Environmental Impact Statement

for the Dewey-Burdock Project in 

Custer and Fall River Counties, 

South Dakota

Supplement to the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

for In-Situ Leach Uranium

Milling Facilities

Final Report

Chapters 1 to 5

Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs

NUREG-1910

Supplement 4, Vol. 1
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released 

records include, to name a few, NUREG-series 

publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, 

licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; 

NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins 

and information notices; inspection and investigative 

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers 

and their attachments. 

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC 

regulations, and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one 

of these two sources. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs 

are updated periodically and may differ from the last 

printed version. Although references to material found on 

a Web site bear the date the material was accessed, the 

material available on the date cited may subsequently be 

removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material 

Documents available from public and special technical 

libraries include all open literature items, such as books, 

journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, 

Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports. 

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports 

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings 

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization. 

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a 

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are 

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738 

These standards are available in the library for reference 

use by the public. Codes and standards are usually 

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating 

organization or, if they are American National Standards, 

from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org

212–642–4900 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only 

in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical 

specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series 

publications. The views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this series are not necessarily 

those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative reports and books prepared by the staff 

(NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR–

XXXX), (2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP–

XXXX), (3) reports resulting from international 

agreements (NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures 

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal 

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic and 

Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’ decisions

under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations (NUREG–

0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 

of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. 

Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any 

agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, 

expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for any third party’s use, or the results of 

such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed in this publication, or represents that 

its use by such third party would not infringe privately 

owned rights.
Environmental Impact Statement

for the Dewey-Burdock Project in 

Custer and Fall River Counties, 

South Dakota

Supplement to the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

for In-Situ Leach Uranium

Milling Facilities

Final Report

Chapters 1 to 5

Manuscript Completed: January 2014

Date Published: January 2014

Office of Federal and State Materials and

 Environmental Management Programs

NUREG-1910

Supplement 4, Vol. 1

iii 

ABSTRACT 

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

of source material provided that proposed facilities meet NRC regulatory requirements and will 

be operated in a manner that is protective of public health and safety and the environment. 

Under the NRC environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implement the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), issuance of a license to possess and use 

source material for uranium milling, as defined in 10 CFR Part 40, requires an environmental 

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

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

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

potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

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

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

of this assessment, NRC determined which potential impacts will be essentially the same for all 

ISR facilities and which will result in varying levels of impact for different facilities, thus requiring 

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

point for NRC NEPA analyses for site-specific license applications for new ISR facilities, as well 

as for applications to amend or renew existing ISR licenses. 

By letter dated August 10, 2009, Powertech (USA), Inc. (Powertech, referred to herein as the 

applicant) submitted a license application to NRC for a new source material license for the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be located in 

Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota, which is in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming 

Uranium Milling Region identified in the GEIS. The NRC staff prepared this Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts from 

the applicant’s proposal to construct, operate, conduct aquifer restoration, and decommission 

an ISR uranium facility at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. This SEIS describes the 

environment potentially affected by the proposed site activities, presents the potential 

environmental impacts resulting from reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and 

describes the applicant’s environmental monitoring program and proposed mitigation measures. 

In conducting its analysis in this SEIS, the NRC staff evaluated site-specific data and 

information to determine whether the applicant’s proposed activities and site characteristics 

were consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS. NRC staff then determined relevant sections, 

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

required additional analysis. Based on its environmental review, the NRC staff recommendation 

is that a source material license for the proposed action be issued as requested, unless safety 

issues mandate otherwise. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This NUREG contains and references information collection requirements that are subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were 

approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval numbers 3150-0014, 

3150-0020, 3150-0021, and 3150-0008. 
iv 

Public Protection Notification 

NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

References 

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. “Domestic Licensing 

of Source Material.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Milling Facilities.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009. 
v 

CONTENTS 

Section Page 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. iii 

CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................. v 

FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. xix 

TABLES ...................................................................................................................................xxiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ xxix

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. xlix 

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTOR .................................................................... lv 

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

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

 1.2 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 1-1

 1.2.1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Proposed Action .............................. 1-3 

 1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................ 1-3 

 1.3.1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Purpose and Need .......................... 1-3 

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

 1.4.1 Relationship to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement .................. 1-4 

 1.4.2 Public Participation Activities .................................................................... 1-5 

 1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail ............................................................................. 1-6 

 1.4.4 Issues Outside the Scope of the Supplemental Environmental 

 Impact Statement ...................................................................................... 1-7 

 1.4.5 Related National Environmental Policy Act Reviews and Other 

 Related Documents ................................................................................... 1-7 

 1.5 Applicable Regulatory Requirements .................................................................... 1-10 

 1.6 Licensing and Permitting ....................................................................................... 1-11 

 1.6.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Process ...................... 1-11 

 1.6.2 Status of Permitting With Other Federal, Tribal, and State Agencies ..... 1-12 

 1.7 Consultation ........................................................................................................... 1-14 

 1.7.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation ....................................... 1-14 

 1.7.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation ......................... 1-15 

 1.7.3 Coordination With Other Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 1-16 

 1.7.3.1 Coordination With U.S. Bureau of Land Management ............ 1-16 

 1.7.3.2 Coordination With the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............ 1-17 

 1.7.3.3 Coordination With the U.S. Forest Service ............................. 1-17 

 1.7.3.4 Coordination With the U.S. Geological Survey ....................... 1-17 

 1.7.3.5 Interactions With Tribal Governments ..................................... 1-18 

 1.7.3.6 Coordination With South Dakota Department of 

 Environment and Natural Resources ...................................... 1-26 

 1.7.3.7 Coordination With South Dakota Game Fish and Parks ......... 1-26 

 1.7.3.8 Coordination With South Dakota State Historical 

 Society Archaeological Research Center ............................... 1-27 

 1.7.3.9 Coordination With Localities ................................................... 1-27 

 1.8 Structure of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement .......................... 1-27 

 1.9 References ............................................................................................................ 1-28 

2 IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 2-1 

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

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

Section Page 

 2.1.1.1 Proposed In-Situ Recovery Facility and Waste 

 Disposal Options .................................................................... 2-2 

 2.1.1.1.1 Site Description .............................................. 2-3 

 2.1.1.1.2 Construction Activities .................................... 2-6 

 2.1.1.1.2.1 Buildings ......................................................... 2-7 

 2.1.1.1.2.2 Access Roads .............................................. 2-10 

 2.1.1.1.2.3 Wellfields ...................................................... 2-11 

 2.1.1.1.2.3.1 Injection and Production Wells ..................... 2-11 

 2.1.1.1.2.3.2 Monitoring Wells ........................................... 2-16 

 2.1.1.1.2.3.3 Pumping Tests ............................................. 2-17 

 2.1.1.1.2.3.4 Wellfield Hydrogeologic Data Packages ...... 2-18 

 2.1.1.1.2.3.5 Well Construction, Development, 

 and Testing ................................................... 2-18 

 2.1.1.1.2.3.6 Pipelines ....................................................... 2-19 

 2.1.1.1.2.3.7 Power Lines .................................................. 2-21 

 2.1.1.1.2.4 Liquid Waste Disposal Systems ................... 2-21 

 2.1.1.1.2.4.1 Deep Class V Injection Well Option ............. 2-22 

 2.1.1.1.2.4.2 Land Application Option ............................... 2-25 

 2.1.1.1.2.4.3 Combined Deep Class V Injection Well 

 and Land Application Option ........................ 2-29 

 2.1.1.1.2.5 Schedule ...................................................... 2-29 

 2.1.1.1.3 Operation Activities ...................................... 2-29 

 2.1.1.1.3.1 Uranium Mobilization .................................... 2-30 

 2.1.1.1.3.1.1 Lixiviant Chemistry ....................................... 2-30 

 2.1.1.1.3.1.2 Lixiviant Injection and Production ................. 2-30 

 2.1.1.1.3.1.3 Excursion Monitoring .................................... 2-31 

 2.1.1.1.3.2 Uranium Processing ..................................... 2-32 

 2.1.1.1.3.2.1 Ion Exchange ............................................... 2-32 

 2.1.1.1.3.2.2 Elution .......................................................... 2-32 

 2.1.1.1.3.2.3 Precipitation, Drying, and Packaging............ 2-34 

 2.1.1.1.3.3 Management of Production Bleed and 

 Water Balance .............................................. 2-34 

 2.1.1.1.3.4 Schedule ...................................................... 2-35 

 2.1.1.1.4 Aquifer Restoration Activities ....................... 2-35 

 2.1.1.1.4.1 Groundwater Restoration Methods .............. 2-37 

 2.1.1.1.4.1.1 Deep Class V Injection Well Option ............. 2-38 

 2.1.1.1.4.1.2 Land Application Option ............................... 2-39 

 2.1.1.1.4.1.3 Optional Groundwater Sweep ...................... 2-39 

 2.1.1.1.4.2 Restoration Monitoring and Stabilization ...... 2-39 

 2.1.1.1.4.3 Schedule ...................................................... 2-40 

 2.1.1.1.5 Decontamination, Decommissioning, 

 and Reclamation Activities ........................... 2-40 

 2.1.1.1.5.1 Radiological Surveys and 

 Contamination Control .................................. 2-41 

 2.1.1.1.5.2 Wellfields ...................................................... 2-42 

 2.1.1.1.5.3 Process Buildings and Equipment 

 and Other Structures .................................... 2-42 
vii 

Section Page 

 2.1.1.1.5.4 Engineered Structures and Access Roads ... 2-43 

 2.1.1.1.5.5 Final Contouring and Revegetation .............. 2-43 

 2.1.1.1.5.6 Schedule ...................................................... 2-43 

 2.1.1.1.6 Effluents and Waste Management ............... 2-43 

 2.1.1.1.6.1 Gaseous or Airborne 

 Particulate Emissions ................................... 2-44 

 2.1.1.1.6.1.1 Nonradiological Emissions ........................... 2-44 

 2.1.1.1.6.1.2 Radioactive Emissions ................................. 2-49 

 2.1.1.1.6.2 Liquid Wastes ............................................... 2-50 

 2.1.1.1.6.3 Solid Wastes ................................................ 2-53 

 2.1.1.1.7 Transportation .............................................. 2-55 

 2.1.1.1.8 Financial Assurance ..................................... 2-56 

 2.1.1.2 Alternative Liquid Waste Disposal Options .......................... 2-57 

 2.1.1.2.1 Evaporation Ponds ....................................... 2-60 

 2.1.1.2.2 Surface Water Discharge ............................. 2-62 

 2.1.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ......................................................................... 2-62 

 2.2 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Analysis .................................................... 2-63 

 2.2.1 Conventional Mining and Milling ............................................................. 2-63 

 2.2.2 Conventional Mining and Heap Leaching ............................................... 2-64 

 2.2.3 Alternative Lixiviants ............................................................................... 2-65 

 2.2.4 Alternative Sites ...................................................................................... 2-65 

 2.2.5 Alternative Well Completion Methods ..................................................... 2-65 

 2.3 Comparison of the Predicted Environment Impacts .............................................. 2-66 

 2.4 Final Recommendation .......................................................................................... 2-66 

 2.5 References ............................................................................................................ 2-72 

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

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

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

 3.2.1 Rangeland ................................................................................................. 3-3 

 3.2.2 Hunting and Recreation ............................................................................ 3-4 

 3.2.3 Minerals and Energy ................................................................................. 3-4 

 3.3 Transportation .......................................................................................................... 3-9 

 3.4 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 3-12 

 3.4.1 Geology ................................................................................................... 3-12 

 3.4.1.1 The Black Hills 

 (Western South Dakota-Northeastern Wyoming .................. 3-12 

 3.4.1.2 Dewey-Burdock Geology ..................................................... 3-14 

 3.4.2 Soils ........................................................................................................ 3-20 

 3.4.3 Seismology.............................................................................................. 3-20 

 3.5 Water Resources ................................................................................................... 3-21 

 3.5.1 Surface Waters ....................................................................................... 3-21 

 3.5.2 Wetlands and Waters of the United States ............................................. 3-28 

 3.5.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 3-30 

 3.5.3.1 Regional Aquifer Systems .................................................... 3-30 

 3.5.3.2 Aquifer Systems in the Vicinity of the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock Project ....................................................... 3-34 
viii 

Section Page 

 3.5.3.3 Uranium-Bearing Aquifers .................................................... 3-36 

 3.5.3.4 Other Surrounding Aquifers for Water Supply ..................... 3-38 

 3.5.3.5 Groundwater Quality ............................................................ 3-38 

 3.6 Ecology .................................................................................................................. 3-41 

 3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology .................................................................................. 3-42 

 3.6.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................ 3-43 

 3.6.1.2 Wildlife ................................................................................. 3-44 

 3.6.1.2.1 Big Game ..................................................... 3-45 

 3.6.1.2.2 Avian Species ............................................... 3-45 

 3.6.1.2.3 Other Mammals, Reptiles, 

 and Amphibians ............................................ 3-48 

 3.6.2 Aquatic .................................................................................................... 3-53 

 3.6.3 Protected Species ................................................................................... 3-55 

 3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality ............................................................. 3-62 

 3.7.1 Meteorology and Climatology .................................................................. 3-62 

 3.7.1.1 Temperature ........................................................................ 3-62 

 3.7.1.2 Wind ..................................................................................... 3-63 

 3.7.1.3 Precipitation ......................................................................... 3-63 

 3.7.1.4 Evaporation .......................................................................... 3-64 

 3.7.2 Air Quality................................................................................................ 3-65 

 3.8 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 3-69 

 3.9 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 3-72 

 3.9.1 Cultural History ........................................................................................ 3-73 

 3.9.1.1 Prehistoric Periods ............................................................... 3-73 

 3.9.1.2 Protohistoric/Historic Era ..................................................... 3-75 

 3.9.2 Area of Potential Effect ........................................................................... 3-75 

 3.9.3 Historic and Cultuiral Resources Investigations ...................................... 3-76 

 3.9.3.1 Level III Cultural Resource Investigations ............................ 3-76 

 3.9.3.1.1 Archaeological Sites ..................................... 3-76 

 3.9.3.1.2 Historic District, Historic Standing 

 Structures, and Bridge Structure .................. 3-83 

 3.9.3.2 Places of Religious or Cultural Significance ........................ 3-85 

 3.9.3.2.1 Overview ...................................................... 3-85 

 3.9.3.2.2 Tribal Cultural Survey Results ...................... 3-87 

 3.9.3.3 Visual Impacts Assessment ................................................. 3-91 

 3.9.4 Tribal Consultation .................................................................................. 3-93 

 3.10 Visual and Scenic Resources ................................................................................ 3-95 

 3.11 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 3-96

 3.11.1 Demographics ......................................................................................... 3-97 

 3.11.2 Income .................................................................................................... 3-98 

 3.11.3 Housing ................................................................................................... 3-99 

 3.11.4 Employment Structure ............................................................................. 3-99 

 3.11.5 Local Finance ........................................................................................ 3-100 

 3.11.6 Education .............................................................................................. 3-101 

 3.11.7 Health and Social Services ................................................................... 3-101 

 3.12 Public and Occupational Health ........................................................................... 3-104 

 3.12.1 Baseline Radiological Conditions .......................................................... 3-104 
ix 

Section Page 

 3.12.1.1 Soils ................................................................................... 3-107 

 3.12.1.2 Sediment and Surface Water ............................................. 3-108 

 3.12.1.3 Air (Ambient Gamma, Radon, and Particulates) ................ 3-109 

 3.12.1.4 Groundwater ...................................................................... 3-111 

 3.12.1.5 Vegetation, Livestock, and Fish ......................................... 3-111 

 3.12.2 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................... 3-113 

 3.12.3 Occupational Health and Safety ............................................................ 3-114 

 3.13 Waste Management ............................................................................................. 3-115 

 3.13.1 Liquid Waste Disposal ........................................................................... 3-115 

 3.13.2 Solid Waste Disposal ............................................................................ 3-116 

 3.14 References .......................................................................................................... 3-117 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, 

 AQUIFER RESTORATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES AND 

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

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

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

 4.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ................................................................ 4-3 

 4.2.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ..................................... 4-4 

 4.2.1.1.1 Construction Impacts ...................................... 4-4 

 4.2.1.1.2 Operations Impacts ........................................ 4-6 

 4.2.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ........................... 4-7 

 4.2.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ............................. 4-7 

 4.2.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ............................................... 4-8 

 4.2.1.2.1 Construction Impacts ...................................... 4-8 

 4.2.1.2.2 Operations Impacts ........................................ 4-9 

 4.2.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-10 

 4.2.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-10 

 4.2.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application .................................................................. 4-11 

 4.2.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ......................................................................... 4-11 

 4.3 Transportation Impacts .......................................................................................... 4-12 

 4.3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .............................................................. 4-14 

 4.3.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................... 4-14 

 4.3.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-14 

 4.3.1.1.2 Operations Impacts ...................................... 4-16 

 4.3.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-20 

 4.3.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-20 

 4.3.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ............................................. 4-23 

 4.3.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-23 

 4.3.1.2.2 Operations Impacts ...................................... 4-24 

 4.3.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-26 

 4.3.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-26 

 4.3.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application .................................................................. 4-27 

 4.3.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ......................................................................... 4-28 

 4.4 Geology and Soils Impacts .................................................................................... 4-28 
x 

Section Page 

 4.4.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .............................................................. 4-31 

 4.4.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................... 4-31 

 4.4.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-31 

 4.4.1.1.2 Operations Impacts ...................................... 4-32 

 4.4.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-34 

 4.4.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-35 

 4.4.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ............................................. 4-36 

 4.4.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-36 

 4.4.1.2.2 Operations Impacts ...................................... 4-37 

 4.4.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-37 

 4.4.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-38 

 4.4.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application .................................................................. 4-38 

 4.4.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ......................................................................... 4-38 

 4.5 Water Resources Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-39 

 4.5.1 Surface Water and Wetlands Impacts ..................................................... 4-39 

 4.5.1.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................... 4-40 

 4.5.1.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ............ 4-41 

 4.5.1.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-41 

 4.5.1.1.1.2 Operations Impacts ...................................... 4-44 

 4.5.1.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-46 

 4.5.1.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-46 

 4.5.1.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ...................... 4-47 

 4.5.1.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-47 

 4.5.1.1.2.2 Operational Impacts ..................................... 4-48 

 4.5.1.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-49 

 4.5.1.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-49 

 4.5.1.1.3 Disposal Via Combinaiton of Class V 

 Injection and Land Application ..................... 4-50 

 4.5.1.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ...................................................... 4-50 

 4.5.2 Groundwater Impacts .............................................................................. 4-51 

 4.5.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ........................................... 4-54 

 4.5.2.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ............ 4-55 

 4.5.2.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-56 

 4.5.2.1.1.2 Operations Impacts ...................................... 4-58 

 4.5.2.1.1.2.1 Shallow (Near-Surface) Aquifers .................. 4-58 

 4.5.2.1.1.2.2 Operations Impacts to Production and 

 Surrounding Aquifers .................................... 4-59 

 4.5.2.1.1.2.3 Operations Impacts to Deep Aquifers 

 Below the Production Aquifers ..................... 4-65 

 4.5.2.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-66 

 4.5.2.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-70 

 4.5.2.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ...................... 4-70 

 4.5.2.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-70 

 4.5.2.1.2.2 Operations Impacts ...................................... 4-72 

 4.5.2.1.2.2.1 Shallow (Near-Surface Aquifers ................... 4-72 
xi 

Section Page 

 4.5.2.1.2.2.2 Operations Impacts to Production and 

 Surrounding Aquifers .................................... 4-73 

 4.5.2.1.2.2.3 Operations Impacts to Deep Aquifers 

 the Production Aquifers ................................ 4-74 

 4.5.2.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ......................... 4-74 

 4.5.2.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ........................... 4-76 

 4.5.2.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V 

 Injection and Land Application ..................... 4-76 

 4.5.2.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ...................................................... 4-77 

 4.6 Ecological Resources Impacts ............................................................................... 4-77 

 4.6.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) .............................................................. 4-79 

 4.6.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................... 4-80 

 4.6.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................... 4-80 

 4.6.1.1.1.1 Construction Impacts on 

 Terrestrial Ecology ....................................... 4-81 

 4.6.1.1.1.1.1 Construction Impacts on Vegetation ............ 4-81 

 4.6.1.1.1.1.2 Construction Impacts on Wildlife .................. 4-84 

 4.6.1.1.1.1.3 Aquatic Ecology ............................................ 4-94 

 4.6.1.1.1.1.4 Threatened and Endangered Species .......... 4-94 

 4.6.1.1.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-100 

 4.6.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-102 

 4.6.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-102 

 4.6.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ........................................... 4-103 

 4.6.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-103 

 4.6.1.2.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-108 

 4.6.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-111 

 4.6.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-112 

 4.6.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application ................................................................ 4-112 

 4.6.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-114 

 4.7 Air Quality Impacts ............................................................................................... 4-114 

 4.7.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-115 

 4.7.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................. 4-127 

 4.7.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-127 

 4.7.1.1.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-132 

 4.7.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-134 

 7.7.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-136 

 4.7.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ........................................... 4-138 

 4.7.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-138 

 4.7.1.2.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-140 

 4.7.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-141 

 4.7.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-143 

 4.7.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application ................................................................ 4-144 

 4.7.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-145 

 4.8 Noise Impacts ...................................................................................................... 4-145

 4.8.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-147 
xii 

Section Page 

 4.8.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................. 4-147 

 4.8.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-147 

 4.8.1.1.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-149 

 4.8.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-151 

 4.8.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-151 

 4.8.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ........................................... 4-152 

 4.8.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-152 

 4.8.1.2.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-153 

 4.8.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration FImpacts ..................... 4-154 

 4.8.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-155 

 4.8.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application ................................................................ 4-155 

 4.8.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-156 

 4.9 Historical and Cultural Resources Impacts .......................................................... 4-156 

 4.9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-158 

 4.9.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................. 4-158 

 4.9.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-159 

 4.9.1.1.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-182 

 4.9.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-182 

 4.9.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-183 

 4.9.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ........................................... 4-183 

 4.9.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-183 

 4.9.1.2.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-188 

 4.9.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-188 

 4.9.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-188 

 4.9.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application ................................................................ 4-189 

 4.9.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-189 

 4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources Impacts ................................................................ 4-190 

 4.10.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-191 

 4.10.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................. 4-191 

 4.10.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-192 

 4.10.1.1.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-193 

 4.10.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-193 

 4.10.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-194 

 4.10.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ........................................... 4-194 

 4.10.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-194 

 4.10.1.2.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-195 

 4.10.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-196 

 4.10.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-196 

 4.10.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application ................................................................ 4-197 

 4.10.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-197 

 4.11 Socioeconomics Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-198 

 4.11.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-198 

 4.11.1.1 Construction Impacts ......................................................... 4-199 

 4.11.1.1.1 Demographics ............................................ 4-199 
xiii 

Section Page 

 4.11.1.1.2 Income ........................................................ 4-200 

 4.11.1.1.3 Housing ...................................................... 4-200 

 4.11.1.1.4 Employment Structure ................................ 4-201 

 4.11.1.1.5 Local Finance ............................................. 4-201 

 4.11.1.1.6 Education ................................................... 4-201 

 4.11.1.1.7 Health and Social Services ........................ 4-201 

 4.11.1.2 Operations Impacts ............................................................ 4-202 

 4.11.1.2.1 Demographics ............................................ 4-202 

 4.11.1.2.2 Income ........................................................ 4-203 

 4.11.1.2.3 Housing ...................................................... 4-203 

 4.11.1.2.4 Employment Structure ................................ 4-203 

 4.11.1.2.5 Local Finance ............................................. 4-204 

 4.11.1.2.6 Education ................................................... 4-204 

 4.11.1.2.7 Health and Social Services ........................ 4-205 

 4.11.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ............................................... 4-205 

 4.11.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ................................................. 4-205 

 4.11.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-206 

 4.12 Environmental Justice Impacts ............................................................................ 4-206 

 4.12.1 Analysis of Impacts ............................................................................... 4-207 

 4.12.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-211 

 4.12.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-213 

 4.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts ........................................... 4-213 

 4.13.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-215 

 4.13.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................. 4-215 

 4.13.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-215 

 4.13.1.1.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-216 

 4.13.1.1.2.1 Radiological Impacts From 

 Normal Operations ..................................... 4-216 

 4.13.1.1.2.2 Radiological Impacts From Accidents ........ 4-220 

 4.13.1.1.2.3 Nonradiological Impacts From 

 Normal Operations ..................................... 4-223 

 4.13.1.1.2.4 Nonradiological Impacts From Accidents ... 4-225 

 4.13.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-226 

 4.13.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-226 

 4.13.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ........................................... 4-226 

 4.13.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-227 

 4.13.1.2.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-227 

 4.13.1.2.2.1 Radiological Impacts From 

 Normal Operations ..................................... 4-227 

 4.13.1.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts From Accidents ........ 4-228 

 4.13.1.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impacts From 

 Normal Operations ..................................... 4-229 

 4.13.1.2.2.4 Nonradiological Impacts From Accidents 

 During Operations ...................................... 4-229 

 4.13.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-229 

 4.13.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-230 
xiv 

Section Page 

 4.13.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Applications ............................................................... 4-230 

 4.13.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-231 

 4.14 Waste Management Impacts ............................................................................... 4-231 

 4.14.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) ............................................................ 4-233 

 4.14.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells ................................. 4-234 

 4.14.1.1.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-234 

 4.14.1.1.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-234 

 4.14.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-235 

 4.14.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-236 

 4.14.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application ........................................... 4-239 

 4.14.1.2.1 Construction Impacts .................................. 4-239 

 4.14.1.2.2 Operations Impacts .................................... 4-240 

 4.14.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts ....................... 4-241 

 4.14.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts ......................... 4-242 

 4.14.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and 

 Land Application ................................................................ 4-245 

 4.14.1.4 Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options .......................... 4-246 

 4.14.1.4.1 Evaporation Ponds ..................................... 4-247 

 4.14.1.4.2. Surface Water Discharge ........................... 4-248 

 4.14.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) ....................................................................... 4-250 

 4.15 References .......................................................................................................... 4-250 

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 5-1 

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

 5.1.1 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ......... 5-2 

 5.1.1.1 Uranium Recovery Sites ........................................................ 5-2 

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

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

 5.1.1.4 Wind Power ............................................................................ 5-9 

 5.1.1.5 Transportation Projects ........................................................ 5-11 

 5.1.1.6 Other Mining ........................................................................ 5-13 

 5.1.1.7 Environmental Impact Statements as Indicators of Past, 

 Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ....... 5-13 

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

 5.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 5-18 

 5.3 Transportation ........................................................................................................ 5-21 

 5.4 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 5-25 

 5.5 Water Resources ................................................................................................... 5-28 

 5.5.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands ................................................................ 5-28 

 5.5.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 5-30 

 5.6 Ecological Resources ............................................................................................ 5-35 

 5.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology .................................................................................. 5-35 

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

 5.6.3 Protected Species ................................................................................... 5-38 

 5.7 Air Quality .............................................................................................................. 5-38 

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

Section Page 

 5.7.2 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................... 5-42 

 5.8 Noise ...................................................................................................................... 5-43 

 5.9 Historic and Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 5-45 

 5.10 Visual and Scenic Resources ................................................................................ 5-49 

 5.11 Socioeconomics ..................................................................................................... 5-51

 5.11.1 Population ............................................................................................... 5-51 

 5.11.2 Employment ............................................................................................ 5-52 

 5.11.3 Housing ................................................................................................... 5-53 

 5.11.4 Education ................................................................................................ 5-53 

 5.11.5 Public Services ........................................................................................ 5-54 

 5.11.6 Local Finance .......................................................................................... 5-54 

 5.12 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................ 5-55 

 5.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety .......................................................... 5-56 

 5.14 Waste Management ............................................................................................... 5-58 

 5.15 References ............................................................................................................ 5-61 

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

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

 6.2 Mitigation Measures Proposed by Powertech ......................................................... 6-2 

 6.3 Potential Mitigation Measures Identified by the U.S. Nuclear 

 Regulatory Commission ......................................................................................... 6-13 

 6.4 References ............................................................................................................ 6-18 

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

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

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

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

 7.2.2 Soils and Sediment Monitoring ................................................................. 7-2 

 7.2.3 Vegetation, Food, and Fish Monitoring ..................................................... 7-2 

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

 7.2.5 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................ 7-4 

 7.3 Physiochemical Monitoring ...................................................................................... 7-8 

 7.3.1 Wellfield Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................. 7-8 

 7.3.1.1 Commission-Approved Background—Production Zone ........... 7-8 

 7.3.1.2 Excursion Monitoring .............................................................. 7-10 

 7.3.2 Wellfield and Pipeline Flow and Pressure Monitoring ............................. 7-12 

 7.3.3 Surface Water Monitoring ....................................................................... 7-12 

 7.3.4 Groundwater Monitoring (Project-Wide) .................................................. 7-14 

 7.3.5 Medteorological Monitoring ..................................................................... 7-14 

 7.4 Ecological Monitoring ............................................................................................. 7-15 

 7.4.1 Vegetation Monitoring ............................................................................. 7-16 

 7.4.2 Wildlife Monitoring ................................................................................... 7-16 

 7.5 Land Application Monitoring .................................................................................. 7-17 

 7.5.1 Groundwater ........................................................................................... 7-17 

 7.5.1.1 Alluvial Monitoring Wellsq ....................................................... 7-17 

 7.5.1.2 Bedrock Aquifer Monitoring ..................................................... 7-20 

 7.5.1.3 Vadose Zone Monitoring ......................................................... 7-21 
xvi 

Section Page 

 7.5.2 Surface Water ......................................................................................... 7-21 

 7.5.3 Process-Related Liquid Waste ................................................................ 7-21 

 7.5.4 Soil .......................................................................................................... 7-22 

 7.5.5 Biomass .................................................................................................. 7-22 

 7.6 Class V Deep Injection Well Monitoring ................................................................. 7-22 

 7.6.1 Injection Pressure Monitoring .................................................................. 7-24 

 7.6.2 Annulus Monitoring System .................................................................... 7-25 

 7.6.3 Mechanical Integrity Demonstration ........................................ 7-25 

 7.6.3.1 Internal Mechanical Integrity Demonstration ........................... 7-26 

 7.6.3.2 External Mechanical Integrity Demonstration ......................... 7-26 

 7.6.4 Injection Zone Pressure Monitoring ........................................ 7-26 

 7.6.5 Injectate Monitoring ................................................................. 7-26 

 7.7 References ............................................................................................................ 7-26 

8 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 8-1 

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

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

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

 8.2.2 Benefits From Uranium Production ........................................................... 8-3 

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

 8.3 Evaluation of Findings of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project ............................ 8-4 

 8.4 No Action (Alternative 2) .......................................................................................... 8-4 

 8.5 References .............................................................................................................. 8-5 

9 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................ 9-1 

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

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

 9.3 References ............................................................................................................ 9-13 

10 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................... 10-1 

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

 10.2 Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA®) Contributors ............. 10-2 

 10.3 CNWRA Consultants and Subcontractors ............................................................. 10-3 

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

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

 11.2 Tribal Government Officials ................................................................................... 11-2 

 11.3 State Agency Officials ............................................................................................ 11-7 

 11.4 Local Agency Officials ........................................................................................... 11-7 

 11.5 Other Organizations and Individuals ...................................................................... 11-8 

 
xvii 

Section Page 

APPENDICES 

A CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE .......................................................................... A–1 

B ALTERNATE CONCENTRATION LIMITS......................................................................... B–1 

C NONRADIOLOGICAL AIR QUALITY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ...................... C–1 

D ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO HISTORIC AND 

 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... D–1 

E PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

 IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE DEWEY-BURDOCK IN-SITU RECOVERY 

 PROJECT IN FALL RIVER AND CUSTER COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA, 

 AND U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RESPONSES ............................... E–1 

F SUMMARY REPORT REGARDING THE TRIBAL CULTURAL SURVEYS 

 COMPLETED FOR THE DEWEY-BURDOCK URANIUM IN-SITU

 RECOVERY PROJECT ..................................................................................................... F–1 

xix 

FIGURES 

Figures Page 

1.1-1 Geographic Location of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

Recovery Project .................................................................................................. 1-2 

2.1-1 Projected Schedule for Construction, Operation, Aquifer Restoration, and 

 Decommissioning Activities for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

Recovery Project .................................................................................................. 2-2 

2.1-2 Map Showing Location of the Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

 Within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region ................ 2-3 

2.1-3 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Permit Boundary Showing Dewey 

 Unit and Burdock Unit, Location of U.S. Bureau of Land Management-Managed 

Land Within Burdock Area, and Position of Parcels of the Black Hills National 

 Forest Bordering the Permit Area ......................................................................... 2-5 

2.1-4 General Site Plan for the Burdock Central Processing Plant ................................ 2-8 

2.1-5 General Site Plan for the Dewey Satellite Facility ................................................. 2-9 

2.1-6 Map of Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Area Showing Locations 

 of the Dewey Satellite Facility, Burdock Central Plant, Mapped Ore Bodies, 

 and Proposed Wellfields ..................................................................................... 2-12 

2.1-7 Schematic Diagram of Typical Well Placement .................................................. 2-13 

2.1-8 Schematic Diagram of Typical Five-Spot Wellfield Pattern ................................. 2-14 

2.1-9 Schematic of Typical Injection Well Construction (the Design of a Typical 

 Production and Monitor Well Will Be Identical Except for the Addition of a 

Submersible Pump in the Projection Well) .......................................................... 2-20 

2.1-10 Schematic of the Deep Injection Wells and Ponds for the Deep Injection 

 Well Disposal Option .......................................................................................... 2-23 

2.1-11 Schematic of the Design of Deep Injection Well ................................................. 2-24 

2.1-12 Location of Land Application Irrigation Areas and Ponds for the Land 

 Application Liquid Waste Disposal Option .......................................................... 2-27 

2.1-13 Overall Process Flow Diagram ........................................................................... 2-33 

2.1-14 Typical Project-Wide Flow Rates ........................................................................ 2-36 

3.2-1 Map Showing Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Permit 

 Boundary, Location of U.S. Bureau of Land Management-Managed Land, 

 Position of Parcels of the Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) Bordering the 

 Permit Area to the East and North, and Locations of Residences Within the 

Proposed Permit Area .......................................................................................... 3-2 

3.2-2 Recreational Areas, Federal Lands, Coal Fields, and Potential In-Situ 

 Recovery Facilities Near the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project .......................... 3-5 

3.2-3 Map Showing Locations of Historical Underground and Open Pit Mine 

 Workings in the Eastern Part of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

 Recovery Project Site ........................................................................................... 3-7 

3.2-4 Map Showing Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Test Wells Within 

 2 km [1.2 mi] of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery 

 Project Boundary .................................................................................................. 3-8 

3.2-5 Pending Oil and Gas Lease Tracts in Custer County, South Dakota ................. 3-10 

3.3-1 Transportation Corridor of the South Dakota-Nebraska-Wyoming Uranium 

 Milling Region Surrounding the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

Recovery Project ................................................................................................ 3-11 
xx 

Figures Page 

3.4-1 Outcrop Map of the Inyan Kara Group in the Black Hills of Western 

 South Dakota and Northeastern Wyoming Showing the Location of 

 Principal Uranium Mining Districts ...................................................................... 3-13 

3.4-2 Principal Stratigraphic Units in the Black Hills Area of Western 

 South Dakota and Northeastern Wyoming ......................................................... 3-15 

3.4-3 Map Showing Site Surface Geology Within and Surrounding the 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Area .................................................. 3-16 

3.4-4 Stratigraphic Units Present at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project Site .............................................................................. 3-17 

3.5-1 Waterbeds Within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium 

 Milling Region ..................................................................................................... 3-22 

3.5-2 Map Showing Locations of Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and the Cheyenne 

 River in Relation to the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

 and Water Quality Sampling Locations for Surface Water and Groundwater ..... 3-23 

3.5-3 Map Showing Modeled 100-Year Flood Inundation Boundary of Stream 

 Channels Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery 

 Project Area ........................................................................................................ 3-25 

3.5-4 Schematic Diagram Showing Simplified Hydrogeologic Setting of the 

 Black Hills Area ................................................................................................... 3-31 

3.5-5 Hydrostratigraphic Units Present at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project Site .............................................................................. 3-32 

3.5-6 Isopach Map of the Fuson Shale at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project ..................................................................................... 3-35 

3.5-7 Map of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Area 

 Showing the Approximate Locations of Fully Saturated Portions of the 

 Fall River Formation and Chilson Member of the Lakota Formation .................. 3-37 

3.6-1 Ecoregions for the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium 

 Milling Region ..................................................................................................... 3-42 

3.6-2 Sage-Grouse Lek Areas for the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming 

 Uranium Milling Region ....................................................................................... 3-59 

3.6-3 Occupied Sage-Grouse Leks Near the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project ........ 3-60 

3.7-1 Annual Wind Rose Generated From Onsite Data ............................................... 3-64 

3.9-1 Map Showing Area of Potential Effect for Facility Construction and 

 Operations for Review of Historic and Cultural Resources ................................. 3-77 

3.12-1 Map Showing Gamma-Ray Count Rates Obtained From Global 

 Positioning System -Based Gamma Survey at the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock Project Site ............................................................................. 3-106 

4.5-1 Map Showing Locations Identified as Jurisdictional Wetlands on 

 Ephemeral Tributaries to Beaver Creek (Black Circle) and Pass Creek 

 (Black Square) and Their Relation to Proposed Site Facilities in the 

 Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Area .................................. 4-42 

4.6-1 Map of Dewey-Burdock Planned Facilities and Vegetation Communities 

 for the Deep Class V Injection Well Disposal Option .......................................... 4-82 

4.6-2 Map of Raptor Nest Locations in the Dewey-Burdock Project Area and 

 Planned Facilities for the Deep Class V Injection Well Disposal Option ............. 4-91 
xxi 

Figures Page 

4.6-3 Map of Dewey-Burdock Planned Facilities and Vegetation Communities 

 for the Land Application Option......................................................................... 4-105 

4.6-4 Map of Raptor Nest Locations in the Dewey-Burdock Project Area and 

 Planned Facilities for the Land Application Option ........................................... 4-107 

4.7-1 Macroscale View of Locations Where National Ambient Air Quality 

 Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Air Pollutant 

 Estimates (Concentrations) Were Calculated Using the AERMOD 

 Dispersion Model .............................................................................................. 4-118 

4.7-2 Microscale View of Locations Where National Ambient Air Quality 

 Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Air Pollutant 

 Estimates (Concentrations) Were Using the AERMOD Dispersion Model ....... 4-119 

4.7-3 View of Dewey-Burdock Air Quality Related Values Analysis Domain 

 for the CALPUFF Analysis ................................................................................ 4-124 

4.7-4 Locations Where Air Quality Related Values Were Calculated Using the 

 CALPUFF Dispersion Model ............................................................................. 4-125 

4.13-1 Map Showing Isodose Contours Obtained From MILDOS Modeling at the 

 Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Site ................................. 4-219 

5.1-1 Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region General Map 

 With Current (Crow Butte, Nebraska) and Potential Future Uranium Milling 

 Site Locations ....................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.1-2 Map Showing the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling 

 Region and Existing and Potential Uranium Milling Sites in the Black Hills 

 Uranium Districts in South Dakota and Wyoming and in the Crow Butte 

 Uranium District in Nebraska ................................................................................ 5-4 

5.1-3 Oilfields, Coalfields, and Uranium Occurrences Near the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project ............................................................. 5-6 

5.1-4 Existing, Pending, and Future Project Within and in the Vicinity of the 

 Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project .......................................... 5-10 

5.1-5 Map Showing Proposed New Rail Construction (Alternative C) for Dakota 

Minnesotya and Eastern Railroad Powder River Basin Expansion 

 Project From Wall, South Dakota, West Into the Power River 

 Basin of Wyoming ............................................................................................... 5-12 

5.3-1 Map Showing Location of Dewey Road and Pass Creek in Relation to the 

 Proposed Dewey Conveyor Project .................................................................... 5-24 

7.2-1 Locations of Operational Air Monitoring Stations at the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Site ...................................................... 7-3 

7.2-2 Locations of Operational Surface Water Monitoring Sites .................................... 7-5 

7.2-3 Locations of Operational Domestic and Stock Monitoring Wells .......................... 7-6 

7.2-4 Locations of Operational Groundwater Monitoring Wells ...................................... 7-7 

7.5-1 Map of Dewey Land Application Areas Showing the Perimeter of 

 Operational Pollution and Proposed Alluvial Monitoring Wells ........................... 7-18 

7.5-2 Map of Burdock Land Application Areas Showing the Perimeter of 

 Operational Pollution and Proposed Alluvial Monitoring Wells ........................... 7-19 

xxiii 

TABLES 

Table Page 

1.4-1 In-Situ Leach Generic Environmental Impact Statement Range of Expected 

 in the Impacts Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region ............. 1-4 

1.6-1 Environmental Approvals for the Dewey-Burdock Project ...................................... 1-12 

2.1-1 Nonradiological Combustion Emission Estimated Mass Flow Rates 

 (Metric Tons* Per Year) From Stationary Sources for the Proposed Action .......... 2-45 

2.1-2 Nonradiological Combustion Emission Mass Flow Rate Estimates 

 (Metric Tons* Per Year) From Mobile Sources for Various Phases of the 

 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 2-45 

2.1-3 Total* (Peak Year) Fugitive Dust Mass Flow Rate (Metric Tons† per Year) 

 Estimates for All Phases and Sources‡ ................................................................. 2-46 

2.1-4 Onsite Fugitive Emission Mass Flow Rate Estimates (Metric Tons* Per Year) 

 From Wind Erosion for the Deep Class V Well and Land Application 

 Disposal Options .................................................................................................... 2-47 

2.1-5 Total* (Peak Year) Nonradiological Emission Mass Flow Rate (Metric 

 Tons† Per Year) Estimates for All Phases and Sources‡ ...................................... 2-48 

2.1-6 Annual Carbon Dioxide Estimates in Metric Tons/Year* for the 

 Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 2-48 

2.1-7 Estimated Daily Vehicle Round-Trips for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project Waste Management Options .......................................... 2-56 

2.1-8 Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options ............................... 2-58 

2.3-1 Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

 Recovery Project .................................................................................................... 2-67 

3.2-1 Dwellings Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

 Area and a 1.6 km [1.0mi] Radius of the Proposed Permit Boundary ...................... 3-3 

3.3-1 Annual Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project .............................................................. 3-12 

3.5-1 Summary of Key Parameters and Constituents of Concern in Surface Waters 

 in Streams at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project .................. 3-26 

3.5-2 Summary of Key Radionuclides of Concern in Surface Waters in Streams at 

 The Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project ....................................... 3-27 

3.5-3 Summary of 2007 Wetland Delineation Survey Results ......................................... 3-28 

3.5-4 Baseline Groundwater Samples With Values Exceeding the Maximum 

 Contaminant Levels for Arsenic (0.01 mg/L), Lead (0.015 mg/L), Uranium 

 (Total, 0.03mg/l), Radium-226 (Dissolved, 5 pCi/L), and Gross Alpha 

 (Total, 15 pCi/L) ...................................................................................................... 3-39 

3.6-1 Total Acreage of Vegetation Communities and Percentage of Permit Area .......... 3-43 

3.6-2 Raptor Nest Locations and Activity Observed for the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock Project (July 2007–August 2008) ................................................. 3-47 

3.6-3 Breeding Bird Species Observed Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

 Project Area in June 2008 ...................................................................................... 3-49 

3.6-4 Small Mammal Abundance Based on Trappings During Baseline Studies 

 Conducted for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project in September 2007 ............ 3-51 

3.6-5 Total Lagomorphs Observed During Spotlight Surveys and Abundance Indices 

 Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project in September 2007 ......................... 3-51 
xxiv 

Table Page 

3.6-6 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Special Status Species That May 

 Occur Within the Project Area ................................................................................ 3-52 

3.6-7 Threatened or Endangered Animals That Occur in Custer and Fall River 

 Counties or Were Observed in the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

 Recovery Project Area ........................................................................................... 3-55 

3.6-8 Species Tracked by the South Dakota National Heritage Program 

 Observed in the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project Area ...................................... 3-56 

3.7-1 Site and Regional Monthly Temperature Information in °C .................................... 3-63 

3.7-2 Annual Air Pollutant Emissions in Metric Tons From the U.S. Environmental 

 Protection Agency’s National Emission Inventory for Counties in the Black 

 Hills-Rapid City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region ............................................ 3-65 

3.7.3 Existing Conditions—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data .................................... 3-66 

3.7-4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................. 3-67 

3.7-5 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I and Class II Standards .................. 3-68 

3.8-1 Noise Abatement Criteria: 1-Hour, A-Weighted Sound Levels in 

 Decibels (dBA) ....................................................................................................... 3-71 

3.9-1 List of Archaeological Sites Within the Proposed Project Area Recommended 

 Eligible for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places ................................ 3-78 

3.9-2 Unevaluated Archaeological Sites With Burial or Cairn Features Within 

 The Proposed Project Area .................................................................................... 3-80 

3.9-3 Unevaluated Archaeological Sites Within the Area of Potential Effect for 

 Facility Construction and Operations ..................................................................... 3-82 

3.9-4 List of Historic Structures Within the Proposed Project Area Currently Listed 

 In the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or Structures Eligible for 

 Listing in the National Register of Historic Places .................................................. 3-84 

3.9-5 Summary of Tribal Recommendations for Recorded Archaeological Sites ............ 3-89 

3.9-6 Summary of Tribal Cultural Survey New Discoveries ............................................. 3-89 

3.9-7 List of Historic Properties Included in Visual Impacts Assessment ........................ 3-92 

3.11-1 Total Population and Percent Growth in Custer and Fall River Counties, 

 South Dakota, and Weston County, Wyoming, 2000 to 2020 ................................ 3-97 

3.11-2 Demographic Profile of the 2010 Population in Custer and Fall River 

 Counties, South Dakota, and Weston County, Wyoming ....................................... 3-98 

3.11-3 2010 Income Information for Counties Within the Region of Influence .................. 3-99 

3.11-4 Housing in Custer and Fall Counties County, South Dakota, 

 Weston County, Wyoming .................................................................................... 3-100 

3.11-5 School Districts in Counties Located Within 80 km [50 mi] of the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project ............................................................ 3-102 

3.11-6 Hospitals, Clinics, and Health Services in Hot Springs, Custer City, and 

 Edgemont, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming ........................................... 3-103 

3.11-7 Police, Fire Department, and Ambulance Services in Hot Springs, 

 Custer City, and Edgemont, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming ................ 3-103 

3.12-1 Summary Statistics of Gamma-Ray Count Rates in Proposed Land 

 Application Areas, Surface Mine Areas, and the Remainder of 

 the Permit Area at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project ................................... 3-107 

3.12-2 Total Recordable Incidence Rates and Total Lost-Time Incidents for the 

 Category “Other Metal Ore Mining” ...................................................................... 3-115 
xxv 

Table Page 

4.2-1 Breakdown of Land Disturbance for the Class V Injection Well and Land 

 Application Disposal Options at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

Recovery Project ...................................................................................................... 4-4 

4.2-2 Significance of Environmental Land Use Impacts for the Proposed Liquid 

 Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project ......................................................................................... 4-12 

4.3-1 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional Roads for the Construction Phase of the 

 Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project .............................................. 4-15 

4.3-2 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional Roads for the Operations Phase of the 

 Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project .............................................. 4-17 

4.3-3 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional Roads for the Aquifer Restoration Phase 

 of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project .................................... 4-21 

4.3-4 Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional Roads for the Decommissioning Phase 

 of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project .................................... 4-22 

4.3-5 Significance of Transportation Environmental Impacts for the Proposed Liquid 

 Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project ......................................................................................... 4-28 

4.4-1 Significance of Geology and Soils Impacts for the Proposed Liquid Waste 

 Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

 ISR Project ............................................................................................................. 4-39

4.5-1 Significance of Environmental Surface Water and Wetland Impacts for the 

 Proposed Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project .............................................................. 4-50 

4.5-2 Significance of Environmental Groundwater Impacts for the Proposed Liquid 

 Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project ......................................................................................... 4-77 

4.6-1 Disturbed Land by Vegetation Type for Dewey-Burdock Deep Class V 

 Injection Well Disposal Option ................................................................................ 4-81 

4.6-2 Reclamation Seed Mixture ..................................................................................... 4-84 

4.6-3 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Recommended Seasonal 

 Wildlife Stipulations ................................................................................................ 4-89 

4.6-4 Disturbed Land by Vegetation Type for Dewey-Burdock Land 

 Application Option ................................................................................................ 4-106 

4.6-5 Significance of Ecological Impacts for the Proposed Liquid Waste Disposal 

 Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

 Recovery Project .................................................................................................. 4-113 

4.7-1 Nonradiological Concentration Estimates (i.e., AERMOD Modeling Results) 

 From Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year Compared 

 to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................... 4-120 

4.7-2 Nonradiological Concentration Values From Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive 

 Sources for the Peak Year Compared to the Prevention of Significant 

 Deterioration (PSD) Increments ........................................................................... 4-122 

4.7-3 Visibility Modeling Results for the Peak Year at Wind Cave National Park .......... 4-126 

4.7-4 Total (Wet and Dry) Acid Deposition Modeling Results for the Peak Year at 

 Wind Cave National Park ..................................................................................... 4-126 
xxvi 

Table Page 

4.7-5 Significance of the Air Quality Environmental Impacts for the Proposed 

 Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project ............................................................ 4-145 

4.8-1 Significance of Environmental Noise Impacts for the Proposed Liquid 

 Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project ....................................................................................... 4-156 

4.9-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of Eligibility 

 and Impact Analysis for Historic Properties Within the Proposed Project 

 Area That Are Currently Listed in National Register of Historic Places or 

Recommended as Eligible for Listing in the NRHP .............................................. 4-160 

4.9-2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of Eligibility 

 and Impact Analysis for Unevaluated Sites With Burial and Cairn Features 

 Identified During Archaeological Field Investigations ........................................... 4-164 

4.9-3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

 Register of Historic Places (NRHP)- Eligibility and Impact Analysis on 

 Unevaluated Sites Identified During Archaeological Field Investigations 

 Within the APE for Facility Construction and Operations ..................................... 4-165 

4.9-4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of Eligibility 

 and Impact Analysis for Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites 

 Identified During Tribal Cultural Surveys .............................................................. 4-168 

4.9-5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of Eligibility 

 and Impact Analysis for New Discoveries Recorded During Tribal 

 Cultural Surveys ................................................................................................... 4-173 

4.9-6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of Eligibility 

 and Impact Analysis for Historic Properties Included in the Visual 

 Impacts Assessment ............................................................................................ 4-178 

4.9-7 Significance of Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts for the Proposed 

 Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project ............................................................ 4-189 

4.10-1 Significance of Visual and Scenic Impacts for the Proposed Liquid Waste 

 Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project ....................................................................................... 4-197 

4.12-1 Percent Living in Poverty and Percent Minority in 2010 ....................................... 4-208 

4.12-2 Demographic Profile Comparison of the 2000 and 2010 Population in 

 Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, and Weston 

 County, Wyoming ................................................................................................. 4-209 

4.12-3 Housing in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, and 

 Weston County Wyoming, in 2010 ....................................................................... 4-211 

4.13-1 Generic Accident Dose Analysis for In-Situ Recovery Operations ....................... 4-220 

4.13-2 Significance of Occupational and Public Health and Safety Impacts for the 

 Proposed Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project ............................................................ 4-232 

4.14-1 Significance of Environmental Impacts on Liquid Waste Management 

 for the Proposed Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

 Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project ............................................................ 4-246 

5.1-1 Past, Existing, and Potential Uranium Recovery Sites in the 

 Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region ..................................... 5-5 
xxvii 

Table Page 

5.1-2 Status of Permitted Oil and Gas Wells in Fall River and Custer Counties, 

 South Dakota, and Niobrara and Weston Counties, Wyoming ................................ 5-9 

5.1.3 Summary of Wind Energy South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska ...................... 5-10 

5.1-4 Draft and Final National Environmental Policy Act Documents Related to the 

 Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region ................................... 5-14 

5.1-5 Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources ................................................. 5-16 

6.2-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Proposed by Powertech ...................................... 6-2 

6.3-1 Summary of Mitigation Measures Identified by the U.S. Nuclear 

 Regulatory Commission ......................................................................................... 6-13 

7.3-1 Background Water Quality Parameters and Indicators for Operational 

 Groundwater Monitoring ........................................................................................... 7-9 

7.3-2 Impoundments and Stream Sampling Locations Proposed for 

 Operational Monitoring ........................................................................................... 7-13 

7.3-3 Monitoring Wells Proposed for Operational Monitoring .......................................... 7-15 

7.5-1 Proposed Alluvial Monitoring Wells in the Dewey Area .......................................... 7-20 

7.5-2 Proposed Alluvial Monitoring Wells in the Burdock Area ....................................... 7-20 

7.5-3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Radionuclide Discharge Limits for 

 Land Application ..................................................................................................... 7-22 

7.5-4 Soil Sampling Parameters ...................................................................................... 7-23 

7.5-5 Class V Deep Injection Well Monitoring ................................................................. 7-23 

7.6-1 Composition Parameters for Class V Injectate Monitoring ..................................... 7-27 

8.2-1 Towns Near the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project ..................... 8-3 

8.3-1 Summary of Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

 Recovery Project ...................................................................................................... 8-5 

9-1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action ................................... 9-3 

xxix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND 

By letter dated August 10, 2009, Powertech (USA), Inc. (Powertech) submitted an application to 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a new source material license for the 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project, located in Fall River and Custer Counties, 

South Dakota. The applicant is proposing to recover uranium using the in-situ leach (ISL) [also 

known as in-situ recovery (ISR)] process. The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

include processing facilities and sequentially developed wellfields sited in two contiguous areas, 

the Burdock area and the Dewey area. Proposed facilities include a central processing plant in 

the Burdock area, a satellite facility in the Dewey area, wellfields, Class V deep injection wells 

and/or land application areas for disposal of liquid wastes, and the attendant infrastructure 

(e.g., pipelines and surface impoundments). 

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

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

source material and byproduct material. These statutes require NRC to license facilities, 

including ISR operations, in accordance with NRC regulatory requirements to protect 

public health and safety from radiological hazards. Under the NRC environmental 

protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implement the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or supplement to 

an EIS is required for issuance of a license to possess and use source material for uranium 

milling [10 CFR 51.20(b)(8)]. 

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

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

GEIS, NRC assessed potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer 

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

of the western United States. The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located within the 

Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region identified in the GEIS. The GEIS 

provides a starting point for NRC NEPA analyses for site-specific license applications for new 

ISR facilities, as well as for applications that amend or renew existing ISR licenses. This 

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

information from the applicant’s license application and other independent sources to fulfill the 

requirements set forth in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8). 

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

of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and 

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

recommendation regarding the proposed action. 

This SEIS was prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM 

has requested to be and is acting as a cooperating agency with NRC to evaluate the impacts of 

Powertech’s Plan of Operations in accordance with the National Memorandum of Understanding 

with NRC. BLM manages 97 ha [240 ac] of land within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project area. Under 43 CFR Part 3809, BLM is required to review the environmental impacts of 

federal actions on surface lands to assure that there is no “unnecessary or undue degradation 

of public lands.” To fulfill this requirement, the applicant submitted a Plan of Operations to BLM 

for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project on August 26, 2009. Powertech modified the Plan of 

Operations and resubmitted it to BLM on January 28, 2011.
Executive Summary FINAL 

xxx 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

NRC regulates uranium milling, as defined in 10 CFR 40.4, including the ISR process, under 

10 CFR Part 40, “Domestic Licensing of Source Material.” The applicant is seeking an NRC 

source material license to authorize commercial-scale ISR uranium recovery at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The purpose and need for the proposed federal action is to either 

grant or deny the applicant a license to use ISR technology to recover uranium and produce 

yellowcake at the proposed project site. Yellowcake is the uranium oxide product of the ISR 

milling process used to produce various products including fuel for commercially operated 

nuclear power reactors. 

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

findings in either the AEA-required safety review or in the NEPA environmental analysis that 

would lead NRC to reject a license application, NRC has no role in a company’s business 

decision to submit a license application to operate an ISR facility at a particular location. 

The BLM purpose and need for the proposed action is to provide for orderly, efficient, and 

environmentally responsible mining of the uranium resource. The uranium resource is needed 

to fulfill market demands for this product for power generation and other needs. These public 

lands are open to mineral entry, and the applicant has filed mining claims on them. Within the 

proposed project area, Powertech maintains the mining claims associated with 1,708 ha 

[4,220 ac] of federal land that the U.S. Government reserved under the Stock-Raising 

Homestead Act. The BLM federal decision is to either approve the Powertech-modified Plan of 

Operations subject to mitigation included in the license application and this SEIS, or deny 

approval of the Plan of Operations. BLM’s responsibility to respond to the Plan of Operations 

establishes the need for the action. The mining claimant has the right to mine and develop the 

mining claims as long as it can be done without causing unnecessary or undue degradation of 

the public lands and follows pertinent laws and regulations under 43 CFR Part 3800. 

THE PROJECT AREA 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located in Custer and Fall River Counties, 

South Dakota, within the Great Plains physiographic province on the edge of the Black Hills 

uplift. The proposed site is located approximately 21 km [13 mi] north-northwest of the city 

of Edgemont, approximately 64 km [40 mi] west of the city of Hot Springs, and approximately 

80 km [50 mi] southwest of the city of Custer. The total land area of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock Project is 4,282 ha [10,580 ac]. Sections within the proposed project area are 

split estate, in which two or more parties own the surface and subsurface mineral rights. The 

surface rights are both publicly and privately owned. Approximately 4,185 ha [10,340 ac] of 

land is privately owned, and the remaining 97 ha [240 ac] of surface rights are owned by the 

U.S. Government and administered by BLM. The subsurface mineral rights are owned by 

various private entities and federally reserved by the U.S. Government. 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will consist of processing facilities and sequentially 

developed wellfields in two contiguous areas: the Burdock area and the Dewey area. Planned 

facilities associated with the proposed project include buildings associated with a central 

processing plant in the Burdock area and a satellite facility in the Dewey area; surface 

impoundments; wellfields and their associated infrastructure (e.g., wells, header houses, and 

pipelines); Class V deep injection wells and/or land application areas for disposal of liquid 

wastes; and access roads. The applicant estimated that the land surface area that will be
FINAL Executive Summary 

xxxi 

affected by proposed ISR operations will be approximately 98 ha [243 ac] if Class V deep 

injection wells alone are used to dispose of process-related liquid wastes and approximately 

566 ha [1,398 ac] if land application alone is used to dispose of liquid wastes. 

IN-SITU RECOVERY PROCESS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

pumping and then transferred to a processing facility via a network of pipelines, which may be 

buried just below the ground surface. At the processing facility, the uranium is removed from 

solution (typically via ion exchange). The resulting barren solution is then recharged with the 

oxidant and reinjected to recover more uranium. 

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

injection wells to recovery wells. These wells can be arranged in a variety of geometric patterns 

depending on the location and orientation of the orebody, aquifer permeability, and operator 

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

recovery (i.e., production) well located inside a ring of injection wells. Monitoring wells are 

installed in the production zone aquifer and surround the wellfield pattern area. Monitoring 

wells are screened (i.e., open to allow water to enter) in the appropriate stratigraphic horizon 

to detect the potential migration of lixiviant away from the production zone. Monitor wells are 

also installed in the overlying and underlying aquifers to detect the potential vertical 

migration of lixiviant outside the production zone. The uranium that is recovered from the 

solution is processed, dried into yellowcake, packaged into NRC- and U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT)-approved 208-L [55-gal] steel drums, and trucked offsite to a licensed 

conversion facility. 

An underground injection control (UIC) program regulates the design, construction, testing, 

operation, and closure of injection wells at ISR facilities. Before ISR operations begin, the 

portion of the aquifer(s) designated for uranium recovery must be exempted from the 

underground source of drinking water (USDW) designation, in accordance with the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Once production is complete, the production zone groundwater is 

restored to NRC-approved groundwater protection standards, which are protective of the 

surrounding groundwater. The site is decommissioned according to an NRC-approved 

decommissioning plan and in accordance with NRC-approved standards. Once 

decommissioning is approved, the site may be released for public use. 

ALTERNATIVES 

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

NRC to consider reasonable alternatives, including the No-Action alternative, to a proposed 

action. The NRC staff considered a range of alternatives that would fulfill the underlying 

purpose and need for the proposed action. From this analysis, a set of reasonable alternatives 

was developed, and the impacts of the proposed action were compared with the impacts that 

would result if a given alternative was implemented. This SEIS evaluates the potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed action and the No-Action alternative and also considers 
Executive Summary FINAL 

xxxii 

alternative wastewater disposal options to the proposed action. Under the No-Action 

alternative, the applicant would not construct and operate ISR facilities at the proposed site. 

Other alternatives considered at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site but eliminated 

from detailed analysis include conventional mining and milling, conventional mining and heap 

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

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

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

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

options (evaporation ponds and surface water discharge) that were not included in the 

proposed action. 

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

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

from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of ISR operations at 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site and the No-Action alternative. This SEIS also 

describes mitigation measures for the reduction or avoidance of potential adverse impacts that 

(i) the applicant has committed to in its NRC license application, (ii) will be required under other 

federal and state permits or processes, or (iii) are additional measures NRC staff identified as 

having the potential to reduce environmental impacts but that the applicant did not commit to in 

its application. The SEIS uses the assessments and conclusions reached in the GEIS in 

combination with site-specific information to assess and categorize impacts. 

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

potential environmental impacts is categorized as follows: 

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

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

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource. 

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

destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

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

from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The significance of impacts from the ISR facility lifecycle is listed 

next, followed by a summary of impacts by environmental resource area and ISR phase for the 

proposed action. 

Impacts by Resource Area and In-Situ Recovery Facility Phase 

Land Use 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL. If deep well disposal via Class V injection wells alone is 

used to dispose of liquid wastes, approximately 98 ha [243 ac] or 2.3 percent of the proposed 

project area will be disturbed by the construction phase. If land application alone is used to 

dispose of liquid wastes, the construction phase will disturb approximately 566 ha [1,398 ac] or 

13.2 percent of the proposed project area. Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled prior to 
FINAL Executive Summary 

xxxiii 

building surface facilities, developing initial wellfields and attendant infrastructure, and 

constructing access roads. Livestock grazing and recreational activities will be excluded 

from fenced areas surrounding the central plant, satellite facility, surface impoundments, 

andwellfields. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. Land use impacts during the operations phase will be 

limited to the wellfields and will be similar to, or less than, those during the construction phase. 

Wellfields will be developed sequentially resulting in disturbance of approximately 57 ha 

[140ac]. Land disturbance and access restrictions will result from drilling new wells and 

constructing additional header houses and pipelines. Livestock grazing and recreational 

activities will continue to be restricted from the central plant, satellite facility, surface 

impoundments, and wellfields. Potential land application areas may also be fenced to control 

livestock access. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Land use impacts will be similar to, or less than 

those described for the operations phase. Land use impacts will decrease as fewer wells and 

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

and surface facilities will continue to be restricted. No additional land will be disturbed to 

construct facilities. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. Decommissioning the buildings, 

wellfields, storage ponds, and access roads and removing potentially contaminated soil will 

result in a temporary, short-term increase in land-disturbing activities. Upon completion of the 

plugging and abandonment of wells, the soil will be returned to areas in the wellfield where it 

had been removed and reseeded. At the end of decommissioning, because the reclaimed land 

will be released for other uses and no longer restricted, the land use impact in disturbed areas 

will be MODERATE until vegetation becomes reestablished. After vegetation is reestablished in 

reclaimed areas, the land will be returned to a condition that can support a variety of land uses; 

therefore, the impact will be SMALL. 

Transportation 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL. Dewey Road, the unpaved gravel road nearest the 

proposed site, will experience a 42 percent increase over existing traffic considering both autos 

and trucks during the ISR construction phase. This increase in traffic will incrementally 

accelerate degradation of road surfaces, increase the generation of dust, and increase the 

potential for traffic accidents and wildlife or livestock kills. The well-traveled regional roads will 

not be impacted significantly by construction traffic. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. Dewey Road, the road nearest the proposed site, will 

experience a 24 percent increase in daily vehicle traffic during the ISR operations phase. This 

increase in traffic will incrementally accelerate degradation of road surfaces, increase the 

generation of dust, and increase the potential for traffic accidents and wildlife or livestock kills. 

Additionally, the transport of yellowcake product, hazardous materials, uranium-loaded resins 

from the Dewey Unit to the Burdock Unit, and wastes could result in spills or leakage if an 

accident occurred; however, this risk was determined to be low and will be further limited by 

compliance with existing NRC and USDOT transportation regulations and the implementation of 

best management practices (BMPs) for containing leakage and spills. 
Executive Summary FINAL 

xxxiv 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Transportation impacts will be less than those 

estimated for the construction and operation phases because the need to transport yellowcake 

product, hazardous materials, and uranium-loaded resins between units will decrease as aquifer 

restoration progresses. The decrease in supply shipments, waste shipments, and employee 

commuting (because fewer workers will be involved) will reduce the potential for accidents and 

therefore for any spills or leakage. 

 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. Transportation impacts will be less than those 

during the construction and operation phases because the transport of yellowcake product and 

processing chemicals will end during decommissioning. Access roads will either be reclaimed 

or left in place for future use. Waste shipments will increase temporarily, but will still represent a 

small contribution to daily traffic. Fewer workers will be employed, further reducing the potential 

transportation impact during this phase. 

Geology and Soils 

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

the Burdock central plant and Dewey satellite plant facilities, access roads, wellfields, pipelines, 

and surface impoundments will include topsoil clearing and land grading. Topsoil removed 

during these activities will be stored and reused later to restore disturbed areas. The limited 

areal extent of the construction area, the soil stockpiling procedures, the implementation of 

BMPs, the short duration of the construction phase, and mitigative measures such as 

reestablishment of native vegetation will further minimize the potential impact on soils. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. The uranium mobilization and recovery process will not 

remove rock matrix from production zone sandstones and will not dewater production zone 

aquifers. Therefore, no significant matrix compression or ground subsidence is expected. The 

occurrence of potential spills during transfer of uranium-bearing lixiviant to and from the Burdock 

central plant and Dewey satellite facility will be mitigated by implementing onsite standard 

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

releases and cleanup of any contaminated soils. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) will determine the suitability of deep geologic formations for deep Class V disposal of 

liquid waste before issuing an UIC permit for Class V injection wells. Treated wastewater 

disposed of in Class V injection wells will be required to meet release standards as referenced 

in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2. Potential soil 

contamination in proposed land application areas will be monitored by implementing soil 

collection and sampling procedures. Treated wastewater applied to land application areas will 

be required to meet NRC release limit criteria, as referenced in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, 

and applicable state groundwater quality standards under a Groundwater Discharge Plan (GDP) 

approved by South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR). 

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

groundwater sweep and groundwater transfer will not remove rock matrix from production zone 

sandstones. The formation groundwater pressure within the extraction zone will be decreased 

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

the wellfields to reduce the potential for offsite migration of constituents. However, the change 

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

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

application of treated wastewater will be comparable to that described for the operations phase. 
FINAL Executive Summary 

xxxv 

The NRC requirements for spill response and recovery and routine monitoring programs will 

also apply. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. Disruption or displacement of soils will occur during 

dismantling of the facilities and reclamation of the land; however, the disturbed lands will be 

restored to their preextraction land use. Topsoil will be reclaimed and the surface regraded to 

the original topography. 

Surface Waters and Wetlands 

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

Dewey-Burdock site is limited, and surface water flow in channels is ephemeral except for 

perennial Beaver Creek. The applicant will construct ISR processing and support facilities on 

level areas and outside the 100-year floodplain. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits issued by SDDENR will set limits to control the amount of pollutants 

that can enter surface water bodies. Implementation of a stormwater pollution management 

plan (SWMP) will control stormwater runoff during construction and ensure that surface water 

runoff from disturbed areas meets NPDES permit limits. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be required before conducting work in 

jurisdictional wetlands identified in the project area. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. The applicant’s SDDENR-approved NPDES permit and 

SWMP will be in place to mitigate impacts to surface water from erosion, runoff, and 

sedimentation. The applicant will implement an emergency response plan to identify and clean 

up accidental spills and leaks. Processing facilities and chemical and fuel storage tanks will 

have secondary containment to contain potential spills. Operations will create liquid wastes that 

will be contained in radium-settling and storage ponds for eventual Class V injection well 

disposal and/or land application. Radium settling ponds will be constructed with liners, 

underdrains, and leak detection systems and storage ponds that contain treated wastewater will 

be constructed with geosynthetic and clay liners. Liquid waste applied to land application areas 

will be required to meet NRC release limit criteria for radiological contaminants, as referenced in 

10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. SDDENR will require liquid waste applied to land application 

areas to meet applicable state discharge requirements under a GDP. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Impacts will be similar to those during the 

operations phase because the same infrastructure will be used and the same activities will be 

conducted. The applicant’s SDDENR-approved NPDES permit and SWMP will be in place to 

mitigate impacts to surface water from erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. Restoration of 

groundwater aquifers will create wastewater that will be contained in radium settling and storage 

ponds for eventual Class V injection well disposal and/or land application. Radium settling 

ponds will be constructed with liners, underdrains, and leak detection systems and storage 

ponds that contain treated wastewater will be constructed with geosynthetic and clay liners. 

Treated wastewater applied to land application areas will be required to meet NRC release limit 

criteria for radiological contaminants, as referenced in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. SDDENR 

will require wastewater applied to land application areas to meet applicable state discharge 

requirements under a GDP. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. The impacts will be similar to those during the 

construction phase. Activities to clean up, recontour, and reclaim the land surface during 

decommissioning will mitigate long-term impacts to surface water. The applicant’s 
Executive Summary FINAL 

xxxvi 

SDDENR-approved NPDES permit and SWMP will be in place to mitigate impacts to surface 

water from erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. 

Groundwater 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL. The primary impact to groundwater during the 

construction phase will be from the consumptive use of groundwater, introduction of drilling 

fluids into the environment during well installation, and from surface spills of fuels and 

lubricants. The applicant is required to obtain water appropriation use permits from SDDENR 

prior to withdrawing water from aquifers. During well installation, drilling fluids (mud) will have 

the potential to impact surficial aquifers; however, all wells will undergo mechanical integrity 

tests of the casing and therefore ensure against well leakage prior to entering service. Impacts 

to groundwater from surface spills of fuels and lubricants will be mitigated by the applicant’s 

implementation of BMPs and by following a spill prevention program that will require an 

immediate cleanup response to prevent soil contamination or infiltration to groundwater. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. The operations phase may impact near-surface (alluvial) 

aquifers, production zone aquifers containing the orebodies and surrounding aquifers, and deep 

aquifers below the ore production zone used for the disposal of liquid wastes. 

Alluvial aquifers are separated from production zone and surrounding aquifers by thick aquitards 

(confining units) and, therefore, are not hydraulically connected to production zone and 

surrounding aquifers. In addition, alluvial aquifers do not serve as a water supply for domestic 

use or livestock. The impacts from spills and leaks will be SMALL. The applicant’s leak 

detection and cleanup program will include rapid response and remediation to minimize impacts 

to soils and groundwater. Liquid waste applied to land application areas will be required to meet 

NRC release limit criteria for radiological contaminants, as referenced in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B and applicable state discharge requirements under a GDP issued by SDDENR. 

The applicant has committed to removing and replacing existing domestic wells drawing water 

from production zone aquifers within the project area from private use prior to ISR operations. 

In addition, the applicant will monitor all domestic wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the wellfields 

during operations and replace these wells in the event of significant drawdown or degradation of 

water quality. Water levels in affected wells will recover with time after ISR operations and 

aquifer restoration activities are complete. 

The establishment of an inward hydraulic gradient during wellfield operations along with the 

applicant-installed groundwater monitoring network to detect potential vertical and horizontal 

excursions will limit the potential for undetected lixiviant excursions that could degrade 

groundwater quality. Because the ore production zones are overlain and underlain by 

impermeable shale layers, this further ensures the hydraulic isolation of the ore production 

zones, which helps to limit potential groundwater contamination in surrounding aquifers. 

Liquid wastes generated from operation of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be 

disposed of via Class V deep well injection, land application, or a combination of Class V deep 

well injection and land application. The groundwater in deep formations targeted for Class V 

deep well injection must not be a potential underground source of drinking water. Class V 

injection wells will be permitted in accordance with the EPA Underground Injection Control 

Program. Liquid wastes injected into Class V injection wells may not be classified as hazardous 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. NRC will require the liquid waste pumped 
FINAL Executive Summary 

xxxvii 

into Class V injection wells to be treated and monitored to verify it meets NRC release 

standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Groundwater restoration will be initiated once a 

wellfield is no longer being used to produce uranium. Larger withdrawals will produce larger 

drawdowns in production aquifers during aquifer restoration, resulting in a greater impact on 

yields of nearby wells. As with operations, the applicant will monitor all domestic wells within 

2 km [1.2 mi] of the wellfields during aquifer restoration and replace these wells in the event of 

significant drawdown or degradation of water quality. Water levels in affected wells will recover 

with time after ISR operations and aquifer restoration activities are complete. Natural recovery 

and the well monitoring measures established by the applicant will reduce impacts to nearby 

wells, ensuring the long-term environmental impact from consumptive use will be SMALL. 

During aquifer restoration, hydraulic control for the former production zone will be maintained; 

this will be accomplished by maintaining an inward hydraulic gradient through a production 

bleed. During aquifer restoration activities, water will be pumped from the wellfield (without 

reinjection), resulting in an influx of “fresh” groundwater into the affected (mined) portion of the 

aquifer. Disposal of liquid wastes via Class V injection wells, land application, or a combination 

of Class V injection wells and land application will occur as described for ISR operations. The 

goal of aquifer restoration will be to restore groundwater quality in the ore production zone to 

Commission-approved background conditions under 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5). If the aquifer cannot be restored to background conditions, then NRC 

will require that either the production zone be returned to maximum contaminant levels in 

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Table 5C or to NRC-approved alternate concentration limits. 

Post-restoration groundwater quality will be protective of public health and the environment. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. The potential impact to groundwater quality during 

decommissioning and reclamation is comparable to that described in the construction phase. 

Groundwater consumptive use will be less than that of the operation and restoration phases. All 

monitoring, injection, and production wells will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with 

UIC program requirements. Wells will be filled with cement and clay to ensure groundwater 

does not flow through the abandoned wells. Abandoned wells will be properly isolated from the 

flow domain. NRC will review and approve the wellfield restoration efforts to ensure that 

restoration standards were followed and public health and safety is protected. 

Ecological Resources 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. Construction disturbance under current 

development plans, which require vegetative removal, will affect approximately 98 ha [243 ac] if 

deep well injection is used to dispose of treated wastewater or approximately 566 ha [1,398 ac] 

if land application or a combination of deep well injection and land application is used to dispose 

of treated wastewater. Some habitat loss or alteration, displacement of wildlife, and mortality 

due to encounters with vehicles or heavy equipment will occur, though wildlife species will likely 

disperse from the area once construction commences. Following recommended fencing and 

power line construction designs will minimize impediments to game and avian movement. 

Mitigation will control the introduction and spread of undesirable and invasive, nonnative plants; 

reduce the likelihood of injury or mortality to wildlife; and ensure no loss of aquatic habitat. 

Impacts to wildlife and habitat will be minimized with mitigation measures and the timely 

reseeding of disturbed areas following construction. Any trees with raptor nests will not be 

removed, and following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and South Dakota Game, Fish, 
Executive Summary FINAL 

xxxviii 

and Parks (SDGFP) seasonal noise, vehicular traffic, and human proximity guidelines will help 

to ensure the continued nesting success of area raptors. No federally threatened or 

endangered species are known to occur within the proposed project area. Impacts to stateprotected species will not noticeably affect species’ populations within the vicinity of the 

proposed project site. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. Ecological impacts due to noise, vehicles, 

structures, and the presence of humans will be similar to, but less than, those experienced 

during construction for either disposal option because fewer earthmoving activities will occur. 

However, larger areas of habitat will be converted to crops and animals will be disturbed with 

irrigation activities during the land application disposal option. Wastewater solutions include 

levels of chemical constituents that are potentially harmful to wildlife; however, proposed 

practices and state regulatory controls including permit conditions, monitoring requirements, and 

action levels would limit direct contact and potential impacts. Monitoring and action levels for 

environmental concentrations of wastewater constituents in land application areas will allow 

regulators to impose mitigations if constituents accumulate above levels of concern. The 

applicant will reseed disturbed areas with SDDENR- or BLM-approved seed mixtures to restore 

habitat. Spill detection and response plans will reduce the potential impact to terrestrial and 

aquatic species. Fencing would further limit wildlife access to liquid waste holding ponds. 

Potential conflicts between active raptor nest sites and project-related activities will continue to 

be mitigated by annual raptor monitoring and mitigation plans. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. Impacts will be similar to those 

experienced during the operations phase with no major differences in type or degree of impact. 

The existing infrastructure will be used during this phase, and mitigation measures will continue 

to apply from the construction and operations phases. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. Temporary disturbances to land 

and soils during decommissioning could displace vegetation and wildlife species that had 

recolonized the proposed project area since initiation of ISR activities. Shrubland vegetative 

communities will be more difficult to reestablish and achieve full site recovery. The applicant 

commits to vegetation reestablishment efforts to be ongoing throughout the ISR facility life 

cycle. However, new vegetative growth could be affected by future grazing, droughts, or 

intense winters, thus reducing the rate of plant productivity and delaying full recovery, 

Revegetation and recontouring will restore habitat previously altered during construction 

and operations. 

Air Quality 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project is located in the Black Hills-Rapid City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, which is 

classified as being in attainment for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

primary pollutants. Air emissions during the construction phase of the proposed project will 

consist primarily of combustion emissions from drill rigs and fugitive road dust. The magnitude 

of the pollutant concentrations from the construction phase combustion emissions are below 

NAAQS and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class II regulatory thresholds except 

for the particulate matter PM10 24-hour PSD Class II allowable increment. This also holds true 

for the peak year pollutant emission levels. The peak year refers to periods during which all four 

phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest level of emissions the proposed action 

will generate in any one project year. Fugitive dust emissions, the primary source for the 
FINAL Executive Summary 

xxxix 

particulate matter PM10, are spread out over a large area and tend to generate emissions 

sporadically. Due to the level and nature of these fugitive emissions, there is potential for 

short-term, intermittent impacts to localized areas in and around the site particularly when 

vehicles travel on unpaved roads. Wind Cave National Park, a Class I area located about 47 

km [29 mi] northeast of the proposed project area, has experienced visibility impacts from air 

pollution. However, project specific modeling results for the Wind Cave National Park (e.g., 

Class I PSD, visibility, and acid deposition) are below applicable thresholds. 

The deep Class V injection well disposal option has more combustion emissions than the land 

application option due to the contribution of the deep well drill rig. The land application option 

has more fugitive emissions due to the greater area of land disturbed. However, these 

differences are relatively small and appreciable differences in the overall air emission levels 

between the two disposal options are not expected. Therefore, the impact magnitudes are 

expected to be similar. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. Fugitive dust emission pollutant levels will be less than 

those experienced during construction. ISR facilities are not major point source emitters of 

regulated pollutants. Combustion emissions in this phase are basically evenly divided between 

light duty vehicles and construction and field equipment. The combustion and fugitive dust 

emissions will be below NAAQS and PSD Class II regulatory thresholds. Project specific 

modeling results for the Wind Cave National Park (e.g., Class I PSD, visibility, and acid 

deposition) are below applicable thresholds. 

The land application disposal option has more fugitive emissions than the Class V injection well 

option due to the greater area of land disturbed. However, this difference is relatively small and 

appreciable differences in the overall air emission levels between the two disposal options are 

not expected. Therefore, the impact magnitudes are expected to be similar. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Combustion emission and fugitive emission levels 

for the aquifer restoration phases are the lowest relative to the other three phases. For the 

aquifer restoration phase, combustion emissions are primarily from light duty vehicles; wind 

erosion can generate more fugitive emissions than travel on unpaved roads. The combustion 

and fugitive dust emissions will be below NAAQS and PSD Class II regulatory thresholds. 

Project specific modeling results for the Wind Cave National Park (e.g., Class I PSD, visibility, 

and acid deposition) are below applicable thresholds. The proposed project can contribute to 

visibility impacts at Wind Cave National Park, but the impact magnitude will be minimal. 

The land application disposal option can generate up to approximately two times the amount of 

fugitive emissions compared to the Class V injection well disposal option. Although there is 

some difference in the overall fugitive dust emissions levels between the two disposal options, 

the impact magnitude is expected to be similar. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. The decommissioning phase pollutant sources and 

emission levels closely match those from the operation phase. Therefore, the decommissioning 

phase will produce a similar impact magnitude as the operation phase. As in the operation 

phase described previously, appreciable differences in the overall decommissioning phase air 

emission levels between the Class V injection well and land application disposal options are 

not expected. 
Executive Summary FINAL 

xl 

Noise 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL. Increased traffic, as well as use of drill rigs, heavy 

trucks, bulldozers, and other equipment to construct and operate the wellfields, drill wells, 

access roads, and build the central plant and satellite facility, will generate noise audible above 

ambient (background) levels. The sound from construction activities will be indistinguishable 

from background levels at a distance of approximately 305 m [1,000 ft]. Two onsite dwellings 

will be impacted by noise above background levels from heavy equipment use. The Daniel 

residence is within 305 m [1,000 ft] of wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area, and the 

Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters is within 305 m [1,000 ft] of land application areas in the 

Dewey area. Increased noise levels at these residences during construction will be short term 

(1 to 2 years) and mitigated by using sound abatement controls on operating equipment. 

Administrative and engineering controls will be expected to maintain noise levels in work areas 

below Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory limits and be mitigated 

by use of personal hearing protection. Noise impacts to raptors will be mitigated by adhering to 

timing and spatial restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as determined by 

appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM). 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. Impacts from traffic-related noise will be similar to those 

during construction. Because wellfields will be developed and operated sequentially, potential 

noise impacts at the Daniels residence will be short term (1 to 2 years each for wellfields B-WF6 

and B-WF7). In addition, the Daniel residence will not be occupied year round. Residents at 

the Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters will only be exposed to noise from nearby land 

application areas during the growing season (May 11 to September 24). Noise impacts will be 

mitigated by using sound abatement controls on operating equipment. The central plant and 

satellite facility will generate indoor noise audible to workers. OSHA regulatory limits will be 

maintained and mitigated by use of personal hearing protection. Potential noise-related impacts 

to active raptor nest sites will continue to be mitigated by adherence to timing and spatial 

restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as determined by appropriate 

regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM). 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Noise impacts will be similar to, or less than, 

those experienced during the operations phase. Pumps and other wellfield equipment 

contained in buildings would reduce the potential sound impact to an offsite individual. Because 

the aquifers in wellfields will be restored sequentially, potential noise impacts at the Daniel 

residence will be short term (1 to 2 years each for wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7). In addition, 

the Daniel residence will not be occupied year round. During aquifer restoration, residents at 

the Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters will only be exposed to noise from nearby land 

application areas during the growing season (May 11 to September 24). Noise impacts will be 

mitigated by using sound abatement controls on operating equipment. Noise impacts from 

traffic will be SMALL because there will be fewer vehicular trips than during the operations 

phase. Potential noise-related impacts to active raptor nest sites will continue to be mitigated by 

adherence to timing and spatial restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as 

determined by appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM). 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. Noise impacts will either be similar to, or less than, 

those experienced during the construction phase. Noise during this phase will be temporary, 

and when decommissioning and reclamation activities are complete, the noise levels will return 

to baseline. Noise impacts from traffic will be SMALL because there will be fewer shipments to 

and from the proposed site as decommissioning progresses. Potential noise-related impacts to 
FINAL Executive Summary 

xli 

active raptor nest sites will continue to be mitigated by adherence to timing and spatial 

restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as determined by appropriate 

regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM). 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL to LARGE. Archaeological and historic sites have the 

potential to be disturbed during construction of ISR facilities and infrastructure. NRC’s 

environmental review of historic and cultural resources included evaluating the results of 

(i) archaeological field investigations, (ii) tribal cultural surveys, and (iii) visual and auditory 

impacts assessments. 

Archaeological field investigations identified 18 historic sites that are listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or are eligible for listing in the NRHP. Six of these sites 

could experience LARGE potential impacts due to their location within the area of potential 

effect (APE) for facility construction and operations. Avoidance and mitigation measures, 

such as data recovery excavations and fencing, are recommended for these six NRHP-eligible 

sites. Avoidance of the remaining 12 sites during the construction phase is anticipated and for 

this reason no impacts are expected. Avoidance is also recommended for 15 unevaluated 

historic sites within or in close proximity to the APE for facility construction and operations, 

pending NRHP eligibility determination. 

Tribal cultural surveys recommended 17 known archaeological sites as eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. Three of these sites could experience LARGE potential impacts due to their location 

within the APE for facility construction and operations. Avoidance is recommended for these 

three known archaeological sites. Avoidance of the remaining 14 sites during the construction 

phase is anticipated and for this reason no impacts are expected. Tribal cultural surveys 

recommended 12 newly discovered sites as eligible for listing in the NRHP. Four of these new 

discoveries could experience LARGE potential impacts due to their location within the APE for 

facility construction and operations. Avoidance of the remaining 8 new tribal sites during the 

construction phase is anticipated and therefore no impacts are expected. 

NRC staff compiled a list of 31 historic properties that are either listed on the NRHP or 

considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under criteria A and/or C due in part to their integrity 

of setting. These sites are located within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the Dewey satellite facility or 

the Burdock central processing plant. Based on a line-of-sight analysis which considered the 

site’s significance and existing environmental factors and conditions, NRC determined that 19 

historic properties could experience MODERATE potential visual impacts. All of the 31 historic 

properties are located more than 640 m [2,100 ft] from the nearest processing facility, which 

exceeds the estimated 305 m [1,000 ft] zone for potential auditory impacts. Therefore, NRC staff 

conclude that potential auditory impacts on historic properties during the construction phase will 

be SMALL. 

 

Prior to construction, an agreement between NRC, South Dakota State Historic Preservation 

Office (SD SHPO), BLM, interested Native American tribes, the applicant, and other interested 

parties will be established outlining the mitigation process for each affected resource. By NRC 

license condition, the applicant is required to stop any work if historical or cultural resources are 

encountered during construction activities. All newly discovered artifacts will be inventoried and 

evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from 

the NRC, SD SHPO, and BLM to proceed. 
Executive Summary FINAL 

xlii 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. Minimal impacts will result during the 

operations phase because impacts to cultural resources will have been mitigated before facility 

construction and identified resources will be avoided. Potential visual and auditory impacts on 

historic properties will be the same as described for the construction phase (potential visual 

impacts will range from SMALL to MODERATE and potential auditory impacts will be SMALL). 

If historical or cultural resources are encountered during operations, the applicant is required by 

license condition to stop work. The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in 

accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, 

SD SHPO, and BLM to proceed. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. Impacts to historical and cultural 

resources during the aquifer restoration phase will be similar to operational impacts. Potential 

impacts to identified historic and cultural resources will have been mitigated prior to facility 

construction. Potential visual and auditory impacts on historic properties will be the same as 

described for the construction and operations phases (potential visual impacts will range from 

SMALL to MODERATE and potential auditory impacts will be SMALL). If historical or cultural 

resources are encountered during operations, the applicant is required by license condition to 

stop work. The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 

36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, SD SHPO, and 

BLM to proceed. 

 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. Minimal impacts are expected during the 

decommissioning phase because impacts to cultural resources will have been mitigated prior to 

facility construction. Potential visual impacts will be reduced to SMALL after processing 

facilities are dismantled and removed. If historical or cultural resources are encountered during 

operations, the applicant is required by license condition to stop work. The discovered artifacts 

will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart 

without authorization from the NRC, SD SHPO, and BLM to proceed. 

Visual/Scenic Resources 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL. During facilities construction, short-term (1 to 2 years) 

visual and scenic impacts will result from construction equipment and fugitive dust emissions. 

Temporary and short-term visual impacts during the construction period in each wellfield 

will result from header house construction, well drilling, and construction of access roads 

and electrical distribution lines. Dust suppression and selecting building materials and paint that 

complement the natural environment will reduce overall visual and scenic impacts of 

project construction. Center pivot irrigation systems in proposed land application areas in the 

Dewey area will be visible to travelers on Dewey Road; however, Dewey Road is a lightly 

traveled county road with few residences. Proposed activities at the project will be consistent 

with the BLM visual classification of this area. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. Visual impacts will be similar to, or less than, those 

experienced during construction. Less heavy machinery will be used, and standard dust control 

measures (e.g., water application and speed limits) will be implemented to reduce visual 

impacts from fugitive dust. Wellfields will be developed sequentially, and there will be no large 

expanse of land undergoing development at one time. Buildings and other structures will be 

painted so they blend in to the natural landscape, and power lines and pipelines will be buried 

where appropriate. Center pivot irrigation systems in proposed land application areas in the 

Dewey area will be visible to travelers on Dewey Road; however, Dewey Road is a lightly 
FINAL Executive Summary 

xliii 

traveled county road with few residences. Proposed activities at the project will be consistent 

with the BLM visual classification of this area. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Visual impacts will be similar to, or less than, 

those experienced during the operations phase. Aquifer restoration activities will use in-place 

infrastructure; therefore, no modifications to either scenery or topography will occur. There will 

be less vehicular traffic, creating less of a visual impact. The applicant identified mitigation 

measures, such as dust suppression, which will be used to further reduce visual impacts. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. Temporary impacts to the visual landscape will be 

comparable to those during the construction phase. Reclamation will return the visual 

landscape to baseline contours and will reduce the visual impact by removing buildings and the 

associated infrastructure. Implementation of mitigation measures (e.g., dust suppression) will 

further reduce the visual impacts from decommissioning. 

Socioeconomics 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL. Because of the small size of the construction workforce 

(86 workers) and because of the short duration of the ISR construction phase (1 to 2 years), the 

overall potential socioeconomic impact, including the effects of ISR facility construction on 

demographic conditions, income, housing, employment rate, local finance, education, and 

health and social services, will be SMALL. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. Because of the small size of the operations workforce 

(84 workers), the migration of workers and their families to nearby towns will have a SMALL 

impact on demographics. Although wage rates will be higher for Dewey-Burdock employees 

than for workers in similar skilled positions in Fall River, Custer, and Weston Counties, the 

operations workforce will be small in comparison to the combined labor force in the counties; 

therefore, income impacts will be SMALL. The impact on housing will be SMALL because of 

available housing in the immediate area surrounding the proposed ISR facility. Operation of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will create new jobs, but because of the small workforce 

size and because most skilled workers will be drawn from areas outside of the region of 

influence, impacts on employment will not be noticeable. The local economy will experience a 

SMALL to MODERATE beneficial impact from the purchasing of local goods and services and 

an increase in sales and income tax revenues. An increased demand for schools will have a 

SMALL impact on education because the current school systems are not at full capacity and 

can accommodate more students. Increased demand for health and social services will have a 

SMALL impact. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Impacts will be less than those experienced 

during the operations phase. Fewer workers will be required, which will reduce pressure on 

housing, education, and health and social services. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. Impacts will be less than those during the 

construction and operations phases because fewer workers will be required. Demand for 

housing, education, and health and social services will also be reduced. 

 
Executive Summary FINAL 

xliv 

Environmental Justice 

All Phases: The percentage of minority populations living in affected block groups in the 

vicinity of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site in Custer and Fall River Counties in 

South Dakota and Weston County in Wyoming does not significantly exceed the percentage of 

minority populations recorded at the state and county level and is well below the national level. 

Furthermore, the percentage of low-income populations living in affected census tracts in the 

vicinity of the proposed project site in Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties does not 

significantly exceed the percentage of low-income populations recorded at the state or county 

level. Therefore, there will be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and 

low-income populations from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR facility. 

The population closest to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project that could be impacted by 

environmental justice concerns is the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation located approximately 

80 km [50 mi] east in Shannon County, South Dakota. Based on 2010 United States Census 

Bureau data, this reservation has both minority {greater than 95 percent Native American 

(Oglala Sioux Tribe)} and low-income populations. Environmental justice impacts to Native 

American tribes living in the vicinity of the proposed project are not expected to differ from those 

experienced by other populations. The proposed action has the potential to affect certain sites 

of religious and cultural significance to Native American tribes; however, the impacts to such 

sites are expected to be reduced through mitigation strategies developed through the National 

Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation process. 

Public and Occupational Health 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL. Construction activities, including the use of construction 

equipment and vehicles, will disturb the topsoil and create fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust 

generated from construction activities will be short term (1 to 2 years), and the levels of 

radioactivity in soils at the proposed project site are low; therefore direct exposure, inhalation, 

and ingestion of fugitive dust will not result in a radiological dose to workers and the public. 

Construction equipment will be diesel powered and will exhaust particulate diesel emissions. 

The potential impacts and potential human exposures from these emissions will be SMALL, 

because of the short duration of the release and because the emissions will be readily 

dispersed into the atmosphere. 

Operation: The radiological impacts from normal operations will be SMALL. Public and 

occupational exposure rates at ISR facilities during normal operations have historically been 

well below regulatory limits. Dose assessments using the MILDOS computer code indicate that 

the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] will not be exceeded at any 

property boundary. The remote location of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site and the use of the 

proposed ISR technology coupled with the applicant procedures to minimize exposure 

demonstrate that the potential impact on public and occupational health and safety from facility 

operation will be SMALL. The radiological impacts from accidents will be SMALL for workers (if 

the applicant’s radiation safety and incident response procedures in an NRC-approved radiation 

protection plan are followed) and SMALL for the public because of the facility’s remote location. 

The nonradiological public and occupational health and safety impacts from normal operations 

and accidents, due primarily to risk of chemical exposure, will be SMALL if handling and storage 

procedures are followed. 
FINAL Executive Summary 

xlv 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL. Impacts will be similar to, but less than, those 

during the operations phase. The reduction or elimination of some operational activities will 

further reduce the magnitude of potential worker and public health impacts and safety hazards. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL. Impacts will be similar to those experienced during 

construction. Soil and facility structures will be decontaminated, and lands will be restored to 

preoperational conditions. 

Waste Management 

Construction: Impacts will be SMALL. Small-scale and incremental wellfield development will 

generate small volumes of construction waste. Waste will primarily consist of building materials, 

piping, and other solid wastes. No byproduct material will be generated during construction. 

Nonhazardous solid waste will be disposed of at a nearby municipal solid waste landfill with 

available capacity to accommodate estimated construction-phase waste volumes. 

Operation: Impacts will be SMALL. Liquid byproduct material, including production bleed, 

waste brine streams from elution and precipitation, resin transfer wash, laundry water, plant 

wash-down water, and laboratory chemicals will be treated and disposed using Class V injection 

wells. If a permit cannot be obtained from EPA for Class V injection, the applicant would pursue 

land application of treated liquid effluent. If the capacity of either method is limited, the applicant 

will pursue a combination of both Class V injection and land application. Deep well injection in a 

Class V well requires an EPA permit, and wastes will have to meet EPA permit conditions and 

NRC effluent discharge limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B (both would limit potential 

impacts). Land application will require SDDENR-permitting of discharge water, and the land 

application area would be monitored to assess compliance with NRC and SDDENR 

requirements that would limit impacts. Solids classified as byproduct material will be sent to a 

licensed facility for disposal. A preoperational agreement with a licensed facility to accept 

wastes the proposed action generates will avoid capacity impacts. Capacity is available for 

disposal of nonradiological, nonhazardous wastes at regional municipal landfills. Capacity will 

be sufficient for disposal of low volumes of generated hazardous wastes. 

Aquifer Restoration: Impacts will be SMALL based on the type and quantity of waste expected 

to be generated and the available capacity for disposal. Waste disposal procedures will be the 

same as those during the operations phase, resulting in similar impacts. One exception is the 

addition of reverse osmosis treatment of aquifer restoration water if a Class V deep disposal 

well is used. The applicant proposal includes adequate disposal capacity, and the applicant is 

required to comply with EPA Class V disposal permit conditions, NRC effluent limits, and other 

NRC safety regulations. Although the wastewater volume could increase during aquifer 

restoration activities, this will be offset by the reduction in production capacity from completion 

of wellfield production and removal from service. 

Decommissioning: Impacts will be SMALL to MODERATE. Safe handling, storage, and 

disposal of decommissioning wastes will be described in a required decommissioning plan for 

NRC review before decommissioning activities begin. A preoperational agreement with a 

licensed disposal facility to accept solid byproduct material will ensure that sufficient disposal 

capacity will be available at the time of decommissioning. Equipment and building materials 

that meet release criteria will be reused, recycled, or disposed as construction waste at a 

landfill. The available local landfill capacity may be insufficient to accommodate all 

decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste from the proposed Dewey Burdock ISR Project. 
Executive Summary FINAL 

xlvi 

The potential impacts on waste management resources will depend on the long-term status of 

the existing local landfill resources. If the capacity of the Newcastle or Custer-Fall River landfills 

is expanded prior to project decommissioning, the impacts to local landfills will be SMALL. If 

capacity at either landfill is not expanded prior to the Dewey-Burdock decommissioning, the 

NRC staff conclude the Newcastle landfill will have no disposal capacity at the time of 

decommissioning. Impacts to the Custer-Fall River landfill are expected to be MODERATE 

because the increase in solid waste disposal will more rapidly consume storage capacity during 

the last years of the landfill’s projected operational life. The disposal of any waste from the 

Dewey-Burdock facility in the Rapid City landfill will have a SMALL impact due to the projected 

operational life and available capacity of that landfill. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Chapter 5 of this SEIS provides the NRC evaluation of potential cumulative impacts from 

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

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project considering other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. Cumulative impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

were considered and evaluated in this SEIS, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) 

or person undertook the action. The NRC staff determined that the SMALL to MODERATE 

impacts from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are not expected to contribute 

perceptible increases to the SMALL to LARGE cumulative impacts, due primarily to ongoing 

uranium and oil and gas exploration activities, potential wind energy projects, and proposed 

infrastructure and transportation projects. 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The implementation of the proposed action will generate primarily regional and local costs and 

benefits. The regional benefits of building the proposed project will be increased employment, 

economic activity, and tax revenues in the region around the proposed site. Costs associated 

with the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are, for the most part, limited to the immediate 

area surrounding the site. The NRC staff determined the benefit from constructing and 

operating the facility will outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

For the No-Action alternative, the applicant will not construct or operate ISR facilities at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. As a result, no uranium ore will be recovered from 

the proposed site. This alternative will result in neither positive nor negative impacts to any 

resource area. 

FINAL RECOMMENDATION 

After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and comparing the alternatives, the NRC 

staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its NEPA recommendation regarding the 

proposed action (issuing a source material license for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project). Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the NRC staff recommendation to the 

Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is that a source 

material license for the proposed action be issued as requested. This recommendation is based 

on (i) the license application, including the ER and supplemental documents the applicant 

submitted and responses to NRC staff requests for additional information; (ii) consultation with 
FINAL Executive Summary 

xlvii 

federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; (iii) NRC staff independent review; (iv) NRC staff 

consideration of comments received on the draft SEIS; and (v) the assessments summarized in 

this SEIS. 

References 

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. “Domestic Licensing 

of Source Material.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property, Part 800. “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

43 CFR Part 3800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Public Lands: Interior, Part 3800. 

“Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

43 CFR Subpart 3809. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Public Lands: Interior, Subpart 

3809. “Subsurface Management.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

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

Milling Facilities.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003. 

xlix 

ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

ACL alternate concentration limit 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

AET, Inc. American Engineering Testing, Inc. 

ALAC Archaeology Laboratory Augustana College 

ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable 

APE area of potential effect 

ARC Archaeological Research Center 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ARSD Administrative Rules of South Dakota 

ASLBP Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 

AUM animal unit month 

AWEA American Wind Energy Association 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

bgs below ground surface 

BHAD Black Hills Army Depot 

BHNF Black Hills National Forest 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAB Commission-approved background 

CCSDWPC Custer County, South Dakota, Weed and Pest Control 

CFR U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CESQC conditionally exempt small quantity generator 

CNWRA Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses 

CO carbon monoxide 

cpm counts per minute 

CPP central processing plant 

CWA Clean Water Act 

dBA decibels 

DM&E Dakota Minnesota and Eastern (Railroad) 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

Eco SSL ecological soil screening levels 

EFRC Energy Fuels Resources Corporation 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

E.O. Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute 
l 

FACU facultative upland 

FACW facultative wet 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FR Federal Register 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

GDP Groundwater Discharge Plan 

GEIS generic environmental impact statement 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS global positioning system 

HABS Historic American Buildings Survey 

HDPE high-density polyethylene 

ID well identification 

IML Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc. 

IQR interquartile range 

ISL in-situ leach 

ISR in-situ recovery 

IX ion exchange 

KLJ Kadramas, Lee, & Jackson 

LA Land Application 

LOS Line-of-Sight Analysis 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MILDOS computer code 

MIT mechanical integrity test 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MW megawatts 

mya million years ago 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NAU Rapid City Campus of the National American University 

NCRP National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAPS National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

NOGCC Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPDES national pollutant discharge elimination system 
li 

NPWRC Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

OBL obligate 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OTGR Office of Tribal Government Relations 

OW Open Water 

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PABJh Palustrine Aquatic Bed Intermittently Flooded Diked 

PEM Palustrine Emergent 

PEMC Seasonally Flooded 

POP Perimeter of Operational Pollution 

Powertech Powertech (USA) Inc. 

