and polonium (Po-210), per regulatory 

23 guidance (NRC, 1980). Because the CPP and wellfields would be fenced, cattle would be 

24 excluded from these areas. Furthermore, cattle are only in the immediate grazing area for 

25 approximately half of the year and graze over large areas due to the limited food supply. 

26 Therefore, cattle and game sampling would not be part of the routine environmental monitoring 

27 program. Additionally, no fish sampling was conducted based on the lack of available habitat 

28 (AUC, 2012a). 

29 7.2.4 Surface Water Monitoring 

30 The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area does not contain perennial streams. Surface water 

31 features are ephemeral and only contain natural runoff during heavy rainfall and snowmelt 

32 events. Throughout portions of the year, coalbed methane (CBM) operations contribute to 

33 some runoff, which ponds at select locations. Consistent with recommendations in Regulatory 

34 Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980), water samples would be collected quarterly from the 21 surface water 

35 sampling locations established for preoperational (baseline) surface water monitoring (draft 

36 SEIS Figure 7.1). All locations are existing stock ponds, CBM outfalls, or areas in drainages 

37 where ponding occasionally occurs (AUC, 2014b). The surface water samples would be 

38 analyzed for Regulatory Guide 4.14 Table 2 (1980) parameters [e.g., dissolved and suspended 

39 natural uranium, radium (Ra-226), thorium (Th-230), lead (Pb-210), and polonium (Po-210)] 

40 (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). Surface water monitoring results would be submitted to the NRC in the 

41 semi-annual environmental and effluent reports (AUC, 2012a). 
7-5 

1 7.2.5 Groundwater Monitoring 

2 As part of the groundwater monitoring program, all water supply wells used for drinking water, 

3 livestock watering, or crop irrigation within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed wellfield boundaries 

4 would be sampled quarterly (see draft SEIS Figure 7-2). These wells are located hydrologically 

5 upgradient and downgradient of proposed ISR facilities and wellfields. Samples would be 

6 analyzed for dissolved and suspended uranium and other radiological parameters, including 

7 radium (Ra-226), thorium (Th-230), lead (Pb-210), and polonium (Po-210) (AUC, 2012a, 

8 2014b). 

9 The NRC safety analysis of the applicant’s well construction methods identified the use of sand 

10 filter packs that would extend several feet above and below the screen interval. If this 

11 well-completion method was used on monitoring wells directly affected by ISR operations, there 

12 would be the potential for migration of fluids from the mineralized zone. Therefore, the NRC 

13 SER would require an applicant commitment to not use this well-completion method. 

14 Additionally, existing production unit wells using this method would be abandoned and the sand 

15 pack would be removed prior to plugging the well (NRC, 2015). 

16 7.3 Physiochemical Monitoring 

17 This section discusses the applicant’s proposed physiochemical monitoring program, as 

18 detailed in its license application and supporting documents (AUC, 2012a,b; 2014a,b). The 

19 purpose of this monitoring program is to (i) provide data on operational and environmental 

20 conditions so that prompt corrective actions can be taken when adverse conditions are detected 

21 and (ii) comply with environmental requirements or license conditions. In this regard, this 

22 monitoring program helps to limit potential environmental impacts at an ISR facility. 

23 7.3.1 Wellfield Groundwater Monitoring 

24 As discussed in GEIS Section 8.3, the ISR production process directly affects the groundwater 

25 within the operating wellfield. For this reason, groundwater conditions are extensively 

26 monitored both before and during operations. The groundwater monitoring program includes 

27 production zone monitoring wells and wells monitoring aquifers overlying and underlying the 

28 production aquifer zone (NRC, 2009). The background groundwater monitoring that 

29 would occur as part of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is discussed in draft SEIS 

30 Section 7.3.1.1. The groundwater quality monitoring that would occur during operations is 

31 discussed in draft SEIS Section 7.3.1.2. The applicant’s groundwater restoration monitoring 

32 and stabilization plan is detailed in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4 which addresses the schedule 

33 and all activities associated with aquifer restoration.

34 In accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5), Commission-approved 

35 background groundwater quality values must be established before beginning uranium 

36 production in a wellfield. This is done to characterize the water quality in monitoring wells that 

37 are used to detect lixiviant excursions from the production zone. This is also done to establish 

38 standards for aquifer restoration (i.e., target restoration goals) after uranium-recovery operations 

39 are complete. The requirements and details of sampling programs to establish background 

40 groundwater quality are described in GEIS Section 8.3.1.1 (NRC, 2009). Background water 

41 quality can be established through examining records and reports for existing local water wells 

42 and/or by sampling wells developed for the ISR project before production begins. 
7-6 

Figure 7-2. Locations of Groundwater Monitoring Wells for the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

(Modified from AUC, 2012a) 
7-7 

1 7.3.1.1 Background Groundwater Quality 

2 GEIS Section 8.3.1.1 discusses how a background groundwater quality program would be 

3 established prior to uranium production (NRC, 2009). The groundwater monitoring program is 

4 designed to establish background groundwater quality in monitoring wells prior to ISR 

5 operations, detect any potential excursions of lixiviant either horizontally or vertically outside of 

6 the recovery zone during active ISR, and determine when the groundwater in the production 

7 zone aquifer (PZA) has been restored adequately following ISR operations. Consistent with 

8 NUREG–1569, Section 5.7.8.3 (NRC, 2003), the applicant would be expected to sample wells 

9 over sufficiently spaced intervals to indicate seasonal variability. Samples would be analyzed 

10 for the constituents and parameters shown in draft SEIS Table 7-1. 

Table 7-1. Background Water Quality Parameters and Indicators for Operational 

Groundwater Monitoring* 

Test Analyte/Parameter 

Bulk Properties 

pH

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 

Conductivity

Cations/Anions 

Bicarbonate (as HCO3

-

) 

Calcium, Ca2+ 

Carbonate (as CO3

2-) 

Chloride, ClMagnesium, Mg2+ 

Nitrate, NO3

-

 (as Nitrogen) 

Potassium, K+ 

Sodium, Na+ 

Sulfate, SO4

2- 

Total Alkalinity

Trace Metals 

Arsenic, As 

Barium, Ba 

Boron, B 

Cadmium, Cd 

Chromium, Cr 

Copper, Cu 

Fluoride, F 

Iron, Fe 

Lead, Pb 

Manganese, Mn 

Mercury, Hg 

Molybdenum, Mo 

Nickel, Ni 

Selenium, Se 

Silver, Ag 

Uranium, U 

Vanadium, V 

Zinc, Zn

Radionuclides Gross Alpha = Alpha Particles 

Gross Beta = Beta Particles and Photons 

Radium, Ra-226 

*All metals analyses are for dissolved metals. 

Source: NRC (2003) 
7-8 

1 To establish background groundwater quality in production units, the applicant would install a 

2 ring of perimeter monitoring wells in the PZA around each wellfield production pattern area 

3 (AUC, 2012a). As described in draft SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.2, the NRC staff have proposed and 

4 the applicant has agreed to a license condition that requires a 122 m [400 ft] distance to, and 

5 spacing of, the perimeter wells for a wellfield production pattern in either the fully or partially 

6 saturated portions of the PZA (AUC, 2015b). In addition, the applicant would install monitoring 

7 wells in the overlying aquifer at a minimum density of one well per every 1.6 ha [4.0 ac] of 

8 pattern area (AUC, 2012b). Four samples would be collected from each perimeter and 

9 overlying monitoring well for background characterization, with a minimum of 2 weeks between 

10 sampling events (AUC, 2012b). The first and second sampling events would include all 

11 constituents listed in draft SEIS Table 7-1. If specific constituents are not detected during the 

12 first and second sampling events, those constituents would not be analyzed during the third and 

13 fourth sampling events (AUC, 2012b). 

14 The background groundwater quality data would be used to establish target restoration goals for 

15 each production unit. Target restoration goals, which would be used to assess the effectiveness 

16 of groundwater restoration activities, would be established based on statistical methods 

17 described in “Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified 

18 Guidance” (EPA, 2009). This guidance describes a series of sampling and laboratory analytical 

19 procedures to be used to validate the background groundwater quality data. Groundwater 

20 quality data that passes the data validation process would be incorporated into a database that 

21 would be used to set target restoration goals (AUC, 2012a). 

22 After completion of well installation, wellfield background groundwater sampling, and wellfield 

23 characterization, the applicant would conduct multi-well pumping tests to verify hydraulic 

24 communication between the wellfield and monitoring well ring. The hydrogeologic test will allow 

25 the applicant to demonstrate that a hydraulic gradient can be maintained to prevent excursions 

26 beyond the perimeter production zone monitoring well ring (AUC, 2012b). 

27 After wellfield testing is completed, the applicant would prepare a production area pump test 

28 report for each production area describing the production area geology, hydrogeology, pumping 

29 test results, baseline groundwater quality for all aquifers, upper control limits (UCLs) for the 

30 excursion monitoring wells, and restoration target values for the production zone. The 

31 applicant’s Safety and Environmental Review Panel would be responsible for monitoring any 

32 proposed change in the facility or process and would review these reports to ensure that the 

33 hydrologic testing results and proposed ISR activities were consistent with the technical 

34 requirements and did not conflict with NRC regulatory requirements. The report would then be 

35 submitted to Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and the NRC for review 

36 and approval before ISR operations commenced (AUC, 2012b). 

37 7.3.1.2 Excursion Monitoring 

38 As discussed in GEIS Section 8.3.1.2, monitoring wells are situated around the wellfields, in the 

39 aquifers overlying and underlying the ore-bearing production aquifers, and within the wellfields 

40 (NRC, 2009). Wells are placed in these locations to ensure the early detection of potential 

41 horizontal and vertical excursions of lixiviants. Monitoring well placement is based on what is 

42 known about the nature and extent of the confining layer and the presence of drill holes, 

43 hydraulic gradient and aquifer transmissivity, and well abandonment procedures used in the 

44 region. The ability of a monitoring well to detect groundwater excursions is influenced by 

45 several factors, such as the thickness of the aquifer, the distance between the monitoring wells 
7-9 

1 and the wellfield, the distance between the adjacent monitoring wells, the frequency of 

2 groundwater sampling, and the magnitude of changes in lixiviant migration indicator parameters. 

3 As a result, the spacing, distribution, and number of monitoring wells at a given ISR facility are 

4 site specific. The factors that control the spacing, distribution, and number of monitoring wells 

5 are detailed in GEIS Section 8.3.1.2 (NRC, 2009). The applicant’s monitoring well design is 

6 described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2. 

7 The applicant proposes to install production and nonproduction zone monitoring wells to detect 

8 any horizontal and vertical lixiviant excursions at the proposed project site (AUC, 2012a). As 

9 described previously, production zone monitoring wells would be located in the PZA, in a ring 

10 around the perimeter of the production wellfields at a spacing of one well every 122 m [400 ft]. 

11 Injection and recovery well flow rates would be monitored at each header house so that injection 

12 and recovery can be balanced for each pattern and each wellfield. Recovery flow rates would 

13 always be greater than injection rates to establish a bleed rate that maintains an inward gradient 

14 for each production unit (AUC, 2012a). 

15 Nonproduction monitoring wells within the production area may consist of two types of 

16 monitoring wells: overlying and underlying (Mackin et al., 2001; NRC, 2003, 2009). As 

17 described previously, the applicant would install monitoring wells in the overlying aquifer at a 

18 minimum density of one well per every 1.6 ha [4.0 ac] of pattern area (AUC, 2012b). The 

19 screened intervals of overlying monitoring wells would be located in the sand unit or aquifer 

20 (either the Overlying Aquifer Unit or the Shallow Water Table Unit) immediately above the PZA. 

21 The overlying nonproduction monitoring wells are designed to monitor any upward movement of 

22 lixiviant that may occur from the production zone and to guard against potential leakage from 

23 production and injection well casings into any overlying aquifer (Mackin et al., 2001; NRC, 2003, 

24 2009). The overlying wells are used to obtain background water quality data and to develop 

25 UCLs for the overlying zones that would be used to determine whether vertical migration of 

26 lixiviant is occurring (NRC, 2003, 2009). 

27 Vertical monitoring is generally set up with a density of wells ranging from one every 1.2 to 2 ha 

28 [3 to 5 ac]. However, where confining layers are very thick and permeabilities are negligible, 

29 requirements for vertical excursion monitoring can be relaxed or eliminated (Mackin et al., 

30 2001). The screened zone for the overlying wells is determined from electric logs by qualified 

31 geologists or hydrogeologists. 

32 After background groundwater quality is established for the monitoring wells for an individual 

33 production unit, UCLs are selected and set for chemical constituents or parameters that would 

34 be indicative of lixiviant migration from the wellfield (Mackin et al., 2001; NRC, 2003, 2009). 

35 The constituents and parameters selected as lixiviant migration indicators and for which UCLs 

36 would be set at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are chloride, conductivity, and total 

37 alkalinity (AUC, 2012a). Chloride would be measured because the ion-exchange process 

38 increases concentrations in the lixiviant. In addition, chloride is highly mobile in groundwater 

39 and is not influenced by pH changes and oxidation-reduction reactions that occur in the 

40 production zone. Conductivity would be evaluated because it indicates changes in groundwater 

41 quality and is more easily measured than parameters such as total dissolved solids. Total 

42 alkalinity would be examined because its concentration significantly increases during the ISR 

43 process and, therefore, provides a conservative indicator (AUC, 2012a). 

44 The applicant’s operational excursion monitoring would consist of sampling the monitoring wells 

45 at least twice monthly and at least 10 days apart and analyzing the samples for the excursion 
7-10 

1 indicators (i.e., chloride, conductivity, and total alkalinity) (AUC, 2012a). Monitoring wells would 

2 be purged before sample collection to ensure that water within the well casing is adequately 

3 displaced and formation water is sampled. Samples would be collected for analysis when field 

4 water quality parameters such as pH and specific conductivity are stable. Water level and 

5 analytical monitoring data for the UCL parameters would be reported to WDEQ on a quarterly 

6 basis and retained onsite for NRC review (AUC, 2012a). 

7 An excursion occurs when two or more excursion indicators in a monitoring well exceed their 

8 UCLs (NRC, 2003). If the concentration of two or three excursion indicators exceeds 

9 established UCL concentrations during a sampling event, a second sample would be taken 

10 within 48 hours after results of the first analysis are received and reviewed (AUC, 2012a). If an 

11 excursion is not confirmed by a second sample, a third sample would be taken within 48 hours 

12 after the second set of sampling data are received. If the second or third samples produce 

13 results where two or more excursion indicators exceed the UCL concentrations, the well 

14 producing these results would be placed on excursion status and corrective action would be 

15 required. The first sample results would be considered in error if the second and third samples 

16 do not confirm the results from the first sample (AUC, 2012a). 

17 If an excursion is verified, the applicant would be required to notify the NRC and WDEQ within 

18 24 hours by telephone or email and in writing within 7 days; corrective actions should begin 

19 immediately. Corrective actions would include increasing sampling frequency to weekly, 

20 increasing the pumping rates of production wells in the area of the excursion to increase the net 

21 bleed, and pumping individual wells to enhance recovery of solutions (AUC, 2012a). If these 

22 actions do not retrieve the excursion within 60 days, the applicant would suspend injection of 

23 lixiviant into the production zone adjacent to the excursion until the excursion is retrieved and 

24 the UCL parameters are no longer exceeded. Within 60 days of a confirmed excursion, the 

25 applicant would be required to file a written report to NRC describing the event and the 

26 corrective action taken (NRC, 2003). 

27 After operations are complete, the wellfields would be restored. As part of aquifer restoration, 

28 the applicant would sample the same horizontal perimeter and overlying and underlying 

29 monitoring wells used during production, as described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4. During 

30 restoration, lixiviant injection ceases, thereby reducing the potential for an excursion. The 

31 applicant would, therefore, implement a reduced groundwater monitoring program during aquifer 

32 restoration. During this phase, wells located in the perimeter monitoring ring and completed in 

33 the overlying and underlying aquifers would be sampled every 60 days for chloride, total 

34 alkalinity, and conductivity excursion parameters. An excursion would be defined in the same 

35 manner as during operations and subject to the same corrective action requirements 

36 (AUC, 2012a). 

37 7.3.2 Wellfield and Pipeline Flow and Pressure Monitoring 

38 As indicated in GEIS Section 8.3.2, the operator typically monitors injection and production well 

39 flow rates to manage water balance for the entire wellfield. Additionally, the pressure of each 

40 production well and the production trunk line in each wellfield header house is monitored. 

41 Unexpected losses of pressure may indicate equipment failure, a leak, or a problem with 

42 well integrity (NRC, 2009). 

43 The applicant’s program would include monitoring of the injection well and production well flow 

44 rates and pressures at each header house. Individual well flow readings would be recorded 
7-11 

1 during each shift, and the overall wellfield flow rates would be balanced daily (AUC, 2012a, 

2 2014b). Flow and total volume data would be transferred to and checked automatically at the 

3 CPP. The recovery and injection trunk lines would have electronic pressure gauges. 

4 Information from these gauges would be monitored from each unit’s control room. The control 

5 system would have both high and low alarms for pressure and flow. If the pressure and/or flow 

6 are out of range, the alarms would sound, alerting personnel to make adjustments. Certain high 

7 or low readings would signal automatic shutoffs or shutdowns. Activation of the flow alarms 

8 would prompt the applicant to take corrective actions, which include inspections for leaks and 

9 spills (AUC, 2012a, 2014b). 

10 7.3.3 Meteorological Monitoring 

11 The applicant has committed to continue meteorological monitoring at the proposed project 

12 during ISR operations (AUC, 2012a). As part of the site characterization process, the applicant 

13 installed a weather station near the northeast corner of the proposed project area (see draft 

14 SEIS Section 3.7). This weather station was monitored for a year to establish baseline 

15 conditions and then to analyze and describe the long-term and site-specific meteorological 

16 conditions and trends (AUC, 2012a). In addition, data sets from several regional weather 

17 stations were reviewed (see draft SEIS Section 3.7). 

18 7.4 Ecological Monitoring 

19 This section describes the applicant’s proposed ecological monitoring program, as described in 

20 its license application (AUC, 2012a,b). As discussed in GEIS Section 8.4, ecological monitoring 

21 may include surveys of habitat; species counts; or other measures of the health of endangered, 

22 threatened, and sensitive species (NRC, 2009). Records of all sampling activities and analyses 

23 would be maintained onsite for NRC review, and periodic reports of all sampling and analyses 

24 would be submitted to the NRC. 

25 7.4.1 Vegetation Monitoring 

26 Based on results from its preoperational vegetation sampling program and through modeling, 

27 the applicant concluded in their environmental review that consumption of vegetation would not 

28 be a significant contributor to radiological dose through the ingestion pathway (AUC, 2012a). 

29 Therefore, the applicant does not intend to conduct future vegetation, food, or fish sampling, 

30 because the predicted dose to an individual from these pathways would be less than 5 percent 

31 of the applicable radiation protection standard (AUC, 2012a). However, in response to NRC 

32 RAIs, the applicant has committed to collect additional vegetation samples (AUC, 2014b), and if 

33 the NRC issues the license in the future, the applicant would collect an additional round of 

34 vegetation samples (AUC, 2015b). An updated Preoperational Monitoring Radiological Report 

35 would include this third round of vegetation samples and results prior to prelicense NRC 

36 inspection and start of operations (NRC, 2015). 

37 7.4.2 Wildlife Monitoring 

38 Large game animals, such as deer or pronghorn, have extensive ranges and are not confined to 

39 the proposed project area. Therefore, the potential for bioaccumulation of radionuclides in 

40 these animals would be limited because they would likely derive only a small fraction of total 

41 sustenance from the flora or fauna in the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area. No fish 

42 species occur within the proposed project area, because surface water is ephemeral and there 
7-12 

1 is not a sufficient volume of surface water to support aquatic species (AUC, 2012a). For more 

2 information on aquatic species, see draft SEIS Section 3.6.2. 

3 The applicant would conduct annual raptor surveys at the proposed project site during the 

4 lifespan of the project (AUC, 2012a). Any required wildlife monitoring surveys would follow the 

5 same regimen as other ISR operations in the region (NRC, 2009). This would facilitate 

6 comparisons among survey results and impact assessments. 

7 The applicant would employ a number of possible mitigation strategies to reduce the impact of 

8 its activities on raptors in the project area. In the unlikely event that the applicant determines it 

9 necessary to disturb a raptor nest, the applicant would develop a mitigation plan and consult 

10 with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

11 (FWS), at which time any applicable permits would be obtained from the appropriate agencies. 

12 (AUC, 2012b) 

13 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.6.3, no federally listed threatened or endangered species 

14 were documented within the proposed project area during the baseline study (AUC, 2012a). 

15 The baseline ecological study demonstrated that three sage grouse leks (i.e., a species that 

16 was recently removed from the FWS candidate species list), are located east and southeast of 

17 the proposed project between the 1.6-km [1-mi] buffer project buffer and the larger 6.4 km [4 mi] 

18 area surrounding the proposed project area (AUC, 2012a). Activities for the proposed Reno 

19 Creek ISR Project are within 3.2 km [2 mi] of an occupied lek (Porcupine Creek lek) and are 

20 therefore subject to recommendations in the Wyoming Governor’s executive order. As stated in 

21 draft SEIS Section 4.6.1.1, the applicant has committed to conducting annual spring monitoring 

22 of the Porcupine Creek sage-grouse lek, in coordination with the WGFD biologist in 

23 Gillette, Wyoming (AUC, 2014a). 

24 7.5 References 

25 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

26 Protection Against Radiation.” 

27 10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. “Domestic Licensing of 

28 Source Material.” 

29 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40 

30 Appendix A. “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 

31 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 

32 Processed Primarily from their Source Material Content.” 

33 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, Preoperational Monitoring 

34 Radiological Report.” ML15119A316. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2015a. 

35 AUC. “Responses to Open/Confirmatory Items.” ML15119A314. Lakewood, Colorado: 

36 AUC LLC. 2015b. 

37 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

38 Environmental Report Round 1.” ML14169A450 and ML14169A449. Lakewood, Colorado: 

39 AUC LLC. 2014a. 
7-13 

1 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

2 Technical Report Round 1.” ML14169A447. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014b. 

3 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

4 Environmental Report.” ML12291A332 and ML12291A335. Lakewood, Colorado: 

5 AUC LLC. 2012a. 

6 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

7 Technical Report.” ML12291A009 and ML12291A010. Lakewood, Colorado: 

8 AUC LLC. 2012b. 

9 EPA. “Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities, Unified 

10 Guidance.” ML15048A124. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource 

11 Conservation and Recovery, EPA 530/R-09-007. March 2009. 

12 Mackin, P.C., D. Daruwalla, J. Winterle, M. Smith, and D.A. Pickett. NUREG/CR–6733, 

13 “A Baseline Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

14 Licensees.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2001. 

15 NRC. “Safety Evaluation Report: Reno Creek ISR Project Campbell County, Wyoming.” 

16 Washington DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2015. 

17 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

18 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244 and ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

19 Regulatory Commission. 2009. 

20 NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

21 Applications—Final Report.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2003. 

22 NRC. “Regulatory Guide 4.14, Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 

23 Mills, Rev. 1.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1980. 

8-1 

1 8 COST-BENEFITS ANALYSIS 

2 8.1 Introduction 

3 This chapter summarizes benefits and costs associated with the proposed project and the 

4 No-Action Alternative. Under the proposed action, the applicant would use the license for the 

5 construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek 

6 In Situ Uranium Recovery (ISR) Project. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

7 (SEIS) Section 4.11 discusses the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed project. 

8 Implementation of the proposed action would generate regional and local benefits and costs. 

9 The regional and local benefits of constructing and operating the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

10 Project include increases in employment, economic activity, and tax revenues. The benefits of 

11 increased tax revenues would accrue primarily to Campbell County, Wyoming, and the 

12 surrounding towns of Wright, Gillette, and potentially Edgerton in neighboring Natrona County. 

13 Costs associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be, for the most part, limited 

14 to the area surrounding the site. Examples of these costs include changes to current land and 

15 water use and increased road traffic. 