PRB Powder River Basin 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PUB Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 

PUS Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore 

PUSA Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Temporarily Flooded 

R2EM Riverine Lower Perennial Emergent 

R4SB7 Riverine Intermittent Streambed Vegetated 

R4US Riverine Intermittent Unconsolidated Streambed 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RMP resource management plan 

RO reverse osmosis 

ROI region of influence 

ROW right of way 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SDCL South Dakota Codified Law 

SDDA South Dakota Department of Agriculture 

SDDENR South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

SDDLR South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation 

SDDOE South Dakota Department of Education 

SDDOH South Dakota Department of Health 

SDDOL South Dakota Department of Labor 

SDDOT South Dakota Department of Transportation 

SDDRR South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation 

SDGFP South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 

SDGS South Dakota Geological Survey 

SDNHP South Dakota Natural Heritage Program 

SDRMP South Dakota Resource Management Plan 

SD SHPO South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office 

SDSMT South Dakota School of Mines and Technology 

SDSU South Dakota State University 
lii 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEA U.S. Department of Transportation Section of Environmental Analysis 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SER safety evaluation report 

SERP safety and environmental review panel 

SF satellite facility 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level 

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOW statement of work 

SPAW soil-plant-atmosphere-water 

SQR scenic quality rating 

SRI SRI Foundation 

STB Surface Transportation Board 

SUNSI sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information 

SWMP stormwater pollution management plan 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

UCL upper control limit 

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

UIC underground injection control 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

UPL upland 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USDW underground source of drinking water 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UXC The Ux Consulting Company 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WDAI Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WDTI Western Dakota Technical Institute 

WDWS Wyoming Department of Workforce Services 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WIA walk-in hunting area 
liii 

WIC Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 

WUS waters of the United States 

WYOGCC Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

WY SHPO Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office 

lv 

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 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

as a cooperating agency prepared this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in 

response to an application Powertech (USA) Inc. (Powertech, or the applicant) submitted on 

August 10, 2009, to develop and operate the Dewey Burdock Uranium In-Situ Recovery (ISR) 

Project (herein referred to as the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project), located in Custer and Fall River 

Counties, South Dakota (Powertech, 2009a–c). Figure 1.1-1 shows the geographic location of 

the proposed project. This site-specific SEIS is a supplement to the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (herein referred to as the GEIS) 

prepared in accordance with the process described in GEIS Section 1.8 (NRC, 2009a) and as 

detailed in Section 1.4.1 of this chapter. The NRC’s Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs prepared this SEIS as required by Title 10, Energy, of 

the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 51. These regulations implement the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (Public 

Law 91-190), which requires the Federal Government to assess the potential environmental 

impacts of major federal actions that may significantly affect the human environment. 

BLM has requested to be and is acting as a cooperating agency with NRC to evaluate the 

impacts of the Plan of Operations for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project in accordance 

with the National Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies. BLM manages 

97 ha [240 ac] of land within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area. The applicant 

controls the locatable mineral rights on this land through Federal Lode Claims and secures 

access to mineral rights through the terms of the 1872 Mining Law. Under 43 CFR Part 3800, 

Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws, BLM is required to review the environmental 

impacts of federal actions on surface lands to assure that there is no “unnecessary or undue 

degradation of public lands.” To fulfill this requirement, the applicant submitted a Plan of 

Operations to BLM for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project on August 26, 2009. The Plan of 

Operations was modified and resubmitted to BLM on January 28, 2011. 

The GEIS (NRC, 2009a) used the terms “in-situ leach (ISL) process” and “11e.(2) byproduct 

material” to describe the uranium milling technology and waste stream generated by the 

uranium recovery process. For the purposes of this SEIS, “in-situ recovery” or ISR is 

synonymous with ISL. This SEIS also uses the term “byproduct material” instead of “11e.(2) 

byproduct material” to describe the waste stream generated by this milling process to be 

consistent with the definition in 10 CFR 40.4. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

On August 10, 2009, the applicant initiated the proposed action by submitting an application for 

an NRC source material license to construct and operate an ISR facility at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site and to conduct aquifer restoration, site decommissioning, and 

reclamation activities. Based on the application, the NRC’s federal decision is to either grant or 

deny the license. The applicant’s proposal is discussed in detail in SEIS Section 2.1.1. 

 
Introduction FINAL 

1-2 

Figure 1.1-1. Geographic Location of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project. Note That Uranium 

In-Situ Recovery Sites Depicted in This Figure (i.e., Dewey Terrace and North Trend) Are Potential Future Sites 

 Sources: Environmental Systems Research Institute (2008); Powertech (2009b)

 
FINAL Introduction 

1-3 

1.2.1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Proposed Action 

The BLM’s federal decision is to either approve the applicant’s Plan of Operations (submitted 

August 26, 2009, modified and resubmitted January 28, 2011) subject to mitigation included in the 

license application and this SEIS or deny approval of the Plan of Operations if it is found that the 

applicant’s proposal would result in unnecessary or undue degradation of the public lands. The 

total amount of BLM managed land expected to be disturbed by the applicant over the life of the 

proposed project is 4.7 ha [11.63 ac]. This disturbance includes an access road, overhead power 

lines, operational wellfields, groundwater monitoring wells, and underground pipeline installations. 

1.3 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 

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

Licensing of Source Material. The applicant is seeking an NRC source material license to 

authorize commercial-scale in-situ uranium recovery at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site. The purpose and need for the proposed federal action is to provide an option that 

allows the applicant to recover uranium and produce yellowcake at the proposed project site. 

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

various products including fuel for commercially operated nuclear power reactors. 

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

findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, or 

findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that would lead NRC to reject a license application, 

NRC has no role in a company’s business decision to submit a license application to operate an 

ISR facility at a particular location. 

1.3.1 U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s Purpose and Need 

The BLM purpose and need for the proposed action is to provide for orderly, efficient, and 

environmentally responsible mining of the uranium resource. The uranium resource is needed 

to fulfill market demands for this product for power generation and other needs. The proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area contains BLM-administered public lands open to mineral 

entry, and the applicant has filed mining claims on them. In addition, the applicant maintains 

the unpatented mining claims associated with 1,708 ha [4,220 ac] of federal minerals that the 

U.S. Government reserved under the Stock-Raising Homestead Act. The BLM federal decision 

is either to approve the revised applicant Plan of Operations subject to mitigation included in the 

license application and this SEIS, or deny approval of the Plan of Operations. BLM’s 

responsibility to respond to the applicant’s Plan of Operations establishes the need for the 

action. The mining claimant (Powertech) has the right to mine and develop the mining claims as 

long as it can be done without causing unnecessary or undue degradation and is in accordance 

with pertinent laws and regulations under 43 CFR Part 3800. 

1.4 Scope of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

NRC staff prepared this SEIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts (i.e., direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts) of the proposed action and of reasonable alternatives to the 

proposed action. The scope of this SEIS considers both radiological and nonradiological 

(including chemical) impacts associated with the proposed action and its alternatives. This 

SEIS also considers unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the relationship between 
Introduction FINAL 

1-4 

short-term uses of the environment and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments of resources. 

1.4.1 Relationship to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

As discussed in Section 1.1, this SEIS is a supplement to the GEIS published as a final report in 

May 2009. The final GEIS assessed the potential environmental impacts associated with the 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility that could 

be located in any of four specific geographic regions of the western United States. The 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming 

Uranium Milling Region, one of the regions considered in the GEIS. Table 1.4-1 summarizes 

the expected environmental impacts by resource area in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming 

Uranium Milling Region based on the GEIS analyses (NRC, 2009a). 

Table 1.4-1. In-Situ Leach Generic Environmental Impact Statement Range of Expected 

 Impacts in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

Resource Area Construction Operation 

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 to M S to M S to M S to M 

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 

Historical and 

Cultural Resources S to L S S S 

Visual and Scenic 

Resources S S S S 

Socioeconomics S to M S to M S S to M 

Public Health and 

Safety S S to M S S 

Waste Management S S S S 

Source: NRC (2009a) 

S: SMALL Impact, M: MODERATE Impact, L: LARGE Impact 
FINAL Introduction 

1-5 

Scoping provides an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to identify key issues and 

concerns they believe should be addressed in an EIS. The NRC staff consider the GEIS 

scoping process to be sufficient for the purposes of defining the scope of this SEIS. 

NRC accepted public comments on the scope of the GEIS from July 24, 2007 

to November 30, 2007, and held three public scoping meetings in Albuquerque and Gallup, 

New Mexico, and Casper, Wyoming to aid in this effort. In addition, NRC held eight public 

meetings to solicit comments on the draft GEIS, after its publication in July 2008. One public 

meeting was held in Spearfish, South Dakota, on August 25, 2008. Comments on the draft 

GEIS were accepted from July 28, 2008 until November 8, 2008. Public comments made 

during the scoping meetings and on the draft GEIS are available on the NRC website 

(http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/adams.html). Transcripts of the scoping meetings and draft 

GEIS comment meeting held in South Dakota are available on the NRC web site 

(http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uranium-recovery/geis/pub-involve-process.html). The scoping 

summary report was provided in GEIS Appendix A, and GEIS Appendix G provides responses 

to public comments (NRC, 2009a). 

This SEIS was prepared to fulfill the requirement in 10 CFR 51.20(b)(8) and 43 CFR 3809 to 

prepare either an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or supplement to an EIS for the 

issuance of a source material license for an ISR uranium recovery facility (NRC, 2009a) and for 

BLM’s approval of the applicant’s Plan of Operations. The GEIS provides a starting point for the 

NRC/BLM NEPA analyses for site-specific license applications for new ISR facilities, as well as 

applications to amend or renew existing ISR licenses. As discussed in the GEIS, the GEIS 

provides criteria for each environmental resource area to assess the significance level of 

impacts (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE). 

NRC staff applied these criteria to the site-specific conditions at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project. This SEIS tiers from or incorporates by reference the relevant GEIS information, 

findings, and conclusions concerning environmental impacts. The extent to which NRC 

incorporates GEIS impact conclusions depends on the consistency between (i) the applicant’s 

proposed facility, activities, and conditions at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and 

(ii) the general ISR facility description and activities in the GEIS and information or conclusions 

in the GEIS. NRC determinations of potential environmental impacts and the discussion of 

which GEIS impact conclusions were incorporated by reference are discussed in SEIS 

Chapter 4. GEIS Section 1.8.3 describes the use of tiering and incorporation by reference in 

using the GEIS for environmental reviews of site-specific ISR license applications 

(NRC, 2009a). 

1.4.2 Public Participation Activities 

As part of the preparation of this SEIS, NRC staff met with federal, state, tribal, and local 

agencies and authorities over the course of an expanded visit to the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project site and vicinity in November and December 2009 (NRC, 2009b). Attempts to 

arrange for an initial briefing meeting with the Oglala Sioux Tribe were unsuccessful at that time. 

The purpose of these meetings was to gather additional site-specific information to support the 

NRC staff’s environmental review and to help the staff determine consistency between 

site-specific and local information and corresponding information in the GEIS. As part of 

information gathering, the NRC staff also contacted potentially interested Native American tribes 

and local authorities, entities, and public interest groups in person, by email, and by telephone. 

Additionally, in January and February 2010, the NRC staff published an advertisement in six 

newspapers circulated near the proposed project area (Rapid City Journal, Edgemont Herald 
Introduction FINAL 

1-6 

Tribune, Custer Chronicle, Hot Springs Star, Lakota Country Times, and the Native Sun) 

soliciting public comments on the proposed action; five comments were received from this effort. 

NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project license 

application in the Federal Register (FR) on January 5, 2010 (75 FR 467). Hearing requests 

from Consolidated Petitioners and the Oglala Sioux Tribe were received on March 8, 2010, and 

April 6, 2010, respectively (Consolidated Petitioners, 2010; Oglala Sioux Tribe, 2010). NRC 

also published a Notice of Intent to prepare this SEIS on January 20, 2010 (75 FR 3261). 

Another part of public participation activities for development of this SEIS includes the public 

scoping meetings and written public comments accepted during development of the GEIS. As 

described in SEIS Section 1.4.1, NRC accepted public comments on the scope of the GEIS 

from July 24, 2007 to November 30, 2007, and held three public scoping meetings in 

Albuquerque and Gallup, New Mexico, and Casper, Wyoming. In addition, NRC held eight 

public meetings to solicit comments on the draft GEIS, after its publication in July 2008. Written 

comments on the draft GEIS were accepted from July 28, 2008 until November 8, 2008. 

On November 26, 2012, NRC published a Notice of Availability for the draft SEIS for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project in the FR (77 FR 70486). The Notice of Availability 

stated that public comments were to be submitted by January 10, 2013. Members of the public 

were invited and encouraged to submit comments electronically, by mail, or by facsimile. The 

notice for the draft SEIS also stated that comments received after the January 10, 2013, would 

be considered if it was practical to do so. NRC accepted all comments on the draft SEIS 

received on or before March 5, 2013 (99-day comment period). The period for public comments 

(i.e., from November 25, 2012, to March 5, 2013) exceeded the minimum 45-day comment 

period required under NRC regulations. 

The NRC staff identified 820 comments on the Dewey-Burdock draft SEIS from 349 individuals 

and 31 agencies and organizations. Appendix E details how NRC staff systematically identified 

and responded to each comment. A response is provided in Appendix E for each comment or 

group of comments identified and indicates whether the SEIS was modified in response to 

the comment. 

1.4.3 Issues Studied in Detail 

To meet its NEPA obligations related to its review of the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project license 

application, the NRC staff conducted an independent, detailed, and comprehensive evaluation 

of the potential environmental impacts from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning of an ISR facility at the proposed site and from reasonable alternatives. As 

discussed in GEIS Section 1.8.3, the GEIS (i) evaluated the types of environmental impacts that 

may occur from ISR uranium milling facilities, (ii) identified and assessed generic impacts (the 

same or similar) at all ISR facilities (or those with specified facility or site characteristics), and 

(iii) identified the scope of environmental impacts that needed to be addressed in site-specific 

environmental reviews. Therefore, although all of the environmental resource areas identified in 

the GEIS would be addressed in site-specific reviews, certain resource areas would require a 

more detailed analysis, because the GEIS determined a range in the significance of impacts 

(e.g., SMALL to MODERATE, SMALL to LARGE) could result, depending upon site-specific 

conditions (see Table 1.4-1). 
FINAL Introduction 

1-7 

Based on the GEIS analysis, this SEIS provides a more detailed analysis of the following 

resource areas: 

• Land use 

• Transportation 

• Surface water and wetlands 

• Groundwater 

• Geology and soils 

• Terrestrial ecology 

• Threatened and endangered species 

• Noise 

• Visual and scenic resources 

• Historical and cultural resources 

• Socioeconomics 

• Public health and safety 

• Waste management 

In addition, site-specific analyses of cumulative impacts and environmental justice concerns that 

were not part of the GEIS are presented in this SEIS. NRC also considers the effects 

the proposed action could have on global climate; the analysis estimates the potential effect of 

the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions based on a 10-year licensing period. 

1.4.4 Issues Outside the Scope of the Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Some issues and concerns raised during the public scoping process on the GEIS (NRC, 2009a, 

Appendix A) were determined to be outside the scope of the GEIS. These issues and concerns 

(e.g., general support or opposition for uranium milling, impacts associated with conventional 

uranium milling, comments regarding the alternative sources of uranium feed material, 

comments regarding energy sources, requests for compensation for past mining impacts, and 

comments regarding the credibility of NRC) are also outside the scope of this SEIS. 

1.4.5 Related National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Reviews and 

Other Related Documents 

A number of NEPA documents (environmental assessments) and EISs and other documents 

were reviewed and used in the development of this SEIS. The related NEPA reviews are 

described next. 

NUREG–1910, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities, Final Report (NRC, 2009a). As previously discussed, this GEIS was prepared to 

assess the potential environmental impacts from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, 

and decommissioning of an ISR facility located in any of four different geographic regions of the 

western United States, including the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

where the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project would be located. The environmental analysis 

in this SEIS both tiers and incorporates by reference from the GEIS. [Agencywide Documents 

Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. Volume 1, ML091480244; 

Volume II, ML091480188] 
Introduction FINAL 

1-8 

NUREG–0706, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

(NRC, 1980). This EIS provided a detailed evaluation of the impacts and effects of 

anticipated conventional uranium milling operations in the United States through the year 2000, 

including analysis of tailings disposal programs. NUREG–0706 concluded the environmental 

impacts of underground mining and conventional milling would be more severe than using 

ISR technology. As described in SEIS Section 2.2.1, conventional mining and milling were 

considered, but eliminated from the detailed analysis at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project. (ADAMS Accession No. Volume I, ML032751663; Volume II, ML032751667; 

Volume III, ML032751669)

NUREG–1508, Final Environmental Impact Statement to Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico (NRC, 1997). 

This EIS evaluated the use of ISR technology at the Church Rock and Crownpoint sites at 

Crownpoint, New Mexico. Alternative uranium mining methods were not evaluated, because 

the uranium ore located at the proposed sites was too deep to be extracted economically and 

the final EIS concluded underground mining would have more significant environmental impacts 

than ISR recovery. (ADAMS Accession No. ML082170248)

Environmental Impact Statement for the Moore Ranch In-Situ Recovery Project in 

Campbell County, Wyoming, Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 1), 

Final Report (NRC, 2010a). NRC prepared this EIS as a supplement to the GEIS based on its 

review of an application from Energy Metals Corporation (now Uranium One) for a source 

material license for the proposed Moore Ranch ISR Project, which is located in Campbell 

County, Wyoming. The proposed Moore Ranch ISR project would encompass 2,877 ha [7,110 

ac] of privately owned and State of Wyoming lands. However, Uranium One estimates that only 

61 ha [150 ac] would be disturbed as a result of the project. (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML102290470) 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Dewey Conveyor Project (BLM, 2009). 

BLM, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), prepared this draft EIS to evaluate 

the environmental impacts of the proposed Dewey Conveyor Project. GCC Dacotah Inc. 

proposed the Dewey Conveyor Project as a means to transport limestone along a 10.6-km 

[6.6-mi] conveyor from a future quarry location in Custer County, South Dakota, to a rail 

load-out facility near Dewey, South Dakota. The proposed route of the conveyor crosses 

BLM-administered public lands and USFS-administered National Forest System lands north of 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. (ADAMS Accession No. ML12209A089)

South Dakota Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(BLM, 1985). BLM prepared the South Dakota Resource Management Plan (SDRMP) to 

address future management options for 113,584 ha [280,672 ac] of public land surface and 

2,142,455 ha [5,294,122 ac] of federal mineral estate BLM administers through its South Dakota 

Resource Area Office in Belle Fourche, South Dakota. The SDRMP focuses on alternative 

approaches to management of vegetation apportionment and land actions. The plan 

includes resource management options for lands within and in the vicinity of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area in Fall River and Custer Counties. The proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is in conformance with the SDRMP as discussed on pages 14 

and 44–47 of the SDRMP (ADAMS Accession No. ML12209A099)

Newcastle Resource Management Plan (BLM, 2000). BLM prepared this resource 

management plan to provide management direction for approximately 118,236 ha [292,168 ac] 

of BLM-administered public land surface and 687,507 ha [1,698,866 ac] of federal mineral 
FINAL Introduction 

1-9 

estate the Newcastle Field Office administers in Crook, Niobrara, and Weston Counties in 

northeast Wyoming. The plan includes resource management objectives and management 

actions for lands adjacent to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project in Niobrara and 

Weston Counties. (ADAMS Accession No. ML12209A101) 

Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Public Lands Administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office 

(BLM, 2008). BLM prepared this resource management plan to direct the management of 

1.4 million ha [3.5 million ac] of BLM-administered public surface land and 1.8 million ha 

[4.5 million ac] of BLM-administered federal mineral estate in Albany, Carbon, Laramie, and 

Sweetwater Counties in southwestern Wyoming. The plan established guidance, objectives, 

policies, and management actions for public lands the Rawlins Field Office administers. 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12209A103)

Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, 1997). USFS 

prepared this plan to provide guidance for all resource management activities in the Black Hills 

National Forest. The plan (i) establishes goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for 

resource management and (ii) describes resource management practices, levels of resource 

production, people-carrying capacities, and the availability and suitability of lands for 

resource management. (ADAMS Accession No. ML12209A110)

Black Hills National Forest, Phase I Amendment: 1997 Land and Resource Management 

Plan Environmental Assessment (USFS, 2001). USFS prepared a Phase I Amendment to 

the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to address short-term 

concerns with sensitive species that occur or potentially occur in the Black Hills. (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML12209A113) 

Black Hills National Forest, Phase II Amendment: 1997 Land and Resource Management 

Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (USFS, 2005). USFS prepared a Phase II 

Amendment to the Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to address 

long-term concerns with sensitive species that occur or potentially occur in the Black Hills. The 

Phase II Amendment includes provisions to conserve species and protect communities, 

property, and other forest values by reducing fire and insect hazards. (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML12209A121) 

Updated Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nebraska National Forest (USFS, 

2009). USFS prepared this revised management plan to provide guidance for all resource 

management activities in the Nebraska National Forest. The plan describes management 

standards and guidelines, resource management practices, levels of resource production, 

people-carrying capacities, and the availability and suitability of lands for resource 

management. The Nebraska National Forest encompasses the Buffalo Gap National Grassland 

of southwestern South Dakota, which is located south of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project area. (ADAMS Accession No. ML12209A127)

NRC’s Safety Evaluation Report for the Dewey-Burdock Project, Fall River and Custer 

Counties, South Dakota. The NRC staff prepared a safety evaluation report for the 

Dewey-Burdock license application. In the SER, the NRC staff evaluated whether the 

licensee’s proposed action can be accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations 

in 10 CFR Part 20; 10 CFR Part 40; and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. Areas of review included 

the applicant’s proposed facility design and operations, health and environmental protection, 

and accident analyses. The SER also provides the staff’s analysis of the applicant’s initial 
Introduction FINAL 

1-10 

estimate of the funding needed to complete site decommissioning and reclamation. (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13052A182) 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project in Campbell and 

Johnson Counties, Wyoming, Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 2), 

Final Report (NRC, 2011a). NRC prepared this EIS as a supplement to the GEIS based on its 

review of an application from Uranerz Energy Corporation for a source material license for the 

proposed Nichols Ranch ISR Project, which is located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, 

Wyoming. The proposed Nichols Ranch ISR project would encompass approximately 1,251 ha 

[3,091 ac] of privately owned land and approximately 113 ha [280 ac] of BLM-managed land. 

The proposed project would consist of two noncontiguous mining units: the Nichols Ranch Unit 

would contain the central processing plant, and the Hank Unit would contain a satellite 

ion-exchange facility. (ADAMS Accession No. ML103440120)

Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost Creek ISR Project in Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming, Supplement to the GEIS (NUREG–1910, Supplement 3), Final Report (NRC, 

2011b). NRC prepared this EIS as a supplement to the GEIS based on its review of an 

application from Lost Creek ISR, LLC for a source material license for the proposed Lost Creek 

ISR Project located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The proposed project site covers 

approximately 1,708 ha [4,220 ac] with approximately 1,450 ha [3,583 ac] of federal owned, 

BLM-managed land and 259 ha [640 ac] of land owned by the State of Wyoming, Office of State 

Lands and Investment. Planned facilities associated with the project include a well field with 

injection, production, and monitor wells; header houses; a central processing plant; an access 

road network; and pipeline system. (ADAMS Accession No. ML11125A006)

1.5 Applicable Regulatory Requirements 

NEPA establishes national environmental policy and goals to protect, maintain, and enhance 

the environment. NEPA provides a process for implementing these specific goals for those 

federal agencies responsible for an action. This SEIS was prepared in accordance with NEPA 

requirements, NRC-implementing regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, and other regulations that 

were in effect at the time of writing. GEIS Appendix B summarizes other federal statutes, 

implementing regulations, and Executive Orders that are potentially applicable to environmental 

reviews for the construction, operation, decommissioning, and groundwater restoration of an 

ISR facility. 

GEIS Sections 1.6.3.3 and 1.7.5.3 summarize the State of South Dakota’s statutory authority 

pursuant to the ISR process, relevant state agencies that are involved in the permitting of an 

ISR facility, and the range of state permits that would be required (NRC, 2009a). These 

agencies and their permitting authority are as follows: 

• Under the South Dakota Mined Land Reclamation Act (South Dakota Codified Law 

Chapter 45-6B), the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment is charged with 

issuing state permits and developing licensing requirements for ISR facilities. 

• The South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (SDDENR) is in 

charge of issuing the air quality permit through the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards program as well as issuing a surface water discharge permit through the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and a groundwater 

discharge plan for land application of treated wastewater. In addition, SDDENR is in 
FINAL Introduction 

1-11 

charge of issuing a large scale mine permit and water rights permits needed to operate 

ISR projects in South Dakota. 

• The South Dakota State Historical Society, within the Department of Tourism and State 

Development, is in charge of administering the South Dakota State Historic Preservation 

Office (SD SHPO), which coordinates, plans, and manages historic preservation 

programs across the state. 

1.6 Licensing and Permitting 

NRC has statutory authority through the AEA and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act to 

regulate uranium ISR facilities. In addition to obtaining an NRC license, uranium ISR facilities 

must obtain the necessary permits from the appropriate federal, state, tribal, and local 

governmental agencies. The NRC licensing process for ISR facilities was described in GEIS 

Section 1.7.1. GEIS Sections 1.7.2 through 1.7.5 describe the role of the other federal, state, 

and tribal agencies in the ISR permitting process. 

This section of the SEIS summarizes the status of the NRC licensing process at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site and the status of the applicant permitting with respect to other 

applicable federal, tribal, and state requirements. Section 1.6.1 describes the NRC licensing 

process and Section 1.6.2 describes the status of other required permits. 

1.6.1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Process 

By letter dated August 10, 2009, the applicant submitted a license application to NRC for the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2009a). As discussed in GEIS Section 1.7.1, NRC 

initially conducts an acceptance review of a license application to determine whether the 

application is complete enough to support a detailed technical review. The NRC staff accepted 

the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project license application for detailed technical review by letter dated 

October 2, 2009 (NRC, 2009c). 

The NRC’s detailed technical review of the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project license application 

includes both a safety review and an environmental review. These two reviews are conducted 

in parallel (see GEIS Figure 1.7-1). The safety review focuses on assessing compliance with 

the applicable regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. 

The environmental review is conducted in accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. 

The NRC hearing process (10 CFR Part 2) applies to licensing actions and offers stakeholders 

a separate opportunity to raise concerns associated with the proposed action. In accordance 

with the regulation, NRC published a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on the Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project license application in the FR on January 5, 2010 (see 75 FR 467). NRC received a 

request for hearing from Consolidated Petitioners (Theodore P. Ebert, David Frankel, 

Gary Heckenlaible, Susan Henderson, Dayton Hyde, Lilias C. Jones Jarding, Clean Water 

Alliance, and Aligning for Responsible Mining) on March 8, 2010 (Consolidated Petitioners, 

2010). Additionally, the Oglala Sioux Tribe filed a petition to intervene on April 6, 2010 

(Oglala Sioux Tribe, 2010). 

Regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 specify that a petition for review and request for hearing must 

include a showing that the petitioner has standing and that the Atomic Safety and Licensing 

Board Panel (ASLBP) would rule on a petitioner’s standing by considering (i) the nature of the 

petitioner’s right under the AEA or NEPA to be made a party to the proceeding, (ii) the nature 
Introduction FINAL 

1-12 

and extent of the petitioner’s property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding, and (iii) the 

possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the petitioner’s 

interest. All of the individual Consolidated Petitioners based their claim of standing on the 

possibility that contamination from the applicant’s proposed ISR operation would contaminate 

the aquifer or surface water from which Consolidated Petitioners obtain their water 

(Consolidated Petitioners, 2010). The Oglala Sioux Tribe’s central standing claim is interest in 

protecting cultural and historical resources that have been or might be found in the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site, which the Oglala Sioux Tribe claims is within the aboriginal 

territory of the Oglala Sioux Tribe under the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty (Oglala Sioux Tribe, 

2010). In addition, the Oglala Sioux Tribe bases its claim of standing on possible groundwater 

contamination from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Oglala Sioux Tribe, 2010). 

On August 5, 2010, ASLBP ruled that three individuals (Susan Henderson, Dayton Hyde, and 

David Frankel) and the two organizations (Clean Water Alliance and Aligning for Responsible 

Mining) among the Consolidated Petitioners demonstrated standing to be parties to the 

licensing proceeding, and one of their contentions as pled and three of their contentions as 

modified by ASLBP were admissible (ASLBP, 2010). Three other members of the Consolidated 

Petitioners (Gary Heckenlaible, Lilias C. Jones Jarding, and Theodore P. Ebert) did not 

demonstrate standing and were not admitted as parties to the licensing proceeding (ASLBP, 

2010). ASLBP also found that the Oglala Sioux Tribe demonstrated standing to be admitted as 

a party to the licensing proceeding and three of their contentions as pled and one as modified 

by ASLBP were admissible (ASLBP, 2010). 

1.6.2 Status of Permitting With Other Federal and State Agencies 

In addition to obtaining a source material license from NRC prior to conducting ISR operations 

at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the applicant is required to obtain necessary permits and 

approvals from other federal and state agencies to address (i) the underground injection of 

solutions and liquid effluent from the ISR process, (ii) the exemption of all or a portion of the ore 

zone aquifer from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and (iii) the discharge of 

stormwater during construction and operation of the ISR facility. Table 1.6-1 lists the status of 

the required permits and approvals. 

Table 1.6-1. Environmental Approvals for the Dewey-Burdock Project 

Issuing Agency Description Status 

South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural 

Resources (SDDENR) 

Joe Foss Building 

523 East Capitol 

Pierre, SD 57501 

Uranium Exploration Permit Application submitted 

July 2008; approved by 

South Dakota Board of 

Minerals and Environment 

November 2008. 

Scenic and Unique Lands 

Designation 

Submitted August 2008; 

SDDENR determined lands 

described by applicant do not 

constitute special, 

exceptional, critical, and 

unique; February 2009. 

Large-Scale Mine Permit Application submitted 

September 2012; deemed 

procedurally complete 

January 2013; recommended 
FINAL Introduction 

1-13 

Table 1.6-1. Environmental Approvals for the Dewey-Burdock Project (Cont'd)

Issuing Agency Description Status 

for approval April 2013; 

hearing conducted 

September 2013; further 

hearing postponed until NRC 

and the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency have ruled 

and set the federal surety, and 

the state Water Management 

Board has decided the water 

rights. 

Water Appropriation Permits 

• Madison 

• Inyan Kara 

Applications submitted 

June 2012; recommended for 

approval November 2012; 

hearing conducted OctoberNovember 2013; further 

hearing scheduled December 

2013. 

Underground Injection 

Control Class III Permit 

Application submitted 

April 2009 and deemed 

incomplete; revised 

application submitted 

February 2010 and deemed 

incomplete. Rules tolled by 

Senate Bill 158, March 2011. 

Air Quality Permit 

Application submitted 

November 2012; SDDENR 

determined that an operating 

air permit will not be required, 

February 2013. 

Groundwater Discharge Plan Application submitted March 

2012; recommended for 

approval December 2012; 

hearing conducted 

October–November 2013; 

further hearing scheduled 

December 2013. 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Water 

Discharge Permit 

Application not yet submitted. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 

Washington, DC 20555 

Source Material License 

(10 CFR Part 40) 

Submitted August 10, 2009. 

Deemed complete 

October 2009. 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Aquifer Exemption 

(40 CFR Parts 144 and 146) 

and Underground Injection 

Control Class III Permit 

Application submitted 

December 2008; revised 

application submitted 

August 2012 and under 

review. 
Introduction FINAL 

1-14 

Table 1.6-1. Environmental Approvals for the Dewey-Burdock Project (Cont'd)

Issuing Agency Description Status 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 Underground Injection 

Control Class V Permit 

Application submitted 

March 2010 and under review.

Custer County 

420 Mount Rushmore Road 

Custer, SD 57730-1309 

Building Permits Applications not yet 

submitted. 

Fall River County 

County Courthouse 

Hot Springs, SD 57730-1309 

Building Permits Not required. 

U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management 

South Dakota Field Office 

Plan of Operations Application submitted 

August 2009; revised 

document submitted 

January 2011 and under 

review. 

Source: Powertech (2010); Revised November 2013. 

1.7 Consultation 

Federal agencies are required to comply with consultation requirements in Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, and Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended. The GEIS took a programmatic look at the 

environmental impacts of ISR uranium milling within four distinct geographic regions and 

acknowledged that each site-specific review would include its own consultation process with 

relevant agencies. Section 7 (ESA) and Section 106 (NHPA) consultations conducted for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are summarized in Sections 1.7.1 and 1.7.2. Copies of 

the consultation correspondence are provided in SEIS Appendix A. Section 1.7.3 describes 

NRC coordination with other federal, tribal, state, and local agencies conducted during the 

development of the SEIS. 

Executive Order 13175 (November 27 2000), “Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments,” reaffirmed the federal government’s commitment to a 

government-to-government relationship with Native American tribes, and directed federal 

agencies to establish procedures to consult and collaborate with tribal governments when new 

agency regulations would have tribal implications. The Order excludes “independent regulatory 

agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C §3502(5)” from the requirements of the Order. However, 

according to Section 8, “Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the 

provisions of this order.” Although the NRC, as an independent regulatory agency, is 

explicitly exempt from the Order, the Commission remains committed to its spirit. The agency 

has demonstrated a commitment to achieving the Order’s objectives by implementing a 

case-by-case approach to interactions with Native American tribes. NRC’s case-by-case 

approach allows both NRC and Native American tribes to initiate outreach and communication 

with one another. 

1.7.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 Consultation 

The ESA was enacted to prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and 

to restore those species and their critical habitats. ESA Section 7 recommends consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that actions it authorizes, permits, or 
FINAL Introduction 

1-15 

otherwise carries out will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or 

adversely modify designated critical habitats. 

By letter dated March 15, 2010, NRC staff initiated consultation with FWS, requesting 

information on endangered or threatened species and critical habitat in the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area (NRC, 2010b). NRC received a response from the FWS 

South Dakota Field Office, dated March 29, 2010, that (i) listed the threatened and endangered 

species that may occur in the project area and (ii) provided maps showing the location of 

wetlands within the two proposed initial mine units at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

(FWS, 2010). 

In accordance with ESA Section 7, FWS determined that the whooping crane (Grus americana) 

and black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) are federally listed species that may occur within 

Custer County. The whooping crane generally migrates through the eastern portion of 

Custer County, and the black-footed ferret is currently only found in the Wind Cave National 

Park. FWS had no information to indicate that these species are located within the project 

boundaries. No federally listed endangered species occur in Fall River County; however, the 

greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a candidate species that historically 

occurred in this area and has a potential to be present within the proposed area of review of the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. At the present time, candidate species have no legal protection 

under ESA. By emails dated August 27, 2012 and September 9, 2013, the FWS South Dakota 

Field Office confirmed that there are no additional updates or changes to these federally listed 

species in the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area (FWS, 2012; FWS, 2013). As 

discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.4, the FWS determined that no additional consultation 

under Section 7 is required (FWS, 2013). 

In accordance with NEPA regulations and other environmental laws and rules [e.g., Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act and Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)], FWS 

encouraged the following when reviewing potential impacts to wetlands at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project: (i) avoidance of wetlands, if possible; (ii) minimization of impacts 

to wetlands if they cannot be avoided; and (iii) replacement of wetland values that may be 

impacted by the project (FWS, 2010). 

1.7.2 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation 

In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.1(a), Section 106 of NHPA requires that federal agencies 

take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The 

Section 106 process seeks the views of consulting parties including the federal agency, the 

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), local government leaders, the applicant, 

cooperating agencies, and the public. The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties 

potentially affected by the undertaking, assess the effects of the undertaking on these 

properties, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic 

properties. As detailed in 36 CFR Part 800.2(c)(1)(i), the role of the South Dakota State Historic 

Preservation Office (SD SHPO) in the Section 106 process is to advise and assist federal 

agencies in carrying out their Section 106 responsibilities. As part of the Section 

106 consultation process for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, NRC continues 

consultation with potentially affected Native American tribes and consulting parties. These 

interactions are detailed in SEIS Section 1.7.3.5. 
Introduction FINAL 

1-16 

NRC staff met with members of the SD SHPO office on December 2, 2009, to discuss 

site-specific issues, including the SD SHPO review process, cumulative impacts to historic sites, 

and best management practices (NRC, 2009b). NRC and SD SHPO staff also discussed the 

possibility of entering into a programmatic agreement or memorandum of agreement, pursuant 

to Section 106, with all consulting parties to set forth procedures and mitigation measures to 

preserve existing historic and cultural resources at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

site. The NRC staff continue to consult with the SD SHPO to evaluate the effects of the 

proposed project on historic and cultural resources. 

1.7.3 Coordination with Other Federal, Tribal, State, and Local Agencies 

The NRC staff interacted with multiple federal, tribal, state, and local agencies and/or 

entities during preparation of this SEIS to gather information on potential issues, concerns, 

and environmental impacts related to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The 

consultation and coordination process included, but was not limited to, discussions with 

BLM; tribal governments (see SEIS Section 1.7.3.5); SDDENR; South Dakota Game, Fish, and 

Parks (SDGFP); and local organizations (e.g., Custer County, Town of Edgemont). 

1.7.3.1 Coordination With the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BLM is serving as a cooperating agency in the NEPA assessment and licensing process for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project because BLM has jurisdiction over the locatable mineral 

rights on federal land that the applicant holds within the proposed project area. As discussed in 

Section 1.3, the BLM’s responsibility for the proposed action is to fulfill its statutory 

responsibilities to regulate mining on federal lands as described in 43 CFR Part 3809. 

BLM is responsible for administering the National System of Public Lands and the federal 

minerals underlying these lands. BLM is also responsible for managing split estate situations 

where federal minerals underlie a surface that is privately held or owned by state or local 

government. In situations where BLM administers the surface rights, operators of mining claims 

including ISR uranium facilities, must submit a Plan of Operations and obtain BLM approval 

before beginning operations beyond those for casual use. BLM also reviews and approves 

Plans of Operations on split estate lands patented under the Stock-Raising Homestead Act but 

only where the surface owners and the claimant cannot come to terms on access or surface 

damages. In this case there are no surface owner/mining claimant conflicts and as a result the 

proposed development activity on the split estate lands is not subject to BLM approval. The 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site contains approximately 97 ha [240 ac] of 

BLM-administered surface lands. 

The U.S. government reserved 1,708 ha [4,220 ac] of mineral estate under the Stock-Raising 

Homestead Act, when the surface was originally patented. The applicant maintains the 

unpatented mining claims associated with the 1,708 ha [4,220 ac] of federal minerals. 

In addition, the applicant maintains unpatented mining claims on the 97 ha [240 ac] of 

BLM-administered surface lands. The statutory responsibilities pertaining to mining claims 

under the General Mining Laws are described in 43 CFR Part 3800. 

NRC has coordinated with BLM during preparation of this SEIS. Numerous conference calls 

and meetings have been held, and a Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and BLM 

was negotiated. 
FINAL Introduction 

1-17 

The NRC staff met with the staff of South Dakota BLM field office on December 1, 2009. BLM 

staff indicated that the applicant’s Plan of Operations for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project had been received, but review had not been initiated at the time of the meeting. BLM 

staff noted that an ethnographic study was conducted prior to preparation of the draft EIS for the 

GCC Dacotah Inc. Dewey Conveyor Project to assess the traditional use of the area by tribes in 

North Dakota and South Dakota (BLM, 2009; Sprague, 2008). The proposed route of the 

conveyor project crosses BLM-administered public lands and USFS-administered National 

Forest System lands north of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Most of the tribal 

members interviewed knew their people had regular ceremonial, cultural, and religious activity in 

the Black Hills prior to the establishment of reservations; however, no one could pinpoint 

present cultural, ceremonial, or religious use in the proposed area (Sprague, 2008, p. 14). 

During the meeting, BLM provided NRC staff with guidance documents and with information on 

oil and gas leases in the proposed project area. Additionally, BLM staff expressed concerns 

related to water quality and hydrology, land use, and cumulative effects. 

1.7.3.2 Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

NRC staff met with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) staff on December 2, 2009, in 

Pierre, South Dakota, to discuss wetlands and surface water bodies within and in the vicinity of 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. USACE regulates, monitors, and oversees 

“jurisdictional waters of the United States,” which are subject to the Clean Water Act. USACE 

requires issuance of a Section 404 Permit prior to discharge of dredge or fill material into waters 

determined to be jurisdictional waters of the United States. In August 2008, the applicant 

requested that USACE evaluate the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site to determine 

whether jurisdictional waters of the United States are present. By letter dated January 14, 2009, 

USACE documented the presence of 20 wetlands within the project area and determined that 

4 were jurisdictional waters; these are Beaver Creek, an unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek, 

Pass Creek, and an unnamed tributary to Pass Creek (Powertech, 2009b, Appendix 3.5–H). 

1.7.3.3 Coordination with the U.S. Forest Service 

NRC staff met with USFS staff on December 3, 2009, in Hot Springs, South Dakota. 

USFS manages wildlife habitat on and uses of USFS lands. USFS has no permitting 

authority for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project; however, it expressed concerns that 

construction and operational activities could impact the nearby Black Hills National Forest and 

Buffalo Gap National Grasslands. USFS staff noted a concern about the cumulative 

groundwater effects of the project on the USFS-managed J.H. Keith Cascade Springs 

recreation area where Cascade Springs is located. USFS also expressed concerns about 

potential effects the project could have on Craven Canyon, known to have traditional cultural 

significance to Native American tribes. 

1.7.3.4 Coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey 

NRC staff met with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) staff on December 1, 2009, in Rapid City, 

South Dakota, to discuss geological and hydrological aspects of the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project. USGS staff provided information on the regional hydrology of the Black Hills area, 

including major hydrostratigraphic units, regional hydrological gradients, and major sources of 

municipal drinking water in the region. With respect to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project, USGS staff expressed a concern that contaminated groundwater may travel from the 

project area and discharge into Beaver Creek within the proposed project area and the 

Cheyenne River south of the proposed project area. 
Introduction FINAL 

1-18 

1.7.3.5 Interactions With Tribal Governments 

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, NRC is required to conduct consultation with Native American 

tribes to determine whether a proposed federal action will affect historic properties. In 

conjunction with the tribal government consultation process, NRC staff met with Office of Tribal 

Government Relations (OTGR) staff on December 2, 2009, in Pierre, South Dakota, to discuss 

issues and concerns that tribal governments in South Dakota may have with the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. OTGR staff noted that tribal governments would be most 

interested in potential harm to the environment from the proposed project. OTGR staff 

suggested tribal organizations should have the opportunity to express their concerns with the 

proposed project and should be contacted prior to NRC outreach activities associated with 

the project. 

 

The SD SHPO identified 20 Native American tribes that might attach historic, cultural, and 

religious significance to historic properties within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

area. The NRC staff contacted the 20 tribal governments by letters dated March 19, 2010; 

September 10, 2010; and March 4, 2011 (NRC, 2010c, 2010d, and 2011c). The staff invited the 

tribes to participate as consulting parties in the NHPA Section 106 process and requested 

assistance in identifying tribal historic sites or cultural resources that may be affected by the 

proposed action. Specifically, NRC staff solicited information regarding properties of religious 

and cultural significance to tribes. The tribes contacted initially were: 

• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

• Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

• Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

• Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

• Oglala Sioux Tribe 

• Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

• Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 

• Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

• Yankton Sioux 

• Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidasta, and Arikara Nation)—North Dakota 

• Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa—North Dakota 

• Spirit Lake Tribe—North Dakota 

• Lower Sioux Indian Community—Minnesota 

• Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux—Montana 

• Northern Cheyenne Tribe—Montana 

• Northern Arapaho Tribe—Wyoming 

• Eastern Shoshone Tribe—Wyoming 

• Santee Sioux Tribe—Nebraska 

• Ponca Tribe—Nebraska 

• Crow Tribe—Montana 

The staff contacted the Cheyenne and Arapaho, Pawnee, and Omaha tribes in February 2013, 

after it was brought to the attention of the NRC that these tribes also had historical and cultural 

links to the proposed project area (Consolidated Intervenors, 2013). 

By letter dated April 7, 2010, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa–North Dakota responded to 

NRC and stated that the proposed project would not have an effect on historic properties of 

importance to the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. The THPO also stated that 
FINAL Introduction 

1-19 

“determination of No Historic Properties Affected is granted for the project to proceed” 

(Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 2010). 

NRC staff continued its efforts to engage in consultation with tribes that might be affected by the 

proposed action with follow-up telephone calls and by sending emails to further gather 

information related to identification efforts and coordinate meetings. 

On September 10, 2010, NRC staff sent another letter inviting the tribes to participate in 

consultation to help facilitate the identification of areas on the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

site that the tribes believe have traditional religious or cultural significance (NRC, 2010d). 

NRC staff also followed up with phone calls and emails to ensure tribal officials received 

this correspondence. 

 

By letter dated September 20, 2010, Mr. Perry “No Tears” Brady of the Three Affiliated Tribes 

(Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations–North Dakota) responded that the tribe had determined 

there would be no adverse effects on historic or cultural resources important to the Mandan, 

Hidasta, and Arikara Nations within the proposed project area (Three Affiliated Tribes, 2010). 

The Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 

Yankton Sioux Tribe, responded by letters dated November 2, 2010; November 7, 2010; 

November 15, 2010; and December 3, 2010, respectively, expressing interest in becoming 

consulting parties to the proposed project (Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, 2010; Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe, 2010; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, 2010; Yankton Sioux Tribe, 2010). The Sisseton 

Wahpeton Oyate and Rosebud Sioux THPOs recommended that NRC undertake group 

consulting, whereby a number of tribal representatives would participate in a meeting, possibly 

hosted by the Oglala Sioux Tribe. The Yankton Sioux Tribe THPO requested face-to-face 

consultation and expressed concerns regarding protection of traditional cultural properties 

(TCPs) within the project area. While the term TCP does not appear in the NHPA or its 

implementing regulations, the tribes apply this term to historic properties of religious and cultural 

significance to Indian tribes that may be affected by an undertaking. The NRC uses the term in 

this context. 

By letter dated January 31, 2011, the Oglala Sioux Tribe THPO accepted the invitation to 

participate as a consulting party and stated that the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project 

represents a substantial potential threat to the preservation of cultural and historic resources of 

the Oglala Sioux Tribe (Oglala Sioux Tribe, 2011). The THPO also stated that the proposed 

project site is located within an area of which Sioux Tribes, along with the Cheyenne, Arapahoe, 

Crow, and Arikara Tribes, possess intimate cultural knowledge (Oglala Sioux Tribe, 2011). The 

THPO stated that impacts resulting from the proposed project include not only site-specific 

physical impacts, but intangible impacts to the integrity of the area from cultural, historical, 

spiritual, and religious perspectives. The letter also requested NRC’s assistance in facilitating a 

site visit and regional meeting to provide all affected tribes an opportunity to review and identify 

the cultural and historic resources at stake. 

Mr. Hubert B. Two Leggins (Crow Tribal Cultural Resource Director/Renewable Resource 

Supervisor) of the Crow Tribe of Montana responded by email dated March 9, 2011, indicating 

that the Dewey-Burdock Project area has religious and cultural significance to the Crow Tribe 

(Crow Tribe, 2011). Mr. Two Leggins accepted the invitation for formal consultation and stated 

that the Crow Tribe wanted to be a consulting party. 
Introduction FINAL 

1-20 

By letter dated May 12, 2011, NRC staff invited THPOs and/or Cultural Resources Officers to an 

informal information gathering meeting on June 8, 2011, at the Prairie Winds Casino and Hotel 

on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota (NRC, 2011d). The purpose of the meeting was 

to help NRC identify tribal historic sites and cultural resources that may be affected by 

actions associated with the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and with the Crow Butte 

North Trend and Crow Butte license renewal ISR projects in Nebraska. Representatives of 

six tribes (Oglala Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Flandreau-Santee Sioux, Sisseton-Wahpeton 

Oyate, Cheyenne River Sioux, and Rosebud Sioux) attended. BLM and SD SHPO staff 

also attended. 

During the June 8th meeting, tribal officials expressed concerns about the identification and 

preservation of historic properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to tribes at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock and Crow Butte sites. Tribal officials stated that historic and cultural 

resource studies of the sites should be conducted with tribal involvement. The SD SHPO stated 

that Tribal representatives would need access to the Dewey-Burdock site to assist in 

identification of historic properties. A transcript of this meeting (NRC, 2011e) is available 

through the NRC Agencywide Documents Access and Management System database on the 

NRC website (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html). 

In conjunction with the June 8, 2011, information gathering meeting, the applicant hosted a visit 

to the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site on June 9, 2011. Tribal officials, NRC staff, and BLM, 

SD SHPO, and South Dakota Historical Society Archaeological Research Center (ARC) staff 

interacted with the applicant’s personnel and archaeologists from Archaeology Laboratory of 

Augustana College during the site visit. The Level III cultural resource evaluations at the site 

were conducted by the Archaeology Laboratory of Augustana College. The Level III cultural 

resource evaluations are described in SEIS Section 3.9.2. The Dewey-Burdock site visits 

included a presentation of the proposed project identifying the location of facilities and wellfields. 

Augustana College staff provided an overview of the results of archaeological and cultural 

evaluations. At the conclusion of the presentations, participants toured the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site stopping at several locations to view and investigate cultural 

and historic features identified during the Level III cultural resource evaluations, including stone 

circles and rock alignments. 

To facilitate the identification of possible historic properties of importance to Native 

American tribes within the area of potential effect (APE), the NRC began efforts to open the 

Dewey-Burdock site to tribal representatives for a survey. On August 12, 2011, NRC staff sent 

a letter requesting the applicant submit a written plan for acquiring information on historic 

properties within the APE (NRC, 2011f). 

On October 28, 2011, NRC staff sent a letter to the tribes stating that the staff had requested 

the applicant undertake studies and surveys to provide information on properties of traditional 

religious and cultural importance to tribes at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, as is 

permissible under 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4) (NRC, 2011g). The letter informed the tribes that the 

applicant had engaged the services of SRI Foundation (SRI) of Rio Rancho, New Mexico, to 

collect information concerning historic properties that may be located in the proposed project 

area. The letter also informed the tribes that NRC had authorized SRI, acting on behalf of the 

applicant, to contact tribes to obtain information. The letter stated further that NRC would 

remain legally responsible for all findings and determinations and for maintaining 

government-to-government relationships with the involved tribes. 
FINAL Introduction 

1-21 

By letter dated January 19, 2012, NRC staff invited the THPOs to a tribal consultation on 

February 14–15, 2012, at the Ramkota Best Western Hotel in Rapid City, South Dakota 

(NRC, 2012a). The purpose of the meeting was to hear the views of interested tribes about the 

general types and descriptions of historic properties of religious and cultural significance that 

may be affected by the proposed project and how these properties can be identified and 

evaluated as part of the ongoing consultations under Section 106 of NHPA. The meeting was 

attended by officials from 13 tribes (Cheyenne River Sioux, Crow Creek Sioux, Crow Tribe of 

Montana, Eastern Shoshone, Fort Peak Assiniboine Sioux, Northern Arapaho, Northern 

Cheyenne, Oglala Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, Yankton Sioux, Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, Santee 

Sioux Nation, and Standing Rock Sioux). In addition to applicant, SRI, and NRC staffs, BLM 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 staffs were also in attendance. 

During the February 14–15th meeting, the tribes provided the following information to NRC and 

BLM staffs: (i) the tribes expressed an interest in developing a confidentiality agreement before 

submitting any traditional cultural studies to NRC; (ii) tribal representatives stated that the 

purpose of any future meetings be made clearer to ensure that tribal participants have 

appropriate levels of decision-making authority; (iii) tribal representatives volunteered to develop 

project-specific statements of work (SOWs) to conduct traditional religious and cultural 

properties studies for the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project; and (iv) tribal representatives 

requested another meeting during March 14-15, 2012 to review draft SOWs the tribes and the 

applicants prepared for each of the three projects. 

Scheduling conflicts of many tribal representatives, led to the cancellation of the 

March 14–15, 2012 meeting. The NRC staff transmitted the applicant’s SOW for the 

Dewey-Burdock project to the THPOs for review and consideration by letter dated 

March 9, 2012 (NRC, 2012b). The NRC staff proposed to host a conference call to discuss 

the proposed SOW in April 2012. On April 5, 2012, NRC staff sent a letter inviting the tribes to 

participate in a teleconference on April 24, 2012, to discuss the applicant’s SOW to identify 

historic properties (NRC, 2012c). 

On April 24, 2012, the NRC staff held a teleconference with staff from Powertech, Cameco, 

SRI, SD SHPO, EPA Region 8, BLM, and the Northern Cheyenne, Oglala Sioux, 

Rosebud Sioux, Northern Arapaho, Sisseton-Wahpeton, Standing Rock Sioux, Yankton Sioux, 

and Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes. The consulting parties discussed the following aspects 

of the applicant’s SOW: (i) adequacy of compensation for tribal officials conducting the field 

work, (ii) confidentiality of information gathered by the tribes, (iii) amount of acreage to be 

covered during fieldwork, and (iv) tribal involvement in making eligibility determinations. 

A plan for accomplishing the tribal survey was discussed at the April 24, 2012, teleconference: 

(i) tribal representatives would continue to develop a draft tribal SOW; (ii) tribes would hold an 

intertribal teleconference to discuss a draft tribal SOW; (iii) tribes would provide a copy of a draft 

SOW to the NRC, once it was approved by all tribal officials; (iv) NRC would distribute a draft 

tribal SOW to consulting parties (applicant, BLM, EPA, SD SHPO); (v) NRC would arrange 

another meeting with consulting parties to finalize an SOW, agreeable to the parties, for the 

identification of potential historic properties; (vi) the applicant would schedule fieldwork for a 

historic property survey at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site; (vii) tribes would write preliminary 

and final reports for submission to the NRC to provide tribal views on effects of the undertaking 

on such properties; and (viii) NRC would assess effects on properties under NHPA and develop 

an impact determination pursuant to NEPA based on information provided by the tribes. The 

tribes also requested that two tribal representatives be provided access to conduct a 

reconnaissance visit to the Dewey-Burdock license area, for the purpose of securing information 
Introduction FINAL 

1-22 

that would enable the tribes to complete a detailed proposed SOW for the project area. The 

applicant agreed to the request, and the Dewey-Burdock Project tribal reconnaissance visit took 

place on Saturday, May 26, 2012. 

On June 19, 2012, the tribes provided NRC staff with a preliminary tribal SOW for identifying 

properties of religious and cultural significance at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. 

Subsequently, NRC staff held teleconferences on August 9, 2012, and August 21, 2012, to 

solicit additional details on the SOWs prepared by the applicant and tribes. Representatives of 

the tribes and staff from the NRC, Powertech, SRI, SD SHPO, EPA Region 8, and BLM 

attended these teleconferences. Discussions centered on (i) defining the areas of potential 

effects (direct and indirect) that would be included in the proposed surveys, (ii) the need to 

provide survey cost estimates, and (iii) the need to provide a survey schedule that met the NRC 

licensing review schedule and completion of its scheduled NEPA review. The participating 

tribes requested an opportunity to revise the applicant's proposed SOW for completing a 

tribal survey for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. During the August 21, 2012, 

teleconference, NRC staff agreed to meet with tribal representatives in Bismarck, 

North Dakota on September 5, 2012 to develop a revised SOW for completion of a field survey 

in the fall of 2012. 

The applicant informed NRC by letter dated August 29, 2012, that it was unable to reach an 

agreement with the tribes on a SOW and it would be unable to provide information to the NRC 

on properties of religious and cultural significance to the tribes that may be affected by the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2012). The applicant indicated that 

additional efforts on its part to negotiate a mutually acceptable SOW are unlikely to be 

productive. The applicant, however, committed to support efforts to complete identification of 

historic properties by offering financial assistance to tribal representatives to carry out fieldwork 

and reporting activities. The applicant committed to working with NRC and BLM to provide 

access for tribal representatives to the project area to carry out work agreed to by the tribes. 

On September 5, 2012, NRC staff met with representatives of the Yankton Sioux, 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Sioux, Rosebud Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Northern Cheyenne, 

Oglala Sioux, and Crow Nation tribes at the Kelly Inn in Bismarck, North Dakota. During this 

meeting, participants discussed how to proceed with development of a SOW to identify religious 

and cultural properties within the APE. The APE is the area in which properties of cultural 

significance may be affected by the undertaking, including direct effects (such as destruction, 

damage, or alteration of all or part of a property) and indirect effects (such as visual, audible, 

and atmospheric changes that affect the character or setting of a property). All parties agreed a 

survey was necessary for historic property identification. All parties also agreed further 

consultation was needed to develop a SOW that focused survey efforts on the identification of 

properties directly and indirectly affected by the proposed project. The area of potential indirect 

effect could include properties that are well beyond the proposed license area. In addition, the 

parties acknowledged the need for a Programmatic Agreement for any future disturbances 

outside of areas directly affected by the proposed project. 

By letter dated September 18, 2012, NRC staff asked participants in the September 5, 2012, 

meeting in Bismarck, North Dakota to designate a preferred contractor to submit a proposal for 

a survey on their behalf. The NRC staff requested that a cost estimate based on the area of 

direct effect that may be disturbed during the initial phase of the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project be 

included in the proposal (NRC, 2012d). The letter included the NRC staff response to four 

NHPA-related concerns the tribes raised at the September 5, 2012, meeting in Bismarck, 

North Dakota. The letter stated (i) the NRC agrees that a Programmatic Agreement will need to 
FINAL Introduction 

1-23 

be developed to address the phased identification and evaluation of historic properties; (ii) the 

NRC will continue to consult with BLM, SD SHPO, and the tribes on all issues arising under 

Section 106 of the NHPA, including potential indirect effects; and (iii) the NRC intends to keep 

survey information confidential to the fullest extent allowed by law. 

On September 27, 2012, NRC received a proposal and cost estimate from the tribes for a 

traditional cultural properties survey for the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project. The proposal 

and cost estimate were prepared by Makoche Wowapi/Mentz-Wilson Consultants, LLP, the 

contractor selected by tribes to complete the cultural resources survey of the proposed project. 

By letter dated October 4, 2012, NRC transmitted the tribe’s proposal and cost estimate to the 

applicant for review and comment (NRC, 2012e). 

NRC informed the tribes by letter dated October 12, 2012 of the significant differences 

between the Makoche Wowapi/Mentz-Wilson Consultants, LLP proposal and the applicant’s 

proposal set out in its letter dated August 29, 2012 (NRC, 2012f; Powertech, 2012). NRC 

indicated that resolving these differences would not support completion of a field survey at the 

Dewey-Burdock site in the fall 2012. NRC requested that the tribes provide their ideas on 

alternative methods for identifying potential properties of traditional religious and cultural 

importance to the tribes. NRC suggested that alternative methods might include opening the 

site to interested tribal specialists over a period of several weeks with payment for survey costs 

made to individual tribes or seeking ethnohistoric and ethnographic information from tribal 

specialists in interviews at tribal headquarters. 

 

From October 15 to October 20, 2012, the NRC staff received letters and email from the 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, and the 

Yankton Sioux Tribe opposing the NRC’s request for alternative survey approaches (Standing 

Rock Sioux Tribe, 2012; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, 2012; Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 2012; 

Yankton Sioux Tribe, 2012). These tribes maintained that the only level of effort sufficient for 

identifying historic properties would be an on-the-ground, 100% survey of the entire license 

boundary by tribal personnel from participating tribes. 

On October 19, 2012, NRC received a response from the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Turtle 

Mountain Band of Chippawa Indians Tribe who in collaboration with Kadramas, Lee, & Jackson 

(KLJ), a private consulting firm from North Dakota, proposed to complete an alternative field 

survey of the project’s 1,067-ha [2,637-ac] APE for ground disturbance. The proposal included 

investigation of previously recorded archaeological sites, use of light detection and ranging 

mapping technology to locate potential rock alignments, cairns, and other stone features, and 

systematic pedestrian survey of the project area. The level of effort presented in the KLJ 

proposal was reasonable and appropriate to the project area and estimated costs were in line 

with the range of survey costs obtained for other tribal surveys identified by the staff for 

other projects. 

NRC staff confirmed that the proposed KLJ survey effort would be led by two THPOs and one 

former THPO employed by KLJ. In addition, the KLJ survey effort welcomed participation of 

other tribes. For these reasons, NRC endorsed the level of effort represented by the KLJ 

proposal and recommended that the applicant consider contracting with KLJ to lead the survey 

effort at the Dewey-Burdock site. To ensure all interested tribes would have the opportunity to 

participate in the survey, NRC staff requested that the applicant provide additional financial 

support for representatives from other tribes. The applicant agreed to provide financial support 

for one representative for each interested tribe. Additional tribal representatives would also be 

allowed to participate, but without compensation. 
Introduction FINAL 

1-24 

On October 31, 2012, NRC sent a letter to the THPOs endorsing the KLJ survey approach 

(NRC, 2012g). The letter invited all consulting tribes to participate in the survey with paid 

compensation for one representative per tribe. The KLJ survey proposal provided each 

participating tribe an independent opportunity to identify historic properties, to gather relevant 

information, and to provide independent recommendations regarding the NRHP eligibility of 

properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to the tribes. 

NRC staff received written responses from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, and Yankton Sioux Tribe objecting to the 

proposed survey. The tribes stated that the NRC’s endorsement of the KLJ proposal ignored 

information previously provided by the tribes. Specifically, the tribes argued that (i) the field 

survey must include the entire project area, not just the area directly affected by the proposed 

project; (ii) the field survey must be conducted by qualified tribal representatives, not 

archaeologists; and (iii) survey approaches based on predictive modeling are not appropriate for 

identifying tribal sites. The tribes further asserted that the NRC was not consulting in good faith 

because it was ignoring information provided by consulting tribes, and because the Three 

Affiliated Tribes and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians had advised the NRC the 

project was unlikely to affect places of significance to them (Three Affiliated Tribes, 2010; 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 2010). 

On December 6, 2012, the KLJ withdrew its survey proposal by telephone. On 

December 17, 2012, KLJ withdrew its TCP survey proposal in writing (KLJ, 2012). 

On December 14, 2012, NRC staff responded to the objections raised by the tribes to the KLJ 

survey proposal in a letter (NRC, 2012h). The letter informed all consulting parties that KLJ 

would not conduct the survey and that the NRC intended to move forward with an alternative 

field survey approach. The NRC postponed further efforts to undertake a field survey until 

Spring 2013. NRC reiterated its intention to develop a Programmatic Agreement and invited all 

interested consulting parties to provide information relevant to the development of a 

Programmatic Agreement. 

On February 8, 2013, NRC staff invited 23 tribes, including the Cheyenne and Arapaho, 

Pawnee, and Omaha, to participate in a field survey in the Spring of 2013 (NRC, 2013a). The 

letter proposed April 1 to May 1, 2013, as dates for the survey, described procedures for site 

access, and identified the compensation for survey participation. Tribal representatives were 

encouraged to focus survey efforts on portions of the proposed license area that would be 

physically disturbed by the project; participants were permitted access to the entire project 

boundary within the allowable time. The applicant would provide compensation for per diem 

and mileage expenses for a maximum of three tribal representatives from each participating 

tribe. In addition, an unconditional grant of $10,000 for each participating tribe was to be 

provided. At the completion of the field survey a field survey report would be submitted to the 

NRC. The report would include: (i) a discussion of the areas examined; (ii) a description of each 

individual property examined; (iii) a NRHP evaluation of each individual property examined; 

(iv) any recommendation concerning criteria of eligibility for previously reported archaeological 

site within the license area visited during the field survey; and (v) recommendations for 

appropriate avoidance buffers or possible mitigation measures should any of the properties 

recommended as eligible be adversely affected by the proposed project. Tribes interested in 

participating in the survey were advised to respond by March 12, 2013. 

On February 20, 2013, NRC staff received a letter from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in 

response to the NRC letter of February 8, 2013 (Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, 2013). The 
FINAL Introduction 

1-25 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe objected to the survey approach and asserted that the NRC was not 

consulting in good faith because it was ignoring information provided by consulting tribes. In its 

letter, the tribe offered comments regarding the Section 106 process being conducted for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

On March 22, 2013, the Oglala Sioux Tribe responded by letter to the NRC letter of 

February 8, 2013 (Oglala Sioux Tribe, 2013). The Oglala Sioux Tribe objected to the terms of 

the survey proposal and indicated the proposed April 1, 2013, date for the start of the field 

survey did not allow sufficient time for formal authorization from its Tribal Council and 

constituents. The tribe expressed its concerns over the scope of the work methodology, its 

view that the funds allocated for the survey were insufficient, that the NRC lacked cultural 

sensitivity on these issues, and that the NRC was not addressing fully the direct and 

indirect effects on cultural resources and burial grounds, and the protection of intellectual 

property generated during the survey. The Oglala Sioux tribe also demanded that formal 

government-to-government consultation be conducted rather than the existing NHPA 

Section 106 consultation. 

On April 1, 2013, survey work to identify traditional properties of religious and cultural 

significance to the tribes at the Dewey-Burdock site began. Seven tribes participated in the field 

survey; these were the Northern Cheyenne, Northern Arapaho, Crow Nation, Crow Creek Sioux, 

Cheyenne and Arapaho of Oklahoma, Santee Sioux, and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippawa 

Indians. Survey work was suspended on April 9, 2013, due to inclement weather. Survey work 

resumed on April 29, 2013, and was extended through May 24, 2013, for a total survey period 

spanning 36 calendar days. 

On April 24, 2013, NRC staff formally invited the ACHP to become an active consulting party in 

the Section 106 process for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (NRC, 2013b). NRC 

provided ACHP with a summary and chronology of the Section 106 consultation efforts for the 

proposed project. 

On May 23, 2013, NRC staff hosted a government-to-government meeting concerning licensing 

actions associated with proposed uranium recovery projects under NRC licensing review. The 

NRC invited over 30 tribes currently in consultation on uranium recovery projects to this meeting 

with NRC management (NRC, 2013c,d). The government-to-government meeting sought the 

input of tribal leaders, or a designee on issues of mutual interest concerning uranium recovery 

projects. The NRC organized the meeting in response to the requests for a formal governmentto-government meeting made by many THPOs. THPO’s from the Cheyenne River Sioux, 

Northern Cheyenne, Yankton Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, and Sisseton Wahpeton tribes 

attending this meeting. The meeting was held at the Ramkota Hotel and Conference Center in 

Rapid City, South Dakota. 

Between June 24 and July 25, 2013, the Cheyenne and Arapaho, Northern Arapaho, and 

Northern Cheyenne tribes submitted survey reports to the NRC. The NRC staff also received 

field notes from the Crow Tribe, although the reports did not contain eligibility recommendations 

for identified sites. The Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes survey report, dated June 24, 2013, 

documented sites of religious and cultural significance identified during site surveys conducted 

by tribal representatives on April 23 to 25, 2013, and April 30 to May 2, 2013. The report 

included NRHP eligibility recommendations and recommended mitigation measures for each 

identified site. The Northern Arapaho survey report documented sites identified during surveys 

conducted on April 29 to May 9, 2013. The report included NRHP eligibility recommendations 

and recommended mitigation measures, including area of importance, no surface activity, areas 
Introduction FINAL 

1-26 

to remain accessible to the Northern Arapaho Tribe, and areas to be avoided by equipment 

disturbance and pedestrian traffic. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe report, dated July 25, 2013, 

summarized survey methods and provided survey results and NHPA-eligibility 

recommendations. Tribal Cultural Heritage Forms for ten cultural properties identified or 

investigated during the survey were included. The forms provide specific NHPA-eligibility 

recommendations and identify the eligibility criteria on which the Tribe relies. The results of the 

tribal surveys and the NRC assessment of the tribal survey results are discussed in SEIS 

Sections 3.9 and 4.9. 

The Section 106 consultation process is ongoing. NRC informed the tribes by letter dated 

November 6, 2013 and the ACHP by letter dated November 13, 2013, that it has separated its 

Section 106 activities from its NEPA review (NRC, 2013e,f). The NRC staff will continue to 

consult with BLM, SD SHPO, and the tribes on all issues arising under Section 106 of the 

NHPA. The staff will also consult with ACHP as necessary.

1.7.3.6 Coordination With South Dakota Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources 

NRC staff met with SDDENR in Pierre, South Dakota, on December 2, 2009, to discuss 

SDDENR’s role in NRC’s environmental review process for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project. SDDENR, the primary state permitting agency, will make determinations on issuance 

of the following state permits for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project: (i) mining permit, 

(ii) NPDES surface water discharge permit, (iii) air quality permit, (iv) water appropriation permit, 

and (v) groundwater discharge plan for land application of treated wastewater. 

Discussions between NRC and SDDENR staffs focused on geological and hydrological issues 

with the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, including (i) the adequacy of subsurface 

characterization, (ii) groundwater flow rates within and in the vicinity of the project area, 

(iii) potential complications in hydrology caused by past exploratory drill holes, (iv) potential 

hydrologic connection of production zones and abandoned onsite surface mines, and (v) the 

effectiveness of confining layers in isolating ore-bearing aquifers. NRC and SDDENR staffs 

also discussed the applicant’s Class III UIC permit application (Powertech, 2010) and the water 

appropriation and waste management permitting processes for the proposed project. Potential 

risks to wildlife from wastewater surface impoundments associated with the proposed project 

were also discussed. SDDENR would coordinate with SDGFP to mitigate the potential effects 

of surface impoundments on wildlife; mitigation measures discussed included the use of netting 

and fencing to protect wildlife and implementing protocols to assess the effects of wastewater 

constituents on wildlife. 

1.7.3.7 Coordination With South Dakota Game Fish and Parks 

NRC staff met with SDGFP staff on November 30, 2009, to discuss potential impacts 

on ecological resources at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. SDGFP manages 

South Dakota’s wildlife resources, parks, and outdoor recreational areas. SDGFP does not 

issue permits related to the proposed project; however, it oversees the management of 

state-listed threatened species and species of local concern. In addition, SDGFP consults 

closely with SDDENR on activities that could affect ecological resources within the proposed 

project area. Conversations between NRC and SDGFP staffs focused primarily on threatened 

or potentially threatened and endangered species (e.g., the plains topminnow, sage-grouse, and 

black-footed ferret) and species of local concern (e.g., raptors). SDGFP expressed a major 

concern: the potential effects on birds flying through the proposed project area and drinking 
FINAL Introduction 

1-27 

at exposed wastewater evaporation ponds. SDGFP suggested two measures to mitigate effects 

on bird populations: (i) testing to determine the toxicity of constituents in the evaporation ponds 

and (ii) using netting and fencing to restrict wildlife access to exposed ponds. SDGFP also 

noted the need for testing and monitoring of soils at the proposed site to identify any buildup of 

salts and metals that could result from proposed land application of treated wastewater. 

1.7.3.8 Coordination With South Dakota State Historical Society Archaeological 

 Research Center 

NRC staff met with ARC staff on November 30, 2009, to discuss historic and cultural resources 

at the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project. ARC is the lead agency for archaeological 

investigations pertaining to mineral exploration and mining in South Dakota. ARC described the 

results of a Level III Cultural Resources Evaluation conducted by the Archaeology Laboratory of 

Augustana College within the proposed project area. ARC also described stipulations of a 

Memorandum of Agreement executed between the applicant and ARC concerning avoidance 

and mitigation measures, which the applicant had committed to performing if historic or 

archaeological sites are encountered during ISR activities at the proposed site (Powertech, 

2009b, Appendix 4.10–B). ARC’s evaluation of the applicant’s request for determination of the 

proposed project area as special, exceptional, critical, or unique lands was also discussed. 

NRC staff returned on June 7, 2011, to meet with the Assistant State Archaeologist to review 

and gather additional information on cultural and historic resources related to the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. During this visit, the results of the Level III Cultural Resources 

Evaluation conducted by archaeologists from the Archaeology Laboratory of Augustana College 

were discussed in more detail. Discussions focused on the recorded occurrence of cairn 

features at several identified archaeological sites at the proposed site and the potential for these 

types of features to contain human burials. A cairn is a manmade pile of rocks or stones often 

erected as a marker. NRC staff and the Assistant State Archaeologist also discussed the 

potential for historic properties of religious and cultural importance to Native American tribes to 

be present on or adjacent to the proposed project site. 

1.7.3.9 Coordination With Localities 

The NRC staff held meetings with the Edgemont Area Chamber of Commerce in Edgemont, 

South Dakota, and Custer County Planning and Economic Development in Custer, 

South Dakota, on December 3, 2009, to discuss site-specific issues related to the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Meetings with these entities focused on local economics, housing 

availability, and community services. Members of the Edgemont Area Chamber of Commerce 

described current infrastructure projects that would support growth and economic development 

in Edgemont and the surrounding area. Discussions with Custer County Planning and 

Economic Development staff focused on available housing, land, and medical services to 

handle the anticipated population increase from the proposed project. 

1.8 Structure of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

As noted in Section 1.4.1 of this document, the GEIS (NRC, 2009a) evaluated the broad 

impacts of ISR projects in a four-state region where such projects are anticipated, but did not 

reach site-specific decisions for new ISR projects. The NRC staff evaluated the extent to which 

information and conclusions in the GEIS could be incorporated by reference into this SEIS. The 

NRC staff also determined whether any new and significant information existed that would 

change the expected environmental impact beyond what was evaluated in the GEIS. 
Introduction FINAL 

1-28 

Chapter 2 of this SEIS describes the proposed action and reasonable alternatives considered 

for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, Chapter 3 describes the affected environment, 

and Chapter 4 evaluates the environmental impacts of implementing the proposed action and 

alternatives. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapter 5, while Chapter 6 summarizes 

mitigation measures to reduce adverse environmental impacts at the proposed project. 

Chapter 7 describes the environmental measurement and monitoring programs proposed for 

the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. A cost-benefit analysis is provided in Chapter 8, and 

environmental consequences from the proposed action and alternatives are summarized in 

Chapter 9. 

1.9 References 

10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 2. “Rules of Practice for 

Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. “Domestic Licensing 

of Source Material.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

 

10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. 

Appendix A. “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 

Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction and Concentration of Source Material from Ores 

Processed Primarily from their Source Material Content.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, 

Part 800. “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 144. “Underground Injection Control Program.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 146. “Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

43 CFR Part 3800. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 43, Public Lands: Interior, Part 3800. 

“Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

43 CFR Subpart 3809. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 43, Public Lands: Interior, 

Subpart 3809. “Subsurface Management.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
FINAL Introduction 

1-29 

75 FR 467. Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 2, p. 467–471. “Notice of Opportunity for Hearing, 

License Application Request of Powertech (USA) Inc. Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Uranium 

Recovery Facility in Fall River and Custer Counties, SD, and Order Imposing Procedures for 

Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) for Contention 

Preparation.” January 5, 2010. 

75 FR 3261. Federal Register, Vol. 75. No. 12, p. 3261–3262. “Powertech (USA) Inc., 

Dewey-Burdock Project, New Source Material License Application, Notice of Intent To Prepare 

a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.” January 20, 2010. 

ASLBP (Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel). “Memorandum and Order (Ruling on 

Petitions to Intervene and Requests for Hearing).” In the Matter of Powertech (USA), Inc. 

(Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facility). Docket No. 40-9075-MLA. ASLBP 

No. 10–898–02–MLA–BD01. ML102170300. August 5, 2010. 

BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). “Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Dewey 

Conveyor Project.” DOI–BLM–MT–040–2009–002–EIS. ML12209A089. Belle Fourche, 

South Dakota: BLM Field Office, U.S. Department of Interior. January 2009. 

BLM. “Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office.” 

ML12209A103. Rawlins, Wyoming: BLM, Rawlins Field Office. 2008. 

BLM. “Newcastle Resource Management Plan.” ML12209A101. Newcastle, Wyoming: BLM, 

Newcastle Field Office. 2000. 

BLM. “South Dakota Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement.” 

ML12209A099. Miles City District, Montana: BLM, South Dakota Resource Area. 1985. 

Consolidated Intervenors. “Consolidated Intervenors’ New Contentions Based on the DSEIS.” 

In the Matter of Powertech (USA), Inc., (Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility). 

Docket No. 40-9075-MLA. ASLBP No. 10–898–02–MLA–BD01. ML13026A010. 

January 25, 2013. 

Consolidated Petitioners. “Consolidated Request for Hearing and Petition for Leave to 

Intervene.” In the Matter of Powertech USA (In-Situ Leach, Dewey Burdock, South Dakota). 

Docket No. 40-9075-MLA. ML100680010. March 8, 2010. 

Crow Tribe. “Crow Tribe Response to Formal Section 106 Consultation Letter.” E-mail 

(March 9). ML110690166. Crow Agency, Montana: Crow Tribe. 2011. 

ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). “ArcGIS 9 Media Kit, ESRI Data and 

Maps 9.3.” Redlands, California: Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2008. 

Executive Order 11990. Protection of Wetlands. 42 FR 26961. May 24, 1977. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). “Re: Follow Up for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project, Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota.” Email (September 9) Terry 

Quesinberry, Fish and Wildlife Biologist. ML13256A314. Pierre, South Dakota: FWS. 2013. 
Introduction FINAL 

1-30 

FWS. “Re: Follow Up for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project, Fall River and 

Custer Counties, South Dakota.” Email (August 27) Terry Quesinberry, Fish and Wildlife 

Biologist. ML12240A317. Pierre, South Dakota: FWS. 2012. 

FWS. “Environmental Comments on Powertech Dewey-Burdock Project, Custer and Fall River 

County, South Dakota.” ML100970556. Washington, DC: FWS. March 29, 2010. 

KLJ (Kadramas, Lee, & Jackson). “Withdrawal for Proposal for Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

Recovery Project. ML13045A765. Email (December 17) to H. Yilma, NRC. Bismarck, 

North Dakota: Kadramas, Lee, & Jackson. 2012. 

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. “Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Response to Formal Section 106 

Consultation Letter.” ML103340146. Lower Brule, South Dakota: Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. 

November 15, 2010. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Transmittal of Letter to the THPOs for the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project.” Email to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. 

ML13039A336. Washington, DC: NRC. 2013a. 

NRC. “Update on Section 106 Activities for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In Situ Uranium 

Recovery Project in Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota and a Request for Guidance 

and Clarification.” Letter to Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. ML13017A077. 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2013b. 

NRC. “Invitation for Government-to-Government Meeting Concerning Licensing Actions for 

Proposed Uranium Recovery Projects.” Letter to Mr. Bryan Brewer, President, Oglala Sioux 

Tribe from Larry W. Camper, Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental 

Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. 

ML13071A653. Washington, DC: NRC. 2013c. 

NRC. “Update Regarding Planned Government-to-Government Meeting Concerning Licensing 

Actions for Proposed Uranium Recovery Projects.” Letter to Mr. Bryan Brewer, President, 

Oglala Sioux Tribe from Larry W. Camper, Director, Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. ML13122A044. Washington, DC: NRC. 2013d. 

NRC. “Notification of Intention to Separate the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

Process from the National Environmental Policy Act Review for the Powertech, Inc. 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Facility Near Edgemont, South Dakota 

(Docket 040-09075).” Letter to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. ML13256A402. 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2013e. 

NRC. “Notification of Intention to Separate the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

Process from the National Environmental Policy Act Review for the Powertech, Inc. Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Facility Near Edgemont, South Dakota (Docket 040-

09075).” Letter to J. Fowler, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation from K. Hsueh, NRC. 

ML13311B184. Washington, DC: NRC. 2013f. 

NRC. “Government to Government Consultation on February 14–15, 2012.” Letter to Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers. ML120330066. Washington, DC: NRC. 2012a. 
FINAL Introduction 

1-31 

NRC. “Transmittal of Applicant’s Statement of Work Regarding Crow Butte and 

Dewey-Burdock Projects.” Letter to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. ML120730509. 

Washington, DC: 2012b. 

NRC. “Transmittal of a Letter Sent to THPOs Regarding Teleconference on Crow Butte and 

Dewey-Burdock Projects.” Letter to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. ML12130A067. 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2012c. 

NRC. “Request for a Proposal with Cost Estimate; Proposed Dewey Burdock In-Situ Recovery 

Project.” Letter to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. ML12264A594. Washington, DC: 

NRC. 2012d. 

NRC. “Transmittal of Tribe’s Proposal and Cost Estimate for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project.” Letter to R. Blubaugh, Vice President – Health, Safety, and Environmental Resources, 

Powertech (USA) Inc. from K. Hsueh, Chief, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental 

Review Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. ML12278A185. Washington, 

DC: NRC. 2012e. 

NRC. “Transmittal of Tribe’s Proposal and Cost Estimate for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project.” Letter to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. ML12286A310. Washington, DC: 

NRC. 2012f. 

NRC. “Transmittal of Survey Proposal for Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project.” Letter to Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers. ML12306A195. Washington, DC: NRC. 2012g. 

NRC. “Response Received Regarding Tribal Survey for Dewey-Burdock.” Letter to Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers. ML12335A175. Washington, DC: NRC. 2012h. 

NRC. NUREG–1910, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch ISR Project in 

Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming.” Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report. Supplement 2. 

ML103440120. Washington, DC: NRC, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs. January 2011a. 

NRC. NUREG–1910, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Lost Creek ISR Project in 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming.” Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report. Supplement 3. ML11125A006. 

Washington, DC: NRC, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs. June 2011b. 

NRC. “Letter Invitations (March 4) for Formal Consultation Under the Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act to Crow Tribe (ML110550535), Ponca Tribe (ML110550372), 

and Santee Sioux Tribe (ML110550172).” Washington, DC: NRC. 2011c. 

 
Introduction FINAL 

1-32 

NRC. “Letter Invitations (May 12) for Informal Information Gathering Meeting Pertaining to the 

Dewey-Burdock, Crow Butte North Trend, and Crow Butte License Renewal In-Situ Uranium 

Recovery Projects to Yankton Sioux Tribe (ML111320395), Santee Sioux Tribe (ML110950627), 

Lower Sioux Indian Community (ML111320035), Crow Tribe (ML111320087), Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe (ML111320116), Fort Peak Tribes (ML111320117), Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

(ML111320127), Crow Creek Sioux Tribe (ML111320145), Northern Arapaho Tribe 

(ML111320180), Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe (ML111320183), Apache Tribe (ML111320201), 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes (ML 111320221), Oglala Sioux Tribe (ML111320232), Eastern 

Shoshone Tribe (ML111320251), Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (ML111320264), Comanche Nation 

(ML111320280), Rosebud Sioux Tribe (ML111320299), Kiowa Indian Tribe (ML111320309), 

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate (ML111320342), Pawnee Nation (ML111320343), Standing Rock 

Sioux Tribe (ML111320375), Ponca Tribe (ML111320446), and Spirit Lake Tribe 

(ML111320496).” Washington, DC: NRC. 2011d. 

NRC. “Informal Information Gathering Meeting Pertaining to Dewey-Burdock, Crow Butte North 

Trend, and Crow Butte License Renewal In-Situ Uranium Recovery Projects.” Official Transcript 

of Proceedings, June 8, 2011, Work Order Number NRC–904. ML111721938. Washington, 

DC: Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc., Court Reporters and Transcribers. 2011e. 

NRC. “NRC Information Request Relating to Section 106 and NEPA Reviews for the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock Project.” Letter (August 12) to Richard Blubaugh, Powertech (USA) Inc. 

ML112170237. Washington, DC: NRC. 2011f. 

NRC. “Information Related to Traditional Cultural Properties; Dewey-Burdock, Crow Butte North 

Trend, and Crow Butte License Renewal ISR Projects.” Letters (October 28) sent to Eastern 

Shoshone Tribe (ML113000142), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (ML113010079), Cheyenne River 

Sioux Tribe (ML113000088), Rosebud Sioux Tribe (ML113010057), Santee Sioux Tribe of 

Nebraska (113010062), Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (ML113000160), Pawnee Nation of 

Oklahoma (ML113010046), Ponca Tribe of Nebraska (ML113010054), Fort Peak Tribes 

(ML113000151), Northern Arapaho Business Committee (ML113010031), Cheyenne and 

Arapaho Tribes (ML113000084), Comanche Nation (ML113000093), Flandreau-Santee Sioux 

Tribe (ML113010110), Three Affiliated Tribes (ML113010094), Sisseton-Wahpeton Lakota Tribe 

(ML113010129), Northern Cheyenne Tribe (ML113010034), Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

(ML113000128), Yankton Sioux Tribe (ML113010101), Crow Tribe (ML13000098), Lower Brule 

Sioux Tribe (ML113000168), Spirit Lake Tribe (ML113010134), Lower Sioux Tribe 

(ML113010118), Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (ML112990285), and Oglala Sioux Tribe 

(ML112980555). Washington, DC: NRC. 2011g. 

NRC. NUREG–1910, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Moore Ranch ISR Project in 

Campbell County, Wyoming.” Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities. Final Report. Supplement 1. ML102290470. 

Washington, DC: NRC, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs. August 2010a. 

NRC. “Request for Information Regarding Endangered or Threatened Species and Critical 

Habitat for the Powertech Inc. Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Facility Near 

Edgemont South Dakota.” Docket 040-0 9075. ML100331503. Washington, DC: NRC. 

March 15, 2010b. 
FINAL Introduction 

1-33 

NRC. “Request for Additional Information Regarding Tribal Historic and Cultural Resources 

Potentially Affected by the Powertech (USA) Inc. Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery 

Facility.” ML100331999. Washington, DC: NRC. March 19, 2010c. 

NRC. “Letter Invitations (September 10) for Formal Consultation Under the Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act to Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (ML102520239), Crow Creek 

Sioux Tribe (ML102520156), Eastern Shoshone Tribe (ML102520553), Flandreau-Santee Sioux 

Tribe (ML102520194), Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (ML102520220), Lower Sioux Indian 

Community (ML102520486), Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (ML102520368), Northern 

Arapaho Tribe (ML102520520), Northern Cheyenne Tribe (ML102520504), Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe (ML102520282), Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate (ML102520298), Spirit Lake Tribe 

(ML102520393), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (ML102520308), Yankton Sioux Tribe 

(ML102520319), and Oglala Sioux Tribe (ML102460395).” Washington, DC: NRC. 2010d. 

NRC. NUREG–1910, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Uranium Milling 

Facilities—Final Report.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009a. 

NRC. “Site Visit to the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project, Fall River and 

Custer Counties, South Dakota, and Meetings with Federal, State, and County Agencies, 

and Local Organizations, November 30–December 4, 2009.” ML093631627. Washington, DC: 

NRC. 2009b. 

NRC. “Acceptance Review of License Amendment Request for Dewey-Burdock Project.” Letter 

(October 2) to Powertech (USA) Inc. ML092610201. Washington, DC: NRC. 2009c. 

NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mine Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” ML082170248. 

Washington, DC: NRC. February 1997. 

NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

Project M–25.” ML032751663, ML0732751667, ML032751669. Washington, DC: NRC. 

September 1980. 

Oglala Sioux Tribe. “Response to February 8, 2013 Letter to Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer.” ML13141A362. Pine Ridge, South Dakota: Oglala Sioux Tribe. March 22, 2013. 

Oglala Sioux Tribe. “Oglala Sioux Tribe Response to Formal Section 106 Consultation Letter.” 

ML110340107. Pine Ridge, South Dakota: Oglala Sioux Tribe. January 31, 2011. 

Oglala Sioux Tribe. “Petition To Intervene and Request for Hearing of the Oglala Sioux Tribe.” 

In the Matter of Powertech (USA) Inc. (Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery Facility). 

Docket No. 40–9075–MLA. ML100960645. Pine Ridge, South Dakota: Oglala Sioux Tribe. 

April 6, 2010. 

Powertech [Powertech (USA) Inc.]. “Re: Information Needed to Complete Section 106 for 

Dewey-Burdock.” Letter (August 29) to K. Hsueh, NRC from R. Blubaugh. ML12243A156. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2012. 

Powertech. “Revised Dewey-Burdock Project Underground Injection Control Permit 

Application.” Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. February 2010. 
Introduction FINAL 

1-34 

Powertech. “Application for Source Material License, Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project 

Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License—Environmental Report.” Letter (August 10) to 

NRC Submitting Source Material Licensing Application. Docket No. 040-09075. ML092870153. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2009a. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Environmental Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2009b. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Technical Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2009c. 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe. “Response to Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project.” ML12298A155. 

Rosebud, South Dakota: Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Tribal Historic Preservation Office. 

October 19, 2012. 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe. “Tribal Consultation Response from Rosebud Sioux Tribe THPO for 

Dewey-Burdock Project.” ML103270443. Rosebud, South Dakota: Rosebud Sioux Tribe. 

November 7, 2010. 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate. “Response to Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project.” 

ML12298A148. Sisseton, South Dakota: Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Office. October 18, 2012. 

Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate. “Tribal Consultation Response from Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate 

THPO for Dewey-Burdock Project.” ML103200287. Sisseton, South Dakota: Sisseton 

Wahpeton Oyate, Tribal Historic Preservation Office. November 2, 2010. 

South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 45-6B. Mined Land Reclamation. South Dakota 

Legislature, South Dakota Codified Laws. 

Sprague, D. “Area of Potential Effects (APE) and Interviews with Tribal Members (Draft).” 

Belle Fourche, South Dakota: U.S. Bureau of Land Management South Dakota Field 

Office. 2008. 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “Letter from Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 11-73 Signed Copy for 

February 08th Letter.” ML13053A134. Fort Yates, North Dakota: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

THPO. February 20, 2013. 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “Response to Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project.” 

ML12298A142. Fort Yates, North Dakota: Standing Rock Sioux Tribe THPO. 

October, 15, 2012. 

Three Affiliated Tribes. “Three Affiliated Tribes Response to Formal Section 106 

Consultation Letter (September 20).” ML102780369. New Town, North Dakota: Three 

Affiliated Tribes–Mandan Hidatsa Arikara Nations. 2010. 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. “Tribal Consultation Response From Turtle 

Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians for Dewey-Burdock Project.” ML101100137. Belcourt, 

North Dakota: Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians. April 7, 2010. 
FINAL Introduction 

1-35 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). “Updated Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nebraska 

National Forests and Grasslands, Rocky Mountain Region.” ML12209A127. Washington, DC: 

USFS. 2009. 

USFS. “Black Hills National Forest, Phase II Amendment: 1997 Land and Resource 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement.” ML12209A121. Washington, DC: 

USFS. 2005. 

USFS. “Black Hills National Forest, Phase I Amendment: 1997 Land and Resource 

Management Plan Environmental Assessment.” ML12209A113. Washington, DC: 

USFS. 2001. 

USFS. “Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.” ML12209A110. 

Washington, DC: USFS. 1997. 

Yankton Sioux Tribe. “Response to NRC Letter Dated October 12, 2012.” ML12324A336. 

Email from Yankton Sioux Tribe Tribal Historic Preservation Office. October 20, 2012. 

Yankton Sioux Tribe. “Yankton Sioux Tribe Response to Formal Section 106 Consultation 

Letter (December 3).” ML110030430. Marty, South Dakota: Yankton Sioux Tribe. 2010. 

2-1 

2 IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY AND ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the proposed federal action, which is to issue a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) source material license to Powertech (USA) Inc. (Powertech), herein 

referred to as the applicant. The applicant will use its NRC license in connection with the 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery (ISR) Project. In addition, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will utilize this 

analysis in its determination of whether or not to approve the applicant’s modified Plan of 

Operations. This chapter also discusses alternatives to the proposed action. The alternatives 

analyzed in this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) include consideration of 

the No-Action alternative as required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA). Under the No-Action alternative, NRC will not issue a license to the applicant. The 

No-Action alternative is included to provide a basis for comparing and evaluating the potential 

impact of the proposed action and alternatives. 

Section 2.1 of this SEIS describes the alternatives considered for detailed analysis, including 

the proposed action. Section 2.2 describes those alternatives that were considered but 

eliminated from detailed analysis. Section 2.3 compares the predicted environmental impacts of 

the proposed action and other alternatives. Section 2.4 sets forth the preliminary NRC staff 

recommendation on the proposed federal action. Section 2.5 provides the references cited for 

this chapter. 

2.1 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Analysis 

NRC staff used a variety of sources to determine a range of alternatives for detailed analysis in 

this SEIS. These sources include (i) the application’s environmental report (Powertech, 2009a), 

technical report (Powertech, 2009b), and a supplemental report to the application (Powertech, 

2009c); (ii) the applicant’s responses to NRC staff requests for additional information 

(Powertech, 2010a–c, 2011); (iii) the scoping and draft comments on NUREG–1910, Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (GEIS) (NRC, 

2009a); (iv) the information gathered during the NRC staff site visits in November and 

December 2009 (NRC, 2009b); (v) comments on the draft SEIS; and (vi) multidisciplinary 

discussions held among NRC staff and various stakeholders. This SEIS evaluates the potential 

environmental impacts from two alternatives: the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) and the 

No-Action alternative (Alternative 2). 

2.1.1 The Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

Under the proposed action, NRC will issue the applicant a source material license. The 

applicant will use its NRC license in connection with the construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of an ISR facility at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. The 

project site is in Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota, as described in the license 

application. The applicant also is seeking BLM approval of its modified Plan of Operations 

subject to mitigation included in the license application and this SEIS. The applicant’s proposed 

project will include processing facilities and sequentially developed wellfields sited in two 

contiguous areas: the Burdock area and the Dewey area. As uranium recovery activities cease 

at a wellfield, the area will be restored and reclaimed while a new wellfield and its supporting 

infrastructure is developed. Under the applicant’s proposal, ISR methods will be used to extract 

uranium from sandstone-hosted uranium orebodies in the Fall River Formation and the 

Chilson Member of the Lakota Formation that make up the Inyan Kara Group. The extracted 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-2 

uranium will be loaded onto ion exchange (IX) resin at a central processing plant in the Burdock 

area and a satellite facility in the Dewey area. All processing of the uranium-loaded IX resin, 

including elution (stripping uranium off the resin), precipitation, drying, and packaging of the final 

“yellowcake” product, will take place at the Burdock central processing plant. The applicant 

proposes the following options (discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2) for the disposal of liquid 

wastewater generated during uranium recovery: deep well disposal via Class V injection wells, 

land application, or a combination of deep well disposal via Class V injection wells and land 

application. Alternative wastewater disposal options for the proposed action are evaporation 

ponds and surface water discharge, and these are discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2. 

2.1.1.1 Proposed In-Situ Recovery Facility and Waste Disposal Options 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project includes buildings, infrastructure, wellfields, and 

options for waste disposal, which are described in the following sections. The general ISR 

process was detailed in GEIS Chapter 2 (NRC, 2009a) and will not be repeated here. The 

projected schedule for the proposed action is shown in Figure 2.1-1. 

Task Name Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 Y10 Y11 Y12 Y13 Y14 Y15 Y16 Y17

Pre-Operational 

Baseline Monitoring 

Permitting/Licensing 

 

Exploration 

CPP Facilities 

Construction 

SF Facilities 

Construction 

Wellfield Delineation 

 

Wellfield Construction 

Production 

Restoration 

Construction 

Restoration 

 

Stability Monitoring 

Regulatory Approval 

of Restoration 

Wellfield 

Decommissioning 

CPP/SF Facilities 

Decommissioning 

Figure 2.1-1. Projected Schedule for Construction, Operation, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

Recovery Project 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2009a, 2011) 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-3 

2.1.1.1.1 Site Description

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is approximately 21 km [13 mi] north-northwest 

of Edgemont, South Dakota, in northern Fall River and southern Custer Counties, South Dakota 

(Figure 2.1-2). The project area is within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium 

Milling Region, described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). The proposed license area 

encompasses 4,282 ha [10,580 ac] of mostly privately owned land and is contained within two 

contiguous areas: the Burdock area and the Dewey area (Figure 2.1-3). The Burdock area 

(Township 7 South, Range 1 East, all or portions of Sections 1–3, 10–12, and 14–15; 

Township 6 South, Range 1 East, all or portions of Sections 27 and 34–35) will occupy the 

eastern part of the overall project area. The Dewey area (Township 7 South, Range 1 East, all 

or portions of Sections 4–5; Township 6 South, Range 1 East, all or portions of Sections 20–21 

and 28–33) will occupy the western part of the overall project area. BLM manages 

approximately 97.1 ha [240 ac] of the permit area located in Township 7 South, Range 1 East, 

portions of Sections 3, 10, 11, and 12 (Figure 2.1-3). The U.S. Forest Service manages parcels 

of the Black Hills National Forest that lie adjacent to the eastern and northern boundaries of the 

proposed project area. 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area is located within the Great Plains physiographic 

province on the southwestern edge of the Black Hills Uplift (Powertech, 2009a). The vegetation 

is a mix of short grasses and shrubs typical of semiarid steppe land along with ponderosa pine 

forest toward the Black Hills. The elevation within the project area ranges from approximately 

1,097 to 1,189 m [3,600 to 3,900 ft] above mean sea level, with the highest elevations along the 

pine breaks that overlap the project area’s eastern boundary. Topography in the project area 

and surrounding lands is primarily gently rolling in the western quarter, with more varied 

terrain in the pine breaks and dissected hills in the rest of the area. Two main streams pass 

through the proposed project area: Beaver Creek (perennial) and Pass Creek (ephemeral) 

(Figure 2.1-3). Pass Creek joins Beaver Creek southwest of the proposed project area. 

Approximately 4 km [2.5 mi] south of the confluence of Beaver and Pass Creeks, Beaver Creek 

flows into the Cheyenne River. The primary land use within and surrounding the project area is 

cattle grazing (Powertech, 2009a). 

Material shipment and employee commutes to and from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project area will be primarily from Edgemont, Hot Springs, and Custer in South Dakota and 

Newcastle in Wyoming (Figure 2.1-2). The main highways that will be used to access the 

proposed project site are U.S. Highway 18, which connects Edgemont with Hot Springs, 

and State Highway 89, which connects Edgemont via U.S. Highway 18 with Custer (see 

Figure 2.1-2). Most traffic will travel to the proposed site via Fall River County Road 6463 

(referred to herein as Dewey Road), which extends northwestward from Edgemont to the 

abandoned community of Burdock, located in the southwest corner of the Burdock area 

(Powertech, 2009a). This road is a two-lane, all-weather gravel road. 

Dewey Road continues north from Burdock to the Fall River-Custer County line where it 

becomes Custer County Road 769 and continues on to the community of Dewey, a total 

distance of about 37 km [23 mi] from Edgemont. Dewey Road closely follows the tracks of the 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (see Figure 2.1-3), which runs northward from Edgemont 

to Newcastle, Wyoming. The community of Dewey is about 3.2 km [2 mi] from the northwest 

corner of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project boundary. Some traffic is expected to 

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-4 

Figure 2.1-2. Map Showing Location of the Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

 Source: Modified From NRC (2009a) 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-5 

Figure 2.1-3. Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Permit Boundary Showing Dewey Area and Burdock 

 Area, Location of U.S. Bureau of Land Management-Managed Land Within Burdock Area, and  Position of Parcels of the Black Hills National Forest Bordering the Permit Area 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2009a) 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-6 

access the site by traveling south from Newcastle along U.S. Highway 85, Old Highway 85, and 

Dewey Road (Powertech, 2010a). In addition, commuters who reside in the vicinity of Custer 

could use Pleasant Valley Road to access the proposed site from the north (Powertech, 2010a); 

however, this route will require much longer commute times than using the paved highways 

(State Highway 89 and U.S. Highway 18) to reach Edgemont, and then Dewey Road to access 

the proposed site from the south.

2.1.1.1.2 Construction Activities 

As described in GEIS Section 2.3, the general construction activities associated with ISR 

facilities are drilling wells; clearing and grading associated with road construction; excavating 

and building foundations and surface impoundments; assembling buildings; trenching; and 

laying pipelines (NRC, 2009a). The facilities to be constructed as part of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are the central processing plant, satellite facility, and associated 

infrastructure, such as wellfields, pipelines, power lines, header houses, ponds, center pivot 

circles (land application), and access roads (Powertech, 2009a). Surface facilities, underground 

infrastructure, and access roads at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site will be designed and built 

using standard construction techniques. Construction vehicles will include bulldozers, drilling 

rigs, water trucks, forklifts, pump hoist trucks, pickup and flatbed trucks, and other support 

vehicles. Construction-related activities at the proposed project will continue throughout much 

of the life of the project, as wellfields are sequentially developed and additional wells, 

underground piping, and surface structures are added and then subsequently decommissioned. 

The applicant is proposing deep well injection via Class V injection wells, land application, or a 

combination of both methods as options for liquid waste disposal (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area encompasses 4,282 ha [10,580 ac]. The 

applicant estimates that the land disturbed by the proposed project, excluding wellfields, will be 

approximately 42 ha [103 ac] if deep well injection alone is used to dispose of liquid waste and 

approximately 509 ha [1,258 ac] if land application alone is used to dispose of liquid waste 

(Powertech, 2010a). These estimates include site facilities, pipeline installation, access roads, 

impoundments, and center pivot circles for land application. As wellfields and supporting 

infrastructure are developed and constructed over the life of the project, the total disturbed area 

is estimated to increase to a maximum of 98 ha [243 ac] for the deep well disposal option with 

eight Class V injection wells and to a maximum of 566 ha [1,398 ac] for the land application 

option (Powertech, 2010a).

The applicant intends to salvage and manage topsoil from building sites, permanent storage 

areas, access roads, and chemical storage areas prior to construction, in accordance with 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR) requirements 

under Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD) 74:29:07:07 and South Dakota Codified 

Law (SDCL) 45-6B-40. For topsoil stripping, earthmoving equipment, such as rubber-tired 

scrapers and front-end loaders, will be used. In the wellfields, topsoil removal will be limited to 

header house locations and access roads. Over the life of the project, the applicant estimates 

that the area of topsoil to be stripped, stockpiled, and replaced will be up to 98 ha [243 ac] for 

the deep well disposal option and up to 175 ha [433 ac] for the land application option 

(Powertech, 2012b). Stockpiles for salvaged topsoil will be situated to minimize losses from 

wind and water erosion. To minimize sediment runoff, berms will be constructed around the 

perimeter of stockpiles, and the stockpiles will be vegetated with an approved seed mix. All 

stockpiles of topsoil will be identified with visible signs per SDDENR requirements under 

ARSD 74:29:07:07 (Powertech, 2009b). 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-7 

2.1.1.1.2.1 Buildings 

The Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will consist of a central processing plant in the Burdock area 

and a satellite facility in the Dewey area (Figure 2.1-3). The Burdock central plant will fully 

process pregnant lixiviant (i.e., uranium-bearing solution) and will process uranium-loaded resin 

from the Dewey satellite facility. Major process equipment housed in the Burdock central plant 

will include the IX system; an elution, precipitation, and thickening circuit; a chemical addition 

system; a filtration system for the liquid waste stream circuit; and the yellowcake filtering, drying, 

and packaging system. The Dewey satellite facility will house an IX system; a lixiviant (leaching 

solution) make-up circuit; and a treatment circuit for the liquid waste stream. Uranium-loaded 

resin from the Dewey satellite facility will be transported to the Burdock central plant in tanker 

trucks for final processing and packaging. Both the central processing plant and satellite facility 

will have a resin transfer system and loading area. (Powertech, 2009a) 

The general layout of the Burdock central plant is shown in Figure 2.1-4 and includes the 

placement of an office building, maintenance shop and warehouse, and central 

processing plant. 