16 8.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

17 Under the proposed action, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would issue the 

18 applicant an NRC license. With this license, the applicant would construct, operate, restore the 

19 aquifer, and decommission the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The timeframes for the 

20 proposed activities are important to note as part of cost and benefit quantification. After 

21 approximately 2 years of site development and facility construction, there would be 11 years of 

22 wellfield and uranium recovery operations (see draft SEIS Figure 2-1). During the 11-year 

23 operations phase of the project, wellfield construction would be phased, with three to seven 

24 wellfields in various stages of construction at one time. Wellfield restoration at the proposed 

25 Reno Creek ISR Project would begin immediately after production activities in the wellfields end. 

26 The applicant projects that restoration activities in the first wellfields would begin 2 to 3 years 

27 after production activities commence, depending on uranium recovery levels and available 

28 central processing plant (CPP) capacity. Aquifer restoration activities, including restoration 

29 construction, stability monitoring, and regulatory approval of restoration, would continue for 

30 11 years. 

31 Some overlap between wellfield decommissioning and groundwater restoration activities would 

32 be expected. Wellfield decommissioning would continue for approximately 8 years. 

33 Decommissioning of the CPP would begin after aquifer restoration and wellfield 

34 decommissioning activities are complete. It is anticipated that these activities would take 1 year 

35 to complete (AUC, 2012). The duration of each of these activities/project phases would be tied 

36 to the overall cost and benefit analysis in terms of employment and additional indirect and 

37 induced impacts. 

38 8.2.1 Benefits of the Proposed Action 

39 The principal socioeconomic benefit expected to result from the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

40 Project would be an increase in employment opportunities in the region. The applicant expects 

41 to directly employ 80 workers during construction and 92 workers during operations of the 
8-2 

1 proposed project (AUC, 2012). Fewer workers would be involved in aquifer restoration and 

2 decommissioning activities: 52 and 22 workers, respectively (AUC, 2012). As discussed in 

3 draft SEIS Section 4.11.1, the construction workforce would most likely not relocate 

4 permanently to the area because of the short duration (1 to 2 years) of these activities. Workers 

5 would be more likely to relocate near the facility during the operations, aquifer restoration, and 

6 decommissioning phases of the proposed project. 

7 The majority of jobs are expected to be filled by workers commuting from nearby towns or 

relocating from outside the region. A standard employment multiplier of 0.71 8 was used to 

9 calculate the expected influx of approximately 56 jobs (i.e., 80 jobs × 0.7 = 56) during 

10 construction, 64 jobs (i.e., 92 jobs × 0.7 = 64) during operations, 36 jobs during aquifer 

11 restoration (i.e., 52 jobs × 0.7 = 36), and 15 jobs during decommissioning 

(i.e., 22 jobs × 0.7 = 6) activities.1 12 

13 The town nearest to the proposed project is Wright, with a population of 1,852 (USCB, 2012). 

14 However, employees supporting project activities might prefer to reside in larger surrounding 

15 communities such as Gillette and Casper, which have populations of 31,797 and 59,628, 

16 respectively (USCB, 2012). However, Casper is 148 km [92 mi] away and outside the 

17 immediate region of influence of the proposed project. The influx of jobs created by the 

18 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project and the expected reduction in unemployment are expected to 

19 have a MODERATE beneficial impact to the businesses of Wright and a SMALL beneficial 

20 impact to the businesses of the larger towns surrounding the proposed project, such as Gillette 

21 and Casper. 

22 In addition to job creation, the proposed project’s operations and the addition of regionally 

23 based employees would be expected to contribute to local, regional, and state revenues. 

24 Revenues would be expected to increase through the purchase of goods and services and 

25 through the taxes levied on goods and services. Overall, the applicant estimates that the 

26 proposed project would be expected to generate $21.85 million in total indirect business tax 

27 revenue over the lifetime of construction, operations, restoration, and decommissioning 

28 activities (AUC, 2012). Sources of indirect business tax revenue include property taxes, sales 

29 taxes, and motor vehicle license charges. 

30 The State of Wyoming, Department of Revenue levies a severance tax of 4.0 percent for 

31 uranium solid mineral production. Of the total severance tax paid by the applicant, a portion of 

32 that is put into the Wyoming Permanent Mineral Trust Fund (PMTF). The PMTF was 

33 established to provide for the state when the minerals were not profitable to extract and 

34 severance taxes became a smaller portion of the government revenues. The applicant’s 

35 estimate of uranium resources to be recovered at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is 

36 7.1 million kg [15.7 million lb] of uranium (as U3O8) (AUC, 2012). If the applicant recovers 

37 4.98 million kg [10.99 million lb] (i.e., less the total recoverable amount) and sold the product at 

38 the current long-term market rate of $65.00 per pound, the State of Wyoming would receive 

 

1

The economic multiplier provides a statistical estimate of the total impact that is expected from a regional change in 

a given economic activity. The multiplier is a ratio of total change to initial change. The multiplier of 0.7 is used in 

these calculations because it is the standard employment multiplier for the milling/mining industry (Economic Policy 

Institute, 2003). 
8-3 

1 $41.5 million in severance taxes over the course of the proposed project, with an additional 

2 $26.75 million paid in other state and local taxes over the same period (AUC, 2012). 

3 8.2.2 Benefits from Uranium Production 

4 The taxes to be generated by operations at the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would be 

5 dependent on yellowcake production levels and the number of persons employed in facility 

6 operations. The applicant projects 7.1 million kg [15.7 million lb] of uranium would be recovered 

7 (AUC, 2012). However, production of yellowcake would depend on the market price for 

8 yellowcake (as uranium) and production costs. Since 2002, the spot market price for uranium 

9 has fluctuated significantly, from a high of more than $130.00 per pound in 2007 to a low of 

10 $20.00 per pound in 2002. As of May 15, 2016, the price was $27.50 per pound (UXC, 2016). 

11 The proposed project’s potential benefits to the local community depend on the applicant’s 

12 operating costs being lower than the future price of uranium. If the price of uranium falls 

13 sufficiently low, the revenue generated from the proposed project may fall below the costs of 

14 operations and then operations would likely be suspended or discontinued. In addition, the 

15 State of Wyoming would receive less than the estimated severance taxes based on the long16 term current market rate of $65.00 pound. 

17 8.2.3 Costs to the Local Communities 

18 Draft SEIS Table 8-1 lists the towns near the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. These towns 

19 would be expected to provide the majority of the workers for the proposed project. The NRC 

20 staff anticipate that the majority of workers would commute from the larger communities of 

21 Gillette and Casper, Wyoming. The table also lists the population of the towns and the 

22 distances to the proposed project. As stated in draft SEIS Section 8.2.1, the construction of the 

23 proposed project is expected to employ 80 workers, and if it is assumed that a workforce from 

24 outside the region fills the majority of the construction employment requirements, there could be 

an influx of 56 jobs (80 jobs × 0.72 25 = 56). Because of the short duration of construction (2 years) 

26 and small size of the construction force, the impact to housing demand would be SMALL (see 

27 draft SEIS Section 4.11.1.1). Workers would not be expected to bring families and school-aged 

28 children with them; therefore, there would be a SMALL impact on education services and on 

29 health and social services (see draft SEIS Section 4.11.1.1). 

30 As mentioned in draft SEIS Section 8.2.1, the proposed project would be expected to employ 

31 92 workers during the period of operations, 52 workers during the period of aquifer restoration, 

32 and 22 workers during the period of site decommissioning. As described in draft SEIS 

33 Section 4.11.1.2, employment types would be expected to be more technical during operations, 

34 and as a result, the majority of the operational workforce would be expected to be staffed from 

35 outside the region. Therefore, it is anticipated that there would be an influx of workers into the 

36 towns closest to the proposed project area. 

 

2

The multiplier of 0.7 is used in these calculations because it is the standard employment multiplier for the 

milling/mining industry (Economic Policy Institute, 2003). 
8-4 

Table 8-1. Towns Near the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Town Population (2010 Estimate)

Distance From Proposed Project 

in km [mi] 

Wright, Wyoming 1,852 13 [8] 

Gillette, Wyoming 31,797 64 [40] 

Casper, Wyoming 59,628 148 [92] 

Source: USCB, 2012 

Specifically, it is anticipated that there would be an influx of 64 workers (i.e., 92 jobs × 0.73 1 = 64) 

2 during operations, 36 jobs during aquifer restoration (i.e., 52 jobs × 0.7 = 36), and 15 jobs during 

3 decommissioning activities (i.e., 22 jobs × 0.7 = 15). 

4 It would be expected that workers moving to communities nearby or within commuting distance 

5 of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area for employment opportunities would arrive with 

6 their families. The average household size in Wyoming is 2.50 persons (USCB, 2012). 

7 Therefore, newly created jobs have the potential to increase the local population by as many as 

8 288 persons (64 + 36 + 15 = 115 workers from outside the region × 2.50 persons per household 

9 = 288 persons). The influx of workers and their families would increase the demand for housing 

10 and may spur an increase in the construction of new homes in towns surrounding the proposed 

11 project area. It is anticipated that the impact of increased housing demand and construction 

12 may be MODERATE for the small town of Wright. For larger towns such as Gillette and Casper, 

13 which have more available housing, the impact would be SMALL. 

14 The projected population growth from the proposed project would have a SMALL impact on 

15 education infrastructure and health and social services. As assessed in draft SEIS 

16 Section 4.11.1, the impact on schools and education-related services during operations, aquifer 

17 restoration, and decommissioning would be SMALL. As presented in draft SEIS Section 3.11.7, 

18 towns surrounding the proposed project have adequate medical facilities, social services, and 

19 police, fire, and emergency medical services to accommodate the projected project workforce 

20 and their families. Furthermore, as discussed in draft SEIS Section 4.11.1, local governments 

21 would be expected to have the capacity to effectively plan for and manage increased demand 

22 for health and social services from workers and their families relocating to towns near the 

23 proposed project. 

24 8.3 Evaluation of Findings of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

25 If the NRC issues the applicant a license, it is anticipated that the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

26 Project would have a SMALL to MODERATE overall economic impact on the region of influence 

27 and would generate primarily regional and local benefits and costs. As discussed, the regional 

28 benefits of the proposed project include increased employment opportunities and increased 

29 economic activity that would add to tax revenues in the region. Increases in tax revenues would 

30 be expected to bring the largest benefit to Campbell County, although economic benefits would 

31 most likely be shared by neighboring counties and communities in Wyoming. Social and 

32 economic costs associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project would, for the most part, 

33 be limited to communities within commuting distance of the site. Draft SEIS Table 8-2 

34 summarizes the costs and benefits of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

 

3

The multiplier of 0.7 is used in these calculations because it is the standard employment multiplier for the 

milling/mining industry (Economic Policy Institute, 2003). 
8-5 

Table 8-2. Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Reno Creek ISR Project 

Cost-Benefit Category Proposed Project Benefits 

Production Capacity 7.1 million kg [15.7 million lb] of yellowcake (as uranium) 

Other Monetary: 

Severance taxes 

Other state and local taxes 

(including indirect business tax 

revenues) 

$41.5 million (estimated) 

$26.75 million (estimated) 

Nonmonetary benefits 80 jobs—during construction 

56 jobs—local jobs from economic multiplier during 

construction 

92 jobs—during operations 

64 jobs—local jobs from economic multiplier during 

operations 

52 jobs—during aquifer restoration 

36 jobs—local jobs from economic multiplier during 

aquifer restoration 

22 jobs—during decommissioning 

15 jobs—local jobs from economic multiplier during 

decommissioning 

Costs 

Education Infrastructure SMALL 

Health and Social Services SMALL 

Housing Demand SMALL for larger towns (Gillette and Casper) 

MODERATE for Wright 

Emergency Response SMALL 

Source: AUC, 2012 

1 8.4 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

2 Under the No-Action Alternative, the NRC would not approve the license application for the 

3 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The No-Action Alternative would result in the applicant not 

4 constructing and operating the proposed project. No facilities, roads, or wellfields would be 

5 built, and no pipelines would be laid, as described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.2. No uranium 

6 would be recovered from the subsurface orebody; therefore, production, and monitoring wells 

7 would not be installed to operate the facility. No lixiviant would be introduced in the subsurface, 

8 and no buildings would be constructed to process extracted uranium or store chemicals involved 

9 in that process. Because no uranium would be recovered, neither aquifer restoration nor 

10 decommissioning activities would occur. No liquid or solid effluents would be generated. As a 

11 result, the proposed project would not be disturbed by proposed project activities and 

12 ecological, natural, and socioeconomic resources would remain unaffected. All potential 

13 environmental impacts from the proposed project would be avoided. Similarly, all 

14 project-specific socioeconomic impacts, whether positive or negative (e.g., employment, 

15 economic activity, population, housing, and local finance), would also be avoided, as discussed 

16 in draft SEIS Sections 3.11 and 4.11. 
8-6 

1 8.5 References 

2 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

3 Environmental Report.” ML12291A332 and ML12291A335. Lakewood, Colorado: 

4 AUC LLC. 2012. 

5 Economic Policy Institute. “Updated Employment Multipliers for the U.S. Economy.” 

6 ML12243A398. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. 2003. 

7 USCB. “American Factfinder, Census 2000 and 2010, 2006–2010 American Community 

8 Survey 5-Year Estimate, State and County QuickFacts.” Washington DC: United States 

9 Census Bureau. 2012. 

10 UXC. “Ux U3O8 Prices.” Roswell, Georgia: The Ux Consulting Company. 2016. 

11 <http://www.uxc.com/> (May 15, 2016).
9-1 

1 9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

2 This chapter summarizes the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action 

3 (Alternative 1) and the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2). The potential impacts of the 

4 proposed action are discussed in terms of (i) unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, 

5 (ii) irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, (iii) short-term impacts and uses of 

6 the environment, and (iv) long-term impacts and the maintenance and enhancement of 

7 productivity. The information is presented for each of the 13 resource areas that may be 

8 affected by the proposed Reno Creek In Situ Recovery (ISR) Project. This information 

9 addresses the impacts during each phase of the project (i.e., construction, operations, aquifer 

10 restoration, and decommissioning). The specific impacts are described in draft Supplemental 

11 Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Table 9-1. 

12 The following terms are defined in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003). 

13  Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts: applies to impacts that cannot be avoided 

14 and for which no practical means of mitigation are available 

15  Irreversible: involves commitments of environmental resources that cannot be restored 

16  Irretrievable: applies to material resources and will involve commitments of materials 

17 that, when used, cannot be recycled or restored for other uses by practical means 

18  Short-term: represents the period from preconstruction to the end of the 

19 decommissioning activities and, therefore, generally affects the present quality of life for 

20 the public 

21  Long-term: represents the period of time following the termination of the U.S. Nuclear 

22 Regulatory Commission (NRC) license, with the potential to affect the quality of life for 

23 future generations 

24 As discussed in draft SEIS Chapter 4, the significance of potential environmental impacts is 

25 categorized as follows: 

26 SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they would 

27 neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. 

28 MODERATE: The environmental effects would be sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 

29 destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

30 LARGE: The environmental effects would be clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

31 destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

32 Section 9.1 describes the environmental impacts from implementing the proposed action and 

33 Section 9.2 describes the environmental impacts from implementing the No-Action Alternative.
9-2 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Land Use There would be a 

SMALL impact to 

land use. During 

construction, the 

total amount of land 

affected by 

earthmoving 

activities to 

construct surface 

facilities, wellfields 

and associated 

infrastructure, and 

to build access 

roads would be 

approximately 

62.4 ha [154.3 ac] 

with an additional 

187 ha [461 ac] of 

land around the 

production units 

fenced off from 

livestock grazing. 

This accounts for 

approximately 

10 percent of the 

proposed project 

area. During 

decommissioning, 

land would be 

impacted by 

earthmoving 

activities to reclaim 

and reseed the 

affected areas. 

No impact. There 

would be no 

irreversible and 

irretrievable 

commitment of land 

resources from 

implementing the 

proposed project. 

The duration of the 

project would be 

approximately 

16 years, after 

which time the land 

could be reclaimed 

and made available 

for other uses. 

There would be a 

SMALL impact to 

land use from 

implementing the 

proposed project. 

The proposed 

project would 

cause temporary 

alteration of 

rangeland and 

short-term 

restricted access to 

adjacent lands. 

Approximately 

187 ha [461 ac] 

would be controlled 

and unavailable for 

other uses, such as 

grazing and 

recreation; oil and 

gas exploration 

could coexist with 

the applicant’s 

proposed project. 

There would be no 

long-term impact 

to land resources 

from implementing 

the proposed 

project. The land 

would be available 

for other uses 

following license 

termination. 

 
9-3 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Transportation During the 

construction and 

operations phases, 

there would be a 

SMALL increase in 

local traffic counts 

associated with 

project-related 

traffic on State 

Highway 387 and 

along Highway 50. 

No impact. There 

would be no 

irreversible and 

irretrievable 

commitment of fuel 

for vehicle and 

equipment 

operation, heating, 

commuter traffic, 

and regional 

transport. Upon 

project completion, 

fuel resources 

would be allocated 

for other uses in 

the area. 

During construction 

and operations, 

there would be a 

SMALL impact due 

to increased traffic 

on State Highway 

387 and along 

Highway 50, which 

has the potential to 

degrade the road 

surface, and 

increase the 

potential for traffic 

accidents and 

wildlife and 

livestock kills. 

During operations, 

aquifer restoration, 

and 

decommissioning, 

there would be a 

SMALL increased 

accident risk from 

transporting 

yellowcake, 

ion-exchange resin, 

byproduct material, 

and hazardous 

chemicals. During 

construction, no 

short-term 

hazardous material 

transportation 

impacts would 

occur because no 

chemical or 

radioactive material 

would be 

transported. 

There would be no 

long-term impacts 

to transportation 

following license 

termination. 
9-4 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Geology and 

Soils 

There would be a 

SMALL impact on 

geology and soils. 

The construction, 

operations, and 

decommissioning 

phases would 

disturb surface soils 

during construction 

of the central 

processing plant, 

development of the 

wellfields, laying of 

pipelines, and 

construction of new 

access roads. 

These impacts 

would be temporary, 

and at the end 

of the 

decommissioning 

phase, topsoil would 

be replaced and 

surfaces reseeded. 

Soil layers would 

be irreversibly 

disturbed by the 

proposed project; 

however, topsoil 

salvaged during the 

construction phase 

would be stored 

and replaced 

during decommissioning; 

therefore, the 

potential impact 

would be SMALL. 

Reseeding and 

recontouring would 

mitigate the impact 

to topsoil. 

There would be a 

SMALL impact to 

geology and soils. 

No significant 

matrix compression 

or ground 

subsidence is 

expected, because 

the net withdrawal 

of fluid from the 

target sandstones 

would be about 

1 percent or less. 

Topsoil salvaged 

during the 

construction phase 

of the project would 

be replaced during 

the reclamation and 

reseeding 

processes. 

There would be no 

long-term impacts 

to geology and 

soils following 

license 

termination. 
9-5 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Surface Waters 

and Wetlands 

There would be a 

SMALL impact to 

surface water and 

wetlands from the 

proposed project. 

The occurrence of 

surface water is 

limited. The 

applicant would use 

erosion control 

mitigation 

measures, such as 

grading and 

contouring, and 

implementation of a 

stormwater pollution 

management plan 

to ensure surface 

water runoff from 

disturbed areas met 

Wyoming Pollutant 

Discharge 

Elimination System 

permit limits. 

There would be no 

irreversible and 

irretrievable 

commitment of 

either surface water 

or wetlands from 

implementing the 

proposed project. 

No drainage or 

body of water 

would be 

significantly altered 

by the proposed 

project. In addition, 

the impact to 

wetlands would be 

SMALL because 

the applicant would 

not allow discharge 

of treated 

wastewater into 

wetland areas. 

There would be a 

SMALL impact to 

surface waters. 

The proposed 

project would not 

discharge to 

ephemeral surface 

water drainages. 

No impact. The 

proposed project 

would not 

discharge to 

ephemeral surface 

water drainages. 
9-6 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Groundwater There would be a 

SMALL impact on 

groundwater from 

the proposed 

project due to 

consumption of 

groundwater, 

degradation of 

water quality in the 

ore production 

zone, and the 

drawdown in water 

levels affecting 

wells located 

outside the project 

boundaries that are 

drilled into the 

ore-bearing aquifer. 

The groundwater 

chemistry could be 

affected by spills, 

leaks, or excursions 

over the ISR facility 

lifecycle. 

There would be a 

SMALL impact on 

groundwater 

resources. 

Approximately 

99 percent of 

groundwater used 

during the ISR 

process at the 

proposed project 

would be treated 

and reinjected into 

the subsurface. 

About 1 percent of 

groundwater would 

be consumed. 

Short-term impacts 

to groundwater 

would include 

degradation of 

water quality in 

production zones 

and the potential to 

draw down the 

water level in 

neighboring private 

wells. These 

impacts would be 

SMALL. 

Both the State of 

Wyoming and the 

NRC require 

restoration of 

affected 

groundwater 

following 

operations. 

The groundwater 

quality would be 

restored to ensure 

that aquifers would 

not be adversely 

affected. Although 

water levels would 

be affected in the 

short-term, the 

water levels 

should eventually 

recover with time. 
9-7 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Ecological 

Resources 

There would be 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

impacts until 

vegetation has been 

reestablished, and 

then the impact 

would be SMALL. 

The MODERATE 

impact is for 

sagebrush from 

decommissioning 

due to the nature of 

the slowerestablishment of 

plants that compose 

the sagebrush 

shrubland plant 

community. 

Construction and 

decommissioning of 

the proposed 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project would result 

in short-term loss 

(over the ISR facility 

lifecycle) of 

vegetation on 

approximately 62 ha 

[154 ac]. The 

short-term loss of 

vegetation could 

stimulate the 

introduction and 

spread of 

undesirable and 

invasive, nonnative 

species, and 

displacement of 

wildlife species. 

During operations 

and aquifer 

restoration, use of 

fences will limit 

wildlife ingress and 

egress to wellfields. 

Vegetative 

communities 

directly impacted 

by earthmoving 

activities and 

wildlife injuries and 

mortalities would 

be irreversible. 

However, the 

implementation of 

mitigation 

measures, such as 

the use of fencing 

to limit wildlife 

movement and the 

applicant’s 

enforcement of 

speed limits would 

reduce potential 

impacts to wildlife. 

Furthermore, areas 

impacted by 

earthmoving 

activities would be 

reclaimed and 

reseeded. 

During any of the 

ISR phases, 

SMALL direct 

impacts to 

ecological 

resources could 

include injuries and 

fatalities to wildlife 

caused by either 

collisions with 

project-related 

traffic or habitat 

damage due to the 

removal of topsoil. 

Wildlife could be 

temporarily 

displaced by 

increased noise 

and traffic during 

operations. The 

applicant has 

committed to 

implement 

mitigation 

measures to 

reduce the potential 

impact to SMALL 

for wildlife species. 

Some of the 

vegetative 

communities that 

exist within the 

proposed 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project could take 

10 years or more to 

be reestablished, 

resulting in 

MODERATE 

short-term impacts. 

Vegetation and 

wildlife species 

could experience 

SMALL long-term 

impacts if the 

composition and 

abundance of both 

plant and wildlife 

species in the 

proposed project 

area are altered or 

reduced in 

number. 
9-8 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Meteorology, 

Climatology, 

and Air Quality 

There would be a 

SMALL impact to air 

quality. During all 

four phases, the 

generation of air 

pollutants results in 

the degradation of 

air quality. Projectspecific modeled 

results would be 

lower than National 

Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and 

Prevention of 

Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) 

Class II regulatory 

thresholds. Due to 

the level and nature 

of fugitive 

emissions, there is 

potential for 

intermittent impacts 

to localized areas in 

and around the 

proposed project 

area. Projectspecific impacts on 

the Wind Cave 

National Park 

(i.e., Class I PSD, 

visibility, and acid 

deposition) would 

be SMALL because 

project emission 

levels would be 

relatively low and 

the proposed 

project area is 

181.9 km [113 mi]

away from the 

Class I area. 

There would be no 

irreversible or 

irretrievable 

commitment of air 

resources from the 

proposed project. 

There would be a 

SMALL impact. 

Fugitive dust 

generated from the 

construction phase 

and peak year 

(i.e., when all four 

phases occur 

simultaneously) 

has the potential to 

result in short-term, 

intermittent impacts 

in and around the 

proposed project 

area, particularly 

when vehicles 

travel on unpaved 

roads. The effect 

would be localized 

and temporary. 

Use of mitigation 

measures, such as 

applying water for 

dust suppression, 

would limit fugitive 

dust emissions. 

No impact. There 

would be no 

long-term effect on 

air quality either 

from the proposed 

project or following 

license 

termination. 
9-9 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Noise There would be a 

SMALL impact. 

There would be no 

residences within 

the proposed 

project area. Any 

noise impacts would 

be short term, 

intermittent, and 

mitigated by 

sound-abatement 

controls on 

operating 

equipment. 