These facilities will be located on approximately 2.7 ha [6.7 ac] within Section 2, Township 7 

South, Range 1 East and will be surrounded by a controlled access area fence. The central 

processing plant will be within an approximately 32-m × 114-m [105-ft × 375-ft], pre-engineered, 

metal building that will house the major process equipment. The entire perimeter of the central 

processing plant floor will be surrounded by 15.2-cm [6-in] containment curbs and sloped toward 

trench drains and sumps to contain spilled and leaked fluids. Spilled and leaked fluids will be 

removed from the sumps by pumps and transported to the appropriate liquid waste treatment 

and disposal system or recycled back to the appropriate uranium recovery process component. 

Bulk storage tanks for the processing chemicals, such as sulfuric and/or hydrochloric acid, 

sodium hydroxide, and hydrogen peroxide, will be located outside the central processing plant. 

The storage tanks will be placed in concrete secondary containment basins, designed to contain 

110 percent of the tank volume, and will be designed to withstand a 25-year, 24-hour storm 

event. The secondary containment basins will be separated physically from the containment 

basins for all other chemical systems. Carbon dioxide will be stored outside the central plant. 

Oxygen will be stored either near the central plant or within wellfields. Because oxygen is 

combustible, it will be stored at a safe distance from the central plant and other chemical 

storage areas. (Powertech, 2009a) 

Other substances stored at the Burdock central plant will include petroleum products 

(gasoline, diesel) and propane. Due to the flammable and/or combustible nature of these 

materials, all bulk quantities of these substances will be stored outside of the central processing 

plant. All gasoline and diesel storage tanks will be located aboveground and within secondary 

containment structures, designed and constructed to meet U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) requirements. In addition, gasoline and diesel storage tanks used at the site 

must comply with SDDENR’s tank rules found in ARSD 74:56:01 and 74:56:03. 

The general layout of the Dewey satellite facility is shown in Figure 2.1-5, which shows the 

placement of the IX processing facility. This facility will be located on an estimated 1.2-ha 

[2.9-ac] area within Section 29, Township 6 South, Range 1 East and will be surrounded by a 

controlled access area fence. The IX processing facility will be within an approximately 

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-8 

Figure 2.1.-4. General Site Plan for the Budock Central Processing Plant 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2009b)

 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-9 

Figure 2.1-5. General Site Plan for the Dewey Satellite Facility  Source: Modified From Powertech (2009b) 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-10 

38-m × 43-m [125-ft × 140-ft], pre-engineered, metal building. A 15.2-cm [6-in]-high 

containment curb will be constructed around the perimeter wall of the processing building slab. 

The satellite facility floor will be sloped toward trench drains and sumps to contain spilled and 

leaked fluids. Spilled and leaked fluids will be removed from the sumps by pumps and 

transported to the appropriate liquid waste treatment and disposal system or recycled back to 

the appropriate process component. Bulk storage tanks for oxygen and carbon dioxide will be 

located outside the IX processing building in concrete secondary containment basins designed 

to contain 110 percent of the tank volume plus withstand a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 

(Powertech, 2009a) 

Byproduct material, consisting of contaminated used equipment parts, personal protective 

equipment, and wastes from cleanup of spills or other housekeeping activities, will be stored in 

designated byproduct storage buildings. The Burdock central plant site and the Dewey satellite 

facility site will each have one byproduct storage building (Figures 2.1-4 and 2.1-5). These 

buildings will consist of a concrete slab with a containment curb surrounding the perimeter. 

Byproduct material will be stored in rolloff containers (bins), which will be both liquid tight and 

fully enclosed. The storage buildings will accommodate two 15-m3

 [20-yd3] bins. The concrete 

slabs will be designed so the rolloff bins could be externally decontaminated before being 

transported from the proposed facility. (Powertech, 2009b) 

2.1.1.1.2.2 Access Roads 

 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.1, the main highway that will be used to access the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is U.S. Highway 18, which connects Edgemont with 

Hot Springs to the east of the proposed site. Material shipment and employee commutes to 

and from the project area will be primarily via Dewey Road (Fall River County Road 6463 

and Custer County Road 769), which extends northwestward from Edgemont to the 

community of Dewey, which is about 3.2 km [2 mi] from the northwest corner of the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project boundary. 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will utilize existing roads to the greatest degree 

possible. However, the construction of additional access roads will be required. A main access 

road to the proposed central processing plant in the Burdock area will be constructed off Dewey 

Road in Township 7 South, Range 1 East, Section 10, near the abandoned community of 

Burdock (see figures in Sections 2.1.1.1.2.4.1 and 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). This access road will join with 

several preexisting roads that traverse the Burdock area. A main access road to the proposed 

satellite facility in the Dewey area will be constructed farther to the north, off Dewey Road in 

Township 6 South, Range 1 East, Section 20 (see figures in Sections 2.1.1.1.2.4.1 and 

2.1.1.1.2.4.2). This access road will connect with several preexisting roads that traverse the 

Dewey area. The preexisting roads within the Burdock and Dewey areas will be used to the 

fullest extent possible to provide access to the proposed facility structures and wellfields and to 

limit the construction of new roads. Secondary roads will be constructed to provide access to 

other proposed facilities (such as header houses) and wellfields not currently accessible by 

existing roads. The applicant will secure approvals from private landowners and BLM, as well 

as required county permits, prior to constructing any access roads within the proposed 

project area (Powertech, 2009a). Construction of access roads within the proposed project area 

will be kept to a minimum.

 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-11 

2.1.1.1.2.3 Wellfields 

The proposed locations of wellfields in the Dewey and Burdock areas are shown in Figure 2.1-6. 

Exploratory drilling, conducted by the applicant and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), has 

demonstrated that commercially extractable uranium orebodies at the proposed site are located 

in sandstones in the Fall River Formation and the Chilson Member of the Lakota Formation that 

make up the Inyan Kara Group. The uranium mineralization occurs along a large U-shaped 

trend that is 8 km [5 mi] long and 5 to 6 km [3 to 4 mi] wide (Figure 2.1-6). Mineralized sands 

within the project area occur at depths of less than 30 m [100 ft] in the outcrop area of the 

Fall River Formation in the eastern portion of the Burdock area and at depths of up to 244 m 

[800 ft] in the Chilson Member of the Lakota Formation in the northwestern portion of the 

Dewey area (Powertech, 2009c, 2011). The geology, hydrology, and characteristics of the 

uranium mineralization at the Dewey-Burdock site are detailed in SEIS Sections 3.4 and 3.5. 

The estimated mineable resource within the proposed project area is 5.08 million kg 

[11.2 million lb] of U3O8 with an average grade of 0.198 percent (SRK Consulting, 2012). 

At an estimated recovery rate of 75 percent, the estimated recoverable uranium is 3.8 million kg 

[8.4 million lb] U3O8. 

Extraction is proposed at 10 wellfields in the Burdock area and at 4 wellfields in the Dewey area, 

as shown in Figure 2.1-6 (Powertech, 2011). The initial Burdock wellfield (B-WF1) will be 

located over mapped orebodies within the Chilson Member of the Lakota Formation; the initial 

Dewey wellfield (D-WF1) will be located over mapped orebodies within the Fall River Formation 

(Powertech, 2011). Wellfield construction will affect an area of 15.9 ha [39.3 ac] in D-WF1 and 

an area of 7.1 ha [17.6 ac] in B-WF1 (Powertech, 2010c). Prior to finalizing the design of 

wellfields, the applicant will conduct closely spaced and localized delineation drilling to refine 

information on the location, grade, thickness, and production capability of the ore. The applicant 

estimated that 248 delineation holes (77 holes at B-WF1 and 171 holes at D-WF1) will be drilled 

during the construction phase of the proposed project (Powertech, 2010c). To estimate and 

manage ore production, geologic and geophysical data from the drill holes will be analyzed to 

determine the depth of the mineralized zone and confining units, identify and locate potential 

barriers to groundwater flow caused by clay stringers, and determine the thickness and grade of 

ore deposits. After field data are collected, delineation drill holes will be plugged and 

abandoned, according to SDDENR regulations under ARSD 74:11:08 (Powertech, 2009a). The 

applicant will design the production well spacing and the size and depth of the well screen 

intervals for each well based on the results of the delineation drilling data. The wellfields will be 

located over the delineated mineralization zones, to facilitate extraction of 0.45 million kg 

[1 million lb] of U3O8 per year, which is the design capacity of the facilities (Powertech, 2009a). 

Two types of wells will be installed as part of the operations at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project: dual-purpose injection/production wells and monitoring wells. Injection wells will 

be used to introduce lixiviant into the uranium mineralization; production wells will be used to 

extract uranium-bearing solutions; and monitoring wells will be used to identify and assess 

impacts of ongoing operations and detect groundwater excursions. 

2.1.1.1.2.3.1 Injection and Production Wells 

The applicant plans to construct wellfields consisting of a series of injection and production wells 

laid out in geometric-shaped patterns across target uranium mineralization zones (Powertech, 

2009a). The applicant estimated 100 production wells and 194 injection wells will be installed at 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-12 

Figure 2.1-6. Map of Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Area Showing 

 Locations of the Dewey Satellite Facility, Burdock Central Plant, Mapped 

 Orebodies, and Proposed Wellfields 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2011) 

the initial wellfields during the construction phase of the proposed project (Powertech, 2010c). 

The wells will be “cased” by lowering a pipe into the borehole either during or after drilling to 

prevent the sides of the borehole from caving, prevent loss of drilling fluids into porous 

formations, and prevent unwanted fluids from entering the borehole. The base of the well 

casing at all injection and production wells will extend to or below the confining unit overlying the 

mineralized zone. The screened interval of injection and production wells will be completed only 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-13 

across the targeted ore zone (Figure 2.1-7). Wells will be designed and constructed so they can 

be used as either injection or production wells. The dual use of wells allows wellfield flow 

patterns to be changed to improve uranium production at the proposed project. Dual-use wells 

also result in more effective restoration of groundwater quality during the aquifer restoration 

phase of the ISR process (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4). 

Wellfield patterns and well spacing at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site may vary at 

each wellfield due to variations in the lateral distribution and ore grade within the mineralized 

zone (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant plans to utilize a five-spot square pattern where 

injection wells will be at the corners of a 30-m [100-ft] wide square and a production well will be 

placed in the center of the square (Figure 2.1-8). Rectangular, hexagonal, or triangular 

configurations may be used depending on the geometry and characteristics of the orebody as it 

is mapped during delineation drilling and prior to final wellfield design. 

The applicant may elect to space the injection wells as close as 15 m [50 ft] apart for efficient 

uranium recovery based on the results of delineation drilling, thus increasing the overall number 

of wells needed for this process (Powertech, 2009c). 

Production and injection wells will be connected to manifolds in a wellfield header house; 

header houses distribute injection fluid to injection wells and collect production solution from 

recovery wells. The header house will include manifolds, valves, flow meters, pressure meters, 

and booster pumps. Oxygen will be incorporated into the lixiviant at the header house before it 

is injected into the production formation. Typically, one header house will serve up to 

Figure 2.1-7. Schematic Diagram of Typical Well Placement 

 Source: Powertech (2009a) 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-14 

 Figure 2.1-8. Schematic Diagram of Typical Five-Spot Wellfield Pattern 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2009a) 

 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-15 

20 production wells and 80 injection wells. Additional header houses will be constructed as the 

wellfield expands (Powertech, 2009a). 

The applicant estimates that, at full production, wellfields in the proposed Dewey and Burdock 

areas will operate at an average production flow rate of 15,140 Lpm [4,000 gpm] (Powertech, 

2011). The typical production flow rate will be approximately 9,084 Lpm [2,400 gpm] from the 

Burdock wellfields and approximately 6,056 Lpm [1,600 gpm] from the Dewey wellfields 

(Powertech, 2011). To create an overall hydraulic cone of depression, more water will be 

withdrawn than injected into each wellfield. Under this pressure gradient, the groundwater 

movement will flow toward the center of the production zone and control the movement of 

production solution. The difference between the amount of water withdrawn and injected is 

referred to as the wellfield “bleed.” The applicant’s projected production bleed for the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be approximately 0.875 percent of the total production flow 

rate, or approximately 79.5 Lpm [21 gpm] at the Burdock wellfields and approximately 53 Lpm 

[14 gpm] at the Dewey wellfields (Powertech, 2011). The bleed rate will be adjusted, as 

necessary, during production to maintain the wellfield cone of depression. 

An EPA-administered underground injection 

control (UIC) program regulates the design, 

construction, testing, operation, and closure of 

injection wells. Injection wells for uranium 

extraction are classified under UIC as Class III 

wells; these wells are located in the aquifer(s) 

containing the uranium that will be recovered. 

The proposed operation requires the applicant 

to obtain a UIC permit from EPA to use Class III 

injection wells. Before ISR operations begin, 

the portion of the aquifer(s) designated for 

uranium recovery must be exempted from the 

underground source of drinking water (USDW) 

designation, in accordance with the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and pursuant to 

40 CFR Part 146. A USDW is defined as an 

aquifer or its portion that (1)(i) supplies any 

public water system or (ii) that contains a 

sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a 

public water system, and (a) currently supplies 

drinking water for human consumption or 

(b) contains fewer than 10,000 mg/L 

(10,000 ppm) total dissolved solids; and that 

(2) is not an exempted aquifer. An aquifer or 

aquifer portion that meets the criteria for a 

USDW may be determined to be an “exempted 

aquifer” if (i)(a) it does not currently serve as a 

source of drinking water and (b) it cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of 

drinking water because it is mineral, hydrocarbon, or geothermal energy producing, or (ii) can 

be demonstrated by a permit applicant as part of a permit application for a Class III operation to 

contain minerals that, considering their quantity and location, are expected to be commercially 

producible. The applicant, therefore, must obtain an aquifer exemption from EPA before 

initiating ISR operations. 

The EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 

is responsible for regulating construction, operation, 

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 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. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-16 

Once exempted, the defined aquifer(s) or its portion will no longer be protected as a USDW 

under SDWA. For example, at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, portions of the 

Fall River and Chilson aquifers could potentially be exempted in defined areas related to 

commercial mineral production uranium recovery operations. The remaining portion of the 

Fall River and Chilson aquifers, beyond the designated exempted area, will still be considered a 

USDW and continue to be protected under the SDWA. 

2.1.1.1.2.3.2 Monitoring Wells 

The applicant has proposed installing production zone monitoring wells at the periphery of each 

production area (Figure 2.1-8). This perimeter monitoring well “ring” will be utilized for early 

detection of horizontal excursions from within the sand unit or aquifer where production is 

occurring. An excursion at a monitoring well is declared when the concentrations of certain 

indicator parameters exceed upper control limits established by the license and verified by NRC 

and EPA or the state. The purpose of the monitoring well ring is to ensure that groundwater 

quality in aquifers outside exempted zones is not impacted by ISR operations. 

In some areas of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site, multiple orebodies are 

vertically stacked within the Fall River Formation or the Chilson Member of the Lakota 

Formation with no substantial confining layers between the orebodies. In these areas, the 

perimeter production zone monitor wells will be screened across the full thickness of the 

stacked orebodies and the orebodies treated as a single production zone (Powertech, 2011). In 

other areas of the project site, stacked orebodies within the Fall River and Chilson Member are 

separated by low permeability units that may act as localized confining units (Powertech, 2011). 

If delineation drilling and pump testing demonstrate that localized confining units provide 

hydraulic separation between orebodies within one of the primary production units (e.g., the Fall 

River or Chilson), then monitor wells could be located and screened only within the portion of 

the unit in which the orebody is located (Powertech, 2011). 

Production zone monitor wells will be located at a maximum of 122 m [400 ft] from the 

production area (Powertech, 2009a, 2009c, 2011). The spacing between monitor wells will also 

be 122 m [400 ft] (Powertech, 2009a). To support the proposed spacing of monitor wells, the 

applicant conducted numerical simulations using site-specific hydrogeologic data and proposed 

production flow rates to evaluate groundwater conditions related to ISR at the proposed DeweyBurdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2011). Results of the simulations indicated that the proposed 

maximum monitor well spacing of 122 m [400 ft] will be adequate to detect a potential excursion 

(Powertech, 2011). 

Production zone monitoring wells will be installed before production activities begin; required 

groundwater sampling and hydrologic tests will be conducted on samples taken from the 

monitoring wells. The applicant estimates that approximately 100 monitoring wells will be 

installed in the initial wellfields during the construction phase of the proposed project 

(Powertech, 2010c). 

The applicant plans to design and install two types of nonproduction zone monitoring wells; 

these wells are labeled “overlying” and “underlying.” Placement of overlying and underlying 

monitor wells is designed to correspond to the site-specific lithology and the hydrologic 

characteristics within the production zone(s) of each wellfield. The screened intervals of 

overlying wells will be located in the sand unit or aquifer immediately above the ore-bearing 

sandstone (Figure 2.1-7). The overlying nonproduction monitoring wells are designed to 

monitor any upward movement of leach fluids away from the production zone and identify 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-17 

leakage from production and injection well casings before fluids could enter the overlying 

aquifer. In the sand unit or aquifer immediately above the ore-bearing sandstone, overlying 

nonproduction zone monitoring wells will be evenly distributed with a minimum placement of one 

well for every 1.6 ha [4 ac] of production area in accordance with guidance in NUREG–1569 

(NRC, 2003a). When additional aquifers exist above the first sand unit or aquifer above the 

ore-bearing sandstone, additional monitoring wells will be located in these aquifers, with a 

minimum placement of one well for every 3.2 ha [8 ac] of production area in accordance with 

guidance in NUREG–1569 (Powertech, 2011, Figure TR RAI 5.7.8-12-2). 

The applicant will complete underlying nonproduction monitor wells in the first sand unit or 

aquifer underlying the ore-bearing sandstone. Where the production zone in the Chilson 

Member of the Lakota Formation is bounded below by the Morrison Formation, no underlying 

nonproduction monitor wells will be installed. In this case, the thickness {approximately 30 m 

[100 ft]} and relatively impermeable nature of the Morrison Formation minimize concerns about 

vertical excursion of lixiviant (Powertech, 2011). The underlying nonproduction monitoring wells 

are designed to monitor any downward movement of leach fluids from the production zone and 

to identify leakage from production and injection well casings before fluids could enter the 

underlying aquifer. Underlying nonproduction monitoring wells will be evenly distributed through 

the production area with a minimum placement of one well for every 1.6 ha [4 ac] of production 

area (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). 

The production zone monitor ring and overlying and underlying monitor wells will be designed 

for each wellfield based on (i) production and injection well locations and (ii) site-specific 

lithologic and hydrologic characteristics of production zones and overlying and underlying 

hydrogeologic units gathered during delineation drilling. The location and/or number of 

monitoring wells will be determined after pump testing is complete to demonstrate that 

monitoring wells are hydrologically connected to injection and production wells (see following 

section). The applicant must present each monitoring well program to EPA for administrative 

approval before installing proposed wells. In addition, wells completed in overlying and 

underlying aquifers are subject to sampling procedures, remedial actions, and reporting 

requirements prescribed in NRC and EPA rules and regulations. (Powertech, 2009b) 

2.1.1.1.2.3.3 Pumping Tests 

Prior to operation of each wellfield, the applicant will design and implement pumping tests to 

establish that the production and injection wells are hydraulically connected to the perimeter 

production zone monitor wells and hydraulically isolated from nonproduction zone monitor wells 

in underlying and overlying sand units (Powertech, 2011). The pumping test system for each 

wellfield will include production zone pumping wells and monitor wells. Monitor wells will include 

(i) perimeter production zone monitor wells; (ii) monitor wells within the production zone (used 

for background characterization and later converted to production wells) at a minimum density 

of one per 1.6 ha [4 ac]; (iii) monitor wells in the immediately overlying and underlying 

nonproduction zone sand unit at a minimum density of one per 1.6 ha [4 ac]; (iv) monitor wells in 

the subsequently overlying nonproduction sand unit at a minimum density of one per 3.2 ha 

[8 ac]; and (v) monitor wells in alluvium, if present, at a minimum density of one per 3.2 ha [8 ac] 

(Powertech, 2011). As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.3, delineation drilling data will 

provide detailed lithologic information to map production zones targeted for ISR operations and 

define the overlying and underlying sand units and confining layers to be monitored. The 

delineation drilling data will be used to determine the location and screened intervals of pumping 

and monitor wells for each wellfield during pumping tests. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-18 

The pumping test data will be used to evaluate and confirm hydraulic connection between 

the production zone and perimeter production zone monitor wells and hydraulic isolation 

(i.e., confinement) between the production zone and overlying and underlying sand units. In 

addition, the pumping test data will be used to demonstrate that solutions can be controlled with 

typical wellfield bleed rates and to detect and identify leakage due to anomalies such as 

improperly plugged wells and exploration boreholes (Powertech, 2011). 

2.1.1.1.2.3.4 Wellfield Hydrogeologic Data Packages 

The applicant’s delineation drilling results and pumping test data will be included in 

wellfield hydrogeologic data packages, which will be submitted for review and evaluation to the 

Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP), which is established by NRC requirements 

(Powertech, 2011). The wellfield hydrogeologic data package will describe the wellfield, 

including (i) production and injection well patterns and location of monitor wells; 

(ii) documentation of wellfield geology (e.g., geologic cross sections and isopach maps of 

production zone sand and overlying and underlying confining units); (iii) pumping test results; 

(iv) sufficient information to demonstrate that perimeter production zone monitor wells 

adequately communicate with the production zone; and (v) data and statistical methods used to 

compute Commission-approved background water quality (Powertech, 2011). 

The SERP will review the wellfield hydrogeologic test results and documentation to determine 

whether monitoring wells are hydrologically connected to the injection and production wells. 

The wellfield hydrogeologic data package and written SERP evaluation will be maintained on 

site and be available for NRC review. By license condition, all wellfield hydrogeologic data 

packages must be submitted to NRC for review prior to operating each wellfield (NRC, 2013b). 

The hydrogeologic test packages for the initial Burdock and Dewey area wellfields (i.e., B-WF1 

and D-WF1) will be submitted to NRC for review and written verification. In addition, wellfields 

in the partially saturated portion of the Dewey-Burdock Project area, specifically wellfields 

B-WF6, B-WF7, and B-WF8 (see Figure 2.1-6), will be prohibited from operating until NRC 

staff have reviewed and approved the hydrogeologic data packages for those wellfields 

(NRC, 2013b). 

2.1.1.1.2.3.5 Well Construction, Development, and Testing 

The applicant intends to use standard mud rotary drilling techniques and equipment to construct 

production, injection, and monitor wells. Wells will be drilled to the bottom of the target 

completion interval with a small rotary drilling unit, using bentonite or polymer drilling mud with 

pH adjusted water and mixed to control viscosity (Powertech, 2008). A temporary mud pit, to 

contain the drilling mud, will be excavated adjacent to the drill site. During excavation of mud 

pits, topsoil will be separated from the subsoil with a backhoe. The subsoil will be deposited 

next to the mud pit, and the topsoil will be stored at a separate location until the well site is 

restored. Residual cuttings and drilling fluids are typically held in the mud pit after drilling and 

construction activities are completed (NRC, 2009a). Depending on state and local regulations, 

such mud pits are backfilled and graded or are alternatively emptied and cleaned, and residual 

solids and liquids transported and disposed of offsite (NRC, 2006). State of South Dakota rules 

governing disposal of drill cuttings are stipulated in ARSD 74:29:11:15. After well drilling is 

completed at the proposed project, the applicant proposes to redeposit the excavated subsoil in 

the mud pit followed by topsoil application and grading, usually within 30 days of the initial 

excavation of the mud pit (Powertech, 2009a). 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-19 

All production, injection, and monitoring wells will be cased and cemented to prevent fluids 

migrating into or between USDWs in accordance with EPA requirements in 40 CFR 146.32. A 

schematic for a completed well is shown in Figure 2.1-9. Before an injection, production, or 

monitoring well enters service, the applicant proposes to perform mechanical integrity tests 

(MITs) using pressure-packer tests (Powertech, 2009a). The mechanical integrity of wells is 

tested to verify that the well casing will not fail, which could cause water loss and fluid migration 

across confining units during injection, recovery, and monitoring operations (NRC, 2009a). 

MITs are performed by sealing a casing bottom with a plug, a downhole packer, or other 

suitable sealing device. The casing is then filled with water, and the top of the casing is sealed 

with a threaded cap or mechanical seal. The well casing is then pressurized with water and air, 

and a calibrated pressure gauge monitors the mechanical integrity of the well casing. Internal 

casing pressure is increased to 125 percent of the maximum operating pressure of the well, 

125 percent of the maximum operating pressure rating of the well casing, or 90 percent of the 

formation fracture pressure, whichever is less (Powertech, 2009a). If obvious leaks are present 

or the pressure drops by more than 10 percent during a 10-minute period, the seals and fittings 

on the packer system must be checked and reset and another test is conducted. A well casing 

that maintains a high level of pressure demonstrates acceptable mechanical integrity, and the 

well will be qualified for service at the facility. 

To ensure the continued integrity of the wellfields, the applicant will test the mechanical integrity 

of all active wells at least once every 5 years or after any rework that may need to be performed 

on the well. The applicant will document the details of the MITs (specifically, the well 

designation, date of test, test duration, and beginning and ending pressures), and the individual 

conducting the test will sign the test report. MIT results will be maintained onsite and will be 

available for NRC inspection. MIT results will also be reported quarterly to EPA, in accordance 

with the EPA UIC regulations in 40 CFR 146.33. 

In addition to conducting pressure tests on new wells to establish mechanical integrity, the 

applicant will conduct an MIT following any repair to a well that involves the use of a downhole 

tool or underreaming tool (Powertech, 2009a). Downhole and underreaming tools will be used 

to repair or replace the well casing, screen assembly, or the gravel/sand pack. A well that 

shows evidence of subsurface damage will be subjected to an MIT before being returned to 

service. If, following repair, a well does not demonstrate acceptable MIT mechanical integrity, 

the well will be plugged and abandoned. The applicant must plug wells in accordance with EPA 

regulations and SDDENR requirements under ARSD 74:02:04 (Powertech, 2012c). The 

applicant’s commitment to MIT procedures and frequencies, as described previously, is included 

as a standard license condition for the proposed action (NRC, 2013b). 

2.1.1.1.2.3.6 Pipelines 

As part of the underground infrastructure at ISR facilities, a network of process pipelines and 

cables are typically installed connecting (i) the central uranium processing facility or the satellite 

facility and the header houses for transferring lixiviant; (ii) the header houses and wellfields for 

injecting and recovering lixiviant; and (iii) the central plant and wastewater disposal facilities 

(e.g., deep injection wells or land application areas) (NRC, 2009a). The piping and metering 

system for production and injection solutions at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

require buried trunk lines to connect the Dewey satellite facility and its related operating 

wellfield areas and the Burdock central processing plant and its related wellfields to the 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-20 

 Figure 2.1-9. Schematic of Typical Injection Well Construction 

 (the Design of a Typical Production and Monitor 

 Well Will Be Identical Except for the Addition of a 

 Submersible Pump in the Production Well) 

 Source: Powertech (2009a) 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-21 

metering and flow distribution headers inside the header houses. Piping will also be installed to 

transport liquid waste streams from the Burdock central processing plant and Dewey satellite 

facility to their respective wastewater disposal facilities (i.e., deep injection wells and/or land 

application areas). 

The applicant proposes to install up to eight underground pipelines between the Burdock central 

processing plant and the Dewey satellite facility to transport various fluids used during ISR 

operations (Powertech, 2011). Conduits for electronic communication and control purposes will 

also be installed between the central plant and satellite facility. The plant-to-plant pipelines will 

transport fluids including but not limited to (i) barren and pregnant lixiviant, (ii) restoration water, 

(iii) reverse osmosis reject brines, (iv) wastewater from well drilling and maintenance operations, 

and (v) supply water from the Madison Formation or other aquifers. 

High density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe with heat-welded joints is used to connect the wells, 

header houses, and processing facilities; the piping is buried approximately 1.5 m [5 ft] below 

grade to prevent freezing (Powertech, 2009b). Trenches containing pipelines are typically 

backfilled with native soil and graded to surrounding ground topography (Powertech, 2009b). 

The same procedure used in mud pit excavation during well construction will be used to 

preserve topsoil; topsoil is stored separately from subsoil and replaced on the subsoil after the 

pipeline ditch is backfilled. 

HDPE piping to be used at the proposed project is designed to withstand operating pressures of 

1135–2169 kPa {150–300 pounds per square inch [psig]}, although the applicant expects actual 

operating pressures to be less than 790 kPa [100 psig] (Powertech, 2009b). At the header 

house, the piping will be connected to manifolds equipped with control valves, flow meters, 

check valves, pressure sensors, oxygen and carbon dioxide feed systems (injection only), and 

programmable logic controllers. Sensors will measure and record pipeline pressures to monitor 

for potential leaks and spills resulting from failure of fittings and valves. Electrical power to the 

header houses will be delivered by overhead power lines and buried cable. Electrical power to 

individual wells will be delivered by buried cable from the header house. As the wellfield 

expands, additional header houses will be constructed and connected to one another via buried 

header piping. The header piping is designed to accommodate injection and production flow 

rates of 7,570 Lpm [2,000 gpm] and operating pressures of 1135–2169 kPa [150–300 psig]. 

The only exposed pipes at the proposed project site will be at the central plant, satellite facility, 

wellheads, and wellfield header houses. 

2.1.1.1.2.3.7 Power Lines 

The applicant plans to use existing power line corridors wherever possible when constructing 

new power lines. However, a new power line corridor will be constructed alongside Dewey 

Road between the Dewey and Burdock areas to connect the Dewey satellite facility and the 

Burdock central processing plant. This proposed corridor will be approximately 9 m [30 feet] in 

width; the poles will be approximately 0.3 m [1.0 ft] in diameter and will be placed every 

30–91 m [100–300 ft]. No access roads will be built during construction of the power lines and 

minimal disturbance to the ground surface is anticipated. 

2.1.1.1.2.4 Liquid Waste Disposal Systems 

The applicant plans to dispose of liquid wastes generated during uranium recovery 

operations through deep injection wells, land application, or a combination of both methods. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-22 

Project-generated liquid wastes will include bleed water from the production wells, groundwater 

generated during aquifer restoration, process solutions (e.g., resin transfer water and brine 

generated from the elution and precipitation circuits), affected well development water, 

laboratory wastewater, laundry water, and plant washdown water. The applicant’s preferred 

option for disposal is deep injection using Class V wells (Powertech, 2009c, 2011). Liquid 

waste injected into potential Class V injection wells at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

site must not be hazardous or radioactive, as defined at 40 CFR 144.3. SDDENR regulates 

land application under a Groundwater Discharge Plan (GDP). SDDENR will permit land 

application only if the applicant demonstrates insufficient Class V disposal capacity. If a permit 

is granted, it would limit wastes discharged through the land application system to those 

wastewaters that Powertech identified in their GDP (SDDENR, 2013a). Additionally, the use of 

small, onsite wastewater systems (e.g., a septic field) must be approved by SDDENR. Details 

about the permitting process and applicable requirements for the deep Class V injection well 

and land application disposal options are presented in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2. 

2.1.1.1.2.4.1 Deep Class V Injection Well Option 

The applicant proposes to inject up to 1,135 Lpm [300 gpm] of liquid waste into the 

Minnelusa and/or Deadwood Formations using a maximum of eight deep Class V injection wells 

(Powertech, 2011). The proposed locations of the first four Class V injection wells (two near the 

Burdock central plant and two near the Dewey satellite facility) are shown in Figure 2.1-10. 

Deep injection well design and construction must meet EPA requirements (Powertech, 2009c). 

The proposed deep injection well disposal design is shown in Figure 2.1-11; in this design a 

cemented steel casing extends from the base of the well to the surface, an internal tubing string 

is fit with the casing, and a packer seals the casing, just above the point of injection. Fluid is 

injected through the tubing and through the packer and exits into the injection zone by 

perforations in the casing (see Figure 2.1-11). Pressure on the fluid-filled annulus between the 

tubing and well casing must be continuously maintained and monitored to detect leakage of the 

injection tubing or well casing. The constant pressure on the annulus will be maintained at a 

minimum of 100 psi above the injection tubing pressure to prevent injected waste fluid from 

migrating into overlying formations. Operational procedures include MIT of the casing to 

ensure against well leakage and reporting of MIT test results to EPA as described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.2.3.5. The applicant’s Class V injection well monitoring program is described 

in detail in SEIS Section 7.6. 

The Class V injection well disposal option requires surface impoundments or ponds for storage 

and settling of radium before injection into deep disposal wells (Powertech, 2009c, 2011). As 

described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.1, these ponds are designed following NRC requirements 

(NRC, 2003a, 2008; 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5). Deep injection well pond design 

for the proposed project will include the following: 

• Two 0.93-ha [2.3-ac] radium settling ponds, one each in the Dewey and Burdock areas, 

each with a storage capacity of 1.96 ha-m [15.9 ac-ft]. These ponds will contain 

production bleed and restoration water and allow radium to settle out of solution. 

• Two 0.4-ha [1.0-ac] outlet ponds, one each in the Dewey and Burdock areas, each with 

a storage capacity of 0.63 ha-m [5.1 ac-ft]. These ponds will intercept treated water from 

the radium settling ponds and store stormwater falling on the radium settling ponds. 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-23 

Figure 2.1-10. Location of Deep Injection Wells and Ponds for the Deep Injection Well 

 Disposal Option 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2011)
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-24 

 Figure 2.1-11. Schematic of the Design of Deep Injection Well 

 Source: Powertech (2009c) 

• Two 0.45-ha [1.1-ac] surge ponds, one each in the Dewey and Burdock areas, each with 

a storage capacity of 1.04 ha-m [8.4 ac-ft]. These ponds will contain treated water that 

is pumped to the disposal wells. 

• A 0.61-ha [1.5-ac] central plant pond in the Burdock area with a capacity of 1.96 ha-m 

[15.9 ac-ft]. This pond will contain brine produced at the Burdock central plant. 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-25 

• Two 0.93-ha [2.3-ac] spare ponds, one each in the Dewey and Burdock areas, each 

having a capacity of 1.96 ha-m [15.9 ac-ft]. These ponds will be used for emergency 

containment should a pond liner fail. 

Under these design conditions, ponds for Class V injection well disposal will occupy a total of 

2.75 ha [6.8 ac] in the Dewey area and a total of 3.36 ha [8.3 ac] in the Burdock area 

(Powertech, 2010a). Siting and design of retention ponds at ISR facilities should also consider 

the requirements of EPA’s national emission regulations under 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W 

(NRC, 2008). Based on the design for the Class V injection well disposal option, the applicant 

may need to acquire an approval from EPA prior to commencing operations in any wellfield to 

ensure compliance with 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W (NRC, 2013b). 

All ponds will be designed to store the amount of water discharged to them while maintaining 

0.9 m [3 ft] of freeboard (i.e., distance from the water level to the top of the embankment). 

Control structures, such as collector ditches and berms, will be used to prevent surface runoff 

for events up to and including a 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event from entering the ponds 

(Powertech, 2011). The radium settling, spare, and central plant ponds will be constructed with 

a lining system consisting of the following: (i) an 80-mil HDPE primary liner; (ii) a 60-mil HDPE 

secondary liner; (iii) a 0.3-m [1-ft]-thick clay liner below the secondary liner; (iv) a geonet 

drainage layer sandwiched between the primary and secondary HDPE liners; and (v) a leak 

detection sump and access port system (Powertech, 2009c). All other ponds will contain 

treated water for deep Class V well injection. These ponds will include a single 40-mil HDPE 

liner underlain by a 0.3-m [1-ft]-thick clay liner. NRC reviewed the pond design and determined 

the design meets the criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A and conforms to the generally 

applicable standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart D, for example, requiring double liners for 

ponds utilized for recovery operations. All ponds will be fenced to restrict and control access. 

An inspection program for all ponds will be implemented in accordance with Regulatory 

Guide 3.11 (NRC, 2008). Inspections will include (i) daily inspections of the liner, liner slopes, 

and other earthwork features; (ii) daily inspections of pond freeboard; (iii) monthly inspections of 

leak detection systems or daily checks for water accumulation in leak detection systems; and 

(iv) quarterly inspections of embankment settlement and slope stability (Powertech, 2011). If 

inspections reveal damage or defects that could result in leakage, this information will be 

reported to NRC within 24 hours, and appropriate repairs will be implemented. Significant water 

found in the standpipes of the leak detection system will be sampled immediately for chloride 

and conductivity to determine whether the water in the detection system is from the pond. If 

analysis confirms a leak, a second sample will be collected and analyzed within 24 hours. If the 

second analysis confirms a leak, the pond will be taken out of service and the leak reported to 

NRC within 24 hours. SDDENR must be also notified of any pond leakage or releases within 

24 hours, in accordance with ARSD 74:34:01:04. The pond taken out of service because of a 

leak will be drained by transferring its contents to a spare pond until repaired. 

2.1.1.1.2.4.2 Land Application Option 

For the land application option, liquid waste will be treated in lined settling ponds followed by 

seasonal application of the treated waste through center pivot irrigation sprinklers (Powertech, 

2009c, 2011). The applicant will treat all land application water to meet the requirements of 

10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2, which are the established limits for discharge 

of radionuclides to the environment and include limits for natural uranium, Ra-226, Pb-210, and 

Th-230 (Powertech, 2011, 2012a). This will be accomplished by IX for uranium removal 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-26 

followed by radium removal through co-precipitation with barium sulfate in radium settling 

ponds. It is not anticipated that Th-230 and Pb-210 will be present at concentrations above the 

limits (Powertech, 2012a). SDDENR is also proposing effluent water quality limits as part of the 

GDP (SDDENR, 2013a). 

Two land application (irrigation) areas, one in the Dewey area and one in the Burdock area, are 

proposed for the land application option (Figure 2.1-12). The applicant estimates that the 

maximum area for land application of treated wastewater will be 426 ha [1,052 ac], including all 

normally operating irrigation pivots, standby irrigation pivots, and areas constructed to contain 

surface runoff (Powertech, 2010a). The total area under irrigation at any given time in 

the Dewey area will be 127.5 ha [315 ac] and will consist of five 20.23-ha [50-ac] pivots, 

two 10.12-ha [25-ac] pivots, and one 6.1-ha [15-ac] pivot (Powertech, 2012a). In addition, 

two 10.12-ha [25-ac] pivots and one 6.1-ha [15-ac] pivot will be on standby. The total 

irrigated area at any given time in the Burdock area will also be 127.5 ha [315 ac], but will 

consist of six 20.23-ha [50-ac] pivots and one 6.1-ha [15-ac] pivot. In addition, two 10.12-ha 

[25-ac] pivots and one 6.1-ha [15-ac] pivot will be on standby. Runoff from precipitation events 

or snowmelt on land application areas will be conveyed to catchment areas downgradient of 

land application areas and allowed to evaporate or infiltrate (Powertech, 2012a). 

Potential wellfield areas at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (see Figure 2.1-6) overlap with 

portions of proposed land application areas illustrated in Figure 2.1-12 (Powertech, 2011). In 

the Dewey area, only land application areas designated for standby operation overlap with 

potential wellfields. Standby land application areas will serve as contingency areas and 

generally will not be used at the same time as the wellfields (Powertech, 2011). In the Burdock 

area, there is limited potential overlap between proposed land application areas and proposed 

wellfields. Overlap in the Burdock area is expected to be limited to areas where perimeter 

monitor wells are located (Powertech, 2011). 

The center pivot irrigation systems will typically operate 24 hours per day during the growing 

season, which is approximately April through October (Powertech, 2011). SDDENR GDP would 

restrict land application of liquid wastewater during periods when soils are frozen or snowcovered, rather than specific months of the year (SDDENR, 2013a). The applicant used the 

SPAW (Soil-Plant-Atmosphere-Water) model to estimate the disposal capacity for the land 

application option (Powertech, 2011). The model predicted that each land application area will 

be able to dispose of approximately 1,124 Lpm [297 gpm] from March 29 to May 10; 

approximately 2,472 Lpm [653 gpm] from May 11 to September 24; and approximately 

1,124 Lpm [297 gpm] from September 25 to October 31. The applicant’s design average 

annual application rate (i.e., annual average capacity) is 1,173 Lpm [310 gpm] for each of the 

proposed land application areas (Powertech, 2012a), or 2,347 Lpm [620 gpm] for the combined 

(Dewey and Burdock) land application areas. During periods when soils are frozen or snowcovered (most likely from November through March), when land application will not be used, 

treated liquid waste will be stored temporarily in ponds located near the Burdock central plant 

and Dewey satellite facility (Powertech, 2011). The available liquid waste storage capacity is far 

greater than the maximum storage capacity applicant estimated to be required during 

nonirrigation periods. For example, the SPAW model estimates that approximately 26.6 ha-m 

[216 ac-ft] of liquid waste storage capacity is needed during winter months, while 62.9 ha-m 

[510 ac-ft] of storage pond capacity will be available (Powertech, 2011). 

 

In addition to ponds for storage during nonirrigation periods, the land application option requires 

ponds to allow radium to settle out to levels allowable for land application (Figure 2.1-12). As 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-27 

Figure 2.1-12. Location of Land Application Irrigation Areas and Ponds for the Land 

Application Liquid Waste Disposal Option 

 Source: Modified from Powertech (2011)

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-28 

with the Class V injection well disposal option, pond design will comply with NRC requirements 

(NRC, 2003a, 2008; 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5). Land application pond design 

for the proposed project will include the following (Powertech, 2009c, 2011): 

• Two 1.62-ha [4.0-ac] radium settling ponds, one each in the Dewey and Burdock areas, 

each with a storage capacity of 4.86 ha-m [39.4 ac-ft]. These ponds will contain 

production bleed and restoration water and settle radium out of solution. 

• Two 0.32-ha [0.8-ac] outlet ponds, one each in the Dewey and Burdock areas, each with 

a storage capacity of 0.60 [4.9 ac ft]. These ponds will intercept treated water from the 

radium settling ponds and store stormwater falling on the radium settling ponds. 

• Two sets of storage ponds will be used to store treated water during the nonirrigation 

season: 

— A system of four 1.78-ha [4.4-ac] ponds constructed in the Dewey area, each 

having a capacity of 7.87 ha-m [63.8 ac-ft]. 

— A system of four 1.78-ha [4.4-ac] ponds constructed in the Burdock area, each 

having a capacity of 7.87 ha-m [63.8 ac-ft]. 

• Two 1.78-ha [4.4-ac] spare storage ponds, one each in the Dewey and Burdock areas, 

each having a storage capacity of 7.87 ha-m [63.8 ac-ft]. These ponds will be used for 

emergency containment should any of the storage ponds fail or portions of the land 

application system become temporarily inoperable. 

• A 1.09-ha [2.7-ac] central plant pond in the Burdock area having a capacity of 4.46 ha-m 

[36.2 ac-ft]. This pond will contain brine produced at the Burdock central plant. 

• Two 1.62-ha [4.0-ac] spare ponds, one each in the Dewey and Burdock areas, each 

having a capacity of 4.86 ha-m [39.4 ac-ft]. These ponds will be used for emergency 

containment should a liner on the radium settling ponds fail. 

Under these design conditions, land application ponds will occupy 12.5 ha [30.8 ac] in the 

Dewey area and 13.6 ha [33.5 ac] in the Burdock area (Powertech, 2010a). As described 

previously, siting and design of retention ponds at ISR facilities should also consider the 

requirements of EPA’s national emission regulations under 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W (NRC, 

2008). Based on the design for the land application option, the applicant may need to acquire 

approval from EPA prior to commencing operations in any wellfield, to ensure compliance with 

40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W (NRC, 2013b). 

All ponds will be designed to store the amount of water discharged to them while maintaining 

0.9 m [3 ft] of freeboard. Control structures, such as collector ditches and berms, will be used to 

prevent surface runoff for events up to and including a 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event from 

entering the ponds (Powertech, 2011). As with the Class V injection well option, the radium 

settling, spare, and central plant ponds will be constructed with a lining system consisting of the 

following: (i) an 80-mil HDPE primary liner; (ii) a 60-mil HDPE secondary liner; (iii) a 0.3-m 

[1-ft]-thick clay liner below the secondary liner; (iv) a geonet drainage layer sandwiched 

between the primary and secondary HDPE liners; and (v) a leak detection sump and access 

port system (Powertech, 2009c). All other ponds will be constructed with a lining system 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-29 

consisting of a 40-mil HDPE liner underlain by a 0.3-m [1-ft]-thick clay liner. NRC reviewed the 

pond design and determined the design meets the criteria of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A 

criteria and conforms to generally applicable standards in 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart D, for 

example, requiring double liners for ponds utilized for recovery operations). All ponds will be 

fenced to restrict and control access. 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1 for the deep Class V injection well option, an 

inspection and reporting program for land application ponds will be implemented in accordance 

with Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 2008). Inspections will include (i) daily inspections of the 

liner, liner slopes, and other earthwork features; (ii) daily inspections of pond freeboard; (iii) 

monthly inspections of leak detection systems or daily checks for water accumulation in leak 

detection systems; and (iv) quarterly inspections of embankment settlement and slope stability 

(Powertech, 2011). 

2.1.1.1.2.4.3 Combined Deep Class V Injection Well and Land Application Option 

If Class V injection wells are permitted and constructed but lack sufficient capacity to dispose of 

the entire waste stream, the applicant will combine the use of Class V injection wells and land 

application for liquid waste disposal (Powertech, 2011). For the combined waste disposal 

option, land application facilities and infrastructure (e.g., irrigation areas, storage ponds, center 

pivot irrigation systems) will be constructed and operated on an as-needed basis depending on 

the capacity of the Class V injection wells to dispose of the liquid waste stream. As described in 

the previous section, SDDENR will regulate land application under a GDP. In addition, pond 

design for the combined Class V injection well and land application option will be completed 

following NRC regulations and requirements (NRC, 2003a, 2008; 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5). 

2.1.1.1.2.5 Schedule 

The applicant estimates that constructing the buildings, initial wellfields, and waste disposal 

systems for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will take approximately 2 years 

(Figure 2.1-1). Wellfields will be developed sequentially along with supporting infrastructure, 

including header houses and pipelines. The construction of subsequent wellfields will begin 

during the operational stage of the initial wellfields in the Dewey and Burdock areas. 

The applicant estimates that 86 workers will be directly involved in the construction phase of the 

proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). Workers are expected to come from the nearby towns of 

Edgemont, Hot Springs, and Custer, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming. These towns are 

21 to 80 km [13 to 50 mi] from the proposed project site. 

2.1.1.1.3 Operation Activities 

As discussed in GEIS Section 2.4, uranium extraction by the ISR process involves two primary 

operations. First, uranium mobilization occurs in underground aquifers when lixiviant (leaching 

solution) is injected into the orebody and uranium-laden solutions are recovered (NRC, 2009a). 

The uranium-laden solutions, referred to as pregnant lixiviant, are then pumped from the 

production wells into IX systems within surface facilities, where uranium is recovered and 

prepared for shipment (NRC, 2009a). The applicant proposes to conduct operations at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project consistent with those activities described in the GEIS 

(Powertech, 2009a). These activities are described in the following sections. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-30 

2.1.1.1.3.1 Uranium Mobilization 

Uranium mobilization will consist of the following steps: (i) injection of lixiviant into the 

production zone, (ii) oxidation and formation of uranium-bearing aqueous complexes 

underground, and (iii) extraction (production) and transport of the pregnant lixiviant to the 

processing facility. The uranium mobilization steps and excursion monitoring of lixiviant are 

described in the following sections. 

2.1.1.1.3.1.1 Lixiviant Chemistry 

The applicant proposes to add lixiviant, consisting of varying concentrations of oxygen and 

carbon dioxide, to the groundwater acquired from onsite wells to promote the dissolution and 

mobilization of uranium (Powertech, 2009a). The oxygen in the lixiviant oxidizes the uranium 

from the relatively insoluble, reduced tetravalent state (U4+) to the more soluble, oxidized 

hexavalent state (U6+). The carbon 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

] or uranyl dicarbonate complexes [UO2(CO3)2

−2

]. The relative 

abundance of each dissolved uranyl carbonate complex is a function of pH and total carbonate 

strength. GEIS Table 2.4-1 summarizes typical lixiviant chemistry (NRC, 2009a). As noted in 

GEIS Section 2.4.1.1, the principal geochemical reactions caused by the lixiviant are 

(i) oxidation and subsequent dissolution of uranium and other metals from the orebody and 

(ii) their subsequent extraction (NRC, 2009a). 

2.1.1.1.3.1.2 Lixiviant Injection and Production 

Lixiviant is pumped down injection wells to the mineralized zones hosted in sandstones in the 

Fall River and Chilson Member of the Lakota Formations, where it will oxidize and dissolve 

uranium from the formations. The uranium-bearing solution migrates through the pore spaces 

in the sandstone and is recovered by production wells. The applicant has estimated that 

approximately 191 production wells and approximately 406 injections wells will be installed 

annually over the 8-year operational life of the proposed project (Powertech, 2010c). The 

applicant estimates production flow rates of 9,084 Lpm [2,400 gpm] in the Burdock area and 

6,056 Lpm [1,600 gpm] in the Dewey area (Powertech, 2011). Uranium-enriched pregnant 

lixiviant will be pumped from production wells to the Burdock central plant or the Dewey satellite 

facility for uranium extraction by IX. The resulting barren lixiviant will then be refortified with 

oxygen and carbon dioxide and reinjected into the wellfield to dissolve additional uranium. This 

process will continue until further uranium recovery is uneconomical. 

Production wells are normally positioned to pump pregnant lixiviant from a number of injection 

wells. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.3.1, square well patterns and sometimes 

hexagons or triangles will be utilized to access all economically recoverable portions of the 

uranium orebody. As described in GEIS Section 2.4.3, the production wells at an ISR facility 

extract slightly more water than is reinjected into the host aquifer to create a net inward flow of 

groundwater into the wellfield, which minimizes the potential movement of lixiviant and its 

associated contaminants out of the wellfield. This excess water, referred to as production 

bleed, is byproduct material that must be properly managed (NRC, 2009a). The applicant 

proposes to withdraw 0.5 to 3 percent more groundwater than is reinjected (Powertech, 2009a). 

The typical production bleed will be approximately 0.875 percent and will be adjusted as 

necessary to maintain the wellfield cone of depression (i.e., a net inward flow of groundwater 

into the wellfield) (Powertech, 2011). Production bleed rates will be controlled by withdrawing a 

small portion of the barren solution from the IX circuit, which will then be disposed of via Class V 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-31 

deep well injection and/or land application in both the Dewey and Burdock areas. Production 

bleed is detailed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3.3. 

2.1.1.1.3.1.3 Excursion Monitoring 

GEIS Section 2.4.1.4 describes how ISR operations potentially affect the groundwater quality 

near a site, if lixiviant moves from the production zone resulting in either a vertical or lateral 

excursion (NRC, 2009a). The applicant proposes to implement an operational groundwater 

monitoring program that meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria 7 and 

7A. This program will be designed to detect and correct any condition that could lead to the 

unintended spread of lixiviant either horizontally or vertically outside of the production zone, 

which could lead to an excursion (Powertech, 2009a). As described in GEIS Section 2.4.3, 

excursions may be caused by improper water balance between injection and recovery rates, 

undetected high permeability strata or geological faults, improperly abandoned exploration drill 

holes, discontinuities within the confining layers, poor well integrity, or unintentional disruption 

(fracturing) of the ore zone or confining units (NRC, 2009a). The applicant’s proposed 

excursion monitoring program includes monitoring (i) flow rates, (ii) operating pressures of 

injection, production, and monitoring wells, and (iii) the flow rates and operating pressures of the 

main pipelines leading to and from the Burdock central plant and the Dewey satellite facility. 

The applicant estimated that approximately 57 monitoring wells will be installed annually over 

the 8-year operational life of the project (Powertech, 2010c). The applicant proposes to sample 

the monitoring wells in the ore zone and overlying and underlying aquifers at approximately 

2-week intervals (Powertech, 2009a). Samples from these wells will be analyzed for chloride, 

conductivity, and total alkalinity, and the data will be compared to the upper control limits (UCLs) 

for these constituents (Powertech, 2011). The applicant will establish UCLs after 

background water quality is established for the monitor wells in a particular wellfield, as 

described in SEIS Section 7.3.1.2. The water level in each monitor well will also be measured 

and recorded prior to each sampling event. Water level and analytical monitoring data for the 

UCL parameters will be retained onsite for NRC review. 

An excursion occurs when two or more excursion indicators in a monitoring well exceed their 

UCLs (NRC, 2003b). If the concentration of two or three excursion indicators exceeds 

established UCL concentrations during a sampling event, a second sample will be taken within 

48 hours after results of the first analysis are received and analyzed (Powertech, 2011). If an 

excursion is not confirmed by a second sample, a third sample will be taken within 

48 hours after the second set of sampling data are received. If the second or third samples 

produce results where two or more excursion indicators exceed the UCL concentrations, the 

well producing these results will be placed on excursion status and corrective action will be 

required. The first sample results will be considered in error if the second and third samples do 

not confirm the results from the first sample. 

If an excursion is detected, the applicant will be required to notify NRC within 24 hours by 

telephone or email, and in writing within 7 days; corrective actions should begin immediately. 

Corrective actions will include increasing sampling frequency to weekly, increasing the pumping 

rates of production wells in the area of the excursion to increase the net bleed, and pumping 

individual wells to enhance recovery of solutions. If these actions do not retrieve the excursion 

within 60 days, the applicant will suspend injection of lixiviant into the production zone adjacent 

to the excursion until the excursion is retrieved and the UCL parameters are no longer 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-32 

exceeded. Within 60 days of a confirmed excursion, the applicant will be required to file a 

written report to NRC describing the event and the corrective action taken (NRC, 2003b). 

2.1.1.1.3.2 Uranium Processing 

Uranium will be recovered from the pregnant lixiviant and processed into yellowcake in 

a multistep process (NRC, 2009a). The steps include (i) loading of uranium complexes onto IX 

resin, (ii) eluting (recovering) uranium complexes from the resin, and (iii) precipitating, drying, 

and packaging of uranium. Figure 2.1-13 shows the general flow of the uranium processing 

steps for the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project. 

2.1.1.1.3.2.1 Ion Exchange 

Recovery of uranium from the pregnant lixiviant solution will be accomplished via an IX process. 

Pregnant lixiviant will be pumped from the wellfields into the IX columns, which contain uraniumspecific IX resin beads (Dowex 21K XLT or equivalent) (Powertech, 2009a). As the lixiviant 

flows through the resin beads, the dissolved uranium complexes in the solution will attach to the 

resin beads by displacing a chloride ion or bicarbonate ion. The resin will be considered loaded 

when uranium complexes occupy most of the available sites on the resin beads. 

The proposed IX systems at both the Dewey satellite facility and Burdock central plant consist of 

eight fixed-bed IX columns (Powertech, 2009a). The columns will be operated as four sets of 

two vessels in series (Figure 2.1-13). The IX vessels are designed to operate in pressurized 

downflow mode, and each will contain approximately 14.15 m3

 [500 ft3] of IX resin. The 

barren lixiviant leaving the IX system will normally contain less than 2 mg/L [2 ppm] uranium 

(NRC, 2009a). 

After the barren lixiviant leaves the IX vessels, the production bleed will be removed and routed 

to the liquid waste system for deep well injection and/or land application. Carbon dioxide will 

then be added to the barren lixiviant to return the carbonate/bicarbonate concentration to the 

desired level. The lixiviant solution will then be pumped back to the wellfield, where oxygen will 

be added prior to reinjection into the wellfields to repeat the leaching cycle. 

2.1.1.1.3.2.2 Elution 

GEIS Section 2.4.2.2 describes the elution circuit at ISR facilities (NRC, 2009a). The proposed 

elution circuit at the Burdock central plant is designed to accept and elute uranium-loaded resin 

from the Burdock central plant and the Dewey satellite facility (Powertech, 2009a). 

At the Burdock central plant, resin transfer out of the IX vessels into the elution circuit will be 

accomplished via resin-transfer piping. Transfer of loaded resin from the Dewey satellite facility 

to the elution circuit at the Burdock central plant will be accomplished via resin-transfer trucks. 

Resin-transfer trucks will have one or more compartments with minimum capacities of 14.15 m3

[500 ft3

] per compartment (Powertech, 2009a). The resin will be hydraulically removed 

from the compartments and screened for debris and other particulates before transfer into the 

elution vessels. 

An elution process removes the uranyl dicarbonate and uranyl tricarbonate ions from the resin 

and restores the resin to its chloride form for reuse. Fresh eluant will be prepared by combining 

 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-33 

Figure 2.1-13. Overall Process Flow Diagram  Source: Powertech (2009a) 

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-34 

saturated chloride (salt) solution and saturated sodium carbonate (soda ash) solution with 

water, forming a solution that is approximately 10 percent sodium chloride and 2 percent sodium 

carbonate. The elution circuit proposed for use at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is illustrated 

in Figure 2.1-13. The elution process involves recycling eluant passing through the resin elution 

vessel to maximize the removal of uranium from the uranium-loaded resins. The applicant 

estimates the proposed process will remove more than 95 percent of the uranyl carbonate 

complexes from the resin (Powertech, 2009a). 

2.1.1.1.3.2.3 Precipitation, Drying, and Packaging 

GEIS Section 2.4.2.3 describes precipitation, drying, and packaging at ISR facilities 

(NRC, 2009a). The proposed precipitation and drying process at the Burdock central plant 

uses rich eluate, which has been transferred from the rich eluate tank to a precipitation tank 

(Figure 2.1-13). Precipitation and drying will be initiated by adding sulfuric or hydrochloric acid 

to the rich eluate in the precipitation tank to breakdown the carbonate portion of the dissolved 

uranyl carbonate complex. The proposed process uses hydrogen peroxide to precipitate out the 

uranium as uranium peroxide (UO4). Next, sodium hydroxide is added to adjust the pH before 

the precipitated uranyl peroxide or yellowcake slurry settles. After settling, the yellowcake slurry 

is pumped to a gravity thickener (Figure 2.1-13). The thickened slurry is pumped to a filter 

press to remove excess water. The yellowcake slurry is washed with fresh water to remove 

impurities, especially chloride, and air dried to further reduce the moisture content. 

After air drying is complete, the next step of the proposed process moves the filtered yellowcake 

to a rotary vacuum dryer housed in a separate room of the central plant. The dryer operates at 

a temperature of approximately 121 °C [250 °F] at full vacuum and has a production rate of 

998 dry kg [2,200 dry lb] per day (Powertech, 2009b). The dryer will be operated under a 

vacuum to reduce the ability of water-soluble uranium oxides and other compounds to form 

and to pull solids and water vapor toward the center of the system, which helps to prevent 

unwanted releases. Vapor is pulled from the dryers by sealed liquid ring 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

 in] in size. The vapor exiting the baghouses will be cooled using 

condensers to remove water vapor and any remaining smaller sized particulates. Any water 

in the condensers will be collected and pumped to the solids removal tank in the 

wastewater system. 

Following the drying stage, the yellowcake will be packaged in approved 208-L [55-gal] steel 

drums and stored within a restricted storage area until shipment offsite (Powertech, 2009a). 

Onsite inventory of drummed yellowcake typically will not exceed 90,718 kg [200,000 lb]. 

Packaged yellowcake will be shipped offsite via truck to licensed uranium conversion facilities 

for further processing. Conversion facilities are currently located in Metropolis, Illinois, and Port 

Hope, Ontario, Canada. The applicant projects an annual production of 453,600 kg/yr 

[1 million lb/yr] of yellowcake (as U3O8) over the 8-year projected operational life of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2009a). 

2.1.1.1.3.3 Management of Production Bleed and Water Balance 

As stated in GEIS Section 2.4.3, uranium mobilization will produce excess water that must be 

properly managed (NRC, 2009a). The production wells at any ISR facility extract slightly more 

water than is reinjected into the host aquifer, which creates a net inward flow of groundwater 

into the wellfield. This excess water, referred to as production bleed, is byproduct material that 

must be properly managed. At the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the applicant 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-35 

proposes to use the process described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3.2.1. As part of normal 

operations, the production bleed is diverted from the IX circuit after the uranium is recovered, 

but before the lixiviant is recharged. 

Estimated water balances presented as flow rates for the operations and aquifer restoration 

phases of the proposed project are illustrated and summarized in Figure 2.1-14. Water 

balances are presented for each liquid waste disposal option that could be implemented in the 

Dewey and Burdock areas. Aquifer restoration flow rates presented in Figure 2.1-14 are 

discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1. 

The applicant estimates that, at full production, wellfields in the proposed Dewey and Burdock 

areas will operate at an average production flow rate of 15,140 Lpm [4,000 gpm] (Powertech, 

2011). The production bleed will be approximately 0.5 to 3.0 percent of the production flow rate 

of 9,084 Lpm [2,400 gpm] in the Burdock area and 6,056 Lpm [1,600 gpm] in the Dewey area 

(Powertech, 2011). The typical production bleed will be approximately 0.875 percent of the 

production flow rate, or approximately 79.5 Lpm [21 gpm] in the Burdock area and 

approximately 53 Lpm [14 gpm] in the Dewey area (Powertech, 2011). The bleed rate will be 

adjusted as necessary to maintain the wellfield cone of depression. The applicant proposes to 

dispose of production bleed from the Burdock and Dewey areas by deep Class V well injection 

and/or land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2). 

Other liquid waste streams, including spent elution circuit bleed, liquids from process drains, 

groundwater generated during aquifer restoration, and washdown water, will be produced as 

part of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2, 

these waste streams will be handled in the same manner as the production bleed. 

2.1.1.1.3.4 Schedule 

The applicant currently plans to develop 10 wellfields in the Burdock area and 4 wellfields in the 

Dewey area (Figure 2.1-6). The applicant anticipates that production activities in the initial 

wellfields will commence 2 years after construction begins (Figure 2.1-1). Wellfield operations 

will continue for 8 years as additional wellfields are completed along the uranium roll fronts in 

both the Burdock and Dewey areas. The applicant estimated that 84 workers will be directly 

involved in the operations phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 

2009a). As during the construction phase, some workers will come from the towns of 

Edgemont, Hot Springs, and Custer, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming, each of which is 

21 to 80 km [13 to 50 mi] away from the proposed project site. 

2.1.1.1.4 Aquifer Restoration Activities 

GEIS Section 2.5 described aquifer restoration activities within wellfields that ensure water 

quality in surrounding aquifers will not be adversely affected by the uranium recovery operations 

(NRC, 2009a). At the end of the uranium recovery process, constituents that were mobilized by 

the lixiviant remain in the production aquifer. The primary goal of aquifer restoration is to return 

groundwater quality within the production zone of wellfields to the preoperational water quality 

conditions or to standards consistent with NRC requirements at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5) (Powertech, 2009b, 2011). 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) 

requires that groundwater quality in the exempted ore-bearing aquifer be restored to (i) a 

Commission-approved background (CAB) concentration; (ii) the maximum contaminant levels 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-36 

Operation Phase Water Balance Flow Rates (gpm) 

Project 

Area 

Bleed 

Option 

Disposal 

Option A B C D E F G H I 

Burdock 0.875% 

Class V Well 

Injection 

21 2400 2379 21 0 12 12 12 33 

Land Application 21 2400 2379 21 0 12 12 12 33 

 

J K L M 

 

N 

Dewey 0.875% 

Class V Well 

Injection 

14 1600 1586 0 14 

Land Application 14 1600 1586 0 14 

Aquifer Restoration Phase Water Balance Flow Rates (gpm)

Project 

Area 

Bleed 

Option 

Disposal

Option A B C D E F G H I 

Burdock 

W/O 

Groundwater 

Sweep (1% 

bleed) 

Class V Well 

Injection 

2.5 250 175 75 73 0 73 0 75 

Land 

Application 

2.5 250 0 250 248 0 248 0 250 

With 

Groundwater 

Sweep (17% 

bleed) 

Class V Well 

Injection 

42 250 175 75 33 0 33 0 75 

Land 

Application 

42 250 0 250 208 0 208 0 250 

 

J K L M 

 

N 

Dewey 

W/O 

Groundwater 

Sweep (1% 

bleed) 

Class V Well 

Injection 

2.5 250 175 73 75 

Land 

Application 

2.5 250 0 248 250 

With 

Groundwater 

Sweep (17% 

bleed) 

Class V Well 

Injection 

42 250 175 33 75 

Land 

Application 

42 250 0 208 250 

Figure 2.1-14. Typical Project-Wide Flow Rates 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2011) 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-37 

(MCLs) listed in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Table 5C, for constituents listed in Table 5C and if 

the background level of the constituents fall below the listed value; or (iii) an alternate 

concentration limit (ACL) established by the Commission, if the constituent background level 

and the values listed in Table 5C are not reasonably achievable. The ACL development is 

described in SEIS Appendix B. These groundwater quality standards will be implemented, as 

part of the aquifer restoration phase, to ensure public health and safety. The applicant will also 

be required to provide financial sureties to cover the costs of both planned and delayed 

restoration programs, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9. NRC 

reviews financial sureties annually. 

Under the Federal UIC program (40 CFR Parts 144 to 146), the exempted production aquifer(s) 

will no longer be protected under the SDWA as a source of drinking water. In compliance with 

40 CFR 146.4, the exempted aquifer(s) does not currently serve as a source of drinking water 

and cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water. Hence, 

groundwater in exempted aquifers cannot be considered as a source of drinking water after 

restoration. However, outside of the aquifer exemption boundary, the aquifer is still protected as 

a source of drinking water, and UIC regulation 40 CFR 144.12 prohibits the movement of any 

contaminant into the underground source of drinking water located outside the aquifer 

exemption boundary. Contaminant is defined broadly in the UIC regulations (40 CFR 144.3) to 

include “any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water.” 

Therefore, groundwater at the aquifer exemption boundary must meet 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) water quality requirements. 

In addition to NRC requirements at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(B), groundwater 

in the production zone aquifer will have to be restored to State of South Dakota standards. In 

accordance with ARSD 74:54:01:04, groundwater in the production zones must be restored to 

established ambient concentrations or South Dakota groundwater quality standards. 

Before beginning wellfield operations, the applicant must determine background water quality by 

sampling and analysis of water quality indicator constituents in the mineralized zone(s) and 

underlying and overlying aquifers across each wellfield (Powertech, 2009b). The applicant will 

establish target restoration goals [CAB concentrations per 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5)] as a function of the average background water quality and the variability in each 

parameter based on statistical methods (Powertech, 2011). SEIS Section 7.3.1.1 describes 

these background water quality parameters and methods to be used to establish groundwater 

restoration targets for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

Background water quality samples obtained from monitoring wells placed in the ore-bearing 

aquifers, as well as the underlying and overlying aquifers (where present), will be used to define 

excursion parameters and UCLs. UCLs must be established before ISR operations begin 

because they are used to control and manage any excursions that may occur during the ISR 

operation and restoration phases. Groundwater monitoring for selected constituents, 

throughout the life of the proposed project, is discussed in SEIS Section 7.3.1.2. 

2.1.1.1.4.1 Groundwater Restoration Methods 

The applicant proposes to begin restoring the initial wellfields in the Burdock and Dewey areas 

as soon as reasonably practicable after production activities are terminated (Powertech, 2009a). 

As new wellfields are opened, the applicant plans to restore each wellfield as soon as 

reasonably practicable following production (Powertech, 2011). The methods selected for 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-38 

groundwater restoration will depend on the liquid waste disposal option (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.2.4). For the Class V injection well option, groundwater treatment using reverse 

osmosis (RO) with permeate injection will be the primary restoration method (Powertech, 2011). 

If land application is used for liquid waste disposal, then groundwater sweep with injection of 

clean makeup water from the Madison Formation will be used to restore the aquifer. In either 

case, the applicant proposes to remove at least six pore volumes during aquifer restoration. A 

pore volume is the volume of water required to replace the water in the volume of aquifer in the 

production zone. 

The applicant estimates that the pore volume affected in the first year of production will be 

approximately 49.2 million L [13 million gal], assuming an active wellfield area of approximately 

8.1 ha [20 ac] (Powertech, 2011). The total volume of groundwater to be extracted during 

groundwater restoration (i.e., 6 pore volumes), is estimated to be approximately 295 million L 

[78 million gal]. The typical restoration extraction flow rate from the Dewey and Burdock 

wellfields will be approximately 946 Lpm [250 gpm] each for a total of 1,892 Lpm [500 gpm] (see 

Figure 2.1-14). At a restoration flow rate of 1,892 Lpm [500 gpm], the applicant estimated that 

approximately 0.3 years will be required to restore an 8.1-ha [20-ac] wellfield area (i.e., remove 

6 pore volumes) (Powertech, 2011). Restoration monitoring and stabilization will also be part of 

the overall restoration program. The groundwater restoration methods and the monitoring and 

stabilization program proposed for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are described in 

the following sections. 

2.1.1.1.4.1.1 Deep Class V Injection Well Option 

For the deep Class V injection well disposal option, the primary method of aquifer restoration 

will be RO treatment with permeate injection. In this method, water will be pumped from the 

wellfields to the Burdock central processing plant or the Dewey satellite facility for treatment. 

The water will be treated in IX columns to remove uranium and other dissolved ions and then 

passed through high pressure RO membranes, which will remove more than 90 percent of the 

remaining dissolved constituents. The treated effluent, or permeate, will be returned to the 

wellfields for injection. The RO reject, or brine, will undergo radium removal in the radium 

settling ponds and then will be disposed of in one or more deep Class V injection wells. The 

total liquid waste flow rate will be approximately 746 Lpm [197 gpm] during concurrent uranium 

production and aquifer restoration and approximately 568 Lpm [150 gpm] during aquifer 

restoration alone (see Figure 2.1-14) (Powertech, 2011). These liquid waste flow rates are 

lower than the proposed disposal capacity of up to 1,135 Lpm [300 gpm] for the Class V 

injection well disposal option (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1). 

About 70 percent of the water withdrawn from the wellfields and passed through the RO 

membranes will be recovered as permeates. Before reinjection into the wellfields, the 

permeate will be supplemented with makeup water from wells in the Madison Formation and 

injected into the wellfields at an amount slightly less than the amount withdrawn to maintain a 

slight restoration bleed. The restoration bleed will maintain hydraulic control of the wellfields 

during aquifer restoration and will typically be 1 percent of the restoration flow, unless 

groundwater sweep is used in conjunction with RO treatment with permeate injection. In the 

latter case, the restoration bleed will average approximately 17 percent, as described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.4.1.3. 

 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-39 

2.1.1.1.4.1.2 Land Application Option 

For the land application disposal option, the primary method of aquifer restoration will be 

groundwater sweep with Madison Formation water injection (Powertech, 2011). In this method, 

water will be pumped to the Burdock central processing plant or Dewey satellite facility for 

removal of uranium and other dissolved species in IX columns. The partially treated water will 

undergo radium removal in the radium settling ponds and then will be disposed of in land 

application areas. RO treatment will not be used if there are no deep Class V injection wells 

available to accept the RO brine. 

The typical liquid waste flow rates for the land application option will be approximately 

2,070 Lpm [547 gpm] during concurrent uranium production and aquifer restoration and 

approximately 1,892 Lpm [500 gpm] during aquifer restoration alone (see Figure 2.1-14). The 

combined disposal capacities of the Burdock and Dewey land application areas will be sufficient 

to dispose of the liquid waste streams during the spring, summer, and fall months (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). In addition, excess capacity will be present during these months to 

dispose of stored liquid waste from the winter months. None of the water recovered from the 

wellfields in the Fall River and Chilson will be reinjected back into the wellfields. Instead, 

makeup water from the Madison Formation will be injected into the wellfields at a flow rate 

sufficient to maintain the restoration bleed, which will typically be 1 percent of the restoration 

flow rate, unless the optional groundwater sweep method is used as described next 

(Powertech, 2011). 

2.1.1.1.4.1.3 Optional Groundwater Sweep 

Although a 1 percent restoration bleed will typically be used to maintain hydraulic control of 

wellfields, higher bleed rates may be required to recover flare (i.e., outward spreading) of 

lixiviant from the wellfield pattern areas during aquifer restoration. If necessary, the applicant 

has proposed to increase the restoration bleed by withdrawing up to one pore volume of water 

through groundwater sweep over the course of aquifer restoration. This will result in an average 

restoration bleed of approximately 17 percent or approximately 159 Lpm [42 gpm] of water 

being removed from the production aquifer in each of the Dewey and Burdock areas under both 

disposal options (see Figure 2.1-14) (Powertech, 2011). 

2.1.1.1.4.2 Restoration Monitoring and Stabilization 

During aquifer restoration, lixiviant injection stops and groundwater transfer, sweep, and/or 

treatment are used to attempt to restore the production aquifer groundwater quality to original 

background levels. Stopping lixiviant injection reduces the potential for an excursion and 

reduces the frequency of sampling the monitoring wells. The applicant’s restoration monitoring 

program for the proposed project will include taking samples from monitoring wells, overlying 

aquifer wells, and underlying aquifer wells every 60 days during the restoration phase of 

operations (Powertech, 2009b). The samples will be analyzed to determine whether water 

quality has been restored consistent with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). Water 

levels in wells will be measured prior to sampling. If unforeseen conditions, such as 

snowstorms, flooding, or equipment malfunctions, make monitoring impossible for 65 days, the 

applicant will be required to report this condition to NRC (Powertech, 2009b). 

The applicant will maintain hydraulic control of each wellfield through the end of aquifer 

restoration. Verification of hydraulic control will be performed through water level 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-40 

measurements in perimeter monitor wells (Powertech, 2011). Water levels in the perimeter 

monitor wells will be measured continuously using pressure transducers to confirm hydraulic 

wellfield control. Aquifer restoration will be complete when the applicant demonstrates that 

water quality conditions have been restored in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 5B(5) requirements. These standards are either CAB water quality; water quality 

equivalent to the MCLs provided in the table in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5C; or an 

ACL NRC established in accordance with Criterion 5B(6). The NRC process for reviewing and 

approving ACLs is found in SEIS Appendix B. 

After NRC determines the production area is restored, the applicant will implement a 

groundwater stability monitoring program for a minimum of 12 months. The results of the 

monitoring program determine whether the approved standards for each constituent have been 

met and whether any adjacent nonexempt aquifers are affected (Powertech, 2009b, 2011). 

Over the 12-month minimum stability monitoring period, there will be an initial sampling event at 

the beginning of the stability monitoring period followed by the sampling events described next 

(Powertech, 2011): 

• Perimeter monitor wells in the production zone and monitor wells in the overlying and 

underlying aquifers will continue to be sampled once every 60 days for the UCL 

indicator excursion parameters of chloride, total alkalinity, and conductivity. The 

applicant will contact NRC if any of the wells cannot be monitored within 65 days of the 

last sampling event due to unforeseen conditions, such as snowstorms, flooding, and 

equipment malfunctions. 

• Quarterly, the production zone wells will be sampled and analyzed for the water quality 

parameters listed in SEIS Table 7.3-1. The criteria to establish successful stability are 

as follows: for each sampling event, the mean concentration of each water quality 

parameter must meet the target restoration goal established for that parameter. 

If the analytical results from the stability monitoring program meet the target restoration 

goals and do not exhibit significant increasing trends, the applicant will (i) submit 

supporting documentation to NRC showing that the restoration parameters have remained 

at to below the restoration standards and (ii) request that the wellfield be declared restored 

(Powertech, 2011). 

2.1.1.1.4.3 Schedule 

The applicant estimates that wellfield restoration in the Burdock and Dewey areas will 

commence immediately after production activities in the wellfields end. The applicant projected 

that restoration of the first wellfields will begin 2 years after production activities commence and 

will continue for 9 years (see Figure 2.1-1). As additional wellfields are brought into production 

in the Burdock and Dewey areas, the applicant will restore each wellfield as soon as reasonably 

practicable following production (Powertech, 2011). The applicant estimates nine workers will 

be directly involved in aquifer restoration activities (Powertech, 2009a). Most workers will come 

from Edgemont, Hot Springs, and Custer, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming, which are 

21 to 80 km [13 to 50 mi] from the proposed project site. 

2.1.1.1.5 Decontamination, Decommissioning, and Reclamation Activities 

Decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will require an NRC-approved 

decommissioning plan. All decommissioning activities will be carried out in accordance with 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-41 

10 CFR Part 40 and other applicable regulatory standards (Powertech, 2009b). GEIS 

Section 2.6 (NRC, 2009a) describes the general processes for the decontamination, 

decommissioning, and reclamation of an ISR facility. NRC regulations require a licensee to 

submit a detailed decommissioning plan for NRC review and approval at least 12 months 

before final decommissioning is planned. NRC evaluates a proposed decommissioning plan, 

and if approved, the plan becomes an amendment to the license. Only after receiving NRC 

approval of a plan may a licensee initiate the decommissioning process. Unless the 

Commission approves an alternative schedule for completion of decommissioning, pursuant 

to 10 CFR 40.42(i), the licensee will be required by 10 CFR 40.42(h)(1) to complete 

decommissioning as soon as practicable but no later than 2 years after approval of the 

decommissioning plan. 

Before the property is released for unrestricted use, the licensee will conduct a comprehensive 

radiation survey to establish that the levels of various constituents are within limits identified 

in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The applicant will be required to return all lands to their 

previous land use, unless the landowner justified an alternative and the state approved the 

alternative. For example, a landowner could decide to retain access roads. The goal of the 

decommissioning and reclamation process will be to return disturbed lands to a production 

use equal to or better than that which existed prior to uranium recovery. As part of the 

decommissioning and reclamation process, the applicant will (i) plug and abandon wells, 

(ii) reclaim disturbed lands, (iii) remove contaminated equipment and materials, (iv) establish 

appropriate cleanup criteria for structures, (v) decontaminate to NRC requirements items 

to be released for unrestricted use, and (vi) survey soils and structures to identify 

residual contamination. 

On BLM-administered land, the licensee must comply with reclamation requirements in 

43 CFR Part 3800 to assure that there is no unnecessary or undue degradation of public 

surface lands. These reclamation requirements include standards for (i) plugging and 

abandoning wells, (ii) removing pipelines, (iii) replacing topsoil, (iv) controlling weeds, 

(v) restoring acceptable physical and chemical properties to affected soils, (vi) restoring land to 

blend with adjoining topography, and (vii) seeding and restoring native vegetation. 

The following sections describe the general decommissioning activities proposed for the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

2.1.1.1.5.1 Radiological Surveys and Contamination Control 

The applicant proposes to conduct pre-decommissioning radiological surveys of the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project to identify areas that will need to be cleaned to applicable 

regulatory limits (NRC, 2009a). Decommissioning surveys of soils, structures, and equipment 

will be required. The results of these surveys will be used to determine how best to handle 

contaminated soils, structures, or other materials. 

The applicant has committed to conducting land cleanup in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 6(6) and SDDENR regulations (Powertech, 2011). Radiation surveys will 

be conducted to determine whether any contaminated areas exist. The most likely areas of 

contaminated soils will be wellfield surfaces and mud pits, surface impoundment bottoms and 

berms, process building areas, storage yards, transportation routes for uranium recovery 

products or contaminated materials, and pipeline runs. Areas near deep Class V disposal 

wells and areas used for land application of treated water will also be surveyed and 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-42 

decontaminated as necessary. NRC will review and approve survey and sampling results. 

Contaminated soil will be removed and disposed, as byproduct material, at a licensed disposal 

facility. Pond liners and leak detection systems will also be surveyed. If radiological 

contamination is found, the liners and detection systems will be removed and disposed of in a 

licensed disposal facility. 

2.1.1.1.5.2 Wellfields 

Wellfield decommissioning and surface reclamation will be initiated when NRC determines that 

the groundwater in a wellfield has been adequately restored and that the water quality is stable 

(NRC, 2009a). Decommissioning and decontamination of wellfields will include well 

abandonment; the removal of piping, tanks, ancillary buildings, and equipment; cleaning surface 

soils to the radiological standards provided in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6; and 

revegetation of disturbed areas (Powertech, 2009b). To prevent adverse impacts to 

groundwater quality, all production, injection, and monitoring wells, as well as all drill holes, will 

be abandoned in place according to SDDENR regulations established in ARSD 74:02:04:67 and 

74:11:08 (Powertech, 2009a, 2012c). Well abandonment will require plugging wells with 

bentonite or cement grout (Powertech, 2009b, 2011). Prior to abandonment wells must be 

opened to remove debris and equipment (e.g., tubing, pumps, and screens) to prevent 

obstacles from interfering with plugging operations. Wellhead casing will be removed to a depth 

of 1 m [3 ft] below the ground surface and set in a cement plug 2 m [6 ft] below ground surface 

on each well or borehole plugged and abandoned (Powertech, 2009b, 2011). 

Wellfield reclamation will involve removing surface and subsurface equipment including injection 

and production feed lines, header houses, electrical and control distribution systems, well boxes 

and wellhead equipment, and buried piping. NRC decommissioning guidelines require 

surveying all piping, equipment, buildings, and wellhead machinery for contamination prior to 

release. If still usable, wellfield piping, well heads, and associated equipment will be moved to 

new production areas. When the final production area is reclaimed, all contaminated piping, 

well heads, and associated equipment that is not salvageable will be removed to an 

NRC-approved disposal facility. A final background gamma survey will identify contaminated 

earthen materials requiring removal (Powertech, 2009b). As final steps, the wellfield surface will 

be recontoured where necessary and revegetated (Powertech, 2009b). 

The applicant will be required to provide a land reclamation plan to NRC for review and approval 

within 12 months before wellfield reclamation begins. The plan will include descriptions of the 

areas to be reclaimed, the planned reclamation activities, methods to protect workers and the 

environment against radiation hazards, and a cost estimate for reclamation (Powertech, 2009b). 

2.1.1.1.5.3 Process Buildings and Equipment and Other Structures 

After groundwater is restored in the final production area, the Burdock central plant, the 

Dewey satellite facility, and auxiliary facilities associated with both areas will be 

decommissioned. All processing equipment associated with the central plant and the satellite 

facility will be dismantled and either sold to another NRC-licensed facility or decontaminated in 

accordance with NRC regulations and guidance documents. Materials that cannot be 

decontaminated will be disposed of at an NRC-approved facility. Decontaminated materials will 

be reused, sold, or removed and disposed of offsite. After the dismantling and removal of 

buildings is completed, the former building sites will be contoured to blend in with the 

surrounding terrain. Gamma surveys will be conducted to verify that radiation levels are within 

acceptable limits (Powertech, 2009b). 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-43 

2.1.1.1.5.4 Engineered Structures and Access Roads 

After final site decontamination and decommissioning are complete, site access and wellfield 

access roads will be reclaimed. If landowners prefer, the roads may be left in place for their 

private use. BLM, however, requires complete reclamation of roads on BLM-managed lands. 

Where the access roads are reclaimed, they will be ripped up and/or disked to relieve 

compaction; gravel will be removed from road surfaces. Culverts will also be removed, and 

pre-mining drainage patterns will be reestablished. In addition to being graded, all roads and 

ditches will be recontoured to blend in with the surrounding terrain; topsoil will be reapplied 

uniformly onto road surfaces prior to revegetation (Powertech, 2009b). 

2.1.1.1.5.5 Final Contouring and Revegetation 

Once the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project is complete, all disturbed lands will be returned to 

their preproduction uses for livestock grazing and as wildlife habitat. Surface reclamation and 

decommissioning efforts will be conducted to return the disturbed lands to their original or better 

condition. Disturbed lands will be restored to blend with the contour of adjoining topography. 

Topsoil removed and stored during construction will be reapplied during the reclamation 

process. Soil amendments, which may include chemical amendments, may be necessary to 

restore acceptable physical and chemical properties to any soils exhibiting salinity and/or 

sodium accumulations or other obstacles to reclamation. Revegetation of the project area is the 

final state of reclamation and will involve seeding the area with a seed mixture approved by 

SDDENR, the local conservation district, BLM, and landowners. SDDENR will determine 

when revegetation is complete and when the conditions for bond release have been met 

(Powertech, 2009b). 

2.1.1.1.5.6 Schedule 

The applicant estimates that decommissioning of the Burdock central plant and Dewey 

satellite facility will take 2 years to complete. There will be some overlap between wellfield 

decommissioning and the groundwater restoration activities as shown in Figure 2.1-1. Wellfield 

decommissioning is estimated to continue for 8 years and will proceed sequentially as 

production and restoration activities are completed in each wellfield. The applicant estimates 

that nine workers will be directly involved in the reclamation and decommissioning phases of the 

proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). The majority of these workers will come from towns such 

as Edgemont, Hot Springs, and Custer, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming, each of which 

is 21 to 80 km [13 to 50 mi] from the proposed project site. 

2.1.1.1.6 Effluents and Waste Management 

All phases of the proposed action, construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning will generate effluents and waste streams that must be handled and disposed 

of properly. This section describes the types and volumes of effluents or wastes the applicant 

estimates will be generated during the life of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

Definitions of the liquid and solid wastes that will be generated are found in the text box in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.2. The proposed disposal methods and locations for liquid and solid wastes 

are described in SEIS Section 3.13. The potential impacts of generating and disposing of these 

types of waste are detailed in SEIS Section 4.14. Air quality and air emission impacts are 

provided in SEIS Sections 3.7 and 4.7. Transportation of waste materials for offsite disposal is 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-44 

described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. Regional transportation conditions are found in SEIS 

Section 3.3, and the potential impacts on transportation are detailed in SEIS Section 4.3. 

2.1.1.1.6.1 Gaseous or Airborne Particulate Emissions 

Gaseous or airborne particulate emissions generated during the life of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will primarily consist of fugitive dusts, combustion engine exhaust, 

radon gas emissions from various stages of the processing system, and uranium particulate 

emissions from yellowcake drying (Powertech, 2009a). Appendix C presents nonradiological 

air emissions information for the proposed project including emission inventories and air 

dispersion modeling. 

2.1.1.1.6.1.1 Nonradiological Emissions 

Fugitive dust and engine exhaust emissions will be generated primarily from (i) vehicle traffic; 

(ii) ground-surface-disturbing construction and decommissioning activities; and (iii) diesel 

construction equipment including well drill rigs and water trucks (Powertech, 2009a). 

Combustion emissions include greenhouse gases and National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)-regulated pollutants. Fugitive dust sources include vehicular travel on unpaved roads 

and land disturbance associated with the construction of wellfields, roads, and support facilities. 

The applicant proposes imposing speed limits on unpaved roads, encouraging carpooling, and 

promptly restoring disturbed areas to limit dust generation, traffic, and erosion (Powertech, 

2009a). Combustion emission sources from onsite and offsite sources will include construction 

equipment and trucks transporting materials and product. Point or stationary source emissions 

will be limited to equipment like propane heaters, fire suppression pumps, and emergency 

generators. These stationary emissions will represent a small portion of the overall emissions. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 3.7.1.2, the prevailing wind direction is from the northwest, which 

will result in dust being moved southeast. All four phases of the proposed action are expected 

to produce nonradiological emissions. 

Combustion exhaust emission estimates for non-greenhouse gases will be produced by 

(i) stationary sources, (ii) mobile construction and drilling field equipment, and (iii) other mobile 

sources. Table 2.1-1 presents estimates for combustion emission mass flow rates (i.e., mass 

of pollutant generated annually) from stationary sources. Stationary emissions are assumed to 

be constant over the project life span except for project year one, in which no stationary 

emissions are assumed to be generated. Table C–1 in Appendix C details these stationary 

source estimates. Table 2.1-2 presents estimates for combustion emission mass flow rates 

from mobile sources for each phase, as well as the peak year estimate when all four phases 

occur simultaneously. 

Construction phase emission estimates are provided in Table 2.1-2. The construction phase in 

project year one consists of two main activities: facilities construction and wellfield construction. 

Therefore, one emission estimate includes both activities. Facilities construction will be 

completed at the end of project year one. The construction phase associated with the 

remaining life of the project is limited to wellfield construction. Therefore, the other emission 

estimate is for wellfield construction only. Table C–2 in Appendix C details the mobile source 

estimates. Commuter traffic was included in the combustion emission estimates for mobile 

sources. The calculation of the mobile emission inventory in Table 2.1-2 incorporates some of 

the mitigation that the applicant has committed to perform. 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-45 

Table 2.1-1. Nonradiological Combustion Emission Estimated Mass Flow Rates (Metric 

Tons* Per Year) From Stationary Sources for the Proposed Action† 

Emission Source 

Emissions 

(Metric Tons/Year) 

NOX‡ CO‡ PM10‡ PM2.5‡ SO2‡ TOC‡ 

Space Heater 0.67 0.39 0.036 0.036 0.0009 0.054 

Dryer Thermal Fluid 

Heater 

0.83 0.47 0.044 0.044 0.0009 0.063 

Emergency Generator 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 

Fire Suppression 

Pump 

0.036 0.009 0.0027 0.0027 0.0027 0.00 

Total 1.54 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.0045 0.12 

Source: Modified from IML (2013). 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231. 

†Except for project year 1, stationary emissions are assumed to be constant over the project lifespan. 

‡NOX = nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM10 = particulate matter 10 micrometers, PM2.5 = particulate 

matter 2.5 micrometers, SO2 = sulfur dioxide, TOC = total organic carbon. 

Table 2.1-2. Nonradiological Combustion Emission Mass Flow Rate Estimates (Metric Tons* 

Per Year) From Mobile Sources for Various Phases of the Proposed Action 

Pollutant 

Phase 

Total 

or 

Peak 

Year‡ 

Construction† 

Operation

Aquifer 

Restoration Decommissioning

Facilities 

and 

Wellfields 

Wellfields 

Only 

Particulate 

Matter PM10 

2.69 2.14 0.73 0.07 0.56 3.51 

Particulate 

Matter PM2.5 

2.61 2.07 0.72 0.07 0.54 3.40 

Sulfur Dioxide 7.78 6.40 1.80 0.05 2.00 10.26 

Nitrogen 

Oxides 

46.34 37.12 12.6 1.12 11.26 62.11 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

44.50 37.8 8.45 0.71 6.45 53.43 

Total 

Hydrocarbon 

16.58 12.3 15.75 2.23 5.39 35.71 

Formaldehyde 1.89 1.53 0.63 0.05 0.50 2.71 

Source: Modified from IML (2013). 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231. 

†Two types of construction phase emission estimates were provided. Construction (facilities and wellfields) only 

occurs in project year 1 (i.e., facility construction complete after project year 1). In subsequent project years, 

construction (wellfield only) occurs. 

‡Total accounts for when all four phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of mobile source 

emissions the proposed action will generate in any one project year. Project year 1 only includes the construction 

phase (i.e., no overlap with other phases), and facilities construction only occurs in project year 1. Therefore, the 

construction—wellfield only—is used when calculating the total. 

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-46 

These mitigation commitments are described in SEIS Section 4.7, and the manner in which the 

mitigation was incorporated into the calculation of the emission inventory is provided in 

Appendix C Section C2.1. 

Fugitive dust emissions will be produced mainly by vehicle travel on unpaved roads and wind 

erosion to disturbed land. Table 2.1-3 contains the fugitive emission mass flow rate estimates 

from travel on unpaved roads. This table provides emission estimates for both the onsite and 

offsite project related vehicle traffic. The offsite project fugitive emissions are mostly from 

commuter vehicles. The onsite emissions include the commuter vehicles and the various 

construction and drill field equipment. This table also provides a peak year estimate when all 

four phases occur simultaneously. As done for the combustion emissions, two types of 

construction phase estimates are provided. The calculation of the fugitive emission inventory in 

Table 2.1-3 incorporates mitigation that the applicant has committed to perform. The mitigation 

commitment is described in SEIS Section 4.7, and the manner in which the mitigation was 

incorporated into the calculation of the emission inventory is provided in Appendix C Section C4. 

Table 2.1-4 contains the fugitive mass flow rate emissions from wind erosion. The annual wind 

erosion estimates levels do not vary much over the span of the project. The amount of fugitive 

emissions from wind erosion is a function of the amount of disturbed land. The two liquid waste 

disposal options, deep Class V well disposal and land application, vary in the amount of land 

disturbed. Therefore, the information in Table 2.1-4 is provided for each liquid waste 

disposal option. 

Table 2.1-3. Total* (Peak Year) Fugitive Dust Mass Flow Rate (Metric Tons† per Year) 

Estimates for All Phases and Sources‡ 

Source Phase 

Particulate Matter 

PM10 

Particulate Matter 

PM2.5 

On-Site Fugitive 

Emission from 

Vehicle Travel 

Construction—

Facilities and Wellfield

176.69 17.669 

Construction—

Wellfield Only 

138.48 13.848 

Operation 91.50 9.1499 

Aquifer Restoration 7.00 0.700 

Decommissioning 54.53 5.453 

Off-Site Fugitive 

Emissions from 

Vehicle Travel 

Construction—

Facilities and Wellfield

51.63 5.163 

Construction—

Wellfield Only 

24.77 2.477 

Operation 37.98 3.798 

Aquifer Restoration 5.67 0.567 

Decommissioning 25.74 2.574 

Wind Erosion§ Not applicable 29.76 4.4 

Total 415.43 43.01 

Source: Modified from IML (2013). 

*Total accounts for when all four phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emissions the 

proposed action will generate in any one project year. Project year 1 only includes the construction phase (i.e., no 

overlap with other phases), and facilities construction only occurs in project year 1. Therefore, the construction—

wellfield only—is used when calculating the total. 

†To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231. 

‡Fugitive dust sources include on-site road, off-site road, and wind erosion (land application disposal) 

§Annual values varied slightly over the project lifetime. Reported values are maximums. Minimum values could be 

as much as 2.5 metric tons lower for PM10 and 0.4 metric tons lower for PM2.5 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-47 

Table 2.1-4. Onsite Fugitive Emission Mass Flow Rate Estimates (Metric Tons* per 

Year) from Wind Erosion for the Deep Class V Well and Land Application 

Disposal Options 

Pollutant Deep Class V Well Disposal Land Application Disposal 

Particulate Matter PM10† 10.1 29.7 

Particulate Matter PM2.5‡ 1.5 4.4 

Source: Modified from Powertech (2012b) and IML (2012) 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231. 

†Annual values varied slightly over the project lifetime. Reported values are maximums. Minimum values could 

be as much as 2.5 metric tons lower. 

‡Annual values varied slightly over the project lifetime. Reported values are maximums. Minimum values could 

be as much as 0.4 metric tons lower. 

ISR phases may occur simultaneously. To account for overlapping phases, a total emission 

estimate was calculated by adding together the annual emissions from all four phases. This 

total or peak year estimate represents the highest amount of emissions the proposed action will 

generate in any one project year. Table 2.1-5 contains the peak year estimate when the 

stationary (see Table 2.1-1), mobile (see Table 2.1-2), and fugitive source (see Table 2.1-3) 

emissions are combined. The values in Table 2.1-5 reveal that certain source categories 

generate the majority of emissions for certain pollutants. Table C–8 in Appendix C identifies the 

contribution (i.e., percent) of the various emission source categories to the various pollutants. 

For example, fugitive dust sources generate 99.1 percent of the total PM10 particulate matter 

emissions and 92.5 percent of the PM2.5 particulate matter emissions. The mobile combustion 

emission sources generate the majority of the sulfur dioxide (99.9 percent), nitrogen dioxide 

(97.6 percent), and carbon monoxide (98.4 percent) emissions. The highest level of emissions 

that the stationary sources contribute to any single pollutant is for nitrogen oxide, at 2.4 percent. 

The air impact analysis for the proposed project includes two types of air modeling. The 

AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict NAAQS and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) pollutant concentrations, and the CALPUFF model was used to generate 

Air Quality Related Values (i.e., visibility and acid deposition) for Wind Cave National Park. 

Expressing the proposed project’s emissions in concentrations can help characterize the 

magnitude of the emission levels because regulatory standards, such as NAAQS and PSD, are 

also expressed in concentrations. The AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict 

pollutant concentrations at 4,220 locations that extend in all directions from the project site and 

fully encompass Wind Cave National Park. These concentrations were calculated for the 

construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases and they were based 

on the emission estimates from stationary, mobile, and fugitive sources. SEIS Figures 4.7-1 

and 4.7-2 identify the receptor locations for the AERMOD modeling, while SEIS Figures 4.7-3 

and 4.7-4 identify the receptor locations for the CALPUFF modeling. 

SEIS Table 4.7-1 presents the AERMOD modeling results with respect to the NAAQS, while 

SEIS Table 4.7-2 presents the results with respect to the PSD-allowable increments. The 

NAAQS and PSD-allowable increments are described in SEIS Section 3.7.2. Tables 2.1-1 to 

2.1-5 and SEIS Tables 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 summarize the detailed emission estimates presented in 

Appendix C. SEIS Table 4.7-3 presents the visibility analysis results and Table 4.7-4 presents 

the acid deposition results. 

Combustion exhaust estimates for greenhouse gas emissions fall into three source categories. 

The first category consists of facility sources, which is further categorized into stationary 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-48 

Table 2.1-5. Total* (Peak Year) Nonradiological Emission Mass Flow Rate (Metric 

Tons† Per Year) Estimates for All Phases and Sources 

Pollutant 

Stationary 

Sources 

Mobile 

Emission 

Sources 

Fugitive 

Dust 

Sources‡ 

Peak Year 

Total 

Particulate Matter PM10 0.083 3.51 415.43 419.0 

Particulate Matter PM2.5 0.083 3.40 43.01 46.5 

Sulfur Dioxide 0.0045 10.26 0 10.265 

Nitrogen Oxides 1.54 62.11 0 63.65 

Carbon Monoxide 0.87 53.43 0 54.30 

Source: Modified from IML (2013). 

*Total accounts for when all four phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emissions 

the proposed action will generate in any one project year. Project year 1 only includes the construction phase 

(i.e., no overlap with other phases), and facilities construction only occurs in project year 1. Therefore, the 

construction—wellfield only—is used when calculating the total. 

†To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231. 

‡Fugitive dust sources include on-site road, offsite road, and wind erosion (land application disposal). 

sources and facility fugitive emissions from the uranium recovery process. The second 

category consists of mobile sources, which include construction and drilling equipment and 

other mobile sources, including commuter vehicles. The third category consists of indirect 

emissions from electricity consumption (i.e., emissions associated with the production of the 

electricity that the proposed project consumes). Table 2.1-6 presents the carbon dioxide gas 

emission estimates for the proposed action. Emission estimates are provided for each of the 

three source categories for each of the four phases of the proposed action. Carbon dioxide 

constitutes the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. Some methane and nitrous oxide 

emissions will occur. Chlorofluorocarbon and hydrochlorofluorocarbon greenhouse gas 

emissions are not expected from the proposed project. 

Table 2.1-6. Annual Carbon Dioxide Estimates in Metric Tons/Year * for the 

Proposed Action 

Phase 

Facility 

Mobile 

Sources 

Electrical 

Consumption Total 

Stationary 

Sources† 

Fugitive 

from 

Uranium 

Recovery 

Process 

Construction 1,439 0 3,990 542 5,970 

Operation 1,439 440 1,490 22,097 25,466 

Aquifer 

Restoration 

1,439 0 110 6,685 8,234 

Decommissioning 1,439 0 1,286 542 3,267 

Peak Year‡ 1,439 440 6,876 29,865 38,621§ 

Source: Modified from IML (2013). 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiple by 1.10231. 

†Except for project year one, stationary emission are assumed to be constant over the project lifespan. Therefore the 

peak year calculation would only need to include the stationary source emission value one time rather than for each 

phase. 

‡Peak year accounts for when all four phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emissions 

the proposed action will generate in any one project year. 

§This value is for the peak year total which only includes the stationary source emission value of 1,586 once (Note †). 

This value is not the total of the individual phase totals in the column because each phase totals includes the 

stationary source emission value. 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-49 

NRC staff believes that any emissions of volatile organic compounds from the potential land 

application of liquid byproduct material described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2 will be negligible. 

The ISR process as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3.2 does not introduce or utilize volatile 

organic compounds. Furthermore, the list of constituents in the example ISR liquid waste 

stream from the GEIS does not include any volatile organic compounds (NRC, 2009a, 

Table 2.7-3). As described in Table 2.1-8, both NRC and SDDENR regulate land application of 

this liquid waste stream. 

GEIS Section 1.7.2 describes air permitting. Briefly, the Clean Air Act permitting process is 

divided into two programs: the New Source Review program (preconstruction) and the Title V 

program (operation). The New Source Review requires stationary air pollution sources to obtain 

permits prior to construction. Three types of New Source Review permits exist: (i) PSD, 

(ii) nonattainment New Source Review, and (iii) minor New Source Review. In attainment areas 

(i.e., those areas where air quality meets the NAAQS), PSD permits are required for major 

stationary pollutant sources that are new or making major modifications. Classification as a 

major source in an attainment area is based on the potential to emit more than 90.7 or 

227 metric tons [100 or 250 short tons] of a regulated pollutant, depending on the source. 