Not applicable. There would be a 

SMALL impact due 

to expected noise 

levels generated 

during construction 

activities, most 

notably in proximity 

to operating 

equipment, such as 

drill rigs, heavy 

trucks, bulldozers, 

or excavators. 

However, noise 

impacts would be 

short-term, 

intermittent, and 

mitigated by 

sound-abatement 

controls on 

operating 

equipment. 

No impact. There 

would be no noise 

impact following 

license 

termination. 
9-10 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Historic and 

Cultural 

Resources 

Impact on historic 

and cultural 

resources during 

the ISR construction 

phase would be 

SMALL. There are 

no National Register 

of Historic Places 

eligible sites within 

the proposed 

project area of 

potential effect. The 

applicant would be 

required, under 

conditions in a 

potential NRC 

license, to adhere to 

an inadvertent 

discovery plan 

regarding the 

discovery of 

previously 

undocumented 

historic and cultural 

resources during 

the project lifetime. 

These procedures 

would entail the 

stoppage of work 

and the notification 

of appropriate 

parties (federal, 

tribal, and state 

agencies) 

If historic and 

cultural sites are 

discovered as part 

of an inadvertent 

discovery plan but 

cannot be avoided, 

or the impacts to 

these sites cannot 

be mitigated, this 

could result in an 

irreversible and 

irretrievable loss of 

cultural resources. 

There would be a 

SMALL impact on 

historic and cultural 

resources during 

the ISR 

construction phase. 

If any unidentified 

historic or cultural 

resources are 

encountered, work 

would stop and 

appropriate 

authorities would 

be notified per the 

inadvertent 

discovery plan. 

No impact. If no 

historic and 

cultural sites are 

discovered, there 

would be no 

potential impact 

following license 

termination. 
9-11 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Visual and 

Scenic 

Resources 

There will be a 

SMALL impact on 

the visual 

landscape. Visual 

impacts from drilling 

and earthmoving 

activities that 

generate fugitive 

dust would be short 

term. Mitigation 

measures would be 

implemented to 

reduce fugitive dust 

and visual impacts 

from buildings (i.e., 

selecting building 

materials and paint 

that complement 

the natural 

environment). In 

addition, disturbed 

areas would be 

reclaimed as soon 

as practicable, and 

debris would be 

removed after 

construction 

activities. 

No impact. There would be a 

SMALL short-term 

impact to the visual 

landscape from the 

proposed project. 

The activities would 

be consistent with 

the Bureau of Land 

Management 

Visual Resource 

Management 

designation of the 

area and the 

existing natural 

resource 

exploration 

activities in the 

area. 

No impact. There 

would be no 

impact on the 

visual landscape 

following license 

termination. 

Socioeconomics The proposed 

project would have 

a SMALL 

socioeconomic 

impact over the life 

of the project. A 

MODERATE 

cumulative impact 

could occur if a 

disproportionate 

number of 

employees at the 

proposed Reno 

Creek ISR Project 

elect to relocate and 

reside in smaller 

communities close 

to the proposed 

project. 

Not applicable. The proposed 

project would have 

a SMALL impact on 

local communities. 

Following license 

termination, 

workers who 

supported 

activities at the 

proposed project 

would need to find 

other employment. 

There would be a 

loss of revenue to 

nearby 

communities. 
9-12 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Environmental 

Justice 

There would be no 

disproportionately 

high and adverse 

impacts to minority 

or low-income 

populations from the 

construction, 

operations, aquifer 

restoration, and 

decommissioning 

of the proposed 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project. While 

certain Native 

Americans may 

have a heightened 

interest in cultural 

resources 

potentially affected 

by the proposed 

project, the impacts 

to Native Americans 

in this and other 

areas is not 

expected to be 

disproportionately 

high or adverse.

Not applicable. The proposed 

project would have 

a SMALL impact on 

environmental 

justice. However, 

the impacts are 

short term and 

there would be no 

disproportionately 

high and adverse 

impacts to minority 

or low-income 

populations from 

any of the 

proposed project 

phases. 

There would be no 

long-term 

environmental 

justice impacts 

following license 

termination. While 

certain Native 

Americans have a 

heightened 

interest in cultural 

resources 

potentially affected 

by the proposed 

project, the 

impacts to Native 

Americans in this 

and other areas is 

not expected to be 

disproportionately 

high or adverse. 

The applicant 

would be required, 

under conditions in 

a potential NRC 

license, to adhere 

to an inadvertent 

discovery plan 

regarding the 

discovery of 

previously 

undocumented 

historic and 

cultural resources 

during the project 

lifetime. These 

procedures would 

entail the stoppage 

of work and the 

notification of 

appropriate parties 

(federal, tribal, and 

state agencies) 
9-13 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Public and 

Occupational 

Health 

There would be a 

SMALL impact on 

public and 

occupational health. 

Construction and 

decommissioning 

would generate 

fugitive dust. The 

applicant’s 

compliance with 

federal and state 

occupational safety 

regulations would 

limit the potential for 

radiological and 

nonradiological 

effects of fugitive 

dust emissions to 

levels acceptable 

for the public and 

workers. The 

emissions from 

construction 

equipment would be 

of short duration 

and readily 

dispersed into the 

atmosphere. Based 

on compliance with 

the required 

radiological safety 

program that 

includes monitoring 

and emergency 

response 

procedures, the 

radiological health 

and safety impacts 

from a potential 

unmitigated 

accident would be 

SMALL for the 

public. 

Not applicable. There would be a 

SMALL impact from 

radiological 

exposure. The 

radiological impacts 

from accidents 

would be SMALL 

for workers, if 

procedures to deal 

with accident 

scenarios are 

followed, and 

SMALL for the 

public because of 

the facility’s remote 

location. The 

nonradiological 

public and 

occupational health 

impacts from 

normal operations, 

accidents, and 

chemical 

exposures would 

be SMALL, if 

handling and 

storage procedures 

are followed. 

No impact. There 

would be no 

long-term impact 

to public and 

occupational 

health following 

license 

termination. 
9-14 

Table 9-1. Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Impact 

Category 

Unavoidable 

Adverse 

Environmental 

Impacts 

Irreversible and 

Irretrievable 

Commitment of 

Resources 

Short-Term 

Impacts and Uses 

of the 

Environment 

Long-Term 

Impacts and the 

Maintenance and 

Enhancement of 

Productivity 

Waste 

Management 

Solid byproduct 

material generation 

and disposal from 

activities 

implemented during 

all post-construction 

phases of the 

Reno Creek ISR 

Project would result 

in SMALL impacts 

on available 

disposal capacity 

because permitted 

facilities are 

available to accept 

the wastes. 

Disposal of treated 

liquid byproduct 

material using 

Class I deep 

disposal wells would 

be conducted in 

accordance with 

NRC effluent 

discharge limits in 

10 CFR Part 20, 

and Wyoming 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality permit 

conditions, and 

impacts would 

be SMALL. 

The energy 

consumed during 

the ISR phases, the 

construction 

materials used that 

could not be reused 

or recycled, and the 

space used to 

properly handle 

and dispose of all 

waste types 

(i.e., wells for liquid 

wastes and 

permitted disposal 

space of solid 

wastes) would 

represent an 

irretrievable 

commitment of 

resources, resulting 

in a SMALL impact. 

During all phases, 

hazards associated 

with handling and 

transport of wastes 

would represent a 

short-term and 

SMALL impact. 

During all phases, 

permanent 

disposal of liquid 

wastes in onsite 

disposal wells 

would represent a 

SMALL impact on 

the long-term 

productivity of the 

land allocated for 

these wells. 

1 9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

2 AUC, LLC (referred hereafter as AUC or the applicant) is seeking an NRC license for the 

3 construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Reno Creek 

4 ISR Project (AUC, 2012a). Under the proposed federal action, the NRC would grant AUC’s 

5 license request. The proposed project would consist of processing facilities and sequentially 

6 developed wellfields. 

7 Construction of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project is expected to last about 2 years (see 

8 draft SEIS Figure 2-1). During this phase, the applicant would construct buildings, access 

9 roads, wellfields, pipelines, and Class I deep disposal wells for liquid waste disposal. 
9-15 

1 Operations are expected to last 11 years. Construction and operations activities would disturb 

2 approximately 62 hectares (ha) [154 acres (ac)] (AUC, 2012a). 

3 During the operations phase, production wells would be used to inject lixiviant (recovery) 

4 solutions into the orebody to recover uranium. Production wells would also be used to recover 

5 the dissolved uranium, which then would be processed through the central processing plant. 

6 Finally, monitoring wells would be installed to monitor the performance of the wellfields and to 

7 mitigate potential excursions from the production zone. 

8 Up to approximately 0.91 million kg [2 million lb] of yellowcake (U3O8) would be produced per 

9 year. After operations at a wellfield ceased, the applicant would begin aquifer restoration, which 

10 would ensure that water quality in surrounding aquifers would not be adversely affected by the 

11 proposed project. 

12 The aquifer restoration process is expected to last about 9 years. For the Class I deep disposal 

13 wells, the primary restoration methods would be (i) groundwater transfer, (ii) groundwater 

14 sweep, and (iii) reverse osmosis with permeate injection and reductant addition (AUC, 2012b). 

15 During wellfield and facility decommissioning (expected to last 10 years), disturbed lands would 

16 be returned to their prior uses. Wells would be plugged and abandoned, and the land surface 

17 would be reclaimed. 

18 The potential environmental impacts from the proposed project are summarized in draft SEIS 

19 Table 9-1. 

20 9.2 No-Action Alternative (Alternative 2) 

21 Under the No-Action Alternative, the NRC staff would not issue a license. The applicant would 

22 not construct buildings, roads, or wellfields, nor would the facility be operated at the proposed 

23 Reno Creek ISR Project. Uranium ore would not be recovered. Under the No-Action 

24 Alternative, there would be no impact to any of the 13 resource areas from the proposed project. 

25 There would be no unavoidable adverse environmental impacts attributable to the proposed 

26 project and no relationship between local short-term or long-term uses of the environment. 

27 Therefore, there would be no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. 

28 9.3 References 

29 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. “Standards for 

30 Protection Against Radiation.” 

31 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

32 Environmental Report.” ML12291A335 and ML12291A332. Lakewood, Colorado: 

33 AUC LLC. 2012a. 

34 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

35 Technical Report.” ML12291A009 and ML12291A010. Lakewood, Colorado: 

36 AUC LLC. 2012b. 

37 NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 

38 NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2003.

10-1 

1 10 LIST OF PREPARES 

2 This section documents all individuals who were involved with the preparation of this final 

3 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Contributors include staff from the 

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and consultants. Each individual’s role, education, 

5 and experience are outlined next. 

6 10.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contributors 

7 Jill Caverly: SEIS Project Manager 

8 M.S., Civil Engineering, The George Washington University, 1996 

9 B.S., Civil Engineering, The George Washington University, 1992 

10 Years of Experience: 24 

11 Kellee Jamerson: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Reviewer 

12 B.S., Environmental Science, Tuskegee University, 2006 

13 Years of Experience: 9 

14 John Fringer: Cultural Resources Reviewer 

15 B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, 1985 

16 B.S., Chemistry, University of Texas, 1978 

17 Years of Experience: 36 

18 John Saxton: Hydrogeology Reviewer 

19 M.S., Geology, University of New Mexico, 1989 

20 B.S., Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1983 

21 Years of Experience: 32 

22 Ashley Waldron: NEPA Reviewer 

23 B.S., Biology, Frostburg State University, 2009 

24 Years of Experience: 6 

25 Jim Webb: Public and Occupational Health Reviewer 

26 M.S., Marketing and Communication, Franklin University, 2000 

27 M.B.A., Business Administration, Lake Erie College, 1983 

28 B.S., Radiological Health Physics, Lowell University, 1978 

29 Years of Experience: 37 

10.2 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA® 30 ) Contributors 

31 Miriam Juckett: Program Manager 

32 M.S., Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2006 

33 B.S., Chemistry, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2003 

34 Years of Experience: 13 

35 Patrick LaPlante: Transportation, Waste Management, Public and Occupational Health 

36 M.S., Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Georgetown University, 1994 

37 B.S., Environmental Studies, Western Washington University, 1988 

38 Years of Experience: 27 

 
10-2 

1 Chandrika Manepally: Groundwater Resources 

2 M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Toledo, 1997 

3 B.E., Civil Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad, India, 1995 

4 Years of Experience: 20 

5 Amy Minor: Ecological Resources, Socioeconomics 

6 B.A., Environmental Studies, University of Kansas, 1998 

7 Years of Experience: 17 

8 Marla Morales: Principal Investigator, Geology and Soils, Cumulative Impacts, Cost-Benefit 

9 M.S., Geology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2007 

10 B.A., Geology, Vanderbilt University, 2001 

11 Years of Experience: 15 

12 Olufemi Osidele: Surface Water Resources 

13 Ph.D., Environmental Systems Analysis, University of Georgia, 2001 

14 M.S., Hydrology for Environmental Management, University of London, England, 1992 

15 B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Ife, Nigeria, 1987 

16 Years of Experience: 28 

17 James Prikryl: Land Use, Noise, Visual/Scenic, Groundwater Resources 

18 M.A., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1989 

19 B.S., Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 1984 

20 Years of Experience: 31 

21 Deborah Waiting: GIS Analyst 

22 B.S., Geology, University of Texas at San Antonio, 1999 

23 Years of Experience: 16 

24 Bradley Werling: Meteorology, Climatology, Air Quality 

25 M.S., Environmental Science, University of Texas at San Antonio, 2000 

26 B.S., Chemistry, Southwest Texas State University, 1999 

27 B.A., Engineering Physics, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, 1985 

28 Years of Experience: 30 

29 10.3 CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors 

30 Rebecca Brodeur: Cultural and Historic Resources, National Historic Preservation Act 

31 Section 106 Support 

32 M.A., History and Political Science, College of Saint Rose, 2013 

33 B.A., Anthropology and Psychology, Adelphi University, 1999 

34 Years of Experience: 16 

35 Hope Luhman: National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

36 Support 

37 Ph.D., Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, 1991 

38 M.A., Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, 1988 

39 M.A., Social Relations, Lehigh University, 1982 

40 B.A., Anthropology, Muhlenberg College, 1980 

41 Years of Experience: 32 
10-3 

1 Tracey Jones: Cultural and Historic Resources, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

2 Support 

3 B.A., Anthropology, The College of William and Mary, 1997 

4 Years of Experience: 17

11-1 

1 11 DISTRIBUTION LIST 

2 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing copies of this final draft 

3 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to the organizations and individuals 

4 listed as follows. NRC will provide copies to other interested organizations and individuals 

5 upon request. 

6 11.1 Federal Agency Officials 

7 Ms. Sarah Stokely 

8 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

9 Washington, DC 

10 Ms. Angelique Diaz 

11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

12 Region 8 

13 Denver, Colorado 

14 11.2 Tribal Government Officials 

15 Ms. Margaret Sutton 

16 Cheyenne/Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

17 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

18 Concho, Oklahoma 

19 Mr. Steve Vance 

20 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

21 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

22 Eagle Butte, South Dakota 

23 Mr. Alvin Windy Boy, Sr. 

24 Chippewa Cree Tribe 

25 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

26 Box Elder, Montana 

27 Mr. Emerson Bull Chief 

28 Apsaalooke (Crow) Nation 

29 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

30 Crow Agency, Montana 

31 Mr. Darrell Zephier 

32 Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

33 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

34 Ft. Thompson, South Dakota 

35 Mr. Robin Dushane 

36 Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

37 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

38 Fort Washakie, Wyoming 
11-2 

1 Ms. Garrie Kills A Hundred, 

2 Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe 

3 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

4 Flandreau, South Dakota 

5 Mr. Michael Black Wolf 

6 Fort Belknap Tribe 

7 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

8 Harlem, Montana 

9 Mr. Darrell “Curley” Youpee 

10 Fort Peck Tribes 

11 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

12 Poplar, Montana 

13 Mr. Dewey Tsonetonkoy, Sr. 

14 Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

15 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

16 Carnegie, Oklahoma 

17 Dr. Brian Molyneaux 

18 Tribal Archaeologist 

19 Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

20 Lower Brule, South Dakota 

21 Ms. Yufna Soldier Wolf 

22 Northern Arapaho Tribe 

23 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

24 Fort Washakie, Wyoming 

25 Ms. Teanna Limpy 

26 Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

27 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

28 Lame Deer, Montana 

29 Mr. Russell Eagle Bear 

30 Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

31 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

32 Rosebud, South Dakota 

33 Mr. Rick Thomas 

34 Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska 

35 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

36 Niobrara, Nebraska 

37 Ms. Dianne Desrosiers 

38 Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribes 

39 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

40 Sisseton, South Dakota 
11-3 

1 Mr. Eric Longie 

2 Spirit Lake Tribe 

3 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

4 Fort Totten, North Dakota 

5 Mr. John Eagle 

6 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

7 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

8 Fort Yates, North Dakota 

9 Mr. Elgin Crows Breast 

10 Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation 

11 Three Affiliated Tribes 

12 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

13 New Town, North Dakota 

14 Mr. Bruce F. Nadeau, Sr. 

15 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa 

16 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

17 Belcourt, North Dakota 

18 Mr. Perry Little 

19 Yankton Sioux Tribe 

20 Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

21 Wagner, South Dakota 

22 11.3 State Agency Officials 

23 Ms. Mary Hopkins 

24 Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

25 Cheyenne, Wyoming

26 Mr. Mark Rogaczewski and Mr. Luke McMahan 

27 Wyoming Department of the Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division 

28 Sheridan, Wyoming 

29 Mr. Tanner Shatto 

30 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Air Quality Division 

31 Sheridan, Wyoming 

32 Ms. Karen Farley and Mr. Dale Anderson 

33 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division 

34 Casper, Wyoming 

35 Mr. Lynn Jehnke 

36 Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

37 Sheridan, Wyoming 
11-4 

1 11.4 Local Agency Officials 

2 Mayor Ralph Kingan 

3 Mayor of Wright, Wyoming 

4 Campbell County Commission 

5 Gillette, Wyoming

6 11.5 Other Organizations and Individuals 

7 Ms. Shannon Anderson, Esq. 

8 Powder River Basin Resource Council 

9 Sheridan, Wyoming 

10 Mr. James Viellenave 

11 AUC LLC 

12 Lakewood, Colorado 

13 Campbell County Library 

14 Wright Branch 

15 Wright, Wyoming 

16 Campbell County Library 

17 Gillette Branch 

18 Gillette, Wyoming 
1 APPENDIX A 

2 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE

A–1 

1 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 

2 The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the National Historic Preservation Act 

3 of 1966 require that Federal agencies consult with applicable State and Federal agencies and 

4 groups prior to taking action that may affect threatened and endangered species, essential fish 

5 habitat, or historic and archaeological resources. This appendix contains consultation 

6 documentation related to these Federal acts. 

7 
A–2 

Table A-1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS 

Accession 

Number 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Camper) 

Northern Arapaho Business 

Committee (J. Shakespeare) 

Crow Tribe (C. Black Eagle) 

Fort Belknap Tribe (T. King) 

Fort Peck Tribes (A.T. Stafne) 

Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe 

(M. St. Claire) 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

(K. Keckler) 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Tribe 

(R. Shepherd) 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

(D. Big Eagle) 

Yankton Sioux Tribe 

(R. Courneyor) 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

(M. Jandreau) 

The Ute Indian Tribe (I. Cuch) 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

(M. LaJeunesse) 

Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska 

(R. Trudell) 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

(C. Murphy) 

Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe 

(A. Reider) 

Spirit Lake Tribe 

(R. Yankton, Sr.) 

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara 

Nation (T. Hall) 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(L. Spang) 

January 12, 2012* ML120120068* 

ML120120128 

ML120120141 

ML120120149 

ML120120150 

ML120120161 

ML120120169 

ML120120170 

ML120120189 

ML120120195 

ML120120218 

ML120120232 

ML120120244 

ML120120264 

ML120120265 

ML120120276 

ML120120279 

ML120120289 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Camper) 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe 

(J. Prairie Chief-Boswell) 

February 22,2013 ML12363A099 

 
A–3 

Table A-1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence (Continued) 

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS Accession 

Number 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Camper) 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

(K. Keckler) 

Chippewa Cree Tribe (K. Blatt) 

Crow Tribe (D. Old Coyote) 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

(B. Sauze. Sr.) 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

(D. Sinclair, Jr.) 

Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe 

(A. Reider) 

Fort Belknap Tribe (T. King) 

Fort Peck Tribes (F. Azure) 

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

(A. Poppah) 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

(M. Jandreau) 

North Arapahoe Tribe 

(D. O’Neal) 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(J. Robinson) 

Oglala Sioux Tribe (B. Brewer) 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe (C. Scott) 

Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska 

(R. Trudell) 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate 

Tribes (R. Shepherd) 

Spirit Lake Tribe 

(R. Yankton, Sr.) 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

(C. Murphy) 

Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara 

Nation (T. Hall) 

Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa (R. McCloud) 

Yankton Sioux Tribe 

(R. Courneyor) 

March 27, 2013* ML13085A065* 

ML13085A069 

ML13085A073 

ML13085A076 

ML13085A077 

ML13085A099 

ML13085A105 

ML13085A114 

ML13085A119 

ML13085A136 

ML13085A141 

ML13085A156 

ML13085A226 

ML13085A235 

ML13085A244 

ML13085A262 

ML13085A268 

ML13085A274 

ML13085A294 

ML13085A305 

ML13085A307 

Santee Sioux Tribe 

(R. Thomas) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

April 15, 2013 ML13109A555 

Cheyenne and Arapaho 

Tribes (M. Anquoe) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

May 14, 2014 ML13149A168 
A–4 

Table A-1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence (Continued) 

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS Accession 

Number 

Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe (M. Wilson) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

May 1, 2014 ML13149A183 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Camper) 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

(M. Hopkins) 

June 13, 2013 ML13128A497 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

(R. Currit) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (J. Caverly) 

July 10, 2013 ML13221A007 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission - Report 

Site visit report September 

19,2013 

ML15040A171 

Campbell County Board of 

Commissioners 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (Staff) 

October 8, 2013 ML13290A671 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(M. Sattelberg) 

October 17, 

2013 

ML13268A438 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office (M. Hopkins) 

November 8, 

2013 

ML13280A332 

Cheyenne River Sioux 

Tribe (S. Vance) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (J. Caverly) 

Dec. 17, 2013 ML13351A471 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (J. Caverly) 

Wyoming DEQ (A. Keyfauver) January 8, 2014 ML14009A111 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Ft Belknap Tribe (M. Blackwolf) February 19, 

2014* 

ML14017A322* 

Chippewa Cree Tribe 

(A. Windy Boy) 

 ML14017A317 

Cheyenne River Sioux 

(S. Vance) 

 ML14017A315 

Santee Sioux Tribe (R. Thomas) ML14017A325 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

(W. Young) 

 ML14017A198 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribe 

(M. Anquoe) 

 ML14017A310 

Kiowa Indian Tribe 

(A. Tah-bone) 

February 28, 

2014* 

ML14056A366* 

Spirit Lake Tribe (E. Longie) ML14056A374 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

(M. Catches Enemy) 

 ML14056A373 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(C. Fisher) 

 ML14056A378 

Turtle Mountain Band of the 

Chippewa (B. Naeau) 

 ML14056A386 
A–5 

Table A-1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence (Continued) 

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS Accession 

Number 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Northern Arapaho Tribe 

(C. Headley) 

 ML14056A359 

Apsaalooke (Crow) Nation 

(E. Bullchief) 

 ML14056A390 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Tribe 

(D. Desrosiers) 

 ML14056A391 

Flandreau- Santee Sioux Tribe ML14056A369 

Yankton Sioux (L. Miller) ML14056A372 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

(C. Green) 

 ML14056A361 

Three Affiliated Tribes 

(E. Crows Breast) 

 ML14056A376 

Santee Sioux Tribe 

(R. Thomas) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

July 22, 2014* ML15349A913* 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Chippewa Cree Tribe 

(A. Windy Boy, Sr.) 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes 

(A. Wiley) 

Crow Tribe (R. Backbone Fitch) 

Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa (B. Grant) 

Spirit Lake Tribe (E. Longie) 

Northern Arapaho Tribe 

(Y. Soldier Wolf) 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

(G. Zephier) 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

(D. Zephier) 

Santee Sioux Tribe 

(C. Campbell, Sr.) 

Santee Sioux Tribe (W. White) 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(R. Fisher) 

April 22, 2014* ML14111A353* 

ML14112A466 

ML14112A479 

ML14112A488 

ML14112A495 

ML14112A525 

ML14112A539 

ML14112A542 

ML14112A553 

ML14112A558 

ML14113A027 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (K. Hsueh) 

Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer 

May 1, 2014 ML14113A459 
A–6 

Table A-1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence (Continued) 

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS Accession 

Number 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Chang) 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

(S. Vance) 

Chippewa Cree Tribe 

(A. Windy Boy, Sr.) 

Apsaalooke (Crow) Nation 

(E. Bullchief) 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

(D. Zephier) 

Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe 

(S. Allen) 

Fort Belknap Tribe 

(M. Blackwolf) 

Fort Peck Tribe (D. Youpee) 

Northern Arapaho Business 

Committee (C. Headley) 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(C. Fisher) 

Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa (B. Nadeau) 

Yankton Sioux Tribe (L. Miller) 

October 8, 

2014* 

ML14279A294* 

ML14279A478 

ML14279A507 

ML14279A516 

ML14279A526 

ML14279A542 

ML14279A554 

ML14280A094 

ML14280A099 

ML14280A123 

ML14280A135 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (M. Sattelberg) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

March 6, 2015 ML15086A428 
A–7 

Table A-1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence (Continued) 

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS Accession 

Number 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Chang) 

Apsaalooke (Crow) Nation 

(E. Bullchief) 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

(S. Vance) 

Chippewa Cree Tribe 

(A. Windy Boy, Sr.) 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

(D. Zephier) 

Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe 

(S. Allen) 

Fort Belknap Tribe 

(M. Blackwolf) 

Fort Peck Tribe (D. Youpee) 

Northern Arapaho Business 

Committee (C. Headley) 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(J. Walksalong) 

Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska 

(R. Thomas) 

Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa (B. Nadeau) 

Yankton Sioux Tribe (L. Miller) 

May 6, 2015* ML15125A116* 

ML15125A130 

ML15125A127 

ML15125A148 

ML15125A118 

ML15125A199 

ML15125A136 

ML15125A146 

ML15121A753 

ML15125A126 

ML15125A148 

ML15125A143 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L Chang) 

Fort Peck Tribe (D Youpee) August 5, 2015* ML15215A428* 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(J. Walksalong) 

ML15215A503 

Cheyenne River Sioux 

(S. Vance) 

ML15212A803 

Northern Arapaho Tribe 

(C. Headley) 

ML15215A498 

Flandreau-Santee Sioux Tribe 

(S. Allen) 

ML15215A423 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

(D. Zephier) 

ML15215A421 

Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska 

(R. Thomas) 

ML15215A514 

Turtle Mountain Band of 

Chippewa (B. Nadeau) 

ML15215A522 

Apsaalooke (Crow) Nation 

(E. Bullchief) 

ML15215A418 

Yankton Sioux Tribe (L. Miller) ML15215A541 
A–8 

Table A-1. Chronology of Consultation Correspondence (Continued) 

Author Recipient Date of Letter 

ADAMS Accession 

Number 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L Chang) 

Chippewa Cree Tribe 

(A. Windy Boy) 

ML15215A415 

Fort Belknap Tribe 

(M. Blackwolf) 

ML15215A426 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

August 11, 2015 ML15215A571 

Northern Arapaho Tribe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

October 

19,2015 

ML15317A483 

Santee Sioux Tribe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Dec. 16, 2015 ML15349A917 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Wyoming SHPO Jan. 29, 2016 ML15324A301 

Wyoming SHPO U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Feb. 18, 2016 ML16169A290 

Northern Arapaho Tribe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

May 2, 2016 ML16175A416 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (L. Chang) 

Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (S. Stokley) 

June 2016 ML16154A113 

*Copy of letter provided. Similar letters were sent to listed parties.
1 APPENDIX B 

2 ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS

B–1 

1 APPENDIX B—ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS 

2 In-situ recovery (ISR) facilities operate by first extracting uranium from specific areas called 

3 wellfields. After uranium recovery has ended, the groundwater in the wellfield contains 

4 constituents that the lixiviant mobilized. Licensees shall commence aquifer restoration in each 

5 wellfield soon after the uranium recovery operations end (NRC, 2009). Aquifer restoration 

6 criteria for the site-specific baseline constituents are determined either for each individual well or 

7 as a wellfield average. 

8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees are required to return water quality 

9 parameters to the standards in Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 CFR Part 40, 

10 Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). As stated in the regulations: “5B(5)─At the point of compliance, 

11 the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed─(a) The Commission approved 

12 background concentration of that constituent in the groundwater; (b) The respective value given 

13 in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of 

14 the constituent is below the value listed; or (c) An alternate concentration limit (ACL) is 

15 established by the Commission.” 

16 For an ACL to be considered by the NRC, a licensee must submit a license amendment 

17 application to request an ACL. In this ACL license amendment request, the licensee must 

18 provide the basis for any proposed limits, including consideration of practicable corrective 

19 actions that limits are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), and information on the factors 

20 the Commission must consider. NRC will establish a site-specific ACL for a hazardous 

21 constituent as provided in Criterion 5B(5) if NRC finds the proposed limit ALARA, after 

22 considering practicable corrective actions, and determining that the constituent will not pose a 

23 substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the ACL 

24 is not exceeded. 

25 To determine if the ACL does not pose a potential hazard to human health or the environment, 

26 NRC performs three risk assessments (NRC, 2003a). The first is a hazard assessment which 

27 evaluates the radiological dose and toxicity of the constituents in question and the risk to human 

28 health and environment. The second is an exposure assessment to examine the existing 

29 distribution of hazardous constituents, as well as potential sources for future releases and the 

30 potential consequences associated with the human and environmental exposure to the 

31 hazardous constituents. The last assessment is a corrective action assessment, which 

32 evaluates (i) all applicant proposed corrective actions; (ii) the technical feasibility of each 

33 proposed corrective actions; (iii) the costs and benefits associated with each proposed 

34 corrective action; and (iv) the preferred corrective action to achieve the hazardous constituent 

35 concentration, which is protective of human health and the environment. 

36 To perform these assessments, the NRC staff uses a rigorous review process. Licensees must 

37 provide a comprehensive ACL amendment that addresses groundwater and surface water 

38 quality and expected impacts on human health and the environment. Such information required 

39 in an amendment request pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(6) includes the 

40 following factors: 

41  Potential adverse effects on groundwater quality, considering the following: 

42 — The physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site 

43 including its potential for migration 
B–2 

1 — The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land 

2 — The quantity of groundwater and the direction of groundwater flow 

3 — The proximity and withdrawal rates of groundwater users 

4 — The current and future uses of groundwater in the area 

5 — The existing quality of groundwater, including other sources of contamination and 

6 their cumulative impact on the groundwater quality 

7 — The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents 

8 — The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures 

9 caused by exposure to waste constituents 

10 — The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects 

11  Potential adverse effects on hydraulically connected surface water quality, considering 

12 the following: 

13 — The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the 

14 licensed site 

15 — The hydrogeologic characteristics of the facility and surrounding land 

16 — The quantity and quality of groundwater, and the direction of groundwater flow 

17 — The patterns of rainfall in the region 

18 — The proximity of the licensed site to surface waters 

19 — The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water quality 

20 standards established for those surface waters 

21 — The existing quality of surface water including other sources of contamination 

22 and the cumulative impact on surface water quality 

23 — The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents 

24 — The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures 

25 caused by exposure to waste constituents 

26 — The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects 

27 Although state “class of use” standards are not recognized in NRC’s regulations as restoration 

28 standards, these standards may be considered as one factor in evaluating ACL requests for ISR 

29 facilities located in Wyoming. Furthermore, in considering ACL requests, particular importance 

30 is placed on protecting underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). The use of modeling 

31 and additional groundwater monitoring may be necessary to show that ACLs in ISR wellfields 

32 would not adversely impact USDWs. It must be demonstrated that the licensee it has attempted 
B–3 

1 to restore hazardous constituents in groundwater to background or a maximum contaminant 

2 level—whichever level is higher. 

3 Before an ISR licensee is allowed to extract uranium, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

4 (EPA) under 40 CFR 146.4 and in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act must issue an 

5 aquifer exemption covering the portion of the aquifer in which the uranium-bearing rock is 

6 located. EPA cannot exempt the portion of the aquifer unless it is found that “it does not 

7 currently serve as a source of drinking water” and “cannot now and will not in the future serve as 

8 a source of drinking water.” Due to these criteria, only impacts outside of the exempted aquifer 

9 are evaluated. In most cases, the water in aquifers adjacent to the uranium ore zones does not 

10 meet drinking water standards. The staff will not approve an ACL if it will impact any adjacent 

11 USDWs. Therefore, the impact of granting an ACL request is SMALL. 

12 Further guidance for the review of ACLs for ISR facilities is being developed in a revision of 

13 NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a). Existing guidance for the review of ACLs for conventional mills is 

14 in NUREG–1620, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings 

15 Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978” (NRC, 2003b). 

16 References 

17 10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 

18 Appendix A. “Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 

19 Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 

20 Processed Primarily from their Source Material Content.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

21 Printing Office. 

22 40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 146. 

23 “Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

24 U.S. Government Printing Office. 

25 

26 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

27 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

28 Commission. May 2009. 

29 

30 NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

31 Applications.” Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

32 June 2003a. 

33 

34 NRC. NUREG–1620, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill 

35 Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.” 

36 Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 2003b. 

1 APPENDIX C 

2 NONRADIOLOGICAL AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

C–1 

1 NONRADIOLOGICAL AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

2 C–1 Introduction 

3 This appendix provides detailed nonradiological air emissions information associated with the 

4 proposed Reno Creek In Situ Recovery (ISR) Project. The information in this appendix 

5 consolidates and supplements information from several sources (AUC, 2012; 2014a,b). This 

6 appendix is divided into seven sections: Introduction (Section C–1), Air Quality Permitting 

7 (Section C–2), Proposed Project Emission Inventories (Section C–3), Proposed Project 

8 Analyses and Air Dispersion Modeling (Section C–4), Cumulative Effects Analyses 

9 (Section C–5), Impact Analyses Using Air Dispersion Modeling without Dry Depletion 

10 (Section C–6), and References (Section C–7). 

11 C–2 Air Quality Permitting 

12 This air quality permitting discussion is divided into two sections. Section C–2.1 addresses the 

13 relationship between the draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) analysis 

14 and air quality permitting. Section C–2.2 describes the general air quality permitting process in 

15 greater detail. 

16 C–2.1 Relationship Between the Draft SEIS Analysis and Air Permitting 

17 While the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for assessing the potential 

18 environmental impacts from the proposed project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 

19 Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended, the NRC does not have the authority to develop or enforce 

20 regulations to control nonradiological air emissions from equipment that NRC licensees use. 

21 The U.S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA) and the Wyoming Department of 

22 Environmental Quality (WDEQ) have the authority to develop federal and state air quality 

23 regulations, respectively. For the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, the authority to enforce air 

24 quality regulations and require any implementation of mitigation resides with the WDEQ and not 

25 with the NRC. To ensure the air quality of Wyoming is adequately protected, in addition to 

26 addressing all of the NRC regulatory requirements pertaining to radiological emissions, NRC 

27 applicants and licensees must comply with all applicable state and federal air quality regulatory 

28 compliance and permitting requirements. 

29 The applicant plans to submit air quality permit information to WDEQ (see draft SEIS Table 1-2). 

30 Regulatory determinations for air permits often primarily focus on stationary sources. Since 

31 mobile and fugitive sources compose the majority of the proposed project emissions (see draft 

32 SEIS Table 2-4), the NRC staff determined that the draft SEIS analysis would include mobile 

33 and fugitive dust emission sources as well as stationary sources. The NRC staff have, in part, 

34 characterized the magnitude of air effluents from the proposed project by comparing the 

35 emission levels to EPA Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V thresholds, and 

36 the modeled concentrations to EPA regulatory standards such as National Ambient Air Quality 

37 Standards (NAAQS). This characterization is intended to provide a context for understanding 

38 the magnitude of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project air effluents. In addition, the 

39 characterization identified what emissions the analysis should focus on to evaluate potential 

40 environmental effects. The comparison of pollutant concentrations to NAAQS and PSD 

41 increments in this draft SEIS does not document or represent a formal regulatory determination 

42 for air permitting or regulatory compliance, which is outside the NRC’s jurisdiction. 
C–2 

1 C–2.2 Air Permitting 

2 As described under air permitting in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) 

3 Section 1.7.2, the Clean Air Act permitting process is divided into two programs: the New 

4 Source Review program (preconstruction) and the Title V program (operation). The New 

5 Source Review requires stationary air pollution sources to obtain permits prior to construction. 

6 Three types of New Source Review permits exist: PSD, nonattainment New Source Review, 

7 and minor New Source Review. In attainment areas (i.e., those areas where air quality meets 

8 the NAAQS), PSD permits are required for major stationary pollutant sources that are new or 

9 making major modifications. Classification as a major source in an attainment area is based on 

10 the potential to emit more than 90.7 or 227 metric tons [100 or 250 short tons] of a regulated 

11 pollutant, depending on the source. In nonattainment areas, the nonattainment New Source 

12 Review permits are required for major stationary pollutant sources that are new or making major 

13 modifications. Classification as a major source in a nonattainment area is generally based on 

14 the potential to emit more than 90.7 metric tons [100 short tons] of a regulated pollutant. This 

15 threshold can be lower for areas with more serious nonattainment problems. A minor New 

16 Source Review permit supplements the PSD and nonattainment New Source Review programs. 

17 The New Source Review permit provides regulators (i.e., the WDEQ for the proposed 

18 Reno Creek ISR Project) a method to implement permit conditions as needed to limit emissions 

19 from sources not covered by those two programs. Title V permits are required for stationary 

20 sources that, during operations, have the potential to emit more than 90.7 metric tons [100 short 

21 tons] of any regulated pollutant (lower thresholds for areas that are in nonattainment) 

22 (NRC, 2009). 

23 C–3 Proposed Project Emission Inventories

24 The emissions inventory discussion includes the proposed project emission inventory 

25 (Section C–3.1) and the preconstruction emission inventory (Section C–3.2). 

26 C–3.1 Proposed Project Emission Inventory 

27 The proposed project emission inventory is divided into six sections. The first three sections 

28 describe the emission inventory in terms of the three main source categories: fugitive 

29 (Section C–3.1.1), mobile (Section C–3.1.2), and stationary (Section C–3-1.3). Section C–3.1.4 

30 describes the peak year emission inventory and Section C–3.1.5 describes the emission 

31 inventory of each of the phases when operating at the 100 percent activity level. 

32 Section C–3.1.6 describes the mitigation incorporated into the emission inventory. 

33 C–3.1.1 Fugitive Dust Emissions 

34 Fugitive dust emissions are one of the three primary source categories considered when 

35 examining air emissions from the proposed project. Fugitive dust comprises particulate matter 

(PM2.5 and PM10.)1 36 Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–1 presents total fugitive dust emissions for 

37 each year of the project. This table also specifies the contributions from the two primary fugitive 

38 dust emission sources: vehicular travel on unpaved roads and wind erosion to disturbed land. 

39 The number of hours during which mobile sources would be active and travel on unpaved roads 

40 vary over the lifespan of the project; therefore, the amount of fugitive dust emissions annually 

 

1

 Particulate matter PM2.5 is defined as particles which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller and particulate 

matter PM10 is defined as particles with a diameter greater than 2.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 

10 micrometers. 
C–3 

1 generated from mobile sources traveling on unpaved roads also varies. The amount of fugitive 

2 dust emissions from wind erosion would be a function of the amount of disturbed land. The 

3 calculation for the amount of dust generated by wind erosion was based on the net amount of 

4 land exposed, which accounts for both the amount of land disturbed as well as the amount of 

5 land reclaimed. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–2 provides information by project year for the 

6 amounts of disturbed land, reclaimed land, and net exposed land as well as the associated 

7 fugitive dust emissions from wind erosion. This table includes information for preconstruction 

8 (i.e., project year zero). Preconstruction was not part of the analyses in draft SEIS Chapter 4 

9 and is addressed separately in draft SEIS Chapter 5 on cumulative effects. However, for the 

10 purpose of determining net land exposed, the preconstruction value was included since it would 

11 be part of the disturbed land within the footprint of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area 

12 that would be reclaimed during the project lifespan. The amount of net land exposed and the 

13 associated fugitive dust emissions would vary little over the project lifespan. Fugitive dust 

14 emissions from wind erosion were much lower in magnitude when compared to the emissions 

15 from travel on unpaved roads. The Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 

16 2014a) provides additional details concerning the calculation of fugitive dust emissions 

17 throughout the document, but primarily in Appendix D. 

18 C–3.1.2 Mobile Combustion Emissions 

19 Combustion emissions from mobile sources are one of the three primary source categories 

20 considered when examining air emissions from the proposed project. Draft SEIS Appendix C, 

21 Table C–3 presents the total combustion emissions from mobile sources for each project year 

22 and also specifies the emissions attributed to each of the various phases by project year. The 

23 number of hours during which mobile sources would be active varies over the lifespan of the 

24 project; therefore, the amount of combustion emissions annually generated also varies. The 

25 Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a) provides additional details 

26 concerning the calculation of mobile source emissions throughout the document, but primarily in 

27 Appendix D. 

28 C–3.1.3 Stationary Combustion Emissions 

29 Combustion emissions from stationary sources are one of the three primary source categories 

30 considered when examining air emissions from the proposed project. Draft SEIS Appendix C, 

31 Table C–4 presents the stationary source emissions associated with the proposed project. For 

32 the purpose of this draft SEIS, point or stationary sources would be limited to the equipment 

33 identified in draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–4. Stationary source emissions would be assumed 

34 to be constant over the project lifespan except for project year one, which would produce the 

35 lowest levels of stationary emissions. The Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results 

36 (AUC, 2014a) provides additional details concerning the calculation of stationary source 

37 emissions throughout the document, but primarily in Appendix D. 

38 C–3.1.4 Peak Year Emissions 

39 For the proposed Reno Creek ISR project, phases overlap or occur simultaneously. The peak 

40 year accounts for the time when activities associated with all four phases would occur 

41 simultaneously and therefore the maximum emissions the proposed project would generate in 

42 any one project year. As described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1, the applicant conducted 

43 atmospheric dispersion modeling system (AERMOD) using the peak year emission levels to 

44 predict the NAAQS and PSD pollutant concentrations at various receptor locations. The peak 

45 year emission estimates were used as input for the AERMOD air dispersion modeling since the 
C–4 

1 highest amount of emissions for a single project year would correspond to the highest potential 

2 effect on air quality. 

3 To identify the peak year for each pollutant, emission levels from fugitive (draft SEIS 

4 Appendix C, Table C–1), mobile (draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–3), and stationary sources 

5 (draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–4) were considered. The mobile and fugitive dust emission 

6 levels would vary by project year and the applicant assumed stationary emissions would be 

7 constant over the project lifespan (except for year one when they would be lowest). The 

8 stationary source emissions considered in this analysis (see draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–4) 

9 are limited to equipment within the central processing plant (CPP). Because the CPP would be 

10 constructed in project year one, and the emission sources would not be operational over the 

11 entire year, year one would generate the lowest stationary source emission levels. Particulate 

12 matter emissions from fugitive dust sources would be much greater than those from mobile and 

13 stationary sources. Therefore, fugitive dust emissions determined the peak year for particulate 

14 matter PM2.5 and PM10. The highest level of emissions for both types of particulate matter would 

15 occur in project year six (draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–1). Mobile source emissions 

16 determined the peak year for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. Stationary 

17 source emission levels would be much lower than mobile source emission levels for these 

18 pollutants, and fugitive dust emissions would be limited to particulate matter. For mobile 

19 sources, project years three through six produce the same – and highest –level of emissions 

20 for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide (see the “Totals” section of draft SEIS Appendix C, 

21 Table C–3). The highest carbon monoxide emissions would occur in project year two at 

22 39.09 metric tons [43.09 short tons] which is slightly more than the 38.32 metric tons 

23 [42.24 short tons] estimated annually for project years three to six. Because the difference in 

24 carbon monoxide emission levels between project year two and project years three through six 

25 would only be about two percent, and the carbon monoxide estimated concentrations from the 

26 modeling results range between 3.4 to 5.3 percent of the NAAQS (see draft SEIS Table 4-9), 

27 this draft SEIS considers project year six to be the peak year for all pollutants, including 

28 carbon monoxide. 

29 Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–5 presents the estimated peak year emission levels 

30 (i.e., project year six). This table also specifies the emission levels attributed to mobile, fugitive, 

31 and stationary emission sources for the peak year. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–6 identifies 

32 the contribution (i.e., percent) of the various source categories to the various pollutants for the 

33 peak year. 

34 Modeling was conducted using the peak year emission inventory, which included fugitive, 

35 mobile, and stationary sources. Although the modeling was conducted using emissions from 

36 the peak year (i.e., one year of emission data), which the applicant provided in The Ambient Air 

37 Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a), the model uses three years of hourly 

38 meteorological data in accordance with EPA recommendations (AUC, 2014a). The peak year 

39 emission estimates represent the highest amount of emissions for a single project year and 

40 correspond to the highest potential effect on air quality. Other project years with lower emission 

41 levels would have lower impacts. Emission levels for the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project are 

42 noticeably lower during the second half of the project lifespan (see draft SEIS Tables C-1 

43 and C-3). 

44 C–3.1.5 Individual Phase Emissions at the 100 Percent Activity Level 

45 In addition to the peak year, the air quality analysis in draft SEIS Section 4.7 examines air 

46 impacts by individual project phases. To assess impacts for individual phases, the NRC staff 
C–5 

1 determined the maximum emission levels over a single project year for each of the phases 

2 (i.e., the emission levels associated with the 100 percent activity level for each phase). As 

3 previously stated, more than one phase can occur within a given project year (see draft SEIS 

4 Figure 2-1). Even though a phase may be active in a given year, that does not mean it would 

5 function at the 100 percent activity level (i.e., generate the maximum emissions associated with 

6 the activities for that phase). For the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project, all four phases were 

7 assumed to be active during the peak year, but with no phase active at the 100 percent activity 

8 level. Based on information provided by the applicant, the NRC staff determined the emissions 

9 associated with the 100 percent activity levels for the various project phases. 

10 Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–3 contains the emissions associated with the 100 percent 

11 activity level for the various phases for the mobile source combustion emissions. This table 

12 presents the mobile source combustion emissions for each project year as well as the 

13 emissions for each phase. For each phase, the emissions associated with the 100 percent 

14 activity level can be determined by identifying the project year with the highest emission levels. 

15 Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–7 presents the estimated mass flow rates for the 100 percent 

16 activity levels for each individual phase from the mobile source combustions emissions and 

17 specifies the project year when these emissions would occur.

18 The primary fugitive dust emission sources would be travel on unpaved roads and wind erosion 

19 to disturbed land. The determination of the emissions associated with the 100 percent activity 

20 level from these two sources was calculated separately. 

21 The calculation for particulate matter generated from travel on unpaved roads requires three 

22 steps. The first step is to identify the project year associated with the 100 percent activity level 

23 for each phase for travel on unpaved roads. The sources and activity levels (e.g., hours of 

24 operation) used to estimate the mobile combustion emissions would be the same sources and 

25 activity levels used to estimate the fugitive dust emissions from travel on unpaved roads 

26 (AUC, 2014a). Therefore, the assumption can be made that the project year with the highest 

27 emission levels for each phase would be the same for both the fugitive dust from travel on 

28 unpaved roads and mobile combustion emission sources. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–7 

29 identifies the project year for 100 percent activity level for each phase for the mobile sources. 

30 Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–1 identifies the fugitive dust emissions from travel on unpaved 

31 roads for each project year. However, the information in this table does not specify how much 

32 can be attributed to each phase. The second step in calculating particulate matter from travel 

33 on unpaved roads is to determine the contribution by phase. The NRC staff assume that the 

34 contribution (percent) of particulate matter attributed to an individual phase for any given project 

35 year would be the same for both the fugitive dust emissions associated with travel on unpaved 

36 roads and the mobile combustion emissions, as previously discussed. Draft SEIS Appendix C, 

37 Table C–3 contains the information needed to calculate the contribution (percent) of particulate 

38 matter from mobile combustion sources attributed to an individual phase for any given project 

39 year. Based on the combustion emission from mobile sources, draft SEIS Appendix C, 

40 Table C–8 identifies the 100 percent activity level project years for each phase and specifies the 

41 percent contribution of that phase to the total particulate matter emissions for that same year. 