In nonattainment areas, the nonattainment New Source Review permits are required for 

major stationary pollutant sources that are new or making major modifications. Classification 

as a major source in a nonattainment area is generally based on the potential to emit more than 

90.7 metric tons [100 short tons] of a regulated pollutant. This threshold can be lower for 

areas with more serious nonattainment problems. A minor New Source Review permit 

supplements the PSD and nonattainment New Source Review programs. The New Source 

Review permit provides regulators (i.e., SDDENR for the Dewey-Burdock project) a method to 

implement permit conditions as needed to limit emissions from sources not covered by those 

two programs. Title V permits are required for stationary sources that, during operation, have 

the potential to emit more than 90.7 metric tons [100 short tons] of any air permit (lower 

thresholds for areas that are in nonattainment) (NRC, 2009a). 

The applicant submitted an air quality application to SDDENR in November, 2012 (see 

Table 1.6-1). Based on the information in the application, SDDENR determined that an air 

permit will not be required and the proposed project will not be subject to PSD requirements 

(SDDENR, 2013b). Information concerning the relationship between the SDDENR regulatory 

determination and the NRC’s SEIS analyses is provided in SEIS Section 4.7.1 and Appendix C, 

Section C1. 

2.1.1.1.6.1.2 Radioactive Emissions 

Radon gas emissions are most likely to occur during the operation and aquifer restoration 

stages of the proposed action, as detailed in SEIS Section 4.13. Radon releases may occur in 

the wellfield when the pregnant lixiviant is brought to the surface from the ore zone aquifer. 

Radon will also be released to air from radium settling ponds (Sections 2.1.1.1.2.4.1 and 

2.1.1.1.2.4.2). Radon gas release could also occur when the downflow IX columns are taken 

offline for resin transfer and are opened to the atmosphere. Radon gas will disperse quickly into 

the air. The use of general area and local ventilation systems will control radon buildup within 

the onsite facilities. General area ventilation could involve forced air ventilation of work areas in 

process buildings. Local ventilation for process vessels, where radon releases are more likely, 

may involve ducting or piping radon from the point of release through fans that exhaust to the 

outside, where the radon will disperse quickly into the air. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-50 

The applicant estimates an annual release of 34,077 GBq [921 curies] of Rn-222 from the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2011). Wellfield operations will account 

for 52 percent of the released radon, 47 percent will be the result of processing activities, and 

land application activities will produce the remainder. Potential dose impacts from radon 

releases were calculated at the site boundary in 16 compass directions each from the Burdock 

central plant and the Dewey satellite facility (Powertech, 2011). Results indicated that the 

10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1 mSV/yr [100 mrem/yr] is not exceeded at any property 

boundary. The applicant’s calculations are discussed in SEIS Section 4.13. 

An additional potential source for airborne particulate emissions is the yellowcake dryer, which 

will be located at the proposed Burdock central plant. The applicant proposes to use vacuum 

dryer technology for yellowcake drying operations at the Burdock central plant (Powertech, 

2009a). NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003a) provides guidance for evaluating air emissions at in-situ

leach (ISL) facilities; dust emissions produced in the drying stage are negligible, where a 

vacuum dryer is used to dry yellowcake. A vacuum dryer utilizes a heat source contained in a 

separate, isolated system, which ensures no radioactive materials are trapped in the heating 

system or the exhaust it generates, as detailed in NUREG/CR–6733 (Mackin, et al., 2001). The 

applicant’s proposed dryer contains a drying chamber where yellowcake slurry is added and is 

subjected to vacuum pressure (Powertech, 2009a). The dryer will retain all yellowcake dusts 

that could be produced during loading and unloading operations. The proposed dryer is 

designed so that moisture from the yellowcake is 

the only source of vapor in the system. Vapor 

exiting the dryer is filtered through a baghouse 

filter above the dryer, which removes particulates 

down to a size of approximately 1 micron 

[3.9 × 10−5

 in]. Vapor exiting the baghouse filter 

is then cooled using a condenser to remove 

water vapor and remaining small particulates 

(Powertech, 2009a). Water from the condenser 

will be collected and pumped to the solids 

removal tank in the wastewater disposal system. 

The overhead baghouse system collects dust in 

the baghouse filter and returns it to the drying 

chamber. The applicant proposes routine 

monitoring and analysis of the drying system 

exhaust to detect the presence of natural 

uranium, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 

(Powertech, 2009a). The proposed monitoring 

ensures releases of Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 

are (detected and kept) as low as is reasonably 

achievable. The monitoring system will be 

instrumented to operate automatically and to 

shut down if malfunctions such as heating or 

vacuum system failures occur. Monitoring 

results must be submitted to NRC in 

semiannual reports. 

2.1.1.1.6.2 Liquid Wastes 

The applicant expects to generate liquid wastes 

during all phases of uranium recovery at the 

These terms define the various types of solid and 

liquid wastes generated at the Dewey-Burdock 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 will 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/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 (see NRC, 1993). 

Hazardous waste: Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act or state-defined hazardous waste that is 

not byproduct material and includes universal 

hazardous wastes.
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-51 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. These wastes include well development and well test 

waters, stormwater runoff, waste petroleum products and chemicals, sanitary wastewater, 

production bleed, process solutions and laboratory chemicals, plant washdown water, and 

restoration water. Process solutions include process bleed, elution and precipitation brines, and 

resin transfer wash. NRC classifies wastewater generated during or after the uranium 

extraction phase of site operations as byproduct material; however, stormwater runoff, domestic 

sewage, waste petroleum, and hazardous waste are not byproduct material. Byproduct material 

does not meet the definition of solid waste in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4) and therefore is not regulated 

as hazardous waste under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. 

Liquid byproduct material generated by the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

contain chemical and radiological constituents including uranium and radium. Detailed 

information on expected wastewater constituents and estimated concentrations are provided 

in license application documentation (Powertech, 2011; 2012a). Specifically, for proposed 

deep Class V well injection the applicant’s estimated wastewater quality is documented in 

Table TR RAI P&R-14d-1 of their response to NRC requests for additional information 

(Powertech, 2011). The proposed land application wastewater quality is provided in Table 5.8-2 

of the applicant’s GDP (Powertech, 2012a). 

The applicant proposed deep Class V well injection, land application, or a combination of these 

processes for managing liquid byproduct material. The particular waste management option 

used will affect how wastes are treated and will determine the final disposal method. As 

described in SEIS Chapter 1, the proposed options require the applicant to obtain all applicable 

federal and South Dakota permits, in addition to an NRC license, before it operates the facility. 

SDDENR will permit land application only if the applicant demonstrates insufficient Class V 

disposal capacity (SDDENR, 2013a). Alternative wastewater disposal options are described in 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.2. However, the applicant did not propose using these alternative methods. 

The applicant’s proposed deep Class V well injection disposal option involves drilling wells at 

the project site to dispose of liquid byproduct material. A typical deep injection well design is 

shown in Figure 2.1-11. The applicant submitted a permit application to EPA to construct four 

to eight UIC Class V deep injection wells to inject liquid byproduct material into the 

Minnelusa and Deadwood Formations; the application is currently under review (Powertech, 

2011, Appendix 2.7-L). The first four of the proposed wells are detailed in the permit 

application. The depth from the ground surface to the disposal horizon for the 4 wells ranges 

from 492 to 1,076 m [1,615 to 3,530 ft] (Powertech, 2011, Appendix 2.7–L). For disposal using 

a UIC Class V well, an EPA permit, if granted, will prohibit injection of any material defined as 

hazardous waste as defined by RCRA regulations in 40 CFR 261.3. Additionally, if a license is 

granted, NRC will require the effluent pumped into deep injection wells to be treated and 

monitored to verify it meets NRC release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K, and 

Appendix B. 

The applicant has proposed to manage liquid byproduct material under the Class V injection 

well disposal option using a system of storage ponds, treatment methods, and deep injection 

wells. During the operations phase, the applicant proposes to combine the plant wastewater 

stream (including the waste brine streams from elution and precipitation, resin transfer wash, 

laundry water, plant washdown water, and laboratory chemicals) with the production bleed and 

well development wastewater. Wastewater will be redirected back to the central processing 

plant for ion-exchange treatment to remove uranium, the wastewater will then be mixed with 

barium chloride, and finally wastewater will be discharged into lined settling ponds (i.e., radium 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-52 

removal ponds) (Powertech, 2009b, 2010a, 2011). The barium chloride chemically binds to 

radium in solution and deposits as a sludge that will be removed and sent to a licensed disposal 

facility (Powertech, 2010a). Following radium removal processing, the applicant will then inject 

the combined waste streams in the Class V deep injection wells. During the aquifer restoration 

phase, the applicant proposes to manage aquifer restoration wastewater (i.e., liquid byproduct 

material) by treating the wastewater by reverse osmosis and reinjecting the treated water back 

into the aquifer production zone undergoing restoration (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1.1). The 

applicant proposes to operate the reverse osmosis system using the necessary pretreatment, 

which includes multi-media or sand filters and feed conditioning (Powertech, 2009b). As 

described in Section 2.5.3 of the GEIS (NRC, 2009) the reverse osmosis process yields two 

fluid streams: approximately 70 percent will be clean water (permeate) that can be reinjected 

into the aquifer and approximately 30 percent of the water will contain concentrated ions (brine) 

that cannot be reinjected directly into Class V wells. The applicant will combine the 

contaminants (brine) removed from treated water with operational wastewater and the combined 

wastewater will be transferred to radium settling ponds for further treatment, prior to disposal in 

the Class V injection wells. The applicant’s Class V injection well monitoring program includes 

monitoring of injection pressure at the wellhead, the fluid-filled annulus pressure between the 

casing and injection tubing string (see Figure 2.1-11), and injection zone pressure and is 

described in detail in SEIS Section 7.6. 

The applicant’s proposal includes options for managing liquid byproduct material by land 

application independently and in conjunction with deep Class V injection well disposal. For land 

application, the applicant will need to obtain an approved state GDP permit and comply with 

applicable state discharge requirements for land application of treated wastewater. The 

applicant submitted a GDP application for the proposed project in March 2012 (Powertech, 

2012a). SDDENR limits wastes discharged through the land application system to those 

wastewaters that the applicant identified in their GDP. These wastewaters include production 

bleed; groundwater generated during aquifer restoration; affected groundwater generated during 

well development; and liquid process waste, such as resin transfer water and brine (SDDENR, 

2013a). Process solutions, wastewater disposal, or surface water runoff from the site will be 

required to meet GDP permit requirements, South Dakota groundwater quality standards 

(ARSD 74:54:01) outside of EPA’s approved aquifer exemption boundary, or surface water 

quality standards (ARSD 74:51:01). 

In the land application option, the applicant will route the central plant wastewater stream, which 

includes waste brine streams from elution and precipitation, resin transfer wash, laundry water, 

plant washdown water, and laboratory chemicals, into a storage pond. Wastewater will be 

redirected back to the central processing plant for IX treatment to remove uranium, the 

wastewater will be mixed with barium chloride, and finally wastewater will be discharged into 

lined settling ponds (i.e., radium removal ponds). In the application, the applicant proposes to 

sample water from the ponds to verify it is within South Dakota and NRC discharge limits. 

Treated wastewater would be pumped through center pivot sprinklers during the growing 

season, which is approximately April through October (Powertech, 2011). The applicant 

anticipates that irrigated crops may include native vegetation, alfalfa, or salt-tolerant wheatgrass 

(Powertech, 2012a). During winter months (approximately November through March), when 

land application would not be used on frozen ground, treated liquid waste would be temporarily 

stored in ponds located near the Burdock central plant and Dewey satellite facility (Powertech, 

2011, 2012a). 

The applicant proposes regular monitoring of air, soil, crops and livestock, surface water, and 

groundwater to identify the presence of NRC- and SDDENR-regulated constituents. Monitoring 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-53 

results must be reported to NRC semiannually (see SEIS Chapter 7). As part of the 

decommissioning phase, NRC will require radiological surveys of land application areas to 

ensure that the soil concentration limits in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6-(6) are met. 

If soil concentration limits are exceeded, NRC will require the removal of contaminated 

materials, which could add to the total amount of material for disposal at a licensed facility. In 

addition, the applicant proposes to dispose of any pond liners and precipitated solids 

accumulated in radon settling ponds as solid byproduct material, as described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3. 

The amount of liquid byproduct material produced by the proposed action varies by ISR lifecycle 

phase, disposal option, and aquifer restoration method. The applicant estimated the maximum 

estimated flow of produced liquid byproduct material at any time considering concurrent uranium 

recovery operations and aquifer restoration activities. For the Class V injection well option, the 

applicant’s maximum calculated liquid byproduct material production is 749 L/min [197 gal/min] 

(Powertech, 2011). For the land application option, the applicant’s maximum calculated liquid 

byproduct material production is 2,080 L/min [547 gal/min] (Powertech, 2011). 

The applicant proposes to dispose of sanitary wastewater from restrooms and lunchrooms into 

onsite septic systems located near the Burdock central plant and Dewey satellite facility. The 

applicant is required to obtain a permit from the SDDENR to construct the onsite septic systems 

(Powertech, 2009b). The applicant also proposes to collect and route stormwater for discharge 

to surface water (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge stormwater to surface water from 

the State of South Dakota. 

2.1.1.1.6.3 Solid Wastes 

As described in GEIS Section 2.7.3, all phases of the operational lifecycle of an ISR facility 

generate solid wastes (NRC, 2009a). Solid byproduct material includes spent resin, empty 

chemical containers and packaging, pipes and fittings, tank or storage pond sediments, 

contaminated soil from leaks and spills, and contaminated construction and demolition debris. 

Nonhazardous solid waste includes septic solids, municipal solid waste (general trash), and 

other solid wastes. Solid hazardous waste includes used batteries and light bulbs. 

Solid byproduct material does not meet the NRC criteria for unrestricted release and must be 

disposed of at a licensed disposal site, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A, Criterion 2. The applicant estimates the proposed Dewey-Burdock facility will 

produce 22 m3

 [29 yd3] of solid byproduct material from radium settling ponds annually from the 

deep Class V injection well option and 50 m3 [66 yd3

] of solid byproduct material from the land 

application option (Powertech, 2011). Assuming a 10-year operational period, the NRC staff 

calculated total radium settling byproduct material accumulation as 222 m3

 [290 yd3] from the 

deep Class V injection well option and 500 m3

 [660 yd3] from the land application option. The 

applicant plans to store these wastes temporarily onsite. The applicant proposes to transport 

these materials offsite to a licensed facility for disposal in accordance with U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) requirements using shipment capacities of 23 m3

 to 33 m3 [30 yd3 to 

40 yd3

] (Powertech, 2010a, 2011). It is estimated that one to three shipments of operational 

byproduct material will occur per year. 

The NRC staff calculated the amount of solid byproduct material that will be generated from 

decommissioning activities using the financial assurance information the applicant submitted; 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-54 

the land application option estimate is 1,580 m3

 [2,067 yd3] and the deep Class V injection well 

disposal option estimate is 1,419 m3

 [1,856 yd3] (Powertech, 2011). These estimates apply to 

decommissioning wellfields, removal of constructed ponds, pond liners, and equipment and 

IX resin. The applicant anticipates that decommissioning of facilities will take 2 years; therefore, 

the annual byproduct waste generation estimate for decommissioning is 790 m3

 [1,034 yd3] for 

the land application option and 710 m3

 [928 yd3] for the deep Class V injection well disposal 

option. At this time, the applicant does not have an agreement in place with a licensed site to 

accept its solid byproduct material for disposal. If an NRC license is granted, an NRC license 

condition will require the applicant to have a byproduct material disposal agreement in place 

before operations begin. The applicant assumes it will obtain an agreement for disposal of 

byproduct material at the White Mesa site in Blanding, Utah, which is detailed in SEIS 

Section 3.13. SEIS Section 4.14 describes the impacts of solid byproduct material disposal. 

During all phases of the proposed project, the applicant expects to produce nonhazardous solid 

waste. This waste could be composed of municipal waste (facility trash), septic solids, and 

other solid wastes, such as uncontaminated equipment, hardware, and packing materials. The 

applicant proposes to collect nonhazardous solid waste at designated onsite areas and dispose 

of this material at the Custer-Fall River Waste Management District landfill in Edgemont, 

South Dakota, or at the Newcastle Solid Waste Facility, if additional capacity is needed 

(Powertech, 2010a). SEIS Section 3.13 provides additional descriptions of the local solid waste 

facilities. The applicant estimates the proposed action will generate approximately 184 t [203 T] 

of nonhazardous solid waste annually during the construction phase (Powertech, 2010a). The 

NRC staff calculates the annual volume of construction debris as 144 m3 [188 yd3

], which 

assumes a density of 1,281 kg/m3

 [1.08 T/yd3]. During the operational period, the applicant 

estimates that less than 1.4 t [3,000 lb] per week of nonhazardous solid waste will be generated. 

The mass of nonhazardous solid waste is equivalent to an annual volume of 150 m3

 [196 yd3], 

assuming a density of 475 kg/m3

 [800 lb/yd3]. 

The NRC staff used the data in the applicant’s financial assurance section of the application 

(Powertech, 2011) to estimate the total amount of nonhazardous solid waste that will be 

generated during the proposed 2-year decommissioning period; these totals are 12,496 m3

[16,344 yd3

] for the land application option and 10,427 m3 [13,638 yd3] for the deep Class V 

injection well disposal option. The NRC staff calculates the annual decommissioning 

nonhazardous solid waste as 6,248 m3

 [8,172 yd3] for the land application option and 5,213 m3

[6,819 yd3

] for the deep Class V injection well disposal option by dividing the total estimates by 

the applicant’s proposed 2-year decommissioning period. The applicant’s nonhazardous solid 

waste estimates for decommissioning include plant building materials and equipment and 

wellfield equipment that do not contain radioactive materials or that meet NRC limits for 

unrestricted release. 

The applicant’s proposal describes hazardous waste that will be generated as waste oil, 

cleaning solvents, and used batteries (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant has estimated the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will generate less than 100 kg [220 lb] per month of all 

forms of hazardous waste, a quantity that the applicant expects will allow the facility to be 

classified as a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) under RCRA and 

South Dakota regulations (Powertech, 2009a). A CESQG (i) must determine whether its waste 

is hazardous; (ii) must not generate more than 100 kg [220 lb] per month of hazardous waste or, 

except with regard to spills, more than 1 kg [2.2 lb] of acutely hazardous waste; (iii) may not 

accumulate more than 1,000 kg [2,205 lb] of hazardous waste onsite at any time; and (iv) must 

treat or dispose of its hazardous waste in a treatment storage or disposal facility that meets the 

requirements specified in 40 CFR 261.5. If the facility fails to meet any of these four criteria, it 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-55 

will lose CESQG status. Without CESQG classification it will be fully regulated as either (i) a 

small-quantity generator of more than 100 kg [220 lb], but less than 1,000 kg [2,205 lb] of 

nonacute hazardous waste per calendar month or (ii) a large-quantity generator of 1,000 kg 

[2,205 lb] or more of nonacute hazardous waste per calendar month. Any hazardous wastes, 

such as organic solvents, paints, used oil and paint thinners, empty chemical containers, tank 

sediments/sludges, chemical wastes, or spent batteries, must be disposed of in accordance with 

applicable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements. 

2.1.1.1.7 Transportation 

 

The applicant proposes using trucks to transport construction equipment and materials, 

operational processing supplies, IX resins, yellowcake product, and waste materials. The 

applicant commits to complying with all applicable USDOT and NRC packaging and 

transportation requirements for shipments of hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials 

(Powertech, 2009b). During all phases of the facility lifecycle, both temporary and permanent 

workers will commute to and from the facility and generate additional traffic on local roads. 

 

The applicant proposes using trucks to ship construction supplies and the vehicles used to 

construct facilities and wellfields at the proposed site. As stated previously, the applicant 

proposes phased wellfield development. After the processing facilities are constructed, the 

remaining wellfield construction activities and associated transportation will occur over a number 

of years (Figure 2.1-1). The applicant estimated 38 worker commuting round-trips will occur 

daily during the construction period based on a commitment to implement a carpooling policy 

(Powertech, 2013a,b). The applicant’s estimate of construction-related traffic is presented in 

Table 2.1-7. 

During operations, the applicant plans to use tanker trucks to transfer uranium-loaded and 

barren IX resins between the Burdock central processing plant and the Dewey satellite facility. 

The applicant estimates that each day, one uranium-loaded resin truck will travel from the 

satellite facility to the central processing plant and one barren resin truck will travel from the 

central processing plant to the satellite facility. The applicant proposes to ship yellowcake 

product from the central processing plant to a conversion facility located in Metropolis, Illinois, or 

Port Hope, Ontario, Canada. The NRC staff estimates the shipment distances from the 

proposed site to Metropolis, Illinois, and Port Hope, Ontario, to be approximately 2,270 km 

[1,410 mi] for either location (NRC, 2009a). The applicant proposes loading yellowcake into 

sealed 210-L [55-gal] drums and shipping by certified carrier. Assuming a proposed production 

rate of 0.45 million kg [1 million lb] of yellowcake per year, the applicant estimates 

approximately 25 yellowcake shipments annually. Proposed chemical supply shipments to the 

Dewey-Burdock facility include carbon dioxide, oxygen, salt, soda ash, barium chloride, 

hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, and fuel. Shipments of 

waste products, including byproduct material, nonhazardous solid wastes, and hazardous 

wastes will originate at the proposed site for disposal at licensed disposal facilities during the 

plant operations. Estimates of traffic for all phases of the facility lifecycle are provided in 

Table 2.1-7. Based on the information in Table 2.1-7, the total daily operations phase truck 

traffic is estimated at 2 one-way trips per day for either waste disposal option. 

During the decommissioning phase, the applicant proposes to decommission and dismantle 

structures and equipment, and to reclaim land surfaces. The applicant also proposes to ship 

some materials and equipment offsite for recycling or reuse. The applicant expects that waste 

materials, which will include byproduct material (e.g., contaminated facilities and equipment, 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-56 

Table 2.1-7. Estimated Daily Vehicle Round-Trips for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project Waste Management Options 

Cargo 

Land Application 

Option 

Deep Class V 

Injection Well 

Option 

Construction Equipment/Supplies 9 9

Construction/Employee Commuting 38 38 

Remote Ion-Exchange Shipments 1 1 

Processing Chemicals 0.92 0.92 

Processing Byproduct Material 0.0085* 0.0037* 

Yellowcake 0.1† 0.1† 

Operations Employee Commuting 27 27 

Aquifer Restoration Employee 

Commuting 

5 5 

Decommissioning Nonhazardous Solid 

Waste 

1.0‡ 0.87‡ 

Decommissioning Byproduct Material 0.13‡ 0.12‡ 

Decommissioning Recycle/Reuse 

Equipment 

0.07§< 0.07§<

Decommissioning Employee Commuting 7 7 

Source: Powertech, 2009b, 2010a, 2013a,b. The applicant’s reported vehicle trips from these references were 

not reported for each waste disposal option, and therefore the NRC staff assumed that the reported vehicle trips 

applied to both disposal options. 

*The NRC staff divided the applicant’s annual byproduct material estimate by the reported truck capacity and an 

assumed 260 shipping days per year. 

†The NRC staff divided the applicant’s annual yellowcake production rate by the reported truck capacity and an 

assumed 260 shipping days per year. 

‡The NRC staff divided the estimated waste for each option by the proposed 2-year decommissioning period, by 

the proposed truck capacity, and by an assumed 260 shipping days per year. 

§The NRC staff divided the applicant’s estimated shipments by the proposed 2-year decommissioning period and 

an assumed 260 shipping days per year. 

pond bottoms, and excavated soils), nonradiological and nonhazardous solid waste, and 

hazardous solid waste, will be shipped offsite to licensed disposal facilities. Traffic estimates for 

the decommissioning phase are provided in Table 2.1-7. The total daily decommissioning 

phase truck traffic estimates are 1.2 one-way trips per day for the land application option and 

1.1 one-way trips per day for the Class V injection well disposal option. 

2.1.1.1.8 Financial Assurance 

NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion (9) and SDDENR regulations under 

SDCL 45-6B require applicants to assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out 

decommissioning, reclamation of disturbed areas, waste disposal, dismantling and disposal of 

all facilities including buildings and wellfields, and groundwater restoration by independent third 

parties (NRC, 2009a). NRC and SDDENR regulations require the applicant to establish 

financial surety arrangements to cover such costs before operations begin at the proposed 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-57 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The applicant must also maintain these surety arrangements until 

NRC and SDDENR determine the applicant has complied with its reclamation plan. 

NRC has primacy for the proposed Dewey-Burdock site and will calculate the surety bond for 

the portions of the site over which it has jurisdiction, including facility decommissioning of the 

central processing plant, satellite plant, process and retention ponds, radioactive and byproduct 

storage facilities, wellfields, and land application areas, groundwater restoration, radiological 

surveys, and environmental monitoring. The SDDENR portion of the bond will cover costs 

outside NRC jurisdiction and will include reclaiming access roads and other surface areas not 

associated with the central processing plant, satellite plant, process ponds, and wellfields. EPA 

will have a separate bond covering the plugging and abandonment of all Class III and Class V 

injection wells. 

The surety bond for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be independently calculated 

by the NRC with input from SDDENR as defined in a pending Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) between the two agencies (NRC, 2013c). The MOU will include a provision for the NRC 

to hold the state portion of the bond. Provisions will specify that NRC and SDDENR jointly 

manage and adjust the value of the bond as site conditions change over the project life and as 

portions of the facility are decommissioned and reclaimed. 

NRC and SDDENR will require annual revisions to the applicant’s surety bond to ensure that 

funds are available for the decommissioning of existing and planned operations and existing 

and planned construction. NRC reviews financial surety arrangements and decommissioning 

plans in detail as part of its review for the safety evaluation report (NRC, 2013a). For additional 

information on financial surety requirements, see 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion (9) and 

GEIS Section 2.10. 

2.1.1.2 Alternative Liquid Waste Disposal Options 

Liquid wastes are expected to be generated during the operations and aquifer restoration 

phases of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The applicant is required to manage and 

dispose of liquid byproduct material in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations, 

as established by license and permit. SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2 describes the characteristics 

and quantities of the proposed liquid waste streams and the proposed approach for the 

applicant to apply for a permit to dispose of these waste streams using Class V deep injection 

wells. If EPA does not grant the applicant a UIC permit, the applicant will need to rely solely on 

the proposed land application or seek an NRC license amendment to approve another disposal 

option before it initiates operations. Historically, ISR facilities have used evaporation ponds and 

surface water discharge to manage and dispose of liquid wastes. Some licensed ISR facilities 

have used Class I deep disposal wells; however, Class I deep disposal wells are not permitted 

in South Dakota. For this reason, Class I deep disposal wells are not discussed as a potential 

option for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

The following subsections describe alternative wastewater disposal options. These options 

were mentioned in the GEIS. Table 2.1-8 compares the characteristics of several wastewater 

disposal options (NRC, 2009a). Potential environmental impacts of the waste management 

options are analyzed in SEIS Section 4.14.1. 

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-58 

Table 2.1-8. Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options 

Class V Injection 

Well 

Evaporation 

Ponds 

Land 

Application 

Discharge to 

Surface Waters 

Land Size/ 

Footprint 

13.4 ha [33 ac] 

Applicant estimate 

of proposed 

additional disposal 

option-specific land 

required including 

impoundments 

(e.g., radium 

settling, central 

plant pond, outlet 

pond, surge pond, 

reserve capacity) 

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] 

481 ha [1,188 ac] 

Applicant estimate 

of proposed 

additional 

disposal-optionspecific land 

required including 

55.1 ha [136 ac] 

for impoundments 

(e.g., radium 

settling, central 

plant pond, outlet 

pond, surge pond, 

reserve capacity) 

and 426 ha 

[1052 ac] for land 

application areas 

13.4 ha [33 ac] 

Assumed by NRC 

to be similar to 

applicant estimate 

for Class V 

injection option 

Potential 

additional 

separate storage 

facilities 

(impoundments, 

tanks) to maintain 

separate waste 

streams 

Relevant 

Regulations and 

Permits 

10 CFR Part 20, 

Subparts D and K 

and Appendix B 

UIC Class V permit 

(EPA) 

NPDES permit 

(SDDENR) 

Large-Scale Mine 

Permit (SDDENR) 

10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A 

Large-Scale Mine 

Permit (SDDENR) 

NESHAPS permit 

(40 CFR Part 61, 

Subpart W) 

Contract for 

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) 

Groundwater 

discharge plan 

(SDDENR) 

NESHAPS permit 

(40 CFR Part 61) 

Large-Scale Mine 

Permit (SDDENR) 

10 CFR Part 20, 

Subparts D and K 

and Appendix B 

NPDES permit 

(SDDENR) 

No release to 

navigable waters 

standard in 

40 CFR Part 

440.34(b)(1) 

Large-Scale Mine 

Permit (SDDENR) 

Construction 

Requirements 

Land clearing and 

excavation 

equipment for pad, 

mud pits, radiumsettling basins, 

treatment facilities 

Drilling rig 

Land clearing and 

excavation 

equipment to 

prepare surface 

for pond(s) 

Construction 

equipment to 

construct pond 

liner(s) 

Land clearing and 

excavation 

equipment for 

roads, radium 

settling basins, 

treatment facilities 

Land clearing and 

excavation 

equipment for 

roads, radiumsettling basins, 

treatment facilities 

 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-59 

Table 2.1-8. Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options (Cont’d) 

Class V 

Injection Well 

Evaporation 

Ponds 

Land 

Application 

Discharge to 

Surface Waters 

Is wastewater 

storage required 

prior to disposal? 

Yes, 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 

Yes, 

storage/surge 

tank(s) 

Radium-settling 

basins, treatment 

facility if needed to 

reduce radium, 

uranium, and 

other contaminant 

concentrations 

Yes, applicant may 

elect to maintain 

separate “process” and 

“mine” wastewater 

streams 

Radium-settling basins, 

treatment facility if 

needed to reduce 

radium, uranium, and 

other contaminant 

concentrations 

Wastewater 

Treatment Issues 

Decontamination 

through ion 

exchange and 

radium settling 

during operations 

and reverse 

osmosis during 

aquifer restoration. 

Effluent must meet 

10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B effluent 

limits. May add 

antifouling agent to 

reduce scaling in 

well. 

No additional 

treatment is 

required (optional) 

Decontamination 

through ion 

exchange and 

radium settling 

during operations 

and aquifer 

restoration 

Decontamination 

through ion 

exchange/reverse 

osmosis; additional 

treatment to meet 

conditions of NPDES 

discharge permit 

Decommissioning 

Issues 

Radium-settling 

basin liners and 

sludges, treatment 

of building debris to 

be disposed as 

byproduct material, 

additional 

transportation of 

wastes to licensed 

disposal facility 

Plug and abandon 

well in accordance 

with South Dakota 

Well Construction 

Standards 

Sections 74:02:04:

67 and 74:02:04:69 

Pond liners and 

sludges to be 

disposed as 

byproduct 

material; additional 

transportation of 

wastes to licensed 

disposal facility 

Radium-settling 

basin liners and 

sludges, 

treatment of 

building debris to 

be disposed as 

byproduct 

material, 

additional 

transportation of 

wastes to licensed 

disposal facility 

 

Application soils 

to be disposed as 

byproduct 

material if limits 

exceeded 

Additional 

transportation of 

wastes to licensed 

disposal facility 

Radium-settling basin 

liners and sludges, 

treatment of building 

debris to be disposed 

as byproduct material, 

additional transportation 

of wastes to licensed 

disposal facility 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-60 

Table 2.1-8. Comparison of Different Liquid Wastewater Disposal Options (Cont’d) 

Class V 

Injection Well 

Evaporation 

Ponds 

Land 

Application 

Discharge to Surface 

Waters 

Environmental 

Benefits 

Wastewater 

treated to 

10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B 

effluent limits 

Containment 

during storage, 

waste volume 

reduction, liquid 

waste form 

converted to 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 conditions of an 

NPDES discharge 

permit 

Climatic 

Influences 

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 

needed to 

construct 

wastewater 

storage and 

treatment 

facilities 

Additional 

equipment 

needed to 

construct 

evaporation 

ponds 

Additional 

equipment needed 

to construct 

wastewater 

storage and 

treatment facilities 

Additional equipment 

needed to construct 

wastewater storage and 

treatment facilities 

Health and 

Safety Issues 

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 

*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: NRC (2009a)

2.1.1.2.1 Evaporation Ponds 

One commonly used method for disposal of liquid wastes involves pumping liquids into one or 

more ponds and allowing natural solar radiation to reduce the volume through evaporation. The 

waste streams are not always treated prior to being discharged into evaporation ponds, and 

radionuclides and other metals are concentrated as the liquids evaporate. The basic design 

criteria for an evaporation pond system are contained in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-61 

Criteria 5A and 5E. NRC regulations set standards for the location of the pond(s) and the 

design and construction of the necessary clay or geosynthetic liner systems and embankments 

for the ponds (NRC, 2003a, 2008). NRC regulations also establish criteria for pond inspection 

and maintenance. The NRC guidance in Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 2008) recommends 

considering applicable EPA regulations in any impoundment design. 

The effectiveness of evaporation ponds depends on evaporation rates and how quickly liquid 

wastes are generated. The evaporation rate varies seasonally and is dependent on 

temperature and relative humidity; the rate is highest during warm, dry conditions and is lower 

during cool, humid conditions. When the evaporation rate is low or seasonal conditions reduce 

evaporation, the operator can increase the size and the surface area of the evaporation ponds 

to augment evaporation. 

Evaporation ponds are commonly used at facilities that employ a combination of waste disposal 

methods. Historically, the area of individual evaporation ponds at uranium ISR facilities has 

ranged from 0.04 to 2.5 ha [0.1 to 6.2 ac] (NRC, 1997, 1998a,b; Sanford Cohen and Associates, 

2008). The total footprint of the evaporation pond system for all liquid byproduct material 

streams at an ISR facility has been estimated to be as high as 40 ha [100 ac] (NRC, 1997). 

The applicant of an ISR facility would design, construct, and monitor a leak detection system 

and conduct routine inspections, with special inspections as described in NRC guidance to 

identify and repair leaks that might occur in the evaporation pond system (NRC, 2008). NRC 

guidance recommends that an applicant’s design incorporate sufficient freeboard (the distance 

from the water level to top of the embankment) of about 1 to 2 m [3 to 6 ft], depending on the 

size of the individual pond, so that precipitation or wind-driven waves would not overtop the 

embankment (NRC, 2008). In addition, sufficient reserve capacity in the evaporation pond 

system must be maintained to allow the entire contents of one or more ponds to be transferred 

to other ponds in the event of a leak requiring corrective action and liner repair (NRC, 2009a). 

When necessary, an applicant would install perimeter fencing to ensure safety. These 

requirements would be written as conditions in an NRC license, and enforcement would be 

managed through the NRC inspection program. 

The ISR facility applicant might need to demonstrate that radionuclides, such as radon, released 

to the air from ponds meet 40 CFR Part 61 requirements, in particular the provisions of Subpart 

W that incorporates the requirements of 40 CFR Part 192 (NRC, 2008; Sanford Cohen and 

Associates, 2008). In developing the impoundment design, the applicant will also need to 

consider EPA surface impoundment regulations for surface impoundments in 40 CFR Part 264 

(NRC, 2008). 

Because ponds are open to the air, dust and dirt can blow into ponds and the concentrations of 

dissolved solids may increase due to evaporation, resulting in the precipitation of salts from the 

solution. Ponds may require periodic cleaning to maintain good repair and the necessary 

freeboard; additionally, accumulated salts and solids may need to be disposed of as byproduct 

material at a licensed disposal facility. Similarly, when the operation and aquifer restoration 

phases end, pond liners and any accumulated materials would need to be disposed of as 

byproduct material. To provide an example of decommissioning waste volume, the volume of 

byproduct material that would be generated during decommissioning and reclamation of 

evaporation ponds at the Smith Ranch ISR facility in Converse County, Wyoming, was 

estimated in 2007 at 52 m3

 [68 yd3] (NRC, 2009a). 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-62 

During the winter months in South Dakota, during which temperatures are generally below 

freezing, ponds could ice over, thereby reducing evaporation to zero. To maintain year-round 

liquid disposal capability using evaporation ponds at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

facilities, the applicant will likely need to have either sufficient storage capacity or at least one 

other disposal option available. Deep Class V well injection and land application are proposed 

as optional methods. The applicant currently does not consider evaporation ponds a viable 

liquid waste disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (Powertech, 2009b). This is 

due to unfavorable climatic conditions at the site; notably, the short period of high temperatures, 

long periods of sub-freezing temperatures, and strong winds. 

2.1.1.2.2 Surface Water Discharge 

Another disposal method historically used at uranium ISR facilities is treatment of liquid waste 

and discharge at the surface. EPA, in accordance with 40 CFR 440.34, does not allow new ISL 

facilities to discharge process waste water to navigable waters. For release of this effluent to 

non-navigable surface waters, the effluent would need to be pretreated to meet the NRC 

release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B and the provisions of 

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The regulations at 10 CFR 20.2007 require compliance with other 

applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This would include EPA effluent discharge 

regulations for ISL facilities at 40 CFR Part 440, Subpart C, and the SDDENR requirements 

imposed by an NPDES water discharge permit. The NPDES permit specifies effluent limits to 

ensure water quality standards are maintained. Pretreatment of the liquid effluent using IX 

columns, reverse osmosis, and barium/radium sulfate precipitation is typically incorporated into 

the surface water discharge process to decrease uranium and radium levels in the wastewater 

below the permitted discharge limits. Like the land application wastewater disposal option, this 

treatment might require additional land for the construction of radium settling basins and storage 

reservoirs (NRC, 2003a). An applicant would need to control (i) byproduct material remaining at 

storage facilities and within tanks, impoundments, and radium-settling basins until the site and 

facilities are decommissioned (NRC, 2003a) or (ii) the radioactivity at storage facilities and 

within tanks, impoundments, and radium settling basins until the site and facilities are 

decommissioned (NRC, 2003a; Sanford Cohen and Associates, 2008). 

In comments on the draft SEIS, SDDENR informed NRC that NPDES permit requirements do 

not allow process wastewater discharges to waters of the state. SDDENR has also informed 

NRC that if a permit for surface water discharge were requested for the proposed DeweyBurdock site (e.g., because the surface drainages are connected to waters of the state), 

SDDENR would propose an NPDES permit that would require no discharge of process 

wastewater (see comment 119-000013 in Appendix E). Therefore, surface water discharge 

appears unlikely to be a viable option for disposal of liquid byproduct material for the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, but is retained in this analysis as a point of comparison with the 

other evaluated options. 

2.1.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, NRC will not approve the license application for the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and BLM will not approve the applicant’s modified Plan of 

Operations. The No-Action alternative will result in the applicant not constructing or operating 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. No buildings, access roads, wellfields, pipelines, or 

liquid waste disposal systems will be constructed. No uranium will be recovered from the 

subsurface orebodies; therefore, injection, production, and monitoring wells will not be installed 

to operate the facility. No lixiviant will be introduced into the subsurface, and no facilities will be 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-63 

constructed to process extracted uranium or store chemicals. Because no uranium will be 

recovered, neither aquifer restoration nor decommissioning activities will occur. No liquid 

effluents or solid wastes will be generated. The No-Action alternative is included to provide a 

basis for comparing and evaluating the potential impacts of the other alternatives, including the 

proposed action. 

2.2 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Analysis 

As required by NEPA regulations, the NRC staff considered alternatives to issuing the applicant 

a license. The range of alternatives was determined by considering the purpose and need for 

the proposed action and the private party’s objective in extracting uranium from a particular 

orebody. In a site-specific environmental review the identification of reasonable alternatives 

depends on the proposed action, as well as site conditions. This section describes alternatives 

to the proposed action that were considered by the NRC, but not subjected to detailed analyses 

for the reasons described in the following sections. Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 describe different 

mining techniques and associated milling alternatives for the proposed project site. 

Section 2.2.3 discusses the use of different lixiviant chemistry. Section 2.2.4 describes 

alternative site locations for the central plant and satellite facility within the proposed project 

area. Section 2.2.5 details the use of alternative well completion methods at the proposed 

project site. 

2.2.1 Conventional Mining and Milling 

Uranium ore deposits may be accessed either by open pit surface mining or by underground 

mining techniques. Open pit mining is used to extract shallow ore deposits—generally deposits 

less than 168 m [550 ft] below ground surface (EPA, 2008a). To access shallow deposits, the 

topsoil is removed and stockpiled for later site reclamation, while the overburden (the remainder 

of the material overlying the deposit) is removed via mechanical shovels and scrapers, via 

trucks or loaders, or by blasting (EPA, 1995, 2008a). The depth to which an orebody is surface 

mined depends on the ore grade, the nature of the overburden, and the ratio of overburden to 

be removed to one unit of ore extracted (EPA, 1995). 

Underground mining techniques vary depending on the size, depth, orientation, and grade of the 

orebody; the stability of the subsurface strata; and economic factors (EPA, 1995, 2008b). In 

general, underground mining involves sinking a shaft near the orebody and then extending 

levels horizontally from the main shaft at different depths to access the ore. Ore and waste rock 

are removed through shafts by elevator or by using trucks to carry these materials up inclines to 

the surface (EPA, 2008a). 

In addition, when the open pit or underground workings are established, the mine may need to 

be dewatered to allow the extraction of the uranium ore. Dewatering is accomplished by either 

pumping water directly from the open pit or pumping interceptor wells to lower the water table 

(EPA, 1995). The mine water usually requires treatment prior to discharge because it becomes 

contaminated with radioactive constituents, metals, and suspended and dissolved solids. 

Discharge of these mine waters may have subsequent impacts to surface water drainages and 

sediments, as well as to near-surface sources of groundwater (EPA, 1995). 

Following the completion of mining, either by open pit or underground techniques, the mine will 

be reclaimed. Stockpiled overburden is reintroduced into the mined area, either during or 

following extraction operations, and topsoil is reapplied in an attempt to reestablish topography 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-64 

consistent with the surroundings. When dewatering ceases, the water table may rebound and 

fill portions of the open pit and underground workings. Historically, uranium mines have had 

negative impacts on local groundwater supplies and the waste materials from the mines have 

contaminated lands surrounding the mines (EPA, 2008b). 

Ore extracted from an open pit or underground mine is processed in a conventional mill. As 

discussed in GEIS Appendix C (NRC, 2009a), ore processing at a conventional mill involves a 

series of steps (handling and preparation, concentration, and product recovery). While 

conventional milling techniques recover approximately 90 percent of the uranium content of the 

feed ore (NRC, 2009a), the process generates substantial wastes, known as tailings, because 

roughly 95 percent of the ore rock is disposed as waste (NRC, 2006). The conventional mill 

process also consumes large amounts of water. For example, the water usage estimate for the 

proposed Pinon Ridge Mill in Colorado is approximately 534 Lpm [141 gpm] (EFRC, 2009). 

Tailings are disposed of in lined impoundments; NRC reviews the design and construction of 

impoundments to ensure safe disposal of the tailings (NRC, 2009a). Reclamation of the tailings 

pile generally involves evaporation of liquids in the tailings and settlement of the tailings over 

time. The tailings pile is then covered with a thick radon barrier and earthen material or rocks 

for erosion control. The area surrounding the reclaimed tailings piles would be fenced off in 

perpetuity and the site transferred to either a state or federal agency for long-term care 

(EIA, 1995). The costs associated with final mill decommissioning and tailings reclamation can 

run into the tens of millions of dollars (EIA, 1995). 

In the final GEIS on uranium milling (NRC, 1980), NRC evaluated the potential environmental 

impacts of conventional uranium milling operations in a programmatic context, including the 

management of mill tailings. This GEIS evaluated the nature and extent of conventional 

uranium milling as part of the development of regulatory requirements for the management and 

disposal of mill tailings and for mill decommissioning. The impacts from operating a 

conventional mill are significantly greater than for operating an ISR facility. For example, at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, approximately 75 ha [185 ac] will be used for uranium 

extraction operations. This will include wellfields, the central processing plant, a satellite facility, 

and pipeline infrastructure (Powertech, 2010a). A conventional mill requires much more land; 

approximately 300 ha [741 ac] would be affected by construction and milling operations and 

related activities would use approximately an additional 150 ha [370 ac] (NRC, 1980). The 

deposition of windblown tailings could further restrict land use near the tailings. In conventional 

mill modeling, levels of contamination extend several hundred meters [feet] beyond the model 

site boundary evaluated in the GEIS for conventional milling. Because of these factors, 

conventional milling was eliminated from detailed analysis in the SEIS. 

2.2.2 Conventional Mining and Heap Leaching 

Heap leaching is discussed in GEIS Appendix C. For low-grade ores, heap leaching is a viable 

alternative. Heap leaching is typically used when the orebody is small and situated far from the 

milling site. After extraction by conventional open pit or underground mining, the low-grade ore 

is crushed to approximately 2.6 cm [1 in] in size and mounded above grade on a prepared pad. 

A sprinkler or drip system positioned over the top continually distributes leach solution over the 

mound. Depending on the lime content, an acid or alkaline solution is used. The leach solution 

trickles through the ore and mobilizes the uranium, as well as other metals, into solution. The 

solution is collected at the base of the mound by a manifold and is then processed to extract the 

uranium. The uranium recovery from heap leaching ranges from 50 to 80 percent, resulting in a 

final tailings material of around 0.01 percent U3O8 content. When heap leaching is complete, 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-65 

the depleted materials are byproduct material that must be placed in a conventional mill tailings 

impoundment unless NRC grants an exemption for disposal in place. The impacts from heap 

leaching may be less than those associated with conventional milling; however, the impacts 

from open pit or underground mining are substantial. For these reasons, which are the same 

as those listed in SEIS Section 2.2.1, this alternative is not subjected to detailed analysis in 

this document. 

2.2.3 Alternative Lixiviants 

Alternative lixiviant chemistry was considered for the operations phase of the applicant’s 

proposed project. Alternative chemistry includes acid leach solutions and ammonia-based 

lixiviants (Powertech, 2009a). Acid-based lixiviants, such as sulfuric acid, dissolve heavy 

metals and other solids associated with uranium in the host rock and other chemical 

constituents that require additional remediation and have greater environmental impacts. At a 

small-scale research facility in Wyoming, acid-based solutions were used to test their 

effectiveness as a lixiviant in the ISR process. During operations, significant problems 

developed. The mineral gypsum precipitated on the well screens and in the aquifer, which 

plugged the wells and reduced the efficiency of the wellfield restoration. Aquifer restoration had 

limited success, because of the gradual dissolution of the precipitated gypsum, which resulted in 

increased salinity and sulfate levels in the affected groundwater (Uranium One Americas, 2009). 

Because it is technically more difficult to restore acid mine sites, the use of an acid-based 

lixiviant was eliminated from detailed analysis in the SEIS. 

Ammonia-based lixiviants have been used at ISR operations in Wyoming. However, operational 

experience has shown that ammonia tends to adsorb onto clay minerals in the subsurface and 

then slowly desorbs from the clay during restoration. This requires that a much larger volume of 

groundwater be removed and processed during aquifer restoration (Mudd, 2001). Because of 

the greater consumptive use of groundwater to meet groundwater restoration requirements, the 

use of an ammonia-based lixiviant was eliminated from detailed analysis. 

2.2.4 Alternative Sites 

Alternative sites within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area were evaluated for the 

locations of the central plant and satellite facility (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant considered 

site-specific conditions in choosing the proposed central plant and satellite facility locations. 

The applicant made siting decisions to avoid proximity to historical and cultural resources, to 

avoid construction and operations in areas of historical environmental disturbance from past 

surface mining, to protect wildlife by avoidance of nesting sites for raptors, to avoid proximity to 

drainages, and to utilize surface and subsurface geological characteristics efficiently. 

Based on the site-specific conditions used to choose the proposed locations of the Burdock 

central plant and Dewey satellite facility, alternative sites were not chosen for detailed analysis. 

2.2.5 Alternative Well Completion Methods 

Within the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area, there is at least one area where one production 

zone overlies another (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant proposed the following preferred 

scenario for well completion for areas that contain more than one ore-bearing sand. First, the 

production and injection wells will be completed within the lowest ore sand. After the uranium 

has been recovered in the lowest sand, the production and injection wells will be completed in 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-66 

the next ore-bearing sand upward. After recovering the uranium from all the ore-bearing sands, 

restoration will begin by restoring the uppermost sandstone horizon first and working down to 

the lowermost sandstone horizon. The monitoring well ring design will correspond to the depth 

of uranium-bearing sand undergoing production or restoration. 

Two alternative well completion methods were considered for areas within the project area 

containing more than one ore-bearing sand or production zone. The first alternative considered 

completion of wells across multiple sand horizons using the same wells and same monitoring 

ring. This alternative was not selected for detailed analysis due to the difficulties in (i) ensuring 

that the injection and productions fluids will be efficiently distributed through the various sands 

and (ii) monitoring the performance of the wellfield. The second alternative considered 

construction of larger wellfields and monitoring rings to encompass more reserves. Under this 

alternative, wells will be completed in the same manner as the applicant’s preferred option. This 

method was considered and rejected due to (i) the increase in scale, (ii) the potential difficulties 

in evaluating pump tests, (iii) the increase in time and activities associated with installing and 

producing the wellfield, and (iv) delay in final restoration and reclamation of the wellfield. 

Therefore, this alternative well completion method was not selected for detailed analysis. 

2.3 Comparison of the Predicted Environmental Impacts 

NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003b) categorizes the significance of potential environmental impacts 

as follows: 

SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

resource considered. 

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

important attributes of the resource considered. 

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

important attributes of the resource considered. 

Chapter 4 presents a detailed evaluation of the environmental impacts from the proposed action 

and the No-Action alternative on resource areas at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

Table 2.3-1 compares the significance level (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) of potential 

environmental impacts of the proposed action for each proposed waste disposal option and the 

No-Action alternative and identifies the section in Chapter 4 where more detailed information 

can be found. For each resource area, the NRC staff identifies the significance level during 

each phase of the ISR process: construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning. The predicted environmental impact to each resource area for the proposed 

action can also be found in the Executive Summary. 

2.4 Final Recommendation 

After weighing the impacts of the proposed action and comparing the alternatives, NRC staff, in 

accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(d), sets forth its NEPA recommendation regarding the proposed 

action. Unless safety issues mandate otherwise, the NRC staff recommendation to the 

Commission related to the environmental aspects of the proposed action is that a source 

material license for the proposed action be issued as requested. This recommendation is based 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-67 

Table 2.3-1. Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

 Recovery Project

Section 4.2 Land Use Impacts 

Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.2.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.2.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.2.1.3 

NONE 

4.2.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.2.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.2.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.2.1.3 

NONE 

4.2.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.2.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.2.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.2.1.3 

NONE 

4.2.2 

Decommissioning SMALL to 

MODERATE* 

4.2.1.1.4 

SMALL to 

MODERATE* 

4.2.1.2.4 

SMALL to 

MODERATE* 

4.2.1.3 

NONE 

4.2.2 

Section 4.3 Transportation Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL† 

4.3.1.1.1 

SMALL† 

4.3.1.2.1 

SMALL† 

4.3.1.3 

NONE 

4.3.2 

Operations SMALL† 

4.3.1.1.2 

SMALL† 

4.3.1.2.2 

SMALL† 

4.3.1.3 

NONE 

4.3.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.3.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.3.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.3.1.3 

NONE 

4.3.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.3.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.3.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.3.1.3 

NONE 

4.3.2 

Section 4.4 Geology and Soils Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.4.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.4.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.4.1.3 

NONE 

4.4.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.4.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.4.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.4.1.3 

NONE 

4.4.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.4.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.4.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.4.1.3 

NONE 

4.4.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.4.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.4.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.4.1.3 

NONE 

4.4.2 

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-68 

Table 2.3-1. Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project (Cont’d)

Section 4.5.1 Water Resources Impacts (Surface Water and Wetlands) 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.5.1.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.5.1.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.5.1.1.3 

NONE 

4.5.1.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.5.1.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.5.1.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.5.1.1.3 

NONE 

4.5.1.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.5.1.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.5.1.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.5.1.1.3 

NONE 

4.5.1.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.5.1.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.5.1.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.5.1.1.3 

NONE 

4.5.1.2 

Section 4.5.2 Water Resources Impacts (Groundwater) 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.5.2.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.5.2.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.5.2.1.3 

NONE 

4.5.2.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.5.2.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.5.2.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.5.2.1.3 

NONE 

4.5.2.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.5.2.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.5.2.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.5.2.1.3 

NONE 

4.5.2.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.5.2.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.5.2.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.5.2.1.3 

NONE 

4.5.2.2 

Section 4.6 Ecological Resources Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.6.1.1.1 

SMALL to 

MODERATE† 

4.6.1.2.1 

SMALL to 

MODERATE† 

4.6.1.3 

NONE 

4.6.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.6.1.1.2 

SMALL to 

MODERATE† 

4.6.1.2.2 

SMALL to 

MODERATE† 

4.6.1.3 

NONE 

4.6.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.6.1.1.3 

SMALL to 

MODERATE† 

4.6.1.2.3 

SMALL to 

MODERATE† 

4.6.1.3 

NONE 

4.6.2 

Decommissioning SMALL to 

MODERATE‡ 

4.6.1.1.4 

SMALL to 

MODERATE‡ 

4.6.1.2.4 

SMALL to 

MODERATE‡ 

4.6.1.3 

NONE 

4.6.2 

 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-69 

Table 2.3-1. Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project (Cont’d)

Section 4.7 Air Quality Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL to 

MODERATE§ 

4.7.1.1.1 

SMALL to 

MODERATE§ 

4.7.1.2.1 

SMALL to 

MODERATE§ 

4.7.1.3 

NONE 

4.7.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.7.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.7.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.7.1.3 

NONE 

4.7.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.7.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.7.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.7.1.3 

NONE 

4.7.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.7.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.7.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.7.1.3 

NONE 

4.7.2 

Section 4.8 Noise Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.8.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.8.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.8.1.3 

NONE 

4.8.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.8.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.8.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.8.1.3 

NONE 

4.8.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.8.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.8.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.8.1.3 

NONE 

4.8.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.8.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.8.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.8.1.3 

NONE 

4.8.2 

Section 4.9 Historical and Cultural Resources Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL to LARGE║

4.9.1.1.1 

SMALL to LARGE║

4.9.1.2.1 

SMALL to LARGE║

4.9.1.3 

NONE 

4.9.2 

Operations SMALL to 

MODERATE╪ 

4.9.1.1.2 

SMALL to 

MODERATE╪

4.9.1.2.2 

SMALL to 

MODERATE╪

4.9.1.3 

NONE 

4.9.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL to 

MODERATE╪

4.9.1.1.3 

SMALL to 

MODERATE╪

4.9.1.2.3 

SMALL to 

MODERATE╪

4.9.1.3 

NONE 

4.9.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.9.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.9.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.9.1.3 

NONE 

4.9.2 

 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-70 

Table 2.3-1. Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project (Cont’d)

Section 4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.10.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.10.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.10.1.3 

NONE 

4.10.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.10.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.10.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.10.1.3 

NONE 

4.10.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.10.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.10.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.10.1.3 

NONE 

4.10.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.10.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.10.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.10.1.3 

NONE 

4.10.2 

Section 4.11 Socioeconomic Impacts (Demographics) 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

Construction 

Demographics 

Income 

Housing 

Employment Rate 

Local Finance 

Education 

Health and Social 

Services

SMALL 

4.11.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.11.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.11.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.11.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.11.1.1.5 

SMALL 

4.11.1.1.6 

SMALL 

4.11.1.1.7 

NONE 

4.11.2 

Operations 

Demographics 

Income 

Housing 

SMALL 

4.11.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.11.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.11.1.2.3 NONE 

Employment Rate 

Local Finance 

Education 

Health and Social 

Services

SMALL 

4.11.1.2.4 

SMALL to MODERATE¶ 

4.11.1.2.5 

SMALL 

4.11.1.2.6 

SMALL 

4.11.1.2.7 

4.11.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.11.1.3 

NONE 

4.11.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.11.1.4 

NONE 

4.11.2 

 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-71 

Table 2.3-1. Summary of Impacts for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project (Cont’d)

Section 4.12 Environmental Justice Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

Construction SMALL 

4.12.1 

NONE 

4.12.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.12.1 

NONE 

4.12.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.12.1 

NONE 

4.12.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.12.1 

NONE 

4.12.2 

Section 4.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.13.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.13.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.13.1.3 

NONE 

4.13.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.13.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.13.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.13.1.3 

NONE 

4.13.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.13.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.13.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.13.1.3 

NONE 

4.13.2 

Decommissioning SMALL 

4.13.1.1.4 

SMALL 

4.13.1.2.4 

SMALL 

4.13.1.3 

NONE 

4.13.2 

Section 4.14 Waste Management Impacts 

 Proposed Action 

(Alternative 1) 

No Action 

(Alternative 2) 

 Deep Well Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

Option 

Land Application 

Option 

Combined Disposal 

Via Class V Injection 

and Land Application 

Option 

Construction SMALL 

4.14.1.1.1 

SMALL 

4.14.1.2.1 

SMALL 

4.14.1.3 

NONE 

4.14.2 

Operations SMALL 

4.14.1.1.2 

SMALL 

4.14.1.2.2 

SMALL 

4.14.1.3 

NONE 

4.14.2 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL 

4.14.1.1.3 

SMALL 

4.14.1.2.3 

SMALL 

4.14.1.3 

NONE 

4.14.2 

Decommissioning SMALL to 

MODERATE# 

4.14.1.1.4 

SMALL to 

MODERATE# 

4.14.1.2.4 

SMALL to 

MODERATE# 

4.14.1.3 

NONE 

4.14.2 

*A MODERATE impact on land use until vegetation is reestablished in seeded areas. 

†A MODERATE impact on vegetation, small- to medium-sized mammals, raptors, nongame and migratory birds, and 

reptiles. 

‡A MODERATE impact on vegetation until it is reestablished. 

§A MODERATE impact on air quality from short-term, intermittent fugitive dust emissions. The peak year (i.e., when 

all four phases occur simultaneously) impacts will range between SMALL to MODERATE. 

║A MODERATE or LARGE impact on 13 historic properties and other unevaluated historic, cultural, and religious 

properties in the project area. A potential MODERATE visual impact on 19 historic properties. 

╪A potential MODERATE visual impact on 19 historic properties. 

¶A potential positive MODERATE impact on local finance from increased employment, economic activity, and tax 

revenues. 

#A potential MODERATE impact on disposal of nonhazardous solid waste depending on the long-term status of 

existing local landfill resources. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-72 

on (i) the license application, which includes the ER and supplemental documents, and the 

applicant’s responses to NRC staff requests for additional information; (ii) consultation with 

federal, state, tribal, and local agencies; (iii) independent NRC staff review; (iv) NRC staff 

consideration of comments received on the draft SEIS; and (v) the assessments summarized in 

this SEIS. 

2.5 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. “Domestic Licensing 

of Source Material.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 40 Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40 

Appendix A. “Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 

Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 

Processed Primarily from their Source Material Content.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51. “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 61. 

“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 144. “Underground Injection Control Program.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 145. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 145. “State UIC Program Requirements.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 146. “Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 192. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 192. “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill 

Tailings.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 261. 

“Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-73 

40 CFR Part 264. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 264. 

“Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

Facilities.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 440. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 440. 

“Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

43 CFR Part 3800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Public Lands: Interior, Part 3800. 

“Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

ARSD (Administrative Rules of South Dakota). “Chapter 74:02:04. Well Construction 

Standards.” South Dakota Legislature Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:11:08. Capping, Sealing, and Plugging Exploration Test Holes.” 

South Dakota Legislature Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:51:01. Surface Water Quality Standards.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:54:01. Groundwater Quality Standards.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:56:01. Underground Storage Tanks (UST).” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chaper 74:56:03. Aboveground Stationary Storage Tanks (AST).” South Dakota 

Legislature Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Section 74:02:04:67. Requirements for Plugging Wells or Test Holes Completed Into 

Confined Aquifers or Encountering More Than One Aquifer.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules.

ARSD. “Section 74:29:07:07. Topsoil Management.” South Dakota Legislature Administrative 

Rules. 

ARSD. “Section 74:29:11:15. Disposal of Drill Cuttings.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Section 74:34:01:04. Reporting of Known Discharges—Reportable Quantities.” South 

Dakota Legislature Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Section 74:54:01:04. Standards for Groundwater of 10,000 mg/L TDS Concentration 

or Less.” South Dakota Legislature Administrative Rules. 

EFRC (Energy Fuels Resources Corporation). “Reply to Responses to Comments Received at 

Two Public Meetings, Pinon Ridge Mill Facility, Montrose County, Colorado.” Letter 

(September 16) to Montrose County Commissioners from F. Filas. Lakewood, Colorado: 

EFRC. 2009. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-74 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). “Decommissioning of U.S. Uranium Production 

Facilities.” DOE/EIA–0592. Washington, DC: EPA, Energy Information Administration, Office 

of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels. 1995. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). “Technical Report on Technologically Enhanced 

Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials from Uranium Mining: Mining and Reclamation 

Background.” Vol. 1. EPA–402–R–08–005. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Radiation and 

Indoor Air/Radiation Protection Division. 2008a. 

EPA. “Health and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation: 

Five-Year Plan.” Requested by House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

Washington, DC: EPA. 2008b. 

EPA. “Technical Resource Document: Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and 

Minerals—Uranium.” Vol. 5. EPA 530-R-94-032. Washington, DC: EPA, Office of Solid 

Waste/Special Waste Branch. 1995. 

IML (Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc). "Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact 

Analysis Dewey-Burdock Project Powertech (USA) Inc., Edgemont, South Dakota." 

ML13196a061, ML13196a097, ML13196a118. Sheridan, Wyoming: IML Air Science. 2013. 

IML. “Follow-Up on Dewey-Burdock Questions.” Email (August 2) from R. Smith to B. Werling, 

Southwest Research Institute®. ML12216A215. Sheridan, Wyoming: IML Air Science. 2012. 

Mackin, P.C., D. Daruwalla, J. Winterle, M. Smith, and D.A. Pickett. NUREG/CR–6733, “A 

Baseline Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

Licensees.” Washington, DC: NRC. September 2001. 

Mudd, G.M. “Critical Review of Acid In-Situ Leach Uranium Mining: 1-USA and Australia.” 

Environmental Geology. Vol. 41. pp. 390–403. 2001. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Safety Evaluation Report for the Dewey-Burdock 

Project Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota, Materials License No. SUA–1600.” 

ML13052A182. Washington, DC: NRC. March 2013a. 

NRC. “Draft License SUA–1600 for Powertech (USA), Inc.” ML13318A094. Washington, DC: 

NRC. March 2013b. 

NRC. “Subject: Memorandum of Understanding between the South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.” Letter 

(August) to S. Pirner, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources from 

A. Persinko, NRC. ML13259A006. Washington, D.C.: NRC. 2013c. 

NRC. NUREG-1910, Supplement 2. “Environmental Impact Statement for the Nichols Ranch 

ISR Project in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming Supplement to the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, Final Report.” 

ML103440120. Washington, D.C.: NRC. January, 2011. 

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

Milling Facilities.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009a. 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-75 

NRC. “Site Visit to the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project, Fall River and Custer 

Counties, South Dakota, and Meetings with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and Local 

Organizations, November 30–December 4, 2009.” ML093631627. Washington, DC: NRC. 

2009b. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Retention 

Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Rev. 3. Washington, DC: NRC. November 2008. 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for the Addition of the Reynolds Ranch Mining Area to 

Power Resources, Inc.’s Smith Ranch/Highlands Uranium Project Converse County, Wyoming.” 

Washington, DC: NRC. 2006. 

NRC. NUGEG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications—Final Report.” Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003a. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003b. 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA–1341, 

Comega Mining, Inc. Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Projects, Campbell and Johnson 

Counties, Wyoming.” Docket No. 40-8502. Washington, DC: NRC. June 1998a. 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Source Material License No. SUA–1534: 

Crow Butte Resources Incorporated Crow Butte Uranium Project Dawes County, Nebraska.” 

Docket No. 40-8943. Washington, DC: NRC. 1998b. 

NRC. NUREG–1508, “Final Environmental Impact Statement To Construct and Operate the 

Crownpoint Uranium Solution Mining Project, Crownpoint, New Mexico.” ML082170248. 

Washington, DC: NRC. February 1997. 

NRC. “Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for 

Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear 

Material.” ML003745526. Washington DC: NRC. April 1993. 

NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

Project M-25.” ML032751663, ML0732751667, ML032751669. Washington, DC: NRC. 

September 1980. 

Powertech {Powertech (USA) Inc.]. "Comments From Powertech (USA) Inc. on the DeweyBurdock Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Docket ID NRC-2012-

0277." Letter (January 8) from R. Blubaugh to C. Bladey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Office of Administration. ML13022A386. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2013a. 

Powertech [Powertech (USA) Inc.]. “Final Air Modelling Report and Protocol (3 of 3).” Email 

(July 11) from J. Mays to R. Burrows, NRC, Office of Administration. ML13196A118. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2013b. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project Groundwater Discharge Plan Custer and Fall River 

Counties, South Dakota.” ML12195A039, ML12195A040. Edgemont, South Dakota: 

Powertech. March 2012a. 
In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives FINAL 

2-76 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project Emissions Inventory Revisions.” Email (July 31) from 

R. Blubaugh to Bradley Werling, Southwest Research Institute®. ML12216A220. South Dakota: 

Powertech. 2012b. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project Class III Underground Injection Control Permit 

Application.” ML122440623. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. July 2012c. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota, Technical Report RAI Responses, June 2011.” 

ML112071064. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2011. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota ER_RAI Response August 11, 2010.” ML102380516. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010a. 

Powertech. “Subject: Powertech (USA), Inc.’s Responses to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Staff’s Verbal and Email Requests for Clarification of Selected Issues 

Related to the Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Environmental Review Docket No. 40-9075; 

TAC No. J 00533.” Letter (November 4) to R. Burrows, Project Manager, Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs from R. Blubaugh, Vice PresidentEnvironmental Health and Safety Resources. ML110820582. Greenwood Village, Colorado: 

Powertech. 2010b. 

Powertech. “Subject: Powertech (USA), Inc.’s Responses to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Staff’s Verbal Request for Clarification of Response Regarding Inclusion of 

Emissions from Drilling Disposal Wells; Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Environmental Review 

Docket No. 40-9075; TAC No. J 00533.” Letter (November 17) to R. Burrows, Project Manager, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs from 

R. Blubaugh, Vice President, Environmental Health and Safety Resources. ML103220208. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010c. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Environmental Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2009a. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Technical Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2009b. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Supplement to Application for NRC Uranium Recovery 

License Dated February 2009.” Docket No. 040-09075. ML092870160. Greenwood Village, 

Colorado: Powertech. August 2009c. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project Underground Injection Control Permit Application.” 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. December 2008. 

Sanford Cohen and Associates. “Final Report Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings 

Impoundment Technologies.” ML12237A191. Vienna, Virginia: Sanford Cohen and 

Associates. September 2008. 
FINAL In-Situ Uranium Recovery and Alternatives

2-77 

SDDENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). “South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Comments on the Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery 

Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” Letter (January 10) to C. Bladey, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission from S.M. Pirner. ML13017A010. Pierre, South Dakota: 

SDDENR. 2013a. 

SDDENR. “Powertech's Air Quality Application Submitted on November 5, 2012 for Its 

Proposed Operations in Edgemont, South Dakota.” Letter (February 21) with enclosure 

(Statement of Basis) from K. Gestring to R. Blubaugh, Powertech. ML13213A282. Vermillion, 

South Dakota: SDDENR. 2013b. 

SDCL 45-6B. “Mined Land Reclamation.” South Dakota Legislature. South Dakota 

Codified Laws. 

SDCL 45-6B-40. “Removal and Handling of Topsoil.” South Dakota Legislature. South Dakota 

Codified Laws. 

SRK Consulting [SRK Consulting (U.S.)]. “NI 43-101 Technical Report Preliminary Economic 

Assessment Dewey-Burdock Project.” ML13165A150. Lakewood, Colorado: SRK Consulting. 

April 2012. 

Uranium One (Uranium One Americas). “Response to Request for Additional Information for 

the Moore Ranch In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project License Application (TAC JU011).” 

ML092450317. Denver, Colorado: Uranium One. August 2009.

3-1 

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Introduction 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery (ISR) Project is located in Custer and Fall River 

Counties, South Dakota, in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region as 

defined in the generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) (NRC, 2009a). The proposed 

project area, which encompasses 4,282 ha [10,580 ac] of land, is in a relatively unpopulated 

rural area consisting of rangeland used primarily for cattle grazing. The nearest population 

center to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is Edgemont, South Dakota, approximately 

21 km [13 mi] to the south-southeast. The hamlet of Dewey, South Dakota, is located 

approximately 3.2 km [2 mi] northwest of the project. Other towns located within 80 km 

[50 mi] of the proposed project area include Hot Springs and Custer, South Dakota, and 

Newcastle, Wyoming (see Figure 1.1-1). 

This chapter describes the existing site conditions of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

The resource areas described in this chapter include land use; transportation; geology and soils; 

water resources; ecology; meteorology, climatology, and air quality; noise; historic and cultural 

resources; visual and scenic resources; socioeconomics; public and occupational health; and 

waste management practices. The descriptions of the affected environment are based on 

information provided in the Powertech (USA) Inc. (Powertech) (referred to herein as the 

applicant) license application documents (Powertech, 2009a–c) and responses to U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) requests for additional information (Powertech, 2010a–c, 2011) 

and supplemented by additional information the NRC identified. The information in this chapter 

forms the basis for assessing the potential impacts (see Chapter 4) of the proposed action and 

each alternative (see Chapter 2). 

3.2 Land Use 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located within the Great Plains physiographic 

province on the edge of the Black Hills uplift. The proposed project area covers 4,282 ha 

[10,580 ac] and is composed of two contiguous areas: the Burdock area and the Dewey 

area (Figure 3.2-1). The Burdock area is located in the following townships and ranges: 

(i) Township 7 South, Range 1 East, Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, and portions of Sections 14 

and 15 and (ii) Township 6 South, Range 1 East, Sections 34, 35, and portions of Section 27. 

The Dewey area is located in the following townships and ranges: (i) Township 7 South, 

Range 1 East, Section 5 and portions of Section 4 and (ii) Township 6 South, Range 1 East, 

Sections 29, 30, and 32, and portions of Sections 20, 21, 28, 31, and 33. Approximately 

4,185 ha [10,340 ac] of the proposed project area are in the hands of private landowners, while 

approximately 97 ha [240 ac] are U.S. Government lands managed by U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) (Powertech, 2009a,b). 

GEIS Section 3.1.2.2 describes the concept of split estate where different entities own the 

surface rights and subsurface rights (such as the rights to develop minerals) for a piece of land 

(NRC, 2009a). This divided ownership pattern occurs at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site, where BLM manages federally owned subsurface mineral rights to portions of land 

whose surface rights are owned by private landowners. In total, the U.S. Government reserved 

1,708 ha [4,220 ac] of subsurface mineral estate under the Stock-Raising Homestead Act when 

the surface was patented. The applicant maintains the unpatented mining claims associated 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL

3-2

Figure 3.2-1. Map Showing Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project

Permit Boundary, 

Location of 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management-Managed 

Land, 

Position of 

Parcels of the Black Hills National 

Forest (BHNF)

Bordering the 

Permit 

Area to the 

East and 

North, and 

Locations of Residences

Within the 

Proposed Permit Area

Source: Modified From Powertech (2009c)
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-3 

with the 1,780 ha [4,220 ac] of federal minerals. In addition, the applicant maintains unpatented 

mining claims on the 97 ha [240 ac] of BLM-managed surface lands. 

The land the applicant acquired for uranium resource development within the proposed project 

area consists of a mixture of leases from private landowners, both surface and subsurface, as 

well as the mining claims on the 1,780 ha [4,220 ac] of subsurface mineral estate and 97 ha 

[240 ac] of BLM-managed surface lands (Powertech, 2009a). This land consists of contiguous 

blocks of property known to contain the majority of discovered and delineated uranium 

resources that would be permitted for development. 

Dwellings located within a 1.6-km [1.0-mi] radius of the proposed project boundary are listed in 

Table 3.2-1 and mapped on Figure 3.2-1. Two permanently occupied dwellings (the Putnam 

residence and the Beaver Creek Ranch headquarters), the vacant Spencer residence, and the 

seasonally occupied Daniel dwelling are located within the proposed project area. The 

permanent onsite residences, the Putnam dwelling and Beaver Creek Ranch headquarters, are 

located approximately 1.3 km [0.8 mi] south and 0.8 km [0.5 mi] west, respectively, of proposed 

wellfields in the Dewey area. The closest offsite residences, the Peterson and Kennobie 

dwellings, are located approximately 1.3 km [0.8 mi] southwest and 1.3 km [0.8 mi] south, 

respectively, of proposed wellfields in the Burdock area.

The project area and surrounding region has been used as rangeland, as wildlife habitat, for 

recreation and hunting, in uranium exploration and mining, in oil and gas development, and for 

wind energy generation since historic times. SEIS Section 3.6.1 describes wildlife and 

vegetation in the project area. A small portion of the project area currently covered by stands of 

ponderosa pine has been logged selectively for pulpwood; however, timber is not currently and 

historically has not been a significant industry in the region surrounding the proposed project 

area (Powertech, 2010d). 

3.2.1 Rangeland 

Land use within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area and adjacent lands is primarily 

agricultural (Powertech, 2009a), mainly for grazing cattle and a small number of horses. The 

National Agriculture Statistics Service reports 75,250 head of cattle in Fall River and 

Table 3.2-1. Dwellings Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

 Area and a 1.6-km [1.0-mi] Radius of the Proposed Permit Boundary 

Dwelling Name Status 

Number of 

Permanent 

Occupants Location* 

Peterson Occupied 9 T7S, R1E, Section 16 

Kennobie Occupied 2 T7S, R1E, Section 23 

Spencer Vacant T7S, R1E, Section 3 

Daniel Seasonal T7S, R1E, Section 1 

Andersen Occupied 3 T7S, R1E, Section 9 

Putnam Occupied 2 T7S, R1E, Section 5 

Stodart Vacant T41S, R60E, Section 22 

Cook Vacant T6S, R1E, Section 17 

Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters Occupied 1 T6S, R1E, Section 30 

Source: Powertech (2010a). 

*T = Township; R = Range; S = South; E = East 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-4 

Custer Counties in 2007 (USDA, 2009). No commercial crop production takes place within the 

permit area; however, approximately 157 ha [389 ac] of land along Beaver Creek in Section 32, 

Township 6 South, Range 1 East is irrigated for hay production for use by the grower 

(Powertech, 2009a). 

The approximately 97 ha [240 ac] of BLM-managed lands within the project area are located in 

Fall River County entirely within the Burdock area (Figure 3.2-1); these lands are surrounded by 

private land and have limited public access. Additional small parcels of BLM-managed land are 

located outside the proposed project area in Fall River County. The majority of land under BLM 

management in South Dakota is grassland (BLM, 1985). The forage produced on these lands is 

a public resource and historically has been used for livestock grazing. Area ranchers lease 

grazing privileges and derive economic benefits from the public lands proportional to the amount 

of grassland under lease. In its current resource management plan for South Dakota, BLM has 

categorized most grazing allotments of BLM lands in Fall River County, including those within 

the proposed project area, as “custodial” (BLM, 1985). The objective of this category is to 

manage and protect the existing resource value of the land (BLM, 1985). 

3.2.2 Hunting and Recreation 

Within the proposed project area, recreational use is limited primarily to big game hunting. 

Pronghorn antelope, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk are the predominant big game 

species hunted (Powertech, 2009a). Hunting is currently open to the public within the project 

area on approximately 2,307 ha [5,700 ac] including the 97 ha [240 ac] of BLM-managed land 

(Powertech, 2011). In addition, South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP) leases around 

1,214 ha [3,000 ac] of privately owned land within the project area and designates this acreage 

as walk-in hunting areas (WIA) (Powertech, 2011). The amount of land designated as WIAs 

changes from year to year because landowners lease their lands annually to SDGFP. 

Recreational lands are present in Custer, Fall River, and Pennington Counties within an 

80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed project. Major attractions include Mount Rushmore 

National Memorial, Wind Cave National Park, and Jewel Cave National Monument, all managed 

by the U.S. Department of the Interior. These attractions are within the Black Hills National 

Forest (BHNF) and are located approximately 71 km [44 mi] northeast, 47 km [29 mi] east, and 

37 km [23 mi] north of the project area, respectively (Figure 3.2-2). BHNF borders the proposed 

project to the north, northeast, and east, and the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is located 

approximately 4.8 km [3 mi] south of the proposed project (Figure 3.2-2). The U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) manages these lands, which provide a variety of recreational activities, such as 

sightseeing, hiking, camping, fishing, and hunting (USFS, 2009, 1997). 

3.2.3 Minerals and Energy 

Historically, industrial activity within and in the region surrounding the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project has consisted primarily of uranium exploration and mining and oil and gas 

development. There are no coal mines or coal bed methane operations in Fall River and 

Custer Counties (NRC, 2009a). However, information gathered during a site visit meeting with 

the BLM staff indicated small bituminous coal deposits located east and south of the proposed 

project area were developed in the past (NRC, 2009b). This information is consistent with 

isolated coal fields located approximately 3 km [2 mi] southeast of the proposed project area 

and approximately 6 km [4 mi] southeast of the city of Edgemont (Figure 3.2-2). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-5 

Figure 3.2-2. Recreational Areas, Federal Lands, Coal Fields, and Potential In-Situ Recovery Facilities Near the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

 Sources: ESRI (2008); National Atlas of the United States (2009) 

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-6 

The proposed project site is located within the Edgemont Uranium District in Fall River and 

Custer Counties, South Dakota. Uranium was first discovered in the Edgemont District in 1951, 

and open pit mines produced uranium until 1972 (Powertech, 2009a). Surface and 

underground uranium mines were operated in the Burdock area along the eastern boundary of 

the proposed project area (Figure 3.2-3). Surface mines consist of seven open pits: 

Triangle Pit, Darrow Mine, Darrow Pit 1, Darrow Pit 2, Darrow Pit 3, Darrow Pit 4, and 

Darrow Pit 6 (Figure 3.2-3). The underground mine workings consist of four shallow mines 

(Triangle Underground, Darrow Underground, Freezeout 1, and Freezeout 2 mines) and two 

open pit adits (tunnels) driven into the highwalls of Darrow Pit 2 (Figure 3.2-3) (Powertech, 

2011). The underground mines were constructed as declines (downward sloping ramps) 

ranging in depth from 0 to 24.4 m [0 to 80 ft] below ground surface. Both the underground and 

open pit mines extracted uranium from shallow sandstone orebodies within the Fall River 

Formation (Powertech, 2011). Existing mine waste overburden from the underground and open 

pit mines remains in the eastern portions of the Burdock area (Figure 3.2-3). The Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA) acquired the land encompassing the proposed project area in 1978 and 

conducted uranium exploration activities until 1986. In total, TVA drilled more than 

4,000 exploration drill holes within and in the vicinity of the proposed project. 

Operating uranium recovery facilities are located within the broader regional area. The nearest 

operational ISR facility is the Crow Butte ISR facility, which is located approximately 105 km 

[65 mi] to the south-southeast in Dawes County, near Crawford, Nebraska (NRC, 2009a). The 

applicant identified uranium resources at two potential ISR projects at Dewey Terrace and 

Aladdin in Wyoming (Powertech, 2009b). The potential Dewey Terrace project is located 13 km 

[8 mi] west of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project in Weston and Niobrara Counties, 

Wyoming (Figure 3.2-2). The mineralized trends in the Dewey Terrace project area are a 

continuation of the mapped trends from the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The potential Aladdin 

project is located approximately 129 km [80 mi] to the north in Crook County, Wyoming, near 

the Wyoming/South Dakota border. Development of these potential ISR facilities is 

dependent upon further site investigations, as well as the viability of the uranium market 

(Powertech, 2009b). To this date, the applicant has not submitted a letter of intent for either 

Aladdin or Dewey Terrace. 

There are no former or actively producing oil and gas wells within the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project permit area or within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the proposed project boundary (Powertech, 

2011). However, 3 oil and gas test wells are located in the proposed Burdock area and another 

10 tests wells are within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the proposed project boundary (Figure 3.2-4) 

(Powertech, 2010a, 2011). A review of South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (SDDENR) permit files for each of these wells indicated that one of the oil and gas 

wells within the Burdock area (40 047 20065) and two of the oil and gas test wells located within 

2 km [1.25 mi] of the project boundary (40 047 05090 and 40 047 05093) have been 

recompleted as stock watering wells (SDDENR, 2013). In Fall River County, the producing oil 

well nearest to the proposed project is approximately 11 km [7 mi] to the southeast in the 

Cheyenne Bend oilfield (SDDENR, 2012a). Other producing oil wells are located southwest of 

the city of Edgemont. In Custer County, producing oil wells are in the Barker Dome oilfield, 

approximately 6 km [4 mi] east of the project area (SDDENR, 2012b). The Powder River Basin 

in Wyoming, to the west of the proposed project, contains some of the largest coal bed methane 

and natural gas deposits in the United States. Weston and Niobrara Counties in Wyoming to 

the west and northwest of the proposed project contain significantly more active oil and gas 

production wells than Fall River and Custer Counties (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission, 2012). The majority of oil and gas production and exploration are concentrated in 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-7 

Figure 3.2-3. Map Showing Locations of Historical Underground and Open Pit Mine Workings in the 

Eastern Part of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Site 

 Source: Powertech (2011)

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-8 

Figure 3.2-4. Map Showing Plugged and Abandoned Oil and Gas Test Wells Within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Boundary 

 Source: Powertech (2011)

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-9 

the southwestern part of Weston County and the northwestern part of Niobrara County, closer 

to the Powder River Basin. The producing wells nearest to the proposed project are in the 

Plum Canyon oilfield in Wyoming, approximately 5 km [3 mi] to the northwest in Weston County 

(see Figure 5.1-3 in this SEIS). At this time, no pending or potential oil and gas land leases are 

within the proposed project area. Furthermore, demand for oil and gas leasing on available land 

in the vicinity of the proposed project is low. Most active oil and gas development in the region 

is located on USFS-managed land, primarily in the Buffalo Gap National Grassland, located 

west and south of Edgemont. Sixteen oil and gas drilling permits were issued in Fall River 

County since 2005 (SDDENR, 2012c). In Custer County, no oil and gas drilling permits have 

been issued since 2005 (SDDENR, 2012c). Seven known oil and gas lease tracts are on 

USFS-managed land in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area; however, these 

tracts are currently not available for bid (BLM, 2009a). These tracts are located in Custer 

County within Township 6 South, Range 1 East; two of the tracts (SDM79010BO 

and SDM79010BN) border the permit boundary of the proposed project (Figure 3.2-5). 

At present, no wind farms are located in the vicinity of the proposed project; however, a 

landowner group, the Dewey-Burdock Wind Association, LLC is exploring the viability of wind 

power (Powertech, 2010a). The land designated as a potential wind farm includes privately 

owned land inside and surrounding the proposed project area. Most of the landowners involved 

in the potential wind farm are also involved in the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

(Powertech, 2010a). The wind farm is currently in the conceptual phase. 

3.3 Transportation 

This section describes the transportation infrastructure and conditions in the region surrounding 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. As described in Section 2.1.1.1.7 of this SEIS, the 

applicant has proposed to use trucks to ship equipment, supplies, and produced materials, 

including wastes, during the lifecycle of the proposed action. The applicant does not anticipate 

using the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad as a transportation option for any of the 

proposed project operations. There are no navigable waterways within close proximity that 

provide transportation access to the proposed project. 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site is located in Fall River and Custer Counties in a 

remote area of southwestern South Dakota near the eastern border of Wyoming, approximately 

21 km [13 mi] northwest of Edgemont, South Dakota. Figure 3.3-1 shows the transportation 

corridor of the region surrounding the proposed site, and Figure 3.2-1 provides a closer view 

of the immediate proposed site area and the existing transportation infrastructure. Access to the 

proposed site from Edgemont is from the southeast on Fall River County Road 6463 (locally 

known as Dewey Road). Within Custer County, Dewey road is also called Custer County 

Road 769. Figure 3.2-1 shows Dewey Road, an unpaved, gravel-covered road that is narrower 

than a standard two-lane road of 6 to 7 m [20 to 24 ft] and runs adjacent to the BNSF rail line 

(BLM, 2009a). County records indicate repairs to Dewey Road were needed due to flooding 

15 times since 1987 (BLM, 2009a). The main access road to the proposed central processing 

plant (CPP) facilities and well fields in the Burdock area of the proposed project will be 

constructed off Dewey Road in Township 7 South, Range 1 East, Section 10 (see 

Figure 2.1-10). The main access road to the proposed satellite facility (SF) in the Dewey area 

of the proposed project will be constructed off Dewey Road in Township 6 South, Range 1 East, 

Section 20 (see Figure 2.1-10). 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-10 

Figure 3.2-5. Pending Oil and Gas Lease Tracts in Custer County, South Dakota 

 Source: BLM (2009a)

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-11 

Figure 3.3-1. Transportation Corridor of the South Dakota-Nebraska-Wyoming 

Uranium Milling Region Surrounding the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project 

 Source: NRC (2009a)
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-12 

U.S. Highway 18 travels northeast from Edgemont to Hot Springs, South Dakota, and to 

State Highway 79, which travels north to Rapid City and Interstate 90 (see Figure 3.3-1). 

U.S. Highway 18 also connects Edgemont to State Highway 89 that runs north to Custer, 

South Dakota. Table 3.3-1 presents traffic counts for regional roads based on available data. 

No road capacity studies of local transportation routes were identified. However, insights to 

rural road capacities were based on (i) published estimates for a single freeway lane capacity of 

13,900 vehicles per day derived by the South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT, 

2000) and (ii) a rural two-lane highway hourly capacity estimate (1,375 vehicles per hour) that 

accounts for nonideal travel conditions (Kadrmas, et al., 2010) that the NRC staff converted to a 

daily value of 7,237 vehicles per day using the method and assumptions SDDOT (2000) 

reported and assuming equal traffic in each direction. 

3.4 Geology and Soils 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock Project is located in the Black Hills of southwestern 

South Dakota within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region evaluated 

in GEIS Section 3.4.3.1 (NRC, 2009a). GEIS Section 3.4.3.1 provides a regional description of 

the geology and soils of the Black Hills. A summary of the geology of the Black Hills region 

and site-specific discussions of the geology and soils within and in the vicinity of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are provided in the following sections. 

3.4.1 Geology 

3.4.1.1 The Black Hills (Western South Dakota–Northeastern Wyoming) 

The Black Hills are an asymmetrical domal uplift elongated in the northwest direction 

(Figure 3.4-1). Economically significant uranium discoveries in the Black Hills are 

contained within strata of the Inyan Kara Group (Chenoweth, 1988). Prior to 1968, three 

uranium districts (Hulett Creek, Carlile, and Edgemont) produced the bulk of the uranium 

production tonnage mined from the Black Hills area in Wyoming and South Dakota (Hart, 1968). 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located within the Edgemont uranium district in 

Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota (Figure 3.4-1). 

Table 3.3-1. Annual Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project

Road Segment 2011 Traffic Count* 

All Vehicles Auto Truck 

Dewey Road 225 — — 

US 18 (Edgemont to US 89) 1,782 1,361 421 

US 18 (Hot Springs to SR 79) 5,075 4,725 350 

SR 89 (US 385 to US 18) 659 604 55 

SR 79 (at US 18) 3,172 2,569 603 

Sources: BLM (2009a); SDDOT(2011) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel for year 2011 SDDOT (2011), except 

the Dewey Road count. Based on limited available information, the Dewey Road count is an average of two 

24-hour counts performed by the Fall River County Highway Department in 2012 (Powertech, 2013a). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff calculated the auto counts as the difference between the reported 

all-vehicle and truck counts. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-13 

Figure 3.4-1. Outcrop Map of the Inyan Kara Group in the Black Hills of Western 

South Dakota and Northeastern Wyoming Showing the Locations of 

Principal Uranium Mining Districts 

 Source: Modified From NRC (2009a)

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-14 

Stratigraphic units present in the Black Hills include sedimentary deposits of the Cretaceous, 

Jurassic, and Triassic Periods [65–145 million years ago (mya), 149–199 mya, and 

200–251 mya, respectively] (Figure 3.4-2). In the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area, the 

Inyan Kara Group is Lower Cretaceous (99-145 mya) in age and consists of subequal amounts 

of complexly interbedded sandstone and claystone (Renfro, 1969). The Inyan Kara Group is 

bounded below by continental Jurassic sediments of the Morrison Formation and is overlain by 

the marine sediments of the Graneros Group, which includes the Skull Creek Shale, the 

Newcastle Sandstone, the Mowry Shale, and the Belle Fourche Shale. Resistant sediments of 

the Inyan Kara Group form the outermost ring of hogback ridges that crop out in a roughly oval 

pattern around the flanks of the Black Hills (Figure 3.4-1). Major sandstone-hosted uranium 

deposits occur from 2 to 8 km [1 to 5 mi] downdip from the main Inyan Kara escarpment at 

depths ranging from 30 to 244 m [100 to 800 ft]. 

The Inyan Kara Group is formally subdivided into the Lakota Formation and the Fall River 

Formation. Source sediment for both formations is considered to include all pre-Cretaceous 

sediments to the south and east of the Black Hills (Renfro, 1969). 

The Lakota Formation is generally accepted to be continental in origin. The Lakota Formation 

represents a sequence of coastal-plain deposits of fine-grained, poorly sorted sandstone and 

mudstone; channel-fill deposits of cross-bedded sandstone; natural levee and overbank 

deposits of lenticular fine-grained, carbonaceous sandstone and siltstone; and floodplain 

deposits of bedded siltstone, mudstone, and claystone (Maxwell, 1974). The Lakota Formation 

ranges in thickness from 15 to 91 m [50 to 300 ft] and thickens regionally from northwest to 

southeast (Chenoweth, 1988). 

The Fall River Formation overlies the Lakota Formation, ranges in thickness from 30 to 46 m 

[100 to 150 ft], and thickens regionally from southeast to northwest (Dondanville, 1963). The 

Fall River Formation is divided into deltaic and marine facies. The deltaic facies consist of 

channel sandstone, interchannel sandstone and mudstone, and blanket sandstone. The marine 

and marginal marine facies consist of offshore and lagoonal mudstone and shale, and bar and 

spit sandstone. 

Uranium deposits in the Inyan Kara Group are present as roll-front deposits. The formation 

and characteristics of roll-front uranium deposits in the western United States, which 

includes the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region, are described in 

GEIS Section 3.1.2.1 (NRC, 2009a). In the uranium deposits within the Inyan Kara Group, 

uranium minerals coat sand grains, fill interstices between grains, and are disseminated in 

organic matter (Renfro, 1969). The specific source of uranium is unknown. Two proposed 

uranium sources include uranium indigenous (i.e., native) to the Lakota and Fall River 

sediments (Renfro, 1969) and uranium leached by groundwater from tuffaceous beds of the 

Tertiary White River Group that were unconformably deposited across the eroded Black Hills 

uplift (Hart, 1968). 

3.4.1.2 Dewey-Burdock Geology 

Surface geology across the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area is shown in 

Figure 3.4-3. The Fall River Formation outcrops across the eastern part of the proposed project 

area, the Skull Creek Shale and Mowry Shale outcrop across the central part of the proposed 

project area, and the Belle Fourche Shale outcrops across the western part of the proposed 

project area. At the site the shales present are all part of the Graneros Group. Formations 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-15 

Figure 3.4-2. Principal Stratigraphic Units in the Black Hills Area of Western 

South Dakota and Northeastern Wyoming 

 Sources: Modified From Driscoll, et al. (2002) and NRC (2009a)

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-16 

Figure 3.4-3. Map Showing Site Surface Geology Within and Surrounding the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Area 

 Source: Powertech (2009a) 

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment

3-17

within the project area dip gently 2 to 6 degrees to the southwest. The most recent sedimentary 

units deposited within the project area are Quaternary age alluvium deposits. Alluvium 

consisting of silt, clay, and gravel is present in the major stream drainages and their tributaries. 

There is faulting and folding in areas surrounding the proposed project. The Dewey Fault, a 

northeast-to-southwest-trending fault zone, is present approximately 1.6 km [1 mi] north and 

northwest of the project area. The Barker Dome, a northwest-to-southeast-trending anticline, is 

present east of the project area (Figure 3.4-3).

Stratigraphic units of interest for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project include the 

Morrison Formation, the Inyan Kara Group (Lakota and Fall River Formations), the Skull Creek 

Shale, the Mowry Shale, and the Belle Fourche (Figure 3.4-4). The Inyan Kara Group is host to 

all the uranium mineralization for the proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). The Morrison 

Formation and the Skull Creek Shale coupled with the Mowry and Belle Fourche Shales form 

the lower and upper confining units for uranium mineralization at the Dewey-Burdock site, 

respectively. The combined Skull Creek–Mowry–Belle Fourche Shale is often referred to as the 

Granerous Group. Structure contour maps and cross sections delineating the extent and 

character of the stratigraphic units at the proposed Dewey Burdock site were compiled with data 

obtained from TVA downhole electric logs of thousands of exploration drill holes and from 

drill cuttings data (Powertech, 2009a,c). As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.2, aquifer pumping 

tests have provided data indicating a hydraulic connection between the Lakota and Fall River 

Formations through the intervening Fuson Shale in the Burdock area. A numerical groundwater 

model developed by the applicant using site-specific geologic and hydrologic information 

Figure 3.4-4. Stratigraphic Units Present at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project Site

Sources: Modified From Driscoll, et al. (2002) and NRC (2009a)
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-18 

suggested that leakage through the Fuson Shale is caused by improperly installed wells or 

improperly abandoned exploration holes completed in the Fall River and Lakota Formations 

(Petrotek, 2012). 

Morrison Formation 

The Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation consists of floodplain deposits having an average 

thickness of approximately 30 m [100 ft]. This lower confining unit is composed of calcareous, 

noncarbonaceous massive shale with limestone lenses and a few thin fine-grained sandstones. 

Analyses of core samples indicate that Morrison clays have very low vertical permeabilities {on 

average 2.0 × 10−8

 cm/s [6.0 × 10−5 ft/day]} (Powertech, 2009a). 

Inyan Kara Group: Lakota Formation and Fall River Formation 

The Lakota Formation consists of three members (from lower to upper): the Chilson Member, 

also known as the Lakota Sandstone; the Minnewasta Limestone Member; and the Fuson 

Member. Only the Chilson and Fuson Members are present at the proposed project site (see 

Figure 3.4-4). 

The Chilson Member consists of two units: a basal carbonaceous mudstone and an overlying 

unit of channel sandstones interbedded with shale. Core sample analyses indicate the 

sandstones have horizontal permeabilities ranging from 2.6 × 10−3

 to 4.1 × 10−3 cm/sec [7.4 to 

11.6 ft/day] (Powertech, 2009a). The thickness of the Chilson Member sandstone within the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area varies from 27.4 to 73.2 m [90 to 240 ft] 

(Powertech, 2009a). 

The Fuson Member is the uppermost member of the Lakota Formation and is used to divide 

the Lakota Formation and the Fall River Formation. The Fuson Member is composed of 

shale-siltstone with discontinuous sandstone units at the base and top of the member. The 

Fuson Member is estimated to have an average thickness of 30.5 m [100 ft] in the southern 

Black Hills (Gott, et al., 1974). The Fuson Shale, which is the shale-siltstone portion of the 

Fuson Member, ranges in thickness from 6 to 24 m [20 to 80 ft] within the proposed project area 

(Powertech, 2011). The Fuson Shale has low vertical permeability ranging from 7.9 × 10−14 to 

2.3 × 10−12 cm2

 [0.008 to 0.228 millidarcies] (Powertech, 2009a). 

The Fall River Formation is composed of carbonaceous interbedded siltstone and sandstone, 

channel sandstones, and a sequence of interbedded sandstone and shale. The Fall River 

Formation ranges in thickness from 37 to 49 m [120 to 160 ft] within the proposed project area 

(Powertech, 2009a). The Fall River Formation is exposed at the surface in the eastern half of 

the Burdock area at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (Figure 3.4-3). 

The sandstones of the Fall River and Lakota Formations contain the uranium deposits at the 

proposed project site. Mineralized sands occur at depths of less than 30 m [100 ft] in the 

outcrop area of the Fall River Formation in the eastern part of the Burdock area and at depths of 

up to 244 m [800 ft] in the Lakota Formation in the Dewey area (Powertech, 2009a). The 

depths of ore zones in the initial wellfields at the proposed project range from approximately 

122 to 244 m [400 to 800 ft] bgs in the Dewey area and approximately 61 to 122 m [200 to 

400 ft] in the Burdock area (Powertech, 2009c). The calculated average thickness of individual 

ore zones is 1.4 m [4.6 ft] with an average ore grade of 0.198 percent U3O8 (Powertech, 2011). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-19 

The primary uranium minerals in the deposits are very fine-grained pitchblende and coffinite, 

which coat sand grains and fill interstices between grains. 

Skull Creek Shale 

The Skull Creek Shale directly overlies the Fall River Formation and consists predominantly 

of dark-gray to black shale and organic material. The Skull Creek Shale is the basal unit of the 

Graneros Group, which forms the upper confinement for the uranium mineralization. The Skull 

Creek Shale has a thickness of approximately 61 m [200 ft]. The Skull Creek Shale has a 

vertical permeability of approximately 6.9 × 10−14 cm2

 [0.007 millidarcies] (Powertech, 2009a). 

The Skull Creek Shale has been eroded and is absent in the eastern part of the Burdock area 

(Figure 3.4-3). 

Mowry Shale 

The Mowry Shale, together with the Skull Creek Shale and Belle Fourche Shale, is also 

considered to be part of the upper confining unit for the target mineralization zone at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The Newcastle Sandstone, usually present between the 

Skull Creek and the Mowry Shale, is absent within the proposed project area as shown in 

Figure 3.4-4. 

Belle Fourche Shale 

The uppermost unit of the Graneros Group is the Belle Fourche Shale. This shale unit is 91-m 

[300-ft] thick and consists of thin-bedded gray to black soft shale containing black to 

reddish-brown ironstone concretions. The ironstone concretions are particularly abundant in 

the basal 6 to 9 m [20 to 30 ft]. There is bentonite production from the lower part of the 

Belle Fourche Shale, but not within the proposed project area. The combined thickness of the 

Skull Creek, Mowry, and Belle Fourche Shales is over 168 m [550 ft] in the southwestern part of 

the proposed project site (i.e., the Dewey area) (Powertech, 2011). In the eastern part of the 

Burdock area, the Granerous Group shale units have been eroded and are absent 

(Figure 3.4-3). 

Breccia Pipes 

Breccia pipes and collapse breccias have been studied and mapped in the southern Black Hills 

(Darton, 1909; Braddock, 1963; Gott, et al., 1974; Epstein, 2001). These features originate in 

anhydrite and gypsum sequences within the upper portion of the Minnelusa Formation (Gott, 

et al., 1974). Dissolution of these evaporate sequences by underlying Minnelusa and/or 

Madison artesian water created solution cavities into which overlying Permian sediments 

collapsed. The areal extent of dissolution is limited to within a few miles downgradient from the 

Minnelusa outcrop. The probable maximum downgradient limit of dissolution has been mapped 

by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is approximately 8 km [5 mi] northeast of the 

proposed project area (Braddock, 1963). The applicant presented further evidence against the 

presence of breccia pipes in the proposed project area, including field investigations for breccia 

pipes, evaluation of Inyan Kara water temperatures, regional pumping test results, and 

evaluation of color infrared imagery (Powertech, 2011). 

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-20 

Artificial Penetrations 

According to the environmental report, there are 4,000 exploration drill holes representing 

historic exploration activities (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant has drilled approximately 

115 exploration holes, including 20 monitoring wells in the project area. While the applicant 

cannot confirm that all historic borings were properly plugged and abandoned, the applicant has 

made commitments to ensure that unplugged drill holes will not impact human health or the 

environment during operations (Powertech, 2009b, 2011). Futhermore, state regulations were 

in place governing exploration hole plugging at the time the historical exploration occurred. In 

the technical report (Powertech, 2009b), the applicant stated that little evidence of unplugged 

boreholes has been observed given infrared photography data. However, an infrared map of a 

portion of the Burdock area shows an alkali pond area (Powertech, 2011). The applicant states 

unplugged borings appear to explain the presence of this pond area. No other pond areas or 

springs appear in infrared photography data of the Dewey-Burdock site. There is no other 

evidence indicating that previously unplugged borings are current groundwater flow pathways 

(Powertech, 2011). 

3.4.2 Soils 

GEIS Section 3.4.3.1 describes the soils of the Black Hills as a product of weathering of surficial 

sedimentary rocks of the Black Hills range (NRC, 2009a). To provide site-specific soil 

characteristics, the applicant had a soil survey conducted within the Dewey-Burdock permit area 

in accordance with procedures of the National Cooperative Soil Survey (Powertech, 2009a). 

The survey included a total of 4,272 ha [10,557 ac] (Powertech, 2009b). The soils in the 

proposed site are typical for semiarid grasslands and shrublands of the Western United States 

and are classified as Aridic Argiustolls, Aridic Ustorthents, and Aridic Haplusterts. 

The soil survey results indicated that soils within the proposed permit area generally have a 

clayey or very fine texture with patches of sandy loam on upland areas and fine, clay-textured 

soils in or near drainages. Deep soils were found on level upland areas, and shallow and very 

shallow soils were found on hills, ridges, and breaks. Salvage depths ranged from 0 to 1.5 m 

[0 to 5 ft] (Powertech, 2009a). The clayey texture of the surface horizon found throughout most 

of the proposed project area results in soils more susceptible to erosion from water than wind 

(Powertech, 2009a). 