42 The third step in calculating particulate matter from travel on unpaved roads is to apply the 

43 percent contributions for individual phases (as listed in draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–8) to 

44 the associated total fugitive dust emissions from travel on unpaved roads (as listed in draft SEIS 

45 Appendix C, Table C–1) to determine the annual mass flow rate of fugitive dust from travel on 
C–6 

1 unpaved roads for the 100 percent activity level for each phase (see draft SEIS Appendix C, 

2 Table C–9). 

3 The other primary source of fugitive dust emissions would be from wind erosion from disturbed 

4 lands. As described in draft SEIS Section 2.1.2, particulate matter emissions from wind erosion 

5 were not provided for individual phases because they would not vary significantly based on the 

6 activity levels of the individual phases. The NRC staff conservatively assume that the entire 

7 wind erosion estimate for the associated individual project year in draft SEIS Appendix C, 

8 Table C–1 would be generated by one phase rather than a possible combination of several 

9 phases. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–10 presents the estimated mass flow rates for the 

10 100 percent activity levels for each individual phase from the fugitive dust emission sources 

11 (both travel on unpaved roads and wind erosion) and specifies the project year when these 

12 emissions occur. 

13 Finally, stationary source emissions would be assumed to be constant over the project lifespan 

14 except for project year one, which would produce the lowest levels of stationary emissions. 

15 Emission levels from stationary sources (see draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–4) are much 

16 lower than emission levels from mobile source combustion emissions (see draft SEIS 

17 Appendix C, Table C–3) or fugitive dust emission sources (see draft SEIS Appendix C, 

18 Table C–1). The discrepancy in emission levels between the stationary sources and both the 

19 mobile and fugitive sources allows for the assumption that stationary source emission estimates 

20 do not need to be further broken down into contributions associated with individual phases. The 

21 NRC staff conservatively assume that the entire stationary combustion emission estimates for 

22 the associated individual project year in draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–4 are generated by 

23 one phase rather than a possible combination of several phases. 

24 Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–11 presents the estimated mass flow rates for the 100 percent 

25 activity levels for each individual phase from all three of the primary emission source categories 

26 and specifies the project year when these emissions occur. This table also specifies the 

27 contribution from each of the three emission sources to the overall total. 

28 C–3.1.6 Mitigation Incorporated into the Emission Inventory

29 The air emission inventory used in this draft SEIS incorporates the following applicant30 committed mitigation measures: 

31  Tier 1 engines for drill rigs, 

32  Tier 3 engines for construction equipment, 

33  Dust suppression for unpaved roads, 

34  Carpooling, and 

35  Reclamation of disturbed land. 

36 The terms “Tier 1” and “Tier 3” refer to a phased program of standards mandated by the federal 

37 government that requires newly manufactured engines to generate lower pollutant emission 

38 levels. Higher tier numbers mean stricter emission standards and lower pollutant levels. The 

39 emission inventory was calculated using emission factors based on tier levels specified by the 

40 applicant. Emission factors are values used to relate the levels of activities to the amounts of 

41 pollution produced. In this case, the emission factor relates the amount of fuel consumed by the 

42 equipment to the mass of pollutants generated. As described in the Ambient Air Quality 

43 Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a), the inventory used EPA emission factors. The 

44 specific emission factor values associated with each piece of equipment proposed for use in the 
C–7 

1 Reno Creek ISR Project are found in Table A-3 of the Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol 

2 and Results (AUC, 2014a). Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–12 describes the effectiveness 

3 (i.e., the percent that the emissions are reduced) of the different tier levels based on the 

4 associated emission factors. The Tier 0 level in draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–12 represents 

5 the baseline of uncontrolled emission factors associated with older equipment. 

6 The emission inventory also incorporates two different dust suppression methods for travel on 

7 unpaved roads. The applicant has committed to treat the CPP facility access road with water 

8 and, semi-annually, with chemical dust suppressant. The applicant has also committed to treat 

9 the remaining unpaved project roads with only water. As described in Tables A-14 to A-17 of 

10 the Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a), the emission levels for 

11 pieces of equipment were reduced by the appropriate control efficiency. A control efficiency of 

12 85 percent was applied to all equipment whose primary travel would be on the CPP facility 

13 access road where the treatment included chemical dust suppression. A control efficiency of 50 

14 percent was applied to all equipment whose primary travel would be on the other remaining 

15 project roads, based on a watering frequency of more than once every two hours (AUC, 2014a). 

16 Appendix D of the Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a) provides 

17 details for the project specific watering-only control of fugitive dust emissions. 

18 Carpooling reduces the number of commuter vehicles on the road, which would result in fewer 

19 emissions and lower pollutant levels. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–13 describes the 

20 effectiveness (i.e., the percent that the emissions would be reduced) of the carpooling plan 

21 committed to by the applicant. 

22 As previously noted, the amount of fugitive dust emissions from wind erosion is a function of the 

23 amount of disturbed land. Reclaiming land reduces the amount of disturbed land, which results 

24 in fewer fugitive dust emissions and lower pollutant levels. Fugitive dust emission estimates 

25 from wind erosion were based on the net exposed land rather than the total disturbed land. The 

26 net exposed land accounts for both the amount of land disturbed as well as the amount of land 

27 reclaimed. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–2 presents the calculation for the net exposed land 

28 for each project year, which was then used to estimate the fugitive dust emissions from wind 

29 erosion. The NRC staff determined the effectiveness of reclamation as mitigation by comparing 

30 the fugitive dust emission levels with and without reclamation (i.e., comparing fugitive dust 

31 emissions from the net exposed land versus the total disturbed land). This comparison requires 

32 two steps. The first step is identifying the total amount of land disturbed by the proposed project 

33 as well as the largest amount of net exposed land for any single project year (see draft SEIS 

34 Appendix C, Table C–2). These amounts are 62.4 ha [154.3 ac], and 20.9 ha [51.6 ac], 

35 respectively (see Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–2). The second step is to relate the amount 

36 of disturbed land to the amount of fugitive dust emissions generated (see draft SEIS 

37 Appendix C, Table C–2). The data show that generation of fugitive dust emissions would 

38 change equivalently with the amount of land disturbed (see draft SEIS Appendix C, 

39 Table C–14). Based on the values identified in the first step, the largest amount of net exposed 

40 land for any given project year is about 33 percent of the total disturbed land. Correspondingly, 

41 the fugitive dust emission levels associated with the project with reclamation are 33 percent of 

42 the emissions levels without reclamation. In other words, this mitigation reduces fugitive dust 

43 emission levels by about 67 percent because reclamation reduces the amount of land actually 

44 disturbed (i.e., the net exposed land) by 67 percent relative to the amount of land that would be 

45 disturbed without reclamation. 
C–8 

1 C–3.2 Preconstruction Emission Inventory 

2 Emissions from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project preconstruction activities are not 

3 analyzed in draft SEIS Chapter 4 and are addressed separately in draft SEIS Chapter 5 on 

4 cumulative effects. Draft SEIS Appendix C, Table C–15 presents the emissions from the 

5 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project preconstruction activities and compares these to the peak 

6 year emission levels from project activities. In this draft SEIS, the NRC staff assumed that no 

7 stationary source emissions occur during preconstruction activities. The Ambient Air Quality 

8 Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a) provides additional details concerning the 

9 calculation of the fugitive dust emissions and mobile combustion emissions. 

10 C–4 Proposed Project Analyses and Air Dispersion Modeling

11 This discussion is divided into three sections. Section C–4.1 addresses background information 

12 for the SEIS analyses conducted with site-specific modeling. Section C–4.2 describes 

13 background information for the SEIS analyses conducted without site-specific modeling. 

14 Section C–4.3 describes additional background information for the site-specific modeling 

15 results. 

16 C–4.1 Background Information for SEIS Analyses Conducted with Site-Specific Air 

17 Dispersion Modeling

18 Site-specific air dispersion modeling can be used to analyze the effects of project level 

19 emissions for a variety of pollutants at a number of receptors (i.e., locations where pollutant 

20 concentrations are estimated). For this analysis, the applicant conducted site-specific air 

21 dispersion modeling to analyze the NAAQS and PSD pollutant concentrations at and beyond 

22 the proposed project area boundary, as well as the NAAQS pollutant concentrations around the 

23 area of U.S. Highway 387 that bisects the proposed project area. Draft SEIS Section C–4.1.1 

24 describes the modeling domain for the site-specific air dispersion modeling. Draft 

25 Section C–4.1.2 describes the AERMOD dry depletion option used for assessing the proposed 

26 project air quality impacts in this draft SEIS. 

27 C–4.1.1 Modeling Domain 

28 The primary modeling domain was located at and beyond the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

29 Project boundary. The applicant predicted NAAQS and PSD pollutant concentrations at 

30 5,964 receptors that extended in all directions away from the proposed project area boundary to 

31 form a 60 km by 60 km [37.2 mi by 37.2 mi] modeling domain. The spacing between the 

32 receptors was not uniform within this modeling domain. The modeling domain included fence 

33 line, fine grid, intermediate grid, and coarse grid receptors areas. The spacing between the 

34 receptors for these areas increased as the distance from the proposed project increased, which 

35 provides a greater level of detail for the area near the emission source. Section 3.6 of the 

36 Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a) provides a more detailed 

37 description of the various receptor grids and includes several figures displaying 

38 receptor placement. 

39 The modeling domain within the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project boundary was limited to the 

40 area along the section of U.S. Highway 387 that bisects the proposed project area. The 

41 highway is fenced on both sides, with a right-of-way width of 76.2 m [250 ft]. The applicant 

42 predicted NAAQS pollutant concentrations at 354 receptors that were located on either side 

43 of the highway. Section 5.2.2 of the Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results 
C–9 

1 (AUC, 2014a) provides a more detailed description of the highway receptors and includes a 

2 figure displaying receptor placement. 

3 C–4.1.2 Dry Depletion Option 

4 The dry depletion option discussion is divided into four sections. Section C–4.1.2.1 addresses 

5 background information on the dry depletion option and the draft SEIS analyses. 

6 Section C–4.1.2.2 addresses the rationale for basing the SEIS impact magnitude determinations 

7 on the modeling that implements the dry depletion option. Section C–4.1.2.3 discusses the 

8 rationale for not modeling the entire domain using the dry depletion option. Section C–4.1.2.4 

9 discusses the rationale for applying the dry depletion option to all particulate matter 

10 PM10 sources. 

11 C–4.1.2.1 Background Information on the Dry Depletion Option and the SEIS Analyses 

12 As described in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1, the applicant conducted two modeling runs for the 

13 primary modeling domain. The initial modeling run used the AERMOD regulatory default 

14 settings and predicted pollutant concentrations at all 5,964 receptors within this domain. The 

15 final modeling run used the AERMOD dry depletion option and predicted particulate matter PM10

16 pollutant concentrations at the 21 receptor locations with the highest concentrations of that 

17 pollutant from the initial modeling run. Implementation of the dry depletion option only changes 

18 the modeling results for the particulate matter PM10 estimates. The majority of the particulate 

19 matter PM10 emissions associated with the proposed project result from vehicle travel on 

20 unpaved roads, and the dry depletion option accounts for the fact that heavier particles (i.e., the 

21 particulate matter PM10) from these types of fugitive dust emissions tend to settle out of the air 

22 relatively quickly as the dust plume disperses from the source (Countess, 2001). In the draft 

23 SEIS, the NRC staff base the proposed project impact magnitude determination (i.e., SMALL, 

24 MODERATE, or LARGE) in part on the particulate matter PM10 modeling results that implement 

the dry depletion option.2 25 

26 C–4.1.2.2 Rationale for Basing the SEIS Impact Magnitude Determinations on the Modeling 

27 that Implements the Dry Depletion Option 

28 The model options and approach for the air quality impact assessment selected by the NRC 

29 staff for this draft SEIS did not completely align with the regulatory default conditions in EPA’s 

30 guidelines (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W). The NRC staff concluded that it is appropriate to use 

31 dry depletion in the AERMOD analysis for this draft SEIS for two reasons. First, modeling using 

32 the regulatory default options can overestimate short-term (i.e., 24-hour) particulate matter PM10

33 concentrations because the rapid deposition phenomenon is not adequately addressed. 

34 Specifically, a 2011 study (MMA, 2011) describes that AERMOD noticeably over-predicts the 

35 24-hour particulate matter PM10 concentrations for locations close to the source {e.g., between 

36 100 to 500 meters [328.1 to 1,640.4 ft]}. While the studies citing the tendency of the models to 

37 over-predict particulate matter PM10 concentrations over the short term (i.e., 24 hours) predate 

38 the AERMOD version used by the applicant for this analysis, the history of over-prediction by 

39 the model is indicative that implementing the dry depletion option is an appropriate measure for 

40 characterizing the particulate matter PM10 concentrations for this proposed project. 

 

2

 In addition, Section C-6 of this appendix includes an impact magnitude determination that relies only on the initial 

modeling run (i.e., does not consider the results from the final modeling run that implements the dry depletion option). 
C–10 

1 Second, the NRC staff conclude that the proposed Reno Creek ISR project conditions meet 

2 EPA guidelines for deviating from the regulatory default conditions and implementing the dry 

3 depletion option. General guidelines in Appendix W of 40 CFR 51 state that dry depletion may 

4 be directly included in a model when particulate matter sources can be quantified and dry 

5 deposition is a significant factor. Mechanically-generated particulate matter PM10 emissions are 

6 the type of emissions likely to be removed from the air close to the generating source 

7 (Countess, 2001). Based on the information in draft SEIS Tables C-1 and Table C-5, 

8 93 percent of the proposed project’s peak year particulate matter PM10 emissions are from 

9 mechanically-generated sources, which are the type of fugitive dust emissions predicted to 

10 partially settle out within a short distance of the emission source. The nature of the proposed 

11 project’s emissions indicates that deposition of particulate matter PM10 is likely. In addition to 

12 gravity settling, the initial AERMOD results show that the highest particulate matter PM10

13 24-hour concentrations occur near the sources and concentrations fall off rapidly with distance 

14 from the source. This suggests the likelihood of high concentration gradients, which are 

15 expected to produce meaningful diffusion-based settling. Input parameters for the dry depletion 

16 option, including particle size distribution and particle density, are described in Section 3.9.3 of 

17 the Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a). 

18 C–4.1.2.3 Rationale for Not Modeling the Entire Domain Using the Dry Depletion Option 

19 The initial modeling run analyzed all of the receptors in the modeling domain. The final 

20 modeling run was a refined analysis that predicted the particulate matter PM10 pollutant 

21 concentrations at the 21 receptors with the highest concentrations of that pollutant from the 

22 initial modeling run. The NRC staff acknowledges that without modeling the entire domain using 

23 dry depletion, results for the final modeling run are only available for those 21 receptors. While 

24 there may be some merit to modeling the entire domain with dry depletion, the NRC staff 

25 concluded that it is appropriate to limit the final modeling run to the receptors with the highest 

26 concentrations because the draft SEIS impact conclusions would be expected to be the same 

27 whether the dry depletion option is applied to all of the receptors or limited to the 21 receptors 

28 with the highest concentrations from the initial run. For all 21 receptors, the results from the 

29 final modeling run that implemented the dry depletion option were lower than the results from 

30 the initial modeling run that did not implement the dry depletion option (AUC, 2014a). The NRC 

31 staff expect that this trend would be true for the other receptors not modeled in the final run, 

32 since the dry depletion option reduces the amount of particulate matter that migrates beyond the 

33 proposed project area boundary by accounting for the partial settling and deposition of the 

34 heavier particulates close to the source. Because of this trend, the NRC staff conclude that the 

35 same receptors that generated the highest results for the initial run would also generate the 

36 highest results for the final modeling run, and the final results for the 21 receptors can be used 

37 to accurately characterize the impact magnitude. 

38 C–4.1.2.4 Rationale for Applying the Dry Depletion Option to All Particulate Matter 

39 PM10 Sources

40 The dry depletion option was applied to all of the particulate matter PM10 sources 

41 (i.e., stationary, mobile, and fugitive sources) rather than just the particulate matter PM10

42 sources from mechanically-generated emissions (i.e., fugitive dust emissions from travel on 

43 unpaved roads). Mechanically-generated particulate matter PM10 emissions are the type of 

44 emissions likely to be removed from the air close to the generating source (Countess, 2001). 

45 While there may be some merit to conducting modeling with the dry depletion option only 

46 applied to the portion of particulate matter PM10 emissions that are mechanically-generated, the 

47 NRC staff concluded that it is acceptable to conduct the modeling with the dry depletion option 
C–11 

1 applied to all of the particulate matter PM10 emissions because the vast majority of emissions 

2 are from mechanically-generated sources. Based on the information in draft SEIS Tables C-1 

3 and Table C-5, 93 percent of the peak year particulate matter PM10 emissions are from 

4 mechanically-generated sources. Based on the predominance of mechanically-generated 

5 emission levels, the NRC staff conclude that it is not necessary for characterizing the particulate 

6 matter PM10 impacts in this draft SEIS to perform the AERMOD analysis where dry depletion is 

7 applied only to the mechanically-generated emissions because the difference (about 8 percent) 

8 would not significantly affect the result. 

9 C–4.2 Background Information for SEIS Analyses Conducted Without Site-Specific 

10 Air Dispersions Modeling 

11 The NRC staff determined that for three types of analyses considered in this draft SEIS, the 

12 proposed project’s potential impacts could be determined without site-specific air dispersion 

13 modeling. This section provides the rationale for determining the potential impacts from the 

14 proposed project without site-specific air dispersion modeling to the nearest Class I and 

15 sensitive Class II areas (see Section C–4.2.1), for the PSD analysis at the highway bisecting 

16 the proposed project area (see Section C–4.2.2), and for hazardous air pollutants (see 

17 Section C–4.2.3). 

18 C–4.2.1 Class I and Sensitive Class II Analysis 

19 Wind Cave National Park is located 181.9 km [133 mi] away, and is the closest Class I area to 

20 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Due to the large distance between proposed project and 

21 the Class I area and the proposed project’s relatively low emission levels from the combined 

22 stationary, mobile, and fugitive sources, site-specific modeling was not conducted to assess 

23 effects from the proposed project. As described in the following paragraphs, application of the 

24 federal land managers’ guidance (National Park Service, 2010) provided the basis for why site25 specific modeling for air quality related values is not warranted, and consideration of the air 

26 dispersion modeling conducted for the Dewey-Burdock SEIS analysis provided the basis for 

27 why site-specific modeling for Class I PSD increments is not warranted. The NRC staff did not 

28 collaborate with any other federal or state agencies when making the decision not to conduct 

29 site-specific modeling for air quality related values or PSD Class I increments. 

30 As described in draft SEIS Section 3.7.2.1, areas are designated into different PSD 

31 classifications. Class I areas have the most stringent requirements concerning allowable PSD 

32 increments. Protection of Class I areas considers air quality related values such as visibility and 

33 atmospheric deposition. No Class I areas exist within the 80-km [50-mi] region of influence for 

34 the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. Federal land managers responsible for managing Class 

35 I areas developed guidance that recommends a screening test be applied to proposed sources 

36 greater than 50 km [31 mi] from a Class I area to determine whether analysis for air quality 

37 related values is warranted (National Park Service, et. al., 2010). The screening test considers 

38 the project’s distance to the nearest Class I area and the project’s emission levels. If the 

39 combined annual mass emission rate (i.e., tons per year) of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter 

40 PM10, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid divided by the distance in kilometers from the Class I area 

41 is 10 or less, then this source is considered to have negligible impacts with respect to air quality 

42 related values and further analysis is not warranted. Based on the proposed project’s estimated 

43 peak year values in Draft SEIS Table C–5, which includes emissions from stationary, mobile, 

44 and fugitive sources, the combined annual mass emission rate for the specified pollutants is 

45 151.4 metric tons [166.9 short tons] per year. Dividing this value by the 181.9 km [113 mi] 

46 distance results in a ratio of 0.9, which is well below the threshold ratio of 10. Based on 
C–12 

1 screening test results, the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project’s impacts to the nearest Class I 

2 area are negligible, and site-specific modeling for air quality related values is not warranted. 

3 The NRC staff conclude that site-specific modeling analyzing effects for air quality related 

4 values from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project’s emissions at sensitive Class II areas is not 

5 warranted based on the same rationale. The nearest Class II sensitive area is Cloud Peak 

6 Wilderness Area located about 169 km [105 mi] to the northwest of the proposed Reno Creek 

7 ISR Project area. Based on this distance, the screening test ratio of emission levels to distance 

8 is about 1.0, which is well below the threshold ratio of 10 for determining whether analysis for air 

9 quality related values is warranted. 

10 Site specific modeling for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project provides the basis for not conducting 

11 site-specific modeling to assess PSD impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project’s 

12 emissions to the nearest Class I area. The Dewey-Burdock SEIS analysis modeled impacts 

13 from the Dewey-Burdock Project’s emissions to Wind Cave National Park, the nearest Class I 

14 area. All of the estimated pollutant concentrations at the Wind Cave National Park attributed to 

15 emissions from the Dewey-Burdock ISR project are below the PSD Class I increments (NRC, 

16 2014). The Dewey–Burdock ISR Project was estimated to have much higher emission levels 

17 and is located much closer to the Class I area than the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. 

18 Therefore, the NRC staff concluded that site-specific modeling to analyze impacts from 

19 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project emissions at Wind Cave National Park for Class I PSD 

20 increments is not warranted because the site-specific modeling for Dewey–Burdock Project 

21 emissions did not exceed the PSD Class I increments at the Class I area and the proposed 

22 Reno Creek ISR Project would be located farther away from the Class I site and has lower 

23 emissions than the Dewey–Burdock Project. The following paragraph provides a detailed 

24 comparison of the Dewey-Burdock and proposed Reno Creek ISR project emissions and 

25 distance to Wind Cave National Park. 

26 The Dewey Burdock Project area is located about 46.7 km [29.0 mi] west of Wind Cave National 

27 Park and the predominant wind blows in the general direction from the ISR project area towards 

28 the Class I location (NRC, 2014). As described in draft SEIS Section 3.7, the proposed 

29 Reno Creek ISR Project area is located about 181.9 km [113 mi] west of Wind Cave National 

30 Park and the predominant wind blows in the general direction from the proposed project area 

31 towards the Class I location. The proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area is approximately four 

32 times farther away from Wind Cave National Park than the Dewey-Burdock Project. Although 

33 the distances between the two ISR locations and the Class I area vary, the general alignment 

34 and wind direction are similar. Since both projects are ISR projects, the NRC staff can assume 

35 that the activities and sources that generate air emissions would be similar. For the proposed 

36 Reno Creek ISR Project, the Ambient Air Quality Modeling Protocol and Results (AUC, 2014a) 

37 provides the detailed description of these activities and sources; and for the Dewey-Burdock 

38 Project, the Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact Analysis (IML, 2013) 

39 provides the detailed description of these activities and sources. Draft SEIS Appendix C, 

40 Table C–16 contains the annual masses of pollutants generated by the two ISR projects. The 

41 projects are similar in that the particulate matter emissions are primarily generated by fugitive 

42 sources, and carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide emissions are primarily 

43 generated by mobile sources [see draft SEIS Table C–6 and Table C–8 of the Dewey-Burdock 

44 SEIS (NRC, 2014)]. Information in draft SEIS Table C–16 presents an important distinction 

45 between the two projects: Dewey-Burdock emission levels are greater than those for the 

46 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project. The pollutant with the greatest discrepancy in emission 

47 levels between the two projects is particulate matter PM10 where the Dewey-Burdock emissions 

48 are four times greater than the proposed Reno Creek ISR project emissions. 
C–13 

1 Site-specific modeling was not conducted to assess PSD impacts from the proposed 

2 Reno Creek ISR Project emissions at the nearest sensitive Class II area, Cloud Peak 

3 Wilderness Area. Site-specific modeling was used to assess the Class II PSD impacts within 

4 the primary modeling domain, which extended in all directions away from the proposed project 

5 area boundary to form a 60 km by 60 km [37.2 mi by 37.2 mi] modeling domain. As described 

6 in draft SEIS Table 4-10, all of the results were below the PSD Class II increments. Pollutant 

7 concentrations are reduced as the plume disperses and moves away from the sources that 

8 generate the emissions. The Cloud Peak Wilderness Area is located about 169 km [105 mi] 

9 from the proposed project, which places this sensitive Class II area outside of the modeling 

10 domain. The NRC staff conclude that site-specific modeling to analyze impacts from proposed 

11 Reno Creek ISR Project emissions at Cloud Peak Wilderness Area for Class II PSD increments 

12 would not be warranted because the site-specific modeling for the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

13 Project emissions did not exceed the PSD Class II increments within the modeling domain and 

14 the sensitive Class II area is located outside or beyond this modeling domain where pollutant 

15 concentrations would not be expected to exceed those within the modeling domain. 

16 C–4.2.2 Highway Receptor PSD Analysis 

17 This draft SEIS did not examine the PSD analysis at the receptors along U.S. Highway 387 

18 where it bisects the proposed project area. The PSD analysis in this draft SEIS provides a 

19 context for understanding the magnitude of the potential effects of the proposed project rather 

20 than a regulatory determination associated with air permitting by WDEQ. The results in draft 

21 SEIS Table 4-10 reveal that the greatest effect from project emissions can be attributed to short 

22 term (i.e., 24-hour time frame) particulate matter emissions. Nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide 

23 concentrations range between 1.5 and 9.6 percent of the applicable PSD increment. For 

24 particulate matter, the annual concentrations range between 15 and 22.9 percent of the PSD 

25 increment and the 24-hour concentrations range between 61.1 and 74.3 percent of the PSD 

26 increment. 

27 C–4.2.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants Analysis 

28 Site-specific modeling of hazardous air pollutants was not conducted because of the low 

29 magnitude of the estimated emissions. The peak year emission estimate for hazardous air 

30 pollutants is 1.68 metric tons [1.85 short tons]. This estimate includes emissions from mobile 

31 (see draft SEIS Table 2-2), stationary (see draft SEIS Table 2-3), and fugitive sources (see draft 

32 SEIS Table 2 1). Because the proposed project would have low estimated emission levels, the 

33 NRC staff do not consider that site-specific modeling of the hazardous air pollutants is 

34 warranted. 

35 C–4.3 Background Information for the Site-Specific Modeling Results 

36 The proposed project site-specific modeling results discussion is divided into two sections. 

37 Section C–4.3.1 addresses continuity issues between the forms for the peak year modeling 

38 results and the regulations. Section C–4.3.2 addresses the modeling results for individual 

39 phases operating at the 100 percent activity level. 

40 C–4.3.1 Continuity Between the Forms for the Modeling and Regulations

41 Draft SEIS Table C–17 presents the peak year AERMOD modeling results with respect to the 

42 NAAQS and draft SEIS Table C–18 presents the peak year AERMOD modeling results with 

43 respect to the PSD increments. Not all of the modeling result forms in Draft SEIS Table C–17 
C–14 

1 and Table C–18 are the same as the forms for the NAAQS and PSD regulations. A form 

expresses both the statistical (e.g., maximum, average, 98th 2 percentile, etc.) and temporal 

3 (e.g., once per year, over 1 year, over 3 years, etc.) nature of the value. Both tables have a 

4 column that indicates whether the modeling form for each result is the same as the NAAQS or 

5 PSD increment form. In cases where the modeling and regulation forms do not match, a value 

6 was derived by the NRC staff from the modeling results that did match the NAAQS or PSD 

7 increment form. These derived values were used in draft SEIS Tables 4-9 and 4-10. The 

8 remaining part of this section describes how each of these values is derived. All of the NAAQS 

9 discrepancies are addressed first, followed by the PSD discrepancies. In cases where the 

10 modeling form matches the NAAQS or PSD increment form, no adjustments were necessary. 

11 Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour NAAQS 

12 The forms for the modeling results and the NAAQS are different for the carbon monoxide 1-hour 

13 timeframe. The modeling results are the highest value over a 3 year period. The NAAQS is the 

14 second highest value over a single year. A conservative approach is taken where the modeling 

15 results are designated as the values that match the NAAQS form. 

16 Carbon Dioxide 8-Hour NAAQS 

17 The forms for the modeling results and the NAAQS are different for the carbon monoxide 8-hour 

18 timeframe. The modeling results are the highest value over a 3 year period. The NAAQS is the 

19 second highest value over a single year. A conservative approach is taken where the modeling 

20 results are designated as the values that match the NAAQS form. 

21 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual NAAQS 

22 The forms for the modeling results and the NAAQS are different for the nitrogen dioxide annual 

23 timeframe. The modeling results are the average of three single year means. The NAAQS is 

24 an annual mean. A conservative approach is taken by assuming that the mean for two of the 

25 years is zero, and all of the emissions occur in the third year. Thus, the values used are three 

26 times the modeling results. 

27 Particulate Matter PM10 Annual Wyoming Standard 

28 As indicated, the federal particulate matter PM10 annual standard was revoked; however, the 

29 State of Wyoming standard still exists. The forms for the modeling results and the Wyoming 

30 standard are different for the particulate matter PM10 annual timeframe. The modeling results 

31 are the average of three single year means. The Wyoming standard is an annual mean. A 

32 conservative approach is taken by assuming that the mean for two of the years is zero, and 

33 all of the emissions occur in the third year. Thus, the values used are three times the 

34 modeling results. 

35 Sulfur Dioxide 3-Hour NAAQS 

36 The forms for the modeling results and the NAAQS are different for the sulfur dioxide 3-hour 

37 timeframe. The modeling results are the highest value over the 3 year period. The NAAQS is 

38 the second highest value over a single year. A conservative approach is taken where the 

39 modeling results are designated as the values that match the NAAQS form. 
C–15 

1 Nitrogen Dioxide Annual PSD 

2 The forms for the modeling result and the PSD increment are different for the nitrogen dioxide 

3 annual timeframe. The modeling result is the average of three single year means. The NAAQS 

4 is an annual mean. A conservative approach is taken by assuming that the mean for two of the 

5 years is zero and all of the emissions occur in the third year. Thus, the value used is three 

6 times the modeling result. 

7 Particulate Matter PM2.5 24-Hour PSD 

8 The modeling result and the PSD increment forms are different for the particulate matter PM2.5

9 24-hour timeframe. The modeling result is the highest value over the three year period. The 

10 PSD increment is the second highest value over a single year. A conservative approach is 

11 taken where the modeling result is designated as the value that matches the PSD 

12 increment form. 

13 Particulate Matter PM2.5 Annual PSD 

14 The modeling result and the PSD increment forms are different for the particulate matter PM2.5

15 annual values. The modeling result is the average of three single year means. The PSD 

16 increment is not to be exceeded over the year (i.e., an annual mean). A conservative approach 

17 is taken by assuming that the mean for two of the years is zero and all of the emissions occur in 

18 the third year. Thus, the value used is three times the modeling result. 

19 Particulate Matter PM10 24-Hour PSD (Final Run Only) 

20 The final run modeling result and the PSD increment forms are different for the particulate 

21 matter PM10 24-hour timeframe. The modeling result is the highest daily value over the 3 year 

22 period. The PSD increment is the second highest value over a single year. A conservative 

23 approach is taken where the modeling result is designated as the value that matches the PSD 

24 increment form. The initial run modeling result and the PSD increment forms are the same for 

25 the particulate matter PM10 24-hour timeframe. 

26 Particulate Matter PM10 Annual PSD 

27 The modeling results and the PSD increment forms are different for the particulate matter PM10

28 annual timeframe. The modeling results are the average of three single year means. The PSD 

29 increment is not to be exceeded over the year (i.e., an annual mean). A conservative approach 

30 is taken by assuming that the mean for two of the years is zero and all of the emissions occur in 

31 the third year. Thus, the values used are three times the modeling results. 

32 Sulfur Dioxide 3-Hour PSD 

33 The modeling result and the PSD increment forms are different for the sulfur dioxide 3-hour 

34 timeframe. The modeling result is the highest value over a 3 year period. The PSD increment 

35 is the second highest value over a single year. A conservative approach is taken where the 

36 modeling result is designated as the value that matches the PSD increment form. 
C–16 

1 Sulfur Dioxide 24-Hour PSD 

2 The modeling result and the PSD increment forms are different for the sulfur dioxide 24-hour 

3 timeframe. The modeling result is the highest value over a 3 year period. The PSD increment 

4 is the second highest value over a single year. A conservative approach is taken where the 

5 modeling result is designated as the value that matches the PSD increment form. 

6 Sulfur Dioxide Annual PSD 

7 The modeling result and the PSD increment forms are different for the sulfur dioxide annual 

8 timeframe. The modeling result is the annual mean averaged over 3 years. The PSD 

9 increment is not to be exceeded over the year (i.e., an annual mean). A conservative approach 

10 is taken by assuming that the mean for two of the years is zero and all of the emissions occur in 

11 the third year. Thus, the value used is three times the modeling result. 

12 Draft SEIS Table C–19 presents the values used in the draft SEIS analysis for comparison to 

13 the NAAQS and draft SEIS Table C–20 presents the values used in the draft SEIS analysis for 

14 comparison to the PSD increments. 

15 C–4.3.2 Individual Phases Operating at the 100 Percent Activity Level 

16 This section of the draft SEIS appendix explains how the NRC staff derived pollutant 

17 concentrations for the individual phases operating at the 100 percent activity level because the 

18 applicant only conducted AERMOD air dispersion modeling for the peak year emission levels. 

19 Emissions from a single phase can vary in any given year, and the 100 percent activity level 

20 refers to the largest amount of emissions attributed to that particular phase for a single 

21 project year. 

22 Pollutant concentrations for each individual phase are derived from the peak year modeling 

23 results (for concentration) based on the relative emission level of the 100 percent activity level 

24 for each individual phase when compared to the emission level for the peak year. Draft SEIS 

25 Table C–11 presents the estimated annual mass flow rates for the 100 percent activity levels for 

26 the individual phases which included fugitive, mobile, and stationary sources. Draft SEIS 

27 Table C–21 presents the percentage of emission levels for the 100 percent activity levels for the 

28 various phases relative to the peak year emission levels. Next, the percentages from draft SEIS 

29 Table C–21 are applied to the peak year concentrations used for comparison to the NAAQS 

30 (see draft SEIS Table C–19) and the PSD increments (see draft SEIS Table C–20). The 

31 NAAQS compares the total concentration (i.e., the project emission concentration levels added 

32 to the background concentration levels) to the various thresholds. The percentage only applies 

33 to the contribution from the proposed project and not the background concentration levels, 

34 which remain the same. Tables are generated for each individual phase to specify the changes 

35 to both the project-specific and total concentrations. The following tables compare the pollutant 

36 concentrations for the various phases at the 100 percent activity level to NAAQS: facility 

37 construction (draft SEIS Table C–22), wellfield construction (draft SEIS Table C–23), operation 

38 (draft SEIS Table C–24), aquifer restoration (draft SEIS Table C–25), and decommissioning and 

39 reclamation (draft SEIS Table C–26). The PSD increments compare the project concentrations 

40 rather than the total concentrations to the various thresholds. This means the percentages from 

41 draft SEIS Table C–21 can be directly applied to the concentrations in draft SEIS Table C–20. 

42 Draft SEIS Table C–27 specifies the concentrations for various phases operating at the 

43 100 percent activity level and compares these values to the appropriate PSD increments. 
C–17 

1 C–5 Cumulative Effects Analyses as Considered in this Draft SEIS 

2 The cumulative effects analyses include a near-field analysis and a far-field analysis. 

3 The impact magnitude determination for the near-field analysis in draft SEIS Section 5.7.1.1 in 

4 part relies on qualitative information. While there is merit in considering additional information 

5 (e.g., emission inventories or modeling results) from other air quality analyses to support 

6 conclusions for the near-field impacts, the NRC staff do not consider this necessary because 

7  The analysis in this draft SEIS includes an appropriate quantitative analysis of impacts 

8 from past and present activities and a qualitative analysis of impacts from reasonably 

9 foreseeable future impacts, 

10  The NRC staff did not identify another information source that would allow for an 

11 appropriate quantitative discussion of future impacts, and 

12  Project level emissions and the associated potential for overlapping impacts drops 

13 noticeably during the second half of the project lifespan. 

14 The impact magnitude determination for the far-field analysis in draft SEIS Section 5.7.2.1 in 

15 part relies on qualitative information. Additional modeling could be conducted to support these 

16 conclusions for the impacts to the far-field from the region of influence; however, the NRC staff 

17 do not consider this necessary for this SEIS because 

18  Modeling to assess impacts from regional emissions is more appropriate for EISs 

19 associated with larger scale projects such as regional management plans, 

20  Such efforts are already underway (see draft SEIS Section 5.7.1.2 for a description of 

21 two relevant EISs). Should those documents become available prior to publication of the 

22 final SEIS, then the NRC staff would consider incorporating any relevant information, 

23  Uncertainty is associated with future impacts from future actions, whereas impacts from 

24 past and present activities, as well as the impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

25 Project, are thoroughly characterized in Draft SEIS Section 5.7.1.2, and 

26  The contribution of emissions from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project to the region 

27 of influence is small. 

28 C–6 Impact Analyses Using Air Dispersion Modeling without Dry Depletion 

29 The air quality analysis in this draft SEIS relies in part on air modeling that implements dry 

30 depletion. As specified in footnotes in draft SEIS Section 4.7.1 and 5.7.1, Appendix C contains 

31 an assessment of the impact magnitude determinations that rely only on the initial modeling run 

32 (i.e., does not consider the results from the final modeling run that implements the dry depletion 

33 option). The discussion of impact magnitude determinations using the initial modeling run is 

34 divided into two sections. Draft SEIS Section C-6.1 describes the impact magnitude 

35 determination for the proposed project, and draft SEIS Section C-6.2 describes the impact 

36 magnitude determination for the cumulative effects. 

37 Implementing the dry depletion option only changes the modeling results for the particulate 

38 matter PM10. Therefore, draft SEIS Section C-6 only describes the impact analyses in terms of 
C–18 

1 particulate matter PM10. Draft SEIS Section 4.7.1 and Section C-4.1.2 contain additional 

2 information about dry depletion. 

3 C-6.1 Proposed Project Impacts 

4 The discussion about impacts of the proposed project is divided into two sections. 

5 Section C-6.1.1 presents the proposed project’s impact based on the initial modeling run. 

6 Section C-6.1.2 compares the proposed project’s impact based on the initial and final 

7 modeling runs. 

8 C-6.1.1 Initial Modeling Run Impact 

9 Draft SEIS Table C-28 presents the initial modeling run peak year pollutant concentrations 

10 associated with the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project with respect to the particulate matter 

11 PM10 NAAQS. For comparison to the NAAQS, project level modeling results are combined with 

12 the current background ambient air pollutant concentrations. The peak year concentrations of 

13 particulate matter PM10 are below the NAAQS. While the NAAQS primarily relate to an area’s 

14 attainment classification (see draft SEIS Section 3.7.2), the PSD increments primarily relate to 

15 pollution levels generated by individual projects. Draft SEIS Table C-29 presents the initial 

16 modeling run peak year pollutant concentrations with respect to the PSD increments. The 

17 particulate matter PM10 24-hour project level concentration was above the allowable PSD 

18 increment. Due to the level (i.e., above the PSD increment) and nature of the fugitive dust 

19 particulate matter PM10 emissions, short-term (i.e., 24-hour) impacts that would be noticeable 

20 but not destabilizing are possible at locations in close proximity to emission sources. At times, 

21 the fugitive dust emissions would result in a MODERATE impact on air quality for the peak year. 

22 The NRC staff conclude that for an analysis relying on the initial modeling results that do not 

23 implement the dry depletion option, the overall impact to air quality for the peak year would 

24 range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

25 C-6.1.2 Comparing the Proposed Project Impacts Based on the Initial and Final 

26 Modeling Runs 

27 The project level impacts based on the initial modeling results described in the preceding 

28 paragraph would be greater than the impacts based on the final modeling results described in 

29 draft SEIS Section 4.7.1.1. This distinction is because the initial modeling result is above the 

30 particulate matter PM10 24-hour PSD increment, whereas the final modeling result is below this 

31 threshold (see draft SEIS Table C-30). 

32 C-6.2 Cumulative Effects 

33 The cumulative effects discussion is divided into two sections. Section C-6.2.1 describes the 

34 near-field cumulative effects and Section C-6.2.2 describes the far-field cumulative effects. 

35 Cumulative impacts on air quality include incremental effects from the proposed Reno Creek 

36 ISR Project added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

37 actions. The site-specific modeling and whether the initial or final run results are used influences 

38 the project level impacts. The impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

39 future actions (i.e., excluding impacts from the proposed project) remain the same for the near40 field and far-field, as described in draft SEIS Section 5.7.1, regardless of whether the site41 specific modeling includes the dry depletion option. 
C–19 

1 C-6.2.1 Near-Field 

2 The near-field cumulative effects discussion is divided into two sections. Section C-6.2.1.1 

3 describes the near-field impacts based on the initial modeling run. Section C-6.2.1.2 compares 

4 the near-field impacts based on the initial and final modeling runs. 

5 C-6.2.1.1 Initial Modeling Run Impacts for the Near Field 

6 Cumulative impacts on air quality for the near field include the incremental effect from the 

7 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably 

8 foreseeable future actions. In draft SEIS Section C-6.1.1, the NRC staff conclude that, based 

9 on the initial modeling results, the overall impact to air quality for the peak year would range 

10 from SMALL to MODERATE. As described in draft SEIS Section 5.7.1.1, the NRC staff 

11 conclude that the impact on air quality within the region of influence for the proposed 

12 Reno Creek ISR Project resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

13 is MODERATE. When combining the incremental impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR 

14 Project with all other impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in 

15 the region of influence, the NRC staff conclude that the cumulative impact for the near-field 

16 would be MODERATE because 

17 • The proposed project’s particulate matter PM10 level, when combined with the current 

18 background ambient air pollutant concentrations (i.e., the impacts from past and present 

19 emissions), would be below the NAAQS (see Table C-28) and the NRC staff consider 

20 that these combined results relative to NAAQS would be noticeable but not destabilizing; 

21 and 

22 • Based on the description of the possible overlap between the proposed project and the 

23 reasonably foreseeable future actions as described in draft SEIS Section 5.7.1.1, the 

24 NRC staff expect the air quality in the near-field would continue in a similar manner. 

25 C-6.2.1.2 Comparing the Near-Field Impacts Based on the Initial and Final Modeling Runs 

26 The near-field cumulative impact magnitude determination relying on the initial modeling results 

27 described in the preceding section would be the same as the impact magnitude relying on the 

28 final modeling results described in draft SEIS Section 5.7.1.1 because both modeling results are 

29 below the NAAQS (see Draft SEIS Table C-30), and the NAAQS considers background 

30 pollutant levels. To put this another way, when the impact assessment includes emissions from 

31 other sources (i.e., comparing the combined emissions from the proposed project and 

32 background concentrations to NAAQS), the impacts for the initial and final modeling are 

33 the same. 

34 C-6.2.2 Far-Field 

35 The far-field cumulative effects discussion is divided into two sections. Section C-6.2.2.1 

36 describes the far-field impacts based on the initial modeling run. Section C-6.2.2.2 compares 

37 the far-field impact based on the initial and final modeling runs. 

38 C-6.2.2.1 Initial Modeling Run Impacts for the Far-Field

39 Cumulative impacts on air quality for the far-field include the incremental effect from the 

40 proposed Reno Creek ISR Project added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably 
C–20 

1 foreseeable future actions. In draft SEIS Section C-6.1.1, the NRC staff conclude that, based 

2 on the initial modeling results, the overall impact to air quality for the peak year would range 

3 from SMALL to MODERATE. As described in draft SEIS Section 5.7.1.2, the NRC staff 

4 conclude that the impact on air quality for the far-field resulting from other past, present, and 

5 reasonably foreseeable future actions could range from MODERATE to LARGE (specifically, 

6 the past and present impacts are MODERATE and the future impacts could be LARGE). When 

7 combining the incremental impacts from the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project with all other 

8 impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the far-field, the 

9 NRC staff conclude that the cumulative impact for the far-field would be MODERATE to 

10 LARGE because 

11 • The proposed project’s particulate matter PM10 level when combined with the current 

12 background ambient air pollutant concentrations (i.e., the impacts from past and present 

13 emissions) are below the NAAQS (see Table C-28), and the NRC staff consider that 

14 these combined results relative to NAAQS would be noticeable but not destabilizing; and 

15 • Based on the description of the possible overlap between the proposed project and the 

16 reasonably foreseeable future actions as described in draft SEIS Section 5.7.1.2, the 

17 NRC staff determine that the air quality in the far-field would range from MODERATE 

18 to LARGE. 

19 C-6.2.2.2 Comparing the Far-Field Impacts Based on the Initial and Final Modeling Runs 

20 The far-field cumulative impacts relying on the initial modeling results described in the preceding 

21 section would be the same as the impacts relying on the final modeling results described draft 

22 SEIS Section 5.7.1.2 because both modeling results are below the NAAQS (see Table C-30) 

23 and the NAAQS considers background pollutant levels. To put this another way, when the 

24 impact assessment includes emissions from other sources (i.e., comparing the combined 

25 emissions from the proposed project and background concentrations to NAAQS), the impacts 

26 for the initial and final modeling are the same. 

27 C-7 References 

28 40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51. 

29 Appendix W. “Guidelines on Air Quality Models.” 

30 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

31 Environmental Report Round 2.” ML15002A082. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014a. 

32 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, RAI Response Package: 

33 Environmental Report Round 1.” ML14169A452. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2014b. 

34 AUC. “The Reno Creek ISR Project, Campbell County, Wyoming, License Application, 

35 Environmental Report.” ML122890785. Lakewood, Colorado: AUC LLC. 2012. 

36 Countess, R. “Methodology for Estimating Fugitive Windblown and Mechanically Resuspended 

37 Road Dust Emissions Applicable for Regional Scale Air Quality Modeling.” ML13213A294. 

38 Westlake Village, California: Countess Environmental. 2001. 
C–21 

1 EPA. “Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling − Compression2 Ignition.” EPA420–P–04–009, NR–009c. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection 

3 Agency. 2004. 

4 IML (Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc). “Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact 

5 Analysis Dewey-Burdock Project Powertech (USA) Inc., Edgemont, South Dakota.” 

6 ML13196a061, ML13196a097, ML13196a118. Sheridan, Wyoming: IML Air Science. 2013. 

7 MMA. “Draft ‘White Paper’ Status of CAAA Section 234 Regulatory and Technical Issues 

8 Update.” 2390-10. ML13213A342. Englewood, Colorado: McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. 

9 2011. 

10 National Park Service. “Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group 

11 (FLAG): Phase I Report—Revised (2010)”. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—

12 2010/232. Denver, Colorado: National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

13 U.S. Forest Service. 2010. 

14 NRC. NUREG–1910, Supplement 4, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Dewey–Burdock 

15 Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, Supplement to the Generic 

16 Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities.” ML14024A477 

17 and ML14024A478. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. January 2014 

18 NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium 

19 Milling Facilities.” ML091480244 and ML091480188. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear 

20 Regulatory Commission. May 2009. 

21 TRC Environmental Corporation. “Appendix B: Project Emissions Inventories, Final Air Quality 

22 Technical Support Document for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project Environmental Impact 

23 Statement.” Laramie, Wyoming: TRC Environmental Corporation. 2006. 
C–22 

Table C–1. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short* Tons per Year) for Particulate Matter 

(PM) from Fugitive Sources for the Proposed Project 

Project 

Year 

Travel on Unpaved 

Roads† Wind Erosion Total 

PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10

1 7.39 73.88 0.55 3.64 7.94 77.52 

2 8.90 89.00 0.69 4.60 9.59 93.60 

3 10.67 106.78 0.70 4.64 11.37 111.42 

4 10.63 106.45 0.75 5.02 11.38 111.47 

5 10.63 106.44 0.81 5.41 11.44 111.85 

6 10.68 106.83 0.87 5.79 11.55 112.62 

7 9.89 98.97 0.88 5.88 10.77 104.85 

8 9.65 96.47 0.88 5.88 10.53 102.35 

9 8.19 81.58 0.78 5.23 8.97 86.81 

10 4.97 49.14 0.60 3.99 5.57 53.13 

11 <5.46 <50.40 0.54 3.60 <6 <54 

12 <5.52 <50.78 0.48 3.22 <6 <54 

13 <5.57 <51.16 0.43 2.84 <6 <54 

14 <4.63 <47.54 0.37 2.46 <5 <50 

15 <5.00 <50.00 0.00 0.00 <5 <50 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) 

*Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS 

text with metric being primary). 