3.4.3 Seismology 

The Dewey Fault is located approximately 1.6 km [1 mi] north of the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

permit area (Figure 3.4-3). The Dewey Fault is a nearly vertical northeast-to-southwest-trending 

normal fault with a combined displacement and drag of approximately 152 m [500 ft] on the 

north side. Given the location and displacement characteristics of this fault, there will be no 

effect on proposed site activities. The Long Mountain Structural Zone located 11 km [7 mi] 

southeast of the proposed project area contains several small, shallow faults in the Inyan Kara 

Group. No faults have been identified within the proposed permit area (Powertech, 2009a). 

Additionally, according to the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, no capable faults 

(active faults) with surface expression occur within a 100-km [62-mi] radius from the center of 

the proposed site, demonstrating a historically low seismic potential (USGS, 2006a). The most 

significant seismic hazard within and in the vicinity of the proposed project area is a “floating” 

earthquake. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, a floating earthquake is one that 

is considered to occur randomly within a tectonic province. According to the applicant, the 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-21 

maximum magnitude of such an earthquake is 6.1. Within the period from 1872 to 2010, 

14 earthquakes of Richter Scale magnitudes ranging from 2.3 to 4.1 were recorded in Custer 

and Fall River Counties (SDGS, 2010). The Modified Mercalli scale intensities for these 

magnitudes are II (e.g., felt by few at best) to IV (e.g., felt indoors and outdoors), respectively. 

Eight earthquakes had epicenters located north of Hot Springs near Wind Cave National Park in 

Custer County, and two earthquakes had epicenters near Hot Springs in Fall River County. The 

closest earthquake to the proposed Dewey-Burdock site occurred January 5, 2004, with a 

recorded magnitude 2.8 with an epicenter located approximately 8 km [5 mi] north of the hamlet 

of Dewey in Custer County. The remaining 3 of the 14 earthquakes had epicenters located in 

southwestern, central, and eastern Fall River County. 

3.5 Water Resources 

3.5.1 Surface Waters 

As described in GEIS Section 3.4.4.1, uranium deposits in Fall River and Custer Counties in 

southwestern South Dakota are present within the Beaver Creek and Angostura Reservoir 

watersheds (Figure 3.5-1). The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area lies within the 

Beaver Creek watershed and is drained by Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and their tributaries 

(Powertech, 2009a). The Beaver Creek watershed covers an area of 3,522 km2

 [1,360 mi2], 

excluding the Pass Creek subwatershed and lies within Weston, Niobrara, and Crook Counties 

in Wyoming and within Pennington, Custer, and Fall River Counties in South Dakota. The 

Pass Creek subwatershed comprises most of the east-southeast portion of the Beaver Creek 

watershed and covers an area of 596 km2

 [230 mi2] within Custer, Fall River, and Pennington 

Counties in South Dakota and a very small portion of Weston County in Wyoming. 

Beaver Creek, a perennial and shallow stream with ephemeral tributaries, flows northwest to 

southeast through the northwestern and western portions of the Dewey area (Figure 3.5-2). 

The average discharge rate for Beaver Creek, measured at Newcastle, Wyoming, is 0.34 m3

/s 

[12 ft3

/s] (stream gage 06392950; USGS, 2010). Pass Creek, which within the proposed project 

area is an ephemeral stream that supports some intermittent habitat, is dry for most of the year, 

except for short periods of high runoff following major storms (Powertech, 2009a). Pass Creek 

flows southerly through the central portion of the proposed project area and joins Beaver Creek 

southwest of the proposed project area. No permanent stream flow gages are stationed along 

Pass Creek. Beaver Creek and Pass Creek were not classified as domestic water supplies in 

beneficial uses of surface waters categorized by the State of South Dakota near the proposed 

area (SDDENR, 2008), although water from Beaver Creek is used for hay irrigation. 

Approximately 4 km [2.5 mi] south of the confluence of Beaver and Pass Creeks, Beaver Creek 

flows into the Cheyenne River (Figure 3.5-2). The average flow of the Cheyenne River at 

Edgemont, South Dakota, is 1.1 m3

/s [39 ft3/s] (stream gage 06395000; USGS, 2010). 

There are no known natural springs within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area 

(Powertech, 2011). There is one area in the southwest corner of the Burdock area, known as 

the “alkali flats” or the “alkali area,” where groundwater is discharging to the ground surface 

from the Fall River aquifer and Chilson aquifer (Chilson Member of the Lakota Formation) 

through improperly plugged exploratory boreholes (Powertech, 2011). Two springs are present 

along the Dewey Fault near the town of Dewey approximately 2 km [1.2 mi] northwest of the 

proposed project boundary. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-22 

Figure 3.5-1. Watersheds Within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium 

 Milling Region 

 Source: NRC (2009a)
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-23 

Figure 3.5-2. Map Showing Locations of Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and the 

 Cheyenne River in Relation to the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project and Water Quality Sampling Locations for Surface 

Water and Groundwater. Note That Alluvium Samples Were Collected 

From Wells and Are Not Surface Water Samples. 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2009a) 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-24 

The applicant performed floodplain modeling on the stream channels of Beaver Creek, 

Pass Creek, and smaller ephemeral drainages within the proposed project area to determine 

the extent of inundation from a simulated 100-year flood and evaluate potential adverse impacts 

to facilities from flooding (Powertech, 2009b, 2011). Results of the modeling showing the areal 

extent of a 100-year flood with respect to proposed facilities and wellfields are illustrated in 

Figure 3.5-3. The modeling indicates that, with the exception of the plant-to-plant pipeline and 

small parts of some proposed wellfields, most of the proposed facilities, infrastructure, potential 

land application areas, and wellfields will be located outside the 100-year flood inundation 

boundaries of Beaver Creek and Pass Creek. For example, the 100-year floodplain boundary of 

Beaver Creek will be 668 m [2,190 ft] from the proposed satellite facility in the Dewey area and 

664 m [2,180 ft] from the proposed central processing plant in the Burdock area. Conversely, 

some wellfields and storage ponds in the Dewey area and some wellfields, the main access 

road, and the plant-to-plant pipeline in the Burdock area are located within the 100-year 

floodplain boundary of ephemeral drainages (Figure 3.5-3). 

There are a number of abandoned open pit mines (depression zones) within the project 

area stretching from the eastern to the northern boundaries of the site in the Burdock area (see 

Figure 3.2-3). With the exception of Darrow Pit #2, the Darrow pits are usually dry but 

occasionally contain water that collects from runoff events (Powertech, 2011). The usual 

presence of water in Darrow Pit #2 suggests that the base of the pit may be below the 

potentiometric surface of the Fall River Formation. The Triangle Pit, which lies up dip of the 

proposed Burdock area wellfields, has permanent water storage at a depth greater than 30 m 

[100 ft]. The bottom of the Triangle Pit is below the potentiometric surface of the Fall River and 

is, therefore, hydraulically connected to the Fall River Formation. 

Surface Water Quality 

Water quality in Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and the Cheyenne River varies considerably and is 

dependent on flow regime. These streams often experience extended periods of low or no flow. 

During periods of high flow, relatively high amounts of sediment and low dissolved solids occur 

in the streams, while less turbid waters with higher dissolved solids occur during periods of low 

flow. Upstream and downstream of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project in South Dakota, 

the Cheyenne River is classified as having the following beneficial water uses: (i) warm water 

semipermanent fish life propagation; (ii) limited contact recreation; (iii) fish and wildlife 

propagation, recreation, and stock watering; and (iv) irrigation (SDDENR, 2008). According to 

the State of South Dakota 2006 303(d) list, from Beaver Creek to the Angostura Reservoir, the 

Cheyenne River is listed as supporting the beneficial use of limited contact recreation, but is 

listed as impaired for the other three beneficial water uses due to high total dissolved and 

suspended solids, high salinity, and high conductivity. According to Administrative Rules of 

South Dakota (ARSD) 74:51:03:08, Beaver Creek in South Dakota is classified as suitable for 

the same uses as the Cheyenne River. 

Both Beaver Creek and Pass Creek are classified as having the beneficial uses of fish and 

wildlife propagation, recreation, stock watering, and irrigation near the project site 

(SDDENR, 2008). These creeks, however, are not classified as having the beneficial use of 

domestic waters. 

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-25 

Figure 3.5-3. Map Showing Modeled 100-Year Flood Inundation Boundary of Stream 

Channels Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery 

Project Area 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2011)

The applicant followed guidance in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003) and NRC Regulatory 

Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980) to establish preoperational or baseline surface water quality conditions 

at the proposed site (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). The applicant collected surface water samples 

monthly between July 2007 and June 2008 from perennial and ephemeral streams upstream 

and downstream of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2009a). Figure 3.5-2 

shows the locations of stream sampling locations. Perennial stream sampling locations 

included two sites on Beaver Creek (BVC01 and BVC04) and two sites on the Cheyenne River 

(CHR01 and CHR05). Ephemeral stream sampling locations included two sites on Pass Creek 

(PSC01 and PSC02), a site in Bennett Canyon (BEN01), and an unnamed downstream tributary 

(UNT01). Due to the sporadic nature of rainfall at the proposed site, passive samplers were 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-26 

installed at the ephemeral stream sampling sites to collect samples during flow events 

(Powertech, 2009a). Table 3.5-1 summarizes results for key parameters and constituents of 

concern in surface water at the stream sampling sites, and Table 3.5-2 summarizes results for 

radionuclides of concern. 

Results of the stream sampling indicated exceedances of State of South Dakota surface water 

standards (ARSD Chapter 74:51:01) for field parameters (pH, dissolved oxygen, and specific 

conductance) at Beaver Creek and the Cheyenne River, while other field parameters were 

within State of South Dakota surface water quality limits. At Beaver Creek, pH levels were 

higher than the 8.8 standard in 16 percent (3 of 19) of the measurements, but were not below 

the 6.5 standard for warmwater semipermanent fish life propagation waters. At the Cheyenne 

River, pH measurements complied with state standards. Dissolved oxygen measurements were 

in compliance at Beaver Creek, but fell below the state standard for warm water semipermanent 

fish life {5 mg/L [5 ppm]} in one sample from the Cheyenne River. Specific conductance values 

exceeded the fish, wildlife, and stock daily maximum standard of 7,000 uS/cm in 15 percent 

(3 of 20) of the measurements at Beaver Creek and 5 percent (1 of 19) of the measurements at 

Table 3.5-1. Summary of Key Parameters and Constituents of Concern in Surface 

 Waters in Streams at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

 Recovery Project 

Stream 

ID pH 

Dissolved 

Oxygen mg/L 

Specific 

conductance 

uS/cm 

Total 

Dissolved 

Solids mg/L 

Sulfate 

mg/L 

Chloride 

mg/L 

Arsenic 

mg/L 

Selenium 

mg/L 

BVC01 

N 

Mean 

Min* 

Max† 

9 

8.33 

7.94 

8.91 

10 

10.79 

6.86 

13.57 

10 

3680 

860 

7678 

11 

2875 

609 

5860 

11 

1359 

317 

2540 

11 

500 

38 

1370 

11 

0.0058 

<0.001 

0.048 

11 

0.0012 

<0.001 

0.003 

BVC04 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

10 

8.07 

7.52 

8.82 

10 

10.64 

6.54 

13.74 

10 

4066 

733 

7186 

11 

3144 

516 

5700 

11 

1384 

286 

2670 

11 

721 

9 

1730 

11 

0.0041 

<0.001 

0.023 

11 

0.0016 

<0.001 

0.004 

CHR01 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max

8 

8.10 

7.47 

8.44

8 

8.63 

3.74 

13.08

8 

4522 

350 

7847

9 

4157 

219 

7040

9 

2616 

86 

4520

9 

129 

2 

249

9 

0.0044 

<0.001 

0.024 

9 

0.0012 

<0.001 

0.003 

CHR05 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

11 

8.03 

7.42 

8.24 

9 

10.20 

7.63 

12.92 

11 

3863 

510 

6986 

12 

3425 

365 

6450 

12 

1919 

180 

4160 

12 

376 

17 

912 

12 

0.004 

<0.001 

0.029 

12 

0.0015 

<0.001 

0.003 

PSC01 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

1 

8.12 

8.12 

8.12 

1 

10.26 

10.26 

10.26 

1 

1844 

1844 

1844 

2 

1765 

1510 

2020 

2 

1188.5 

977 

1400 

2 

2.4 

2.0 

2.8 

2 

0.017 

0.003 

0.031 

2 

0.0013 

<0.001 

0.002 

PSC02 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

1 

8.1 

8.1 

8.1 

1 

9.51 

9.51 

9.51 

1 

1696 

1696 

1696 

2 

1204 

998 

1410 

2 

777 

645 

909 

2 

1.8 

1.6 

2.0 

2 

0.0105 

0.003 

0.018 

2 

0.0018 

<0.001 

0.003 

UNT01 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

0 0 0 1 

369 

369 

369 

1 

278 

278 

278 

1 

1.0 

1.0 

1.0 

0 1 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

*Min = minimum 

†Max = maximum 

Source: Powertech (2011). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-27 

Table 3.5-2. Summary of Key Radionuclides of Concern in Surface Waters in Streams 

 at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Stream 

ID 

Gross 

Alpha 

pCi/L 

U 

(Diss)* 

mg/L 

U 

(Total) 

mg/L 

Ra-226 

(Diss) 

pCi/L 

Ra-226 

(Susp)* 

pCi/L 

Pb-210 

(Diss) 

pCi/L 

Pb-210 

(Susp) 

pCi/L 

Po-210 

(Diss) 

pCi/L 

Po-210 

(Susp) 

pCi/L 

Th-230 

(Diss) 

pCi/L 

Th-230 

(Susp) 

pCi/L 

BVC01 

N 

Mean 

Min† 

Max† 

11 

17.95 

5.9 

65.8 

9 

0.0124 

0.002 

0.0269 

11 

0.0121 

0.004 

0.0262 

8 

0.31 

< 0.2 

2.0 

9 

0.26 

< 0.2 

3.1 

6 

2.7 

< 1.0 

11.0 

6 

3.38 

< 1.0 

15.3 

6 

1.13 

< 1.0 

2.6 

6 

1.6 

< 1.0 

3.0 

9 

0.1 

< 0.2 

0.3 

9 

0.66 

< 0.2 

3.4 

BVC04 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

11 

14.5 

2.3 

34.7 

9 

0.0126 

0.0017 

0.023 

11 

0.0121 

0.003 

0.0239 

8 

0.12 

< 0.2 

0.5 

9 

0.66 

< 0.2 

2.5 

6 

5.1 

< 1.0 

26.0 

6 

3.15 

<1.0 

8.6 

6 

1.2 

< 1.0 

3.0 

6 

1.72 

< 1.0 

3.7 

9 

0.27 

< 0.2 

1.7 

9 

0.47 

< 0.2 

2.1 

CHR01 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max

9 

22.56 

5.1 

35.3

7 

0.0189 

0.0024 

0.0324

9 

0.021 

0.0043 

0.0365

6 

0.29 

< 0.2 

0.6

7 

0.71 

< 0.2 

4.0

4 

1.18 

< 1.0 

3.2

4 

1.48 

< 1.0 

4.4 

4 

1.08 

< 1.0 

1.7 

4 

1.85 

< 1.0 

4.1 

7 

0.11 

< 0.2 

0.3 

7 

1.1 

< 0.2 

3.8 

CHR05 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

12 

19.62 

4.0 

29.9 

10 

0.0162 

0.0028 

0.0368 

12 

0.017 

0.0043 

0.0378 

9 

0.24 

< 0.2 

1.4 

10 

0.6 

< 0.2 

3.8 

6 

2.45 

< 1.0 

6.6 

6 

6.3 

< 1.0 

22.0 

6 

0.85 

< 1.0 

2.4 

6 

1.18 

< 1.0 

3.8 

10 

0.09 

< 0.2 

< 0.2 

10 

0.49 

< 0.2 

2.2 

PSC01 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

2 

7.65 

6.5 

8.8 

1 

0.005 

0.005 

0.005 

2 

0.0176 

0.01 

0.0252 

1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

1 

2.2 

2.2 

2.2 

1 

0.9 

0.9 

0.9 

1 

0.7 

0.7 

0.7 

1 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

PSC02 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

2 

3.05 

1.9 

4.2 

1 

0.0007 

0.0007 

0.0007 

2 

0.0035 

0.0012 

0.0057 

1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1 

1.7 

1.7 

1.7 

1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

1 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

UNT01 

N 

Mean 

Min 

Max 

1 

6.1 

6.1 

6.1 

1 

0.0002 

0.0002 

0.0002 

1 

0.0009 

0.0009 

0.0009 

1 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

1 

0.03 

0.03 

0.03 

0 0 0 0 1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Source: Powertech (2011). 

*Diss = dissolved; Susp = suspended 

†Min = minimum; Max = maximum 

the Cheyenne River. Specific conductance also exceeded the irrigation daily maximum 

standard of 4,375 uS/cm in 50 percent (10 of 20) of the measurements at Beaver Creek and 

42 percent (8 of 19) of the measurements at the Cheyenne River. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations in 40 CFR Part 141 (National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations) establish the secondary maximum contaminant levels 

(SMCLs) for constituents that alter the color, taste, and odor of water (e.g., total dissolved 

solids, sulfate, and chloride) and the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for radionuclides and 

hazardous constituents (e.g., gross alpha, uranium, Ra-226, Pb-210, arsenic, and selenium) in 

drinking water. The SMCLs and MCLs established in 40 CFR Part 141 are the same as State of 

South Dakota drinking water standards (ARSD, Chapter 74:04:12). Results of the stream 

sampling indicated that almost all the samples exceeded the SMCL for total dissolved solids 

(TDS) {500 mg/L [500 ppm]} with values ranging from 219 to 7,040 mg/L [219 to 7,040 ppm]. 

Almost all samples (46 of 48) also exceeded the SMCL for sulfate {250 mg/L [250 ppm]} with 

values ranging from 86 to 4,520 mg/L [86 to 4,520 ppm]. About half of the samples (23 of 48) 

exceeded the SMCL for chloride {250 mg/L [250 ppm]} with values ranging from 1 to 1,730 mg/L 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-28 

[1 to 1,730 ppm]. About 15 percent of the samples (7 of 48) exceeded the MCL for arsenic 

{0.01 mg/L [0.01 ppm]} with values ranging from <0.001 to 0.048 mg/L [<0.001 to 0.048 ppm]. 

None of the stream samples exceeded the MCL for selenium {0.05 mg/L [0.05 ppm]}. Selenium 

values ranged from <0.001 to 0.004 mg/L [<0.001 to 0.004 ppm]. 

For radionuclides, the majority of samples (26 of 48) exceeded the MCL for gross alpha 

{555 Bq/m3

 [15 pCi/L]}, with exceedances occurring in both Beaver Creek and the 

Cheyenne River. Total uranium concentrations ranged from 0.0009 to 0.0378 mg/L [0.0009 to 

0.0378 ppm]; four samples from the Cheyenne River exceeded the MCL of 0.03 mg/L 

[0.03 ppm]. Total Ra-226 concentrations ranged from 0 to 192 Bq/m3

 [0 to 5.2 pCi/L]; one 

sample from Beaver Creek and one sample from the Cheyenne River exceeded the MCL of 

185 Bq/m3

 [5.0 pCi/L]. Pb-210 doesn’t have an approved individual MCL based on radiation 

exposure and is not regulated under current drinking water standards. However, EPA has 

proposed an MCL of 37 Bq/m3 [1.0 pCi/L] for Pb-210 (EPA, 2000). The proposed MCL of 37 

Bq/m3

 [1.0 pCi/L] for Pb-210 was exceeded in four samples from Beaver Creek, three samples 

from the Cheyenne River, and the two samples collected from Pass Creek. 

3.5.2 Wetlands and Waters of the United States 

The applicant conducted a wetland delineation survey of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site in 2007 (Powertech, 2009a). The proposed project area is situated in the uplands 

areas of the two main drainages (Beaver Creek and Pass Creek) and includes several old mine 

pits and depressed areas. Wetlands were identified throughout the Beaver Creek drainage and 

near an old flowing well on Pass Creek at the southern boundary of the proposed project area. 

In addition, wetlands were identified in a majority of the old mine pits in the eastern portion of 

the Burdock area and in depressed areas throughout the project area. Table 3.5-3 summarizes 

the 2007 wetland delineation results. Based on the wetland delineation results, the total 

estimated wetland area in the proposed project area is 14.21 ha [35.11 ac] (Powertech, 2009a). 

Table 3.5-3. Summary of 2007 Wetland Delineation Survey Results 

Number of Features Classification* Ha [Ac] 

2 Wetland Channel (PEM) 0.306 [0.756] 

2 Wetland Channel (R2EM) 5.420 [13.393] 

1 Wetland Channel (R4SB7) 0.001 [0.002] 

2 Wetland Channel (R4US) 0.019 [0.048] 

4 PEM Isolated Pond 0.827[2.043] 

1 PEMC Isolated Pond 0.002 [0.005] 

1 PABJh Isolated Pond 0.105 [0.260] 

1 PUSA Isolated Pond 0.012 [0.030] 

3 PUB Isolated Depression 2.124 [5.248] 

3 PUS Isolated Depression 1.095 [2.706] 

5 Mine Pits PUB, PEM, OW 4.300 [10.626] 

Total 14.210 [35.114] 

Source: Powertech (2009a). 

*Explanation of Classification: PEM (Palustrine Emergent); R2EM (Riverine Lower Perennial Emergent); R4SB7 

(Riverine Intermittent Streambed Vegetated); R4US (Riverine Intermittent Unconsolidated Streambed); PEMC 

(Seasonally Flooded); PABJh (Palustrine Aquatic Bed Intermittently Flooded Diked); PUSA (Palustrine 

Unconsolidated Shore Temporarily Flooded); PUB (Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom); PUS (Palustrine 

Unconsolidated Shore); and OW (Open Water). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-29 

The entire stretch of Beaver Creek, totaling 5.41 ha [13.38 ac] located in the northwest part of 

the proposed project area, was designated as a Riverine Lower Perennial Emergent (R2EM) 

wetland. Vegetation along the upper banks of Beaver Creek comprises mainly big sagebrush 

(Artemisia tridentata), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), and western wheatgrass 

(Elymus smithii). The wetland indicator status of big sagebrush and greasewood is upland 

(UPL). The wetland indicator status of western wheatgrass is facultative upland (FACU). 

Common vegetation identified along the drainage of Beaver Creek included prairie cordgrass 

(Spartina pectinata), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), and common threesquare (Schoenoplectus 

pungens). The wetland indicator status of prairie cordgrass and Baltic rush is facultative wet 

(FACW). The wetland indicator status of common threesquare is obligate (OBL). 

Pass Creek, which runs through the central part of the proposed project area, contains wetland 

areas near an old, open flowing well at the southern boundary of the project area. The wetland 

totals 0.20 ha [0.50 ac] and is classified as Palustrine Emergent (PEM). Common vegetation 

found within the wetland was prairie cordgrass and common threesquare, with a wetland 

indicator status of FACW and OBL, respectively. 

Approximately 0.47 ha [1.17 ac] of wetlands and 3.82 ha [9.45 ac] of open water (OW) are 

present in the old mine pits at the eastern and northeastern edges of the Burdock area 

(Figure 3.2-3). Two of the Darrow pits in Section 1, Township 7 South, Range 1 East are 

classified as Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (PUB) wetland. Darrow Pit #2 in Section 2, 

Township 7 South, Range 1 East is classified as both PEM and OW wetland. The PEM is 

located along the bank of the Darrow Pit #2 and OW in other parts of the pit. The Triangle Pit 

located in Section 34, Township 6 South, Range 1 East was classified as OW wetland and 

totaled 3.09 ha [7.63 ac]. Other old mine pits in the Burdock area were classified as nonwetland 

due to lack of hydrophytic vegetation and/or hydrology. 

The applicant has recommended all topographic depressed areas identified as wetlands in its 

2007 wetland delineation survey be classed as nonjurisdictional, based on their isolated nature 

(Powertech, 2009a). These wetlands were primarily classified as PEM, Seasonally Flooded 

(PEMC), Palustrine Aquatic Bed Intermittently Flooded Diked (PABJh), Palustrine 

Unconsolidated Shore (PUS), Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore Temporarily Flooded (PUSA), 

and PUB wetlands based on hydrology conditions. Approximately 4.16 ha [10.29 ac] of wetland 

depressions and ponds were identified within the proposed project area. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Ohama District, completed a jurisdictional 

Waters of the United States determination of wetlands on the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

site in January 2009 (Powertech, 2009a, Appendix 3.5–H). USACE identified 20 wetland sites, 

and 4 of these were considered jurisdictional: Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and an ephemeral 

tributary to each creek. The jurisdictional ephemeral tributary to Beaver Creek has wetlands 

present near its confluence with Beaver Creek; it is located in Section 32, Township 6 South, 

Range 1 East (see Figure 4.5-1). The jurisdictional ephemeral tributary to Pass Creek has 

wetlands present near its confluence with Pass Creek; it is located in Section 3, Township 

7 South, Range 1 East (see Figure 4.5-1). 

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-30 

3.5.3 Groundwater 

3.5.3.1 Regional Aquifer Systems 

The geological sequence of the regional aquifers presented in the applicant’s license 

application (Powertech, 2009a–c) is consistent with the information on the hydrologic setting of 

the Black Hills area by Driscoll, et al. (2002) and Fahrenbach, et al. (2009). On the regional 

scale, the major aquifers in the Black Hills area include (from top to bottom) the Inyan 

Kara Group, Minnekahta, Minnelusa, Madison, and Deadwood aquifers (Figure 3.5-4). 

These aquifers are separated by confining layers with low permeability except at their 

outcrop areas. The hydrologic setting in the Black Hills area also involves minor aquifers, 

which include the Sundance/Unkpapa, Newcastle, and alluvial aquifers. These minor aquifers 

yield small volumes of water locally for domestic and livestock uses. A hydrostratigraphic 

section showing aquifers present at the Dewey-Burdock site is presented in Figure 3.5.5. 

Aquifer characteristics and hydraulic properties of the major aquifers, from shallow to deep, are 

discussed in this section. The Inyan Kara Group aquifer is the first major aquifer below the 

ground surface. It ranges from 76 to 152 m [250 to 500 ft] in thickness and contains 

two subaquifers: the Fall River aquifer and Chilson aquifer, which are separated by the Fuson 

Shale confining unit (see Figure 3.5-5). The Inyan Kara Group aquifers are highly 

heterogeneous, display transmissivities in the range of 0.1 to 557 m2

/day [1 to 6,000 ft2/day], 

and are capable of yielding high volumes of water (Driscoll, et al., 2002). The effective porosity 

of the Inyan Kara aquifer is 0.17 and is generally the highest of the major aquifers (Rahn, 1985). 

Effective porosity is the porosity of the rock consisting of interconnected pores. The Inyan Kara 

aquifer is recharged primarily by precipitation at the outcrop. 

The Inyan Kara Group aquifer is overlain by the Graneros Group (the combined 

Skull Creek–Mowry–Belle Fourche shales) except at outcrop areas. Within the Graneros 

Group, the Newcastle Sandstone contains an important minor aquifer known as the Newcastle 

aquifer. As noted in SEIS Section 3.4.1.2, the Newcastle Sandstone is absent within the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock project area. The Inyan Kara Group aquifer is separated from the 

underlying Minnekahta aquifer by a sequence of (from shallow to deep) Morrison Formation, 

Sundance/Unkpapa aquifer (minor aquifer), and the Gypsum Spring Formation. 

The Minnekahta aquifer is a major aquifer in the Black Hills area and ranges in thickness 

from 7.6 to 19.8 m [25 to 65 ft] (Strobel, et al., 1999). The Minnekahta aquifer is a thin to 

medium-bedded, fine-grained laminated limestone (Driscoll, et al., 2002). Information on the 

hydraulic properties of the Minnekahta aquifer is limited. The Minnekahta aquifer is typically 

very permeable; however, due to its limited thickness, well yields can be small. In northeast 

Wyoming, the effective transmissivity and specific capacity of the Minnekahta aquifer were 

reported to be 4.2 m2

/day and 0.5 m3/day [45 ft2/day and 19 ft3/day], respectively (Northeast 

Wyoming River Basins Water Plan, 2002). 

The Minnelusa aquifer ranges in thickness from 114 to 358 m [375 to 1,175 ft] in the Black Hills 

area (Driscoll, et al., 2002). The Minnelusa aquifer is composed of layers of sandstone, 

dolomite, and anhydrite in the Minnelusa Formation. Porosity within the Minnelusa is 

predominantly primary porosity associated with void space present during rock formation, 

although secondary porosity is present in association with fractures and dissolution 

features after rock formation. The effective porosity of the Minnelusa is 0.05 (Rahn, 1985). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-31 

Figure 3.5-4. Schematic Diagram Showing Simplified Hydrogeologic Setting of the Black Hills Area Source: Driscoll, et al. (2002)

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-32 

Figure 3.5-5. Hydrostratigraphic Units Present at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

 Recovery Project Site 

 Source: Modified from Driscoll, et al. (2002)

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-33 

It is a heterogeneous aquifer with transmissivity in the range of 0.1 to 1,115 m2

/day [1 to 

12,000 ft2

/day]. The Minnelusa is separated from the Minnekahta aquifer by the Opeche Shale, 

which acts as the intervening confining layer. There are confining layers at the base of the 

Minnelusa Formation. In some locations, these confining layers may be absent or provide 

ineffective confinement; this could enhance hydraulic connection between the Minnelusa aquifer 

and the underlying Madison aquifer (Naus, et al., 2001). However, SDDENR concluded based 

on water levels in the Minnelusa and Madison observation wells in the area that there is a 

distinct difference in the potentiometric surfaces of the two aquifers (SDDENR, 2012d). These 

differences suggest that the Minnelusa and Madison aquifers are hydraulically separated in the 

vinicity of the proposed project area (SDDENR, 2012d). The Minnelusa Formation has been 

considered to be in hydraulic connection with the Inyan Kara aquifer through breccia pipes 

(Gott, et al., 1974). Breccia pipes are collapse structures caused by dissolution of gypsum 

(calcium sulfate, CaSO4 • H2O) and anhydrite (anhydrous calcium sulfate, CaSO4) within the 

Minnelusa Formation in the Black Hills area. As described in SEIS Section 3.4.1.2, the areal 

extent of dissolution is limited to within a few kilometers [miles] downgradient from the 

Minnelusa outcrop. The probable maximum downgradient limit of dissolution has been mapped 

by the USGS and is approximately 8 km [5 mi] northeast of the proposed project area 

(Braddock, 1963). The applicant conducted detailed geologic mapping throughout proposed 

operating areas at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site and found no indication for the presence 

of breccia pipes (Powertech, 2009c, 2011). 

The Madison Formation, which ranges in thickness from 61 to 305 m [200 to 1,000 ft], is mainly 

a dolomite unit characterized by extensive secondary porosity resulting from fractures and karst 

(caves and sinkholes) features. The effective porosity of the Madison aquifer is 0.05 (Rahn, 

1985). It is the source of municipal water for numerous communities, including Rapid City 

and Edgemont. It is a highly heterogeneous aquifer with transmissivity in the range of 121 to 

5,203 m2

/day [1,300 to 56,000 ft2/day]. Regionally, the Madison aquifer is separated from the 

underlying Deadwood aquifer by the low-permeability Whitewood and Winnipeg Formations 

(see Figure 3.5-5). The Englewood Formation also underlies the Madison Formation. Previous 

studies have included the Englewood Formation as part of the Madison aquifer (Strobel, et al., 

1999; Driscoll, et al., 2002). The Madison and Minnelusa aquifers are sources of large artesian 

springs in the Black Hills area, and groundwater flowpaths and velocities in both aquifers are 

influenced by hydraulic properties caused by secondary porosity (Driscoll, et al., 2002). 

Regionally, the Whitewood and Winnipeg Formations act as overlying semiconfining units to the 

Deadwood aquifer (Strobel, et al., 1999). However, the Whitewood and Winnipeg Formations 

as depicted in Figure 3.5-5 are not present in the southern Black Hills, where the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located (Naus, et al., 2001). At the proposed project area, the 

Englewood Formation acts as the upper confining unit to the Deadwood aquifer. 

The Deadwood aquifer is 0 to 152 m [0 to 500 ft] thick and consists of basal conglomerate, 

sandstone, limestone, and mudstone. It exhibits transmissivity in the range of 23 to 93 m2

/day 

[250 to 1,000 ft2

/day]. The Deadwood aquifer is used mainly by domestic and municipal users 

near its outcrop area. Regionally, Precambrian rocks underlying the Deadwood act as a lower 

confining unit. 

Regionally, groundwater flows radially outward from the Black Hills toward the surrounding 

plains. Groundwater recharge paths for aquifers in the Black Hills include precipitation, 

streamflow losses, and water flow across aquifers where confining layers are absent 

or ineffective. Rainfall ranges from 30 to 71 cm/yr [12 to 28 in/yr] in the Black Hills. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-34 

Approximately 2 percent of precipitation recharges the aquifers of the southwestern Black Hills, 

and the rest is accounted for by evapotranspiration and surface runoff (Powertech, 2009a). 

In general, streamflow recharge to groundwater is limited to aquifer outcrops or relatively 

shallow aquifers beneath stream valleys. Regionally, water elevations increase with depth, 

which provides an upward hydraulic gradient for groundwater flow across the major aquifers and 

limits the potential for downward recharge. 

3.5.3.2 Aquifer Systems in the Vicinity of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project 

Alluvial aquifers (formed by unconsolidated or loosely consolidated sediments) with thicknesses 

of 0 to 15 m [0 to 50 ft] are observed in the vicinity of the proposed project area along 

Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and the Cheyenne River (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). They are 

typically unconfined, but may be confined locally. Based on an alluvial drilling program 

completed in May 2011, the alluvium in the Pass Creek drainage is up to 15 m [50 ft] thick and 

the alluvium in the Beaver Creek drainage is up to 9 m [30 ft] thick (Powertech, 2011). Many of 

the borings drilled into the alluvium along Beaver Creek and Pass Creek in May 2011 were dry; 

however, the thickness of saturated alluvium in three borings completed as alluvial monitoring 

wells ranged from 3 to 4 m [10 to 12 ft] (Powertech, 2011). Alluvial aquifers are separated from 

the underlying Fall River Formation by the low permeability Graneros Group confining unit (see 

Figure 3.5-5). Results of the alluvial drilling program did not indicate any areas of discharge to 

the alluvium along Beaver Creek and Pass Creek from the underlying Fall River aquifer 

(Powertech, 2011). Within the proposed project area, the Skull Creek shale of the Graneros 

Group has an average thickness of 61 m [200 ft], except in parts of the Burdock area where it 

has eroded leaving the Fall River aquifer exposed at the surface. The Skull Creek Shale has 

low vertical hydraulic conductivities of approximately 10−9

 cm/sec [10−11 ft/sec]. 

The Skull Creek Shale is underlain by the Fall River aquifer, which has an average thickness of 

46 m [150 ft] within the project area. The Fall River Formation crops out in the eastern part of 

the project area (see Figure 3.4.3), where it is geologically unconfined and partially saturated 

(i.e., the water table is below the top of the formation). The transmissivity of the Fall River 

varies in the range of 5 to 24 m2

/day [54 to 255 ft2/day] in the Dewey area, and its storativity is 

on the order of 10−5

 cm/sec [10−7 ft/sec] (Powertech, 2009a). 

The Fall River aquifer is separated from the underlying Chilson aquifer by the Fuson Shale, 

which varies from approximately 6 to 24 m [20 to 80 ft] in thickness across the project area 

(Powertech, 2010a, 2011). Exploratory drilling data and isopach contours of the Fuson Shale in 

the Burdock area identified an approximate 1.6 km [1.0 mi]-wide, northwest-trending channel 

within the basal Fall River aquifer that has scoured the underlying Fuson Shale (Figure 3.5-6) 

(Powertech, 2010a). The existing drilling data indicate the thinnest section of the Fuson Shale 

{i.e., less than 9 m [30 ft]} is approximately 305 m [1,000 ft] outside the northern boundary of the 

initial Burdock area wellfield (BWF-1) (Figure 3.5-6). 

 

Based on pumping tests conducted in the Burdock area in 1979, the Fuson Shale has estimated 

vertical hydraulic conductivities of 1 ×10−7

 to 4.6 × 10−8 cm/sec [3.3 × 10−9 to 1.5 × 10−9 ft/sec] 

(Boggs and Jenkins, 1980). Based on the 1979 aquifer tests, Boggs and Jenkins (1980) 

suggested there may be a direct connection between the Fall River and Chilson aquifers 

through the Fuson. Additional aquifer pumping tests conducted in the Burdock area in 2008 

also demonstrated a hydraulic connection between the Fall River and Chilson aquifers through 

the intervening Fuson Shale (Powertech, 2010a). Interpretations of both the 1979 and 2008 

pumping test results were found to be consistent with a leaky-confined aquifer model 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-35 

Figure 3.5-6. Isopach Map of the Fuson Shale at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2010a)
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-36 

(Powertech, 2010a). The applicant developed a numerical groundwater model using 

site-specific geologic and hydrologic information (Petrotek, 2012). Based on results of the 

numerical model, the applicant concluded that vertical leakage through the Fuson Shale is 

caused by improperly installed wells or improperly abandoned boreholes. The Fuson Shale is 

underlain by the Chilson aquifer, which varies in thickness from 37 to 61 m [120 to 200 ft]. Its 

transmissivity ranges from 18 to 55 m2

/day [190 to 590 ft2/day] in the Burdock area, and its 

storativity is on the order of 10−4

 cm/sec [10−6 ft/sec] (Powertech, 2009a). 

Underlying the Chilson aquifer is the Morrison Formation with an average thickness of 18.3 to 

42.7 m [60 to 140 ft] across the project area (Powertech, 2011). The Morrison Formation is the 

lower confining unit for the Inyan Kara Group aquifer system and has low vertical hydraulic 

conductivities of 10−9

 cm/sec [10−11 ft/sec] (Powertech, 2009a). 

The Morrison Formation is underlain by the Unkpapa then the Sundance aquifers. There is no 

intervening confining unit between the Unkpapa and Sundance aquifers (see Figure 3.5-5). 

They are considered to be minor aquifers and are a source of water within the proposed project 

area (Powertech, 2009a). These aquifers are separated from the underlying Minnekahta aquifer 

by the low permeability Spearfish Formation, which consists of shale and siltstone. The 

Spearfish Formation has an average thickness of 98 m [320 ft]. The applicant reported that the 

Minnekahta aquifer does not supply water for domestic, livestock, or agricultural uses in the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area (Powertech, 2010a). 

Potentiometric surfaces for the Fall River and Chilson aquifers indicate groundwater flows from 

northeast to southwest (Powertech, 2009b). The directional groundwater flow at the proposed 

site is consistent with regional groundwater flow; regional flow moves outward radially from the 

Black Hills, which results in northeast-to-southwest regional flow in the general vicinity of the 

proposed project site. Potentiometric surfaces also indicate that the hydraulic gradient is 

upward from the Chilson aquifer to the Fall River aquifer in the Dewey area. At the Dewey 

pumping test area, the potentiometric surface difference between the Chilson and Fall River 

aquifers in the Dewey area is approximately 12 m [40 ft] (Powertech, 2010a). Potentiometric 

surfaces for the Fall River and Chilson aquifers, however, are nearly equal in the Burdock area, 

suggesting that these two aquifers could be hydraulically connected through the intervening 

Fuson shale (Powertech, 2009b). There is no evidence from exploratory drilling information 

(e.g., borehole and geophysical log) that supports the thickness of the Fuson shale as being 

less than 6 m [20 ft] in the Burdock area (Powertech, 2010a,b). 

3.5.3.3 Uranium-Bearing Aquifers 

The Chilson and Fall River aquifers, as part of the Inyan Kara Group aquifer, contain the 

uranium mineralization that the proposed project will extract (Powertech, 2009a). The initial 

wellfield in the Dewey area will be located in the mineralization zone of the Fall River Formation, 

and the initial wellfield in the Burdock area will be located in the mineralization zone of the 

Chilson member of the Lakota Formation (Powertech, 2009c). The Fall River Formation crops 

out in the eastern part of the project area, where it is geologically unconfined and partially 

saturated (i.e., the water table is below the top of the formation). The approximate boundary 

between fully saturated and partially saturated conditions in the Fall River is shown in 

Figure 3.5-7. The applicant has indicated that it has no plans at present to conduct ISR 

operations in Fall River orebodies in the eastern portion of the project area where the Fall River 

is geologically unconfined and partially saturated (Powertech, 2011). This will restrict the 

proposed ISR operations to confined portions of the underlying hydrogeologic system. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-37 

Figure 3.5-7. Map of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Area 

 Showing the Approximate Locations of Fully Saturated Portions of the Fall 

 River Formation and Chilson Member of the Lakota Formation. Shaded 

 Areas Are Where Fall River Formation Is Exposed at the Ground Surface. 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2011)
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-38 

The applicant is considering the possibility of conducting ISR operations in partially saturated 

portions of the underlying Chilson aquifer in the eastern part of the project area (Powertech, 

2010a, 2011). The approximate boundary between fully saturated and partially saturated 

conditions in the Chilson is shown in Figure 3.5-7. Partially saturated portions of the Chilson 

along the eastern edge of the project area are not confined under pressure beneath the 

relatively impermeable Fuson Shale. Therefore, although the Chilson is geologically confined in 

this area, the partially saturated portions are considered hydrologically unconfined. The 

applicant has committed, as part of the license condition, to conduct additional hydrogeological 

investigations (e.g., delineation drilling and pump testing) prior to wellfield development to 

accurately measure and identify partially saturated portions of the Chilson aquifer to confirm 

sufficient potentiometric head {greater than 15.2 m [50 ft]} is available to perform normal ISR 

operations (Powertech, 2010a, 2011).

3.5.3.4 Other Surrounding Aquifers for Water Supply 

The Madison aquifer is the most important aquifer in the region supplying municipal water for 

numerous communities, including Rapid City and Edgemont, South Dakota. Powertech 

reported that the Sundance and Unkpapa aquifers are minor aquifers, supplying local domestic 

and livestock water within the proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). 

3.5.3.5 Groundwater Quality 

The applicant followed guidance in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003) and NRC Regulatory 

Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980) to establish preoperational or baseline groundwater quality conditions 

at the proposed site (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). The applicant conducted initial baseline 

groundwater sampling of wells at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project from July 2007 

through June 2008 (Powertech, 2009a). The baseline study sampled 19 groundwater wells 

quarterly: 14 were existing wells and 5 wells were newly drilled. Eight domestic wells and 

six stock watering wells were sampled, and three of these existing wells are located upgradient 

of the proposed uranium recovery areas. Groundwater sampling was undertaken in a number 

of aquifers: four wells in the Fall River Formation, seven wells in the Lakota Formation (Chilson 

Member), two wells in the Inyan Kara Group made up of the Fall River or Chilson, one well in 

the Sundance formation, and five wells in the alluvium were tested. The applicant conducted 

monthly sampling of an additional 12 wells from March 2008 to February 2009. Six of these 

wells were located in the Dewey area and six in the Burdock area. A set of Fall River and 

Chilson wells was sampled within areas upgradient and downgradient of proposed uranium 

recovery areas in both the Dewey and Burdock areas. The locations of all groundwater 

sampling sites are shown in Figure 3.5-2. 

The initial baseline groundwater sampling results found that 28 out of 31 groundwater samples 

exceeded the MCLs for primary drinking water standards as provided by EPA regulations at 

40 CFR Part 141. Wells with groundwater samples exceeding primary drinking water standards 

for arsenic (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart B), lead (40 CFR Part 141.86), uranium, Ra-226, and 

gross alpha (40 CFR Part 141.66) are shown in Table 3.5-4. This table provides data on 

constituent concentrations of inorganic chemicals, uranium, Ra-226, and gross alpha particle 

radioactivity and identifies the well and aquifer sampled. Of 25 groundwater samples collected 

from the proposed ore-bearing aquifer, 23 exceeded the MCLs for primary drinking water 

standards as provided by EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 141; hence, groundwater from the 

proposed ore-bearing aquifer within the permit boundaries will not be used in public 

water systems and is unsuitable for private domestic use without treatment. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-39 

Table 3.5-4. Baseline Groundwater Samples With Values Exceeding the Maximum 

Contaminant Level for Arsenic (0.01 mg/L), Lead (0.015 mg/L), Uranium 

(Total, 0.03 mg/L), Ra-226 (Dissolved, 5 pCi/L), and Gross Alpha (Total, 

15 pCi/L) 

Well 

Identification Aquifer 

Arsenic 

(mg/L) 

Lead 

(mg/L) 

Uranium 

(mg/L) 

Ra-226 

(Dissolved) 

(pCi/L) 

Gross 

Alpha 

(pCi/L) 

2 Chilson 

7 Fall River 15.5 

8 Fall River 

13 Chilson 19.5 

16 Chilson 6.4–26.2 28.3–85.7 

18 Fall River 15.7–31.7 

42 Chilson 96.5–102 371–558 

615 Chilson 0.021–

0.024 

 7.2 15.1–38.3 

619 Chilson 99.7–120 341–438 

622 Fall River 0.027 0.023–0.03 7.9 15–1470 

628 Inyan 

Kara 

 6.1–20.7 29.9–83.9 

631 Fall River 9.5–22.1 46.5–162 

635 Sundance 

650 Chilson 0.05 

675 Alluvial 0.0387–

0.0502 

 18.3–55.2 

676 Alluvial 0.021 0.06 0.0591–

0.0687 

 31.9–95.5 

677 Alluvial 0.0414–

0.0471 

 38.7–129 

678 Alluvial 0.0379–

0.0387 

 18.9–54.7 

679 Alluvial 0.011 0.015–

0.022 

 18.4–22.4 

680 Chilson 0.0541 1,110–1,440 4,090–6,730 

681 Fall River 357–434 656–2220 

688 Fall River 0.015 6.7 17.3–29.8 

689 Chilson 0.017 5.4–7.9 23.9–64.3 

694 Fall River 15.1–25.9 

695 Fall River 0.016 5.2–10.4 18.7–44.0 

696 Chilson 20.2–23.9 

697 Chilson 5.6 18.2–21.7 

698 Fall River 0.101–0.132 347–429 36.3–2110 

3026 Chilson 0.022–

0.044 

 0.0322 5.9–10.1 36.0–116 

4002 Inyan 

Kara 

 52.3–63.6 120–314 

7002 Chilson 8–8.8 29.5–91.4 

Source: Powertech (2011) 

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-40 

Samples collected from wells 615 and 3026, which are within the Chilson aquifer, exceeded the 

MCL for arsenic {0.01 mg/L [0.01 ppm]}; wells 650 and 689, also within the Chilson aquifer, 

exceeded the MCL for lead {0.015 mg/L [0.015 ppm]}. Samples from well 622 in the Fall River 

aquifer and from wells 676 and 679 in alluvial aquifers along Pass Creek exceeded the MCL for 

both arsenic and lead. In addition, samples from wells 688 and 695 in the Fall River aquifer 

exceeded the MCL for arsenic. The MCL for uranium (0.03 mg/L) was exceeded in samples 

obtained from four of five wells in the alluvial aquifers. Samples from wells 680 and 3026 in the 

Chilson aquifer and well 698 in the Fall River aquifer also exceeded the MCL for uranium; these 

wells are within the Burdock area. The MCL for other metals, such as selenium {0.05 mg/L 

[0.05 ppm]}, was not exceeded in any of the groundwater samples. 

More than 60 percent of the samples in the both Fall River and Chilson aquifers exceeded the 

MCL for dissolved Ra-226 [185 Bq/m3 [5 pCi/L]}. Ra-226 levels exceeding the MCL ranged 

between 192 and 53,274 Bq/m3

 [5.2 and 1,440 pCi/L]. Approximately 75 percent of the wells 

sampled in the Fall River, Chilson, and alluvial aquifers produced samples that exceeded the 

MCL for gross alpha {555 Bq/m3

 [15 pCi/L]}. Gross alpha levels exceeding the MCLs in alluvial 

wells ranged between 677 and 4,772 Bq/m3 [18.3 and 129 pCi/L]; however, gross alpha levels 

exceeding MCLs in the Fall River and Chilson aquifers were higher, ranging from 555 to 

248,983 Bq/m3

 [15 to 6,730 pCi/L]. Wells 680 and 681 demonstrated Ra-226 levels exceeding 

11,099 Bq/m3

 [300 pCi/L] and gross alpha concentrations exceeding 36,996 Bq/m3

[1,000 pCi/L]; these wells are directly within mapped orebodies in the Chilson and Fall River 

aquifers. Another well (698) downgradient of abandoned open pit mines within the Fall River 

aquifer demonstrated uranium, Ra-226, and gross alpha levels in the range of 0.113 to 

0.123 mg/L [0.113 to 0.123 ppm], 13,688 to 15,871 Bq/m3

 [370 to 429 pCi/L], and 44,765 to 

78,061 Bq/m3

 [1,210 to 2,110 pCi/L], respectively, exceeding the corresponding MCLs. 

Baseline groundwater samples also measured levels that exceeded the SMCLs for bulk water 

quality properties including pH, TDS, and other major constituents such as sodium and sulfate 

(Powertech, 2009a, 2011). Samples from six wells exceeded the SMCL for pH (6.5–8.5) with 

values ranging from 8.6 to 10.3. All the samples exceeded the SMCL for TDS {500 mg/L [500 

ppm]} with values ranging from 670 to 9,700 mg/L [670 to 9,700 ppm]. The highest TDS values 

were obtained from alluvial aquifer samples. The SMCL for sodium {200 mg/L [200 ppm]} was 

exceeded in approximately half of the samples; measured values ranged from 201 to 2,140 

mg/L [201 to 2,140 ppm]. Samples taken from alluvial aquifers produced the highest values for 

sodium. All samples taken from wells exceeded the SMCLs for sulfate {250 mg/L [250 ppm]}; 

wells in the alluvial aquifers measured the highest sulfate values {greater than 3,000 mg/L 

[3,000 ppm]}. 

At the present time, a primary drinking water standard for Rn-222 has not been established; 

however, EPA has proposed a limit of 11,099 Bq/m3

 [300 pCi/L] (EPA, 2000). Only well 650, of 

all the wells tested during baseline groundwater sampling, produced samples that did not 

exceed the proposed EPA limit; well 650 in the Chilson aquifer lies upgradient of historic 

uranium mining activities (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). Well samples exceeding the EPA’s 

proposed limit for Rn-222 produced values ranging from 11,247 to 17,092,120 Bq/m3

 [304 to 

462,000 pCi/L]. Wells 680 and 42, located in the mapped orebodies in the Chilson aquifer, and 

well 681 in the Fall River aquifer have the highest concentrations of Rn-222. Well 42 provides 

water for domestic and stock uses. 

Before ISR operations begin, the portion of the aquifer(s) designated for uranium recovery must 

be exempted from the underground source of drinking water (USDW) designation, in 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-41 

accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and pursuant to 40 CFR Part 146. A USDW is 

defined as an aquifer or its portion that supplies any public water system, or that contains a 

sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system and currently supplies 

drinking water for human consumption, or contains fewer than 10,000 mg/L [10,000 ppm] total 

dissolved solids, and which is not an exempted aquifer. An aquifer or aquifer portion that meets 

the criteria for a USDW may be determined to be an “exempted aquifer” if it does not currently 

serve as a source of drinking water and it cannot now and will not in the future serve as a 

source of drinking water because it is mineral, hydrocarbon, or geothermal energy producing, or 

can be demonstrated by a permit applicant as part of a permit application for a Class III 

operation to contain minerals that, considering their quantity and location, are expected to be 

commercially producible. The applicant, therefore, must obtain an aquifer exemption from EPA 

as a precondition to initiating ISR operations. 

3.6 Ecology 

The Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Milling Region, as fully described in GEIS Section 3.4.5, 

encompasses the Middle Rockies, Northwestern Great Plains, Western High Plains, and the 

Nebraska Sand Hills ecoregions (NRC, 2009a). The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is 

located within the Black Hills Foothills and Sagebrush Steppe ecoregions (Figure 3.6-1). GEIS 

Section 3.4.5.1 provides the following description of these ecoregions: 

• The Black Hills Foothills ecoregion is composed of the Hogback Ridge and the 

Red Valley. The Hogback Ridge forms a ring of foothills surrounding the Black Hills. 

The Red Valley encircles most of the Black Hills dome and acts as a buffer between the 

Hogback Ridge and the Black Hills. Natural vegetation within this region includes 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), woodlands and open savannas with an understory of 

western wheat grass (Elymus smithii), needle-and-thread grass (Stipa comata), little 

bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), buffalo grass 

(Hierochloe odorata), and leadplant (Amorpha canescens). In addition, some burr oak 

(Quercus macrocarpa) is found in the north and Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus 

scopulorum) occurs in the south (Chapman, et al., 2004). 

• The Sagebrush Steppe ecoregion is found in Montana and in the Dakotas with only a 

small area extending into Wyoming. Vegetation types in this region consist of big 

sagebrush, Nuttall saltbush (Atriplex nuttallii), and short grass prairie. The sparse 

sagebrush communities consist of dusky gray sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula ssp. 

Arbuscula), dwarf sage (Artemisia columbiensis), and big sagebrush (Artemisia

tridentata). Prairie vegetation that can be found includes western wheatgrass, green 

needlegrass (Nassella viridula), blue grama, Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), 

junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), rabbit brush (Chrysothamnus), fringed sage (Artemisia 

frigid), and buffalo grass. The shrub vegetation of this ecoregion is transitional between 

the grasslands of the Montana Central Grassland and the woodland of the Pine Scoria 

Hills (Bryce, et al., 1996). 

The applicant conducted ecological baseline studies from July 2007 through August 2008 at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site to fulfill the objectives specified in NUREG–1569 (NRC, 2003) 

and to meet SDDENR, SDGFP, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) guidelines 

(Powertech, 2009a). 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-42 

Figure 3.6-1. Ecoregions for the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium 

 Milling Region 

 Source: NRC (2009a) 

These studies include vegetation and wildlife surveys, which are detailed in the following 

sections. As stated in SEIS Section 3.1, the information in this section forms the basis for 

assessing the potential ecological impacts (see Chapter 4) of the proposed action and each 

alternative (Chapter 2). 

3.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology 

The proposed project area is located within the geomorphologic Cheyenne River drainage basin 

and contains 4,282 ha [10,580 ac] of wildlife habitat, which supports medium- and small-sized 

mammals, as well as avian species within the Black Hills Foothills and Sagebrush Steppe 

ecoregions described previously. SEIS Figure 3.6-1 shows the ecoregions in the vicinity of the 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-43 

proposed project area. The area is characterized as semiarid continental to steppe 

environment, with a dry winter season with little precipitation (USGS, 1998). Two main 

drainages are within the proposed project area: Beaver Creek, a perennial stream, and 

Pass Creek, an ephemeral stream that supports some intermittent habitat, although dry stream 

channels and numerous ephemeral drainages are also present (see SEIS Section 3.5.1). 

Beaver Creek experiences low flow in most years resulting in a lack of deep-water habitat, 

which limits the number of water-dependent species found in the proposed project area. All 

natural drainages flow south and drain into the Cheyenne River, which is approximately 4 km 

[2.5 mi] south of the project area. The topography is primarily gently rolling in the western 

quadrant (more varied terrain with dry drainages and shrubland patches dissecting groups of 

pine tree in the central portion), and the highest elevation is in the eastern portion at the edge of 

the Black Hills (Powertech, 2009a). 

3.6.1.1 Vegetation 

Seven vegetation communities account for 96.7 percent of the 4,282-ha [10,580-ac] proposed 

project area (Powertech, 2009a). The remaining 3.3 percent of the project area is composed of 

disturbed areas, abandoned mine pits, shale outcrops, and open water. Table 3.6-1 

summarizes the total area of each vegetation community. The survey, completed by the 

applicant, identified five native plant communities: big sagebrush shrubland, upland grassland, 

greasewood shrubland, ponderosa pine woodland, and cottonwood gallery (Powertech, 2009a). 

Agricultural land used for crop production is also present within the proposed project area. 

The plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera) grows naturally along the riverbanks 

of Beaver and Pass Creeks and on the higher elevation hilltops within the proposed project 

area. Although not identified within the study area, American elm (Ulmus americana), green 

ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), willows, and bur oak are common in riparian corridors in western 

South Dakota (BLM, 1985). The plains cottonwood was the only tree species the applicant’s 

vegetation surveys identified along watered drainages; it is most prevalent in the Pass Creek 

drainage. Rocky Mountain juniper is present as individual trees or in small stands in some of 

the dry drainages (Powertech, 2009a). Ponderosa pines (Pinus ponderosa) are dominant at 

higher elevations, on hilltops, and within gaps in vegetation in the central and eastern portions 

of the project area. 

Table 3.6-1. Total Acreage of Vegetation Communities and Percentage of Permit Area

Vegetation Community/ 

Land Use 

Permit Area 

(Hectares) 

Permit Area 

(Acres) 

Percent of 

Permit Area 

Big Sagebrush Shrubland 1,012.34 2,501.56 23.70 

Greasewood Shrubland 886.44 2,190.45 20.75 

Upland Grassland 885.27 2,187.56 20.72 

Ponderosa Pine Woodland 883.74 2,183.76 20.69 

Agricultural Land 315.97 780.79 7.40 

Cottonwood Gallery 97.37 240.60 2.28 

Silver Sagebrush Shrubland 48.35 119.49 1.13 

Disturbed 5.95 14.70 0.14 

Existing Mine Pits 132.33 326.99 3.10 

Shale Outcrop 0.89 2.19 0.02 

Water 3.62 8.94 0.08 

TOTAL 4,272.27 10,577.03 100.00 

Source: Powertech (2009a). 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-44 

Threatened and endangered plant species were not encountered during the applicant’s 

vegetation survey of the project area or within a 0.8-km [0.5-mi] perimeter around the area 

(Powertech, 2009a). The FWS South Dakota Field Office indicates threatened or endangered 

vegetative species have not been reported in Custer or Fall River Counties (FWS, 2010). 

A noxious weed is any plant a federal, state, or county government designates as injurious to 

public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property (BLM, 2009b). Nonnative plant or 

invasive plants include not only noxious weeds, but also other plants not native to the United 

States. As a result, these plants have no natural enemies to limit reproduction and spread. 

Some invasive plants can produce significant changes to vegetation, composition, structure, or 

ecosystem function. 

The South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA) (2011) identifies six noxious weed state 

species that could be present in both Custer and Fall River Counties. The applicant’s 

vegetation survey identified the presence of one of the six noxious weeds important on the state 

level, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), within the Cottonwood Gallery vegetation community 

(Powertech, 2009a). Canada thistle invades open habitats, including prairies, savannas, fields, 

pastures, wet meadows, and open forests, forming dense stands, which shade out and displace 

native vegetation (Colorado State University, 2008). Once established it spreads rapidly and 

becomes difficult to eradicate. 

In addition to state noxious weeds, SDDA identifies 15 noxious weeds locally important that 

could occur either in Custer or Fall River Counties. Two of the 15 local noxious weeds, field 

bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), 

were documented during the vegetation surveys (Powertech, 2009a). Field bindweed was 

observed within the greasewood shrubland vegetative community, but its extent was not 

reported (Powertech, 2009a). Bindweed can quickly create a dense ground cover with 

intertwining stems and prevent other plants and crops from growing (Zollinger, 2000). 

Established bindweed is very persistent and difficult to control (Zollinger, 2000). Small or 

isolated bindweed plants can be controlled by tilling shortly after growth begins (Zollinger, 

2000). Houndstongue was documented in the big sagebrush shrubland vegetative community 

near Beaver Creek (Powertech, 2009a). Houndstongue has a deep taproot, making it drought 

tolerant, and it is able to quickly establish in areas that have been previously disturbed (Zouhar, 

2002). It is poisonous to horses and cattle (Zouhar, 2002). Preventing the dispersal of seeds is 

the best way to control the spread of houndstongue (Zouhar, 2002). The presence of other 

noxious weeds or invasive plants SDDA (2011) listed was not reported during the vegetation 

surveys conducted for the proposed project. 

3.6.1.2 Wildlife 

The applicant conducted wildlife surveys of terrestrial species for the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project area (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant drew information from these surveys, as 

well as several additional reports and studies prepared by SDGFP, Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD), BLM, FWS, and USFS and a draft environmental statement TVA 

prepared for the Edgemont uranium mine to prepare its application (Powertech, 2009a, 

Sections 3.5.5.3.1 and 9.3.5; TVA, 1979). Site-specific wildlife surveys targeted bald eagle 

winter roost sites, sage-grouse leks, nesting raptors (including eagles), big game, small 

mammal vertebrates (bats, mice, and rabbits), and other vertebrate species of concern. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-45 

3.6.1.2.1 Big Game 

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed 

deer (O. virginianus), and elk (Cervus elaphus) are the four big game species present in the 

proposed project area; pronghorn antelope is the most common species (Powertech, 2009a). 

GEIS Section 3.4.5.1 references a comprehensive listing of species in South Dakota compiled 

as part of the South Dakota GAP Analysis Project (South Dakota State University, 2012). NRC 

staff reviewed distribution maps provided as part of the South Dakota GAP Analysis Project that 

identify the presence of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and mountain lions (Felis concolor) 

predicted in the vicinity of the proposed project area. SDGFP reports no crucial big game 

habitats or migration corridors have been identified within a 1.6-km [1-mi] radius of the study 

area (Powertech, 2010a). Crucial areas are those that need to be protected or managed to 

maintain viable healthy populations of wildlife. GEIS Section 3.4.5.1 provides maps of areas 

that are important for winter survival, called wintering areas, for pronghorn antelope, mule deer, 

white-tailed deer, elk, and bighorn sheep, as well as for moose (Alces alces); however, no 

wintering areas for big game are located in the vicinity of the proposed project area. NRC staff 

compiled the GEIS maps from information drawn from WGFD and SDGFP. In addition, BLM 

(BLM, 2011) reports there are no crucial birthing (parturition) or wintering habitats for pronghorn 

antelope, mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, bighorn sheep, or moose west of the 

Dewey-Burdock site in Wyoming. 

3.6.1.2.2 Avian Species 

This section of the SEIS describes bird species identified at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project from surveys (Powertech, 2009a) and independent sources. 

Upland Game Birds 

The wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), both 

relatively common species, were the only upland game bird species regularly observed 

within the proposed project area during the applicant wildlife surveys. Three grouse species, 

including the Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), could potentially occur in the 

proposed project area. The Greater sage-grouse is a species of great concern in the arid west 

where sagebrush habitat occurs. The sage-grouse is listed as a federal candidate species 

(75 FR 13909), or a species that is being considered for listing as endangered or threatened, 

and it is discussed in more detail in SEIS Section 3.6.3. Sage-grouse were not observed during 

the applicant surveys (Powertech, 2009a). One sage-grouse lek, or breeding area, is located 

almost 8 km [5 mi] west of the site boundary in Wyoming (Hodorff, 2005; BLM, 2011; WGFD, 

2011). Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) and ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) 

are not known to breed in the project vicinity. Sharp-tailed grouse are more likely to potentially 

occur in the proposed project area than ruffed grouse because sharp-tailed grouse inhabit 

short grass prairies of western South Dakota, while ruffed grouse are found in limited 

numbers in the forests of the Black Hills (Peterson, 1995; SDGFP, 2012b; South Dakota State 

University, 2012). 

Raptors 

Suitable habitat for several raptor species occurs in the proposed project area and within a 

1.6-km [1-mi] radius of the site. Raptor species observed during the applicant’s wildlife surveys 

included the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-46 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), northern harrier (Circus 

cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), Cooper’s hawk 

(Accipiter cooperii), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), merlin (Falco columbarius), great 

horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and long-eared owl (Asio otus) (Powertech, 2009a). 

The bald eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and northern harrier were the most 

commonly seen raptor species in the proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a). The red-tailed 

hawk is one of the most common hawks in North America that nests in trees in a variety of open 

and wooded habitats near ravines or open water. The red-tailed hawk is an opportunistic feeder 

and finds its prey, consisting mostly of rodents, from an elevated perch or while soaring 

(NPWRC, 2006a). The American kestrel is the smallest and most common falcon and nests in 

either natural or manmade crevices. The kestrel requires perches and open space for hunting 

small animals and insects (NPWRC, 2006b). The northern harrier prefers prairies and wetlands 

with plenty of room to glide across open country in search of small mammals, reptiles, frogs, 

insects, and birds. Northern harriers nest on the ground in marshes or areas with low 

vegetation (NPWRC, 2006c). 

Although additional raptor species may be present in the survey area, particularly as seasonal 

migrants, no additional species were identified. The South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas reports 

the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), and

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) have been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed 

project area (Peterson, 1995). The SDGFP South Dakota Natural Heritage Program (SDNHP) 

collects information about these raptors (SDGFP, 2010). SDNHP inventories, protects, and 

manages state species that are rare, imperiled, candidate, threatened, or endangered. SDNHP 

classifies the burrowing owl, northern saw-whet owl, and sharp-shinned hawk as rare. 

 

Five confirmed, intact raptor nests and one potential nest site were observed within the 

proposed project area, and the applicant identified two additional nests within a 1.6-km [1-mi] 

radius of the study area (Powertech, 2009a). The bald eagle, a state-listed threatened species, 

and the long-eared owl, a SDNHP rare species, successfully nested in the proposed project 

area. A merlin, another SDNHP rare species, was recorded at one of the potential nest sites 

within a 1.6-km [1-mi] radius of the proposed project area. SDNHP inventories, protects, and 

manages native plant and animal species and habitats as part of efforts to sustain the biological 

diversity of South Dakota. All eight nests are listed in Table 3.6-2; information on their locations, 

their status, and productivity at the time of the nest surveys in 2007 and 2008 is included. 

Occurrences of the bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, Cooper’s hawk, long-eared owl, 

merlin, and other sensitive or protected species observed at the project site are detailed in 

Section 3.6.3. 

SDGFP provided NRC with eagle surveys conducted on the proposed Dewey-Burdock project 

site from 2009 to 2011. SDGFP confirmed the bald eagle nest that Powertech reported as 

successful (produced fledgling) on the site during its 2009–2011 surveys was successful with 

one fledgling in 2009, but was not active (not occupied by a breeding pair) in 2010 and 2011. 

Approximately 1.2 km [0.75 mi] southeast of this nest along Beaver Creek, SDGFP observed an 

additional active nest with one successful fledgling in 2010. This nest remained active in 2011 

but did not produce a fledgling (SDGFP, 2012c). 

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-47 

Table 3.6-2. Raptor Nest Locations and Activity Observed for the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock Project (July 2007–August 2008) 

Species 

16-ha [40-ac] Block, 

and Section, 

Township, 

Range Habitat Status 

Location 

(Area) 

Long-Eared 

Owl 

SESW 35, 

6 South, 1 East 

Ponderosa 

Pine 

1 Owl Fledged Permit Area 

(Burdock) 

Red-Tailed 

Hawk 

(2 Nests) 

SENE 29, 

6 South, 1 East 

Ponderosa 

Pine 

1 Hawk Fledged Permit Area (Dewey) 

Red-Tailed 

Hawk 

SESW 34, 

6 South, 1 East 

Cottonwoodriparian 2 Hawks Fledged Permit Area 

(Burdock) 

Bald Eagle Mid-SW 30, 

6 South, 1 East 

Cottonwoodriparian 1 Eagle Fledged Permit Area 

(Dewey) 

Bald Eagle* NENE 31, 

6 South, 1 East 

Cottonwoodriparian 1 eagle fledged 

(2010); active but 

no fledglings (2011) 

Permit Area 

(Dewey) 

Merlin NWSW 36 

6 South/1 East 

Ponderosa 

Pine 

Nest defense but 

no confirmed young 

Within 1/2 mi of 

Perimeter (Burdock) 

Great 

Horned Owl 

SWNE 5 

7 South/1 East 

Lone, Live 

Cottonwood 

Tree 

Status unknown† Permit Area 

(Dewey) 

Unidentified 

Hawk 

NESW 28 

41 North/60 West 

(Wyoming) 

Lone, Dead 

Cottonwood 

Tree 

Inactive Within 1 mi of 

Perimeter (Dewey) 

Source: Powertech, 2009a; SDGFP, 2010; SDGFP, 2012c 

*Surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011 by South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 

†One adult great horned howl was observed in the nest tree, but no chicks, feathers, droppings, or prey items were 

observed in or on the nest, or on the ground under the nest. 

Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

The proposed project area provides limited seasonal habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds, 

mainly along Beaver Creek and Pass Creek and the few scattered stocked reservoirs. Limited 

precipitation in the area results in little year-round nesting and brood-rearing habitat for these 

species. Therefore year-round residence is rare for species present during the spring migration 

period. Eight avian species associated specifically with water and/or wetlands were observed 

during the applicant baseline surveys: the American white pelican (Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), 

mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American wigeon (Anas americana), killdeer (Charadrius 

vociferus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), and upland sandpiper (Bartramia 

longicauda) (Powertech, 2009a). Based on the wetland survey results presented in SEIS 

Section 3.5.2, the proposed project may affect a total of 14.2 ha [35.1 ac] of wetland channels, 

isolated ponds, isolated depressions, and open water. The pelican, heron, and curlew are listed 

in the table in Section 3.6.3 (Protected Species) as BLM-sensitive species and in a table in 

Section 3.6.3 as rare species in South Dakota. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-48 

Nongame and Migratory Birds 

Other avian species were observed flying over the proposed project area during wildlife surveys 

(Powertech, 2009a). The Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) was recorded flying over 

the proposed project area, but known nesting or other activities were not observed. A total of 

36 avian species were observed during targeted breeding bird surveys within the proposed 

project area. The long-billed curlew was the only rare SDNHP species of the 36 observed 

during the breeding bird surveys, and it was suspected, although not observed, to have nested 

in the project area. The western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) was the most common 

species observed, followed by the mourning dove. Nest activity and locations of breeding birds 

observed during the applicant’s wildlife surveys are summarized in Table 3.6-3. 

The South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas reports that the common poorwill (Phalaenoptilus 

nuttallii), Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), 

pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), brewer’s sparrow 

(Spizella breweri), and Cassin’s finch (Carpodacus cassinii) have been recorded in the vicinity 

of the proposed project area (Peterson, 1995). SDNHP also designates these birds as rare 

(SDGFP, 2010). 

3.6.1.2.3 Other Mammals, Reptiles, and Amphibians 

Small- and medium-sized mammalian species surveyed in southwest South Dakota and that 

could occur in the vicinity of the proposed project area include coyote (Canis latrans), red fox 

(Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), badger (Taxidea taxus), beaver 

(Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), porcupine 

(Erethizon dorsatum), and weasel (Mustela spp.) (South Dakota State University, 2012). 

Smaller mammal species, including rodents (mice, rats, moles, voles, shrews, minks, gophers, 

squirrels, chipmunks, prairie dogs), jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), and cottontails (hares) (Sylvilagus

spp.), inhabit the area and are often prey for larger mammals (South Dakota State University, 

2012). During the wildlife surveys, small mammals were most frequently observed near Beaver 

Creek in the northwestern portion and Pass Creek in the central portion of the proposed project 

area (Powertech, 2009a). Results of mammal surveys and trapping events are presented in 

Table 3.6-4. Results of spotlight lagomorph (rabbits and hares) surveys are presented in 

Table 3.6-5. 

One black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colony was observed during wildlife 

surveys in the northwestern corner of the proposed project area (Section 31, T6S, R1E), and 

two others were observed within 1.6 km [1 mi] southwest of the project area (Powertech, 

2009a). SDGFP mapped the prairie dog town within the project boundaries in 2008 and 

provided NRC with the results of its size and location. For landowner privacy purposes, a map 

of the prairie dog town is not presented in this report. The prairie dog town covers 

approximately 321 ha [794 ac] of land in the northwest portion of the project area. The 

presence of large, closely spaced prairie dog colonies {on the order of hundred hectares 

[several thousand acres]} could support and sustain a breeding population of black-footed 

ferrets (Mustela nigripes) (BLM, 2009a). According to SDGFP, private landowners and the 

public are allowed to shoot prairie dogs on private lands to manage the population in the prairie 

dog town (SDGFP, 2005b). It is reasonable to expect that local ranchers may poison and/or 

trap prairie dogs for population control. Black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) dwell in prairie 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-49 

Table 3.6-3. Breeding Bird Species Observed Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

Project Area in June 2008 

Average Number of Birds Per Habitat Type 

Species* BB

COT 

GAL G GW

P-SB 

Edge PP

AVG 

#/PLOT

Western Meadowlark 

(Sturnella Neglecta) 

3.0 1.7 2.9 7.0 2.0 — 2.8 

Mourning Dove (Zenaida 

Macroura) 

5.0 1.7 1.9 0.7 0.3 2.0 1.9 

Long-Billed Curlew 

(Numenius Americanus) 

— — 1.9 — — — 0.9

Chipping Sparrow (Spizella 

Passerina) 

— — — 0.3 4.0 1.6 0.6 

Lark Sparrow (Chondestes 

Grammacus) 

3.7 — — — 1.7 — 0.6 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

(Ammodramus 

Savannarum) 

— — 0.1 4.3 — — 0.5 

Northern Flicker (Colaptes 

Auratus) 

— 4.3 — 0.3 — — 0.5 

Mountain Bluebird (Sialia 

Currucoides) 

— — — — 2.3 2.0 0.5 

Brewer’s Blackbird 

(Euphagus Cyanocephalus) 

— 3.7 — — — — 0.4 

Spotted Towhee (Pipilo 

Maculatus) 

— 1.3 — 0.3 0.7 1.0 0.4 

American Kestrel (Falco 

Sparverius) 

0.3 2.3 0.2 — — — 0.4 

Brown-Headed Cowbird 

(Molothrus Ater) 

— 0.3 — — 2.0 1.0 0.4 

House Wren (Troglodytes 

Aedon) 

— 2.7 — — — — 0.3 

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica 

Petechia) 

— 2.0 — — — — 0.2 

Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis 

Saya) 

— 0.3 — — 1.3 — 0.2 

Bullock’s Oriole (Icterus 

Bullockii) 

— 1.7 — — — — 0.2 

Unknown Flycatcher — — — — — 1.7 0.2 

Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus 

Tyrannus) 

— 1.3 — — — — 0.1 

Red-Tailed Hawk (Buteo 

Jamaicensis) 

— 0.3 0.1 0.3 — — 0.1 

Black-Capped Chickadee 

(Poecile Atricapillus) 

— 0.3 — — — 0.7 0.1 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-50 

Table 3.6-3. Breeding Bird Species Observed Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

Project Area in June 2008 (Cont’d)

Average Number of Birds Per Habitat Type 

Species* BB

COT 

GAL G GW

P-SB 

Edge PP

AVG 

#/PLOT

Yellow-Rumped Warbler 

(Dendroica Coronata) 

— 0.3 — — — 0.7 0.1 

European Starling (Sturnus 

Vulgaris) 

— 1.0 — — — — 0.1 

Great Horned Owl (Bubo 

Virginianus) 

— 1.0 — — — — 0.1 

Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes 

Gramineus) 

— — 0.3 — — — 0.1 

American Crow (Corvus 

Brachyrhynchos) 

— — 0.1 — — 0.3 0.1 

Red-Headed Woodpecker 

(Melanerpes 

Erythrocephalus) 

— 0.7 — — — — 0.1 

Rock Wren (Salpinctes 

Obsoletus) 

0.7 — — — — — 0.1 

Western Kingbird (Tyrannus 

Verticalis) 

I 0.7 — — — — 0.1 

American Robin (Turdus 

Migratorius) 

— 0.3 — — — — <0.1 

Common Nighthawk 

(Chordeiles Minor) 

— I — — — 0.3 <0.1 

Indigo Bunting (Passerina 

Cyanea) 

— 0.3 — — — — <0.1 

Killdeer (Charadrius 

Vociferous) 

— — 0.1 — — — <0.1 

Lazuli Bunting (Passerina 

Amoena) 

— 0.3 — — — — <0.1 

Western Wood Pewee 

(Contopus Sordidulus) 

— — — — 0.3 — <0.1 

Yellow-Breasted Chat 

(Icteria Virens) 

— 0.3 — — — — <0.1 

Red-Winged Blackbird 

(Agelaius Phoeniceus) 

— — I — — — I 

Turkey Vulture (Carthartes 

Aura) 

I I — — — — I 

Average # Birds/Transect 12.3 29.0 7.7 13.3 15.3 10.7 12.4 

TOTAL SPECIES 5 23 10 7 10 10 36 

Source: Powertech (2009a) 

AVG = average; BB = Bentonite Breaks; COT GAL = Cottonwood Gallery; G = Grassland; GW = Greasewood; 

P-SB = Pine-Sagebrush; PP = Ponderosa Pine; I = Incidental flyover during breeding bird survey (not counted in 

totals). 

*Bold Long-billed curlew is tracked by the South Dakota Natural Heritage Program—South Dakota Department 

of Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP, 2010) and was suspected, although not observed, to nest within the 

proposed project area. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-51 

Table 3.6-4. Small Mammal Abundance Based on Trappings During Baseline Studies 

Conducted for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project in September 2007 

Captures Per 100 Trap-Nights*

Species UG PP GW CG CB P/S Total

Deer Mouse 

(Peromyscus Maniculatus) 

6.67 22.86 5.71 16.19 17.14 15.24 11.53 

Olive-Backed Pocket Mouse 

(Perognathus Fasciatus) 

0.71 — — — — — 0.32 

Northern Grasshopper Mouse 

(Onychomys Leucogaster) 

0.24 — — — — — 0.11 

Western Harvest Mouse 

(Reithrodontomys Megalotis) 

0.24 — 0.95 — — — 0.21 

Total Abundance 7.86 22.86 6.67 16.19 17.14 15.24 12.17 

Total No. of Species 4 1 2 1 1 1 4 

Source: Powertech (2009a) 

*Excludes recaptures. 

CB = Clay Breaks; CG = Cottonwood Gallery; GW = Greasewood; PP = Ponderosa; P/S = Pine/Sage Edge; 

UG = Upland Grassland 

Table 3.6-5. Total Lagomorphs Observed During Spotlight Surveys and Abundance 

Indices Within the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project in September 2007 

Species 

 White-Tailed 

Jackrabbit Cottontail Totals 

Total Count* 12 28 40 

Lagomorphs/Survey Mile† 1.5 3.4 4.9 

Source: Powertech (2009a) 

*Number given is highest count per species from two survey nights. 

†Survey route totaled 13.1 km [8.2 mi]. 

dog towns and prey almost exclusively on prairie dogs (USGS, 2006b). The black-footed ferret 

is further discussed in Section 3.6.3. 

The boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousei), great 

plains toad (B. cognatus), and western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) were heard and/or seen 

in Beaver Creek near stock reservoirs in the western portion of the proposed project area during 

the applicant’s biological surveys. The western spiny softshell (Trionyx spiniferus) was also 

recorded in Beaver Creek during fisheries surveys, but not within the proposed project area. 

The genus Trionyx was used prior to the accepted Apalone (Somma, 2011). Spiny softshell 

turtle (Apalone spinifera) is a BLM sensitive species listed in Table 3.6-6. It is likely that the 

observed softshell was a spiny softshell turtle subspecies, the western spiny softshell (Apalone 

spinifera hartwegi). Lizards were often observed sunning themselves on rocks and sandy soil 

during the summer months. One snake skin, reportedly that of a bullsnake (Pituophis 

melanoleucas sayi), was also observed in the north central portion of the buffer area surveyed 

outside of the proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a). 

The mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) inhabits the Black Hills and prefers steep, rocky 

terrain (BLM, 2009a). The mountain goat was not observed on the proposed project site, but 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-52 

Table 3.6-6. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Special Status Species That May Occur 

 Within the Project Area

Common Name Scientific Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status* General Habitat 

Mammals 

Black-Tailed 

Prairie Dog 

Cynomys 

ludovicianus BLM Sensitive SE Grassland 

Swift Fox Vulpes velox BLM Sensitive ST Grassland 

Birds 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus BLM Sensitive ST Forest/prairie 

Black-Backed 

Woodpecker Picoides arcticus BLM Sensitive Forest 

Blue-Gray 

Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea BLM Sensitive Shrubland 

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia BLM Sensitive Grassland 

ChestnutCollared 

Longspur 

Calcarius ornatus BLM Sensitive Grassland 

Dickcissel Spiza Americana BLM Sensitive Grassland 

Veery Catharus fuscescens BLM Sensitive Forest 

Ferruginous 

Hawk Buteo regalis BLM Sensitive Grassland 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos BLM Sensitive Shrubland/grassland

Greater SageGrouse 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

BLM Sensitive 

and Candidate Shrubland 

Loggerhead 

Shrike Lanius ludovicianus BLM Sensitive Shrubland 

Long-Billed 

Curlew 

Numenius 

americanus BLM Sensitive Grassland 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa BLM Sensitive Grassland/wetland 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus BLM Sensitive SE Forest 

Red-Headed 

Woodpecker 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus BLM Sensitive Forest 

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni BLM Sensitive Grassland 

Three-Toed 

Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus BLM Sensitive Forest 

Trumpeter Swan Plegadis chihi BLM Sensitive Wetland 

Willet Cataptrophorus 

semipalmatus BLM Sensitive Grassland/wetland 

Wilson’s 

Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor BLM Sensitive Grassland/wetland 

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-53 

Table 3.6-6. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Special Status Species That May Occur 

 Within the Project Area (Cont’d)

Common Name Scientific Name 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status* General Habitat 

Fish 

Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus SE River/stream 

Northern 

Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos BLM Sensitive ST River/stream 

Amphibians 

Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons BLM Sensitive Grassland/wetland 

Northern Leopard 

Frog Rana pipiens BLM Sensitive Wetland 

Reptiles 

Snapping Turtle Cheldy serpentine BLM Sensitive Wetland 

Spiny Softshell 

Turtle Apalone spinifera BLM Sensitive River/stream 

Greater Shorthorned Lizard 

Phrynosoma 

hernandesi BLM Sensitive Grassland 

Prairie Hognose 

Snake Heterodon nasicus BLM Sensitive Grassland 

Sources: SDGFP, 2010; BLM, 2009c; BLM, 2012b 

*SE = state endangered species; ST = state threatened species 

could inhabit the area east of the site according to South Dakota Gap Analysis Project 

information (South Dakota State University, 2012). 

3.6.2 Aquatic 

As discussed earlier in this section, Beaver and Pass Creeks form the two main drainage basins 

located within the proposed project area. Smaller drainages and depressions holding water 

adjacent to main drainage corridors provide potential aquatic habitat. The majority of the 

surface water features within the project area accumulate only as a result of snowmelt or major 

storm events. Old mine pits throughout the proposed project area are also locations where 

water accumulates, creating habitat. 

 

The lack of permanent aquatic resources within the proposed project area is a factor limiting the 

presence of aquatic species. GEIS Section 3.4.5.2 describes the Cheyenne River as one of the 

major watersheds in South Dakota. The Cheyenne River originates in eastern Wyoming and 

flows along the southern edge of the Black Hills Uplift. The GEIS indicates approximately 

45 fish species are found in the Cheyenne River watershed, including species of bass, catfish, 

carp, chub, trout, shiner, sunfish, and minnow. GEIS Table 3.4-4 lists the state-designated uses 

of the Cheyenne River and Beaver Creek as fisheries, fish and wildlife propagation, recreation, 

agriculture, and aesthetics, indicating that the water is acceptable for fishing, boating, 

swimming, agricultural irrigation, and growth of aquatic life. 

The applicant conducted extensive fishery and habitat surveys that provide baseline information 

on stream flow and other habitat characteristics, including channel dimensions and features 

such as pool, riffle, glide, and run habitat types, sediment composition, water clarity, and 

specific conductivity, as well as aquatic benthic macro-invertebrate community composition, 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-54 

and the variety, condition, and relative abundance of fish species (Powertech, 2009a, 

Section 3.5.5.5). Radiological monitoring of riverine species was also conducted to establish 

baseline concentrations of select radionuclides in fish populations. The sampling locations for 

these studies were primarily in Beaver Creek, although additional sampling was conducted in 

the Cheyenne River downstream of the proposed project. Pass Creek does not maintain 

sufficient water to support aquatic life. 

Waters classified as impaired are too polluted or otherwise too degraded to meet established 

water quality standards and fully support state-designated uses. Beaver Creek is identified 

as an impaired water under the criteria in Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act 

(33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. 1972). The impairments indicate that Beaver Creek may not provide 

adequate habitat to provide growth of aquatic life. For the 2012 reporting cycle, the two areas of 

impairment for Beaver Creek are pH and fecal coliform (EPA, 2012a). An SDDENR-prepared 

water quality data report points to livestock as the source of fecal coliform (SDDENR, 2008). 

Pass Creek is not listed on the 303(d) list as an impaired water body (EPA, 2012a). Cattle 

grazing is the primary land use at and in the vicinity of the project area. Grazing activities 

contribute water pollutants, such as fecal coliform, and result in increased turbidity. Fecal 

coliform alters the pH levels and conductivity of water (EPA, 2006a). 

Aquatic benthic macroinvertebrate communities, primarily insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, 

were sampled as part of habitat surveys in Beaver Creek. The results of these surveys indicate 

degraded water habitat conditions, which supports the EPA impaired classification (Powertech, 

2009a). The small number and limited range of macroinvertebrate species collected also points 

to impaired water conditions. Aquatic insects are food sources for riparian predators, such as 

spiders, birds, bats, reptiles, and amphibians, and play an important role in the transfer of 

energy and materials from freshwater to terrestrial food webs. In addition, only a few sensitive 

species or species unable to tolerate degraded habitat were collected. 

Twelve fish species were collected from two collection points in Beaver Creek: BVC04, located 

upstream of the project area, and BVC01, located downstream of the project area (see 

Figure 3.5-2). One collection point, CHR05, is located in Cheyenne River downstream of the 

proposed project area past the confluence of Beaver Creek and Cheyenne River (see 

Figure 3.5-2). Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) is the most abundant fish species in 

Beaver Creek and the most likely to be caught and eaten by anglers. The 11 other species 

collected were the sand shiner (Notropis stramineus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), 

plains minnow (Hybognathus placitusa), common carp (Cyprinus carpioa), longnosed dace 

(Rhynichthys cataractae), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), river carpsucker 

(Carpoides carpio), shorthead redhorse sucker (Moxostoma macrolepidotuma), plains 

topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus), plains killfish (Fundulus zebrinus), and green sunfish 

(Lepomis cyanellus) (Powertech, 2009a). Fish were sampled and tested to identify baseline 

levels of select radionuclides in fish. The only South Dakota rare fish species collected was the 

plains topminnow (SDGFP, 2010), encountered in Beaver Creek downstream of the proposed 

project area. Although fish surveys were not conducted within the project area, NRC staff 

expect similar fish species encountered upstream and downstream of the site could occur within 

the project area.

Survey results demonstrated the presence of total uranium in fish species in 2008. The channel 

catfish was the only fish species with detectable total uranium levels during the first sampling 

event in April 2008; however, total uranium was detected in all fish samples from the second 

sampling event conducted in July 2008. Note the laboratory detection limit was lowered for the 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-55 

July 2008 sample. All total uranium concentrations were detected at or below 0.5 mg/kg 

[0.5 ppm]. Radioactivity from Po-210, Th-230, and Ra-226 was detected in many fish, but at 

low concentrations. Pb-210 was only detected in one specimen where matrix interference was 

reported (Powertech, 2009a). 

South Dakota issues fish consumption advisories for waterbodies with elevated contaminants 

that may be harmful to humans. Sampling activities have occurred in Fall River County at 

Angostura Reservoir and portions of the Cheyenne, and in Custer County at Stockdale Lake 

from 1994 to 2009. No waterbodies in Custer and Fall River Counties were sampled in 2011. 

No fish consumption advisories have been issued as a result of fish collection and sampling 

activities in Custer and Fall River Counties (SDDENR, 2011b). 

3.6.3 Protected Species 

Table 3.6-7 identifies species present in Custer and Fall River Counties that are listed as 

federally threatened or endangered (FWS, 2010; Powertech, 2009a). The results of wildlife 

surveys (Powertech, 2009a) and FWS correspondence (FWS, 2010, 2012b) have not identified 

federally listed threatened or endangered species on or within a 1.6-km [1-mi] radius of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. NRC staff initially requested information for 

federally listed species on March 15, 2010 (NRC, 2010c); a response was provided on 

March 29, 2010 (FWS, 2010). NRC staff requested updated information from FWS via e-mail 

on August 27, 2012; a response was provided the same day (FWS, 2012b). The bald eagle,

which is no longer listed federally as threatened or endangered although it is listed as 

threatened by South Dakota, is known to be present at the site and was observed during the 

wildlife surveys (Powertech, 2009a). Endangered and threatened species and designated 

habitats that may be present in the project area are discussed more fully next. The BLM 

Montana/Dakotas State Director designates sensitive species within the BLM Montana State 

Office jurisdiction as those “requiring special management consideration to promote their 

conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future listing under the ESA [Endangered 

Species Act]” (BLM, 2008). BLM special status species, collectively, are (i) BLM-designated 

sensitive species and (ii) federally proposed, candidate, and delisted species within 5 years of 

delisting (BLM, 2008). Because approximately 97.1 ha [240 ac] of the proposed project are 

Table 3.6-7. Threatened or Endangered Animals That Occur in Custer and Fall River 

Counties or Were Observed in the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ 

Recovery Project Area* 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 

Status State Status 

Observed 

Onsite 

Birds 

Centrocerus 

Urophasianus 

Greater 

Sage-Grouse 

Candidate Not listed No 

Anthus spragueii Sprague’s Pipit Candidate Not listed No 

Grus Americana Whooping Crane Endangered Endangered No 

Haliaeetus 

Leucocephalus 

Bald Eagle Delisted Threatened Yes 

Mammals 

Mustela Nigripes Black-Footed 

Ferret 

Endangered Endangered No 

*Sources: FWS, 2010, 2012b; Powertech, 2009a; SDGFP, 2010 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-56 

under the control of BLM, NRC considered the BLM special status species that may occur in the 

project area in Table 3.6-6. 

The SDGFP list of rare animals includes those that could become candidates for listing, as well 

as, locally rare species (SDGFP, 2010). Table 3.6-8 lists 10 species, all birds, observed at the 

proposed project area during the applicant-conducted baseline studies, along with their primary 

nesting habitats and historical occurrence in the general area. SDGFP takes conservation 

measures to sustain all native plants and animals and associated habitats. By taking a 

proactive approach to sustaining native species, listing of species as threatened or endangered 

can often be prevented. 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocerus Urophasianus) is a federal candidate species for threatened 

or endangered status resident in sagebrush shrubland habitats; sagebrush is essential in every 

phase of the life cycle of this species. Breeding habitat, referred to as leks, and stands of 

sagebrush surrounding leks are used in early spring; they are particularly important habitat 

because nesting birds often return to the same leks and nesting areas each year. Leks are 

common in more sparsely vegetated areas, such as ridgelines and disturbed areas adjacent to 

stands of sagebrush. Threats to the survival of this species include loss of habitat, agricultural 

practices, livestock grazing, hunting, and land disturbances related to energy/mineral 

development and the oil and gas industry 

Table 3.6-8. Species Tracked by the South Dakota National Heritage Program 

Observed in the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project Area

Species

Primary 

Habitat(s)

State Rank 

During 

Breeding 

Season 

State Rank 

During 

Nonbreeding 

Season

Occurrence 

Within Proposed 

License Area 

(PLA) or 

1.6-km [1-mile] 

Perimeter

Clark’s Nutcracker 

(Nucifraga Columbiana) 

Pines, 

Cliffs, and 

Canyons 

S2 S2 

Observed Flying 

Over PLA 

Merlin 

(Falco Columbarius) 

White 

Spruce, 

Pines, and 

Shrublands 

S3 S3 

Observed East of 

PLA Within 1 Mile, 

Presumed Breeder 

Long-Eared Owl 

(Asio Otus) 

White 

Spruce, 

Pines, and 

Shrublands 

S3 S3 

Observed Within 

PLA, Breeder 

Bald Eagle 

(Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

Forests 

and Cliffs 

Near Open 

Water 

S1 S2 

Observed Within 

PLA, Breeder 

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-57 

Table 3.6-8. Species Tracked by the South Dakota National Heritage Program 

Observed in the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project Area (Cont’d)

Species

Primary 

Habitat(s)

State Rank 

During 

Breeding 

Season 

State Rank 

During 

Nonbreeding 

Season

Occurrence 

Within Proposed 

License Area 

(PLA) or 

1.6-km [1-mile] 

Perimeter

Golden Eagle 

(Aquila Chrysaetos) 

Cliffs, 

Canyons, 

and 

Grassland 

S3, S4 S3 

Observed Flying 

Over PLA Once 

American White Pelican 

(Pelecanus 

Erythrorhynchos) 

Islands or 

Sandbars 

of Large 

Wetlands 

S3 SZ 

Observed Flying 

Over PLA Once 

Cooper’s Hawk 

(Accipiter Cooperii) 

Conifer or 

Deciduous 

Woodland 

S3 SZ 

Observed Flying 

Over PLA Once 

Long-Billed Curlew 

(Numenius Americanus) Prairie 

Grassland S3 SZ 

Observed Within 

PLA, Likely 

Breeder 

Great Blue Heron

(Ardea Herodias) 

Riparian 

and 

Wetland 

S4 SZ 

Observed Flying 

Over PLA Once 

Ferruginous Hawk 

(Buteo Regalis) 

Prairie 

Grassland S4 SZ Observed 

Sources: SDGFP (2010a); Powertech (2009a); SDGFP (2005a). 

S1 = Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals or 

acres) or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction.

S2 = Imperiled because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals or acres) or because of some 

factor(s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. 

S3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally (even abundantly at some of its locations) in a 

restricted range or vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of other factors; in the range of 21 to 100 

occurrences. 

S4 = Apparently secure, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. Cause for 

long-term concern. 

SZ = No definable occurrences for conservation purposes, usually assigned to migrants. 

(Sage-Grouse Working Group, 2006). This species was not identified during the applicant 

wildlife inventories, and few have ever been documented on or in the vicinity of the proposed 

site because of the limited habitat. 

On March 5, 2010, FWS published a finding in the Federal Register that listing of the greater 

sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species was warranted but precluded by higher 

priority listing actions (75 FR 13909). In effect, the species has been put on the federal list of 

candidate species, which contains plants and animals that are proposed for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 4 (75 FR 13909). FWS generally reevaluates the 

potential listing of candidate species every 12 months to determine whether the species’ status 

should change to threatened or endangered at that time. However, due to a litigation settlement, 

a final determination whether the species should be proposed for listing under the ESA in the 

region is expected by the end of September 2015 (FWS, 2012a). 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-58 

Although the total area of big sagebrush shrubland within the project area is about 1,012 ha 

[2,500 ac] (Table 3.6-1), large expanses of contiguous sagebrush that provide optimum 

coverage for breeding and wintering are not likely to occur within the project area based on 

USFS-conducted studies (Hodorff, 2005). The USFS studies were conducted for a section of 

the Buffalo Gap National Grassland that begins about 7.2 km [4.5 mi] south of the proposed 

project and extends south to the Black Hills Army Depot (Hodorff, 2005). FWS and SDGFP 

currently monitor only one lek in Fall River County that is located more than 13 km [8 mi] south 

of the site (SDGFP, 2009; Hodorff, 2005). This lek was last reported as active with five males 

observed in 2006 (SDGFP, 2012b). Figure 3.6-2 shows the sage-grouse nesting areas in the 

vicinity of the proposed project. Figure 3.6-3 presents a detailed view of occupied sage-grouse 

leks within 8 km [5 mi] of the site (WGFD, 2011; Hodorff, 2005). 

Sprague’s Pipit 

The Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) is a small bird and a federal candidate species that 

nests, breeds, and spends the winter in open grasslands of the United States (FWS, 2011b). 

The birds breed in northern states and Canada, and spend the winter in the southern states 

and Mexico (FWS, 2011a). Sprague’s pipit primarily eats insects, spiders, and some seeds 

(FWS, 2011b). Because of its preference to breed in continuous, open grassland about 29 ha 

[71.6 ac] or more in size that has not been disturbed, habitat loss, conversion, and 

fragmentation threaten the continued existence of this species (76 FR 66370; FWS, 2011b). 

Sprague’s pipits were not observed during applicant-conducted surveys (Powertech, 2009a) 

and have not been reported to occur, but are believed to occur, in Custer and Fall River 

Counties (USGS, 2006c; FWS, 2012c). Based on results of breeding bird surveys conducted 

from 1994 to 2003, potential breeding distribution of the species extends north and northeast of 

the Black Hills (FWS, 2012b). 

Whooping Crane 

The whooping crane (Grus Americana), listed as a state and federal endangered species, 

feeds and roosts in wetlands and riverine habitats and upland grain fields, and uses central 

South Dakota for migration and staging areas (FWS, 2009). The current nesting range of 

the self-sustaining natural wild population is restricted to Wood Buffalo National Park in 

Saskatchewan, Canada, and the current wintering grounds of this population are restricted to 

the Texas Gulf Coast at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge and vicinity (NRC, 2009a). FWS 

correspondence indicates that the agency does not have information to confirm that whooping 

cranes are present within the proposed project boundaries, but the potential exists for whooping 

crane disturbances from proposed mining activities during spring and fall migrations (FWS, 

2010). Migration periods occur from late September through October, and between the end of 

March and mid-May. Whooping cranes were not observed during applicant-conducted surveys 

(Powertech, 2009a); however, FWS recommends vigilant monitoring during proposed mining 

activities conducted during spring and fall, and immediate FWS notification if a whooping crane 

is observed (FWS, 2010). FWS recommends ceasing mining activities temporarily if a crane is 

observed until the bird leaves the area (FWS, 2010). 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle was delisted from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

July 2007 (72 FR 37346), but continues to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-59 

Figure 3.6-2. Sage-Grouse Lek Areas for the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium 

Milling Region 

 Source: NRC (2009a)
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-60 

Figure 3.6-3. Occupied Sage-Grouse Leks Near the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project 

 Source: NRC (WGFD, 2011; Hodorff, 2005; BLM, 2011)
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-61 

Protection Act, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and at the state level as a threatened 

species. FWS published its National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines in May 2007 (FWS, 

2007) to ensure the continued protection of the species. The bald eagle is a large raptor 

species with a white head and tail and brown body feathers and is generally associated with 

lakes and other large, open bodies of water. Bald eagles prey on fish, small mammals, birds, 

and occasionally carrion. Migrating and wintering eagles congregate near open water areas 

where concentrations of prey are available, such as carcasses of game animals, and spawning 

areas for fish (NRC, 2009a). Two bald eagle nests were observed within the proposed project 

area along Beaver Creek during winter roost surveys conducted from 2007 to 2011 (Powertech, 

2009a; SDGFP, 2012c) and produced one fledgling each year in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The 

first bald eagle nest was observed in 2008 and 2009 approximately 1.6 km [1 mi] west of the 

proposed Dewey satellite processing plant in a cottonwood tree along Beaver Creek. The 

second bald eagle nest was observed approximately 1.2 km [0.75 mi] southeast of the first nest 

along Beaver Creek. Bald eagles spend winter in the Black Hills (SDGFP, 2012a). Project 

construction will not directly impact any of these nests or roosts. Individual eagles nesting and 

foraging nearby may experience indirect disturbances from the proposed project, described 

further in SEIS Section 4.6. 

Black-Footed Ferret 

 

The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is federally listed as endangered. The species is 

native to North America and primarily inhabits the Great Plains region. The black-tailed prairie 

dog and the black-footed ferret can use the same habitat. The black-footed ferret is found 

almost exclusively in prairie dog colonies in basin-prairie shrublands, sagebrush-grasslands, 

and grasslands. The black-footed ferret is a small mammal in the weasel family with a natural to 

buff-colored body and black face, feet, and tail. It is dependent on prairie dogs for food and all 

essential aspects of its habitat, especially prairie dog burrows where it spends most of its life 

underground (USGS, 2006b). Potential suitable habitat for the black-footed ferret is present 

within the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project area (BLM, 2009a). One black-tailed prairie dog 

(Cynomys ludovicianus) colony is located in the northwestern corner of the proposed site, and 

two additional colonies are present within 1.6 km [1 mi] southwest of the proposed site boundary 

(Powertech, 2009a). SDGFP provided NRC staff with a 2008 survey of the prairie dog colony at 

the site for review; however, the map is not provided in this report to protect landowner privacy. 

The colony is approximately 321 ha [794 ac] and is within a greasewood shrubland vegetation 

community where wellfields D-WF3 and D-WF4 and irrigation areas are planned in the 

Dewey area. The presence of large, closely spaced prairie dog colonies {on the order of 

several hundred hectares [several thousand acres]} could support and sustain a breeding 

population of black-footed ferrets (BLM, 2009a). Because the colony is approximately 322 ha 

[795 ac] in size, it is unlikely the colony is large enough to support a breeding population of 

black-footed ferrets. However, FWS has reintroduced black-footed ferrets in the Cheyenne 

River and Conata Basin, South Dakota, located east of the Black Hills (FWS, 2000). Wind Cave 

National Park, South Dakota, is the closest known population to the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

Project area (South Dakota State University, 2012). Potential future ferret management 

decisions in Wind Cave National Park, South Dakota, and the Thunder Basin National 

Grassland, Wyoming, could expand populations into the project area (BLM, 2009a). 

In 2003, FWS eliminated the requirement to conduct black-footed ferret surveys in the state of 

South Dakota in order to identify unknown ferret populations in black-tailed prairie dog habitat 

(FWS, 2003a,b). This requirement lift is referred to as an area being “block cleared.” FWS 

considers incidental takes of individual ferrets in black-tailed prairie dog habitat that is block 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-62 

cleared are not an issue and would not affect any wild population. However, permitted block 

clearance (no required survey) does not relieve federal agencies of the need to assess a 

proposed action’s effect on the species’ survival and recovery. In addition, FWS directs federal 

agencies to assess whether a proposed action could adversely affect the value of prairie dog 

habitat as a future reintroduction site for the black-footed ferret (FWS, 2003a,b). No 

black-footed ferrets have been identified on the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site, nor 

are they known to occur within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area (Powertech, 

2009a; FWS, 2000; USGS, 2006b). 

3.7 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality 

3.7.1 Meteorology and Climatology 

The proposed project area is located in southwestern South Dakota adjacent to the 

southwestern extension of the Black Hills; elevations in the area range between 1,097 and 

1,189 m [3,600 and 3,900 ft] (Powertech, 2009a). The area is considered semiarid and 

experiences abundant sunshine, low relative humidity, and sustained winds. 

Diurnal and seasonal temperatures vary greatly, and precipitation is generally light. Storm 

systems originating in the Pacific lose much of their moisture over the Cascade and 

Rocky Mountains before reaching the area. 

The applicant established a weather station near the center of the proposed project area in 

July 2007 (Powertech, 2009a). Information collected at this onsite station includes temperature, 

wind speed/direction, and precipitation. The onsite data were collected over a 1-year period. 

Onsite data were supplemented with data from a meteorological station in Newcastle, Wyoming, 

to provide a historical perspective. The Newcastle station, operated by IML Air Science and 

located approximately 48.3 km [30 mi] north-northwest of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, 

has collected hourly meteorological data since 2002. Although not a National Weather Service 

meteorological station, Newcastle meets the EPA requirements for ambient monitoring 

guidelines for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (Powertech, 2011). 

Newcastle provides a better comparison to the proposed project area in terms of elevation, 

surrounding topography, and proximity to the southwestern flank of the Black Hills than the 

Chadron National Weather Service station located about 105 km [65 mi] south-southeast of the 

proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). Chadron is the closest National Weather 

Service station to the proposed Dewey-Burdock site that collects hourly wind data. 

Comparison of wind patterns supports the usage of the Newcastle information because the 

Dewey-Burdock and Newcastle data are similar and quite different from the Chadron site data 

(Powertech, 2011). 

3.7.1.1 Temperature 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6.1, temperatures fluctuate greatly throughout the year in the 

southwestern corner of South Dakota (NRC, 2009a). Summers can be quite warm, while 

winters are typically quite cold. The annual mean temperature from the data collected at the 

onsite station is 7.50 °C [45.5 °F. July recorded the highest average mean daily temperature at 

24.9 °C [76.8 °F]. January recorded the lowest average mean daily temperature at −9.56 °C 

[14.8 °F] (Powertech, 2011). The proposed Dewey-Burdock site experiences greater mean 

temperature extremes during the hottest part of the summer and the coldest part of the winter 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-63 

relative to the Newcastle site. Even so, the onsite data compare favorably and fall within the 

range of the Newcastle historical data. Table 3.7-1 contains both the onsite data and the 

Newcastle station data. The region’s low relative humidity contributes to the large diurnal 

temperature variations, which range between about −9.4 and −4.4 °C [15 and 24 °F] 

(Powertech, 2009a). The largest diurnal variation typically occurs in the summer. 

3.7.1.2 Wind 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6.1, windy conditions are common within the proposed project 

area in South Dakota. The average annual wind speed from the data collected from July 2007 

to July 2008 at the onsite station was 3.89 m/s [8.7 mph]. The average annual wind speed at 

the Newcastle station over that same year was 3.13 m/s [7 mph] and over the 9-year period 

from 2002 to 2010 was 3.04 m/s [6.8 mph] (Powertech, 2011). Onsite wind speed averages 

were slightly higher than the values at Newcastle. 

Figure 3.7-1 displays the annual wind rose generated from onsite data. Although the 

predominant wind direction is from the northwest, east-southeast winds are also common 

(Powertech, 2009a). 

3.7.1.3 Precipitation 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6.1, the proposed project area is located within a semiarid 

region that can be quite dry at times (NRC, 2009a). The average annual precipitation from the 

data collected at the onsite station is 31.54 cm [12.42 in] (Powertech, 2009a). Monthly totals 

ranged from 0.25 to 9.6 cm [0.10 to 3.8 in]. Historical data from the Newcastle station 

demonstrated an average annual precipitation of 38.4 cm [15.1 in], which is higher than the 

onsite value. Onsite data indicated that the wettest month was May, while the driest month was 

November. About 60 percent of the precipitation accumulates over the 3-month period from 

May to July. Thunderstorms occur frequently during this period and are responsible for much 

Table 3.7-1. Site and Regional Monthly Temperature Information in °C* 

Month Mean Daily Temperature 

Mean Daily 

Minimum 

Temperature 

Mean Daily 

Maximum 

Temperature 

Site Newcastle Newcastle Newcastle 

January −9.56 −5.11 −11.4 1.22 

February −4.71 −2.94 −9.44 3.55 

March 1.42 1.67 −5.44 7.79 

April 6.15 7.17 0.111 14.2 

May 11.2 12.9 5.78 20.0 

June 17.4 18.3 10.8 25.7 

July 24.9 22.9 15.0 30.9 

August 24.0 21.8 13.9 29.8 

September 17.6 15.8 8.11 23.5 

October 9.56 9.00 1.83 16.2 

November 1.14 1.05 −5.11 7.22 

December −9.41 −3.67 −9.72 2.39 

Annual 7.50 8.22 1.22 15.2 

Source: Modified from Powertech (2009c). 

*To convert Celsius ( ̊C) to Fahrenheit ( ̊F), multiply by 1.8 and add 32. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-64 

Figure 3.7-1. Annual Wind Rose Generated From Onsite Data 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2011)

of the annual rainfall. The greatest daily onsite precipitation total was 3.28 cm [1.29 in], which 

occurred on May 23, 2008. On this date, the proposed project area received 1.8 cm [0.71 in] 

of precipitation between the hours of 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., which was the most rainfall within a 

1-hour period over the sampled year. The area receives an annual average snowfall of 97 cm 

[38 in]. Snowfall can be expected from September through June. March averages 22 cm 

[8.5 in] of snowfall and has the highest average monthly snowfall (Powertech, 2009a). 

3.7.1.4 Evaporation 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6.1, the semiarid nature of the proposed project area 

produces conditions where evaporation rates exceed precipitation (NRC, 2009a). 

Applicant-conducted literature research determined a mean annual lake evaporation rate 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-65 

of 112 cm [44 in] for the proposed project area (Powertech, 2009c). GEIS Section 3.4.6.1 

states the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region annual pan evaporation 

rate ranges from about 102 to 127 cm [40 to 50 in] (NRC, 2009a). Pan evaporation is a 

technique used to estimate the evaporation rate of other bodies of water such as lakes or ponds 

and is applicable to the various settling, outlet, and surge ponds the applicant proposes. 

3.7.2 Air Quality 

In 40 CFR Part 50, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, EPA 

established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to promote and sustain 

healthy living conditions (see GEIS Section 3.4.6.2). Primary NAAQS standards are established 

to protect public health, while secondary NAAQS standards are established to protect public 

welfare by safeguarding against environmental and property damage. These standards define 

acceptable ambient air concentrations for six common air pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and particulates (PM10 and 

PM2.5). EPA requires states to monitor ambient air quality and evaluate compliance with 

the NAAQS. 

Based on the results of these evaluations, EPA designates areas into various NAAQS 

compliance classifications (e.g., attainment or nonattainment) for each of the six criteria air 

pollutants. These classifications characterize the air quality within a defined area. These 

defined areas range in size from portions of cities to large Air Quality Control Regions 

composed of many counties. An Air Quality Control Region is a federally designated area for air 

quality management purposes. The proposed project area is located in the Black Hills-Rapid 

City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region, which is made up of Butte, Custer, Fall River, 

Lawrence, Meade, and Pennington Counties, South Dakota. The Black Hills-Rapid City 

Intrastate Air Quality Control Region meets all of the NAAQS regulations and, therefore, is 

classified as an attainment area for each criteria pollutant. Based on this attainment 

classification, the air quality in and around the proposed site can be considered good. 

Table 3.7-2 contains air pollutant emissions from EPA’s National Emission Inventory for the 

counties within this Air Quality Control Region. The emissions in Table 3.7-2 include both 

stationary and mobile sources. Table 3.7-3 contains pollutant concentrations that reflect the 

existing ambient air conditions. 

Table 3.7-2. Annual Air Pollutant Emissions in Metric Tons* From the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s National Emission Inventory for Counties in the Black 

Hills-Rapid City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region 

Area CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC 

Butte County 2,426 395 1,745 304 61 379 

Custer County 3,543 1,076 2,013 352 75 570 

Fall River County 1,761 1,050 1,435 268 82 317 

Lawrence County 8,750 1,088 3,338 582 163 1,241 

Meade County 11,264 1,474 6,209 1,347 200 1,512 

Pennington County 36,680 8,672 7,628 1,635 2,484 5,261 

All Six Counties† 64,424 13,755 22,368 4,488 3,065 9,280 

Custer and Fall River Counties‡ 5,304 2,126 3,448 620 157 887 

Source: Modified from EPA (2008) accessed on 28 Dec 2009. 

*To convert metric tons to short tons, multiply by 1.10231. 

†The Black Hills-Rapid City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region consists of these six counties. 

‡The proposed site located in these two counties. 

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-66 

Table 3.7-3. Existing Conditions—Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

Pollutant* 

Averaging 

Period Form 

2010 

Value†* 

Percent 

NAAQSǁ Location 

Carbon 

monoxide 

1 hour Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

0.960 ppm 3 UC #1 site in 

Union County‡

8 hour Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

0.276 ppm 3 UC #1 site in 

Union County 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

1 hour 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years 

3 ppb 3 Wind Cave 

Annual Annual mean 0.2 ppb 0.4 Wind Cave 

Ozone 8 hour Annual fourth highest daily 

maximum averaged over 

3 years 

0.060 ppm 80 Wind Cave 

PM2.5 24 hour 98th percentile, averaged 

over 3 years 

10.9 μg/m3§ 31 Wind cave 

Annual Annual mean, averaged 

over 3 years 

4.8 μg/m3 32 Wind Cave 

PM10 24 hour Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year on 

average over 3 years 

41 μg/m3 57 Wind Cave 

Sulfur dioxide 3 hour Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

0.008 ppm 2 Wind Cave 

1 hour 99th percentile of 1 hour 

daily max averaged over 

3 years 

6 ppb 8 Wind Cave 

Source: Modified from IML (2013) for the PM10 baseline value and SDDENR (2011a) for the other values. 

*Lead is currently not monitored for because of historically low levels in the state. The proposed Dewey-Burdock 

project is not considered to be a source for airborne lead. 

†2010 values represent the appropriate value for NAAQS compliance as described in the “form” column, which in some 

cases is an average over a 3-year period of measured values. The 3 years of measurement data are not presented 

here, but are provided in the source document. 

‡Wind Cave in Custer County, located 46.7 km [29 mi] from the proposed project area, does not collect carbon 

monoxide data. The UC#1 site, located in Union County in the southeastern portion of the state, is the only South 

Dakota station reporting carbon monoxide values in the South Dakota Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network 

Plan 2011. 

§To convert μg/m3 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 × 10-8. 

ǁNAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

EPA has revised the NAAQS since the publication of the GEIS. The following information 

updates the NAAQS as documented in GEIS Table 3.2.8. The ozone 1-hour and sulfur dioxide 

annual standards are no longer applicable. Additionally, new or revised standards, not 

identified in GEIS Table 3.2.8, include a nitrogen dioxide 1-hour 100 ppb standard, an ozone 

8-hour 0.075 ppm standard, a 2.5 μm particulate matter annual 12 μg/m3

 standard, and a 

sulfur dioxide 1-hour 75 ppb standard. EPA has considered lowering the ozone standard from 

0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm (EPA, 2011). Table 3.7-4 contains the updated NAAQS. States 

may develop standards that are stricter or supplement the NAAQS. As described in 

ARSD 74:36:02:02, Ambient Air Quality Standards, South Dakota has not adopted stricter or 

supplemental standards. 

As discussed in GEIS Section 3.4.6.2, EPA also established Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) standards that set maximum allowable concentration increases for 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide pollutants above baseline conditions in 

attainment areas (NRC, 2009a). In part, the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that air 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-67 

Table 3.7-4. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Pollutant 

Primary/ 

Secondary 

Averaging 

Time Level Form 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

Primary 8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded 

more than once per year

Primary 1 hour 35 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, 

averaged over 3 years 

Primary and 

Secondary 

Annual 53 ppb Annual mean 

Ozone Primary and 

Secondary 

8 hours 0.075 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 

Matter10 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 (2012b). 

*To convert μg/m3

 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 × 10−8. 

quality in attainment areas remains good. There are several different classes of PSD areas. 

Different standards were developed for these different classifications, with Class I areas having 

the most stringent requirements. The proposed site is located in a Class II area. The closest 

Class I area near the proposed project is the Wind Cave National Park located in Custer County 

about 46.7 km [29.0 mi] away. Figure 3.2-2 contains a map displaying the locations of the 

proposed project, the Wind Cave National Park, and the other Class I area in South Dakota: 

Badlands National Park. 

Protection of Class I air quality also includes consideration of visibility and atmospheric 

deposition. Air pollutants can reduce visibility and therefore negatively impact air quality in 

Class I areas. Visibility can be expressed by deciviews. A one-deciview change is defined as a 

change in visibility that is just perceptible to an average person. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-68 

Atmospheric deposition, also called acid depostion, refers to processes in which some air 

pollutants that contain nitrogen (e.g., nitrate, ammonium, and nitric acid) or sulfur (e.g., sulfate 

or sulfur dioxide) are deposited into terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems. Examples include (i) wet 

deposition, where precipitation removes pollutants from the air, and (ii) dry deposition where 

gravity causes the particulates to settle out of the air. Atmospheric deposition is expressed as 

the annual mass of material deposited over an area. Total deposition accounts for all of the wet 

and dry processes. Total deposition is often classified into two categories: total nitrogen 

deposition (i.e., the deposition from the various nitrogen-containing pollutants) and total sulfur 

deposition (i.e., the deposition from the various sulfur-containing pollutants). Wind Cave 

National Park serves as one of the Clean Air Status and Trends Network monitoring stations, 

which in part collects data on air deposition. The average annual total nitrogen deposition 

ranged from 2.72 to 3.56 kg/ha [2.45 to 3.20 lb/ac] over the 3-year period from 2009 to 2011, 

and the total annual sulfur deposition ranged from 0.90 to 1.16 kg/ha [0.81 to 1.04 lb/ac] over 

that same time period (IML, 2013). 

EPA has revised the PSD standards since publication of the GEIS (documented in GEIS 

Table 3.2-9) as follows. New PM2.5 standards have been added for two different time frames: 

annual and 24 hours. Table 3.7-5 contains the updated PSD standards. 

Temperature and precipitation are two parameters that can be used to characterize climate 

change. Average U.S. temperatures have increased more than 1.1 °C [2 °F] over the past 

50 years and are projected to rise more in the future (GCRP, 2009). From 1993 to 2008, the 

average temperature in the Great Plains increased by approximately 0.83 °C [1.5 °F] when 

compared to the 1961 to 1979 baseline (GCRP, 2009). From 2010 to 2029, the average 

temperature in the Great Plains is projected to increase approximately 1.7 °C [3 °F] relative to 

the 1961 to 1979 baseline (GCRP, 2009). The proposed Dewey-Burdock site is considered part 

of the Great Plains in this study. Although the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) 

did not incrementally forecast a change in precipitation by decade, it did project a change in 

spring precipitation from the baseline period (1961 to 1979) to the next century (2080 to 2099). 

For the region of South Dakota where the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located, 

GCRP forecasts a 10 to 15 percent increase in spring precipitation (GCRP, 2009). 

Table 3.7-5. Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I and Class II Standards 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Class I Level 

(μg/m3

)* 

Class II Level 

(μg/m3) Form 

Particulate 

Matter 

2.5 μm 

Annual 1 4 Annual mean 

24 hours 2 9 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Particulate 

Matter 

10 μm 

Annual 4 17 Annual mean 

24 hours 8 30 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Sulfur Dioxide Annual 2 20 Annual mean 

24 hours 5 91 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

3 hours 25 512 Not to be exceeded more 

than once per year 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Annual 2.5 25 Annual mean 

Source: Modified from 40 CFR 52.21. 

*To convert μg/m3

 to oz/yd3, multiply by 2.7 × 10-8. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-69 

The EPA administrator determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) in the atmosphere may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare (74 FR 66496, 2009). As 

described in the Federal Register notice, the primary scientific basis supporting the 

administrator’s endangerment finding were the major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate 

Research Program, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the National 

Research Council. The Federal Register notice also states that these assessments indicate 

that ambient concentrations of GHG emissions do not cause direct adverse health effects 

(e.g., respiratory or toxic effects), but rather cause indirect effects from the associated changes 

in climate. Based on EPA’s determination, NRC recognizes that GHGs may contribute to 

climate change and that climate change may have an effect on health and the environment. 

GHGs, which can trap heat in the atmosphere, are produced by numerous activities, including 

the burning of fossil fuels and agricultural and industrial processes. GHGs include carbon 

dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and certain fluorinated gases. These gases vary in their ability 

to trap heat and in their atmospheric longevity. GHG emission levels are expressed as CO2 

equivalents (CO2e), which is an aggregate measure of total GHG global warming potential 

described in terms of CO2 and accounts for the heat-trapping capacity of different gases. The 

Center for Climate Strategies estimated that GHG-producing activities in South Dakota 

accounted for approximately 36.5 million metric tons [40.2 short tons] of gross CO2e emissions 

in 2005; levels of 39.1 and 46.6 million metric tons [43.1 and 51.4 short tons] are forecasted for 

years 2010 and 2020, respectively (Center for Climate Strategies, 2007). 

EPA is promulgating new rules to address GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act permitting 

programs (EPA, 2010). Current requirements are focused on the nation’s largest stationary 

source GHG emitters. New sources as well as existing sources with the potential to emit 

90,718 metric tons [100,000 short tons] per year of CO2e, will become subject to EPA PSD 

and Title V requirements. Modifications at existing facilities that increase GHG emissions by 

at least 68,039 metric tons [75,000 short tons] per year of CO2e will also become subject to 

Title V requirements.

3.8 Noise 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located in an undeveloped remote location in open 

rangeland and pastureland. Cattle grazing and wildlife habitat are the primary land uses. GEIS 

Section 3.2.7 estimated that ambient noise levels in this undeveloped, arid, rural area, which is 

typical of the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region, will range from 22 to 

38 decibels (dBA) (NRC, 2009a). Traffic along Dewey Road leading to the site is expected to 

generate noise; however, almost all of the land adjacent to Dewey Road within and in the 

vicinity of the proposed project is privately held with limited access (see SEIS Section 3.2 and 

Figure 3.2-1). 

Ambient noise measurements were not part of the applicant’s preapplication studies. The 

applicant reports the majority of existing ambient noise (i.e., background noise) in the vicinity of 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is generated by light automobile and truck traffic 

traveling on U.S. Highway 18 and State Highway 89 and freight/coal train operations on the 

BNSF railroad, which runs northwest to southeast through the project area (see Figure 3.2-1) 

(Powertech, 2009a, 2010a). The BNSF railroad transports coal from mining operations in the 

Powder River Basin of Wyoming as well as agricultural, consumer, and industrial products. The 

Edgemont, South Dakota, train master reports 50 freight trains pass through the project area 

daily (Powertech, 2010a). Noise levels ranging from 75 to 85 dBA are typical for a train 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-70 

traveling at approximately 80 kph [50 mph] on grade at a distance of 30 m [100 ft] (FRA, 2010). 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7 described the applicant’s plan to transport equipment, materials, 

supplies, yellowcake product, and waste materials by trucks during the lifecycle of the proposed 

project. As noted in SEIS Section 3.3, the applicant does not anticipate using the BNSF railroad 

as a transportation option for proposed project activities. Therefore, train traffic and associated 

noise are not expected to increase due to construction or operational activities at the 

proposed site. 

Noise associated with the proposed project activities is considered because it may interfere with 

persons residing in and engaging in recreational activities in the surrounding area. Two 

permanent onsite residences, the Putnam dwelling and Beaver Creek Ranch headquarters, are 

located approximately 1.3 km [0.8 mi] south and 0.8 km [0.5 mi] west of proposed wellfields in 

the Dewey area, respectively (see Figure 3.2-1). The closest offsite residences, the Peterson 

and Kennobie dwellings, are located approximately 1.3 km [0.8 mi] southwest and 1.3 km 

[0.8mi] south, respectively, of proposed wellfields in the Burdock area (see Figure 3.2-1). Small 

communities within 48 km [30 mi] of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site include 

Edgemont and Hot Springs in Fall River County, South Dakota; Custer in Custer County, 

South Dakota; and Newcastle in Weston County, Wyoming. These communities have 

populations ranging from 774 to 3,711 (see SEIS Section 3.11.1). Noise levels are expected to 

be slightly higher in these communities as a result of traffic and human activities. Rapid City in 

Pennington County, the nearest urban area, is approximately 161 km [100 mi] northeast of the 

project area. Urbanized communities, such as Rapid City, experience ambient noise levels from 

street noise, traffic, emergency vehicles, and construction. Noise levels in these types of urban 

areas range from 45 to about 78 dBA, with lower noise levels at night (WSDOT, 2012). 

A number of recreational areas are present in Custer, Fall River, and Pennington Counties 

that could be sensitive to noise impacts. Major attractions include Mount Rushmore National 

Memorial, Jewel Cave National Monument, and Wind Cave National Park (see Figure 3.2-2). 

These attractions are located more than 32 km [20 mi] north and east of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Several USFS and state parks may be sensitive to noise impacts. 

Parcels of the BHNF border the proposed project area to the east and northeast, and the 

Buffalo Gap National Grassland is about 4.8 km [3 mi] south of the project boundary (see 

Figure 3.2-2). These lands are protected from extensive development, and the ambient noise 

levels will be expected to be similar to undeveloped rural areas (up to 38 dBA) (NRC, 2009a). 

Noise associated with project activities can also displace wildlife and interfere with wildlife 

breeding habits. As described in SEIS Section 3.6.1, the proposed project area supports many 

medium to small mammals (e.g., coyote, red fox, raccoon, rodents, jackrabbits, and cottontails) 

and avian species (e.g., wild turkey and mourning dove). Big game species that occur in the 

proposed project area include pronghorn antelope, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk. 

However, there are no crucial big game habitats or migration corridors in the proposed project 

area or within 1.6 km [1 m] of the project boundary (Powertech, 2010a). Five confirmed, intact 

raptor nests and one potential nest site were observed within the proposed project area, and the 

applicant identified two additional nests within a 1.6-km [1-mi] radius of the study area 

(Powertech, 2009a). One black-tailed prairie dog colony was observed during wildlife surveys 

in the northwestern corner of the proposed project area, and two others were observed 1.6 km 

[1 mi] southwest of the proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a). 

There are no federally listed threatened or endangered species within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. The Greater sage-grouse and black-footed ferret 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-71 

could potentially occur in the area; however, no sage-grouse or black-footed ferret were 

observed during applicant wildlife surveys (Powertech, 2009a). Of state-listed species, the bald 

eagle is known to occur on and in the vicinity of the site and two bald eagle nests were 

observed during wildlife inventories conducted at the site (Powertech, 2009a; SDGFP, 2012c). 

As described in SEIS Section 3.6.3, the first bald eagle nest was observed in 2008 and 2009 

approximately 1.6 km [1 mi] west of the proposed Dewey satellite processing plant in a 

cottonwood tree along Beaver Creek. A second bald eagle nest was observed approximately 

1.2 km [0.75 mi] southeast of the first bald eagle nest along Beaver Creek. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has noise impact assessment procedures and 

criteria to help protect the public health and welfare from excessive vehicular traffic noise 

(FHWA, 2006). Recognizing that different areas are sensitive to noise in different ways, FHWA 

established noise abatement criteria (23 CFR Part 772) according to land use. These criteria 

are described in Table 3.8-1. 

 

In situations where existing or expected future sound levels exceed FHWA-set noise 

abatement criteria, an individual is considered to be impacted by noise. Dewey Road crosses 

the southwestern portion of the Burdock area and the central portion of the Dewey area 

(Figure 3.2-1) and is expected to be a source of noise. Vehicular traffic noise levels are 

estimated to range from 54 to 62 dBA for passenger cars and 50 to 70 dBA for heavy trucks at a 

distance of 15 m [50 ft] from a receptor (NRC, 2009a). Noise from line sources, such as roads, 

is reduced by approximately 3 dBA per doubling of the distance from the source (NRC, 2009a). 

The maximum sound level of heavy trucks is 70 dBA on roads within the proposed project area, 

such as Dewey Road; this is expected to be diminished to the level of a Category A Activity 

(57 dBA) at a distance of 480 m [1,575 ft] from the source. However, noise-dampening 

characteristics of topographic interference and vegetation are not part of these calculations 

(NRC, 2009a). At a distance greater than 480 m [1,575 ft] from Dewey Road, sound levels 

generated by heavy truck traffic are expected to be approximately 40 dBA. This calculation 

produces a conservative estimate of a baseline for ambient noise that is slightly higher than the 

GEIS statement that existing ambient noise levels in this region will be 22 to 38 dBA (NRC, 

2009a). GEIS Figure 3.2-17 provides examples of sound levels for common activities 

(NRC, 2009a). 

Table 3.8-1. 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 these 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. 

Source: 23 CFR Part 772 

*Leq(h) is an energy weighted, 1-hour, A-weighted sound level in decibels (dBA). 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-72 

3.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 

GEIS Section 3.4.8 provides a general overview of historic and cultural resources in 

southwestern South Dakota where the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located (NRC, 

2009a). The proposed project area is located within the prehistoric cultural subarea known as 

the Northwestern Plains. This region includes western Minnesota, North and South Dakota, 

Wyoming, and portions of eastern Idaho and southern Montana. Prehistoric inhabitants of the 

Northwestern Plains existed for 12,000 years as semi-nomadic hunters and gatherers. During 

the last 4,000 years, the archaeological record indicates Native Americans living on the 

Northwestern Plains primarily used bison for food, clothing, and shelter (Frison, 1991). During 

historic times, missionaries and traders were the first non-Indian people to arrive in the Black 

Hills followed by settlers, miners, and merchants traveling west to the Oregon Territory or the 

goldfields in California, Colorado, and Montana. In the late 1880s, the Black Hills were opened 

to homesteaders and an economy based on mining, logging, and ranching developed 

(Buechler, 1999). 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider the 

effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Historic properties are defined as 

resources that are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR 60.4 and include (A) association with 

significant events in history; (B) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; 

(C) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, period, or construction; and (D) sites or 

places that have yielded or are likely to yield important information (ACHP, 2012). The historic 

preservation review process, NHPA Section 106, is outlined in regulations the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (ACHP) issued in 36 CFR Part 800. 

The issuance of a source material license is a federal action that may affect either known or 

undiscovered historic properties located on or near the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. In 

accordance with the provisions of the NHPA, NRC is required to make a reasonable effort to 

identify historic properties in the area of potential effect (APE). The APE for this review is the 

area that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed action. If no historic properties are present 

or affected, NRC is required to consult with the South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office 

(SD SHPO) before proceeding. If it is determined that historic properties are present, NRC is 

required to assess and resolve possible adverse effects of the undertaking. 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended [Public Law 96-95; 

16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm], which regulates the permitting of archaeological investigations on public 

land, including those managed by BLM and South Dakota laws and regulations for the 

protection of archaeological resources were followed. Applicable laws and regulations are 

discussed more fully in GEIS Appendix B. 

South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) 34-27-6, Cemeteries and Burials, specifies the procedures 

for the treatment and handling of human remains if human remains are found during proposed 

project activities. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

(NAGPRA), as amended [Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et. Seq.], is applicable to 

burials found on BLM-managed lands. NAGPRA provides for the protection of Native American 

remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony and their repatriation 

to affiliated tribes following a consultation process between tribes, museums, and/or land 

managing federal agencies. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-73 

The cultural resources investigations for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project included (i) a 

review of available archaeological, ethnographic and ethnological literature, (ii) a search and 

evaluation of archaeological records and collections maintained by the South Dakota 

Archaeological Research Center (ARC), (iii) archaeological field investigations including 

evaluative testing, (iv) a visual effects assessment, (v) preparation of an ethnohistoric 

background study, and (vi) tribal consultation, including a tribal survey, to assist in the 

identification of places of religious or cultural importance to Native American tribes. Historic and 

cultural resources are sites documenting past human activity containing artifacts, features, or 

architectural structures, and include sacred places important to Native American tribes. An 

overview of regional cultural history and archaeology and definition of the APE for the project 

area are presented in SEIS Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2. SEIS Section 3.9.3 describes the results 

of historic and cultural resource investigations. SEIS Section 3.9.4 summarizes NRC 

consultation efforts with Native American tribes. 

3.9.1 Cultural History 

The archaeological cultural sequence for the proposed project area is divided between the 

prehistoric periods (Paleoindian, Plains Archaic, Plains Woodland, and Late Prehistoric/Plains 

Village) and the more recent Protohistoric and Historic/Euroamerican cultural periods. 

The prehistoric periods encompass about 11,000 years between 12,000 B.P. (before present; 

10,000 B.C.) and 300 B.P. (about A.D. 1700). The Protohistoric and Historic/Euroamerican 

periods extend from about A.D. 1700 to A.D. 1959. 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area is located on the southwestern edge of the 

Black Hills Uplift within the geographical area known as the Great Plains. The vegetation within 

and surrounding the project area is a mix of short grasses and shrubs typical of semiarid steppe 

land along with ponderosa pine forest toward the Black Hills (Powertech, 2009a). The elevation 

within the project area ranges from approximately 1,097 to 1,189 m [3,600 to 3,900 ft] above 

mean sea level, with the highest elevations along the pine breaks that overlap its eastern 

boundary. Topography in the western quarter of the project area consists of gently rolling 

terrain, while more varied terrain in the pine breaks and dissected hills comprise the rest of the 

project area. Two main streams pass through the project area: Beaver Creek (perennial) and 

Pass Creek (ephemeral) (see Figure 3.5-2). The primary land use within and in the vicinity of 

the project area is cattle grazing (Powertech, 2009a). 

3.9.1.1 Prehistoric Periods 

As mentioned previously, the prehistoric periods are divided into Paleoindian, Plains Archaic, 

Plains Woodland, and Late Prehistoric/Plains Village. Paleoindian (11,000 to 8,000 B.P.) sites 

in the region are typically identified by the presence of lanceolate points and date from the 

Late Glacial, Pre-Boreal, and Boreal climatic episodes. During these episodes, the climate 

underwent a warming trend and the grasslands and sagebrush steppe expanded at the expense 

of boreal forests and tundra (Noisat, 1996). Paleoindian groups were nomadic bands of hunters 

subsisting on big game animals such as mammoth, bison, and muskox. Paleoindian sites are 

found in diverse settings including protected mountains, foothill areas, and river valleys and in 

the interior of the Black Hills (BLM, 2009a; Tratebas, 1986). Sites are rarely found on upland 

prairie and grasslands typical of the Great Plains and Central Plains regions of South Dakota 

(Frison, 1991). By the end of the Paleoindian period larger game animals were replaced by 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-74 

modern antelope, bison, deer, and elk. These smaller grazers were better adapted to the 

changing environment that resulted from the onset of warmer and drier conditions in the 

Holocene era (Hester, 1960). 

The Plains Archaic period (8,500 to 1,500 B.P.) in South Dakota is broken into three subperiods: 

Early, Middle, and Late. The Early Plains Archaic subperiod (8,500 to 5,000 B.P.) is marked by 

a shift to a warmer and dryer climate (BLM, 2009a). Sites from this period are characterized by 

semi-subterranean houses that are usually marked by the presence of one or more hearths, 

firepits, storage pits, and milling basins. These sites suggest that groups in the Early Plains 

Archaic subperiod participated in seasonal occupation and movement. The presence of various 

side- and corner-notched projectile points and side-notched knives also suggests a subsistence 

strategy that included hunting small- and medium-sized game, as well as, exploitation of floral 

species. Only a few Early Plains Archaic sites have been found in plains, foothill, and 

mountainous areas of the Black Hills (BLM, 2009a). 

During the Middle Plains Archaic subperiod (5,000 to 3,000 B.P.) there was a return to moister, 

cooler conditions (BLM, 2009a). Middle Plains Archaic groups greatly utilized the Black Hills. 

Site assemblages reflect a relatively broad spectrum of hunting and gathering strategies, with 

an emphasis on bison hunting (BLM, 2009a). Site features include prepared pit houses, stone 

rings, and rock shelters. 

The climate during the Late Plains Archaic subperiod (3,000 to 1,500 B.P.) gradually became 

wetter; grasslands expanded, increasing bison herds (BLM, 2009a). As a result, subsistence 

strategies shifted toward a more nomadic hunting economy. Recorded communal bison kill 

sites contain diagnostic Yonkee points (large corner-notched projectile points), which were the 

preferred method of felling the bison (Winham and Hannus, 1991). 

The Woodland Period (2,500 to 1,000 B.P.) throughout the Great Plains is characterized by 

introduction of new technologies and social practices. In the Black Hills, the Late Archaic and 

Woodland periods overlapped and Woodland subsistence strategies are similar to those of the 

Late Plains Archaic period. Gradual changes from the Archaic to Woodland period include a 

greater reliance on horticulture, the introduction of ceramics, semipermanent dwellings, bow and 

arrow utilization, and burial mound construction (Grange, 1980; Hill and Kivett, 1940; Hoffman, 

1968; Lueck and Winham, 2005). In the Black Hills region, Woodland cultural groups continued 

a hunting and gathering lifestyle of following bison herds. This nomadic subsistence strategy is 

evidenced by numerous sites with stone circles (teepee rings), as well as a lack of cultigens or 

semipermanent dwelling features identified in the archaeological record (Molyneaux, 

et al., 2000). 

The Late Prehistoric/Plains Village period (1,500 to 300 B.P.) heralds the acceptance of new 

technologies, such as smaller projectile points adapted for use with arrows (Frison, 1991). Prior 

to the Late Prehistoric period, the points were hafted on spears. Also introduced at this time is 

earthenware technology, which improves food preparation techniques. Stewing, braising, and 

boiling were now possible, which significantly broadened the number of floral and faunal species 

that could be utilized. Peoples of the Late Prehistoric/Plains Village period in South Dakota are 

similar in many ways to earlier Plains Woodland cultural groups. Very few sites of the Late 

Prehistoric/Plains Village period have been documented within Custer and Fall River Counties 

(Buechler, 1999). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-75 

3.9.1.2 Protohistoric/Historic Era 

The Protohistoric period (A.D. 1700–1840) is characterized by the beginnings of European 

interaction with the Plains tribal groups. European metal and decorative goods, firearms, and 

the domesticated horse were introduced into the region (Buechler, 1999; Frison, 1991; 

Molyneaux, et al., 2000). At the onset of the 18th century, tribes historically associated with the 

project area include the Crow, Plains Apache, Ponca, Comanche, Kiowa, and Kiowa-Apache 

(Buechler, 1999). By 230 B.P., groups of the Lakota Sioux, and to a lesser extent, Arapaho and 

Cheyenne, had forced these previous inhabitants out of the region to the south and west 

(Buechler, 1999). According to ethnographic accounts written by French Jesuits and fur 

trappers, from A.D. 1700 to 1800, the Lakota migrated westward from Minnesota, crossed the 

Missouri River, and transitioned from being hunter-gatherers and part-time farmers to nomadic 

hunters who primarily relied on bison for food, clothing, and shelter. With the acquisition of the 

horse, the Lakota became the dominant culture on the Northern Plains between the Missouri 

River and the Rocky Mountains (Robinson, 1904). 

The Historic/Euroamerican period is subdivided into seven periods: Early Historic 

(A.D. 1801 to 1842), Preterritorial (A.D. 1843 to 1867), Territorial (A.D. 1868 to 1889), 

Expansion (A.D. 1890 to 1919), Depression (A.D. 1920 to 1939), World War II (A.D. 1940 to 

1946), and Post-World War II (A.D. 1947 to 1959). The proposed Dewey-Burdock Project area 

has been historically used for cattle ranching, farming, and gold prospecting. The establishment 

of Custer County in 1877 was a direct result of Lieutenant George A. Custer’s Black Hills 

Expedition of 1874, which confirmed the presence of gold within the area (Molyneaux, et al., 

2000). The founding of Rapid City in 1876 created an eastern “gateway” into the heart of the 

Black Hills mining region as well as an important transportation hub. By the early 20th century, 

smaller communities had sprung up along the various railroad lines that facilitated the import 

and export of goods and services (Nielsen, 1996). 

3.9.2 Area of Potential Effect 

As described previously, the APE for the review of historic and cultural resources at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is the area that may be directly or indirectly impacted by 

the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed project. 

The APE for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project coincides with the extent of potential 

ground disturbance resulting from proposed facility construction and operational activities. The 

introduction of new visual, auditory, or other sensory elements also has the potential to diminish 

the integrity of historic properties in the project area. 

The extent of the APE for facility construction and operations will depend on the disposal 

option used at the proposed project to dispose of liquid waste. As described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant plans to dispose of liquid wastes generated during uranium 

recovery operations through deep injection wells, land application, or a combination of both 

methods. The APE for facility construction and operations for all the liquid waste disposal 

options totals 1,067 ha [2,637 ac] (Figure 3.9-1). This area includes a 969-ha [2.394-ac] buffer 

zone surrounding 98.3-ha [243-ac] of projected areas for the plant facilities, wellfields, ponds, 

roads, and pipelines. If land application is used for liquid waste disposal, the APE for facility 

construction and operations will include an additional maximum area of approximately 506 ha 

[1,250 ac] surrounding proposed land application areas (Figure 3.9-1). 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-76 

The introduction of new visual elements is expected to have the greatest potential to diminish 

the integrity of historic properties in the project area. The extent of the APE for visual impacts 

includes areas within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the central processing plant in the Burdock area 

and the satellite processing facility in the Dewey area (see Figure 3.9-1). The central 

processing plant and satellite processing facility will be the tallest buildings constructed at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site (Powertech, 2009a). Based on proposed locations of 

the central processing plant and the satellite processing facility, the APE for visual impacts will 

extend a maximum of 2.33 km [1.45 mi] from the eastern project boundary in the Burdock area 

and a maximum of 2.7 km [1.7 mi] from the western project boundary in the Dewey area (see 

SEIS Figure 3.9-1). 

3.9.3 Historic and Cultural Resources Investigations 

3.9.3.1 Level III Cultural Resource Investigations 

NRC staff reviewed Level III cultural resource investigations and evaluative testing reports 

prepared by the Archaeology Laboratory Augustana College (ALAC) on behalf of the applicant 

for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Kruse, et al., 2008; Palmer and Kruse, 2008; 

Palmer 2008, 2009, 2012). The investigations included an archival and historic review of 

available sources, a search of ARC-maintained records and collections, and review of published 

field reports. A review of available data shows that six surveys have been conducted within the 

project boundary of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (Kruse, et al., 2008). A total of 57 

archaeological sites were previously recorded within the proposed project area (Kruse, 

et al., 2008). 

Recent field investigations were conducted by pedestrian surveys of 4,173 ha [10,311 ac] 

between April and August 2007 and of an additional 526 ha [1,300 ac] between July and 

September 2008 of the proposed project area. The 2007 and 2008 field investigations included 

evaluative testing at 43 sites. In 2011, evaluative testing was conducted at 20 unevaluated sites 

located within the project boundary to provide data for recommendation on NRHP eligibility 

(Palmer and Kruse, 2012). The results of the evaluative testing determined that one site, 

39FA1941, is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP and 19 sites were recommended 

ineligible for listing in the NRHP (Palmer and Kruse, 2012). Results of the Level III cultural 

resource investigations are presented in the following sections. 

3.9.3.1.1 Archaeological Sites 

NRC reviewed site data on over 200 archaeological sites recorded within the proposed project 

area. During the field investigation, a number of small, individual sites were combined into 

larger, single sites. One-hundred and forty-nine (149) sites were determined ineligible for 

listing in the NRHP when measured against the evaluative criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4. 

Seventy-nine (79) of these sites are of isolated finds (single tool or few [n<10] items with no 

possibility of buried or other remains; can be aboriginal or historic; is not eligible by definition 

[SD ARC, 2006]); these sites lack physical integrity and context. Approximately 140 of these 

mostly prehistoric sites are located on highly disturbed and eroded landforms and have little 

potential to possess intact, significant buried cultural deposits. 

Fifteen (15) archaeological sites, including two containing cairns and burials, have been 

recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP (Table 3.9-1). SD SHPO has concurred 

with the sites recommended eligible to the NRHP under one or more criteria of eligibility in 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-77 

Figure 3.9-1. Map Showing Area of Potential Effect for Facility Construction and Operations for Review of Historic  and Cultural Resources  Source: Modified from Powertech 2013 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-78 

Table 3.9-1 (SD SHPO, 2012, 2014). The archaeological sites recommended for listing in 

NRHP are discussed next. 

Site 39CU0271 was originally recorded in 1981, and was described as an extensive occupation 

site with at least 184 hearth features, ranging from severely eroded to completely intact 

(Chevance, 1978; Reher, 1981; Buechler, 1999). In 2007, ALAC relocated this site and 

expanded the boundaries to include 54 additional hearth features and a cairn feature. Artifacts 

recovered from the site consist of scrapers, bifaces, points, and other lithic tools. Charcoal 

samples were collected from seven hearths for radiocarbon dating. The radiocarbon test results 

revealed the hearths date from the Late Plains Archaic period to the Plains Woodland period. 

Following testing, Reher (1981) recommended avoidance of 38CU0271 and determined that the 

site is eligible for listing in the NRHP (Kruse, et al., 2008). In 2007, ALAC revisited the site and 

expanded the boundaries to include additional occupation areas, newly discovered hearths, and 

a cairn feature (Kruse, et al., 2008). While portions of the site have been subjected to wind and 

water erosion, other areas of the site retain intact soil deposits with the potential to contain intact 

cultural deposits (Kruse, et al., 2008). Site 39CU0271 was visited and recorded during tribal 

cultural surveys; however, the tribes offered no NRHP recommendations for this site (see SEIS 

Section 3.9.3.2.2). 

Table 3.9-1. List of Archaeological Sites Within the Proposed Project Area 

Recommended Eligible for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places*

Historic Property 

(Site Number, 

Structure 

Identification, or 

Historic District) Description NRHP Determination† 

39CU0271 Native American and Archaic artifact scatter and 

occupation site on a ridge slope with a cairn feature 

Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU0577 Native American/Euroamerican Occupation site; artifact 

scatter 

Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU0584 Native American occupation site and burial on a ridge 

slope 

Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU2735 Archaic- Prehistoric occupation site Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU0578 Native American/Euroamerican 

Dump and occupation site on a ridge slope 

Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU0586 Native American and Late Archaic occupation site on a 

ridge crest 

Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU0588 Native American occupation site on a ridge crest Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU2733 Native American hearth and artifact scatter on a ridge 

slope 

Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU2738 Native American occupation site on a ridge crest Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU0590 Native American artifact scatter on a ridge saddle Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU0593 Native American and Euroamerican occupation and 

artifact scatter on a hill slope 

Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU3592 Native American artifact scatter and hearth site Eligible, Criterion D 

39FA1941 Native American artifact scatter and hearth site Eligible, Criterion D 

39CU2000 Historic Railroad Eligible, Critera A and C 

39FA2000 Historic Railroad Eligible, Criteria A and C 

Sources: Kruse, et al. (2008); Palmer and Kruse (2008, 2012); Palmer (2009) 

*Recommended eligible by Archaeology Laboratory Augustana College and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SD SHPO) has concurred with these recommendations 

(SD SHPO, 2012. 2014). 

†The National Register for Historic Places criteria for eligibility are listed in Section 3.9 of this Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-79 

Previously recorded sites 39CU0577, 39CU0578, 39CU0586, 39CU0588, 39CU2733, 

39CU2738, and 39CU0590 are Native American occupation sites, and 39CU2735 is an Archaic 

site; all were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D (Kruse, et al., 2008). 

Site 39CU0593 is a Native American and Euroamerican occupation and artifact scatter located 

on a hill slope, determined eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D (Kruse, et al., 2008). 

Site 39CU0584 is a Native American occupation site and contains a burial (affiliation unknown) 

located on a ridge slope, also recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D 

(Kruse,et al., 2008). 

Sites 39CU2000 and 39FA2000 are historic railroad sites and are eligible for listing in the NRHP 

under Criteria A and C. Sites 39CU2000 and 39FA2000 are separate segments of the 

Burlington Northern Railroad and part of the original 1889 lines that linked the communities of 

Edgemont, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming, for the transportation of coal (Kruse, 

et al., 2008).

Site 39CU3592 is a sparse Native American artifact scatter with three hearths and a flint 

knapping activity area dating to the Archaic period. This site was recommended eligible for 

listing in the NRHP under Criterion D based on evaluative testing performed in 2008 

(Palmer and Kruse, 2008). 

Site 39FA1941 is a Native American artifact scatter and hearth site located on a ridge top 

toward the southeast quadrant of the proposed project area. In 2007, ALAC originally recorded 

the site (Kruse, et al., 2008), which underwent evaluative testing in 2011 (Palmer and Kruse, 

2012). Twenty-six, mostly deflated hearth sites were recorded in the testing phase, and 

radiocarbon dating from one of the hearths indicates the site dates to the Late Archaic period. 

While the northern half of the site lacks integrity and has been destroyed by erosion, the 

southern half of the site at Area D possesses intact buried cultural deposits with intact features 

and associated activity areas. Site 39CU1941 is recommended eligible for listing under 

Criterion D (Palmer and Kruse, 2012). While numerous Archaic sites have been recorded in the 

region, very few possess an intact cultural zone with the potential to augment the archaeological 

record of the region (Palmer and Kruse 2012). 

Archaeoloigcal field investigations documented 68 unevaluated archaeological sites within 

the proposed project area (Kruse, et al., 2008; Palmer and Kruse, 2008; Palmer 2008, 2009, 

2012). Unevaluated sites are sites that have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. 

These sites will be subjected to archaeological testing and mitigation, if appropriate, prior to 

ground-disturbing activities. 

Historic and ethnographic evidence indicates that sites with cairn features served as markers for 

trails, camps, burials, caches, and ceremonial centers (Kruse, et al., 2008). Unevaluated sites 

with burials or cairn features are listed in Table 3.9-2. This information on cairn features and 

burials was confirmed by tribes during consultation. With the exception of site 39CU3584, none 

of these sites are located within areas of proposed development (i.e., within the APE for facility 

construction and operations). During tribal cultural surveys of the Dewey-Burdock site, tribes 

visited, recorded, and recommended that five of the sites listed in Table 3.9-2 (39CU3620, 

39FA1862, 39FA1881, 39FA1890, and 39FA1927 be listed in the NRHP under one or more of 

the eligibility criteria (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). Unevaluated archaeological sites with burial 

and cairn features are discussed below. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-80 

Table 3.9-2. Unevaluated Archaeological Sites With Burial or Cairn Features Within the 

Proposed Project Area 

State Site 

Number Description 

National Register of Historic Places 

Determination 

39CU0530 Cairn site Unevaluated 

39CU3564 Cairn site Unevaluated 

39CU3584 Cairn site Unevaluated 

39CU3587 Two historic Euroamerican burials Unevaluated 

39CU3620 Cairn site Unevaluated 

39FA1862 Cairn site with stone circles Unevaluated 

39FA1863 Cairn site with stone circles Unevaluated 

39FA1881 Cairn site Unevaluated 

39FA1890 Cairn site Unevaluated 

39FA1902 Historic site with historic burial and bridge 

structure 

Unevaluated 

39FA1927 Cairn site Unevaluated 

Sources: Kruse, et al. (2008); Palmer and Kruse (2008, 2012); Palmer (2009)

Site 39FA1902 is an unevaluated site that consists of Native American and Euroamerican 

artifact scatters, a well/cistern, a historic bridge, and a possible historic grave located on 

scrubland and on a short grass pasture. A linear pile of limestone rocks located on the 

northeast edge of site 39FA1902 is purported to be a historic grave by a local informant. The 

remnant of a collapsed wooden fence near the rock pile suggests the possible grave was 

enclosed by a fence at some time in the past (Kruse, et al., 2008). The historic bridge structure 

is discussed in more detail in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.2. During tribal cultural surveys, site 

39FA1902 was specifically listed as being of no interest to the Northern Cheyenne and Northern 

Arapaho tribes (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). Representatives from both tribes examined the 

possible gravesite and determined that it was most likely not affiliated with tribes based on the 

presence of modern materials including pieces of broken concrete among the stones used to 

mark the location. 

Site 39CU3584 consists of a Native American artifact scatter and two cairns located on a hill 

top. The artifact scatter dates to the Middle Archaic based on the discovery of one projectile 

point. This site lies within the proposed land application area at the Dewey site. The site 

underwent archaeological testing and was recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under 

criteria D, based on a lack of diagnostic artifacts and intact cultural deposits (Kruse, et al., 2008; 

Palmer and Kruse, 2012). SD SHPO recommended that site 39CU3584 be considered 

unevaluated for listing on the NRHP until all eligibility criteria have been applied (SD SHPO, 

2012). Site 39CU3584 was visited and recorded during tribal cultural surveys; however, the 

tribes offered no NRHP recommendations for this site (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). 

Site 39CU3587 is a prehistoric artifact scatter and two Euroamerican burials enclosed by posts 

from a collapsed fence located on a ridge top south of Beaver Creek. The burials were 

presumably enclosed by a fence, and only the posts remain. The site is unevaluated (Kruse, 

et al., 2008). 

Site 39CU0530 is a Native American artifact scatter with one cairn and 29 hearths located on a 

forested ridge top and slopes. Areas of the site retain intact soil deposits with the potential to 

contain intact cultural deposits. The site is unevaluated (Kruse, et al., 2008). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-81 

Site 39CU3564 is a Native American lithic quarry site and one cairn located on an eroded hill 

top. The site is unevaluated (Kruse, et al., 2008). 

Site 39CU3620 is sparse Native American lithic scatter, a cairn, and eight hearths located on a 

ridge slope. The site was designated unevaluated by archaeological survey teams (Kruse, 

et al., 2008). Site 39CU3620 was visited, recorded, and recommended eligible for listing on 

NRHP under Criteria A and C during tribal cultural surveys (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). 

Site 39FA1862 is a prehistoric and Native American artifact scatter with three stone circles 

and four cairns on an eroded ridge top. The site was designated unevaluated by archaeological 

survey teams (Kruse, et al., 2008). Site 39FA1862 was visited, recorded, and recommended 

eligible for listing on NRHP under Criterion A during tribal cultural surveys (see SEIS 

Section 3.9.3.2.2). 

Site 39FA1863 is a prehistoric and Native American artifact scatter with a stone circle, 

cairn, and stone alignment located on an eroded ridgetop. The site is unevaluated (Kruse, 

et al., 2008). 

Site 39FA1881 is a sparse prehistoric, Native American artifact scatter with a cairn consisting of 

10 to 12 large rocks. The site was designated unevaluated by archaeological survey teams 

(Kruse, et al., 2008). Site 39FA1881 was visited, recorded, and recommended eligible for listing 

on NRHP under Criteria A and D during tribal cultural surveys (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). 

Site 39FA1890 is a prehistoric, Native American artifact scatter with a cairn consisting of five 

visible medium-sized cobbles. The site was designated unevaluated by archaeological survey 

teams (Kruse, et al., 2008). Site 39FA1890 was visited, recorded, and recommended eligible 

for listing on NRHP under Criterion A during tribal cultural surveys (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). 

Site 39FA1927 is a Native American site consisting of an alignment of six cairns extending 

along a grassy ridge top. Ground surface visibility averaged 50 percent, and no artifacts were 

identified on the ground surface. The site was designated unevaluated by archaeological 

survey teams (Kruse, et al., 2008). Site 39FA1927 was visited, recorded, and recommended 

eligible for listing on NRHP under Criteria A and D during tribal cultural surveys (see SEIS 

Section 3.9.3.2.2). 

Several other unevaluated archaeological sites are located within the APE for facility 

construction and operations and, therefore, could be potentially disturbed by ISR activities. 

These sites are listed in Table 3.9-3 and discussed next. 

Site 39CU3584 was discussed previously and consists of a Native American artifact scatter and 

two cairns located on a hill top. This site lies within the proposed land application area at the 

Dewey site. As described previously, the site was recommended ineligible for listing in the 

NRHP under criteria D, based on a lack of diagnostic artifacts and intact cultural deposits 

(Kruse, et al., 2008; Palmer and Kruse, 2012). SD SHPO recommended that site 39CU3584 be 

considered unevaluated for listing on the NRHP until all eligibility criteria have been applied 

(SD SHPO, 2012). Site 39CU3584 was visited and recorded during tribal cultural surveys; 

however, the tribes offered no NRHP recommendations for this site (see SEIS 

Section 3.9.3.2.2) 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-82 

Table 3.9-3. Unevaluated Archaeological Sites Within the Area of Potential Effect for 

Facility Construction and Operations 

State Site 

Number Description 

National Register of Historic Places

Determination 

39CU0554 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39CU0558 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39CU0653 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39CU3584 Cairn site Unevaluated 

39CU3603 Artifact scatter, hearth Unevaluated 

39CU3615 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39CU3624 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39FA0096 Historic cabin Unevaluated at Area 8 within historic cabin 

39FA0274 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39FA0556 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39FA0740 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39FA0777 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39FA0778 Historic farmstead Unevaluated 

39FA1880 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

39FA1920 Artifact scatter Unevaluated 

Sources: Kruse, et al. (2008); Palmer and Kruse (2008, 2012); Palmer (2009)

Site 39FA0096, located at the south-central portion of the proposed project area, is a large 

occupation site with components that may date from the Paleolithic through the Historic period. 

Numerous hearths, artifact scatters, and historic ruins have been identified. Originally recorded 

as a homestead in 1970s, ALAC revisited the site in 2007 and the boundaries were 

subsequently expanded to include 16 new cultural locales (Kruse, et al., 2008). In 2011, the site 

underwent evaluative testing (Palmer and Kruse, 2012). The site is large and extends 

approximately 1,040 m [3,412 ft] north-south by 1,165 m [3,822 ft] east-west. During the 2011 

evaluative testing, the site was divided into eight concentration areas (Area 1 to Area 8) and a 

total of 68 hearth features and artifact scatters were recorded across the site (Palmer and 

Kruse, 2012). Samples of charcoal from hearth features in Areas 4 and 6 underwent 

radiocarbon dating, and both date to the Late Archaic time period (Palmer and Kruse, 2012). 

Evaluative testing demonstrated that the prehistoric component site is a deflated surface scatter 

of artifacts and hearths (Palmer and Kruse, 2012). Based on the lack of cultural deposits 

between the hearth features, the site may represent a series of short-term occupations. The 

site probably was occupied briefly by mobile social and/or family units foraging in the 

surrounding area and using the site as temporary residence. 

One previously documented possible historic burial was identified at Area 3, located at the 

center of site 39FA0096. During evaluative testing, shovel tests revealed a thin layer of silt 

followed by charcoal and chicken bones overlaying bedrock. The tests revealed very shallow 

soils which terminated when bedrock was hit at 15 cm [5.9 in] below surface. No evidence of 

human bones or remains was encountered. The feature was interpreted as the remains of a 

modern hunter’s campfire with charcoal and chicken bones and is decidedly not a burial (Palmer 

and Kruse, 2012). 

Two log cabins, a cistern, a collapsed outbuilding, a remnant of a foundation, and piles of 

foundation rubble were also identified at the southeast corner of site 39FA0096 at Area 8. 

Shovel tests excavated around the historic cabin structures produced historic artifacts, but no 

additional features were identified (Palmer and Kruse, 2012). Additional shovel testing within 

the historic cabin structures is planned (Powertech, 2012a). A search on the General Land 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-83 

Office Records on the BLM web site uncovered a 1915 land patent on 64.7 ha [160 ac] for 

Emaline Richardson (BLM, 2012a). A copy of the land patent is included in Appendix D. 

A small portion of site 39FA0096 extends onto BLM surface lands. BLM reviewed ALAC’s 2012 

evaluative testing report (Palmer and Kruse, 2012) and concurred with findings that the site 

is heavily deflated and lacks integrity, having been destroyed by natural erosion. Moreover, 

the site does not display workmanship or feeling, and is not associated with an important 

event. BLM concurs that the portion of site 39FA0096 on BLM-administered lands is not 

eligible for listing on the NRHP under criteria D (BLM, 2012c). A copy of the BLM letter dated 

July 20, 2012, is included in Appendix D. 

Preliminary information gathered through consultation with the tribes indicate site 39FA0096 has 

the potential to be of religious and cultural importance to the tribes based on the number of 

hearth features and extensive size of the site. Site 39FA0096 was visited, recorded, and 

recommended eligible for listing on NRHP under Criterion A during tribal cultural surveys (see 

SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). 

Site 39FA0778 is a historic farmstead, originally recorded in 1983, and consists of corrals, root 

cellars, a well, and a house foundation. Historic artifacts consist of clear bottle glass and scatter 

of fired brick and milled lumber (Kruse, et al., 2008). SD SHPO requested that site 39FA0778 

be designated as unevaluated because the site is located where the proposed Burdock central 

processing plant would be constructed (SD SHPO, 2012). 

Sites 39CU0554, 39CU0558, 39CU3624, 39FA0274, 39FA0556, 39FA1880, and 39FA1920 are 

artifact scatters within or adjacent to proposed wellfield areas. These sites are unevaluated 

(Kruse, et al., 2008). 

Site 39CU3603 is an artifact scatter and hearth site located within the right of way of a proposed 

pipeline connecting the Burdock central processing plant and the Dewey satellite facility. This 

site is unevaluated (Kruse, et al., 2008) 

Sites 39CU0653, 39CU3615, 39FA0740, and 39FA0777 are artifact scatters within or adjacent 

to land applications areas. These sites are unevaluated (Kruse, et al., 2008). 

3.9.3.1.2 Historic District, Historic Standing Structures, and Bridge Structure 

Historic resources within the proposed project area currently listed or recommended eligible for 

listing on the NRHP are listed in Table 3.9-4. 

The Edna and Ernest Young Ranch Historic District is located south of Beaver Creek in the 

northwest area of the APE. According to the SD SHPO Historic Sites Survey Form, the Edna 

and Ernest Young Ranch is a designated historic National Register District (90000949), added 

to the NRHP in 1990, under Criterion A, Exploration and Settlement. This ranch represents the 

development of “legal homestead ranching” in southwest Custer County, and the period of 

historical significance is from 1912 to 1940. The ranch is composed of 13 contributing buildings, 

1 contributing structure, the Bakewell Ranch (CU00000050), and 1 non-contributing structure on 

a total of 52.6 ha [130 ac]. The main house of the Bakewell Ranch was constructed from 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-84 

Table 3.9-4. List of Historic Structures Within the Proposed Project Area Currently 

Listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or Structures 

Eligible for Listing in the NRHP 

Historic Property 

(Structure 

Identification, or 

Historic District) Description 

Currently Listed on the NRHP or 

NRHP Determination* 

Log Barn 

(Structure 

CU02500002) 

Log barn located at site 39CU3619 was found 

eligible for listing on NRHP in April 2012 under 

Criterion A. 

Eligible, Criterion A 

Historic District 

90000949- Edna 

and Ernest Young 

Ranch 

This historic district covers 52.6 ha [130 ac] and is 

located approximately 4.8 km [3 mi] south of 

Dewey and south of Beaver Creek. The area of 

significance is exploration/settlement during the 

1900–1924 and 1925–1949. There are 13 

contributing buildings, 1 contributing structure and 

1 non-contributing structure. 

Listed in the NRHP in 1990 under 

Criterion A 

Bakewell Ranch 

(Structure 

CU00000050) 

The Bakewell Ranch is located within the Edna and 

Ernest Young Ranch National Register Historic 

District 

Listed in the NRHP in 1990 under 

Criterion A 

Sources: Kruse, et al. (2008); Palmer and Kruse (2008, 2012); Palmer (2009)

*The NRHP criteria for eligibility are listed in Section 3.9 of this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

sandstone quarried locally. A copy of the SD SHPO Historic Sites Survey Form for the Edna 

and Ernest Young Ranch is included in Appendix D. 

In 2011, an architectural historian evaluated a log barn structure (CU02500002) that is part 

of the Richardson Homestead (site 39CU3619) (Palmer and Kruse, 2012). The original 

Richardson Homestead is located south of Pass Creek and consists of nine buildings: a 

barn, chicken coop, granary, main house, root cellar, bunkhouse, pump house, and two 

garages/workshops. Other features that contributed to the setting and feel of the homestead 

were a cistern, rubble stone walkway, rock garden, garden plot, clothes line post, corral post 

and fence, and evidence of yard plantings (Palmer and Kruse, 2012). The main house was 

assessed, determined to lack structural integrity, and recommended as not eligible for listing in 

the NRHP. Without the inclusion of the main house, the Richardson Homestead did not qualify 

for listing as a historic district in the NRHP. The log barn structure possesses integrity given 

that log buildings in the Black Hills typically do not survive as they were not lived-in, permanent 

dwellings; they were typically abandoned, burned, or torn down. Thus, individually the log barn 

structure was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A (Palmer and 

Kruse, 2012). 

Historic bridge structure (FA00000151) is located within archaeological site 39FA1902 

discussed previously. Site 39FA1902 consists of prehistoric and historic artifact scatters, a 

well/cistern, a possible historic grave, and a historic wooden bridge that crosses an unnamed 

intermittent stream. The bridge is approximately 2.4 m [8.0 ft] long by 5.0 m [16.5 ft] wide, and 

the roadway associated with the bridge was not observed except for the approaches. The 

bridge appears to have been constructed from locally harvested pine timbers. The NRHP status 

of the historic bridge structure is currently unevaluated (Kruse, et al., 2008). As described 

previously, site 39FA1902 was specifically listed as being of no interest to the Northern 

Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho tribes (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). Representatives from 

both tribes examined the possible gravesite and determined that it was most likely not affiliated 

with tribes based on the presence of modern materials including pieces of broken concrete 

among the stones used to mark the location. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-85 

3.9.3.2 Places of Religious or Cultural Significance 

Places of religious or cultural significance are resources associated with the cultural practices 

and beliefs of a living community that are rooted in history and remain important for a group 

to maintain its cultural heritage. These historic properties may not be represented in 

archaeological or historic contexts. On February 8, 2013, the NRC staff contacted 23 tribes 

interested in the Dewey-Burdock project and invited the 23 tribes to participate in a field survey 

of the project area for the purpose of identifying properties of religious and cultural significance 

to tribes (NRC, 2013). The NRC invited interested tribes to investigate any area within the 

4,282 ha [10,580-ac] Dewey Burdock license area during the month of April 2013. A report 

summarizing the tribal cultural surveys completed at the proposed Dewey-Burdock project site 

is included as Appendix F of this SEIS. This report provides details on (i) survey participants, 

(ii) survey dates and methods, (iii) brief summary of tribal survey reports, findings, and 

recommendations, and (iv) NRC’s determination of NRHP eligibility and effects. The following 

sections provide an overview of places of religious and cultural significance to tribes and the 

results of the tribal cultural survey completed at the Dewey-Burdock site. 

3.9.3.2.1 Overview 

Places of religious and cultural significance are often associated with Native American religious 

or cultural practices and include traditional gathering areas where particular plants or materials 

were harvested, a sacred mountain or landscape crucial to a tribe’s identity, or burial locations 

that connect Native Americans with their ancestors. A place of religious or cultural significance 

to tribes demonstrates traditional cultural value if its significance to Native American beliefs, 

values, and customs “has been ethnohistorically documented and if the site can be clearly 

defined” (Parker and King, 1990). 

Tribal groups and their descendants, including the historically documented Apache, Arapaho, 

Arikara, Assiniboine, Cheyenne, Crow, Hidatsa, Kiowa, Mandan, Pawnee, Ponca, Sioux, and 

Shoshone tribes, have made their homes in the Northern Plains for more than 12,000 years. 

The Black Hills is considered a place of paramount spiritual importance to tribal groups in the 

region (SRI, 2012). 

A sense of connectedness and duality between the spiritual and earthly worlds in part illustrates 

the tribal worldview. What is important from a tribal perspective is the interconnectedness 

between the physical world and spiritual world. For example, in Lakota cosmology, there exists 

a spiritual realm and earthly realm and what happens in one realm is reflected in the other; the 

two worlds are interconnected and inform the other (SRI, 2012). Sundstrom (1996) writes that, 

“The activities and ceremonies conducted in the villages on earth were mirrored by the ‘star 

villages’”. Sometimes these realms converge, and the meeting point is reflected in the 

landscape. Some tribal members are able to interpret a “sacred” landscape or feature and 

recognize the same spiritual and physical features that made the place sacred to their 

ancestors. By extension, sacred places are considered sacred to tribal groups today visiting the 

sacred places and retelling of stories through oral tradition reinforces beliefs. 

Past work on the Northern Plains has demonstrated that tribal groups might consider certain 

types of natural landforms and features culturally and spiritually significant. These landforms 

and features include mountain tops, cliffs, distinct topographic features, caves, rock shelters, 

springs and rivers, and especially the intersection between two features. For example, 

mountain tops may reflect increasing spirituality while cliffs and badlands are considered 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-86 

“Deep Earth” (BLM, 2002).” Bear Butte and/or Bear Butte Lake, Devils Tower (Bear Lodge 

Peak), Inyan Kara and Harney Peak, and the Race Track are features of significance to one or 

more of the Northern Plains tribes (Sundstrom 1996). Liebmann (2002) explains that the Big 

Horn Medicine Wheel, “... is situated at a place in which ... two spiritual realms meet. ... the Big 

Horn Medicine Wheel lies at the juncture of two supernatural realms—the zenith and nadir; peak 

and underworld; the connection of spirit domains above and below.” According to the BLM 

Casper Field Office (BLM, 2005), “The presence of flowing water or bodies of water and high 

isolated locations such as buttes in close proximity to one another were sometimes considered 

especially powerful or close to the spirits. These kinds of locations were commonly used for 

fasting or vision quests.” 

There are several man-made features that are commonly associated with culturally 

significant places. While a hilltop may be the physical setting for fasting, prayer, or a vision 

quest, man-made features associated with the sacred place may include vision quest structures, 

cairns, rock clusters, and stone alignments (SRI, 2012). Hand-laid stone alignments typically 

function as “directional markers/prayer lines associated with major ceremonial sites or drive 

lines to channel deer, antelope and bison.” (BLM, 2002) 

Sundstrom (2006), following Abbott, Ranney, and Whitten (1982), defines a cairn as “a pile of 

stones on the surface; this may have collapsed into a mosaic [an arrangement of stones in the 

form of a solid figure or pavement].” Cairns have been found in a variety of contexts, including 

markers for ceremonial sites, trail markers, memorials to notable events or people, medicine 

wheels, and to demarcate burials (e.g., Hall, 1985; Liebman, 2002; Sundstrom, 2006; USFS, 

2004; BLM, 2002; Surface Transportation Board, 2010; SRI, 2012). Medicine wheels are rock 

alignments that have a cairn or stone circle at their centers from which stone alignments are laid 

out like spokes on a wheel (SRI, 2012). 

Graves, burials, and cemeteries should be treated with respect and should not be disturbed. 

Tribal peoples continue to visit graves to pray and make offerings. There are several forms of 

burials including graves, cairns, and burial mounds. Burial mounds are found in eastern 

South Dakota and are not present within the APE (Winham and Hannus, 1990). 

Physical landforms and landscape features within the APE that might possess cultural 

significance include (SRI, 2012): 

• Bone beds 

• Depressions 

• Hills (conical shaped, “humped back,” or odd shaped) 

• Hilltops (ridge and flat top) 

• Natural rock formations 

• Quarries (fossil, mineral, and rock) 

• Prominent knolls 

• Promontories 

• Rimrock 

 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-87 

• Rockshelters 

• Rugged, high altitude, isolated topographic features 

Examples of man-made features and site types located within the APE that might be considered 

places of religious and cultural importance to the Northern Plains tribes (SRI, 2012): 

• Archaeological sites 

• Battle sites 

• Burial mounds (not included in regions for Cameco/Powertech project areas) 

• Burials 

• Eagle catching sites/eagle trapping pits and lodges 

• Fasting sites/structures 

• Dance locations (e.g., Ghost Dance, Sun Dance) 

• Medicine wheels 

• Memorials 

• Monuments 

• Paint sources 

• Pilgrimage/trail marker cairns 

• Offerings and prayer sites (may include trees, springs, rock art, rivers) 

• Rock art/petroglyphs 

• Sacred sites (personal religious observations along the lines of the vision quest) 

• Stone alignments 

• Stone cairns 

• Stone circles/rings (very large and very small) 

• Sweat lodges 

• Vision quest sites/structures 

Through continued consultation with the tribes and an onsite field assessment, places 

that possess cultural and religious significance to the tribes may be identified. Section 3.9.3.2.2 

discusses sites found during tribal cultural surveys within the license boundary. 

3.9.3.2.2 Tribal Cultural Survey Results 

As described previously, a report detailing the tribal cultural surveys completed at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site is included as Appendix F of this SEIS. Seven tribes 

participated in the field survey at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site. These tribes included the 

Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Crow Nation, and Santee 

Sioux Tribe. The NRC staff received detailed written reports with NRHP eligibility 

recommendations from three of the seven tribes who participated in the tribal cultural survey 

(Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of 

Oklahoma). The Crow Nation provided NRC staff with a copy of field notes identifying several 

sites of interest to that tribe. A summary of each tribe’s recommendations is provided in 

Appendix F. A detailed list of sites identified during the tribal cultural survey with management 

recommendations is included as Attachment 2 of Appendix F. The survey reports prepared by 

tribes along with maps recording the location of the discoveries identified during the tribal 

cultural survey are on file at NRC and at the tribal office of the tribe that prepared the report. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-88 

The tribal survey teams identified new artifact features or cultural features of interest to tribes at 

24 known archaeological sites. In addition, 47 new artifact features and cultural features were 

identified. The locations of these represent 71 tribal sites. A number of the 47 new discoveries 

identified by tribes are situated near the boundaries of known archaeological sites and could 

reasonably be considered part of those sites if the current archaeological site boundaries were 

expanded to include them. Other new discoveries occur in close proximity to one another and 

may be culturally related. 

Most of the new discoveries identified in the tribal cultural surveys are described in this report as 

individual tribal sites. When tribes indicated cultural relationships exist between new discovered 

features and known archaeological sites or between groups of individual tribal cultural features, 

this information is provided in the summary in Table F–2 and the list of tribal sites in 

Attachment 2 of Appendix F. 

Tribal Review of Previously Reported Archaeological Sites 

Tribal survey teams recorded 81 cultural features within the boundaries of 24 known 

archaeological sites. Some of the cultural features recorded by tribal survey teams correspond 

to features identified in the archaeological surveys; however, many represent new discoveries. 

Tribal survey teams provided specific recommendations for four (4) archaeological sites that 

were investigated without identifying new cultural features. 

Tribal survey teams collectively recommended that 17 known archaeological sites be 

considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under one or more eligibility criteria. Tribal 

recommendations are summarized in Table 3.9-5. Sites 39FA0096, 39FA1890, 39FA1862 

(outside APE), 39CU3607, 39CU3602, and 39FA1952 were recommended as NRHP-eligible 

under Criterion A. Sites 39CU0459, 39CU0584, 39CU3600, 39CU3604, 39CU3620, and 

39FA1923 were recommended as NRHP-eligible under criteria A and C. Sites 39CU3567, 

39FA1881, and 39FA1927 were recommended as NRHP-eligible under criteria A and D. Sites 

39FA1922 and 39FA1926 were recommended as NRHP-eligible under criteria A, C, and D. 

No sites were specifically classified as “not eligible,” although Site 39FA1902 was specifically 

identified as being of no interest to the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho tribes. Site 

39FA1902 marks the location of a historic artifact scatter and a possible gravesite; it is likely an 

historic homestead. Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho representatives examined the 

possible gravesite and because of the presence of broken concrete among the stones, they 

determined it was not likely of tribal origin. Survey teams recorded information about their visits 

to other previously recorded archaeological sites for consideration by the Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers; however, no NRHP eligibility recommendations were offered by tribes for 

these sites. These sites included 39CU0251, 39CU0271, 39CU3572, 39CU3574, 39CU3576, 

39CU3584, 39CU3593, 39CU3596, and 39FA1962. 

Tribal Sites: New Discoveries 

A total of 47 new discoveries were recorded as a result of the tribal cultural survey 

(Table 3.9-6). Forty-four (44) of the 47 new discoveries are individual tribal sites or cultural 

features and were assigned individual survey numbers. Three tribal sites represent multiple 

cultural features within a single site. For example, 11 GPS readings were taken to record the 

location of individual stones that make up a single stone feature (TS080-TS089 and TS098). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-89 

Table 3.9.5. Summary of Tribal Recommendations for Recorded Archaeological Sites*

State Site 

Number 

Tribal Survey 

Number 

Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe 

Northern 

Arapaho Tribe 

Cheyenne and 

Arapaho Tribes Crow Nation 

39CU0459 TS108-111 Eligible: A Eligible: A, C 

39CU0584 

TS043-046, 

TS053, TS132-

140 

Eligible: A Eligible: A, C 

39CU3567 TS031-033, 

TS141 Eligible: A Eligible: D 

39CU3600 TS114-115 Eligible: A Eligible: A, C 

39CU3602 TS119 Eligible: A 

39CU3604 TS121-122 Eligible: A Eligible: A, C 

39CU3607 TS116-117 Eligible: A 

39CU3620 Eligible: A, C 

39FA0096 TS001, TS004, 

TS013 Eligible: A 

39FA1862 TS112-113 Eligible: A 

39FA1881 Eligible: A, D Place of Interest 

39FA1890 TS012 Eligible: A 

39FA1902 No interest No interest 

39FA1922† TS014-017 Eligible: A, D Eligible: A, C Not eligible Place of Interest 

39FA1923† TS018, TS142-

143 Eligible: A Eligible: A, C Place of Interest 

39FA1926 TS067-074, 

TS076-078 Eligible: A, D Eligible: A, C 

39FA1927 Eligible: A Not eligible Eligible: D Place of Interest 

39FA1952 TS123-124 Eligible: A 

*See Appendix F, Attachment 2 of this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for further details concerning 

the listed sites. 

†Sites 39FA1922 and 39FA1923 are located on U.S. Bureau of Land Management property. All others are on 

private land. 

Table 3.9-6. Summary of Tribal Cultural Survey New Discoveries 

Tribal Survey Number Tribal Features

National Register of Historic Places

Recommendation

TS002 Stone circle Eligible Criterion A 

TS003 Buffalo bones No recommendation 

TS005 Flake No recommendation 

TS006 Cairn Eligible Criteria A, C, D 

TS007-011 Stone circles (4), alignment Eligible Criterion A, D 

TS023 Burial No recommendation 

TS024 Stone circle No recommendation 

TS028 Stone circles (3); campsite; 

ceremonial site No recommendation 

TS030 Stone circle No recommendation 

TS036 Small cairn or marker No recommendation 

TS037 Small cairn No recommendation 

TS040 Ceremonial site Eligible Criteria A, C 

TS041-042 Ceremonial site Eligible Criteria A, C 

TS047 Ceremonial site Eligible Criteria A, C 

TS048 Burial No recommendation 

TS049 Burial No recommendation 

TS050 Burial No recommendation 

TS051 Fasting site No recommendation 

TS052 Stone circle No recommendation 

TS061 Stone circle No recommendation 

TS062 Effigy No recommendation 

TS063 No identification No recommendation 

TS064 Stone circle No recommendation 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-90 

Table 3.9-6. Summary of Tribal Cultural Survey New Discoveries (Cont’d) 

Tribal Survey Number Tribal Features

National Register of Historic Places

Recommendation

TS065 Fasting site No recommendation 

TS066 Cairn No recommendation 

TS075 Cairn No recommendation 

TS079 Stone circle No recommendation 

TS080-089, TS098 Alignment and arc; ceremonial 

site; pipe ceremony location Eligible Criteria A, C 

TS090 Cairn No recommendation 

TS091 Ceremonial site No recommendation 

TS092 Cairn No recommendation 

TS093 Possible cairn No recommendation 

TS094 Cairn No recommendation 

TS095 Disturbed cairn (modern survey 

marker) No recommendation 

TS097 cairn No recommendation 

TS106 Fasting circle Eligible Criteria A, C 

TS107 Possible gravesite and fasting 

circle Eligible Criteria A, C 

TS118 Hearth Eligible Criterion A 

TS120 Hearth Eligible Criterion A 

TS125 Burial No recommendation 

TS126 Staff No recommendation 

TS127 Fasting site No recommendation 

TS128 Fasting site No recommendation 

TS129 Fasting site/ring No recommendation 

TS131 Possible grave No recommendation 

TS144 Cairn No recommendation 

TS145 Prayer/offering location Eligible Criterion D 

 

Five (5) associated tribal features (TS007-TS011) make up another tribal site. Another tribal 

cultural feature was assigned duplicate survey numbers (TS041 and TS042). 

Twelve (12) of the 47 newly discovered cultural features were identified outside the license 

boundary. These features include five (5) discoveries on private land (TS024, TS061, TS062, 

TS075, TS079), five (5) discoveries on BLM property (TS125, TS126, TS127, TS128, TS129), 

and two (2) discoveries on U.S. Forest Service property (TS106, TS107). Sites TS107 and 

TS125 were identified as a possible gravesites. TS106 and TS107 were recommended as 

eligible for listing in the NRHP under criteria A and C. No eligibility recommendations were 

provided for the other 10 cultural features or sites. 

 

Thirty-five (35) of the 47 new discoveries were identified within the project’s license boundary. 

Ten (10) of these tribal sites were recommended as NRHP-eligible under one or more eligibility 

criteria. TS002, TS118, and TS120 were recommended as eligible under Criterion A. TS145 is 

recommended as eligible under Criterion D. TS007-011 is recommended as eligible under 

criteria A and D. TS040, TS041-TS042, TS047, and TS080-T089, TS098 are recommended as 

eligible under criteria A and C. TS006, a gravesite, is recommended as eligible under 

Criteria A, C, and D. 

NRHP recommendations were not provided for 25 of the 35 new discoveries recorded within the 

project license boundary (TS003, TS005, TS023, TS028, TS030, TS036, TS037, TS048, 

TS049, TS050, TS051, TS052, TS063, TS064, TS065, TS066, TS090, TS091, TS092, TS093, 

TS094, TS095, TS097, TS131, and TS144). These features include isolated artifact finds, 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-91 

animal bone concentrations, stone circles, cairns, and possible fasting sites. TS023, TS048, 

TS049, TS050, and TS131 were identified during the field survey as possible gravesites. 

3.9.3.3 Visual Impacts Assessment 

In consultation with the SD SHPO and other consulting parties, NRC staff completed an 

assessment of potential visual impacts on historic properties (i.e., properties of any type listed in 

or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP). This assessment considered whether the 

construction of the central processing plant and satellite facility would create a visual effect on 

historic properties. The purpose of the study was to assess whether the introduction of new 

visual changes in the form of new processing facilities could have potential to diminish those 

aspects of integrity that qualify historic properties for inclusion in the NRHP. NRC’s assessment 

considered potential visual effects on the integrity of each property's location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association in accordance with the Section 106 regulations 

at 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1). Setting, feeling, and association are generally those aspects of integrity 

considered most sensitive to visual intrusions and these aspects of integrity are most likely to 

contribute to the historic significance of historic properties considered eligible under Criteria A, 

B, or C. Integrity of setting is not often considered a contributing characteristic for properties 

considered eligible only on the basis of their historic information content (i.e., Criterion D). 

As described in SEIS Section 3.9.2, NRC’s assessment of visual effects included historic 

properties situated within a 4.8 km [3-mi] radius of the tallest or most prominent building within 

each processing facility. This assessment therefore includes recorded historic properties 

located within the license boundary as well as those near and outside the license boundary. 

The 4.8 km [3-mi] radius was selected based on (i) consultation with the SD SHPO, 

(ii) consultation with BLM, and (iii) a previous assessment done for the Dakota, Minnesota, and 

Eastern Railroad’s (DM&E) Powder River Basin Expansion project (HDR Inc., 2009). The 

DM&E assessment considered visual intrusions associated with proposed railroad construction 

for all recorded historic properties within 4.8 km [3 mi] of the railroad project in South Dakota 

and Wyoming. Due to the proposed project’s close proximity to the state of Wyoming, NRC 

staff also consulted with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WY SHPO) to 

determine whether reviewing properties located within a 4.8 km [3-mi] radius of the processing 

facilities would be acceptable for purposes of reviewing potential impacts to significant cultural 

and historical properties in this portion of the state of Wyoming. The WY SHPO staff agreed 

with NRC’s proposed research approach (WY SHPO, 2013).

 

For the evaluation of potential visual effects to historic properties in South Dakota, NRC staff 

compiled a list of 31 historic properties that are either listed on the NRHP or considered eligible 

for listing on the NHRP under criteria A and/or C (Table 3.9-7). No historic properties within the 

project area appear to qualify as significant under Criterion B, and historic properties considered 

eligible for the NRHP solely under Criterion D were not evaluated for potential visual effects 

because aspects of integrity most likely to be affected by visual changes (i.e., setting, feeling, 

and association) are not necessary to convey the significance of those property types as 

sources of important historic information. This group of 31 historic properties includes one 

NRHP-listed historic district, the Edna and Ernest Young Ranch (90000949) also known as the 

Bakewell Ranch (CU00000050). The Young Ranch historic district includes several contributing 

ranch buildings including the principal residence. A nearby homestead district, known as the, 

Richardson Homestead (CU00000052) is considered not eligible but includes one individually 

eligible log barn (CU02500002). Other NRHP-eligible properties include one historic bridge 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-92 

Table 3.9-7. List of Historic Properties Included in Visual Impacts Assessment 

State Property Number 

Tribal Survey 

Number(s) 

National Register of 

Historic Places 

Determination 

Bakewell Ranch (CU00000050) within the Edna and Ernest 

Young Ranch Historic District (90000949) Eligible, Criteria A 

Building 1 (CU02500002), Building 7 (CU02500003), 

Building 9 (CU02500004) at the Richardson Homestead 

(CU00000052) 

 Eligible, Criteria A 

Beaver Creek Bridge (24020020) Eligible Criterion C 

39CU0459 TS108-111 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

39CU0584 TS043-046, TS053, 

TS132-140 Eligible, Criteria A, C, D 

39CU2000 Eligible, Criterion A, C 

39CU3567 TS031-033, TS141 Eligible, Criteria A, D 

39CU3600 TS114-115 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

39CU3602 TS119 Eligible, Criterion A 

39CU3604 TS121-122 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

39CU3607 TS116-117 Eligible, Criterion A 

39CU3620 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

39FA0096 TS001, TS004, 

TS013 Eligible, Criterion A 

39FA1862 TS112, TS113 Eligible, Criterion A 

39FA1881 Eligible, Criteria A, D 

39FA1890 TS012 Eligible, Criterion A 

39FA1922 TS014-017 Eligible, Criteria A, C, D 

39FA1923 TS018, TS142-143 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

39FA1926 TS067-074, 

TS076-078 Eligible, Criteria A, C, D 

39FA1927 Eligible, Criterion A 

39FA1952 TS123-124 Eligible, Criterion A 

39FA2000 Eligible, Criterion A, C 

 TS002 Eligible, Criterion A 

 TS006 Eligible, Criteria A, C, D 

 TS007-TS011 Eligible, Criterion A 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-93 

Table 3.9-7. List of Historic Properties Included in Visual Impacts Assessment (Cont’d) 

State Property Number 

Tribal Survey 

Number(s) 

National Register of 

Historic Places 

Determination 

 TS040 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

 TS041-042 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

 TS047 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

 TS080-089, TS098 Eligible, Criteria A, C 

 TS118 Eligible, Criterion A 

 TS120 Eligible, Criterion A 

(Beaver Creek Bridge, FA00000111), and 28 sites that make up 19 archaeological sites and 

9 tribal sites. 

Only one historic property located outside the license boundary was included in this review. 

The Beaver Creek Bridge (Structure FA00000111) is located southwest of the project boundary 

but falls within the 4.8-km [3-mi] radius from the central processing plant. Two rock art sites in 

Fall River County (39FA2530, 39FA2531) fell just outside the 4.8-km [3-mi] range for the central 

processing plant. No other NRHP-listed or eligible properties were identified outside the 

license boundary. 

A review of NRHP listings for the State of Wyoming and state inventory records on file at the 

Wyoming Cultural Records Office at the University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, revealed 

that one NRHP-eligible property was located within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the proposed 

satellite facility in Wyoming. However, because the environmental setting of this property is not 

considered to be among the characteristics that contribute to its cultural and historical 

significance, this property was not included in the line-of-site study and NRC has determined 

that no further consultation with the Wyoming SHPO is warranted for this project. 

3.9.4 Tribal Consultation 

The federal government and the State of South Dakota recognize the sovereignty of federally 

recognized Native American tribes. Pursuant to NHPA Section 106, federal agencies are 

required to undertake consultation and coordination with each tribal government that may have 

an interest in a proposed federal action. Consultation with the tribes that have heritage interest 

in the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is ongoing. Executive Order 13175 (November 

2000), “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” excludes from the 

requirements of the order, “independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. §3502(5).” 

However, according to Section 8, “Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply 

with the provisions of this order.” Although the NRC is explicitly exempt from the Order, the 

Commission remains committed to its spirit. The agency has demonstrated a commitment to 

achieving the Order’s objectives by implementing a case-by-case approach to interactions with 

Native American tribes. NRC’s case-by-case approach allows both NRC and the tribes to 

initiate outreach and communication with one another. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-94 

As part of its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA and the regulations at 

36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(B)(ii)(A), NRC must provide Indian tribes “a reasonable opportunity to 

identify its concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and evaluation of 

historic properties and evaluation of historic properties, including those of religious and cultural 

importance, articulate its views on the undertaking’s effects on such properties, and participate 

in the resolution of adverse effects.” The NRC identified 23 Native American tribes that attach 

historical, cultural, and religious significance to sites within the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

area. The NRC continues consultation on historic properties with the following tribes: 

• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe 

• Crow Creek Sioux Tribe 

• Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe 

• Lower Brule Sioux Tribe 

• Oglala Sioux Tribe 

• Rosebud Sioux Tribe 

• Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 

• Standing Rock Sioux Tribe 

• Yankton Sioux Tribe 

• Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidasta, and Arikara Nation)—North Dakota 

• Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa—North Dakota 

• Spirit Lake Tribe—North Dakota 

• Lower Sioux Indian Community—Minnesota 

• Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux—Montana 

• Northern Cheyenne Tribe—Montana 

• Northern Arapaho Tribe—Wyoming 

• Eastern Shoshone Tribe—Wyoming 

• Ponca Tribe—Nebraska 

• Crow Tribe—Montana 

• Santee Sioux Tribe—Nebraska 

• Omaha Tribe—Nebraska 

• Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes—Oklahoma 

• Pawnee Tribe—Oklahoma 

NRC staff formally initiated the Section 106 consultation process for the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by contacting 20 tribal governments by letters dated 

March 19, 2010 (SEIS Section 1.7.3.5, NRC 2010a). Additional invitations to consult with 

the NRC concerning the proposed project were sent to tribes on September 10, 2010 and 

March 4, 2011 (NRC 2010b; NRC 2011). NRC staff invited the tribes to participate as 

consulting parties in the NHPA Section 106 process and sought their assistance in identifying 

places of religious and cultural significance and any other cultural resources that may be 

affected by the proposed action. SEIS Section 1.7.3.5 describes consultation activities 

undertaken by NRC with tribal governments. Consultation correspondence associated with the 

Section 106 process is presented in Appendix A. At this time, consultation on the evaluation 

and effects determination of historic properties is ongoing with all consulting parties, 

including interested tribes. The outcome of this consultation effort will be included in the 

programmatic agreement. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-95 

3.10 Visual and Scenic Resources 

As noted in GEIS Section 3.4.9, the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

is located within the Great Plains physiographic province adjacent to the southern end of the 

Black Hills. Vegetation within and in the vicinity of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

area is a mix of short grasses and shrubs typical of semiarid steppe land along with Ponderosa 

Pine forest toward the Black Hills (Powertech, 2009a). Springtime landscape color varies from 

light brown and green to dark green with wildflowers; dry winter season colors range from light 

brown to golden. The proposed project area is located in an undeveloped remote location with 

most of the land currently being used for grazing activities and associated facilities (e.g., fences, 

stock wells, and a few stock reservoirs). Infrastructure within the project area includes the 

BNSF Railroad (see Figure 3.2-1) that runs north through Edgemont toward Newcastle, 

Dewey Road that parallels the BNSF Railroad to the town of Dewey, overhead electricity lines, 

and several gravel and dirt access roads. 

Elevation within the project area ranges from 1,097 to 1,189 m [3,600 to 3,900 ft] above mean 

sea level, with the highest elevations along pine breaks that overlap the eastern boundary of the 

project area (Powertech, 2009a). Topography within the project area and surrounding lands is 

gently rolling in the western quadrant, with more varied terrain in the pine breaks and dissected 

hills covering the rest of the project area. Two main streams pass through the proposed project 

area: Beaver Creek (a perennial stream) and Pass Creek (an ephemeral stream). Pass Creek 

joins Beaver Creek southwest of the proposed project area. Approximately 4 km [2.5 mi] 

south of the confluence of Beaver and Pass Creeks, Beaver Creek converges with the 

Cheyenne River. 

Parcels of BHNF are located east and northeast of the proposed project boundary. The BHNF 

management plan and subsequent amendments have the objective of maintaining 85 percent of 

the region for low to moderate scenic integrity (USFS, 1997, 2001, 2005). USFS classifies 

areas that have not been subject to human-caused disturbances that detract from the character 

of the dominant landscape (e.g., the forested hillsides, towering rock formations, meadows, and 

tranquil streams that typify the Black Hills landscape) as having a high level of scenic integrity 

(USFS, 2005). Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota, which is approximately 47 km [29 mi] 

east of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site, is designated a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Class I area. SEIS Section 3.7.2 states that Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Class I areas must meet more stringent air quality standards because air quality may impact 

visual resources. 

Visual Resource Management Classes 

BLM evaluates the scenic or visual quality of the land it manages using the Visual Resource 

Inventory to assess the scenic value of a property and ensure that its value is preserved (BLM, 

1986). In compiling the inventory, BLM completed a scenic quality evaluation, a sensitivity-level 

analysis, and a delineation of distance zones for properties; each property or area is assigned to 

one of four visual resource management (VRM) classes (BLM, 1984). Class I is most protective 

of visual and scenic resources, and Class IV is least restrictive. 

As described in GEIS Section 3.4.9, BLM has assigned most areas in the Nebraska-South 

Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region as VRM Classes II through IV. Currently, BLM 

has not assigned a VRM classification to the region encompassing the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area. The South Dakota BLM field office resource management 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-96 

plan identifies the natural vegetation of the region as wheatgrass, grama grass, sagebrush, and 

pine savanna (BLM, 1985). Areas in Wyoming adjacent to the proposed site are identified as 

VRM Classes III and IV (BLM, 2000). 

The applicant conducted a visual resource inventory to determine the scenic quality rating 

(SQR) of the proposed project area and surrounding 3.2-km [2-mi] area (Powertech, 2009a). 

The SQR is determined by rating key visual factors (e.g., landform, vegetation, water, color, 

adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modifications) according to form, line, color, texture, 

scale, and space on a comparative scale from zero to five (BLM, 1986). The visual resource 

inventory was conducted for two SQR units within the proposed project area that demonstrated 

similar physiographic characteristics. The total scores of the two SQR units were 11 and 13 

(Powertech, 2009a). According to NUREG–1569, if the visual resource evaluation rating is 

19 or less, no further evaluation or special management of scenic resources is required (NRC, 

2003). Based on the scenic quality inventory and evaluation, the applicant classified the project 

area and the 3.2-km [2-mi] area surrounding the project area as VRM Class IV (Powertech, 

2009a). The objective of this class is to manage activities that might require major modifications 

of the existing character of the landscape (BLM, 1986). The level of change permitted for this 

class is the least restrictive and can be high. 

USFS has performed visual resource classification in the vicinity of the project area as part of its 

regional forest and grasslands management plans. USFS (2009) classified almost 95 percent 

of grasslands in Fall River County as having a low to moderate scenic integrity objective. A 

region with a low scenic integrity objective has a natural landscape that has been moderately 

altered (USFS, 1974, 1995). While visual changes that dominate the characteristic landscape 

are permitted, visual changes must be compatible with the forms, lines, colors, and textures of 

the existing natural surroundings. Landscapes classified as having a moderate scenic integrity 

objective have undergone only slight alterations; however, new forms, lines, colors, or textures 

may be introduced to the landscape only as long as changes are visually subordinate to the 

natural setting (USFS, 1995, 1974). 

3.11 Socioeconomics 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming 

Uranium Milling Region. General socioeconomic factors associated with this region are 

described in GEIS Section 3.4.10 (NRC, 2009a). Socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) is 

defined as the area where employees and their families will reside, spend their income, and use 

their benefits, thereby affecting the economic conditions in the region. This section describes 

current socioeconomic conditions and local community services within the ROI surrounding the 

proposed site that may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. The proposed 

ISR facility and the local people and communities that will support it are expected to function 

(or form) as a dynamic socioeconomic system. Existing communities will provide the people, 

goods, and services required to construct and operate the facility. The construction and 

operation of the proposed facility is expected to create demand for employees, goods, and 

services. Personal income from wages and benefits will be spent on goods and services 

within other sectors of the communities and create additional opportunities for employment 

and income. 

The proposed project is located in a rural portion of Fall River and Custer Counties, 

South Dakota. The existing communities that are expected to be part of an expanded 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-97 

socioeconomic system include (i) Edgemont (population 774) in Fall River County, located 

21 km [13 mi] southeast of the site; (ii) the city of Hot Springs (population 3,711), located 

64 km [40 mi] east in Fall River County; (iii) the city of Custer (population 2,067) in 

Custer County, located 80 km [50 mi] northeast of site; and (iv) Newcastle (population 3,532) in 

Weston, Wyoming, located 64 km [40 mi] north-northwest of the site (see Figure 1.1-1). 

Rapid City in Pennington County, South Dakota, located 100 km [62 mi] northeast of the site, is 

the closest urban area with a population of 67,956 (USCB, 2012). 

Most construction and operations workers for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

will come from the surrounding communities of Edgemont, Hot Springs, and Custer in 

South Dakota. Additional workers are expected to come from Newcastle in Wyoming and other 

smaller communities within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed project site. An 80-km 

[50-mi] radius is likely the maximum commuting distance for employees (Powertech, 2009a). It 

is anticipated the majority of workers will reside near the proposed facility; therefore, Custer and 

Fall River Counties in South Dakota and Weston County in Wyoming are expected to 

experience the most significant socioeconomic changes. Rapid City in Pennington County, the 

largest city in the region, is expected to be an important source of equipment, supplies, 

services, and workers (Powertech, 2009a). Because Rapid City is 100 km [62 mi] from the 

project site, it is not expected to be directly within the Dewey-Burdock ROI. 

The demographics of income, housing, employment structure, local finance, and education and 

public services in the ROI surrounding the proposed site are discussed next. 

The demographic, income, housing, and other socioeconomic data reported in the GEIS were 

based on 2000 USCB data. The socioeconomic information in this SEIS incorporates 2000 and 

2010 USCB (2012) data, as well as more recent reports; the USCB 2006–2010 American 

Survey 5-Year Estimates (USCB, 2012); and the USCB State and County QuickFacts 

(USCB, 2012). 

3.11.1 Demographics 

Population changes and projections for Custer and Fall River Counties in South Dakota and 

Weston County in Wyoming are shown in Table 3.11-1. 

The population in Fall River County fell approximately 5 percent between 2000 and 2010, in 

comparison to approximately 9 and 13 percent gains in Weston and Custer Counties, 

Table 3.11-1. Total Population and Percent Growth in Custer and Fall River Counties, 

South Dakota, and Weston County, Wyoming, 2000 to 2020 

County/Town 

Population 

2000 

Census 

2010 

Census 

Percent 

Change 

2020 Population 

Projections 

Custer 7,275 8,216 +12.9 8,186

Custer City 1,860 2,067 +11.1 Not available 

Fall River 7,453 7,094 -4.8 7,423 

Edgemont 867 774 -10.7 Not available 

Hot Springs 4,129 3,711 -10.1 Not available 

Weston 6,644 7,208 +8.5 7,900 

Newcastle 3,065 3,532 +15.2 3,871 

Source: USCB, 2012; Brooks, 2008; WDAI, 2011 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-98 

respectively, over the same period. The Weston County population is expected to grow at a 

similar rate over the next decade (WDAI, 2011). Fall River and Custer Counties are expected to 

remain relatively stagnant through 2020 (Brooks, 2008). County population densities in 2010 

ranged from 1.2 people per km2 [3.0 people per mi2] in Weston County to 2.0 people per km2 

[5.3 people per mi2] in Custer County (Table 3.11-2). 

The demographic profile for Custer and Fall River Counties in South Dakota and Weston 

County in Wyoming is presented in Table 3.11-2. All three counties have predominately white 

populations. American Indian/Alaskan Native and Hispanic/Latino (of any race) make up the 

main minority groups, although in small numbers. In 2010, minorities (race and ethnicity 

combined) comprised between 7 and 14 percent of the 3 counties that lie within the ROI. 

3.11.2 Income 

Income information for the ROI is presented in Table 3.11-3. According to USCB data, 2010 

median household and per capita incomes were higher in Custer County, South Dakota, and 

Weston County, Wyoming, than in Fall River County, South Dakota (USCB, 2012). The 

average income levels in all three counties were lower than the statewide averages. Seventeen 

percent of the Fall River County population and 11 percent of Fall River County families live at 

or below the official poverty level (USCB, 2012). Approximately 8 percent of the population of 

Weston County and 10 percent of the population of Custer County live below the poverty level 

(USCB, 2012). 

Table 3.11-2. Demographic Profile of the 2010 Population in Custer and 

 Fall River Counties, South Dakota, and Weston County, Wyoming 

Population Category 

Custer 

County 

Fall River 

County 

South 

Dakota 

Weston 

County Wyoming

Race (percent of total population, not Hispanic or Latino)

White 92.8 87.4 84.7 93.8 85.9

Black/African American 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.8

American Indian, Alaskan Native 2.8 6.7 8.5 1.2 2.1

Asian 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.8

Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Some other race 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

Two or More Races 1.7 2.6 1.8 1.4 1.5

Ethnicity 

Hispanic or Latino (number of 

people)

182 159 22,119 216 50,231

Percent of total population 2.2 2.2 2.7 3.0 8.9

Minority Population (including Hispanic or Latino ethnicity) 

Total minority population 592 895 124,678 446 79,752

Percent minority 7.2 12.6 15.3 6.2 14.1

2010 Population Density (per Km2/Mi2)

2.0/5.3 1.6/4.1 4.1/10.7 1.2/3.0 2.2/5.8

Source: USCB, 2012
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-99 

Table 3.11-3. 2010 Income Information for Counties Within the Region of Influence 

Custer 

County

Fall River 

County 

South 

Dakota 

Weston 

County Wyoming 

Median Household Income (Annual 

Dollars) 

46,743 35,833 46,369 53,853 53,802 

Per Capita Income (Annual Dollars) 24,353 21.574 24,110 28,463 27,860 

Families living below the poverty 

level (Percent) 

4.3 11.4 8.7 5.8 6.2 

Persons Below the Poverty Level 

(Percent) 

9.7 17.4 13.7 7.9 9.8 

Source: USCB, 2012. 

3.11.3 Housing 

Housing data for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project ROI, including occupied and vacant 

units, vacancy rates, and median house values, are provided in Table 3.11-4. Of the more than 

12,300 housing units in the ROI, which include single family homes, multifamily housing, mobile 

homes, and rental units, approximately 10,000 are occupied (USCB, 2012). Average annual 

vacancy rates in 2010 were approximately 21 percent in Custer and Fall River Counties, up 

from 18 percent in 2000. Vacancy rates decreased 23 percent in Weston County between 

2000 and 2010. The median value of owner-occupied housing units is $160,700 in Custer 

County, $86,800 in Fall River County, and $115,200 in Weston County (USCB, 2012). 

Based on the 2010 USCB housing information, Fall River County had an estimated 

4,191 housing units, an increase of 10 percent over the 2000 data (USCB, 2012). In 

comparison, Custer County had an approximate 30 percent increase in total housing units 

since 2000, with a total of 4,628 units in 2010. The 2010 estimated data for Weston County 

indicated a slight increase in housing units since the 2000 census, with an increase of 9 percent 

(302 additional units). 

3.11.4 Employment Structure 

Based on information from the South Dakota Department of Labor (SDDOL), the total county 

labor force in April 2012 was estimated to be 4,390 for Custer County and 3,660 for Fall River 

County (SDDOL, 2012). Weston County had a smaller estimated labor force of 3,308 

(Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, 2012). Unemployment rates for Custer and 

Fall River Counties were 5.0 and 4.7 percent, respectively, which slightly exceeded the 

statewide rate of 4.3 percent (SDDOL, 2012). The unemployment rate in Weston County was 

5.1 percent, which approximately matched the statewide unemployment rate of 5.3 percent in 

Wyoming (Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, 2012). 