†Emissions from travel on unpaved roads calculated by subtracting the wind erosion estimates from the total 

estimates. 
C–23 

Table C–2. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short* Tons per Year) for Particulate Matter 

(PM) from Wind Erosion for the Proposed Project 

Year 

Total 

Acres†

Disturbed 

per Year 

Total 

Acres†

Disturbed 

Total 

Acres†

Reclaimed 

Net Acres†

Exposed 

Emissions (short* tons 

per year) 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM2.5

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10

0‡ 17.4 17.4 0 17.4 0.30 1.98 

1 14.6 32.0 0 32.0 0.55 3.64 

2 20.3 52.3 12 40.3 0.69 4.60 

3 15.4 67.7 15 40.7 0.70 4.64 

4 15.4 83.1 12 44.1 0.75 5.02 

5 15.4 98.5 12 47.4 0.81 5.41 

6 15.4 113.9 12 50.8 0.87 5.79 

7 15.4 129.3 14.6 51.6 0.88 5.88 

8 15.4 144.7 15.4 51.6 0.88 5.88 

9 9.6 154.3 15.4 45.9 0.78 5.23 

10 0 154.3 10.9 35.0 0.60 3.99 

11 0 154.3 3.4 31.6 0.54 3.60 

12 0 154.3 3.4 28.3 0.48 3.22 

13 0 154.3 3.4 24.9 0.43 2.84 

14 0 154.3 3.4 21.6 0.37 2.46 

15 0 154.3 21.6 0.0 0.00 0 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) 

*Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS 

text with metric being primary). 

†Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table land area expressed in acres only (dual units used in draft SEIS 

text with metric being primary) 

‡Preconstruction (i.e., project year zero) is not part of the proposed project and is addressed separately in the draft 

SEIS Chapter 5 on cumulative effects. However, for purposes of net land exposed, the preconstruction value is 

included since it is part of the disturbed land within the footprint of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area that 

would be reclaimed during the project lifespan. 
C–24 

Table C–3. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for Various Pollutants from Mobile Source Combustion 

Emissions Associated with the Proposed Project 

Phase 

and 

Pollutant† Project Year 

Con - CPP Year 

-1 

Year 1 

Year 2 

Year 3 

Year 4 

Year 5 

Year 6 

Year 7 

Year 8 

Year 9 

Year 10 

Year 11 

Year 12 

Year 13 

Year 14 

Year 15 

CO2 0.00 785 378 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CO 0.00 8.33 6.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HAP 0.00 0.32 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOx 0.00 8.74 4.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.51 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.52 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SO2 0.00 1.34 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THC 0.00 2.42 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Con - WF Year 

-1 

Year 1 

Year 2 

Year 3 

Year 4 

Year 5 

Year 6 

Year 7 

Year 8 

Year 9 

Year 10 

Year 11 

Year 12 

Year 13 

Year 14 

Year 15 

CO2 0.00 2704 3477 3863 3863 3863 3752 3284 3090 1932 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CO 0.00 27.14 34.89 38.77 38.77 38.77 38.07 32.96 31.02 19.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 HAP 0.00 1.11 1.43 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.54 1.35 1.27 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOx 0.00 26.63 34.24 38.05 38.05 38.05 37.05 32.34 30.44 19.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 1.54 1.98 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.13 1.87 1.76 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.00 1.58 2.04 2.26 2.26 2.26 2.20 1.92 1.81 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SO2 0.00 4.21 5.42 6.02 6.02 6.02 5.88 5.12 4.82 3.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 THC 0.00 14.42 18.54 20.61 20.61 20.61 19.47 17.51 16.48 10.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ops Year 

-1 

Year 1 

Year 2 

Year 3 

Year 4 

Year 5 

Year 6 

Year 7 

Year 8 

Year 9 

Year 10 

Year 11 

Year 12 

Year 13 

Year 14 

Year 15 

CO2 0.00 226 371 616 578 566 570 571 568 567 543 403 93 64 35 35 CO 0.00 1.22 2.04 3.46 3.25 3.17 3.20 3.20 3.19 3.18 3.05 2.25 0.50 0.34 0.17 0.17 HAP 0.00 0.09 0.16 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.17 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 NOx 0.00 1.81 3.13 5.37 5.07 4.97 5.00 5.01 4.99 4.98 4.77 3.54 0.83 0.58 0.32 0.32 PM2.5 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 
C–25 

Table C–3. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for Various Pollutants from Mobile Source Combustion 

Emissions Associated with the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Phase 

and 

Pollutant† Project Year 

PM10 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.32 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.21 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 SO2 0.00 0.32 0.50 0.78 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.70 0.52 0.14 0.10 0.06 0.06 THC 0.00 1.64 3.11 5.96 5.53 5.38 5.43 5.44 5.42 5.41 5.16 3.76 0.66 0.36 0.07 0.07 GR Year 

-1 

Year 1 

Year 2 

Year 3 

Year 4 

Year 5 

Year 6 

Year 7 

Year 8 

Year 9 

Year 10 

Year 11 

Year 12 

Year 13 

Year 14 

Year 15 

CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38 51 46 45 48 48 69 190 275 290 202 0.00 CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.40 1.08 1.54 1.62 1.19 0.00 HAP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.00 NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.40 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.55 1.51 2.09 2.21 1.73 0.00 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.00 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.00 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.22 0.35 0.37 0.20 0.00 THC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.57 0.52 0.51 0.54 0.55 0.79 2.15 2.69 2.84 2.76 0.00 Decom Year 

-1 

Year 1 

Year 2 

Year 3 

Year 4 

Year 5 

Year 6 

Year 7 

Year 8 

Year 9 

Year 10 

Year 11 

Year 12 

Year 13 

Year 14 

Year 15 

CO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 111 58 77 193 265 303 338 338 506 506 CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.37 0.49 1.24 1.69 1.88 2.06 2.06 2.96 2.96 HAP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.21 NOx 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.63 0.84 2.10 2.97 3.18 3.50 3.50 5.54 5.54 PM2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.34 0.34 PM10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.35 0.35 SO2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.07 0.18 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.70 0.70 THC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.85 1.13 2.83 3.20 3.28 3.35 3.35 3.99 3.99 Totals Year 

-1 

Year 1 

Year 2 

Year 3 

Year 4 

Year 5 

Year 6 

Year 7 

Year 8 

Year 9 

Year 10 

Year 11 

Year 12 

Year 13 

Year 14 

Year 15 

CO2 292 3715 4225 4479 4479 4479 4479 3958 3783 2740 877 896 706 692 742 541 CO 2.31 36.69 43.09 42.24 42.24 42.24 42.24 36.79 34.97 24.08 5.14 5.22 4.10 4.02 4.32 3.13 
C–26 

Table C–3. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for Various Pollutants from Mobile Source Combustion 

Emissions Associated with the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Phase 

and 

Pollutant† Project Year 

HAP 0.12 1.52 1.74 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.63 1.56 1.14 0.37 0.38 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.23 NOx 2.41 37.18 42.34 43.42 43.42 43.42 43.42 38.34 36.65 26.49 8.29 8.24 6.42 6.28 7.58 5.86 PM2.5 0.14 2.14 2.43 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.22 2.12 1.54 0.50 0.50 0.38 0.37 0.46 0.35 PM10 0.14 2.21 2.51 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.28 2.19 1.59 0.52 0.51 0.39 0.38 0.47 0.36 SO2 0.49 5.88 6.59 6.80 6.80 6.80 6.80 5.96 5.67 3.97 1.07 1.10 0.91 0.89 0.97 0.77 THC 1.05 18.48 22.35 26.56 26.56 26.56 26.56 24.32 23.57 19.09 9.14 9.18 6.69 6.54 6.82 4.06 Source: Modified from AUC (2014a:Dec RAI response) *Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS text with metric being primary). †Con CPP = Construction Central Processing Plant, Con WF =Construction Wellfield, Ops = Operations, GR = Aquifer Restoration, Decom = Decommissioning/reclamation, CO2 = Carbon Dioxide, CO = Carbon Monoxide, HAP = Hazardous Air Pollutants, NOx = Nitrogen Oxides, PM2.5 = Particulate 

Matter 2.5 micrometers, PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 micrometers, SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide, and THC = Total Hydrocarbons 
C–27 

Table C–4. Estimated Mass Flow Rates* (Short Tons† per Year) for Various Pollutants 

from Stationary Source Combustion Emissions Associated with the 

Proposed Project‡ 

Pollutant 

Stationary Emission Source 

Total 

Vacuum 

Dryers Main Heater Furnace 

Radiant 

Heaters 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

0.39 0.22 0.02 0.18 0.80 

Hazardous 

Air Pollutants 

0.00‡ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

0.67 0.37 0.03 0.30 1.39 

Particulate 

Matter PM2.5

0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.07 

Particulate 

Matter PM10

0.04 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.07 

Sulfur Dioxide 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total Organic 

Compounds 

0.05 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.11 

Volatile 

Organic 

Compounds 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) 

*Mass flow rates of 0.00 short tons per year in this table means that emissions were below this level and do not 

necessarily mean that none of the pollutant was emitted. 

†Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual unit used in draft SEIS 

text with metric being primary) 

‡Except for project year one, stationary emission are assumed to be constant over the project lifespan. 

Table C–5. Estimated Peak Year Emission Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* Per Year) for 

Various National Ambient Air Quality Standard Pollutants from All Sources 

for the Proposed Project 

Pollutant 

Fugitive Dust 

Emission 

Sources 

Mobile 

Emission 

Sources 

Stationary 

Emission 

Sources Peak Year 

Carbon 

Monoxide 0 42.24 0.80 43.04 

Nitrogen Oxides 0 43.42 1.39 44.81 

Particulate 

Matter PM2.5 11.55 2.50 0.07 14.12 

Particulate 

Matter PM10 112.62 2.58 0.07 115.27 

Sulfur Dioxide 0 6.80 0.00† 6.80 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) 

*Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual unit used in draft SEIS 

text with metric being primary) 

†This emission value of 0.00 short tons per year means that emissions were below this level and do not necessarily 

mean that none of the pollutant was emitted. 
C–28 

Table C–6. Percentage of Emissions by Source for Various National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard Pollutant From All Sources for the Peak Year for the 

Proposed Project 

Pollutant 

Percentage from 

Fugitive Sources 

Percentage from 

Mobile Sources 

Percentage from 

Stationary Sources 

Carbon Monoxide 0 98.14 1.86 

Nitrogen Oxides 0 96.90 3.10 

Particulate Matter 

PM2.5

81.80 17.71 0.49 

Particulate Matter 

PM10

97.70 2.24 0.06 

Sulfur Dioxide 0 100.00 0 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI Response) 

Table C–7. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for the 100 Percent 

Activity Levels for Individual Phases from Mobile Source Combustions 

Emissions for the Proposed Project 

Phase†

Project 

Year 

Pollutant‡

CO HAP NOx PM2.5 PM10 SO2 THC 

Con - 

CPP 

1 8.33 0.32 8.74 0.51 0.52 1.34 2.42 

Con – 

WF 

5§ 38.77 1.59 38.05 2.19 2.26 6.02 20.61 

Ops 3 3.46 0.26 5.37 0.31 0.32 0.78 5.96 

GR 13 1.62 0.12 2.21 0.13 0.13 0.37 2.84 

Decom 14ǁ 2.96 0.21 5.54 0.34 0.35 0.70 3.99 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) 

*Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS 

text with metric being primary). 

†Con CPP = Construction Central Processing Plant, Con WF =Construction Wellfield, Ops = Operations, GR = 

Aquifer Restoration, Decom = Decommissioning/reclamation. 

‡CO2 = Carbon Dioxide, CO = Carbon Monoxide, HAP = Hazardous Air Pollutants, NOx = Nitrogen Oxides, PM2.5 = 

Particulate Matter 2.5 micrometers, PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 micrometers, SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide, and THC = Total 

Hydrocarbons. 

§Project years three to five tied for the highest emission levels. Project year five is specified here because the this 

information was used in conjunction with fugitive dust emissions and the total fugitive dust emissions over those three 

years do vary slightly with the highest level of fugitive dust emissions occurring in year five (see Table C–1 of draft 

SEIS Appendix C). 

ǁProject years fourteen and fifteen tied for the highest emission levels. Project year fourteen is specified here for 

convenience because the this information was used in conjunction with fugitive dust emissions and the total fugitive 

dust emissions over those two years do not vary (see Table C–1 of draft SEIS Appendix C). 
C–29 

Table C–8. For Particulate Matter from Mobile Source Combustion Emissions, the Contribution of the 100 Percent 

Activity Level Emissions for Individual Phases Compared to the Associated Total Emissions from All Phases For the Proposed Project 

Phase 

Project 

Year 

Particulate 

Matter 

Mass Flow Rate 

(Short Tons* per 

Year) from 100 

Percent Activity 

Level of a Single 

Phase 

Mass Flow 

Rate (Short 

Tons*) from 

All Phases 

Percent 

Attributed to 

the 100 

Percent 

Activity of a 

Single Phase 

Construction – Facility 1 PM2.5 0.51 2.14 23.8 

PM10 0.52 2.21 23.5 

Construction – Wellfield 5† PM2.5 2.19 2.50 87.6 

PM10 2.26 2.58 87.6 

Operation 3 PM2.5 0.31 2.50 12.4 

PM10 0.32 2.58 12.4 

Aquifer Restoration 13 PM2.5 0.13 0.37 35.1 

PM10 0.13 0.38 34.2 

Decommissioning / Reclamation 14‡ PM2.5 0.34 0.46 73.9 

PM10 0.35 0.47 74.5 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS text with metric being primary). †For combustion emissions from mobile sources, project years three to five tied for the highest emission levels. Project year five is specified here because the this information was used in conjunction with fugitive dust emissions and the total fugitive dust emissions over those three years do vary slightly with the highest level 

of fugitive dust emissions occurring in year five (see Table C–1 in draft SEIS Appendix C). ‡For combustion emissions from mobile sources, project years fourteen to fifteen tied for the highest emission levels. Project year fourteen is specified here for convenience because the this information was used in conjunction with fugitive dust emissions and the total fugitive dust emissions over those two years do not vary (see Table C–1 in draft SEIS Appendix C). 
C–30 

Table C–9. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for the 100 Percent Activity Levels for Individual Phases 

from Fugitive Dust Emissions from Travel on Unpaved Roads for the Proposed Project 

Phase 

Project 

Year 

Particulate 

Matter 

Mass Flow 

Rates (Short 

Tons* per 

Year) from 

All Phases 

Percent 

Attributed to the 

100 Percent 

Activity of a 

Single Phase 

Mass Flow Rate 

(Short Tons* per 

Year) from 100 

Percent Activity 

Level of a Single 

Phase 

Construction - Facility 1 PM2.5 7.39 23.8 1.76 

PM10 73.88 23.5 17.36 

Construction – Wellfield 5† PM2.5 10.63 87.6 9.31 

PM10 106.44 87.6 93.24 

Operation 3 PM2.5 10.67 12.4 1.32 

PM10 106.78 12.4 13.24 

Aquifer Restoration 13 PM2.5 5.57 35.1 1.96 

PM10 51.16 34.2 17.50 

Decommissioning/Reclamation 14‡ PM2.5 4.63 73.9 3.42 

PM10 47.54 74.5 35.42 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS text with metric being primary). †For combustion emissions from mobile sources, project years three to five tied for the highest emission levels. Project year five is specified here because the this information was used in conjunction with fugitive dust emissions and the total fugitive dust emissions over those three years do vary slightly with the highest level 

of fugitive dust emissions occurring in year five (see Table C–1 in draft SEIS Appendix C). ‡For combustion emissions from mobile sources, project years fourteen to fifteen tied for the highest emission levels. Project year fourteen is specified here for convenience because the this information was used in conjunction with fugitive dust emissions and the total fugitive dust emissions over those two years do not vary (see Table C–1 of draft SEIS Appendix C). 
C–31 

Table C–10. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for the 100 Percent Activity Levels for Individual Phases 

from Fugitive Source Dust Emissions for the Proposed Project 

Phase 

Project 

Year 

Particulate 

Matter 

Mass Flow Rate 

(Short Tons* per 

Year) from Travel 

on Unpaved Roads 

for the 100 Percent 

Activity Level of a 

Single Phase 

Mass Flow Rate 

(Short Tons* per 

Year) from Wind 

Erosion for the 100 

Percent Activity 

Level of a Single 

Phase 

Total Mass Flow Rate 

(Short Tons* per Year) for 

the 100 Percent Activity 

Level of a Single Phase 

Construction – Facility 1 PM2.5 1.76 0.55 2.31 

PM10 17.36 3.64 21.00 

Construction – Wellfield 5 PM2.5 9.31 0.81 10.12 

PM10 93.24 5.41 98.65 

Operation 3 PM2.5 1.32 0.70 2.02 

PM10 13.24 4.64 17.88 

Aquifer Restoration 13 PM2.5 1.96 0.43 2.39 

PM10 17.50 2.84 20.34 

Decommissioning/Reclamation 

14 PM2.5 3.42 0.37 3.79 

PM10 35.42 2.46 37.88 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS text with metric being primary).
C–32 

Table C–11. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for the 100 Percent Activity Levels for Individual Phases 

from All Emission Sources for the Proposed Project 

Phase 

Project 

Year Pollutant†

Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for 

Emission Source 

Total Mass 

Flow Rate 

(Short Tons* Per Year) for 

the 100 Percent 

Activity Level 

Mobile 

Combustion Fugitive‡

Stationary 

Combustion§

Construction – Facility 1 CO 8.33 0 0.80 9.13 

NOx 8.74 0 1.39 10.13 

PM2.5 0.51 2.31 0.07 2.89 

PM10 0.52 21.00 0.07 21.59 

SO2 1.34 0 0.00 1.34 

Construction – Wellfield 5 CO 38.77 0 0.80 39.57 

NOx 38.05 0 1.39 39.44 

PM2.5 2.19 10.12 0.07 12.38 

PM10 2.26 98.65 0.07 100.98 

SO2 6.02 0 0.00 6.02 

Operations 3 CO 3.46 0 0.80 4.26 

NOx 5.37 0 1.39 6.76 

PM2.5 0.31 2.02 0.07 2.40 

PM10 0.32 17.88 0.07 18.27 

SO2 0.78 0 0.00 0.78 

Groundwater Restoration 

13 CO 1.62 0 0.80 2.42 

NOx 2.21 0 1.39 3.60 

PM2.5 0.13 2.39 0.07 2.59 

PM10 0.13 20.34 0.07 20.54 

SO2 0.37 0 0.00 0.37 
C–33 

Table C–11. Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for the 100 Percent Activity Levels for Individual Phases 

from All Emission Sources for the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Phase

Project 

Year Pollutant† 

Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) for 

Emission Source

Total Mass 

Flow Rate 

(Short Tons* Per Year) for 

the 100 Percent 

Activity Level

Mobile 

Combustion Fugitive‡ 

Stationary 

Combustion§ 

Decommissioning/ Reclamation 

14 CO 2.96 0 0.80 3.76 

NOx 5.54 0 1.39 6.93 

PM2.5 0.34 3.79 0.07 4.20 

PM10 0.35 37.88 0.07 38.30 

SO2 0.70 0 0.00 0.70 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS text with metric being primary). †CO = Carbon Monoxide, NOx = Nitrogen Oxides, PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 micrometers, PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 micrometers, and SO2 = Sulfur 

Dioxide. ‡Fugitive emissions are limited to particulate matter §Stationary sources emissions are not broken down by phase. The assumption is made that the entire stationary combustion emission estimates for the associated individual project year is generate by the one phase rather than a combination of several phases. For project year one, the estimated values are lower but unspecified. Therefore, the Construction – Facility phase estimate, with the 100 percent activity level occurring in project year one, is considered conservative. 

The mass flow rates of 0.00 short tons per year for sulfur dioxide means that emissions were below this level and do not necessarily mean that none of the 

pollutant was emitted. 
C–34 

Table C–12. Effect of Using Updated Emissions Factors* that Account for Pollution Controls 

Pollutant 

Equipment Power 

(hp†) 

Tier 0 

Emission 

Factor 

(g/hp-hr) 

Tier 1‡ Tier 3§

Emission 

Factor 

(g/hp-hr) 

Percent 

Emissions 

Reduced from 

Tier 0 Levelsǁ

Emission 

Factor 

(g/hp-hr) 

Percent 

Emissions 

Reduced from 

Tier 0 Levels¶

Carbon Monoxide ≥ 75 to > 100 3.49 2.3655 32 

≥ 100 to > 175 2.70 0.8667 68 ≥ 175 to > 300 2.70 0.7475 72 ≥ 300 to > 600 2.70 1.3060 52 0.8425 31 

≥ 600 to 750 2.70 1.3272 51 

Nitrogen Dioxides ≥ 75 to > 100 6.9 3.00 56 

≥ 100 to > 175 8.38 2.5 70 ≥ 175 to > 300 8.38 2.5 70 ≥ 300 to > 600 8.38 6.0153 28 2.5 70 

≥ 600 to 750 8.38 5.8215 31 

Particulate Matter PM10

≥ 75 to > 100 0.722 0.30 58 

≥ 100 to > 175 0.402 0.22 55 ≥ 175 to > 300 0.402 0.15 63 ≥ 300 to > 600 0.402 0.2008 50 0.15 63 

≥ 600 to 750 0.402 0.2201 45 

Source: EPA (2004) *Source document and draft SEIS table express emission factors g/hp-hr. Dual units were not calculated because the value of interest is the percent emissions 

reduced, which is unitless. †Source document and draft SEIS table express equipment power in horsepower only. ‡Tier 1 controls are limited to drill rigs. The power for the two types of drill rigs were 300 and 750 horsepower. Tier 1 controls for other horsepower ranges are not applicable and the associated cells in the table are grayed out. §Tier 3 controls apply to all equipment other than drill rigs. None of this equipment exceeded 600 horsepower. Tier 3 controls for horsepower ranges in this table above 600 horsepower are not applicable and the associated cells in the table are grayed out. ǁCalculated using the following equation: [1-(Tier 1 emission factor/Tier 0 emission factor)]*100 ¶Calculated using the following equation: [1-(Tier 3 emission factor/Tier 0 emission factor)]*100 
C–35 

Table C–13. Effectiveness (i.e., the Percent that the Emissions are Reduced) of the 

Commuter Carpooling Implemented by the Applicant 

Project Phase 

Number of Vehicles 

Without Carpooling*

Number of Vehicles 

With Carpooling 

Percent 

Emission 

Reduced†

Construction 80 29 63.8 

Operation 92 32 65.2 

Groundwater Restoration 52 18 65.4 

Decommissioning 22 6 72.7 

Total 246 85 65.4 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) 

*Number of vehicles without carpooling assumes a single vehicle for each worker 

†Calculated using the following equation: 

[(# vehicles without carpooling - # vehicles with carpooling)/# of vehicles without carpooling]*100 

Table C–14. Data Showing that Changes in the Amount of Disturbed Land and the 

Associated Changes in Particulate Matter Emission Levels Occur by the 

Same Factor 

Parameter Units*

Project Year 0† Project Year 10 Project Year 7 

Values Values Factor‡ Values Factor‡

Net Land 

Exposed 

Acres 17.4 35.0 2.01 51.6 2.96 

Particulate 

Matter PM2.5

Emissions 

Short tons 0.30 0.60 2.00 0.88 2.93 

Particulate 

Matter PM10

Emissions 

Short tons 1.98 3.99 2.01 5.88 2.97 

Source: modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) 

*Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table only express mass in short tons and land size in acres (dual units 

used in draft SEIS text with metric being primary). 

†Preconstruction (i.e., project year zero) is not part of the proposed project and is addressed separately in the draft 

SEIS Chapter 5 on cumulative effects. However, for purposes of net land exposed, the preconstruction value is 

included since it is part of the disturbed land within the footprint of the proposed Reno Creek ISR Project area that 

would be reclaimed during the project lifespan. 

‡Factors are relative to the project year 0 values 

 
C–36 

Table C–15. Estimated Preconstruction Emission Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per 

Year) for Various Pollutants Compared to the Proposed Project Peak Year 

Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Short Tons* per Year) 

Pollutant 

Preconstruction†

Proposed 

Project 

Peak Year 

% of Peak 

Year 

Fugitive Dust 

Sources 

Mobile 

Emission 

Sources Total 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

0 2.31 2.31 43.04 5.4 

Nitrogen Oxides 0 2.41 2.41 44.81 5.4 

Particulate 

Matter PM2.5

2.10 0.14 2.24 14.12 15.9 

Particulate 

Matter PM10

20.02 0.14 20.16 115.27 17.5 

Sulfur Dioxide 0 0.49 0.49 6.80 7.2 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) 

*Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS 

text with metric being primary). 