The largest employment sector for both Custer and Fall River Counties in 2010 was government 

(local, state, or federal), which accounted for about 32 percent of the covered work force in 

South Dakota (SDDOL, 2012). Private sector employment involving 10 percent or more of the 

work force falls into three major categories: (i) leisure/hospitality, which includes the arts, 

entertainment, recreation, food service, and accommodations; (ii) trade/transportation/utilities, 

which includes retail, wholesale, transportation, warehousing, and utilities; and (iii) education 

and health services (SDDOL, 2012). The largest source of employment in Weston County in 

2010 was agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining, accounting for 24 percent of all 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-100 

Table 3.11-4. Housing in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, and 

Weston County, Wyoming 

Custer County 

 2000 2010 Percent Change

Total 3,624 4,628 +27.7 

Occupied Housing Units 2,970 3,636 +22.4 

Vacant Units 654 992 +51.7 

Vacancy Rate (Percent) 18 21.4 +18.9 

Median Value (Dollars) 89,100 160,700 +80.4 

Fall River County 

 2000 2010 Percent Change

Total 3,812 4,191 +9.9 

Occupied Housing Units 3,127 3,272 +4.6 

Vacant Units 685 919 +34.2 

Vacancy Rate (Percent) 18 21.9 +21.7 

Median Value (Dollars) 54,300 86,800 +59.9 

Weston County 

 2000 2010 Percent Change

Total 3,231 3,533 +9.3 

Occupied Housing Units 2,624 3,021 +15.1 

Vacant Units 607 512 -15.7 

Vacancy Rate (Percent) 18.8 14.5 -22.9 

Median Value (Dollars) 66,700 115,200 72.7 

Source: USCB, 2012 

employment. Government-related jobs supported approximately 20 percent of the work force. 

Private sector retail trade accounted for 11 percent of the work force (USCB, 2012). 

3.11.5 Local Finance 

South Dakota does not impose a state income tax on its citizens or businesses. The majority of 

state revenue is generated from the 4 percent statewide sales and use taxes, and county and 

municipal sales and use taxes. The South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation 

(SDDRR) collects taxes at the state level, including (i) sales, use, and contractor’s excise taxes; 

(ii) special taxes; (iii) motor vehicle fuel taxes; and (iv) motor vehicle fees and taxes (SDDRR, 

2011). Towns with a municipal sales and use tax may also impose up to 1 percent gross 

receipts tax on various sales, including lodging, restaurant meals, alcoholic beverages, and 

admissions to places of amusement and cultural and sports events, and sales and use tax up to 

2 percent which applies to all products and services that are subject to the state sales or use tax 

(SDDRR, 2011). Local governments are solely responsible for collection of property taxes, 

which are the primary source of funding for school systems and county, municipal, and other 

local government units. The 2011 taxable valuation of all property in Custer and Fall River 

Counties was $763 million and $416 million, respectively (SDDRR, 2012a). Gross sales totaled 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-101 

$165 million for Custer County and $134 million for Fall River County (SDDRR, 2012b). Based 

on the 4 percent state sales and use tax, sales and tax revenues totaled $6.6 million for Custer 

County and $5.4 million for Fall River County. 

Wyoming does not impose a corporate income or personal income tax. Wyoming has a 

4 percent sales tax, and counties may tax lodging services up to 4 percent. Counties have the 

option of collecting an additional 1 percent sales tax for general purposes. Weston County has 

a 5 percent sales and use tax (4 percent state base tax and a 1 percent optional county tax) and 

a 4 percent lodging tax (Wyoming Department of Revenue, 2012). The approximate 2011 

taxable valuation for all property in Weston County was $117 million (Weston County Assessor, 

2012), and all sales and use tax revenues totaled $11.2 million (Wyoming Department of 

Revenue, 2012). 

In addition to property taxes local governments collect, the states of Wyoming and 

South Dakota levy taxes on the value of the mineral production (a severance tax). 

Wyoming levies a uranium mining severance tax of 4 percent (Wyoming Statute, 2011). 

South Dakota levies an energy minerals severance tax on uranium of 4.5 percent (South Dakota 

Statute, 2012), as well as an additional conservation tax of 0.24 percent on the taxable value of 

any mineral produced from mineral extraction operations (South Dakota Statute, 2012). 

3.11.6 Education 

Five public school districts (kindergarten through 12th grade) are located in Custer and Fall River 

Counties: Custer School District, Elk Mountain School District, Hot Springs School District, 

Oelrichs School District, and Edgemont School District (SDDOE, 2010). There are 

approximately 2,024 students enrolled in Custer and Fall River County schools (kindergarten 

through 12th grade) (Table 3.11-5). 

Public schools in Wyoming are generally organized at the county or subcounty level by 

school district. The school districts closest to the proposed project area are Weston County 

School District #1, with four kindergarten through 12th grade schools located in Newcastle, and 

Weston County School District #7, with three kindergarten through 12th grade schools located 

in Upton. There are approximately 1,043 students in county school districts in Weston County 

(Wyoming Department of Education, 2010). 

The nearest postsecondary schools to the proposed project are located in Rapid City, 161 km 

[100 mi] to the northeast. Western Dakota Technical Institute (WDTI), South Dakota School of 

Mines and Technology (SDSMT), and the Rapid City Campus of the National American 

University (NAU) are located in Rapid City. 

3.11.7 Health and Social Services 

Medical facilities and health services in the ROI are listed in Table 3.11-6. Hospitals are located 

in Hot Springs, Custer City, and Newcastle. Fall River Hospital in Hot Springs is a 25-bed acute 

care facility providing emergency, laboratory, and surgical services. Custer Regional Hospital in 

Custer City is an 11-bed acute care facility that provides 24-hour emergency service, inpatient, 

and outpatient care. Weston County Health Services in Newcastle has a 21-bed hospital 

offering inpatient hospital service and acute care services including 24-hour emergency care 

and complete laboratory services. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-102 

Table 3.11-5. School Districts in Counties Located Within 80 km [50 mi] of the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

School Districts in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota 

Custer 

Number of students enrolled (K-12) 882

Number of schools 6

Student-teacher ratio 12

Elk Mountain 

Number of students enrolled (K-12) 26

Number of schools 1

Student-teacher ratio 10

Hot Springs 

Number of students enrolled (K-12) 840

Number of schools 3

Student-teacher ratio 14

Oelrichs 

Number of students enrolled (K-12) 126

Number of schools 3

Student-teacher ratio 7

Edgemont 

Number of Students enrolled (K-12) 150

Number of schools 2

Student-teacher ratio 10

School Districts in Weston County, Wyoming 

Weston County #1 

Number of students enrolled (K-12) 778

Number of schools 4

Student-teacher ratio 11

Weston County #7 

Number of students enrolled (K-12) 265

Number of schools 3

Student-teacher ratio 10

Sources: SDDOE, 2010; Wyoming Department of Education, 2010

Primary and family medical care in the ROI is provided by the Fall River Health Clinic in 

Hot Springs, the Custer Regional Clinic in Custer City, the Edgemont Regional Clinic in 

Edgemont, and Weston County Health Services in Newcastle. The South Dakota Department 

of Health has Offices of Family and Community Health Services in Hot Springs and Custer City. 

These offices provide primary and preventative programs and services including immunizations, 

well child checkups and screenings, Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC), family planning and reproductive health, prenatal health, and health screenings 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-103 

Table 3.11-6. Hospitals, Clinics, and Health Services in Hot Springs, Custer City, and 

 Edgemont, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming 

Hospitals Location 

Fall River Hospital Hot Springs, South Dakota 

Custer Regional Hospital Custer City, South Dakota 

Weston County Health Services Newcastle, Wyoming 

Clinics Location 

Fall River Health Clinic Hot Springs, South Dakota 

Custer Regional Clinic Custer City, South Dakota 

Edgemont Regional Clinic Edgemont, South Dakota 

Weston County Health Services Newcastle 

Health Services Location 

Office of Family and Community Health Services Hot Springs, South Dakota; 

Custer City, South Dakota 

Public Health Nursing Newcastle, Wyoming 

Behavioral Management Systems Hot Springs, South Dakota 

 

for adults. The Wyoming Department of Health has a Public Health Nursing Office in 

Newcastle. This office provides primary and preventative health services including family 

planning, immunizations, WIC, and maternal and family health. Behavioral Management 

Systems in Hot Springs provides a range of behavioral and mental health services and 

programs for area residents. 

Police, fire department, and ambulance services in the ROI are listed in Table 3.11-7. 

Fall River, Custer, and Weston Counties have county sheriff’s offices in Hot Springs, Custer 

City, and Newcastle, respectively. Hot Springs and Newcastle also have police departments. 

Table 3.11-7. Police, Fire Department, and Ambulance Services in Hot Springs, Custer 

 City, and Edgemont, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming 

Police Location 

Fall River County Sheriff Hot Springs, South Dakota 

Hot Springs Police Department Hot Springs, South Dakota 

Custer County Sheriff Custer City, South Dakota 

Weston County Sheriff Newcastle, Wyoming 

Newcastle Police Department Newcastle, Wyoming 

Fire Departments 

Cascade Volunteer Fire Department Hot Springs, South Dakota 

Minnekahta Volunteer Fire Department Hot Springs, South Dakota 

Custer Volunteer Fire Department Custer City, South Dakota 

Edgemont Volunteer Fire Department Edgemont, South Dakota 

Newcastle Volunteer Fire Department Newcastle, Wyoming 

EMS/Ambulance 

Hot Springs Volunteer Ambulance Service Hot Springs, South Dakota 

Custer Ambulance Service Custer City, South Dakota 

Edgemont Ambulance Service Edgemont, South Dakota 

Newcastle Ambulance Service Newcastle, Wyoming 

Weston County Health Services Newcastle, Wyoming 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-104 

Volunteer fire departments and emergency medical services are located in Hot Springs, 

Custer City, Edgemont, and Newcastle. The South Dakota Department of Social Services has 

local offices in Hot Springs and Custer City. These offices provide assistance with applying for 

programs including Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). These offices also provide assistance with medical 

eligibility resources for children and families, long-term care, and medical saving programs. The 

Wyoming Department of Family Services has a local office in Newcastle, which provides 

assistance for connecting with community resources, reporting child and adult abuse and 

neglect, and applying for programs including SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid. 

3.12 Public and Occupational Health 

Baseline radiation levels in and around the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area are 

summarized in this section. Descriptions of these levels are known as “preoperational” or 

“baseline” radiological conditions, and they would be used to evaluate potential radiological 

impacts associated with ISR operations. This section also describes applicable safety criteria 

and radiation dose limits established for public protection and occupational health and safety. 

Radiation dose is a measure of the amount of ionizing energy that is deposited in the body. 

Ionizing radiation is a natural component of the environment and ecosystem, and members of 

the public are exposed continuously to natural radiation. Radiation doses to the general public 

result from radioactive materials in the Earth’s soils, rocks, and minerals. Rn-222 is a 

radioactive gas found in most soils and rocks that escapes into ambient air as part of the natural 

decay of uranium and its progeny, Ra-226. Low levels of naturally occurring uranium and 

radium are present in drinking water and food products. Cosmic radiation from outer space is 

another natural source of radiation. In addition to natural sources of radiation, there are also 

artificial or human-made sources that contribute to the dose the general public receives. 

Medical diagnostic procedures using radioisotopes and x-rays are a primary human-made 

radiation source. The National Council for Radiation Protection (NCRP) estimates the average 

annual total effective dose equivalent from natural background radiation sources, including 

terrestrial and cosmic, is approximately 3.1 millisieverts (mSv) [310 millirem (mrem)] for 

U.S. residents, although the dose varies by location and elevation (NCRP, 2009). The average 

dose to the general public from background radiation sources in South Dakota is 6 mSv/yr 

[600 mrem/yr], due to higher elevation and higher than average concentrations of naturally 

occurring uranium in the soil in South Dakota (EPA, 2006b). The GEIS, however, reported that 

although background radiation levels in South Dakota are significantly higher than the national 

average, background radiation levels in western South Dakota are close to the national average 

because of lower-than-state-average radon gas levels (NRC, 2009a). The annual average dose 

to the public from all sources (natural and manmade) is 6.2 mSv [620 mrem] (NRCP, 2009). 

3.12.1 Baseline Radiological Conditions

In accordance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criteria 7 and 7A, 

the applicant developed and implemented a preoperational monitoring program to establish 

baseline radiological conditions at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site (Powertech, 

2009a). Results of the baseline radiological monitoring provide data on radiological conditions 

that will be used to evaluate future impacts of routine facility operations or accidental or 

unplanned releases, if a license is issued. The applicant followed guidance in NUREG–1569 

(NRC, 2003) and NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980) to establish preoperational 

radiological baseline conditions at the proposed site (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-105 

The applicant performed baseline radiological surveys and sampling at the site between 

August 2007 and July 2008 (Powertech, 2009a). The baseline radiological field investigations 

consisted of the following activities: 

• Global positioning system (GPS)-based unshielded gamma-ray surveys at 100-m 

[328-ft] transect intervals in historical surface mine areas in the eastern portion of the 

proposed project area, 100-m [328-ft] transect intervals in proposed land application 

areas, and 500-m [1,640-ft] intervals in the remainder of the proposed project area 

(Figure 3.12-1). The purpose of the gamma-ray survey was to map ambient gamma 

radiation levels across the proposed site and identify areas for biased soil sampling. 

• Surface soil 0–15 cm [0–6 in] sampling at 75 random and 5 biased locations spanning 

the proposed project area, and subsurface soil {15–30 cm [6–12 in] and 30–100 cm 

[12–39 in]} sampling at 9 random locations. 

• Surface soil 0–15 cm [0–6 in] and subsurface soil {15–30 cm [6–12 in] and 30–100 cm 

[12–39 in]} sampling at 17 random locations in proposed land application areas. 

• Sediment and surface water sampling from primary stream drainage areas and surface 

water impoundments. 

• Shallow surface soil {0–5 cm [0–2 in]}, vegetation, and air particulate sampling at eight 

air monitoring stations {seven onsite stations and one located approximately 3 km 

[1.9 mi] west of the southwest corner of the proposed project area}. 

• Radon monitoring in air at the eight air monitoring stations and eight additional locations 

within the proposed project area. 

• Radon flux measurements at the nine random subsurface soils sampling locations (see 

second bullet). 

• Ambient gamma and radon monitoring using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for 

total ambient gamma and alpha track etch detectors for radon. 

• Livestock sampling, consisting of samples from two locally grazing cows and one pig 

(Powertech, 2011). 

• Fish sampling at two locations on Beaver Creek (one upstream and one downstream of 

the proposed project area) and one location on the Cheyenne River downstream of its 

confluence with Beaver Creek. 

• Groundwater sampling at 31 wells within the proposed project area. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-106 

Figure 3.12-1. Map Showing Gamma-Ray Count Rates Obtained From Global Positioning Systyem-Based Gamma  Survey at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project Site  Source: Powertech (2009a) 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-107 

3.12.1.1 Soils 

The objective of the gamma-ray surveys is to characterize and quantify baseline or 

preoperational radiation levels and radionuclide concentrations in soils throughout the proposed 

project area. Results of the gamma-ray surveys are shown in Figure 3.12-1, and summary 

statistics for surface mine areas, proposed land application areas, and the remainder of the 

permit area are presented in Table 3.12-1. In the surface mine areas, gamma-ray count rates 

range from 5,550 to 460,485 counts per minute (cpm) [5.9 to 324 μrem/hr]. The mean count 

rate is 16,823 cpm [13.8 μrem/hr], and the median count rate is 12,717 cpm [10.9 μrem/hr]. 

Clusters of higher readings are associated with abandoned open pit uranium mines, waste rock, 

and drainages in the surface mine area (Powertech, 2009a). In areas where land application is 

proposed, gamma-ray readings range from 6,798 to 20,422 cpm [6.8 to 16.3 μrem/hr] with a 

median of 12,523 cpm [10.8 μrem/hr] in the Dewey area and from 8,498 to 24,248 cpm [8.0 to 

19.0 μrem/hr] with a median of 12,232 cpm [10.6 μrem/hr] in the Burdock area. In the 

remainder of the proposed permit area, gamma-ray readings range from 5,883 to 171,243 cpm 

[6.1 to 121.9 μrem/hr] with a median similar to the proposed land application areas {12,664 cpm 

[10.9 μrem/hr]}. High count rates {i.e., count rates exceeding 17,000 cpm [13.9 μrem/hr]} are 

present in an 243-ha [600-ac] area located in the northern portion of the Dewey area and in the 

area of an artesian well and associated drainage in the southern part of the Dewey area (see 

Figure 3.12-1). The gamma-ray survey results presented in Figure 3.12-1 and Table 3.12-1 

indicate the surface mine areas in the eastern and northeastern portions of the Burdock area 

have higher radiological measurements due to historic mining activities. Anomalous (i.e., high) 

gamma-ray readings identified in the southern part of the Dewey area in the area of an artesian 

well are likely due to discharging groundwater from the Inyan Kara aquifer. Anomalous gamma 

readings in the northern part of the Dewey area are likely caused by the deposition of 

windblown dust from surface mine areas to the southeast in the Burdock area. 

All surface soil samples were analyzed for Ra-226, and selected samples focusing on roll-front 

areas and land application areas were analyzed for uranium, Th-230, and Pb-210 (Powertech, 

2009a, Table 6.1-5). Over the entire permit area, the mean and median Ra-226 concentrations 

for surface soils samples are 0.107 and 0.048 Bq/g [2.9 and 1.3 pCi/g], respectively. The 

median Ra-226 concentration of 25 surface soil samples in surface mine areas was 0.052 Bq/g 

[1.4 pCi/g]. Five of the surface mine soil samples were biased samples used to determine the 

range of Ra-226 concentrations in soil; the concentrations in the biased samples exceeded 

0.22 Bq/g [5.9 pCi/g] (Powertech, 2011). The median Ra-226 concentration of 55 surface soils 

samples in the remainder of the permitted area was 0.048 Bq/g [1.3 pCi/g]. Based on statistical 

Table 3.12-1. Summary Statistics of Gamma-Ray Count Rates in Proposed Land 

 Application Areas, Surface Mine Areas, and the Remainder of the Permit 

 Area at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project 

Parameter 

Land Application Area Surface Mine 

Area 

Remainder of 

Dewey Burdock Permit Area 

Mean 12,815 12,308 16,823 13,073 

Standard Deviation 1,940 1,318 23,377 2,995 

Median 12,523 12,232 12,717 12,664 

Mode 11,778 (n=15) 12,266 (n=16) 12,138 (n=31) 12,585 (n=35) 

Minimum 6,798 8,498 5,550 5,883 

Maximum 20,422 24,248 460,485 171,243 

No. of Counts 23,480 13,647 81,757 75,345 

Source: Powertech (2009a) 

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-108 

analysis using the interquartile range (IQR), three of these samples were identified as outliers 

exceeding a concentration of 0.096 Bq/g [2.6 pCi/g] (Powertech, 2011). The IQR is a measure 

of statistical dispersion and is equal to the difference between the third quartile (75th percentile) 

and the first quartile (25th percentile). With outliers removed, both the surface mine data and the 

wider permit area data sets fit a lognormal distribution. The geometric mean of both data sets is 

0.048 Bq/g [1.3 pCi/g], and the data lie within a population range of 0.028 to 0.081 Bq/g [0.76 to 

2.2 pCi/g]. For comparison, background Ra-226 levels in soil in the United States typically 

average 0.037 Bq/g [1.0 pCi/g] (NCRP, 2009). In areas where land application is proposed, 

Ra-226 concentrations range from 0.015 to 0.163 Bq/g [0.4 to 4.4 pCi/g] and average 0.048 and 

0.030 Bq/g [1.3 and 0.8 pCi/g] in the Dewey and Burdock areas, respectively. Results for the 

other radionuclides indicate a positive relationship between the concentrations of Ra-226 and 

uranium, Th-230, and Pb-210. Uranium concentrations range from 0.014 to 2.48 Bq/g [0.37 to 

67 pCi/g]. Th-230 concentrations range from 0.004 to 1.11 Bq/g [0.1 to 30 pCi/g]. Pb-210 

concentrations range from 0.018 to 1.11 Bq/g [0.5 to 30 pCi/g] (Powertech, 2009a). Prior to 

operations, the applicant has committed to collect 15 additional surface soil samples {0–15 cm 

[0–6 in]} in the Dewey area to address differences in sample density between the Dewey and 

Burdock area (Powertech, 2011). The applicant will also collect surface soils samples at two air 

monitoring stations (AMS-08 and AMS-09 as depicted in Figure 7.2-1) prior to operations 

(Powertech, 2012b). 

All subsurface soil samples were analyzed for Ra-226, uranium, Th-230, and Pb-210 

(Powertech, 2009a, Table 6.1-5). In surface mine areas and within the broader permit area, 

subsurface Ra-226 concentrations range from 0.026 to 0.207 Bq/g [0.7 to 5.6 pCi/g] and are 

comparable to those observed in surface samples. In land application areas, Ra-226 

concentrations in subsurface soils range from 0.015 to 0.152 Bq/g [0.4 to 4.1 pCi/g] and have a 

median of 0.037 Bq/g [1.0 pCi/g] in the Dewey area and a median of 0.030 Bq/g [0.8 pCi/g] in 

the Burdock area. Ra-226 concentrations in subsurface soils in the land application areas are 

comparable to surface soil samples, with no observed trends with depth (Powertech, 2009a). 

3.12.1.2 Sediment and Surface Water 

Sediment and surface water samples were collected from upstream and downstream sites on 

three primary streams (Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and the Cheyenne River), sites on two 

ephemeral drainages, and impoundments (including stock ponds and open pit mines) within the 

proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a, Figure 6.1-12). Sediment samples were analyzed for 

Ra-226, uranium, Th-230, and Pb-210 (Powertech, 2009a, Table 6.1-8). Uranium 

concentrations in sediments range from 1.0 to 37 mg/kg [1.0 to 37 ppm] and average 5.5 mg/kg 

[5.5 ppm]. Ra-226 concentrations range from 0.015 to 0.32 Bq/g [0.4 to 8.6 pCi/g] and average 

0.06 Bq/g [1.6 pCi/g]. Th-230 concentrations range from 0.015 to 0.29 Bq/g [0.4 to 7.8 pCi/g] 

and average 0.06 Bq/g [1.6 pCi/g]. Pb-210 concentrations range from 0.007 to 0.35 Bq/g [0.2 to 

9.6 pCi/g] and average 0.08 Bq/g [2.2 pCi/g]. Sediment samples from the Darrow Mine Pit and 

Triangle Mine Pit (see SEIS Section 3.2.3 and Figure 3.2-3), which are historical open pit 

uranium mines, exhibit the highest radionuclide concentrations. Sediment samples from the 

Darrow Mine Pit and Triangle Mine Pit have average uranium concentrations of 34.5 and 

18.5 mg/kg [34.5 and 18.5 ppm]; average Ra-226 concentrations of 0.25 and 0.10 Bq/g [6.9 and 

2.6 pCi/g]; average Th-230 concentrations of 0.25 and 0.18 Bq/g [6.85 and 4.85 pCi/g]; and 

average Pb-210 concentrations of 0.25 and 0.11 Bq/g [6.8 and 2.95 pCi/g], respectively 

(Powertech, 2009a). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-109 

Radionuclides measured in surface water samples included gross alpha, Ra-226, uranium, and 

Pb-210. Summary statistics for these radionuclides at stream sampling locations are listed in 

Table 3.5-1. More than half of the stream samples from Beaver Creek and the Cheyenne River 

exceed the EPA-regulated MCL for gross alpha {555 Bq/m3

 [15 pCi/L]} in drinking water, as 

established in 40 CFR Part 141. Gross alpha concentrations range from 85 to 2,435 Bq/m3

[2.3 to 65.8 pCi/L]. Total uranium concentrations range from 0.003 to 0.0378 mg/L [0.003 to 

0.0378 ppm] with four of the samples from the Cheyenne River exceeding the EPA-regulated 

MCL for total uranium of 0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm]. Total Ra-226 concentrations range from 

0 to 189 Bq/m3

 [0 to 5.1 pCi/L] with one sample from Beaver Creek and one sample from the 

Cheyenne River exceeding the EPA-regulated MCL for total Ra-226 of 185 Bq/m3

 [5.0 pCi/L]. 

EPA’s proposed MCL for Pb-210 of 37 Bq/m3

 [1.0 pCi/L] (EPA, 2000) was exceeded in 

2 samples from Beaver Creek and 3 samples from the Cheyenne River. With the exception 

of gross alpha and uranium concentrations in the Darrow Mine Pit and the Triangle Mine Pit, 

water samples from impoundments at the proposed project demonstrate concentrations at or 

below EPA’s proposed MCLs (Powertech, 2009a, Appendix 6.1–D). Uranium concentrations 

averaged 5.89 and 0.18 mg/L [5.89 and 0.18 ppm] at the Darrow Mine Pit and Triangle Mine Pit, 

respectively. Gross alpha concentrations averaged 205,091 and 5,513 Bq/m3

 [5,543 and 

149 pCi/L] at the Darrow Pit Mine and the Triangle Mine Pit, respectively (Powertech, 2009a). 

The applicant has committed to relocating upstream and downstream sediment and surface 

water sampling locations on Beaver Creek and Pass Creek closer to the proposed project 

boundary to better meet guidance in Regulatory Guide 4.14 (Powertech, 2011). Stream 

sampling sites BVC01, BVC04, PSC01, and PSC02 used for baseline monitoring (see 

Figure 3.5-2) will be replaced with sampling sites BVC11, BVC14, PSC11, and PSC12, which 

are located closer to the proposed project boundary (see Figure 7.2-2). Samples for each of 

these stream sampling sites will be collected monthly for 12 consecutive months prior to ISR 

operations (Powertech, 2011). The applicant’s preoperational and operational surface water 

monitoring programs are discussed in SEIS Sections 7.2.4 and 7.3.3. 

3.12.1.3 Air (Ambient Gamma, Radon, and Particulates) 

TLDs were placed at each of the eight air monitoring stations established for the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project to measure ambient gamma dose rates. Based on the gamma 

dose rate monitoring results, projected exposure rates at the sample locations range from 

0.91 to 1.23 mSv/yr [91 to 123 mrem/yr] with an average of 1.09 mSv/yr [109 mrem/yr] 

(Powertech, 2011, Table TR RAI 2.9-10). These values are within the range of reported 

background levels from natural radiation sources in the region and the United States, including 

cosmic radiation, external terrestrial radiation, and naturally occurring radon (NCRP, 2009). 

Radtrack passive track etch detectors were placed at each of the eight air monitoring station 

locations and at eight additional locations to measure ambient Rn-222 concentrations in air. 

Rn-222 concentrations were measured quarterly over a 1-year period (Powertech, 2009a, 

Table 6.1-11). Period 1 (August 14 to September 27, 2007) ambient radon concentrations 

ranged from 37 to 363 Bq/m3

 [1.0 to 9.8 pCi/L] and averaged 89 Bq/m3 [2.4 pCi/L]. Period 2 

(September 27, 2007, to February 1–12, 2008) concentrations ranged from 15 to 67 Bq/m3

[0.4 to 1.8 pCi/L] and averaged 44 Bq/m3

 [1.2 pCi/L]. Period 3 (February 1 through 12 to 

May 17, 2008) concentrations ranged from 15 to 122 Bq/m3

 [0.4 to 3.3 pCi/L] and averaged 

67 Bq/m3

 [1.8 pCi/L]. Period 4 (May 17 to July 17, 2008) concentrations ranged from 18 to 

38 Bq/m3

 [0.5 to 0.8 pCi/L] and averaged 18 Bq/m3 [0.5 pCi/L]. The reported average ambient 

Rn-222 concentrations are within the range of background levels reported for the region (NCRP, 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-110 

2009). Based on the gamma-ray survey results described in SEIS Section 3.12.1.1, radon 

concentrations adjacent to abandoned mine areas are expected to be higher than in other areas 

of the site. However, there was only one measurement {363 Bq/m3

 [9.8 pCi/L]} where this was 

the case, which resulted in the higher average radon concentration of 89 Bq/m3

 [2.4 pCi/L] 

during Period 1 (August 14 to September 27, 2007). To supplement background Rn-222 

concentration data at the project site, the applicant will collect Rn-222 samples continuously for 

one year at three air monitoring stations (AMS-BKG, AMS-08, and AMS-09 as depicted in 

Figure 7.2-1) using passive track etch detectors (Powertech, 2012b). The detectors will be 

exchanged quarterly. 

Radon flux rates were measured at nine locations on three occasions in mapped roll-front areas 

within the proposed project area. In fall (September) 2007, flux rates ranged from 0.025 to 

0.065 Bq/m2

-s [0.68 to 1.77 pCi/m2-s] and averaged 0.045 Bq/m2-s [1.22 pCi/m2-s] (Powertech, 

2009a, Table 6.1-14). In spring (April) 2008, flux rates ranged from 0.010 to 0.049 Bq/m2

-s 

[0.28 to 1.33 pCi/m2

-s] and averaged 0.027 Bq/m2-s [0.74 pCi/m2-s]. In summer (July) 2008, 

flux rates ranged from 0.018 to 0.088 Bq/m2

-s [0.48 to 2.38 pCi/m2-s] and averaged 

0.055 Bq/m2

-s [1.5 pCi/m2-s]. The flux rates measured at the proposed project site are well 

below the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) requirements 

of 0.740 Bq/m2

-s [20 pCi/m2-s] specified in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6, which 

applies to uranium mill tailings. Although not applicable to the proposed action, the NESHAPS 

requirements are useful in demonstrating the relatively low magnitude of radon flux rates 

measured at the site. 

Air particulate samples were collected bi-weekly over a 1-year period (August 2007 to August 

2008) at each of the air monitoring station locations. Particulates were collected using high 

volume air samplers and analyzed for Ra-226, uranium, Th-230, and Pb-210 (Powertech, 

2009a, Table 6.1-12). Results of the air particulate sampling are summarized as follows: 

• Ra-226 concentrations ranged from below detection limits to a maximum of 

1.7 × 10−12 Bq/cm3

 [4.7 × 10−17 uCi/mL]. The maximum concentration is less than 

0.1 percent of the effluent release limit of 3.3 × 10-8 Bq/cm3

 [9.0 × 10−13 uCi/mL] 

specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. 

• Uranium concentrations ranged from below detection limits to a maximum of 

3.4 × 10−10 Bq/cm3

 [9.1 × 10−15 uCi/mL]. The maximum concentration is less than 1 

percent of the effluent release limit of 3.3 × 10-7 Bq/cm3

 [9.0 × 10−12 uCi/mL] specified 

in 10 CFRPart 20, Appendix B. 

• Th-230 concentrations ranged from below detection limits to a maximum of 

2.1 × 10−12 Bq/cm3

 [5.6 × 10−17 uCi/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 uCi/mL] 

specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. 

• Pb-210 concentrations ranged from below detection limits to a maximum of 

1.5 × 10−9

 Bq/cm3 [4.1 × 10−14 uCi/mL]. The maximum concentration was 6.78 percent 

of the effluent release limit of 2.2 × 10-8 Bq/cm3

 [6.0 × 10−13 uCi/mL] specified in 

10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-111 

3.12.1.4 Groundwater 

As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.5, the applicant conducted initial preoperational 

groundwater sampling of wells at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project from July 2007 

through June 2008 (Powertech, 2009a). This baseline study consisted of 19 groundwater wells 

(14 existing and 5 newly drilled) sampled on a quarterly basis. An additional 12 wells were 

sampled on a monthly basis from March 2008 to February 2009. The wells were selected 

based on type of use, aquifer, and location in relation to orebodies (Powertech, 2009a). The 

locations of all groundwater sampling wells are shown in Figure 3.5-2, and the formation 

sampled in each well is listed in Table 3.5-3. Radiological constituents sampled in each well 

included gross alpha, Ra-226, uranium, and Rn-222 (Powertech, 2009a, Tables 6.1-18 and 6.1-

19). Results of preoperational groundwater sampling are discussed in SEIS Section 3.5.3.5 and 

summarized as follows: 

• The MCL for uranium {0.03 mg/L [0.03 ppm]} was exceeded in samples from all but one 

of the wells (679) in the alluvial aquifers. Within the Burdock area, samples from wells 

680 and 3026 in the Chilson aquifer and well 698 in the Fall River aquifer also exceeded 

the MCL for uranium. The range of uranium exceeding the MCL was 0.0322 to 

0.132 mg/L [0.0322 to 0.132 ppm]. 

• The MCL for dissolved Ra-226 {185 Bq/m3

 [5 pCi/L]} was exceeded in about 50 percent 

of the wells in the Fall River and Chilson aquifers. The range of Ra-226 exceeding the 

MCL was 185 to 52,910 Bq/m3

 [5 to 1,430 pCi/L]. 

• The MCL for gross alpha {555 Bq/m3

 [15 pCi/L]} was exceeded in about 75 percent of 

the wells. The range of gross alpha exceeding the MCLs in alluvial wells was 677 to 

4,773 Bq/m3

 [18.3 to 129 pCi/L], while the range of gross alpha exceeding MCLs in the 

Fall River and Chilson aquifers was 555 to 240,500 Bq/m3

 [15 to 6,500 pCi/L]. 

• Two wells (680 and 681) with Ra-226 exceeding 11,100 Bq/m3

 [300 pCi/L] and gross 

alpha concentrations exceeding 37,000 Bq/m3

 [1,000 pCi/L] are directly within mapped 

orebodies in the Chilson and Fall River aquifers, whereas another (698) is downgradient 

of open pit mines within the Fall River aquifer. 

• The only well not exceeding the proposed EPA limit for Rn-222 of 11,100 Bq/m3

[300 pCi/L] (EPA, 2000) was well 650, a Chilson well upgradient of historic uranium 

mining activities. The Rn-222 values of samples exceeding the proposed limit ranged 

from 11,248 to 17.1 × 106

 Bq/m3 [304 to 462,000 pCi/L]. The wells with the highest 

concentration included wells 680 and 681, which are directly in mapped orebodies in the 

Chilson and Fall River aquifers, respectively, and well 42 in the Chilson aquifer used for 

domestic and stock water. 

3.12.1.5 Vegetation, Livestock, and Fish 

Vegetation samples (typically short grasses and clover plants) were collected in August 2007, 

April 2008, and July 2008 from representative grazing areas near each air monitoring station 

location. Composite samples of the vegetation were analyzed for Ra-226, uranium, Th-230, 

 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-112 

Pb-210, and Po-210 (Powertech, 2009a, Table 6.1-30). Results of the vegetation sampling are 

summarized as follows: 

• Ra-226 concentrations ranged from 0.00074 to 0.00333 Bq/g [0.02 to 0.09 pCi/g] and 

averaged 0.00185 Bq/g [0.05 pCi/g]. 

• Uranium concentrations ranged from 0.00037 to .00148 Bq/g [0.01 to 0.04 pCi/g] and 

averaged 0.00074 Bq/g [0.02 pCi/g]. 

• Th-230 concentrations ranged from 0.00037 to 0.00111 Bq/g [0.01 to 0.03 pCi/g] and 

averaged 0.00074 Bq/g [0.02 pCi/g]. 

• Pb-210 concentrations ranged from 0.00222 to 0.0629 Bq/g [0.6 to 1.7 pCi/g] and 

averaged 0.0444 Bq/g [1.2 pCi/g]. 

• Po-210 concentrations ranged from 0.00296 to 0.00851 Bq/g [0.08 to 0.23 pCi/g] and 

averaged 0.00555 Bq/g [0.15 pCi/g]. 

In comparison to corresponding shallow {0–5 cm [0–2 in]} soil samples collected from air 

monitoring stations, radionuclide concentrations in the vegetation samples are one to two orders 

of magnitude lower (Powertech, 2009a). Pb-210 concentrations in the vegetation samples were 

significantly higher than the other radionuclides and are likely due to the higher relative 

abundance of Pb-210 in air particulates from radon decay products (Powertech, 2009a). 

Three tissue samples, one liver and two meat samples, were collected from a locally grazing 

cow on June 25, 2008. These samples were analyzed for Ra-226, uranium, Th-230, Pb-210, 

and Po-210 (Powertech, 2009a, Table 6.1-31). Except for concentration of Po-210 in the liver 

tissue sample {0.74 Bq/kg [2.0 × 10−5 μCi/kg]}, radionuclide concentrations were at or below the 

lower limits of detection (see Powertech, 2009a, Table 6.1-31). To satisfy the food sampling 

requirements of Regulatory Guide 4.14 (NRC, 1980), the applicant collected tissue samples 

from another locally grazing cow and one free ranging, locally grazing pig in April 2011 

(Powertech, 2011). These samples were analyzed for Ra-226, uranium, Th-230, and Pb-210 

(Powertech, 2011, Table 2.9-19). The tissue sample from the locally grazing cow had 

measureable concentrations of uranium {0.085 Bq/kg [2.3 × 10−6 μCi/kg]}, Ra-226 {0.022 Bq/kg 

[6.0 × 10−7 μCi/kg]}, and Pb-210 {0.043 Bq/kg [1.16 × 10−6 μCi/kg]}, while the concentration of 

Th-230 was below the lower limit of detection. The tissue sample from the locally grazing pig 

had measureable concentrations of uranium {0.30 Bq/kg [8.1 × 10−6 μCi/kg]} and Ra-226 

{0.029 Bq/kg [7.9 × 10−7 μCi/kg]}, while the concentrations of Th-230 and Pb-210 were below 

the lower limit of detection. In accordance with food sampling requirements in Regulatory 

Guide 1.14 (NRC, 1980), the applicant has committed to sampling one additional cow, bringing 

the total to three, and two additional pigs, bringing the total to three, prior to ISR operations at 

the Dewey-Burdock Project site (Powertech, 2011). 

Twelve fish species (Powertech, 2009a, Table 3.5-27) were collected for radiological analyses 

in April 2008 and July 2008 from three sampling locations: (i) BVC04—Beaver Creek upstream 

of the proposed project area; (ii) BVC01—Beaver Creek downstream of the proposed project 

area; and (iii) CHR05—Cheyenne River downstream of its confluence with Beaver Creek (see 

Figure 3.5-2). Whole fish samples were analyzed for uranium, Po-210, Pb-210, Th-230, and 

Ra-226 (Powertech, 2009a, Table 3.5-30). In April 2008, the channel catfish (Ictalurus 

punctatus) was the only species collected that contained detectable uranium {0.05 mg/kg 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-113 

[0.05 ppm] and 3.0 × 10−5 μCi/kg [1.11 Bq/kg]}. The channel catfish is the only species 

collected in the proposed project area that is typically caught for human consumption. In 

July 2008, uranium was detected in all the fish species collected due to increased sample sizes 

(see Powertech, 2009a, Table 3.5-30). Uranium concentrations ranged from 0.0066 to 0.04 

mg/kg [0.0066 to 0.04 ppm], which is similar to the uranium concentration range of 0.003 to 

0.0378 mg/L [0.003 to 0.0378 ppm] in stream samples (see SEIS Sections 3.12.1.2). Uranium 

radioactivity ranged from 2.7 × 10−5

 to 4.4 × 10−6 μCi/kg [1.0 to 0.16 Bq/kg]. Radioactivity from 

Po-210, Th-230, and Ra-226 was undetectable or low in most of the fish samples collected in 

April and July 2008. Pb-210 was detected in only one fish specimen, the plains killifish 

(Fundulus zebrinus) collected in April 2008 at the downstream Beaver Creek location (BVC01). 

However, due to matrix interference, the precision of this measurement was equal to the 

detected concentration {0.02 μCi/kg ± 0.02 μCi/kg [740 Bq/kg ± 740 Bq/kg]}. 

3.12.2 Public Health and Safety

NRC has the statutory responsibility, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, to protect the public health and safety and 

the environment. NRC’s regulations at 10 CFR Part 20 specify annual dose limits to members 

of the public of 1 mSv [100 mrem] total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) with no more than 

0.02 mSv [2 mrem] in any 1-hour period from any external sources. This public dose limit 

from NRC-licensed activities is a fraction of the background radiation dose as discussed in 

Section 3.12.1. 

Crow Butte is an operational ISR facility located approximately 105 km [65 mi] south-southeast 

of the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project in Dawes County, Nebraska. Because of its distance from 

the Dewey-Burdock site, the Crow Butte ISR facility is not considered to represent a source of 

radiation exposure in and around the proposed project area. Therefore, baseline radiological 

conditions represent the only radiation exposure to individuals in the area surrounding the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 3.12.1, elevated gamma-ray survey readings are associated with 

abandoned open pit uranium mines in the eastern and northeastern portion of the Burdock area 

(see Figure 3.12-1). Elevated gamma readings are also present in the northern part of the 

Dewey area and are likely due to the deposition of windblown dust from the abandoned surface 

mine areas to the southeast in the Burdock area. A final area of elevated gamma readings is 

present in the southern part of the Dewey area near an artesian well and is likely due to 

discharging groundwater from the Inyan Kara aquifer. Other than these areas of elevated 

radiological readings, the information provided for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

area does not contain any new or significant findings that are contrary or vary from the 

information and conclusion presented in the GEIS. The baseline radiological surveys presented 

in Powertech (2009a and 2011) provide adequate documentation of preoperational conditions 

for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area and will be used as part of the overall 

baseline data package during operational and decommissioning activities. 

The public health in a region is assessed by reviewing health studies conducted in the region 

over a period of time. In a review of the public health literature, specifically looking at 

radiological and chemical exposures, the applicant identified a South Dakota study with 

information specific to the proposed project area (Powertech, 2010a). The South Dakota 

Department of Health (SDDOH) conducted a study of cancer rates in nine South Dakota 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-114 

counties and reported that the presence of existing uranium mines was not associated with 

increased cancer death rates (SDDOH, 2006). 

3.12.3 Occupational Health and Safety

Radiation Protection Standards at 10 CFR Part 20 are concerned with occupational health and 

safety risks to workers and provide limits on worker exposure to radiation. The regulations 

provide annual radiation dose limits for workers and incorporate the principal of maintaining 

doses “as low as is reasonably achievable” (ALARA) taking into consideration the purpose of 

the licensed activity and its benefits, technology for reducing doses, and the associated health 

and safety benefits. A maximum annual occupational dose is determined by the more limiting of 

two calculated dose equivalents: (i) 0.05 Sv [5 rem] total effective dose equivalent and (ii) the 

sum of the deep-dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to any individual organ or 

tissue other than the lens of the eye being equal to 0.5 Sv [50 rem]. The lower dose equivalent 

calculated is the maximum annual occupational dose. The lens of the eye is limited to a dose 

equivalent of 0.15 Sv [15 rem], and the skin (of the whole body or any extremity) is limited to a 

shallow dose equivalent of 0.5 Sv [50 rem]. Radiation safety measures that comply with these 

10 CFR Part 20 standards must be implemented at ISR facilities to protect workers and to 

ensure radiation exposures and doses are below occupational limits as well as ALARA. 

Also of concern, with respect to occupational health and safety, are industrial hazards and 

exposure to nonradioactive pollutants, which for an ISR operation can include normal industrial 

airborne pollutants associated with service equipment (e.g., vehicles), fugitive dust emissions 

from access roads and well field activities, and various chemicals used in the ISR process. 

Industrial safety aspects associated with the use of hazardous chemicals at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be regulated under the State of South Dakota regulations and 

the South Dakota Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The types of chemicals and 

impacts are discussed in SEIS Section 4.13. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not compile data on 

workplace total recordable incident rates and lost-time incident rates specific to the ISR 

industry (Powertech, 2010a). Statistics for injuries and illnesses for the ISR industry are 

included in the category “Other Metal Ore Mining,” which includes both underground and 

surface (open pit) uranium mines (OSHA, 2010). Total recordable incidence rates and total 

lost-time incidents for the “Other Metal Ore Mining” category for years 2003 to 2008 are listed in 

Table 3.12-2. Total recordable incidents are work-related deaths, illnesses, or injuries resulting 

in loss of consciousness, restriction of work or motion, transfer to another job, or required 

medical treatment beyond first aid. A lost-time incident is a recordable incident that results in 

one or more days away from work, days of restricted work activity, or both, for affected 

employees. The incident rate is used for measuring and comparing work injuries, illnesses, and 

accidents within and between industries and can be an indicator of the impacts of operations on 

occupational health. 

OSHA data for specific injury/illness and lost time in the ISR industry is not available, although 

the applicant provided operation-specific information from one licensed ISR facility in Texas 

(Powertech, 2010a). Over a 4-year period from 2006 through 2009, the Uranium Resources 

Inc. ISR facility in Lewisville, Texas, which employs about 100 people, reported 36 injuries or 

illnesses requiring medical attention, an average of 9 per year. Over the same period, the ISR 

facility reported four lost-time cases, an average of one per year, and one contractor fatality.
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-115 

Table 3.12-2. 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. 

3.13 Waste Management 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6 describes the types and volumes of liquid and solid waste that could be 

generated by operation of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The applicant proposes 

the following disposal practices: (i) nonhazardous solid waste will be disposed in a sanitary 

landfill; (ii) solid byproduct material will be disposed at a licensed waste disposal site or a mill 

tailings facility licensed to receive byproduct material from outside sources; (iii) liquid byproduct 

material will be disposed using either (a) deep Class V disposal wells, (b) land application, or 

(c) a combination of deep Class V disposal wells and land application; and (iv) sanitary waste 

will be disposed in an onsite septic system. The applicant will not generate mixed waste from 

any of the proposed waste management options. Mixed waste consists of a mixture of 

hazardous waste (as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) and 

radioactive waste (as defined by the Atomic Energy Act). The applicant expects the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project to be classified as a Conditionally Exempt Small 

Quantity Generator of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 

SDDENR will determine whether that classification applies to the proposed facility (see 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3). SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6 describes the annual waste volumes that the 

proposed project is expected to generate. The present section describes the disposition of 

waste streams generated by the proposed project. 

3.13.1 Liquid Waste Disposal 

Liquid wastes generated from operation of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

include well development and well test waters; stormwater; waste petroleum products and 

chemicals; sanitary wastewater; and liquid byproduct material including production bleed, 

process solutions, laboratory chemicals, plant washdown water, and restoration water. Process 

solutions include process bleed, elution and precipitation brines, and resin transfer wash. The 

applicant will collect stormwater and discharge to surface water in accordance with an SDDENR 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Waste petroleum products and 

chemicals meeting the definition of hazardous waste will be stored in small quantities until 

disposal in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulatory requirements as 

described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3. The applicant will dispose of sanitary wastewater from 

restrooms and lunchrooms in an SDDENR-permitted septic system. The applicant will dispose 

of liquid byproduct material, well development and well test waters via either (i) deep Class V 

well injection; (ii) land application; or (iii) a combination of deep Class V well injection and land 

application, as described under the proposed action in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2. Liquid 

byproduct material must be treated onsite using a combination of ion exchange, reverse 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-116 

osmosis, and radium settling depending on the disposal option selected as described in 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.2 (Powertech, 2009a–c). If the applicant uses the deep well disposal 

option, four to eight Class V wells will be installed, as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2. 

Figure 2.1-12 shows the proposed land application areas. 

3.13.2 Solid Waste Disposal 

Solid byproduct material (including radioactively contaminated soils or other media) that does 

not meet NRC unrestricted release criteria must be disposed of at a licensed facility, as required 

by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 2. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the 

proposed action will generate solid byproduct material that does not meet NRC criteria for 

unrestricted release. In addition to the regulatory requirements, if an NRC license is granted, 

NRC staff will require, by license condition, an agreement to be in place before operations begin 

to ensure the availability of sufficient disposal capacity. The applicant has identified the White 

Mesa site as the disposal location for solid byproduct material, but a disposal agreement is not 

yet in place (Powertech, 2011). The White Mesa site, an operating conventional uranium mill in 

Blanding, Utah, is permitted to construct an additional 1,452,654 m3

 [1,900,000 yd3] of tailings 

impoundment capacity (UDEQ, 2010a); however, in accordance with its license, it must obtain 

approval from Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) to bury ISR waste. 

Furthermore, it may not receive more than 3,823 m3

 [5,000 yd3] of ISR wastes from any single 

source (UDEQ, 2010b). 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, nonhazardous solid wastes are materials that are 

not hazardous waste and comply with NRC unrestricted release limits. All proposed phases of 

the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will generate nonhazardous solid waste (Powertech, 2009a). 

The proposed project is expected to generate solid wastes that could include general facility 

trash, septic system solids, construction/demolition debris, and any solid byproduct material 

(such as piping, valves, instrumentation, or equipment) that has been decontaminated to 

meet NRC criteria for unrestricted release. 

The applicant has proposed to dispose of nonhazardous solid waste at the Custer-Fall River 

Waste Management District landfill at Edgemont, South Dakota, approximately 24 km [15 mi] 

southeast of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site. The Custer-Fall River landfill received 

9,964 short tons {approximately 19,060 m3

 [24,910 yd3]} of solid waste in 2011 and has a 

remaining permitted solid waste capacity of 154,000 tons {approximately 294,567 m3

[385,000 yd3

]} (Barker Concrete & Construction, Inc., 2012). The projected average annual rate 

of waste received at the landfill is 8,160 t/yr [9,000 T/yr] (SDDENR, 2010). The remaining 

capacity would allow operations of the landfill for an additional 17 years beyond mid-year 2012 

(the time of the capacity estimate) if the annual receipt of waste continued at the projected 

annual average rate. 

If additional disposal capacity is needed, the applicant has also proposed to dispose of 

nonhazardous solid waste at a landfill in Newcastle, Wyoming (Powertech, 2010a), 

approximately 64 km [40 miles] north of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. The 

most recent published documentation of landfill characteristics NRC staff identified is from 

American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET, Inc.) (2011). The estimated volume of waste the 

Newcastle landfill receives annually is 12,118 m3 [15,850 yd3

] (AET, Inc., 2011). The remaining 

permitted capacity of the Newcastle landfill was reported as 187,452 m3

 [245,000 yd3] and 

estimated in 2011 to allow 12 additional years of operation (AET, Inc., 2011). These annual 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-117 

inputs to waste facilities are provided to show how the proposed action’s generation rate 

compares with the regional generation from other sources. 

Another more distant and higher capacity landfill serving Rapid City, South Dakota, is projected 

to be operational until 2050 (HDR Engineering Inc., 2010).

3.14 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, Appendix A. “Criteria 

Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes 

Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed Primarily 

from their Source Material Content.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

23 CFR Part 772. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 772. “Procedures for 

Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property, Part 60, Section 4. “Criteria for Evaluation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property, Part 800. “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 50. 

“National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” Washington DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 52. 

Section 21 “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.” Washington DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 141. “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 146. “Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

72 FR 37346. FWS. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the 

Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.” 

Federal Register. Vol. 72, No. 130. pp. 37,345–37,347. July 9, 2007. 

74 FR 66496. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases.” 

Federal Register. Vol. 74, No. 239. pp. 66496–66546. December 15, 2009. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-118 

75 FR 13909. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for 

Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or 

Endangered.” FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 55. 

pp. 13909–13959. March 23, 2010. 

76 FR 66370. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That 

Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on 

Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions.” FWS (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service). Federal Register. Vol. 76, No. 207, pp. 66370-66439. October 26, 2011. 

Abbott, J., W, Ranney, and R. Whitten. Report of the 1982 East River Petroform Survey. 

Vermillion: University of South Dakota Archaeology Laboratory. 1982. 

ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). “National Register Evaluation Criteria.” 

ML12262A055. 2012. 

AET, Inc.( American Engineering Testing, Inc.). “Solid Waste Management Permit Renewal 

Application, Newcastle Landfill #2, Newcastle, Wyoming.” AET #18-03607. Rapid City, 

South Dakota: American Engineering Testing, Inc. October 10, 2011. 

ARSD (Administrative Rules of South Daktoa). “Chapter 74:04:12, Drinking Water Standards.” 

South Dakota Legislature Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:51:01, Surface Water Quality Standards.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:36:02:02, Ambient Air Quality Standards.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Section 74.51.03.08, Cheyenne River and Certain Tributaries’ Uses.” South Dakota 

Legislature Administrative Rules. 

Barker Concrete & Construction, Inc. “Custer Fall River Landfill.” E-mail (June 28) from 

A. Giese, Barker Concrete & Construction, Inc., to H. Yilma, Project Manager, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, NRC. ML12249A250. 

Edgemont, South Dakota: Barker Concrete & Construction, Inc. 2012. 

BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). “General Land Office, 1915 Land Patent for 

Emaline Richardson.” Patent No. 455381. Rapid City, South Dakota: BLM. ML12237A219. 

2012a. 

BLM, 2012b. “Meeting at 11:30 EST” and attachment “Wildlife and Special Status Species 

Stipulations in the current 1986 SD RMP as amended”. Email (June 25) from S. Michals, 

SDGFP Energy and Minerals Coordinator to H. Yilma, NRC. ML12249A033. 2012b. 

BLM. “Cultural Resource Review Dewey Burdock.” Letter (July 20) from M. Atkins to 

R. Blubaugh, Powertech. ML12213A694. Belle Fourche, South Dakota: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, BLM, South Dakota Field Office. 2012c. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-119 

BLM. “Wyoming Sage-Grouse RPM Amendments.” 2011. <https://www.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=

18704> (23 January 2012). 

BLM. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Dewey Conveyor Project.” DOI–BLM–MT–040–

2009–002–EIS. ML12209A089. Belle Fourche, South Dakota: BLM Field Office, 

U.S. Department of Interior. January 2009a. 

 

BLM. “Invasive and Noxious Weeds.” 2009b. <http://www.blm.gov/wo/ 

st/en/prog/more/weeds.html> (20 November 2009). 

BLM. “2009 Montana/Dakotas Special Status Species List.” Instruction Memorandum 

No. MT_2009-039. ML12276A155. Billings, Montana: BLM, Montana State Office. 2009c. 

BLM. “Special Status Species Management.” Manual 6840. ML12237A217. Washington, DC: 

BLM. December 2008. 

BLM. “Task 1D: Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Current Environmental 

Conditions.” Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management. ML12237A214. Casper, 

Wyoming: BLM Casper Field Office and Wyoming State Office. 2005. 

BLM. “The Northern Cheyenne Tribes and Its Reservation”, Chapter 7, Northern Cheyenne 

Cultural Resources. ML12237A212. Helena, Montana: BLM and the State of Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 2002. 

BLM. “Newcastle Resource Management Plan.” ML12209A101. Newcastle, Wyoming: BLM, 

Newcastle Field Office. 2000. 

BLM. “Visual Resource Inventory.” Manual H–8410–1. ML12237A196. Washington, DC: 

BLM. 1986. 

BLM. “South Dakota Resource Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement.” 

ML12209A099. Miles City District, Montana: BLM, South Dakota Resource Area. 1985. 

BLM. “Visual Resource Management.” Manual 8400. ML12237A194. Washington, DC: 

BLM. 1984. 

Boggs, J. M. and A. M. Jenkins. “Analysis of Aquifer Tests Conducted at the Proposed Burdock 

Uranium Mine Site, Burdock, South Dakota.” Report No. WR28-1-520-109. Knoxville, 

Tennessee: Tennessee Valley Authority. 1980. 

Braddock,W.A. “Geology of the Jewel Cave SW Quadrangle Custer County, South Dakota.” 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1063-G. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

1963. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1063g/report.pdf> and http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1063g/plate20.pdf (08 April 2013) 

Brooks, T., M. McCurry, and D. Hess. “South Dakota State and County Demographic Profiles.” 

ML12237A222. Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota Rural Life and Census Data Center. 

May 2008. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-120 

Bryce, S.A., J.M. Omernik, D.A. Pater, M. Ulmer, J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck, 

and S.H. Azevedo. “Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota.” U.S. Geological Survey 

Map. Scale 1:1,500,000. 1996. 

Buechler, J.V. “An Intensive (Class III) Cultural Resources Inventory Survey of the 

Dacotah Cement Land Exchange Proposal in Southwestern Custer County, South Dakota.” 

Project No. 99-9. Rapid City, South Dakota: Dakota Research Services. (Submitted to 

Dacotah Cement, Rapid City, South Dakota). 1999. 

Center for Climate Strategies. “South Dakota Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case 

Projections 1990–2020.” 2007. <http://www.climatestrategies.us/ewebeditpro/ 

items/O25F18227.pdf> (21 December 2009). 

Chapman, S.S., S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, D.G. Despain, J. ZumBerge, and M. Conrad. 

“Ecoregions of Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Map. Scale 1:1,400,000. 2004. 

Chenoweth, W.L. “Geology and Production History of the Uranium Deposits in the Northern 

Black Hills, Wyoming—South Dakota.” Eastern Powder River Basin, Wyoming Geological 

Association, 39th Annual Field Conference Guidebook. Casper, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological 

Association. pp. 263–270. 1988. 

Chevance, N. Archaeological Survey in the Southern Black Hills, Part 2, for Wyoming Mineral 

Corporation. Project No. C-14-79. Rapid City, South Dakota: Archaeological Research Center. 

1978. 

Colorado State University. “Canada Thistle.” Fact Sheet No. 3.108. ML12276A157. Fort 

Collins, Colorado: Colorado State University. November 2008. 

Darton, N.H. “Geology and Water Resources of the Northern Portion of the Black Hills and 

Adjoining Regions of South Dakota and Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 65. 1909. 

Dondanville, R.F. “The Fall River Formation, Northwestern Black Hills; Lithology and Geology 

History.” Northern Powder River Basin, Wyoming Geological Association Joint Field 

Conference Guidebook. Casper, Wyoming: Wyoming Geological Association, Billings 

Geological Society. pp. 87–99. 1963. 

Driscoll, D.G., J.M. Carter, J.E. Williamson, and L.D. Putnam. “Hydrology of the Black Hills 

Area, South Dakota.” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 02-4094. 

ML12240A218. 2002. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). “South Dakota, Beaver Watershed.” 2012a. 

<http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_impaired_waters.impaired_waters_list?p_state=SD&p

_cycle=2012> (16 April 2013). 

EPA. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” ML13165A153. Washington, DC: 

EPA. 2012b. 

EPA. “Regulatory Impact Analysis - Final National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone.” 

ML12240A237. Washington, DC: EPA. 2011. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-121 

EPA. “Final Rule: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule—Fact Sheet.” ML12240A235. Washington, DC: EPA. 2010. 

EPA. “Emission by Category Report–Criteria Air Pollutants for 2002.” 2008. 

<http://www.epa.gov/air/data/emcatrep.html?co~46019%2046033%2046047%2046081% 

2046093%2046103~Butte%20Co%2C%20Custer%20Co%2C%20Fall%20River%20Co%2C%2

0Lawrence%20Co%2C%20Meade%20Co%2C%20Pennington%20Co%2C%20South% 

20Dakota> (28 December 2009). 

EPA. “Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality, Chapter 5 Water Quality Conditions.” 2006a. 

<http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/stream/vms50.html> (18 March 2010). 

EPA. “Assessment of Variations in Radiation Exposure in the United States (Revision 1).” 

Contract Number EP–D–05–02. ML12240A227. Washington, DC: EPA. 2006b. 

EPA. “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Radionuclides: Final Rule.” Federal 

Register: Vol. 65, No. 236. December 7, 2000. 

Epstein, J.B. “Hydrology, Hazards, and Geomorphic Development of Gypsum Karst in the 

Northern Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resource 

Investigation Report 01-4011. pp. 30–37. 2001. 

ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). “ArcGIS 9 Media Kit, ESRI Data and 

Maps 9.3.” Redlands, California: ESRI. 2008. 

Fahrenbach, M.D., F.V. Steece, J.F. Sawyer, K.A. McCormick, and G.L. McGillivray. 

“South Dakota Stratigraphic Correlation Chart.” ML12240A243. Vermillion, South Dakota: 

South Dakota Geological Survey. 2009. 

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). “Highway Traffic and Construction Noise—Problem 

and Response.” FHWA–HEP–06–020. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 2006. <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ 

noise/regulations_and_guidance/probresp.cfm> (14 August 2012). 

FRA (Federal Railroad Administration). “Horn Noise Questions and Answers.” 2010. 

<http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/1173.shtml> (25 August 2010). 

Frison, G.C. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Plains. 2nd Edition. New York City, New York: 

Academic Press. 1991. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). “Primer 4, An Overview of Current Endangered Species 

Act Activities for Greater Sage-Grouse.” ML12276A171. Washington, DC: FWS. 2012a. 

FWS. “Re: Follow Up for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project, Fall River and 

Custer Counties, South Dakota.” E-mail (August 27) from T. Quesinberry, Fish and Wildlife 

Biologist to A. Hester, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses. ML12240A317. Pierre, 

South Dakota: FWS. 2012b. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-122 

FWS. “Species Profile, Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii).” ML12276A178. 

<http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B0GD> last updated 

August 30, 2012c. (30 August 2012). 

FWS. “Spragu’s Pipit.” ML12276A165. <http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/ 

spraguespipit/index.html> last updated May 20, 2011a. (30 August 2012). 

FWS. ”U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Listing Priority and Assignment 

Form, Sprague’s Pipit.” ML12276A159. Pierre, South Dakota: FWS. May 31, 2011b. 

FWS. “Environmental Comments on Powertech Dewey-Burdock Project, Custer and Fall River 

County, South Dakota.” ML100970556. Pierre, South Dakota: FWS. March 29, 2010. 

FWS. “Whooping Cranes and Wind Development—An Issue Paper.” April 2009. 

<ftp://wiley.kars.ku.edu/windresource/Whooping_Crane_and_Wind_Development_FWS_%20A

pril%202009.pdf> (20 November 2009). 

FWS. “National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.” Washington, DC: FWS. ML12240A245. 

2007. 

FWS. “Regarding the Block Clearance Process in South Dakota” Letter (May 13) to Secretary 

J. Cooper, South Dakota Game Fish and Parks. Pierre, South Dakota: FWS, Mountain Prairie 

Region. 2003a. 

FWS. “An Evaluation of the Block Clearance Process in South Dakota.” Letter (May 22) to 

Secretary J. Cooper, South Dakota Game Fish and Parks. Pierre, South Dakota: FWS, 

Mountain Prairie Region. 2003b. 

FWS. “Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Form, Swift Fox.” ML12241A398. Pierre, 

South Dakota: U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 2000. 

GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). “Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States.” Washington, DC: Cambridge University Press. 2009. 

Gott, G.B., D.E. Wolcott, and C.G. Bowles. “Stratigraphy of the Inyan Kara Group and 

Localization of Uranium Deposits, Southern Black Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming.” 

ML120310042. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 93-4008. 1974. 

Grange, R.T. “Archaeological Investigations in the Red Willow Reservoir.” Anthropology. 

No. 9. Lincoln, Nebraska: Nebraska State Historical Society. 1980. 

Hall, R.L. “Medicine Wheels, Sun Circles, and the Magic of World Center Shrines.” The Plains 

Anthropologist. Vol. 30, No. 109. pp. 181–193. August 1985. 

Hart, O.M. “Uranium in the Black Hills.” Ore Deposits of the United States: 1933–1967. 

J.D. Ridge, ed. New York City, New York: American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and 

Petroleum Engineers. pp. 832–837. 1968. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-123 

HDR Engineering Inc. “Solid Waste Management Plan Rapid City Planning Area Rapid City, 

South Dakota.” HDR Project No. 00000000111705. Omaha, Nebraska: HDR Engineering, Inc. 

January 2010. 

HDR, Engineering Inc. “Assessment of the Visual Effects of the Powder River Basin Project, 

New Build Segment, on Previously Identified Historic Properties in South Dakota and Wyoming.” 

Report prepared for the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad, Sioux Falls, SD by HDR, Inc. 

in Compliance with the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement for the Surface Transportation 

Board, Washington DC. 2009. 

Hester, J.J. “Late Pleistocene Extinction and Radiocarbon Dating.” American Antiquity. 

Vol. 26. pp. 58–77. 1960. 

Hill, A.T. and M.F. Kivett. “Woodland-Like Manifestations in Nebraska.” Nebraska History.

Vol. 21, No. 3. pp. 146–243. 1940. 

Hodorff. “Habitat Assessment and Conservation Strategy for Sage Grouse and Other Selected 

Species on Buffalo Gap National Grassland.” ML120240626. Hot Springs, South Dakota: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. September 2005. 

Hoffman, J.J. “La Roche Site.” Smithsonian Institution River Basin Surveys. Salvage 

Archeology. No. 11. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 1968. 

IML (Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc.). "Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact 

Analysis Dewey-Burdock Project Powertech (USA) Inc., Edgemont, South Dakota." 

ML13196a061, ML13196a097, ML13196a118. Sheridan, Wyoming: IML Air Science. 2013. 

Kadrmas, Lee, and Jackson, Inc. “Campbell County Coal Belt Transportation Study.” 

ML12240A251. Gillette, Wyoming: Kadrmus, Lee, and Jackson, Inc. August 2010. 

Kruse, J.M., T.V. Gillen, J.R. Bozell, L. Palmer, and A.A. Buhta. “A Level III Cultural Resources 

Evaluation of Powertech (USA) Incorporated’s Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project 

Locality Within the Southern Black Hills, Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” 

Archeological Contract Series No. 216. ML100670302, ML100670309, ML100670314, 

ML100670318, ML100670240, ML100670250, ML100670255, ML100670257, ML100670258, 

ML100670259, ML100670261, ML100670267, ML100670277, ML100670280, ML100670286, 

ML100670289, ML100670363, ML100670365, ML100670366, ML100670482, ML100670232. 

Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Augustana College, Archeology Laboratory. 2008. 

Liebmann, M. “Demystifying the Big Horn Medicine Wheel: A Contextual Analysis of Meaning, 

Symbolism, and Function.” The Plains Anthropologist. Vol. 47, No. 180. pp. 61–71. 

February 2002. 

Lueck, E.J. and R.P. Winham. “Archeological Investigations of the Ponca Agency Area in 

Boyd and Knox Counties, and the Wild Horse Draw/Leeman’s Springs Archeological District 

in Cheyenne County, Nebraska: 2004–2005.” Archeological Contract Series No. 193. 

Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Augustana College, Archeology Laboratory. Submitted to 

State Historic Preservation Office, Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln, Nebraska, 

Contract No. NE–04–022. 2005. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-124 

Maxwell, C.H. “Map and Stratigraphic Sections Showing Distribution of Some Channel 

Sandstones in the Lakota Formation, Northwestern Black Hills, Wyoming.” U.S. Geological 

Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-632. 1974. 

Molyneaux, B.L., R.A. Fox, L. Sundstrom, E. Hajic, E.A. Bettis III, N.J. Hodgson, W.H. Ranney, 

R.M. Hinton, D. Hiemstra, and W. Haakenson. “A 1999 Phase I and II Cultural Resources 

Evaluation of a Proposed Railway Corridor from Wall, South Dakota to the Wyoming Border for 

the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation’s Powder River Basin Expansion 

Project.” (Draft Report.) Project No. DMERR 97–304–4. Vermillion, South Dakota: University 

of South Dakota, Archaeology Laboratory. Submitted to Burns and McDonnell, Kansas City, 

Missouri. 2000. 

National Atlas of the United States. 2009. <http://nationalatlas.gov> (29 October 2010). 

Naus, C.A., D.G. Driscoll, and J.M. Carter. “Geochemistry of the Madison and Minnelusa 

Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota.” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigation Report 01-4129. ML12240A265. 2001. 

 

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). “Ionizing Radiation 

Exposure of the Population of the United States.” Report No. 160. Bethesda, Maryland: 

NCRP. 2009. 

Nielsen, R.D. “Soil Survey of Custer and Pennington Counties, Prairie Parts, South Dakota.” 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Forest Service, in 

cooperation with the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station. ML12240A272. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1996. 

Noisat, B. “The PaleoIndians in Black Hills National Forest, Cultural Resources Overview, 

Volume 1—Synthetic Summary.” T. Church and M. Church, eds. Custer, South Dakota: 

U.S. Forest Service, Black Hills National Forest. 1996. 

Northeast Wyoming River Basins Water Plan. 2002. <http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/newy/ 

techmemos/gwdeterm/gwdeterm_summ.html> (10 September 2010). 

NPWRC (Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center). “Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North 

Dakota, Red-Tailed Hawk, Buteo jamaicensis.” ML12276A181. Bismark, North Dakota: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/hawks/butejama.htm> last modified 

August 3, 2006a. (31 August 2012). 

NPWRC. “Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North Dakota, American Kestrel, Falco sparverius.” 

ML12276A232. Bismark, North Dakota: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 

<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/hawks/falcspar.htm> last modified August 3, 2006b. 

(31 August 2012). 

NPWRC. “Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North Dakota, Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus.” 

ML12276A242. Bismark, North Dakota: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/ 

hawks/circcyan.htm> last modified August 3, 2006c. (31 August 2012). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-125 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Transmittal of Letter to the THPOs for the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock Project.” ML13039A336. Email to Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officers. Washington, DC: NRC. 2013. 

NRC. “Letter (March 4) Invitations for Formal Consultation Under the Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act to Crow Tribe (ML110550535), Ponca Tribe (ML110550372), 

and Santee Sioux Tribe (ML110550172).” Washington, DC: NRC. 2011. 

NRC. “Request for Additional Information Regarding Tribal Historic and Cultural Resources 

Potentially Affected by the Powertech (USA) Inc. Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery 

Facility.” ML100331999. Washington, DC: NRC. March 19, 2010a. 

NRC. Letter (September 10) Invitations for Formal Consultation Under the Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act to Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (ML102520239), Crow Creek 

Sioux Tribe (ML102520156), Eastern Shoshone Tribe (ML102520553), Flandreau-Santee Sioux 

Tribe (ML102520194), Lower Brule Sioux Tribe (ML102520220), Lower Sioux Indian 

Community (ML102520486), Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (ML102520368), Northern 

Arapaho Tribe (ML102520520), Northern Cheyenne Tribe (ML102520504), Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe (ML102520282), Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate (ML102520298), Spirit Lake Tribe 

(ML102520393), Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (ML102520308), Yankton Sioux Tribe 

(ML102520319), and Oglala Sioux Tribe (ML102520395). Washington, DC: NRC. 2010b. 

NRC. Letter (March 15) from K. Hsueh, Chief-Environmental Review Branch, NRC, to 

P. Gober, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office. “Request for information Regarding 

Endangered or Threatened Speices and Critial Habitat for the Powertech, Inc. Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Facility Near Edgemont, South Dakota.” ML100331503. 

Greenwood Washington, DC: NRC. 2010c. 

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

Milling Facilities.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009a. 

NRC. “Site Visit to the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project, Fall River and Custer 

Counties, South Dakota, and Meetings with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and Local 

Organizations, November 30–December 4, 2009.” ML093631627. Washington, DC: NRC. 

2009b. 

NRC. NUREG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications.” Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003. 

NRC. Regulatory Guide 4.14, “Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium 

Mills.” Rev. 1. Washington, DC: NRC. April 1980. 

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). “Industry Injury and Illness Data, 

Summary Tables, Table 1—Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses by 

Industry and Case Types.” ML12240A297. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010. 

Palmer, L. “Evaluative Testing of Four Sites within Powertech (USA) Incorporated’s Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Locality, Southern Black Hills, Custer and Fall River Counties, 

South Dakota.” Archeological Contract Series No. 231. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Augustana 

College, Archeology Laboratory. 2009. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-126 

Palmer, L. “A Level III Cultural Resources Evaluation of Powertech (USA) Incorporated’s 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Locality within the Southern Black Hills, Custer and 

Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” Addendum 1: Additional Survey Report. Archeological 

Contract Series No.227. ML100670483, ML100670485, ML100670487, ML100670490. 

Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Augustana College, Archeology Laboratory. 2008. 

Palmer, L. and J.M. Kruse. “Evaluative Testing of 20 Sites in the Powertech (USA) Inc. 

Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Impact Areas.” Black Hills Archaeological Region. Volumes I 

and II. Archaeological Contract Series No. 251. ML12144A270, ML12144A279, 

ML12144A263. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: . Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College. 

2012. 

Palmer, L. and J.M. Kruse. “A Level III Cultural Resources Evaluation of Powertech (USA) 

Incorporated’s Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Locality within the Southern Black 

Hills, Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” Addendum 2: Additional Survey Report. 

Archeological Contract Series No.229. ML100670466, ML100670472, ML100670474, 

ML100670478, ML100670492. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Augustana College, Archeology 

Laboratory. 2008. 

Parker, P. and T. King. “Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties.” National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 38. ML12240A371. 1990. 

Peterson, R.A. “The South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas.” Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 1995. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ 

resource/birds/sdatlas/index.htm> (16 March 2010). 

Petrotek (Petrotek Engineering Corporation). “Numerical Modeling of Hydrogeologic 

Conditions, Dewey-Burdock Project, South Dakota.” ML12062A096. Littleton, Colorado: 

Petrotek Engineering Corporation. February 2012. 

Powertech [Powertech (USA) Inc.]. “Comments from Powertech (USA) Inc. on the DeweyBurdock Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Docket ID NRC-2012-

0277, Attachment A, December 2012 Dewey Road Traffic Study Results”. Letter (January 8) to 

C. Bladey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from R. Blubaugh. Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML13022A386. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2013a. 

Powertech. “Areas of Potential Impact, Dewey-Burdock Project.” ML12261A326. Greenwood 

Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2013b. 

Powertech. “SHPO Comments and Related Commitments.” Email (August 3) to H. Yilma, 

Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management 

Programs, NRC, from R. Blubaugh. ML12262A491. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 

2012a. 

Powertech. “Re: Powertech (USA) Inc.’s Supplemental Sampling Plan and Responses to 

Comments Regarding Draft License SUA-1600, Dewey-Burdock Project, Docket No. 40-9075, 

TAC No. J00606.” Letter from R. Blubaugh, Vice President—Environmental, Health and Safety 

Resources, Powertech to R. Burrows, NRC. ML12305A056. October 19, 2012b. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-127 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota.” Technical Report RAI Responses. ML112071064. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. June 2011. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota ER_RAI Response August 11, 2010.” ML102380516. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010a. 

Powertech. “Responses to NRC Verbal and Email Requests for Clarification of Selected Issues 

Related to the Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Environmental Review.” Letter ( November 4) 

to R. Burrows, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission from R. Blubaugh. Docket No. 040-09075; 

TAC NO. J 00533. ML110820582. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010b. 

Powertech. “Responses to NRC Verbal Request for Clarification of Response Regarding 

Inclusion of Emissions from Drilling Disposal Wells; Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project 

Environmental Review.” Letter (November 17) to R. Burrows, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, from R. Blubaugh. Docket No. 040-09075; TAC NO. J 00533. ML103220208. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010c. 

Powertech. “Updated Technical Report on the Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project, Custer and 

Fall River Counties South Dakota.” Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010d. 

<http://www.powertechuranium.com/i/pdf/Dewey_Burdock_NI_43_101_Technical_Report.pdf> 

(20 August 2012). 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota–Environmental Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2009a. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Technical Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2009b. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Supplement to Application for NRC Uranium Recovery 

License Dated February 2009” Docket No. 040-09075. ML092870160. Greenwood Village, 

Colorado: Powertech. August 2009c. 

Rahn, P.H. “Groundwater Stored in the Rocks of Western South Dakota.” Geology of the Black 

Hills, South Dakota and Wyoming. 2nd Edition. Geological Society of America, Field Trip 

Guidebook. F.J. Rich, ed. Alexandria, Virginia: American Geological Institute. pp. 154–174 

Reher, C.A. “Archaeological Survey and Testing Project for the Silver King Mine, Tennessee 

Valley Authority, A Summary Report.” Casper, Wyoming: Tennessee Valley Authority. 1981. 

Renfro, A.R. “Uranium Deposits in the Lower Cretaceous of the Black Hills.” Contributions to 

Geology. Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming. Vol. 8, No. 2-1. pp. 87–92. 1969. 

Robinson, D. “A History of the Dakota or Sioux Indians. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Ross and 

Haines, Inc. 1904. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-128 

Sage-Grouse Working Group (Northeast Wyoming Sage-Grouse Working Group). “Northeast 

Wyoming Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan.” ML12240A374. Pwder River Basin, Wyoming: 

Sage-Grouse Working Group. 2006. 

SD ARC (South Dakota Archaeological Research Center). South Dakota Archaeological 

Research Center Field Site Form Manual. ML12241A387. Rapid City, South Dakota: 

SD ARC. June 5, 2006. 

SDCL (South Dakota Codified Law) 34-27. Cemeteries and Burial Records. Chapter 34-27. 

South Dakota Legislature. 

SDDENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). “South Dakota 

Oil, Gas, and Injection Well Database.” 2013. <http://www.sddenr.net/oil_gas/> (17 July 2013). 

SDDENR. “Oil and Gas Well, Test Hole, and Permit Locations With Field and Enhanced 

Recovery Unit Boundaries, Fall River County, SD.” ML12250A652. Pierre, South Dakota: 

SDDENR Geological Survey. May 2012a. 

SDDENR. “Oil and Gas Well, Test Hole, and Permit Locations with Barker Dome Field 

Boundary, Custer County, SD.” ML12250A706. Pierre, South Dakota: SDDENR Geological 

Survey. May 2012b. <http://denr.sd.gov/des/og/documents/ Custer_oil_gas_fields_001.pdf> 

(21 August 2012). 

SDDENR. “Oil and Gas Drilling Permits Issued From 2005–2011.” Pierre, South Dakota: 

SDDENR. 2012c. <http://denr.sd.gov/des/og/newpermit.aspx> (21 August 2012). 

SDDENR. “Report to the Chief Engineer on Water Permit Application No. 2685-2, Powertech 

(USA) Inc., November 2, 2012.” ML13165A160. Pierre, South Dakota: SDDENR. 

November 2012d. 

SDDENR. “South Dakota Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2011.” ML12240A382. 

2011a. 

SDDENR. “South Dakota Fish Consumption Advisories.” ML12276A255. 2011b. 

SDDENR. “RE: Attn: Steve Kropp  Limited Request for Information (Stats for Local Landfill) 

for USNRC Review.” E-mail (December 20) to P. LaPlante, Southwest Research Institute®, 

from S. Kropp, SDDENR. ML111300205. Pierre, South Dakota: SDDENR. 2010. 

SDDENR. “The 2008 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment.” 

ML12240A378. Pierre, South Dakota: SDDENR. 2008. 

SDDA (South Dakota Department of Agriculture). “State Noxious Weeds.” ML12276A259. 

Pierre, South Dakota: SDDA. 2011. 

SDDOE (South Dakota Department of Education). “Statistical Digest.” 2010. 

<http://doe.sd.gov/ofm/applications/StatDigest/default.asp> (30 April 2012). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-129 

SDDOH (South Dakota Department of Health). “Uranium Mining: Concerns on Cancer 

Mortality and Incidence.” Letter (May 4) to Steve Pimer, Department of Environment and 

Natural Resources. Pierre, South Dakota: SDDOH. 2006. 

SDDOL (South Dakota Department of Labor). “Labor Force.” Pierre, South Dakota: SDDOL, 

Labor Market Information Center. 2012. <http://dol.sd.gov/lmic/menu_labor_force.aspx> 

(07 June 2012). 

SDDOT (South Dakota Department of Transportation). “Statewide Traffic Flow Map.” 

ML12240A386. .” Pierre, South Dakota: SDDOT. 2011. 

SDDOT. “South Dakota Interstate Corridor Study Phase I Summary Report.” Pierre, 

South Dakota: SDDOT. December, 2000. 

SDDRR (South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation). “Property Tax Publications.” 

Pierre, South Dakota: SDDRR. 2012a <http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/propspectax/ 

property/publications.htm> (08 June 2012). 

SDDRR. “South Dakota Sales and Use Tax Report.“ ML12241A182. Pierre, South Dakota: 

South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation. January 5, 2012b. 

SDDRR. “Sales and Use Tax Guide.” ML12240A388. Pierre, South Dakota: SDDRR. July 

2011. 

SDGFP (South Dakota Game Fish and Parks). “Bald Eagle Awareness Days.” 2012a. 

<http://gfp.sd.gov/outdoor-learning/bald-eagle-awareness-days/default.aspx> 

(17 January 2012). 

SDGFP. “Prairie Chicken and Grouse (Sharp-tailed and Ruffed).” 2012b. 

<http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/small-game/prairie-chicken-ruffed-grouse.aspx> (13 April 2012). 

SDGFP. “SD GFP wildlife data” and attachments. Email (January 31) from S. Michals, SDGFP 

Energy and Minerals Coordinator to A. Hester, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses. 

ML12249A230. 2012c. 

SDGFP . “Threatened & Endangered or Rare Species .” March 16, 2010. 

SDGFP. “Sage Grouse Population Dynamics.” 2009. <http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/small-game/ 

sage-grouse-population-dynamics.aspx> (20 November 2009). 

SDGFP. “Greater Sage Grouse Management Plan South Dakota.” ML12241A215. Pierre, 

South Dakota. 2008. 

SDGFP. “A Birder’s Guide to the George S. Mickelson Trail.” ML12241A204. Pierre, 

South Dakota: SDGFP. 2005a. 

SDGFP. “ South Dakota All Bird Conservation Plan.” ML12241A195. Pierre, South Dakota: 

South Dakota Game Fish and Parks. 2005b. 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-130 

SDGS (South Dakota Geological Survey). “Earthquakes in South Dakota (1872–2010).” 2010. 

<http://www.sdgs.usd.edu/publications/maps/earthquakes/earthquakes.htm> 

(30 November 2010). 

SD SHPO (South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office). “Section 106 Project 

Consultation.” Letter (January 14) from J. D. Vogt and P. Olson, South Dakota State Historical 

Society to K. Hsueh, NRC. ML14014A307. Pierre, South Dakota: SD SHPO. 2014. 

SD SHPO. “Comment (28) of Jay D. Vogt and Paige Olson, on Behalf of SD State Historical 

Society, on NRC-2012-0277-0001, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, SD.” 

Letter (December 13) from J. D. Vogt and P. Olson, South Dakota State Historical Society to C. 

Bladey, NRC. ML13019A059. Pierre, South Dakota: SD SHPO. 2012. 

Somma, L. A. “Nonindigenous Aquatic Species, Apalone spinifera.” 2011. 

Gainesville, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey. <http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx? 

SpeciesID=1274> November 2011. (8 May 2012). 

South Dakota State University. “South Dakota GAP Analysis Project.” Brookings, 

South Dakota: South Dakota State University, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences. 

<http://www.sdstate.edu/nrm/gap/index.cfm> (13 January 2012). 

South Dakota Statue, Title 10, Taxation. April 1, 2012. Pierre, South Dakota: South Dakota 

Legistlature. <http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/DisplayStatute.aspx?Statute=10&Type=Statute> 

(11 June 2012). 

SRI (SRI Foundation). “Overview of Places of Traditional and Cultural Significance, 

Cameco/Powertech Project Areas.” Rio Rancho, New Mexico: SRI Foundation. 

ML12262A113. June 8, 2012. 

Strobel, M.L., J.M. Galloway, G.R. Hamade, and G.J. Jarrell. “Potentiometric Surface of the 

Minnekahta Aquifer in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota.” U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Investigations Atlas HA–745–B. Scale 1:100,000. 1999. 

Sundstrom, L. “Boulder Effigy Sites in South Dakota: History, Description, and Evaluation.” 

Submitted to South Dakota State Historical Society, Cultural Heritage Center. Bonner Springs, 

Kansas: Day Star Research. 2006. 

Sundstrom, L. “Mirror of Heaven: Cross-Cultural Transference of the Sacred Geography of the 

Black Hills.” World Archaeology. Vol. 28, No. 2. pp. 177–189. October 1996. 

Surface Transportation Board. Letter (January 6) from V. Rutson to R. Currit, Department of 

State Parks & Cultural Resources, Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. Washington, 

DC: Surface Transportation Board. ML12241A225. 2010. 

Tratebas, A.M. “Black Hills Settlement Patterns: Based on a Functional Approach.” Ph.D. 

dissertation, Indiana University, Department of Anthropology. Taken from Noisat, 1996. 

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). “Draft Environmental Statement for the Edgemont Uranium 

Mine.” Knoxville, Tennessee: TVA. 1979. 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-131 

UDEQ (Utah Department of Environmental Quality). “Division of Radiation Control; Denison 

Mines (USA) Corp.; Review of License Amendment Request and Environmental Report for Cell 

4B; Safety Evaluation Report; Under UAC R313-24 and UAC R317-6.” ML12241A232. Salt 

Lake City, Utah: UDEQ, Division of Radiation Control. 2010a. 

UDEQ. “Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479.” ML12241A243. Salt Lake City, Utah: 

State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control. 2010b. 

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). “American FactFinder, Census 2000 and 2010, 2006–2010 

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate, State and County QuickFacts.” ML12248A240. 

2012. <http://factfinder.census.gov, http://quickfacts.census.gov> (17 April 2012). 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). “2007 Census of Agriculture—County Data, South 

Dakota.” Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. ML12241A366. 2009. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). “Updated Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nebraska 

National Forests and Grasslands, Rocky Mountain Region.” ML12209A127. Washington, DC: 

USFS. 2009. 

USFS. “Black Hills National Forest, Phase II Amendment: 1997 Land and Resource 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement.” ML12209A121. Washington, DC: 

USFS. 2005. 

USFS. “Chapter 3—Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences.” Sioux Ranger 

District FEIS. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Custer 

National Forest, Custer National Forest. 2004. 

USFS. “Black Hills National Forest, Phase I Amendment: 1997 Land and Resource 

Management Plan Environmental Assessment.” ML12209A113. Washington, DC: USFS. 

2001. 

USFS. “Black Hills National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.” ML12209A110. 

1997. 

USFS. “Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management.” Agricultural Handbook 

No. 701. ML12241A377. Washington, DC: USFS. 1995. 

USFS. “National Forest Landscape Management: Vol. 2, Chapter 1—The Visual Management 

System.” Agricultural Handbook No. 462. ML12241A372. Washington, DC: USFS. 1974. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). “National Water Information System.” U.S. Geological Survey 

Real-Time Water Data. 2010. <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt> (08 September 2010). 

USGS. “Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States.” 2006a. 

<http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/> (22 December 2010). 

USGS. “Fragile Legacy, Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Animals of South Dakota, 

Black-footed Ferret (Mustela nigripes).” 2006b. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wildlife/ 

sdrare/species/mustnigr.htm> (20 November 2009). 
Description of the Affected Environment FINAL 

3-132 

USGS. “Breeding Birds of South Dakota, Sprague’s Pipit (Anthus spragueii).” ML12276A266. 

2006c. 

USGS. “Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota.” Wildlife Research Center Online. 

1998. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/habitat/ndsdeco/sodak.htm> (15 March 2010). 

WDAI (Wyoming Department of Administration and Information). “Population of Wyoming, 

Counties, Cities, and Towns : 2010 to 2030 .” ML12250A716. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDAI, 

Economic Analysis Division. 2011. 

Weston County Assessor. “Total Assessed Valuations for Weston County for 1998–2010.” 

<http://www.westongov.com/_departments/_county_assessor/total_assessed_valuations.asp> 

(8 June 2012). 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). “Occupied Sage Grouse Lek Data.” 2011. 

<ftp://gf.state.wy.us/Sage_Grouse_Lek_Data> Password protected (31 January 2012). 

Winham, R.P. and L.A. Hannus. “South Dakota State Plan for Archeological Resources: 

Introduction and Overview of Study Units and Archeological Management Regions.” 

ML12241A387. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: State Archaeological Research Center, Rapid City 

and Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College. 1990. 

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). Biological Assessment Preparation 

for Transportation Projects—Advanced Traning Manual Version 02-2012, 7.0 Construction 

Noise Impact Assessment. ML12250A723. Olympia, Washington: Washington State 

Department of Transportation. 2012. <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/448B609AA84E-4670-811B-9BC68AAD3000/0/BA_ManualChapter7.pdf> (23 August 2012). 

Wyoming Department of Education. “Wyoming School District Statistical Report Series #2.” 

2010. <http://edu.wyoming.gov/DataInformationAndReporting/StatisticalReportSeries2.aspx> 

(01 May 2012). 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. “Sales and Use Tax Distribution Reports.” ML12240A261. 

2012. <http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10> 

(11 September 2012). 

Wyoming Department of Workforce Services. “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” Casper, 

Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Research and Planning. 2012. 

<http://doe.state.wy.us/LMI/laus.htm> (07 June 2012). 

Wyoming Statute, Title 39, Taxation and Revenue. July 1, 2011. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

Wyoming Legislature. <http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LSOWeb/StatutesDownload.aspx> 

(11 June 2012). 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Map Server. Casper, Wyoming, WYOGCC. 

2012. <http://wogccms.state.wy.us/> (21 August 2012). 
FINAL Description of the Affected Environment 

3-133 

WY SHPO (Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office). “Dewey-Burdock Line of Sight 

Analysis.” Email (September 4) from R. Currit, Senior Archaeologist, Wyoming State Historic 

Preservation Office to H. Yilma, NRC. ML13309B643. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WY SPO. 

September 4, 2013. 

Zouhar, K. “Cynoglossum Officinale.” Fire Effects Information System. ML12276A293. 

Missoula, Montanta: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. 2002. <http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/> 

(31 August 2012). 

Zollinger, R. and R. Lym. “Identification and Control of Field Bindweed.” W–802. 

ML12276A280. Fargo, North Dakota: North Dakota State University. 2000. 

<http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ plantsci/weeds/w802w.htm> (31 August 2012).

4-1 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATIONS, 

AQUIFER RESTORATION, AND DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES 

AND MITIGATIVE ACTIONS 

4.1 Introduction 

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling 

Facilities (NRC, 2009a) evaluated the potential environmental impacts of implementing in-situ 

recovery (ISR) operations in four distinct geographic regions, including the Nebraska-South 

Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region where the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is 

located. This chapter evaluates the potential environmental impacts from Alternative 1 

(implementing the proposed action, which includes options for liquid waste disposal) and 

Alternative 2 (the No-Action alternative). In addition, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) staff considered other reasonable alternative actions at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project. These included alternative sites, alternative lixiviants, alternative well completion 

methods, conventional mining and milling, and conventional mining and heap leach processing. 

These alternatives were eliminated from detailed analysis for reasons described in Section 2.2 

of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

This chapter analyzes the four lifecycle phases of ISR uranium extraction (construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning/reclamation) at the proposed site using 

the analytical approach described in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). The results of the GEIS impact 

analyses for the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region, as summarized in 

Table 1.4-1, were used to focus the site-specific environmental review at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. In situations where the GEIS concluded a wide range of impacts 

on a particular resource area could range from SMALL to LARGE, the NRC staff evaluated the 

resource area in greater detail for this site-specific SEIS. The site-specific analyses describe 

new information the NRC staff obtained during its independent site-specific review. The 

potential impacts of the new information were evaluated to determine whether they changed the 

expected impacts presented in the GEIS. 

This chapter also analyzes the environmental impacts of liquid waste disposal options that the 

applicant may use at the proposed project site (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4). These options 

include deep well disposal via Class V injection wells, disposal via land application, and disposal 

via a combination of Class V injection wells and land application. The applicant’s use of 

deep well disposal is contingent on obtaining a permit for Class V injection wells from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA is currently reviewing an application for a 

Class V injection well permit (see Table 1.6-1). The applicant’s use of land application is 

contingent on obtaining an approved groundwater discharge plan (GDP) from the South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR). SDDENR will permit land 

application only if the applicant demonstrates insufficient Class V disposal capacity 

(SDDENR, 2013a). SDDENR is currently reviewing a GDP application for land application (see 

Table 1.6-1). 

SEIS Sections 4.2 through 4.14 evaluate potential impacts from both the proposed action (which 

includes construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning/reclamation using 

Class V deep injection wells, land application, or a combination of both for management of 

process-related liquid waste streams) and the No-Action alternative (which means no ISR 

facility will be built and operated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project). The No-Action 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-2 

alternative provides a baseline against which to compare the potential impacts from the 

proposed action. 

NRC established a standard of significance for assessing environmental impacts in the conduct 

of environmental reviews based on the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, as 

described in the NRC guidance in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a) and summarized as follows: 

SMALL: The environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither 

destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource 

considered. 

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

important attributes of the resource considered. 

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

important attributes of the resource considered. 

4.2 Land Use Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.1, potential environmental impacts to land use will occur 

during all phases of an ISR facility’s lifecycle (NRC, 2009a). Impacts to land use will result from 

(i) land disturbances in conjunction with construction, operations, and decommissioning 

activities; (ii) access restrictions that will limit grazing and recreational activities; and 

(iii) competing access for mineral rights (e.g., leasing of land for both uranium and oil and gas 

exploration and development). 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that land disturbances during the construction phase will be 

temporary and limited to small areas within permitted boundaries. After construction, disturbed 

areas around well sites, staging areas, and trenches will be immediately reseeded and restored. 

In GEIS Section 4.4.1.1, NRC staff also concluded that changes to land use due to grazing 

restrictions and limits on recreational activities are expected to be limited because restricted 

areas will be small, the restrictions will be temporary, and other land is available for these 

activities. Recognizing that the magnitude of land disturbances and access restrictions will vary 

significantly during construction, the NRC staff assessed the potential impacts on land use 

during construction in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Milling Region as ranging from 

SMALL to LARGE. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

Land use impacts from operational activities will be similar to impacts anticipated during the 

construction phase, because additional land disturbances and access restrictions are not 

expected while operational activities are ongoing. Because impacts from access restrictions 

and land disturbances will be similar to or less than construction impacts, NRC staff concluded 

in the GEIS that the overall potential impacts on land use from operational activities at an ISR 

facility will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-3 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

Because aquifer restoration will use the same infrastructure that is present during operation 

phases, land use impacts from aquifer restoration are expected to be similar to or less than 

operation impacts. As aquifer restoration proceeds and wellfields are closed, operational 

activities will diminish. Therefore, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that aquifer restoration 

impacts to land use will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that decommissioning an ISR facility will temporarily increase 

land-disturbing activities, such as, dismantling, removing, and disposing of materials equipment, 

and excavated contaminated soils. Access restrictions will remain in place until 

decommissioning and reclamation are complete, although a licensee may decommission and 

reclaim the site in stages. Reclamation of land to preexisting conditions and uses will help to 

mitigate potential long-term impacts. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that impacts to land use 

during decommissioning may range from SMALL to MODERATE and will be SMALL after 

decommissioning and reclamation activities are complete. (NRC, 2009a) 

The potential environmental impacts on land use from construction, operations, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are detailed in 

the following sections. 

4.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

As described in SEIS Section 3.2, the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site encompasses 

4,282 ha [10,580 ac] (Powertech, 2009a). Approximately 97.5 percent of surface rights in the 

proposed project are held privately, and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) holds the 

remaining 2.5 percent. Land will be converted temporarily from its primary use as rangeland to 

use as an ISR facility, with facilities constructed and wellfields brought into production over time. 

Subsurface mineral rights are divided among several private entities and BLM (Powertech, 

2009b). The applicant leases both surface and subsurface mineral rights in portions of the 

proposed project area where it plans to extract uranium. The applicant controls the unpatented 

mineral claims associated with 1,708 ha [4,220 ac] of federal minerals the U.S. government 

reserved under the Stock-Raising Homestead Act. The applicant also maintains unpatented 

mining claims on the 97 ha [240 ac] of BLM-administered surface lands within the project area 

(see SEIS Section 3.2). 

In the GEIS, NRC staff identified potential land use alterations to ecological, historical, and 

cultural resources that range from SMALL to LARGE. In this SEIS, NRC staff present potential 

ecological impacts from land use in SEIS Section 4.6 and potential historical and cultural 

impacts from land use in SEIS Section 4.9. Impacts to soils from surface disturbances are 

discussed in SEIS Section 4.4. NRC staff assessed potential impacts on mineral extraction, 

grazing, or recreational activities that may result from the land disturbances and associated 

access restrictions during the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

phases at the proposed facility. 

The applicant described environmental impacts on land use for each of the liquid waste disposal 

options (which are discussed in following sections) include (i) disposal via Class V injection 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-4 

wells, (ii) disposal via land application, or (iii) combined disposal via Class V injection wells and 

land application. 

4.2.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

waste is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. The section discusses potential 

environmental impacts on land use from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning associated with the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

4.2.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

Construction phase activities, including drilling, trenching, excavating, grading, and 

surface facility construction, will have the largest direct land use impact at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock site. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, initial construction of processing 

facilities, infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, access roads, power lines, and storage ponds), and 

wellfields is expected to be completed within 2 years (see Figure 2.1-1), followed by phased 

construction of additional wellfields during the operational phase. 

A breakdown of estimated land disturbance for the facilities and infrastructure associated with 

the Class V injection well disposal option is provided in Table 4.2-1. For this disposal option, a 

total of 98.3 ha [243 ac] of land or 2.3 percent of the proposed permit area will be potentially 

disturbed by activities associated with construction of site buildings, pipelines, wellfields, ponds, 

and access roads (Powertech, 2010a). The total amount of BLM-managed land expected to be 

disturbed during construction activities is 4.7 ha [11.63 ac]. Land disturbance on BLM-managed 

land includes an access road, overhead power lines, wellfields, and underground pipelines. The 

total land area projected to be disturbed by construction activities for the Class V injection well 

Table 4.2-1. Breakdown of Land Disturbance for the Class V Injection Well and Land 

Application Disposal Options at the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project 

Facilities/Infrastructure Surface Disturbance 

Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells

Site Buildings 9.7 ha [24 ac] 

Trunkline Installation 10.1 ha [25 ac] 

Access Roads 8.5 ha [21 ac] 

Wellfields 56.7 ha [140 ac] 

Impoundments (ponds) 13.4 ha [33 ac] 

Total 98.3 ha [243 ac] 

Disposal Via Land Application 

Site Buildings 9.7 ha [24 ac] 

Trunkline Installation 10.1 ha [25 ac] 

Access Roads 8.5 ha [21 ac] 

Wellfields 56.7 ha [140 ac] 

Impoundments (ponds) 55.0 ha [136 ac] 

Irrigation Areas 425.7 ha [1,052 ac] 

Total 565.7 ha [1,398 ac] 

Source: Powertech (2010a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-5 

disposal option, 98.3 ha [243 ac], is relatively small compared to the 4,282-ha [10,580-ac] 

permitted area of the proposed project. 

To mitigate impacts of surface disturbance during construction, the applicant proposes to 

reclaim the surface and reestablish vegetation in areas disturbed by drilling, pipeline installation, 

and facility construction as soon as construction activities are completed (Powertech, 2009a). 

In addition, the applicant proposes to minimize construction of new access and secondary roads 

by building only roads essential to operations. Vehicular traffic in the wellfields during 

construction will also be restricted to designated roads and kept to a minimum to reduce the 

area of surface disturbance (Powertech, 2009a). 

The applicant will enclose the processing facilities, storage ponds, and wellfields to restrict and 

control access with fences (Powertech, 2009a). As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.1, the 

Burdock central processing plant will be located on approximately 2.7 ha [6.7 ac] and 

surrounded by a controlled access area fence throughout the life of the project. The Dewey 

satellite facility will be located on 1.2 ha [2.9 ac] and will be surrounded by a controlled 

access area fence. Radium settling and storage ponds constructed for liquid waste 

management will be fenced throughout the life of the project to restrict access. As described 

in Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1 of this SEIS, 2.7 ha [6.8 ac] of radium-settling and storage ponds in the 

Dewey area and 3.4 ha [8.3 ac] of radium-settling and storage ponds in the Burdock area will be 

fenced, if the Class V injection well disposal option is implemented. Fences surrounding the 

processing facilities and ponds will be inspected daily (Powertech, 2010a). 

Fences restricting access to wellfields in the Dewey and Burdock areas will be temporary and 

will be removed after operations and reclamation of each wellfield are completed (Powertech, 

2010a). To minimize the acreage fenced around the wellfields, fencing will enclose only the 

injection and production wells. Fencing will not surround the perimeter monitor wells 

(Powertech, 2010a). The applicant will cover each perimeter monitor well with a locking device 

to limit access. Header houses are to be secured within wellfield fencing (Powertech, 2010a). 

The applicant will use fencing techniques that preserve habitat and allow the movement of large 

game (Powertech, 2010a). 

Fencing will not be built around the Class V injection wells to be used for deep well liquid waste 

disposal (Powertech, 2010a). Class V injection well heads and pumping equipment will be 

located inside locked buildings to restrict access (Powertech, 2010a). 

Recreational activities, including hunting and off-road vehicle access, will be limited by fences 

and restrictions on access to roads and wellfields. As described in SEIS Section 3.2.2, hunting 

is currently open to the public on 3,521 ha [8,700 ac] within the project area. Hunting within the 

project area will remain open to the public during the construction phase (Powertech, 2011). 

Only a small part of the 4,282-ha [10,580-ac] of project area will be enclosed by fencing; 

3.9 total ha [9.6 total ac] of processing facilities and 6.6 total ha [15.1 total ac] of radium-settling 

and storage ponds will be enclosed throughout the life of the project. Fencing around wellfields 

will be temporary. The public will have access to open, unfenced lands for recreational activities 

within and surrounding the proposed project area. 

The exploration of mineral resources other than uranium (e.g., oil and natural gas) will be 

intermixed within the permit area or delayed until operations, decommissioning, and restoration 

activities end. Pending or potential oil and gas mineral leases are not present in the project 

area. Demand is low for oil and gas leases on available land near the Dewey-Burdock site (see 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-6 

SEIS Section 3.2.3). In addition, no coal mines or coal bed methane production are located 

near the site. 

Estimates of the amount of land disturbed by ISR facilities, presented in the GEIS, ranged from 

49–753 ha [120–1,860 ac] (NRC, 2009a). The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impact 

of disturbing this area will be SMALL. The land area projected to be disturbed by 

construction activities for the Class V injection well disposal option is 98.3 ha [243 ac] and is 

relatively small compared to the 4,282 ha [10,580 ac] of the proposed project area; this falls at 

the low end of land disturbance estimates in the GEIS. The applicant proposes to use the 

following concurrent mitigation measures to minimize the impacts of surface disturbance: 

reclaiming and re-vegetating disturbed areas, limiting construction of new access roads, and 

restricting vehicular traffic in wellfields. 