†The draft SEIS assumes that no emissions from stationary sources occur during preconstruction 

Table C–16. Comparison of Estimated Peak Year Emission Mass Flow Rates (Short 

Tons* Per Year) for the Dewey–Burdock and Proposed Reno Creek 

ISR Projects 

Pollutant 

Proposed Reno 

Creek ISR Project 

Emissions 

Dewey–Burdock ISR 

Project Emissions Percent Different 

Carbon Monoxide 43.04 59.86 71.9 

Nitrogen Oxides 44.81 70.15 63.9 

Particulate Matter 

PM2.5

14.12 51.25 27.5 

Particulate Matter 

PM10

115.27 461.89 25.0 

Sulfur Dioxide 6.80 11.31 60.1 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI responses) and NRC (2014: Dewey SEIS) 

*Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual unit used in draft SEIS 

text with metric being primary) 
C–37 

Table C–17. The AERMOD Modeling Results for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from Fugitive, 

Mobile, and Stationary Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Modeling Results 

Additional or Detailed Values Available from 

the Modeling 

Value 

(μg/m

3

) 

Form* 

Same as 

NAAQS 

form? 

Value 

(μg/m

3

) 

Value 

(μg/m

3

) 

Value 

(μg/m

3

) 

Form 

Carbon Monoxide 

1 hour 682.5 Highest value over the 3-year period No na† na na na 

8 hour 88.4 Highest value over the 3-year period No na na na na 

Carbon Monoxide Highway Run 

1 hour 1,055.1 Highest value over the 3-year period No na na na na 

8 hour 156.3 Highest value over the 3-year period No na na na na 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

1 hour 62.9 98th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

Yes 85.0 57.2 46.4 98th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations for each of the 3 individual years modeled 

Annual 0.8 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years No na na na na 

Nitrogen Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 142.9 98th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

Yes 165.3 161.2 102.1 98th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations for each of the 3 individual years modeled 

Annual 2.5 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years No na na na na 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour 1.7 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years Yes 1.9 1.6 1.7 98th percentile for each of the 3 

individual years modeled 

Annual 0.2 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years Yes na na na na 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

Highway Run 

24 hour 3.3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years Yes 3.5 3.6 2.8 98th percentile for each of the 3 

individual years modeled 

Annual 0.7 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years Yes na na na na 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run‡ 

24 hour 38.4 Not to be exceeded more than once 

per year on average over 3 years 

Yes 50.9 42.1 39.5 Three highest daily values over 

the 3-year period (values can occur in the same model year) 

Annual 1.8 Average of 3 single year means No§ na na na na 
C–38 

Table C–17. The AERMOD Modeling Results for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from Fugitive, 

Mobile, and Stationary Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project (Continued)

 Pollutant

 Averaging 

 Time

Modeling Results

Additional or Detailed Values Available from the Modeling

Value 

(μg/m

3

)

Form*

Same as 

NAAQS 

form?

alue V

(μg/m

3

)

alue V

(μg/m

3

)

alue V

(μg/m

3

)

Form

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Runǁ

24 hour 18.8 Not to be exceeded more than once 

per year on average over 3 years 

Yes 22.4 22.3 19.1 Three highest daily values over 

the 3-year period (values can occur in the same model year) 

Annual 1.3 Average of 3 single year means No§ na na na na 

Particulate Matter PM10

Highway Run 

24 hour 54.6 Not to be exceeded more than once 

per year on average over 3 years 

Yes 85.4 82.0 60.6 Three highest daily values over 

the 3-year period (values can occur in the same model year) 

Annual 5.2 Average of 3 single year means No§ na na na na 

Sulfur Dioxide 

1 hour 22.9 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

Yes 20.3 27.1 21.2 99th percentile of 1-hr daily 

maximum concentrations for each of the 3 individual years modeled 

3 hour 37.6 Highest value over the 3-year period No na na na na 

Sulfur Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 49.2 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

Yes 37.0 70.6 39.9 99th percentile of 1-hr daily 

maximum concentrations for each of the 3 individual years modeled 

3 hour 72.0 Highest value over the 3-year period No na na na na 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI Response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) 

associated with the numerical value. †na is not available ‡Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations §There is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This is compared to Wyoming’s supplemental standard. 

ǁFinal modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–39 

Table C–18. The AERMOD Modeling Results for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments from 

Fugitive, Mobile, and Stationary Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project 

Pollutant Averaging Time

Value 

(μg/m3) Modeling Form*

Same as PSD 

Form? 

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.8 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years No Particulate Matter PM2.5 24 hour 5.5 Highest daily value over the 3-year period No 

Annual 0.2 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years No 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run† 

24 hour 42.1 Not to be exceeded more than once per year Yes 

Annual 1.8 Average of 3 single year means No 

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Run‡ 

24 hour 22.4 Highest daily value over the 3-year period No 

Annual 1.3 Average of 3 single year means No 

Sulfur Dioxide 3 hour 37.6 Highest value over the 3-year period No 

24 hour 6.3 Highest value over the 3-year period No 

Annual 0.1 Annual mean, averaged over 3 years No 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) associated with the numerical value. †Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations ‡ Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–40 

Table C–19. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year for 

the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

* NAAQS Form

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Carbon Monoxide 1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 682.5† 680 1,362.5 40,000 3.4 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 88.4† 378 466.4 10,000 4.7 

Carbon Monoxide Highway Run 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1055.1† 680 1,735.1 40,000 4.3 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 156.3† 378 534.3 10,000 5.3 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

62.9 21 83.9 188 44.6 

Annual Annual mean 2.4† 6 8.4 100 8.4 

Nitrogen Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

142.9 21 163.9 188 87.2 

Annual Annual mean 7.5† 6 13.5 100 13.5 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 1.7 8 9.7 35 27.7 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.2 3.4 3.6 12‡ 30.0 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

Highway Run 

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 3.3 8 11.3 35 32.3 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.7 3.4 4.1 12‡ 34.2 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run§ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

38.4 40 78.4 150 52.3 

Annual Annual mean 5.4† 15 20.4 50ǁ 40.8 

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Run¶ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

18.8 40 58.8 150 39.2 

Annual Annual mean 3.9† 15 18.9 50ǁ 37.8 

Particulate Matter PM10

Highway Run 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

54.6 40 94.6 150 63.1 

Annual Annual mean 15.6† 15 30.6 50ǁ 61.2 
C–41 

Table C–19. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year for 

the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

* NAAQS Form

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

22.9 43.2 66.1 200 33.0 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 37.6† 124.7 162.3 1,300 12.5 

Sulfur Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

49.2 43.2 92.4 200 46.2 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 72.0† 124.7 196.7 1,300 15.1 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) 

associated with the numerical value. †The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Section 4.2.1 of the draft SEIS Appendix. ‡This table identifies the primary NAAQS limit. The secondary limit is larger (i.e., 15 μg/m3). Results that meet the primary standard automatically meet the secondary standard. §Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations ǁThere is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental standard. 

¶Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–42 

Table C–20. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year for 

the Proposed Project Compared to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time PSD Increment Form* Value (μg/m3) 

PSD Class II 

Increment (μg/m3) 

Percentage of 

PSD Increment 

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Not to be exceeded over the year 2.4† 25 9.6 Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year 

5.5† 9 61.1 

Annual Not to be exceeded over the year 0.6† 4 15 

Particulate Matter PM10 Initial Run‡ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year 

42.1 30 140.3 

Annual Not to be exceeded over the year 5.4† 17 31.8 

Particulate Matter PM10 Final Run§ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year 

22.4† 30 74.3 

Annual Not to be exceeded over the year 3.9† 17 22.9 

Sulfur Dioxide 3 hour Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year 

37.6† 512 7.3 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than 

once per year 

6.3† 91 6.9 

Annual Not to be exceeded over the year 0.3† 20 1.5 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) 

associated with the numerical value. †The modeling result form is not the same as the PSD increment form. The value in this table has a form that matches the PSD increment form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Section 4.2.1 of the draft SEIS Appendix C. ‡Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations §Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–43 

Table C–21. Percentage of Emission Levels from the 100 Percent Activity Levels for the Various Phases When Compared 

to the Peak Year Emission Levels for the Proposed Project 

Phase Pollutant 

Mass Flow Rates 

(Short Tons* per Year) 

for the 100 Percent 

Activity Level 

Mass Flow Rates 

(Short Tons* per 

Year) for the Peak 

Year 

Percentage of 

Emissions from 100 

Percent Activity Levels 

Compared to Peak Year 

Emission Levels 

Construction – Facility Carbon Monoxide 9.13 43.04 21.2 

Nitrogen Oxides 10.13 44.81 22.6 Particulate Matter PM2.5 2.89 14.12 20.5 Particulate Matter PM10 21.59 115.27 18.7 Sulfur Dioxide 1.34 6.80 19.7 

Construction – Wellfield Carbon Monoxide 39.57 43.04 91.9 

Nitrogen Oxides 39.44 44.81 88.0 Particulate Matter PM2.5 12.38 14.12 87.7 Particulate Matter PM10 100.98 115.27 87.6 Sulfur Dioxide 6.02 6.80 88.5 

Operations Carbon Monoxide 4.26 43.04 9.9 

Nitrogen Oxides 6.76 44.81 15.1 Particulate Matter PM2.5 2.40 14.12 17.0 Particulate Matter PM10 18.27 115.27 15.8 Sulfur Dioxide 0.78 6.80 11.5 

Aquifer Restoration Carbon Monoxide 2.42 43.04 5.6 

Nitrogen Oxides 3.60 44.81 8.0 Particulate Matter PM2.5 2.59 14.12 18.3 Particulate Matter PM10 20.54 115.27 17.8 Sulfur Dioxide 0.37 6.80 5.4 
C–44 

Table C–21. Percentage of Emission Levels from the 100 Percent Activity Levels for the Various Phases When Compared 

to the Peak Year Emission Levels for the Proposed Project (Continued) 

Phase Pollutant 

Mass Flow Rates 

(Short Tons* per Year) 

for the 100 Percent 

Activity Level 

Mass Flow Rates 

(Short Tons* per 

Year) for the Peak 

Year 

Percentage of 

Emissions from 100 

Percent Activity Levels 

Compared to Peak Year 

Emission Levels 

Decommissioning/ Reclamation 

Carbon Monoxide 3.76 43.04 8.7 

Nitrogen Oxides 6.93 44.81 15.5 Particulate Matter PM2.5 4.20 14.12 29.7 Particulate Matter PM10 38.30 115.27 33.2 Sulfur Dioxide 0.70 6.80 10.3 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *Source documents and draft SEIS appendix table mass expressed in short tons only (dual units used in draft SEIS text with metric being primary). 
C–45 

Table C–22. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Facility 

Construction Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

* NAAQS Form

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Carbon Monoxide 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 144.7† 680 824.7 40,000 2.1 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 18.7† 378 396.7 10,000 4.0 

Carbon Monoxide Highway Run 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 223.7† 680 903.7 40,000 2.3 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 33.1† 378 411.1 10,000 4.1 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

14.2 21 35.2 188 18.7 

Annual Annual mean 0.54† 6 6.54 100 6.5 

Nitrogen Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

32.3 21 53.3 188 28.3 

Annual Annual mean 1.7† 6 7.7 100 7.7 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 0.35 8 8.35 35 23.9 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.041 3.4 3.44 12‡ 28.7 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

Highway Run 

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 0.68 8 8.68 35 24.8 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.14 3.4 3.54 12‡ 29.5 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run§ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

7.2 40 47.2 150 31.5 

Annual Annual mean 1.0† 15 16.0 50ǁ 32.0 

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Run¶ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

3.5 40 43.5 150 29.0 

Annual Annual mean 0.73† 15 15.73 50ǁ 31.5 

Particulate Matter PM10

Highway Run 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

10.2 40 50.2 150 33.5 

Annual Annual mean 2.9† 15 17.9 50ǁ 35.8 
C–46 

Table C–22. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Facility 

Construction Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

* NAAQS Form

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

4.5 43.2 52.2 200 26.1 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 7.4† 124.7 132.1 1,300 10.2 

Sulfur Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

9.7 43.2 52.9 200 26.4 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 14.2† 124.7 138.9 1,300 10.7 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) 

associated with the numerical value. †The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Section 4.2.1 of the draft SEIS Appendix C. ‡This table identifies the primary NAAQS limit. The secondary limit is larger (i.e., 15 μg/m3). Results that meet the primary standard automatically meet the secondary standard. §Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations ǁThere is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental standard. 

¶Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–47 

Table C–23. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Wellfield 

Construction Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Carbon Monoxide 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 627.2† 680 1,307.7 40,000 3.3 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 81.2† 378 459.2 10,000 4.6 

Carbon Monoxide Highway Run 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 969.6† 680 1,649.6 40,000 4.1 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 143.6† 378 521.6 10,000 5.2 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

55.3 21 76.3 188 40.6 

Annual Annual mean 2.1† 6 8.1 100 8.1 

Nitrogen Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

125.7 21 146.7 188 78.0 

Annual Annual mean 6.6† 6 12.6 100 12.6 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 1.5 8 9.5 35 27.1 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.17 3.4 3.57 12‡ 29.7 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

Highway Run 

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 2.9 8 10.9 35 31.1 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.61 3.4 4.01 12‡ 33.4 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run§ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

33.6 40 73.6 150 49.1 

Annual Annual mean 4.7† 15 19.7 50ǁ 39.4 

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Run¶ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

16.5 40 56.5 150 37.7 

Annual Annual mean 3.4† 15 18.4 50ǁ 36.8 

Particulate Matter PM10

Highway Run 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

47.8 40 87.8 150 58.5 

Annual Annual mean 13.7† 15 28.7 50ǁ 57.4 
C–48 

Table C–23. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Wellfield 

Construction Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

20.3 43.2 63.5 200 31.7 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 33.3† 124.7 158.0 1,300 12.1 

Sulfur Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

43.5 43.2 86.7 200 43.3 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 63.7† 124.7 188.4 1,300 14.5 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) 

associated with the numerical value. †The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Section 4.2.1 of the draft SEIS Appendix C. ‡This table identifies the primary NAAQS limit. The secondary limit is larger (i.e., 15 μg/m3). Results that meet the primary standard automatically meet the secondary standard. §Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations ǁThere is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental standard. 

¶Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–49 

Table C–24. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Operation 

Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Carbon Monoxide 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 67.6† 680 747.6 40,000 1.9 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 8.7† 378 386.7 10,000 3.9 

Carbon Monoxide Highway Run 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 104.4† 680 784.4 40,000 2.0 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 15.5† 378 393.5 10,000 3.9 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

9.5 21 30.5 188 16.2 

Annual Annual mean 0.36† 6 6.36 100 6.4 

Nitrogen Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

21.6 21 42.6 188 22.7 

Annual Annual mean 1.1† 6 7.1 100 7.1 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 0.29 8 8.29 35 23.7 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.034 3.4 3.43 12‡ 28.6 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

Highway Run 

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 0.56 8 8.56 35 24.4 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.12 3.4 3.52 12‡ 29.3 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run§ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

6.1 40 46.1 150 30.7 

Annual Annual mean 0.85† 15 15.8 50ǁ 31.7 

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Run¶ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

3.0 40 43 150 28.7 

Annual Annual mean 0.62† 15 15.6 50ǁ 31.2 

Particulate Matter PM10

Highway Run 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

8.6 40 48.6 150 32.4 

Annual Annual mean 2.5† 15 17.5 50ǁ 35.0 
C–50 

Table C–24. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Operation 

Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

2.6 43.2 45.8 200 22.9 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 4.3† 124.7 129.0 1,300 9.9 

Sulfur Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

5.7 43.2 48.9 200 24.4 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 8.3† 124.7 133.0 1,300 10.2 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) 

associated with the numerical value. †The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Section 4.2.1 of the draft SEIS Appendix C. ‡This table identifies the primary NAAQS limit. The secondary limit is larger (i.e., 15 μg/m3). Results that meet the primary standard automatically meet the secondary standard. §Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations ǁThere is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental standard. 

¶Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–51 

Table C–25. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Aquifer 

Restoration Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Carbon Monoxide 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 38.2† 680 718.2 40,000 1.8 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 4.9† 378 382.9 10,000 3.8 

Carbon Monoxide Highway Run 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 59.1† 680 739.1 40,000 1.8 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 8.7† 378 386.7 10,000 3.9 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

5.0 21 26.0 188 13.8 

Annual Annual mean 0.19† 6 6.19 100 6.2 

Nitrogen Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

11.4 21 32.4 188 17.2 

Annual Annual mean 0.60† 6 6.6 100 6.6 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 0.31 8 8.31 35 23.7 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.037 3.4 3.44 12‡ 28.6 

Particulate Matter PM 2.5

Highway Run 

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 0.60 8 8.6 35 24.6 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.13 3.4 3.53 12‡ 29.4 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run§ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

6.8 40 46.8 150 31.2 

Annual Annual mean 0.96† 15 15.96 50ǁ 31.9 

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Run¶ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

3.3 40 43.3 150 28.9 

Annual Annual mean 0.69† 15 15.69 50ǁ 31.4 

Particulate Matter PM10

Highway Run 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

9.7 40 49.7 150 33.1 

Annual Annual mean 2.8† 15 17.8 50ǁ 35.6 
C–52 

Table C–25. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Aquifer 

Restoration Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

1.2 43.2 44.4 200 22.2 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 2.0† 124.7 126.7 1,300 9.7 

Sulfur Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

2.7 43.2 45.9 200 22.9 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 3.9† 124.7 128.6 1,300 9.9 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) 

associated with the numerical value. †The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Section 4.2.1 of the draft SEIS Appendix C. ‡This table identifies the primary NAAQS limit. The secondary limit is larger (i.e., 15 μg/m3). Results that meet the primary standard automatically meet the secondary standard. §Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations ǁThere is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental standard. 

¶Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–53 

Table C–26. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the 

Decommissioning/Restoration Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Carbon Monoxide 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 59.4† 680 739.4 40,000 1.8 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 7.7† 378 385.7 10,000 3.9 

Carbon Monoxide Highway Run 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 91.8† 680 771.8 40,000 1.9 

8 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 13.6† 378 391.6 10,000 3.9 

Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

9.7 21 30.7 188 16.3 

Annual Annual mean 0.37† 6 6.37 100 6.4 

Nitrogen Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

22.1 21 43.1 188 22.9 

Annual Annual mean 1.2† 6 7.2 100 7.2 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 0.50 8 8.5 35 24.3 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.059 3.4 3.46 12‡ 28.8 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

Highway Run 

24 hour 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years 0.98 8 8.98 35 25.7 

Annual Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 0.21 3.4 3.61 12‡ 30.1 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run§ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

12.7 40 52.7 150 35.1 

Annual Annual mean 1.8† 15 16.8 50ǁ 33.6 

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Run¶ 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

6.2 40 46.2 150 30.8 

Annual Annual mean 1.3† 15 16.3 50ǁ 32.6 

Particulate Matter PM10

Highway Run 

24 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 

on average over 3 years 

18.1 40 58.1 150 38.7 

Annual Annual mean 5.2† 15 20.2 50ǁ 40.4 
C–54 

Table C–26. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the 

Decommissioning/Restoration Phase for the Proposed Project Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Continued) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS Form* 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

Total 

Concentration 

(μg/m3

) 

NAAQS Limit 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

NAAQS Limit 

Sulfur Dioxide 1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

2.4 43.2 45.6 200 22.8 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 3.9† 124.7 128.6 1,300 9.9 

Sulfur Dioxide Highway Run 

1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour daily maximum 

concentrations, averaged over 3 years 

5.1 43.2 48.3 200 24.1 

3 hour Not to be exceeded more than once per year 7.4† 124.7 132.1 1,300 10.2 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, or over three years) 

associated with the numerical value. †The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Section 4.2.1 of the draft SEIS Appendix C. ‡This table identifies the primary NAAQS limit. The secondary limit is larger (i.e., 15 μg/m3). Results that meet the primary standard automatically meet the secondary standard. §Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations ǁThere is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental standard. 

¶Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–55 

Table C–27. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Various 

Individual Phases for the Proposed Project Compared to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

PSD Class II 

Increment 

(μg/m

3

) 

Construction – 

Facilities 

Construction – 

Wellfield Operations 

Aquifer 

Restoration 

Decommissioning/ 

Reclamation 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Percent 

of PSD 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Percent 

of PSD 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Percent 

of PSD 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Percent 

of PSD 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

Percent 

of PSD 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Annual 25 0.54* 2.2 2.1* 8.4 0.36* 1.4 0.19* 0.8 0.37* 1.5 

Particulate Matter PM2.5

24 hour 9 1.1* 12.2 4.8* 53.3 0.93* 10.3 1.0* 11.1 1.6* 17.8 

Annual 4 0.12* 3.0 0.53* 13.2 0.10* 2.5 0.11* 2.7 0.18* 4.5 

Particulate Matter PM10

Initial Run† 

24 hour 30 7.9 26.3 36.9 123.0 6.6 22.0 7.5 25.0 14.0 46.7

Annual 17 1.0* 5.9 4.7* 27.6 0.85* 5.0 0.96* 5.6 1.8* 10.6 

Particulate Matter PM10

Final Run‡ 

24 hour 30 4.2* 14.0 19.6* 65.3 3.5* 11.7 4.0* 13.3 7.4* 24.7

Annual 17 0.73* 4.3 3.4* 20.0 0.62* 3.6 0.69* 4.1 1.3* 7.6 

Sulfur Dioxide 

3 hour 512 7.4* 1.4 33.3* 6.5 4.3* 0.8 2.0* 0.4 3.9* 0.8 

24 hour 91 1.2* 1.3 5.6* 6.1 0.72* 0.8 0.34* 0.4 0.65* 0.7 

Annual 20 0.059* 0.3 0.26* 1.3 0.034* 0.2 0.016* 0.1 0.031* 0.1 

Source: modified from AUC (2014a: Dec RAI response) *The modeling result form is not the same as the PSD increment form. The value in this table has a form that matches the PSD increment form and was derived 

from the modeling results as described in Section 4.2.1 of the draft SEIS Appendix C. 

†Initial modeling run conducted without dry depletion option for all receptor locations ‡Final modeling run conducted with dry depletion option for the top 21 receptor locations 
C–56 

Table C-28. Particulate Matter PM10 Concentration Estimates for the Initial Modeling Run* 

from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project 

Compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Average 

Time 

NAAQS 

Form† 

Value 

(μg/m3

) 

Background 

Concentration

(μg/m3) 

Total 

Concentration

(μg/m3) 

NAAQS 

Limit 

(μg/m3) 

Percent 

of 

NAAQS 

Limit 

24 hour 

Not to be 

exceeded 

more than 

once per 

year on 

average 

over 3 

years 

38.4 40 78.4 150 52.3 

Annual Annual 

mean 5.4‡ 15 20.4 50§ 40.8 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014). 

*Initial modeling run conducted without the dry depletion option for all receptor locations. 

†The form expresses both the statistical (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and temporal (e.g., once per 

year, over 1 year, or over 3 years) nature of the values. 

‡The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the 

NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Appendix C, Section C-4.3.1. 

§There is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental 

standard. 

Table C-29. Particulate Matter PM10 Concentration Estimates for the Initial Modeling Run* 

from Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year for the Proposed Project 

Compared to the Prevention of Significant (PSD) Increments. 

Average Time 

PSD Increment 

Form† 

Value 

(μg/m3) 

PSD Class II 

Increment 

(μg/m3

) 

Percentage of 

PSD Increment 

24 hour 

Not to be 

exceeded more 

than once per 

year 

42.1 30 140.3 

Annual 

Not to be 

exceeded over 

the year 

5.4‡ 17 31.8 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014). 

*Initial modeling run conducted without the dry depletion option for all receptor locations. 

†The form expresses both the statistical (e.g., maximum, average, or 98th percentile) and temporal (e.g., once per 

year, over 1 year, or over 3 years) nature of the values. 

‡The modeling result form is not the same as the NAAQS form. The value in this table has a form that matches the 

NAAQS form and was derived from the modeling results as described in Appendix C, Section C-4.3.1. 

 
C–57 

Table C-30. Comparison of the Particulate Matter PM10 Initial* and Final† Modeling Runs 

to the NAAQS and PSD Increments. 

Average Time Modeling Run 

Percentage 

of the 

NAAQS Percentage of the PSD Increment 

24 Hour Initial 52.3 140.3 

Final 39.2‡ 74.3 

Annual Initial 40.8 31.8 

Final 37.8‡ 22.9 

Source: Modified from AUC (2014) 

*Initial modeling run conducted without the dry depletion option for all receptor locations. 

†Final modeling run conducted with the dry depletion option at the 21 receptor locations with the highest results from 

the initial modeling run. 

‡ There is no longer an annual PM10 particulate matter NAAQS. This limit represents Wyoming’s supplemental 

standard. 







 

 

NUREG-1910

Draft

Supplement 6

Environmental Impact Statement for the Reno Creek In Situ Recovery Project

in Campbell County, Wyoming