Fenced areas around processing facilities and storage pond areas will be relatively small in 

comparison to the permitted area of the proposed project. Furthermore, fences around 

wellfields are temporary and will be removed after operational and reclamation phases are 

completed in the wellfields. Prohibiting grazing within fenced areas during construction will have 

only a SMALL impact on local livestock production. Because there will be abundant open land 

available around the proposed facilities and surrounding the proposed project area, impacts to 

recreational activities (primarily big game hunting) will be SMALL. Due to the low demand for oil 

and gas leasing and absence of coal bed methane production on land within and in the vicinity 

of the project area, the impact of competing access for mineral rights is expected to be SMALL. 

Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that overall land use impacts during the construction phase 

for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.2.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

The primary changes to land use during the operations phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project will be land disturbance and access restrictions from the expansion of active 

wellfields and development of new wellfields. Land disturbance and access restrictions will 

result from drilling new wells and constructing additional header houses and pipelines. 

Livestock grazing and recreational activities will be restricted from ISR surface facilities, surface 

impoundments, and wellfields during the operations phase. During the operational life of the 

project, fencing around wellfields will remove 56.7 ha [140 ac] of land from grazing and 

recreational uses (see Table 4.2-1). On BLM-managed land, fencing around wellfields B-WF1 

through B-WF4 (see Figure 2.1.6) will remove 3.8 ha [9.4 ac] of land from grazing and 

recreational uses in the Burdock area over the operational life of the project. The applicant will 

restore and reclaim wellfields concurrently, as operations are completed and moved to the next 

wellfield (Powertech, 2009a). As uranium recovery activities cease at a wellfield, the area will 

be restored and reopened to grazing and recreational uses while a new wellfield is developed. 

The sequential movement of active operations from one wellfield to the next will minimize 

potential impacts on grazing and recreational uses throughout the operational life of the project. 

If operations are licensed, the applicant has committed to working with BLM, South Dakota 

Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP) and private landowners to limit public access, primarily for 

hunting (Powertech, 2011). To limit hunting activities in areas of active ISR operations, 

temporary fencing, advisory signs, and gates will be installed near processing plants and 

wellfields. Hunting in areas of active ISR operations will also be limited by rules related to the 

SDGFP walk-in hunting program on private lands, which prohibit the discharge of a firearm 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-7 

within 98.4 m [300 ft] of a person or a structure (Powertech, 2011). Limits on hunting will 

continue over the operational life of the project. 

In summary, impacts due to land disturbance during the operations phase of the proposed 

project will be limited to the wellfields and will be similar to impacts expected during the 

construction phase. Access restrictions during the operations phase will be similar to 

construction impacts. Processing facilities and storage ponds will remain fenced. The 

construction of temporary fencing around operational wellfields will restrict livestock grazing and 

hunting. Once operations are completed in a wellfield, the wellfield will be restored and 

reopened to grazing and recreational use. Substantial acreage within and surrounding the 

4,282-ha [10,580-ac] project site will remain open to grazing and hunting. Therefore, NRC staff 

conclude that the overall impacts to land use from operations for the Class V injection well 

disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.2.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

The aquifer restoration phase will use the same operational infrastructure and require the same 

level of infrastructure maintenance as the operations phase. Land use impacts from 

aquifer restoration will decrease as fewer wells and header houses are used. Additionally, 

equipment traffic and related impacts will diminish. NRC staff conclude that the potential 

impacts to land use during the aquifer restoration phase for the Class V injection well disposal 

option will be comparable to those of the operations phase and will be SMALL. 

4.2.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5, decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will be based on an NRC-approved decommissioning plan, and all decommissioning 

activities will be carried out in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40 and other applicable federal and 

state regulatory requirements. The applicant will submit a decommissioning plan for NRC 

review and approval at least 12 months before the planned commencement of final 

decommissioning (Powertech, 2009b). At the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, the impact from 

dismantling and decontaminating the central plant, satellite facility, roads, and support 

facilities will be consistent with NRC staff conclusions reached in the GEIS. The land potentially 

disturbed as part of the proposed action will be returned to its preoperational condition 

and will be available for its preoperational use for livestock grazing and wildlife habitat 

(Powertech, 2009a). 

After surface operations are complete and wellfields are restored, the applicant will proceed with 

the final steps of decommissioning and surface reclamation, and it will return the land to its 

preoperational conditions (Powertech, 2009b). The areas directly impacted by 

decommissioning include the central processing plant, satellite facility, wellfields and their 

infrastructure (i.e., pipelines and header houses), Class V injection wells, ponds, and access 

roads. SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5 describes the decommissioning activities that are necessary to 

return the site to its previous land use. These activities include conducting radiological surveys, 

removing contaminated equipment and materials, cleaning up areas, plugging and abandoning 

wells, decontaminating and removing buildings and other onsite structures, and restoring 

disturbed areas (Powertech, 2009b). As disturbed areas are restored, they will be backfilled, 

contoured, and smoothed to blend with the natural terrain in accordance with the NRC-approved 

decommissioning plan. All wells are to be sealed and capped, and wellfield pipelines removed. 

After well plugging and abandonment and wellfield decommissioning are complete, seeded soil 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-8 

will be returned to the areas from which it was removed and contoured to blend with the natural 

terrain. As decommissioning and reclamation proceed, the amount of disturbed and fenced 

land will decrease and the structures that could alter the setting of the project area will be 

removed. The dismantling of the proposed project facilities, infrastructure, and roads, together 

with the reseeding and placement of soil will have impacts similar in scale to the 

construction phase. 

At the end of decommissioning, all lands will be returned to their preoperational land use of 

livestock grazing and wildlife habitat, unless the state and the landowner justify or approve an 

alternative use (e.g., landowners will be given the option to retain roads or buildings constructed 

for the ISR project for private use) (Powertech, 2009a). Reclaimed lands will be released for 

other uses. Livestock grazing and recreational activities will no longer be restricted. The land 

use impacts for disturbed areas will be MODERATE until vegetation is reestablished in seeded 

areas. Once vegetation is reestablished in reclaimed areas, the NRC staff conclude the land 

use impacts for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.2.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant will dispose of 

liquid waste generated by land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). The locations of 

land application areas for this disposal option are shown in Figure 2.1-12. The potential 

environmental impacts on land use from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning associated with the land application disposal option are discussed in the 

following sections. 

4.2.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

A breakdown of estimated land disturbance for the facilities and infrastructure associated with 

the land application option is provided in Table 4.2-1. A total of 565.7 ha [1,398 ac] of land, or 

13.2 percent of the proposed permit area, will be disturbed by activities associated with 

construction of facilities, pipelines, wellfields, storage ponds, irrigation areas, and access roads 

(Powertech, 2010a). This area of land disturbance is larger than anticipated for the Class V 

injection well disposal option {approximately 98 ha [243 ac]} due to the addition of land irrigation 

areas {426 ha [1,052 ac]} and the need for increased pond capacity for storage during 

nonirrigation periods {35 ha [136 ac]} (see Table 4.2-1). The land application option will 

not impact the total amount of BLM-managed land expected to be disturbed during 

construction activities at the proposed project site {4.7 ha [11.63 ac]}. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.2.1.1.1, land disturbance on BLM-managed land includes an access road, overhead 

power lines, wellfields, and underground pipelines (see SEIS Section 4.2.1.1.1). The total 

land area projected to be disturbed by construction activities for the land application option 

{i.e., 565.7 ha [1,398 ac]} is relatively small in comparison to the 4,282-ha [10,580-ac] permitted 

area of the proposed project. 

Mitigation measures, such as performing concurrent reclamation and revegetation of disturbed 

surface areas, limiting construction of new access and secondary roads, and restricting 

vehicular traffic in wellfields and land application areas, will reduce the impacts of surface 

disturbance associated with construction activities for the land application disposal option 

(Powertech, 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-9 

With the exception of radium settling and storage pond areas, fencing restrictions and their 

impacts on land use during the construction phase for the land application option will be similar 

to those of the Class V injection well disposal option. Fenced areas around radium settling and 

storage ponds to restrict access will increase to approximately 12.5 ha [30.8 ac] in the Dewey 

area and approximately 13.6 ha [33.5 ac] in the Burdock area (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). 

The increase in fenced areas around ponds for the land application disposal option will remain 

small in comparison to the 4,282-ha [10,580-ac] permitted area for the proposed project. The 

applicant does not plan to construct fencing around potential land irrigation areas during the 

construction phase of the project, and these areas will remain open to hunting 

(Powertech, 2010a). 

As noted in SEIS Section 4.2.1.1.1, the degree of land disturbance at ISR facilities analyzed in 

the GEIS ranged from 49–753 ha [120–1,860 ac], and NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

impacts from this range of disturbed land area will be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). The land area to 

be disturbed by construction activities for the land application option {i.e., 565.7 ha [1,398 ac]} is 

relatively small when compared to the 4,282-ha [10,580-ac] permitted area of the proposed 

project. The amount of disturbance falls within the estimates evaluated in the GEIS. Impacts 

of surface land disturbance will be minimized by mitigation measures, including concurrently 

reclaiming and revegetating surface disturbed areas, limiting construction of new access roads, 

and restricting vehicular traffic in wellfields and land application areas. Processing facilities, 

pond areas, and wellfields will be fenced; however, only relatively small areas will be restricted, 

and fencing around wellfields will be temporary. Therefore, the restriction of livestock grazing 

within areas fenced off during construction will have a SMALL impact on local livestock 

production. Land irrigation areas will not be fenced during the construction phase of the project. 

In addition, open land will be available around the proposed facilities and within the proposed 

project area. Because of these factors, impacts to recreational activities (primarily big game 

hunting) will be SMALL. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that overall land use impacts during 

the construction phase for the land application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.2.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

The primary change expected to affect land use during the operations phase of the proposed 

facility is the expansion of active wellfields and development of new wellfields, and the impact 

will be similar to that of the construction phase. Grazing and recreational activities will be 

restricted from processing facilities, storage ponds, and wellfields during the operations phase. 

The need for fencing around wellfields will remove approximately 56.7 ha [140 ac] of land from 

grazing and recreation activities over the operational life of the project; this is the same acreage 

as the Class V injection well disposal option requires (see Table 4.2-1). On BLM-managed 

land, fencing around wellfields B-WF1 through B-WF4 will remove 3.8 ha [9.4 ac] of land from 

grazing and recreational activities in the Burdock area over the operational life of the project. 

The applicant will restore and reclaim wellfields concurrently, as operations are completed and 

moved to the next wellfield (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, a wellfield where uranium recovery 

activities have ceased will be restored and reopened for grazing at the same time a new 

wellfield is being developed. The sequential movement of active operations from one wellfield 

to the next shifts and minimizes potential impacts to livestock grazing and recreational land over 

the operational life of the project. 

In addition to fencing processing facilities, ponds, and wellfields, the applicant may fence land 

application areas to control livestock access to these areas (Powertech, 2010a). As described 

in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2, the maximum estimated area for land application is 426 ha 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-10 

[1,052 ac], and this acreage includes operating irrigation pivots, standby irrigation pivots, and 

surface stormwater runoff catchment areas. The land application area is relatively small when 

compared to the 4,282-ha [10,580-ac] permitted area. Moreover, substantial open land within 

and surrounding the project site will be available for livestock grazing. 

The applicant has committed to work with BLM, SDGFP, and private landowners to limit 

recreational activities (primarily hunting) within the project area to the extent practicable before 

operations begin (Powertech, 2011). Temporary fencing, signage, gates, and other means of 

restricting public access will be used in active ISR areas, such as wellfields and processing 

plants, and may be used in land application areas. The SDGFP walk-in hunting program on 

private lands, which prohibits the discharge of a firearm within 98.4 m [300 ft] of a person or a 

structure, will limit hunting where active ISR operations are ongoing (Powertech, 2011). Limits 

on hunting will be in effect over the operational life of the project. 

Impacts due to land disturbance during the operations phase will be restricted to the wellfields 

and are expected to be similar to impacts from construction. Access restrictions during the 

operations phase will be similar to those of the construction phase, except for land irrigation 

areas. Processing facilities and storage ponds will remain fenced to restrict and control human 

and wildlife access. Temporary fencing will be constructed around operational wellfields to 

restrict grazing and hunting. A maximum of 426 ha [1,052 ac] of land irrigation area may be 

fenced to control livestock grazing and limit access by hunters. The acreage of land application 

area is relatively small in comparison to the permitted area. In addition, substantial open area 

within and surrounding the 4,282-ha [10,580-ac] project site will remain open to grazing and 

hunting. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the overall impacts to land use from operations for 

the land application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.2.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

The surface disturbance and access restrictions anticipated in the construction and operational 

phases will continue during aquifer restoration if the land application disposal option is 

implemented. Land use impacts from aquifer restoration will decrease over time, as fewer 

wells and pump houses are used and overall equipment traffic diminishes. Thus, NRC staff 

conclude that the overall potential impacts to land use during the aquifer restoration phase for 

the land application disposal option will be comparable to those of the operations phase and will 

be SMALL. 

4.2.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Decommissioning areas after the land application disposal option will bring about environmental 

impacts similar to those described in SEIS Section 4.2.1.1.4 for the Class V injection well 

disposal option. Decommissioning the proposed facility will require an NRC-approved 

decommissioning plan. All decommissioning activities will be carried out in accordance with 

10 CFR Part 40 and other applicable federal and state regulatory requirements. 

After surface operations are complete and wellfields are restored at the proposed facility, the 

applicant will proceed with the final steps of decommissioning and surface reclamation to return 

the land to its preoperational conditions (Powertech, 2009b). The areas directly affected by 

decommissioning will include the central processing plant, satellite facility, wellfields and related 

pipelines and header houses, irrigation areas, ponds, and access roads. SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5 

describes the decommissioning activities required to return the site to its previous land use. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-11 

These activities are summarized in SEIS Section 4.2.1.1.4 and include conducting radiological 

surveys, removing contaminated equipment and materials, cleaning up areas, plugging and 

abandoning wells, decontaminating and removing buildings and other onsite structures, and 

restoring disturbed areas (Powertech, 2009b). Land application areas will be included in 

decommissioning surveys to ensure soil concentration limits are not exceeded. As 

decommissioning and reclamation proceed, the amount of disturbed and fenced land will 

decrease and structures that affect the setting of the project area will be removed. The 

dismantling of the proposed project facilities, infrastructure, and roads and reseeding and 

placement of soil will have impacts similar in scale to the construction phase. 

At the end of decommissioning, all lands will be returned to their preoperational uses of 

livestock grazing and wildlife habitat, unless the state and the landowner justify or approve an 

alternative use. For example, landowners will be given the option to retain roads or buildings 

constructed for the ISR project for private use (Powertech, 2009a). The reclaimed land will be 

released for other uses. Restrictions on livestock grazing and recreational activities will be 

terminated. The land use impacts for disturbed areas will be MODERATE until vegetation is 

reestablished in seeded areas. Once vegetation is reestablished in reclaimed areas, the NRC 

staff conclude the land use impacts for the land application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.2.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes generated at the facility, the applicant will dispose of 

liquid waste by a combination of Class V injection wells and land application (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). For the combined option, land application facilities and infrastructure will 

be constructed, operated, restored, and decommissioned on an as-needed basis, depending on 

Class V injection well disposal capacity (Powertech, 2011). The land application option requires 

the construction and operation of irrigation areas and increased pond capacity for storage of 

liquid wastes during nonirrigation periods (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2), whereas the Class V 

injection well disposal option requires the construction and operation of four to eight Class V 

injection wells (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1). Therefore, the environmental impacts of land 

disturbance and access restrictions associated with the land application option are greater than 

those for the Class V injection waste disposal option than for all phases of the ISR process. 

Furthermore, only a portion of land application facilities and infrastructure (e.g., irrigation areas 

and storage ponds) will be constructed, operated, and decommissioned for the combination 

disposal option. Thus, the environmental impacts on land uses for the combined disposal 

option will be less than for the land application option alone and greater than for the Class V 

injection well disposal option alone. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the environmental land 

use impacts of the combined Class V injection well and land application option for each phase 

of the proposed project will be bounded by the significance of environmental land use impacts of 

the Class V injection well disposal option and the land application disposal option as 

summarized in Table 4.2-2. 

4.2.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, NRC will not license the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

and BLM will not approve the applicant’s modified Plan of Operations. Therefore, impacts, such 

as soil disturbances and access restrictions to current land uses from the proposed action, will 

not occur. Construction impacts will be avoided because wells will not be drilled and pipelines 

will not be laid. Operational impacts will also be avoided because no subsurface injection of 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-12 

Table 4.2-2. Significance of Environmental Land Use Impacts for the Proposed Liquid 

 Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

 In-Situ Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning MODERATE before 

vegetation 

reestablished and 

then SMALL after 

vegetation is 

established 

MODERATE before 

vegetation 

reestablished and 

then SMALL after 

vegetation is 

established 

MODERATE before 

vegetation 

reestablished and 

then SMALL after 

vegetation is 

established 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of 

environmental impacts for the Class V injection well and land application disposal options. 

lixiviant will occur. Without well drilling or the development of wellfields taking place, there will 

be no impacts from aquifer restoration activities. Impacts to land use from decommissioning 

activities will not occur, because unbuilt buildings require no decontamination, topsoil will not 

need reclaiming, and unstripped land surfaces need no revegetation. The current land uses on 

and near the project area, including grazing lands, natural resource extraction, and recreational 

activities, remain essentially unchanged under the No-Action alternative. 

4.3 Transportation Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.3, potential environmental impacts from transportation to and 

from an ISR facility may occur during all phases of the facility lifecycle. Impacts will result from 

workers commuting to and from the site and from the shipment of construction equipment and 

materials, operational processing supplies, ion-exchange resins, yellowcake product, and waste 

materials. Impacts may also occur from fugitive dust emissions, noise, incidental wildlife or 

livestock kills, increased traffic on local roads, and from accidents. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.4.2.1 that ISR construction activities will generate low 

levels of additional traffic (relative to local traffic counts) and will not significantly increase traffic 

or accidents on many of the roads in the region. Roads that have low traffic counts could be 

moderately impacted by the additional workers commuting during periods of peak employment. 

Additionally, NRC staff in the GEIS concluded that, depending on site-specific conditions, there 

could be a moderate impact from fugitive dust, noise, and incidental wildlife or livestock kills on, 

or near, site access roads. For these reasons, NRC staff concluded in the GElS that the 

construction phase of ISR projects may result in transportation impacts that ranged from SMALL 

to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-13 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.2.2, the low level of facility-related traffic during operations 

activities will not noticeably increase traffic or the occurrence of accidents on most roads, 

although local, less traveled roads could be moderately impacted during periods of peak 

employment. During the construction phase of ISR facilities there could be impacts from fugitive 

dust emissions, noise, and possible incidental wildlife or livestock kills either on or near site 

access roads as described in GEIS Section 4.4.1.1. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Section 4.4.2.2 also assessed the potential for and consequence from accidents involving 

the transportation of hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. NRC staff in the GEIS 

recognized the potential for high consequences from a severe accident involving transportation 

of hazardous chemicals in a populated area. The probability of such accidents occurring was 

determined to be low because of the small number of shipments, comprehensive regulatory 

controls, and the applicant’s use of best management practices (BMP). For radioactive material 

shipments [yellowcake product, ion-exchange resins, byproduct material], compliance with 

transportation regulations was expected to limit radiological risk for normal operations. The 

NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.4.2.2 there will be a low radiological risk from 

transportation accidents. The use of emergency response protocols will help to mitigate the 

consequences of severe accidents that involved the release of uranium. NRC staff concluded in 

the GEIS that the potential environmental impact from transportation during operations may 

range from SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.4.2.3 that the magnitude of transportation activities 

during aquifer restoration will be lower than for the construction and operations phases. 

Aquifer-restoration-related transportation activities will be primarily limited to supply shipments, 

waste shipments, onsite transportation, and employee commuting. NRC staff concluded in the 

GEIS that transportation impacts from aquifer restoration will range from SMALL to MODERATE 

for the same reasons discussed previously for the operations phase. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.4.2.4 that transportation activities during 

decommissioning at ISR facilities and the potential impacts will be similar to the construction 

and operation phases, except the magnitude of transportation activities (e.g., number and types 

of waste and supply shipments, no yellowcake shipments) from decommissioning will be lower 

than for the operations phase. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential accident 

radiological risks from transportation during decommissioning will be bounded by the estimates 

of yellowcake transportation risk during operations based on the concentrated nature of the 

shipped yellowcake, the greater distance yellowcake is shipped compared to the byproduct 

material destined for a licensed disposal facility, and the number of shipments of yellowcake 

relative to byproduct material. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS the potential transportation 

impacts during decommissioning will be SMALL because of the reduced transportation 

activities. (NRC, 2009a) 

Estimated transportation environmental impacts during the construction, operations, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning phases of the proposed ISR project are discussed next. 

Fugitive dust impacts are evaluated as air quality impacts in SEIS Section 4.7, noise impacts 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-14 

are described in SEIS Section 4.8, visual impacts are provided in SEIS Section 4.10, and 

potential impacts to livestock and wildlife are discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.2. 

4.3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

The transportation activities for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR facility are described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.7. Under the proposed action, these activities include workers commuting to 

and from the site, and road transportation of construction equipment and materials, operational 

processing supplies, ion-exchange resins, yellowcake product, and waste materials. The 

applicant’s preferred method for disposal of liquid byproduct material is by Class V injection 

well. If a permit is not obtained for Class V injection, the applicant will pursue land application of 

treated liquid effluent. If the capacity of either method is limited, the applicant will pursue a 

combination of both Class V injection and land application. The transportation impacts from the 

Class V injection well option are described in Section 4.3.1.1. The transportation impacts from 

the land application option and combined Class V injection and land application are described in 

Sections 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.1.3. 

4.3.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

byproduct material is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. The potential transportation 

environmental impacts from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

associated with the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project are discussed in the following sections. 

4.3.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As described in SEIS Section 3.3, the site is accessed by Dewey Road (also known as 

Fall River County Road 6463 and Custer County Road 769) and State Highways 18, 79, and 89. 

The applicant estimated traffic generated by proposed construction activities, including 

transportation of equipment, supplies, and workers (Powertech, 2009a, 2010a), and its analysis 

is described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. The NRC staff’s impact analysis first compared the 

proposed traffic estimates and data with the information evaluated in GEIS Section 2.8 and then 

evaluated the estimated percentage increase in existing traffic that could result from the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

The NRC impact analysis found the overall magnitude of the proposed daily construction traffic 

is less than the construction traffic evaluated in GEIS Section 2.8. Commuting workers 

constitute the majority of road traffic the applicant described for the construction phase. The 

applicant estimated 38 worker trips to the site daily for the proposed project, which is well below 

the upper range of 200 commuting worker trips to a site considered in the GEIS. The applicant 

has estimated the initial facility construction requiring these workers will take approximately 

1 year (Powertech, 2010a). The applicant’s proposed equipment and supply shipments, 

however, were higher than those assumed in GEIS Section 2.8 (9 one-way trips per day for the 

proposed project compared to 0.24 one-way trips per day considered in GEIS Section 2.8). 

Table 4.3-1 compares the magnitude of the NRC staff’s estimated local traffic counts from 

proposed construction activities with existing traffic counts on regional/local roads. Considering 

Table 4.3-1, the proposed traffic, if allocated completely to the individual road segments, will 

noticeably increase the existing traffic on low-traffic roads, such as unpaved Dewey Road 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-15 

Table 4.3-1. Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional Roads for the Construction Phase of 

 the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Road Segment Traffic Count* 

Projected 

Traffic† 

Percent 

Increase‡ 

 All 

Vehicles Auto Truck Auto Truck Auto Truck 

Dewey Road 225 225 — 301 18 34 — 

U.S. Highway 18 

(Edgemont to State 

Highway 89) 

1,782 1,361 421 1,437 439 6 4 

U.S. Highway 18 

(Hot Springs to State 

Highway 79) 

5,075 4,725 350 4,801 368 2 5 

State Highway 89 

(U.S. Highway 385 to 

U.S. Highway 18) 

659 604 55 680 73 12 33 

State Highway 79 

(at U.S. Highway 18) 3,172 2,569 603 2,645 621 3 3 

Sources: Powertech (2013a,b); SDDOT (2011) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel (Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement Section 3.3). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission calculated the auto traffic count as the 

difference between the all vehicle count and reported truck count; for Dewey road, the auto count was assumed 

equal to the all vehicle count. Data for all roads are for year 2011 and are from SDDOT (2011), except the 

Dewey count is from 2012 (Powertech 2013a). 

†Projected traffic is the sum of the proposed action daily two-way traffic and the applicable traffic count. 

Proposed construction phase two-way traffic is double the round-trips reported in Table 2.1-7. 

‡This analysis assumes all projected traffic will travel on each road. If proposed action traffic used multiple routes 

then this analysis overestimates impacts to each road segment. 

(Fall River County Road 6463 and Custer County Road 769) and State Highway 89 but will not 

substantially increase traffic on more heavily traveled road segments, such as U.S. Highway 18 

traveling from Edgemont or near Hot Springs or State Highway 79 at the junction with 

U.S. Highway 18. The projected daily traffic on Dewey Road, the road nearest the proposed 

site, represents a 42 percent increase over existing traffic considering both autos and trucks. 

State Highway 89 auto traffic was projected to increase by 13 percent if all workers commuted 

on that route and truck traffic was projected to increase 33 percent. Similarly, based on the 

traffic count information in Table 4.3-1, State Highway 89 is not a commonly used route for 

trucks; therefore, the projected increase in truck traffic from the proposed action is considered 

less likely to be concentrated there relative to other routes. While the projected increase in 

traffic on some road segments is a noticeable change in conditions, the NRC staff further 

evaluated the projected increases in traffic by considering the ability of the roads to 

accommodate the increased traffic. When the projected traffic for all the roads in the analysis is 

evaluated (ranging from 319 to 5,169 vehicles per day based on the sum of projected auto and 

truck traffic for each road), the magnitude of traffic is not expected to exceed the existing road 

capacity, and therefore the staff conclude the regional highways could accommodate the 

additional traffic from the proposed project. 

The conclusion that existing road capacity will not be exceeded is based on the staff’s 

consideration of other road capacity estimates in SEIS Section 3.3. Because the traffic 

projections in Table 4.3-1 are daily values for both directions of travel, the comparable one-way 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-16 

projected traffic is assumed to be half the tabulated values [e.g., 2,584 vehicles per day for the 

U.S. Highway 18 total of 5,169 (2,584 vehicles per day is well below the aforementioned range 

of capacities staff evaluated of 7,237 to 13,900 vehicles per day)]; therefore, the NRC staff 

conclude the highest projected traffic is below the estimated capacity. 

Considering the magnitude of projected traffic from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, 

the NRC staff conclude the increase in traffic volumes to the local and unpaved Dewey Road 

will result in SMALL impacts under the Class V injection well disposal option. This increase in 

traffic will incrementally accelerate degradation of the road surface, increase the generation of 

dust, and increase the potential for traffic accidents and wildlife or livestock kills. Based on the 

available capacity on the more distant regional roads, the staff conclude the potential traffic 

impacts to the remainder of regional roads under the Class V injection well disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

The applicant intends to use existing roads on the site area to the degree possible; however, 

some new roads will be constructed to facilitate onsite transportation (SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.2). 

Impacts to land use related to the development of new access roads are addressed in SEIS 

Section 4.2.1.1. All roads constructed for the proposed action will be reclaimed except those 

landowners specify to remain for future use (Powertech, 2009a). 

4.3.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

The proposed operational transportation activities for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

similar to those evaluated in GEIS Section 4.4.2.2 including employee commuting and truck 

shipments of yellowcake, ion-exchange resins, hazardous chemical supplies, and byproduct 

material. The types of impacts evaluated are also similar to those evaluated in the GEIS 

including impacts to traffic and potential hazards associated with shipment of yellowcake, 

ion-exchange resins, byproduct material, and hazardous materials. 

Traffic generated by these proposed operations is described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. The 

overall magnitude of proposed operational transportation is less than the operational 

transportation evaluated in GEIS Section 4.4.2.2. Commuting workers constitute the majority of 

road traffic the applicant proposed for the operations phase. The applicant estimated a number 

of commuting workers trips to the site that was within the range considered in the GEIS 

(27 vehicle trips for the proposed project compared to 20 to 200 trips considered in the GEIS). 

For trucking activities, remote ion-exchange shipments were comparable to the GEIS 

Section 2.8 values and processing chemical shipments were less than GEIS values. The 

proposed operational byproduct shipments are less than the GEIS values, and proposed 

yellowcake shipments are at the low end of the range considered in the GEIS. (NRC, 2009a) 

Table 4.3-2 compares the magnitude of the NRC staff’s estimated increase in local traffic counts 

from proposed operations activities. The projected traffic for the operations phase for all road 

segments evaluated is lower than the projected traffic from the construction phase. Considering 

Table 4.3-2, the proposed traffic, if allocated completely to the individual road segments, will 

increase the existing traffic on unpaved Dewey Road (Fall River County Road 6463 and 

Custer County Road 769) but will not substantially increase traffic on more heavily traveled road 

segments, such as State Highway 89, U.S. Highway 18 (from Edgemont and near Hot Springs), 

or State Highway 79 at the junction with U.S. Highway 18. The projected daily traffic on Dewey 

Road, the road nearest the proposed site, represents a 24 percent increase over existing traffic. 

State Highway 89 traffic was projected to increase by nine percent if all workers commuted on 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-17 

Table 4.3-2. Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional Roads for the Operations Phase of the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Road Segment Traffic Count* 

Projected 

Traffic† 

Percent 

Increase‡ 

 All 

Vehicles Auto Truck Auto Truck Auto Truck 

Dewey Road 225 225 — 279 4 24 — 

U.S. Highway 18 

(Edgemont to State 

Highway 89) 

1,782 1,361 421 1,415 425 4 <1 

U.S. Highway 18 

(Hot Springs to State 

Highway 79) 

5,075 4,725 350 4,779 354 1 1 

State Highway 89 

(U.S. Highway 385 to 

U.S. Highway 18) 

659 604 55 658 59 9 7 

State Highway 79 

(at U.S. Highway18) 3,172 2,569 603 2,623 605 2 <1 

Sources: Powertech (2013a,b); SDDOT (2011) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel (Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement Section 3.3). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission calculated the auto traffic count as the 

difference between the all vehicle count and reported truck count; for Dewey road, the auto count was assumed 

equal to the all vehicle count. Data for all roads are for year 2011 and are from SDDOT (2011) except the Dewey 

count is from 2012 (Powertech, 2013a). 

†Projected traffic is the sum of the proposed action daily two-way traffic and the applicable traffic count. Proposed 

operations phase two-way traffic is double the round- trips reported in Table 2.1-7. 

‡This analysis assumes all projected traffic will travel on each road. If proposed action traffic used multiple routes, 

then this analysis overestimates impacts to each road segment. 

that route; however, because the road is more distant from the site, the NRC staff conclude it 

will be less likely to be used by all workforce commuters and therefore actual traffic impacts will 

be lower than projected. Based on the information in Table 4.3-2, the projected increases in 

truck traffic are low for all routes evaluated. Additionally, the magnitude of the projected 

operational traffic for all the roads evaluated (ranging from approximately 283 to 5,133 vehicles 

per day considering the sum of projected auto and truck traffic) will not exceed the existing road 

capacity (see additional discussion of capacity in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1), and the staff conclude 

the regional highways could accommodate the additional traffic from the proposed project. 

Considering the magnitude of projected traffic from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, 

the NRC staff conclude the increase in traffic volumes to the local and unpaved Dewey Road 

will result in SMALL impacts under the Class V injection well disposal option. This increase in 

traffic will incrementally accelerate degradation of the road surface, increase the generation of 

dust, and increase the potential for traffic accidents and wildlife or livestock kills. Based on the 

available capacity on the more distant regional roads, the staff conclude the potential traffic 

impacts to the remainder of regional roads will also be SMALL under the Class V injection well 

disposal option. 

The potential radiological accident risk associated with yellowcake product shipments was 

evaluated in GEIS Section 4.4.2.2. The yellowcake transportation analysis assumed shipment 

volumes that ranged from 34 to 145 yellowcake shipments per year, which could result in a risk 

of 0.01 and 0.04 latent cancer fatalities, respectively, considering accident probabilities and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-18 

consequences (NRC, 2009a). The proposed yellowcake transportation activities for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. These activities 

are similar in approach to the activities evaluated in the GEIS Section 4.2.2.2, and the quantities 

of material shipped, the number of shipments, and the shipment distances are within the 

magnitude of the yellowcake transportation activities evaluated in the GEIS. The applicant has 

estimated approximately 25 yellowcake shipments per year will be needed for the proposed 

action or an average of one shipment every 2 weeks. This estimate is based on the proposed 

45,250 kg [1 million lb] annual yellowcake production rate and an assumed 18,100 kg 

[40,000 lb] capacity per yellowcake shipment (Powertech, 2009b). By comparison the GEIS 

does not differ significantly; it considers yellowcake shipped in drums that hold approximately 

430 kg [950 lb] and shipments carrying 40 drums per load for a total shipment capacity of 

17,200 kg [38,000 lb]. Therefore, the radiological accident risk associated with yellowcake 

shipment at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be bounded by the GEIS risk 

analysis. The shipment volume will not significantly affect the project-related traffic relative to 

the expected commuting workforce. 

The GEIS Section 4.4.2.2 reported that previous accidents involving yellowcake releases result 

in up to 30 percent of shipment contents being released (NRC, 2009a). To limit the risk of an 

accident involving resin or yellowcake transport, the applicant has proposed that all such 

materials will be transported in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) and NRC regulations, handled as low specific-activity materials, and shipped using 

exclusive-use-only vehicles (Powertech, 2009a). The NRC staff conclude the consequences of 

such accidents will also be limited because the applicant has proposed to develop emergency 

response procedures (Powertech, 2009a) for yellowcake and other transportation accidents that 

could occur during shipment to or from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The 

applicant also proposes to ensure its personnel and the carrier receive training on these 

emergency response procedures and that information about the procedures is provided to state 

and local agencies (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude the impact from a 

potential accident involving yellowcake transportation during the operations phase of the 

proposed project will be SMALL under the Class V injection well disposal option. 

The potential impacts from ion-exchange shipments were evaluated in GEIS Section 4.2.2.2 as 

cited by GEIS Section 4.4.2.2. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential radiological 

impacts of these shipments will be bound by the risks from yellowcake shipments based on the 

less concentrated nature of the resins; the uranium being chemically bound to the resins, which 

will limit dispersion in the event of a spill; and the small shipment distance relative to yellowcake 

shipments (i.e., the likelihood of an accident increases with the distance traveled). The 

proposed ion-exchange transportation activities for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project described in 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7 are similar to the activities evaluated in the GEIS. The applicant plans to 

transport one loaded resin truck per day (Powertech, 2009a), which is consistent with the GEIS 

Section 2.8 assumption of one truck per day. Ion-exchange resin transported onsite between 

the Dewey site and the Burdock site central processing plant will traverse approximately 8 km 

[5.0 mi] of road (primarily on Dewey Road). Compliance with the applicable NRC and USDOT 

regulations for shipping ion-exchange resins, which are enforced by NRC onsite inspections, 

provides additional confidence that these materials can be safely shipped across the site area. 

Therefore, applying the GEIS impact analysis to the proposed activities, the NRC staff conclude 

the aforementioned SMALL potential radiological accident impacts from the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock facility yellowcake shipments bound the potential radiological accident impacts 

of the proposed ion-exchange resin shipments. The NRC staff conclude the resulting 

environmental impact from ion-exchange resin shipments will be SMALL; this is based on the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-19 

fact that the risk of ion-exchange resin accidents is low, a resulting spill will be properly removed 

and disposed of, and the affected area will be reclaimed in accordance with applicable NRC and 

state regulations. 

The potential impacts from operational byproduct material shipments were evaluated in GEIS 

Section 4.2.2.2 as cited by GEIS Section 4.4.2.2. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS the SMALL 

risks from transporting yellowcake during operations will bound the risks expected from 

byproduct material shipments, owing to the concentrated nature of shipped yellowcake, the 

longer distance yellowcake is shipped relative to byproduct material, and the relative number of 

shipments of each material. The proposed operational byproduct material transportation 

activities for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. The 

applicant proposed to temporarily store operational byproduct material and then ship the 

material to an offsite disposal facility that is licensed to accept byproduct material. Byproduct 

material disposal facility options are described in SEIS Section 3.13.2. The applicant’s 

estimated annual generation of 22 m3

 [29 yd3] of byproduct material (including reverse osmosis 

reject solids, spent ion-exchange resins, and tank and pond sediments) will comprise 

approximately one shipment per year (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7). This magnitude of 

operational byproduct material shipping is lower than the range documented in the GEIS of 

2.5 to 15 shipments per year (NRC, 2009a, Table 2.8-1). Transportation safety will be 

maintained by the applicant’s proposed adherence to applicable NRC and USDOT 

transportation requirements, the applicant’s proposed use of licensed third-party carriers, and 

the applicant’s proposed emergency response measures (Powertech, 2009b). Based on the 

preceding analysis, the NRC staff conclude the applicant’s proposed operational byproduct 

material shipment activities are consistent with the impact analysis in GEIS Section 4.4.2.2, and 

therefore environmental impacts of the proposed shipments under the Class V injection well 

disposal option will be bounded by impacts from the proposed yellowcake shipments (SMALL). 

The potential impacts from transportation of process chemical supplies were also evaluated in 

GEIS Section 4.2.2.2 as cited by GEIS Section 4.4.2.2. The potential safety hazards associated 

with process chemicals the applicant intends to use for the proposed action (see SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.2.3) were also described and evaluated in GEIS Sections 2.11.2 and 

4.2.11.2.4 (NRC, 2009a). The proposed operational hazardous chemical shipments for the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. The applicant proposes to 

store, use, and receive shipments of the following chemicals: sodium chloride (NaCl), sodium 

carbonate (NaHCO3), sodium hydroxide (NaOH), hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen peroxide 

(H2O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), anhydrous ammonia (NH3), diesel fuel, gasoline, and 

bottled gases (Powertech, 2009b). The magnitude of operational chemical supply shipments is 

less than the value documented in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a, Table 2.8-1), and the types of 

chemicals shipped align with the materials evaluated in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). 

Transportation risks associated with incoming, onsite, and outgoing shipments involve potential 

in-transit accidents. The process chemicals described in the applicant’s proposal are commonly 

used in industrial applications, and they will be transported following applicable USDOT 

hazardous materials shipping provisions. If an accident occurs, spill response will be handled 

via emergency response procedures, although a spill of nonradiological materials will be 

reportable to the appropriate state agency, EPA, and USDOT (NRC, 2009a). Spill material will 

be recovered or removed and the affected areas reclaimed. The release of anhydrous 

ammonia, a compound that the applicant may use in the precipitation circuit (Powertech, 

2009b), could be hazardous to the public if released near a populated area. However, the 

proposed project is not situated in a populated area and the likelihood of such an accident 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-20 

occurring is small, calculated as 3.0 × 10−7

 accidents per km [4.8 × 10−7 accidents per mi] based 

on NUREG–0706 accident data (NRC, 1980). The applicant proposes to maintain transportation 

safety by following applicable USDOT hazardous materials transportation requirements and the 

proposed use of licensed third-party carriers (Powertech, 2009a). Based on these 

considerations, the staff conclude the environmental impacts from operational hazardous 

chemical shipments under the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

NRC staff conclude the increase in traffic volumes will result in SMALL impacts to the local and 

unpaved Dewey Road and SMALL impacts to the remaining regional roads under the Class V 

injection well disposal option. Based on the low radiological risks from transportation accidents 

and the implementation of the applicant’s additional safety practices as previously discussed, 

the overall impacts from the proposed transportation activities during the operations phase will 

be SMALL under the Class V injection well disposal option. 

4.3.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

At the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, commuting workers constitute the majority of road 

traffic the applicant proposes for the aquifer restoration phase. The applicant estimated the 

number of worker trips per day to the site will be five (compared to 20 to 200 worker trips per 

day considered in GEIS Section 2.8). To evaluate the potential traffic impacts, the NRC staff 

assumed remote ion-exchange and processing chemical shipments will be similar to the 

operations phase and bounded by the GEIS values (NRC, 2009a). 

Table 4.3-3 compares the magnitude of the NRC staff’s estimated increase in local traffic counts 

from proposed aquifer restoration activities. The projected auto traffic for the aquifer restoration 

phase for all road segments evaluated is lower than the projected traffic from the construction 

and operation phases, and the projected truck traffic is similar to the operation phase. 

Considering Table 4.3-3, the proposed traffic, if allocated completely to the individual road 

segments, will increase the existing traffic on low-traffic roads, such as the unpaved Dewey 

Road (Fall River County Road 6463 and Custer County Road 769), but will not substantially 

increase traffic on the remaining road segments in the table. The projected daily traffic on 

Dewey Road, the road nearest the proposed site, is a 4 percent increase over existing traffic. 

Based on the low levels of projected traffic for all vehicle types and road segments, the NRC 

staff conclude the transportation impacts from the proposed aquifer restoration transportation 

activities will be SMALL under the Class V injection well disposal option. 

4.3.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The proposed decommissioning traffic estimates for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. NRC staff derived these estimates from applicant-provided 

information. The magnitude of estimated truck transportation for the proposed 

decommissioning phase is about two times greater than what is reported in the GEIS 

(NRC, 2009a, Table 2.8-1), due to the larger amount of estimated nonhazardous solid 

waste (e.g., facility demolition and equipment removal) from the proposed action that will need 

to be shipped offsite for disposal. Despite this increase, the overall level of transportation is still 

low at about one truck per day (two trips when both directions are included) based on the 

information in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7. 

Table 4.3-4 compares the magnitude of the NRC staff’s estimated increase in local traffic counts 

from proposed decommissioning activities. The projected traffic in Table 4.3-4 is based on the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-21 

Table 4.3-3. Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional Roads for the Aquifer Restoration 

Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Road Segment Traffic Count* 

Projected 

Traffic† Percent Increase‡ 

 All 

Vehicles Auto Truck Auto Truck Auto Truck 

Dewey Road 225 225 — 235 4 4 — 

U.S. Highway 18 

(Edgemont to State 

Highway 89) 

1,782 1,361 421 1,371 425 <1 <1 

U.S. Highway 18 

(Hot Springs to State 

Highway 79) 

5,075 4,725 350 4,735 354 <1 1 

State Highway 89 

(U.S. Highway 385 to 

U.S. Highway 18) 

659 604 55 622 59 2 7 

State Highway 79 

(at U.S. Highway 18) 3,172 2,569 603 2,579 607 <1 <1 

Sources: Powertech (2013a,b); SDDOT (2011) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel (Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement Section 3.3). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission calculated the auto traffic count as the 

difference between the all vehicle count and reported truck count for Dewey road, the auto count was assumed 

equal to the all vehicle count. Data for all roads are for year 2011 and are from SDDOT (2011), except the Dewey 

count is from 2012 (Powertech, 2013a). 

†Projected traffic is the sum of the proposed action daily two-way traffic and the applicable traffic count. Proposed 

aquifer restoration phase two-way traffic is double the round-trips reported in Table 2.1-7. 

‡This analysis assumes all projected traffic will travel on each road. If proposed action traffic used multiple routes, 

then this analysis overestimates impacts to each road segment. 

applicant’s proposed Class V injection well disposal option, which the applicant estimated will 

generate less decommissioning waste than the land application disposal option (and therefore 

will generate less truck traffic). The projected combined auto and truck traffic for the 

decommissioning phase for all road segments evaluated is lower than the projected traffic from 

the construction, operation, and aquifer restoration phases. Considering Table 4.3-4, the 

proposed traffic, if allocated completely to the individual road segments, will increase the 

existing traffic on low-traffic roads, such as the unpaved Dewey Road (Fall River County 

Road 6463 and Custer County Road 769), but will not substantially increase traffic on the 

remaining road segments in the table. The projected increase in daily traffic on Dewey Road, 

the road nearest the proposed site, is a six percent increase over existing traffic. Based on the 

low levels of projected traffic for all vehicle types and road segments, the NRC staff conclude 

the potential traffic-related impacts from the proposed decommissioning transportation activities 

will be SMALL under the Class V injection well disposal option. 

Another potential transportation impact from proposed decommissioning activities is the 

radiological risk from the transportation of byproduct material for offsite disposal. The NRC staff 

consider the potential radiological accident risk associated with byproduct material shipments 

will be low based on the calculated risks from concentrated yellowcake product shipments 

discussed previously in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.2 and in GEIS Section 4.2.2.2. The number of 

byproduct material shipments NRC staff estimated based on the applicant’s proposal is low 

(Table 2.1-7) (approximately 31 annually for the Class V injection well option compared to 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-22 

Table 4.3-4. Estimated Daily Traffic on Regional Roads for the Decommissioning Phase 

 of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Road Segment 2011 Traffic Count* 

Projected 

Traffic† Percent Increase‡ 

 All 

Vehicles Auto Truck Auto Truck Auto Truck 

Dewey Road 225 225 — 239 2 6 — 

U.S. Highway18 

(Edgemont to State 

Highway 89) 

1,782 1,361 421 1,375 423 1 <1 

U.S. Highway 18 

(Hot Springs to State 

Highway 79) 

5,075 4,725 350 4,739 352 <1 1 

State Highway 89 

(U.S. Highway 385 to 

U.S. Highway 18) 

659 604 55 618 57 2 4 

State Highway 79 

(at U.S. Highway18) 3,172 2,569 603 2,583 605 <1 <1 

Sources: Powertech (2013a,b); SDDOT (2011) 

*Traffic counts are annual average daily traffic for both directions of travel (Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement Section 3.3). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission calculated the auto traffic count as the difference 

between the all vehicle count and reported truck count; for Dewey road, the auto count was assumed equal to the all 

vehicle count. Data for all roads are for year 2011 and are from SDDOT (2011), except the Dewey count is from 

2012 (Powertech, 2013a). 

†Projected traffic is the sum of the proposed action daily two-way traffic and the applicable traffic count. Proposed 

decommissioning phase two-way traffic is double the round-trips reported in Table 2.1-7. 

‡This analysis assumes all projected traffic will travel on each road. If proposed action traffic used multiple routes, 

then this analysis overestimates impacts to each road segment. 

 

145 yellowcake shipments evaluated in the GEIS; annual values for the proposed action are the 

product of the reported daily values in Table 2.1-7 and 260 days/year shipping frequency). The 

applicant’s annual byproduct material volume estimate in its surety (Powertech, 2009b) (see 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.6.3) indicates the material will consist primarily of pond leak detection 

equipment and liners. Relative to powdered yellowcake, this material is in a form that will be 

less dispersible (i.e., less likely to cause public exposure if released) and easier to clean up if an 

accident involving release occurred. The byproduct material will be transported and disposed of 

at a licensed facility. The applicant has proposed to pursue an agreement with the White Mesa 

site in Blanding, Utah, for disposal of solid byproduct material (SEIS Section 3.13.2). The trip 

distance to this facility from the proposed site of 1,210 km [752 mi] is less than the distance 

used in the risk analysis described in GEIS Section 4.2.2.2 for transporting yellowcake to the 

conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois {approximately 2,414 km [1,500 mi]}. The applicant 

proposes to implement additional BMPs to reduce the risk of accidents including (i) enforcing 

safe driving and emergency response procedures and training for personnel and truck drivers, 

(ii) installing communication systems to connect trucks to shipper/receiver/emergency 

responders, (iii) and enforcing speed limits on the proposed project site to increase driver safety 

and to reduce conflicts with big game, livestock, and other vehicles (Powertech, 2009a). 

All shipments will be required to comply with applicable USDOT regulations governing the 

transportation of radioactive material (including quantity limits, packaging requirements, and 

conveyance dose rate limits). Based on the preceding analysis, the NRC staff conclude the 

potential radiological risks from the proposed transportation of decommissioning byproduct 

material will be low and therefore the potential environmental impacts from the proposed 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-23 

radioactive material transportation will be SMALL under the Class V injection well 

disposal option. 

In conclusion, because of the low estimated traffic for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

relative to existing road traffic in the region surrounding the site, the NRC staff conclude the 

potential traffic-related transportation impacts during decommissioning will be SMALL under the 

Class V injection well disposal option. The low radiological risk from potential transportation 

accidents in comparison to the accident risks evaluated for the operation phase (i.e., no 

interstate transport of yellowcake product) supports the staff’s conclusion that the radiological 

risks from transportation of decommissioning byproduct material for offsite disposal will also be 

SMALL. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude the overall transportation impacts related to the 

decommissioning phase will be SMALL under the Class V injection well disposal option. 

4.3.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant proposes to 

dispose of liquid byproduct material generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by 

land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). The potential transportation environmental 

impacts from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated 

with the land application liquid disposal option are discussed in the following sections. 

4.3.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

The estimated daily traffic volume on regional roads for the construction phase for the land 

application option will be the same as that described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.1 and summarized 

in Table 4.3-1 for the Class V injection well disposal option. Commuting workers will constitute 

the majority of road traffic the applicant proposed for the construction phase. Considering 

Table 4.3-1, the proposed traffic will increase the existing traffic on low-traffic roads, such as 

Dewey Road, and State Highway 89 but will not substantially increase traffic on more heavily 

traveled road segments, such as U.S. Highway 18 traveling through Edgemont or near 

Hot Springs or State Highway 79 at the junction with U.S. Highway 18. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.3.1.1.1, when the projected traffic for all the roads in the analysis is evaluated 

(ranging from 319 to 5,169 vehicles per day based on the sum of projected auto and truck traffic 

for each road), the magnitude of traffic is not expected to exceed the existing road capacity. 

Therefore, NRC staff conclude the regional highways could accommodate the additional traffic 

from the proposed project. 

Considering the magnitude of projected traffic from the proposed project, the NRC staff 

conclude the increase in traffic volumes to the local and unpaved Dewey Road will result in 

SMALL impacts under the land application disposal option. The projected daily traffic on 

Dewey Road represents a 42 percent increase over existing traffic considering both autos and 

trucks (see Table 4.3-1). This increase in traffic will incrementally accelerate degradation of the 

road surface, increase the generation of dust, and increase the potential for traffic accidents and 

wildlife or livestock kills. Based on the available capacity on the more distant regional roads, the 

NRC staff conclude the potential traffic impacts to the remainder of regional roads under the 

land application disposal option will also be SMALL. 

The applicant intends to use existing roads on the site area to the degree possible; however, 

some new roads will be constructed to facilitate onsite transportation (SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.2). 

Impacts to land use related to the development of new access roads are addressed in SEIS 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-24 

Section 4.2.1.1. All roads constructed for the proposed action will be reclaimed except those 

landowners specify to remain for future use (Powertech, 2009a). 

4.3.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

The proposed operational transportation activities for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project include 

employee commuting and truck shipments of yellowcake, ion-exchange resins, hazardous 

chemical supplies, and byproduct material. Traffic generated by these proposed activities for 

the land application option will be the same as that described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.2 and 

summarized in Table 4.3-2 for the Class V injection well disposal option. 

Commuting workers will constitute the majority of road traffic the applicant proposed for the 

construction phase. Considering Table 4.3-2, the proposed traffic will increase the existing 

traffic on low-traffic roads, such as Dewey Roadand State Highway 89 but will not 

substantially increase traffic on more heavily traveled road segments, such as U.S. Highway 18 

traveling through Edgemont or near Hot Springs or State Highway 79 at the junction with 

U.S. Highway 18. As described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.2, when the projected traffic for all the 

roads in the analysis is evaluated (ranging from approximately 283 to 5,133 vehicles per day 

based on the sum of projected auto and truck traffic for each road), the magnitude of traffic is 

not expected to exceed the existing road capacity. Therefore, NRC staff conclude the regional 

highways could accommodate the additional traffic from the proposed project. 

Considering the magnitude of projected traffic from the proposed project, the NRC staff 

conclude the increase in traffic volumes to the local and unpaved Dewey Road will result in 

SMALL impacts under the land application disposal option. The projected daily traffic on 

Dewey Road represents an increase of 24 percent over the existing traffic level (see 

Table 4.3-2). This increase in traffic will incrementally accelerate degradation of the road 

surface, increase the generation of dust, and increase the potential for traffic accidents and 

wildlife or livestock kills. Based on the available capacity on the more distant regional roads, the 

staff conclude the potential traffic impacts to the remainder of regional roads will also be SMALL 

under the land application disposal option. 

Proposed yellowcake transportation activities for the land application option will be same as 

those described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.2 for the Class V injection well disposal option. The 

applicant has estimated approximately 25 yellowcake shipments per year will be needed for the 

proposed action or an average of one shipment every 2 weeks. This estimate is based on the 

proposed 45,250 kg [1 million lb] annual yellowcake production rate and an assumed 18,100 kg 

[40,000 lb] capacity per yellowcake shipment (Powertech, 2009b). This shipment volume will 

not significantly affect the project-related traffic relative to the expected commuting workforce. 

To limit the risk of an accident involving resin or yellowcake transport, the applicant has 

proposed that all such materials will be transported in accordance with USDOT and NRC 

regulations, handled as low specific-activity materials, and shipped using exclusive-use-only 

vehicles (Powertech, 2009a). The NRC staff conclude the consequences of such accidents will 

also be limited because the applicant has proposed to develop emergency response procedures 

(Powertech, 2009a) for yellowcake and other transportation accidents that could occur during 

shipment to or from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The applicant also proposes to 

ensure its personnel and the carrier receive training on these emergency response procedures 

and that information about the procedures is provided to state and local agencies (Powertech, 

2009a). Therefore, the NRC staff concluded the impact from a potential accident involving 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-25 

yellowcake transportation during the operations phase of the proposed project will be SMALL 

under the land application disposal option. 

Proposed ion-exchange transportation activities for the land application option will be the same 

as those described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.2 for the Class V injection well option. The applicant 

plans to transport one loaded resin truck per day (Powertech, 2009a). Ion-exchange resin 

transported onsite between the Dewey satellite facility and the Burdock central processing plant 

will traverse approximately 8 km [5.0 mi] of road (primarily Dewey Road). Compliance with the 

applicable NRC and USDOT regulations for shipping ion-exchange resins, which are enforced 

by NRC onsite inspections, provides confidence that these materials can be safely shipped 

across the site area. The NRC staff conclude the aforementioned SMALL potential radiological 

accident impacts from the proposed Dewey-Burdock facility yellowcake shipments bound the 

potential radiological accident impacts of the proposed ion-exchange resin shipments. The 

NRC staff conclude that the resulting environmental impact from ion-exchange resin shipments 

will be SMALL; this is based on the fact that the risk of ion-exchange resin accidents is low, a 

resulting spill will be properly removed and disposed of, and the affected area will be reclaimed 

in accordance with applicable NRC and state regulations. 

Proposed operational byproduct material transportation activities for the land application option 

will be the same as those described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.2 for the Class V injection well 

disposal option. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS the small risks from transporting yellowcake 

during operations will bound the risks expected from byproduct material shipments, owing to the 

concentrated nature of shipped yellowcake, the longer distance yellowcake is shipped relative to 

byproduct material, and the relative number of shipments of each material. The applicant’s 

estimated annual generation of 22 m3

 [29 yd3] of byproduct material (including reverse osmosis 

reject solids, spent ion-exchange resins, and tank and pond sediments) will comprise 

approximately one shipment per year (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7). Transportation safety will be 

maintained by the applicant’s proposed adherence to applicable NRC and USDOT 

transportation requirements, the applicant’s proposed use of licensed third-party carriers, and 

the applicant’s proposed emergency response measures (Powertech, 2009b). NRC staff 

conclude that the environmental impacts of the proposed byproduct material shipments under 

the land application disposal option will be bounded by impacts from the proposed yellowcake 

shipments (SMALL). 

Proposed operational hazardous chemical shipments for the land application option will be the 

same as those described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.2 for the Class V injection well disposal option. 

Transportation risks associated with incoming, onsite, and outgoing hazardous chemical 

shipments involve potential in-transit accidents. The process chemicals described in the 

applicant’s proposal are commonly used in industrial applications, and they will be transported 

following the applicable USDOT hazardous materials shipping provisions. If an accident 

occurred, spill response will be handled via emergency response procedures, although a spill of 

nonradiological materials will be reportable to the appropriate state agency, EPA, and USDOT 

(NRC, 2009a). Spill material will be recovered or removed and the affected areas reclaimed. 

The release of anhydrous ammonia, a compound that the applicant may use in the precipitation 

circuit (Powertech, 2009b), could be hazardous to the public if released near a populated area. 

However, the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is not situated in a populated area and the 

likelihood of such an accident occurring is SMALL, calculated as 3.0 × 10−7

 accidents per km 

[4.8 × 10−7

 accidents per mi] based on NUREG–0706 accident data (NRC, 1980). The applicant 

proposes to maintain transportation safety by adherence to applicable USDOT hazardous 

materials transportation requirements and the proposed use of licensed third-party carriers 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-26 

(Powertech, 2009a). Based on these considerations, the staff conclude the environmental 

impacts from operational hazardous chemical shipments under the land application disposal 

option will be SMALL. 

NRC staff conclude the increase in traffic volumes to the local and unpaved Dewey Road will 

result in SMALL impacts from travel on that road and SMALL impacts to the remaining regional 

roads under the land application disposal option. Based on the low radiological risks from 

transportation accidents and the implementation of the applicant’s additional safety practices as 

previously discussed, the overall impacts from the proposed transportation activities during the 

operations phase will be SMALL under the land application disposal option. 

4.3.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

The estimated daily traffic volume on regional roads during the aquifer restoration phase for the 

land application disposal option will be the same as that described in SEIS Section 4.3.1.1.3 

and summarized in Table 4.3-3 for the Class V injection well disposal option. Commuting 

workers will constitute the majority of road traffic the applicant proposed for the aquifer 

restoration phase. The projected auto traffic for the aquifer restoration phase for all road 

segments evaluated is lower than the projected traffic from the construction and operation 

phases, and the projected truck traffic is similar to the operation phase. Considering 

Table 4.3-3, the proposed traffic, if allocated completely to the individual road segments, will 

increase the existing traffic on low-traffic roads, such as the unpaved Dewey Road (Fall River 

County Road 6463 and Custer County Road 769), but will not substantially increase traffic on 

the remaining road segments in the table. The projected daily traffic on Dewey Road, the road 

nearest the proposed site, is increased by four percent of the existing low level of traffic. Based 

on the low levels of projected traffic for all vehicle types and road segments, the NRC staff 

conclude the transportation impacts from the proposed aquifer restoration transportation 

activities will be SMALL under the land application disposal option. 

4.3.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The proposed decommissioning transportation activities for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

include employee commuting and truck shipments of nonhazardous solid waste (e.g., facility 

demolition and equipment removal) and byproduct material. Traffic generated by these 

proposed activities for the land application option will be the same as that described in SEIS 

Section 4.3.1.1.4 and summarized in Table 4.3-4 for the Class V injection well disposal option. 

The applicant estimated that the proposed land application disposal option will generate more 

decommissioning waste than the Class V injection well disposal option (and therefore will 

generate more truck traffic). The projected combined auto and truck traffic for the 

decommissioning phase for all road segments evaluated is lower than the projected traffic from 

the construction, operation, and aquifer restoration phases. Considering Table 4.3-4, the 

proposed traffic, if allocated completely to the individual road segments, will increase the 

existing traffic on low-traffic roads, such as the unpaved Dewey Road (Fall River County 

Road 6463 and Custer County Road 769), but will not substantially increase traffic on the 

remaining road segments in the table. The projected daily traffic on Dewey Road, the road 

nearest the proposed site, is increased by six percent of the existing low level of traffic. Based 

on the low levels of projected traffic for all vehicle types and road segments, the NRC staff 

conclude the potential traffic-related impacts from the proposed decommissioning transportation 

activities will be SMALL under the land application disposal option. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-27 

Another potential transportation impact from proposed decommissioning activities is the 

radiological risk from the transportation of byproduct material for offsite disposal. The NRC staff 

consider the potential radiological accident risk associated with byproduct material shipments 

will be low based on the calculated risks from concentrated yellowcake product shipments 

discussed previously in SEIS Section 4.3.1.2.2. The number of byproduct material shipments 

NRC staff estimated based on the applicant’s proposal is low (Table 2.1-7; approximately 

34 annually for the land application option). The applicant’s annual byproduct material volume 

estimate in its surety (Powertech, 2009b) (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.6.3) indicates the material will 

consist primarily of pond leak detection equipment and liners. Relative to powdered yellowcake, 

this material is in a form that will be less dispersible (i.e., less likely to cause public exposure if 

released) and easier to clean up if an accident involving release occurred. The byproduct 

material will be transported and disposed of at a licensed facility. The applicant has proposed to 

pursue an agreement with the White Mesa site in Blanding, Utah, for disposal of solid byproduct 

material (SEIS Section 3.13.2). The trip distance to this facility from the proposed site of 

1,210 km [752 mi] is less than the distance used in the risk analysis described in GEIS 

Section 4.2.2.2 for transporting yellowcake to the conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois 

{approximately 2,414 km [1,500 mi]}. The applicant proposes to implement additional BMPs to 

reduce the risk of accidents, including (i) enforcing safe driving and emergency response 

procedures and training for personnel and truck drivers; (ii) installing communication systems to 

connect trucks to shipper/receiver/emergency responders; and (iii) and enforcing speed limits 

on the proposed project site to increase driver safety and to reduce conflicts with big game, 

livestock, and other vehicles (Powertech, 2009a). All shipments will be required to comply with 

applicable USDOT regulations governing the transportation of radioactive material (including 

quantity limits, packaging requirements, and conveyance dose rate limits). Based on the 

preceding analysis, the NRC staff conclude the potential radiological risks from the proposed 

transportation of decommissioning byproduct material will be low, and therefore the potential 

environmental impacts from the proposed radioactive material transportation will be SMALL 

under the land application disposal option. 

In conclusion, because of the low estimated traffic for the proposed project relative to existing 

road traffic in the region surrounding the site, the NRC staff conclude the potential traffic-related 

transportation impacts during decommissioning will be SMALL under the land application 

disposal option. The low radiological risk from potential transportation accidents in comparison 

to the accident risks evaluated for the operation phase (i.e., no interstate transport of yellowcake 

product) supports the staff’s conclusion that the radiological risks from transportation of 

decommissioning byproduct material for offsite disposal will also be SMALL. Therefore, the 

NRC staff conclude the overall transportation impacts related to the decommissioning phase will 

be SMALL under the land application disposal option. 

4.3.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid byproduct material generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project, the applicant has proposed to dispose of liquid byproduct material by a combination 

of Class V injection wells and land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). For the 

combined option, land application facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, operated, 

restored, and decommissioned on an as-needed basis depending on the deep well disposal 

capacity (Powertech, 2011). The land application option will require the construction and 

operation of irrigation areas and increased pond capacity for storage of liquid byproduct material 

during nonirrigation periods (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2), whereas the Class V injection well 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-28 

disposal option will require the construction and operation of four to eight deep disposal wells 

(see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1). 

The relative volumes of byproduct material generated by the two disposal options differ during 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases with the land application option 

generating the larger amount of material for offsite disposal in each phase. The relative 

volumes of nonhazardous solid waste generated by the two disposal options differ during the 

decommissioning phase. The significance of these differences with regard to environmental 

impacts is low and does not change the impact conclusions for each disposal option. Therefore, 

the transportation environmental impacts associated with the land application option will be the 

same for the Class V injection well disposal option for all phases of the ISR process. 

Furthermore, only a portion of land application facilities and infrastructure (e.g., irrigation areas 

and storage ponds) will be constructed, operated, and decommissioned for the combined 

Class V injection well disposal and land application option. Therefore, the significance of 

environmental impacts on waste management resources for the combined disposal option will 

be less than for the land application option alone. Based on this reasoning, NRC staff conclude 

that the transportation environmental impacts of the combined Class V injection well disposal 

and land application option for each phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will lie 

between or be bounded by the significance of environmental land use impacts of the Class V 

deep well injection option and the land application option as summarized in Table 4.3-5. 

4.3.2 No Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, traffic volumes and patterns will remain the same as described 

in SEIS Section 3.3. There will be no transportation of materials to and from the site to support 

licensed activities. There will be no transportation of either radionuclide or solid waste 

attributable to the proposed action because the facility will neither be licensed nor constructed 

and operated. Existing land use activities, predominantly livestock grazing, will persist. 

4.4 Geology and Soils Impacts 

Environmental impacts on geology and soils occur during all phases of an ISR facility lifecycle; 

however, the direct impacts on geology and soils will be concentrated during construction 

(NRC, 2009a). 

Table 4.3-5. Significance of Transportation Environmental Impacts for the Proposed 

Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning SMALL SMALL SMALL 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of 

environmental impacts for the Class V injection well and land application disposal options. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-29 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.3.1, the principal impacts on geology and soils are caused by

earthmoving activities during construction of ISR surface facilities, access roads, wellfields, and 

pipelines. Earthmoving activities affecting soils include ground clearing, topsoil removal, and 

preparation of land surfaces before construction of facility structures. Such structures include 

the processing plant, satellite facilities, header houses, access roads, drilling sites, land 

application areas, and associated structures. Excavating and backfilling trenches for pipelines 

and cables will also impact soils. (NRC, 2009a) 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impact on geology and soils from construction 

activities is dependent on local topography, surface and bedrock geology, and soil 

characteristics. Earthmoving activities are normally limited to a small portion of the project. 

Consequently, earthmoving activities will result in SMALL and temporary disturbance of soils, 

impacts that are commonly mitigated using accepted BMPs. Construction activities will increase 

the potential for wind and water erosion due to the removal of vegetation and the physical 

disturbance that will result from vehicle and heavy equipment traffic. These activities, however, 

will result in SMALL impacts if equipment operators adopt construction BMPs to either prevent 

or substantially reduce erosion. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.3.2, during ISR operations, a non-uranium-bearing (barren) 

solution or lixiviant is injected through wells into the mineralized zone. The lixiviant moves 

through the host rock, dissolving uranium and other metals. Production wells withdraw the 

resulting “pregnant” lixiviant, which now contains uranium and other dissolved metals, and 

pump it to a processing facility for further uranium recovery and purification. During ISR 

operations the removal of uranium and other metals will permanently change the composition of 

uranium-bearing rock formations. However, the uranium mobilization and recovery process in 

the target sandstones does not result in the removal of rock matrix or structure, and therefore no 

significant matrix compression or ground subsidence is expected. Consequently, impacts on 

geology from ground subsidence at ISR projects will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

In GEIS Section 4.4.3.2, NRC staff discussed the potential soil impacts from ISR operations 

resulting from the need to transfer barren and pregnant uranium-bearing lixiviant to and from the 

processing facility in aboveground and underground pipelines. If a pipe ruptures or fails, 

lixiviant could be released and (i) pond on the surface, (ii) runoff into surface water bodies, 

(iii) infiltrate and adsorb in overlying soil and rock, or (iv) infiltrate and percolate to groundwater. 

In the case of spills from pipeline leaks and ruptures, licensees are expected to initiate 

immediate spill responses using onsite standard operation procedures (e.g., NRC, 2003b, 

Section 5.7). As part of the monitoring requirements at ISR facilities, licensees must report 

certain spills to NRC within 24 hours. Regular inspection and monitoring also occurs to 

minimize the potential for spills and leaks through early detection. (NRC, 2009a) 

Additionally, failure of settling and holding pond liners or embankment systems and buildup of 

certain constituents in land-applied water may negatively impact soils (NRC, 2009a). Licensees 

will be expected to construct and monitor settling and holding pond liners and embankments in 

accordance with NRC-approved plans, and licensees will be expected to obtain the appropriate 

permits from state regulatory agencies for land application and to conduct regular soil 

monitoring. Such actions will tend to mitigate impacts to soils from these waste 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-30 

disposal methods. Based on these considerations, NRC staff concluded in GEIS 

Section 4.4.3.2 that impacts to soils from spills during operations could range from SMALL to 

LARGE, depending on the volume of soil affected by the spill, but that the immediate response 

requirement to report spills at ISR facilities, the mandated spill recovery actions, and the 

required routine monitoring programs will reduce the potential impact from spills to SMALL. 

(NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.3.3, aquifer restoration programs typically use a combination 

of (i) groundwater transfer; (ii) groundwater sweep; (iii) reverse osmosis, permeate injection and 

recirculation; (iv) stabilization; and (v) water treatment and surface conveyance (NRC, 2009a). 

The groundwater sweep and recirculation process does not remove rock matrix or structure, nor 

will dewatering occur within the aquifer; therefore, no significant matrix compression or ground 

subsidence is expected. The water pressure in the aquifer decreases during restoration 

because a negative water balance must be maintained in the wellfield being restored to ensure 

water flows from the edges of the wellfield inward; this reduces the spread of contaminants 

outside of the wellfield. The influx of fluid will change the reservoir pressure but will not 

reactivate any local faults, because the change in reservoir pressure is limited by recirculation of 

treated groundwater. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that ISR operations are unlikely to 

reactivate any local faults and are extremely unlikely to cause earthquakes. After analyzing 

these conditions the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS the environmental impact of aquifer 

restoration to the geology of the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region will 

be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

In GEIS Section 4.4.3.3, NRC staff also concluded impacts on soils from spills during aquifer 

restoration will range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on the volume of soil affected by 

the spill. Because of the requirements for immediate spill response at ISR facilities, for 

spill-recovery actions, and for routine monitoring programs, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS 

that impacts from spills will be temporary and the long-term impact on soils will be SMALL. 

(NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

As indicated in GEIS Section 4.4.3.4, the decommissioning of ISR facilities includes the 

following activities: (i) dismantling process facilities and associated structures; (ii) removing 

buried piping; and (iii) plugging and abandoning wells using accepted practices. The main 

impacts to the geology and soils at the project site during decommissioning will result from land 

reclamation activities and cleaning up contaminated soils. (NRC, 2009a) 

The GEIS also states a licensee is required to submit a decommissioning plan to NRC for 

review and approval before decommissioning and reclamation activities may begin. NRC 

regulations require an applicant submit a final decommissioning plan to NRC for review and 

approval at least 12 months prior to the planned decommissioning of a wellfield or any portion of 

an ISR facility (NRC, 2003a). Any soils that have the potential to be contaminated will be 

surveyed to identify and clean up areas with elevated radionuclide concentrations, in 

accordance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6 (6) (NRC, 2009a). 

The goal of reclamation is to return the site to preproduction conditions by replacing topsoil and 

reestablishing vegetation communities. (NRC, 2009a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-31 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impacts on geology and soils from decommissioning 

will be detectable but SMALL. Disruption and/or displacement of existing soils will be temporary 

and relatively small in scale. Changes in the size and location of impervious surfaces will be 

measureable, but will involve only a few hectares [acres] of compacted soil beneath buildings 

and parking lots. These changes will not be on a large enough scale to alter existing natural 

conditions. (NRC, 2009a) 

4.4.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

As described in SEIS Section 3.2, the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site encompasses 

4,282 ha [10,580 ac] (Powertech, 2009a). The topsoil in the areas of the Burdock central 

processing plant and the Dewey satellite facility and wellfield header houses will be removed 

before construction begins. The applicant has committed to removing topsoil to construct 

access roads and will adhere to road construction practices stipulated by landowners 

(Powertech, 2009a). Over the life of the project, the applicant estimates that the area of topsoil 

to be stripped and removed will be up to 98 ha [243 ac] for the Class V deep well injection 

option and up to 175 ha [433 ac] for the land application disposal option (Powertech, 2012d). 

The area of topsoil disturbance will be approximately the same as the total disturbance area in 

the Class V deep well injection option but smaller than the 566 ha [1,398 ac] of estimated 

disturbance in the land application option (see Table 2.4-1), since topsoil generally will not be 

stripped from center pivot irrigation areas. 

The following sections discuss the environmental impacts on land use for each of the liquid 

waste disposal options proposed by the applicant: (i) disposal via Class V injection wells, 

(ii) disposal via land application, or (iii) combined disposal via Class V injection wells and 

land application. 

4.4.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

waste is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. The potential environmental impacts on 

geology and soils from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

associated with the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed project are 

discussed next. 

4.4.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, topsoil will be removed from building sites, storage 

areas, and access roads and stored in designated topsoil stockpiles, in accordance with 

SDDENR requirements (Powertech, 2009b). The applicant will mitigate soil losses due to 

stormwater runoff and wind erosion. Mitigation measures will include (i) locating topsoil 

stockpiles away from drainage channels or other locations that will lead to loss of material, 

(ii) constructing berms around the base of the stockpiles, and (iii) seeding the stockpiles with an 

approved seed mix to minimize sediment runoff and wind erosion (Powertech, 2009a). 

The applicant will implement additional mitigation measures to limit potential soil erosion 

impacts during construction at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (Powertech, 2009a). These 

measures include (i) reestablishing temporary and permanent native vegetation as soon as 

possible after disturbance; (ii) decreasing stormwater runoff from disturbed areas by using 

structures to temporarily divert and/or dissipate surface stormwater runoff; (iii) retaining 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-32 

sediment within disturbed areas by using silt fencing, retention ponds, and hay bales; 

(iv) implementing drainage designs to minimize potential erosion and/or providing riprap or other 

soil stabilization controls; and (v) constructing stream crossings at right angles with adequate 

embankment and culvert installations to minimize erosion. Construction activities at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site have the potential to compact soils. Compaction of soils could 

lead to decreased infiltration and increased stormwater runoff. To mitigate the effects of 

compaction at the proposed site, the applicant proposes to disc and reseed any compacted 

soils as soon as possible after construction activities are completed (Powertech, 2009a). 

During wellfield construction at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, well construction, exploration 

drilling, and delineation drilling will also impact soils. The applicant estimated that 

approximately 646 wells (including delineation, monitor, production, injection, and deep disposal 

wells) will be drilled in the development of the initial wellfields in the Burdock and Dewey areas 

(Powertech, 2010b). As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.3.5, drilling activities include the 

construction of unlined mud pits. During excavation of mud pits, topsoil will be separated from 

the subsoil and placed at a separate location (Powertech, 2009a). The subsoil will then be 

removed and placed next to the mud pit. Once use of the mud pit is complete (usually within 

30 days of initial excavation), the applicant will redeposit the subsoil in the mud pit followed by 

topsoil replacement (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant will follow a similar approach for 

pipeline ditch construction. 

The NRC staff conclude the environmental impacts to geology and soils from construction 

activities for the Class V injection well option at the Dewey-Burdock site will be SMALL. This 

finding is based on NRC staff evaluation of the limited area to be disturbed by construction, the 

applicant commitment to proposed BMPs to limit soil erosion and compaction, the commitment 

to mitigative methods, the short duration of construction, and the procedures used to construct 

mud pits and pipeline ditches. 

While the NRC staff concludes impacts to soils from construction will be SMALL, the staff 

recognizes that alternative methods to manage drilling fluids are available that the applicant 

could choose to implement to further limit the potential impacts from the use of mud pits during 

well drilling activities. Alternatives or mitigating measures to the use of mud pits during well 

drilling operations include, for example, lining the mud pits with an impermeable membrane, 

offsite disposal of potentially contaminated drilling mud and other fluids, and the use of portable 

tanks or tubs to contain drilling mud and other fluids. 

4.4.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3, the applicant’s operational activities at the facility are 

consistent with the operations analyzed in the GEIS. Soil disturbance during the estimated 

8-year operations phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be limited primarily to 

earthmoving activities associated with wellfield development (e.g., preparing and constructing 

drill sites and mud pits, expanding pipelines, and constructing wellfield access roads). 

Therefore, the amount of soil disturbance resulting from earthmoving activities during the 

operations phase of the proposed project will be less than that for the construction phase. 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3, the applicant’s operational activities at the facility are 

consistent with the operations analyzed in the GEIS. The removal of uranium from the target 

sandstones in the initial wellfields at the proposed project will occur at depths ranging from 

approximately 122 to 244 m [400 to 800 ft] below ground surface (bgs) in the Dewey area and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-33 

approximately 61 to 122 m [200 to 400 ft] bgs in the Burdock area (Powertech, 2009c). The ISR 

process and lixiviant chemistry will not remove rock matrix material in the ore-bearing 

sandstones. Therefore, no significant matrix compression will result from the proposed uranium 

recovery operations. Dewatering of the source uranium formations (i.e., the Fall River 

Formation and Chilson member of the Lakota Formation) during ISR operations is not expected. 

Hydrogeologic characteristics of the uranium source formations (i.e., formation thicknesses and 

potentiometric surfaces, as described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.2) and results of aquifer pumping 

tests at estimated production flow rates (see SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.2) indicate that drawdown 

in nearby wells will be SMALL. Because rock matrix is not removed during the uranium 

mobilization and recovery process and dewatering of uranium source formations is not 

expected, no subsidence is expected from the collapse of overlying rock strata into the 

ore zone. 

In accordance with 40 CFR 144.28(f)(6)(i), for Class III injection wells, the operator must not 

exceed an injection pressure at the wellhead which will be calculated as to assure that the 

pressure during injection does not initiate fractures in the injection or confining zone. To ensure 

that formation fracture pressures are not exceeded, the applicant will estimate maximum 

allowable wellhead pressures at the proposed project on a well-by-well basis as a function of 

depth, fracture gradient, and injected fluid pressure gradient (Powertech, 2012g). The applicant 

will implement operational controls to prevent exceedance of estimated pressures. Based on 

the depths of target mineralization zones {approximately 61 to 244 m [200 to 800 ft]}, an 

expected fracture gradient of 15.8 kPa/m [0.7 psi/ft], and an expected fluid pressure gradient of 

9.8 kPa/m [0.433 psi/ft] for the injected fluid, the applicant estimates that maximum allowable 

wellhead pressures at the proposed project will range from approximately 365 to 1,475 kPa 

[53 to 214 psi] (Powertech, 2012g). The applicant will also specify the maximum injection 

pressure for each header house (Powertech, 2012g). Maximum estimated injection pressures 

will be calculated as the lowest value of the following: (i) the lowest value of maximum allowable 

wellhead pressure for all injection wells connected to the header house based on fracture 

pressure calculations; (ii) the manufacturer-specified maximum operating pressure for the well 

casing; or (iii) the manufacturer-specified operating pressure of the injection piping and 

fittings. The anticipated range of injection pressures at each header house is 239 to 1135 kPa 

[20 to 150 psig] (Powertech, 2012g). At each header house, the designated maximum 

injection pressure will be posted and monitored to ensure the formation fracture pressure is 

not exceeded. 

The applicant will implement an NRC-required wellfield and pipeline flow and pressure 

monitoring program to detect unexpected losses of pressure due to equipment failure, a leak, 

or a problem with well integrity (Powertech, 2009a). This program, described in SEIS 

Section 7.3.2, ensures timely detection of any releases from leaks due to pipeline breaks or 

ruptures and minimizes the volume of such releases. The design of all radium settling and 

holding ponds at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project includes a leak detection system (Powertech, 

2009b). Detection of a pond leak will initiate measures to take the pond out of use, transfer its 

contents to another pond, investigate the cause, and repair the condition causing the leak. The 

applicant will also collect and monitor soils for yellowcake and ion-exchange resin contamination 

along transportation routes and in wellfield areas where spills and leaks are possible 

(Powertech, 2009a). If soil is contaminated by a pipeline spill, pond leak, or vehicle accident, 

the applicant will remove the contaminated soil and dispose of it at a licensed disposal facility to 

ensure all impacts are temporary (Powertech, 2009a). After decontamination is complete, the 

applicant is required by regulation to conduct radiation surveys to confirm that soils have been 

cleaned to the NRC standards for unrestricted use in 10 CFR Part 20 (Powertech, 2009a). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-34 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, for the applicant to use deep well disposal, an EPA 

Class V underground injection control (UIC) permit is required. EPA evaluates the suitability of 

formations proposed for deep well injection and only allows Class V injection where an applicant 

demonstrates liquid waste can be safely isolated in a deep aquifer. EPA reviews the application 

to confirm the well is properly sited, such that confining zones and proper well construction 

minimize the potential for migration of fluids outside the injection zone. 

The NRC will require liquid wastes injected into potential Class V injection wells at the proposed 

project to be treated to meet release standards at 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K, as wells 

as Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2. Before injection of fluids into the Class V deep injection 

wells, the permittee must demonstrate (i) the injection zones are not underground sources of 

drinking water by providing analytical results for total dissolved solids above 10,000 mg/L 

[10,000 ppm] and (ii) there are adequate confining zones above and below the proposed 

injection zones. If the proposed injection zones are underground sources of drinking water 

(have total dissolved solids concentrations below 10,000 mg/L [10,000 ppm], the applicant will 

be required to obtain an aquifer exemption from EPA, or the EPA UIC permit will require liquid 

wastes to be treated to meet drinking water standards or contaminant-specific background 

concentrations for constituents regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The 

permit will also place an injection pressure limit prohibiting injection pressures at or above the 

injection zone formation fracture pressure. The applicant estimates that the average injection 

pressure during active operations will range from approximately 2,068 to 5,515 kPa [300 to 800 

psi] (Powertech, 2011; Appendix 2.7–L). 

In summary, based on analysis of the depth of the ore production zones and because the 

operations phase does not involve the removal of rock matrix, the staff find that the impacts to 

geology from subsidence at the proposed project will be SMALL. Systems and procedures will 

be in place to monitor and clean up soil contamination resulting from pipeline and wellfield spills, 

pond leaks, and vehicle accidents. NRC and the EPA Class V permit conditions will require 

liquid wastes to be treated prior to deep well injection to meet NRC release standards in 

10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K, and Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2. Unless the applicant 

applies for and is granted an aquifer exemption, the EPA UIC permit will require liquid wastes to 

be treated to meet drinking water standards or contaminant-specific background concentrations 

for constituents regulated under the SDWA. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that site-specific 

impacts to geology and soils during the operational phase for the Class V injection well disposal 

option will be SMALL. 

4.4.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

For the Class V injection well disposal option, the primary method of aquifer restoration will be 

reverse osmosis (RO) treatment with permeate injection (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1.1). 

About 70 percent of the water withdrawn from the wellfields and passed through high pressure 

RO membranes will be recovered as permeates. Before reinjection into the wellfields, the 

permeate will be supplemented with makeup water from wells in the Madison Formation and 

injected into the wellfields at an amount slightly less than the amount withdrawn to maintain a 

slight restoration bleed. Although a 1 percent restoration bleed will typically be used to 

maintain hydraulic control of wellfields, higher bleed rates may be implemented to recover flare 

(i.e., outward spreading) of lixiviant from the wellfield pattern areas during aquifer restoration. If 

necessary, the applicant has proposed to increase the restoration bleed by withdrawing up to 

one pore volume of water through groundwater sweep over the course of aquifer restoration. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-35 

During the aquifer restoration phase, liquid wastes injected into the Class V deep injection wells 

will consist of bleed fluids from operating wellfields and the brine for the RO treatment system. 

The applicant estimates the maximum volume of liquid wastes injected into the Class V injection 

wells during aquifer restoration will be 567.75 Lpm [150 gpm] (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1.1). 

The EPA UIC Class V permit will not place an upper limit on the injection rate; only the injection 

pressure will have an upper limit in the permit. 

 

ISR activities during aquifer restoration at the proposed Dewey-Burdock facility will not remove 

rock matrix (NRC, 2009a). The source uranium formations lie 122 to 244 m [400 to 800 ft] bgs 

in the Dewey area and 61 to 122 m [200 to 400 ft] bgs in the Burdock area (Powertech, 2009a). 

Rock matrix is not removed by groundwater transfer and groundwater sweep during aquifer 

restoration. In addition, no significant matrix compression or ground subsidence is expected 

during aquifer restoration activities. For these reasons, the subsidence and collapse of 

overlying rock strata into the ore zone during the restoration phase is not expected. Therefore, 

the NRC staff conclude the environmental impact on geology during aquifer restoration will 

be SMALL. 

The spill and leak detection program described for the operations phase in SEIS 

Section 4.4.1.1.2 will also be maintained during aquifer restoration because the plant and 

wellfield infrastructure will be used and monitored during aquifer restoration. The potential for 

spills and pipeline leaks to impact soils are SMALL and similar to impacts described for the 

operations phase. The NRC staff conclude that the potential for spills to impact the geology and 

soils is SMALL because of the regulatory requirements for immediate spill response, for 

implementing spill recovery actions, and for ongoing monitoring programs. 

4.4.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The applicant will restore disturbed lands to their prior uses as livestock grassland and wildlife 

habitat (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5). The Burdock central processing plant and Dewey satellite 

facilities will be decontaminated according to regulatory standards and the applicant’s 

NRC-approved decommissioning plan (see SEIS Section 3.13.2). These structures will be 

demolished and trucked to a licensed disposal facility (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5) or will be 

turned over to the landowner. Baseline readings of soils, vegetation, and radiological data will 

guide and provide a basis to evaluate final reclamation efforts. Any soils that have the potential 

to be contaminated will be surveyed to identify and clean up areas with elevated radionuclide 

concentrations, in accordance with NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Criterion 6 (6). Any contaminated soils will be disposed of in licensed disposal facilities. As 

discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5.3, stockpiled topsoil will be redistributed over disturbed 

surfaces, which will be recontoured to match existing topography. Final revegetation will consist 

of seeding the area with a seed mixture approved by SDDENR, the local conservation district, 

BLM, and landowners (Powertech, 2009b). 

Short-term impacts to geology and soils are expected as reclamation progresses; however, the 

result will be to return the land to uses that existed before proposed ISR activities began. The 

NRC staff conclude the environmental impacts of the decommissioning phase on geology and 

soils at the facility will be SMALL for several reasons. The temporary nature of the impacts on 

the land, the applicant’s goal of decommissioning and reclaiming the site to preproduction 

conditions, and the fact that the magnitude of expected soil disturbance is within the range 

evaluated in the GEIS all support a finding of SMALL impacts. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-36 

4.4.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant will dispose of 

liquid waste generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by land application (see 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). Environmental impacts on geology and soils from construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated with the land application liquid 

waste disposal option are discussed in the following sections. 

4.4.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

As described under SEIS Section 4.4.1.1.1, the applicant will implement mitigation measures to 

minimize soil losses from stormwater runoff and wind erosion of soil stockpiles. These 

measures include (i) locating topsoil stockpiles away from drainage channels or other locations 

that will lead to loss of material, (ii) constructing berms around the base of the stockpiles, and 

(iii) seeding the stockpiles with an approved seed mix to minimize sediment runoff and wind 

erosion. (Powertech, 2009a) 

The mitigation measures to limit soil erosion impacts during construction of the land 

application disposal system will be the same as the Class V deep injection well disposal 

method described in SEIS Section 4.4.1.1.1 (Powertech, 2009a). These measures include 

(i) reestablishing temporary and permanent native vegetation as soon as possible after 

disturbance; (ii) decreasing stormwater runoff from disturbed areas by using structures to 

temporarily divert and/or dissipate surface runoff; (iii) retaining sediment within disturbed areas 

by using silt fencing, retention ponds, and hay bales; (iv) implementing drainage designs to 

minimize erosion and/or provide riprap or other soil stabilization controls; and (v) constructing 

stream crossings at right angles with adequate embankment and culvert installations to 

minimize erosion. Compaction of soils at the site could lead to decreased infiltration and 

increased stormwater runoff. The applicant plans to disc and reseed any compacted soils as 

soon as possible after construction activities are completed to mitigate compaction at the site 

(Powertech, 2009a). 

Well construction, exploration drilling, and delineation drilling in the wellfield areas will also 

impact soils. The applicant estimates 642 delineation, monitor, production, injection, and deep 

disposal wells will be drilled as the initial wellfields in the Burdock and Dewey areas are 

developed (Powertech, 2010b). To prevent adverse impacts to groundwater quality, all 

production, injection, and monitoring wells, as well as all delineation drill holes, will be 

abandoned according to SDDENR regulations established in Administrative Rules of South 

Dakota (ARSD) 74:02:04:67 and 74:11:08 (Powertech, 2009a, 2012c). As discussed in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.2.3.3, drilling activities will include the construction of unlined mud pits. 

Excavation of mud pits requires separating the topsoil from the subsoil and storing the topsoil at 

a separate location (Powertech, 2009a). The subsoil will be removed and placed next to the 

mud pit. Once use of the mud pit is complete (usually within 30 days of initial excavation), the 

applicant will redeposit the subsoil in the mud pit, followed by topsoil replacement (Powertech, 

2009a). The applicant will follow a similar approach for pipeline trench construction. 

The NRC staff evaluated the small area to be disturbed by construction, the applicant’s plan to 

use BMPs to limit soil erosion and compaction, the short duration for construction, and use of 

mud pits and pipeline trenches and other construction methods that will limit environmental 

impacts. The NRC staff conclude that the environmental impacts to the geology and soils for 

the land application disposal option at the proposed project will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-37 

4.4.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

If land application is used to dispose of process-related liquid wastes, soils may be adversely 

impacted. The salinity of the treated wastewater could increase the salinity of soils (soil 

salinization) (NRC, 2009a), which will make the soil less permeable. In addition, land 

application of liquid wastes could cause radiological and/or other constituents (e.g., selenium 

and other metals) to accumulate in the soils and vegetation. Licensees of NRC-regulated ISR 

facilities are required to monitor and control irrigation areas (NRC, 2009a). The applicant 

proposes to collect and monitor soils and sediments for potential contamination in areas used 

for land irrigation (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant’s land application monitoring program is 

described in SEIS Section 7.5. In addition, licensees must ensure that radioactive constituents 

in liquid effluents applied to land application areas are within allowable release limits (NRC, 

2009a). NRC will require the applicant to treat liquid wastes applied to land application areas so 

they meet NRC release limit criteria for radionuclides, as referenced in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B. NRC will also require by license condition that the applicant conduct 

pre-operational and operational sampling of land application areas and the surrounding 

environment and report operational results to NRC semi-annually so NRC staff can evaluate 

existing conditions and trends. As stated in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2, land application will be 

carried out under a GDP approved by SDDENR (Powertech, 2012c). In accordance with permit 

program objectives, the applicant’s proposed land application operations will have to meet 

applicable state standards for the protection of the environment including groundwater, soils, 

vegetation, biota, and wildlife. Both NRC and SDDENR have authority to request corrective 

actions or issue enforcement actions if standards or permit conditions are violated after 

operations begin. Because the monitoring and associated regulatory oversight by both NRC 

and SDDENR would be conducted for the duration of the proposed project, these activities 

would help to limit potential short-term and long-term impacts to soils. Finally, as described in 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5, eventual decommissioning and reclamation activities after operations 

cease will further mitigate potential impacts to soils and restore vegetation prior to release of the 

site for other uses. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the environmental impacts to geology 

and soils while operating the land application disposal system for liquid wastes will be SMALL. 

4.4.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1.2, the primary method of aquifer restoration for the 

land application disposal option will be groundwater sweep with Madison Formation water 

injection (Powertech, 2011). The applicant estimates that typical liquid waste flow rates for the 

land application option during aquifer restoration will be approximately 1,892 Lpm [500 gpm]. 

None of the water recovered from the wellfields will be reinjected back into the wellfields. 

Makeup water for the Madison Formation will be injected into the wellfields at a flow rate 

sufficient to maintain the restoration bleed, which is typically 1 percent of the restoration flow 

rate (Powertech, 2011). 

If land application is used to dispose of liquid wastes, soils at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

Project will be impacted during aquifer restoration activities as the liquid evaporates. During 

aquifer restoration, the applicant continues routine soil monitoring for contamination of land 

application areas and must ensure that radionuclide contaminant levels do not exceed the 

release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B and applicable state discharge requirements 

for land application of treated wastes. Routine monitoring and the inclusion of land application 

areas in decommissioning surveys provide environmental protections. Therefore, NRC staff 

conclude that impacts to soils from land application during aquifer restoration will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-38 

4.4.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

If the land application disposal option is used, the environmental impacts of decommissioning 

the site will be similar to impacts described in SEIS Section 4.2.1.1.4 for the Class V injection 

well disposal option. Decommissioning of the site will follow an NRC-approved 

decommissioning plan, and all decommissioning activities must be carried out in accordance 

with 10 CFR Part 40 and other applicable federal regulatory requirements. 

If the land application liquid waste disposal option is implemented at the Dewey-Burdock facility, 

the areas directly impacted by decommissioning will include the central processing plant, 

satellite facility, wellfields and their infrastructure (i.e., pipelines and header houses), irrigation 

areas, ponds, and access roads. SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5 describes the decommissioning 

activities that will be undertaken to return the site to its previous land use. These 

include conducting radiological surveys; removing contaminated equipment and materials; 

cleaning up disturbed areas; plugging and abandoning wells; decontaminating, dismantling, and 

removing buildings and other onsite structures; and restoring disturbed areas (Powertech, 

2009b). Land application areas will also be included in decommissioning surveys to ensure that 

soil concentration limits are not exceeded. 

When decommissioning is complete, the land surfaces will be returned to their preextraction 

geologic condition. The NRC staff conclude the environmental impacts of the land application 

disposal option on the geology and soils for the land application option will be SMALL. 

4.4.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA, but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes generated at the ISR facility, the applicant will dispose 

of liquid waste by a combination of disposal using Class V injection wells and land application 

(see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). Under the combined disposal option land application, facilities 

and infrastructure will be constructed, operated, restored, and decommissioned, as needed, 

depending on the Class V injection well disposal capacity (Powertech, 2011). 

The potential environmental impacts of liquid waste disposal by land application for all phases of 

the ISR process will be greater than for liquid waste disposal by Class V well injection because 

of the increased land disturbance, thereby increasing potential for soil disturbance and soil 

erosion. However, implementing the combined disposal option will result in only a portion of 

land application facilities and infrastructure being constructed, operated, and decommissioned. 

Therefore, the environmental impacts of the combined disposal option will be less than for the 

land application option alone, but greater than the Class V injection well disposal option alone. 

NRC staff conclude that the environmental impacts of the combined Class V injection well and 

land application disposal option for each phase of the project will be bounded by the effects of 

the individual disposal methods and therefore will be SMALL as summarized in Table 4.4-1. 

4.4.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, a license authorizing operation of an ISR facility will not be 

issued; therefore, construction and operation of the facility will not occur and aquifer restoration 

and decommissioning will not be needed. Buildings will not be constructed, wells will not be 

drilled, wellfields will not be developed, and pipelines connecting the wellfields to the central and 

satellite plants will not be constructed. The soils will not be disturbed, because earthmoving 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-39 

Table 4.4-1. Significance of Geology and Soils Impacts for the Proposed Liquid Waste 

Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning SMALL SMALL SMALL 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of 

environmental impacts for the Class V injection well and land application disposal options. 

activities will not disturb or compact soils; therefore, existing topography will be unchanged. 

The geology of the area will be unaffected by the proposed action because no fluids will be 

injected into the subsurface through Class V injection well disposal or by the uranium 

extraction process. 

The current land uses on and near the project area, which include grazing land for livestock, 

natural resource extraction, and recreational activities will continue, but there will be no impacts 

from the proposed action. 

4.5 Water Resources Impacts 

4.5.1 Surface Water and Wetlands Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.4.1, potential environmental impacts to surface waters and 

wetlands may occur during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle (NRC, 2009a). Impacts to 

surface waters and wetlands may result from (i) road construction and crossings; (ii) erosion 

runoff; (iii) spills or leaks of fuels, lubricants, and process-related fluids; (iv) stormwater 

discharges; and (v) discharge of wellfield fluids as a result of pipeline or well head leaks. 

Potential impacts to surface waters and wetlands may be greater in areas containing 

jurisdictional waters and wetlands. 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

NRC staff noted in the GEIS that impacts to surface waters and wetlands during the 

construction phase of ISR facilities may result from construction of road crossings, filling 

channels, surface erosion, and surface water runoff. Temporary changes to spring and stream 

flows due to grading and changes in topography and natural drainage patterns are other 

potential impacts. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act are required for placing fill, excavating, or using earthmoving equipment to 

clear land in jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the United States (WUS). As a result of the 

USACE permitting process, impacts are expected to be mitigated through various mitigation 

options, such as banking and riparian/wetland enhancement. Potential impacts to surface 

waters and wetlands also include accidental spills or leaks of fuels and lubricants from 

construction equipment and stormwater runoff from limited impervious areas including buildings, 

roads, and parking areas that infiltrates and recharges shallow aquifers. NRC staff determined 

in the GEIS that these potential impacts will be temporary and mitigated through proper 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-40 

planning and design, the use of proper construction methods, and the implementation of BMPs, 

or restoration after the construction phase. Thus, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

compliance with applicable federal and state regulations and permit conditions and the 

implementation of BMPs and other mitigation measures will result in potential impacts to surface 

water and wetlands during construction that will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

The expansion of facilities or pipelines during the operations phase may result in impacts 

comparable to those described for the construction phase. The impacts to surface water 

and wetlands during operation activities may also involve accidental spills or leaks of 

process-related water and the discharge of stormwater runoff and process-related water. The 

impact from spills on surface waters and wetlands will be comparable to those described for the 

construction phase and will be dependent on the size of the spill, the success of remediation, 

the use of the surface water, proximity of the spill to surface water, and the volume of discharge 

to the surface waters. NRC staff noted in the GEIS that during operational activities, federal and 

state agencies regulate the discharge of stormwater runoff and process-related water through 

the permitting process, and hence, the impacts from permitted discharges will be mitigated 

through permit conditions. For these reasons, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that impacts to 

surface waters and wetlands during operations will be SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

NRC staff noted in the GEIS impacts to surface waters and wetlands during the aquifer 

restoration phase may result from (i) produced water, (ii) stormwater runoff and accidental spills, 

and (iii) brine reject from the reverse osmosis system. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS the 

impacts from these activities will be similar to the impacts from operations, because the 

infrastructure will be in place and similar activities will be conducted (e.g., wellfield operation, 

transfer of fluids, water treatment, stormwater runoff). For these reasons, NRC staff concluded 

in the GEIS that aquifer restoration impacts on surface waters and wetlands will be SMALL. 

(NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that surface water and wetland impacts from decommissioning 

will be similar to the impacts from construction. The activities to clean up, recontour, and 

reclaim disturbed lands during decommissioning will mitigate long-term impacts to surface 

waters and wetlands. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential impacts to surface 

waters and wetlands from decommissioning will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Potential environmental impacts to surface water and wetlands from construction, operations, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR project are 

discussed in the following sections. 

4.5.1.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

As described in SEIS Section 3.5.1, the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project lies within the 

Beaver Creek watershed, which includes Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and their tributaries. 

Beaver Creek is a perennial stream, and its tributaries have ephemeral flow depending on the 

amount of precipitation. Pass Creek and its tributaries are dry for most of the year, except for 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-41 

short periods of high runoff following major storms (Powertech, 2009a). Beaver and Pass 

Creeks are not used for domestic water supply within the proposed project area, but water from 

Beaver Creek is used for local irrigation. 

There are a number of abandoned open pit mines stretching from the eastern to the northern 

boundaries of the site in the Burdock area (see Figure 3.2-3). With the exception of Darrow 

Pit #2 and the Triangle Pit, the abandoned pits are usually dry. The Triangle Pit has permanent 

water storage at a depth greater than 30 m [100 ft]. The Triangle Pit is below the potentiometric 

surface of the Fall River Formation and is, therefore, hydraulically connected to the Fall River 

Formation. Water in the Triangle Pit has elevated dissolved uranium and gross alpha 

concentrations exceeding EPA-regulated maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and is not used 

as a livestock or domestic water supply (see SEIS Section 3.12.1). 

USACE identified 20 wetlands within the proposed project area (see SEIS Section 3.5.2), of 

which only 4 were considered jurisdictional: Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and an ephemeral 

tributary to each. The jurisdictional ephemeral tributary to Beaver Creek has wetlands present 

near its confluence with Beaver Creek located in Section 32, Township 6 South, Range 1 East 

(Figure 4.5-1). The drainage area for this tributary includes surface facilities, infrastructure, and 

wellfields constructed in the Dewey area. The jurisdictional ephemeral tributary to Pass Creek 

has wetlands present near its confluence with Pass Creek located in Section 3, Township 7 

South, Range 1 East (Figure 4.5-1). The drainage area for this tributary includes surface 

facilities, infrastructure, and proposed wellfields in the Burdock area. 

The environmental impacts on surface waters and wetlands for each of the applicant-proposed 

liquid waste disposal options (i.e., disposal via Class V injection wells, disposal via land 

application, or disposal via combination of Class V injection wells and land application) are 

discussed in the following sections. 

4.5.1.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

wastes is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. The Class V injection wells, if permitted 

by EPA, will be near the satellite plant in the Dewey area and near the central processing plant 

in the Burdock area (see Figure 2.1-10). Potential environmental impacts to surface waters and 

wetlands from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated 

with the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed project are discussed in the 

following sections. 

4.5.1.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

The NRC staff evaluated the occurrence of surface water and wetlands and found it to be 

limited in area and quantity; Pass Creek and the tributaries to both Pass Creek and Beaver 

Creek are ephemeral and often dry. As described in SEIS Section 4.2.1.1, the deep well liquid 

waste disposal option is estimated to disturb 98.3 ha [243 ac] of land or 2.3 percent of the 

permit area (Powertech, 2010a). Land disturbance will result from construction of facilities, 

pipelines, initial wellfields, radium settling and holding ponds, Class V injection wells, and 

access roads (see Figure 4.2-1). The applicant is required to obtain construction and industrial 

stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits in accordance 

with SDDENR regulations in ARSD Chapter 74:52. The NPDES permit requirements for 

discharges to surface water, as established in ARSD 74:52, will control the amount of pollutants 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-42 

Figure 4.5-1. Map Showing Locations Identified as Jurisdictional Wetlands on 

 Ephemeral Tributaries to Beaver Creek (Black Circle) and Pass Creek 

 (Black Square) and Their Relation to Proposed Site Facilities in the 

 Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Area 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2011)

that can enter surface water bodies, such as streams, wetlands, and lakes. The applicant has 

not yet submitted an NPDES permit application (see Table 1.6-1). 

The Burdock central plant and Dewey satellite facility and supporting buildings will be 

constructed outside the 100-year floodplain of Pass and Beaver Creeks and away from other 

small ephemeral drainages (see SEIS Section 3.5.1). These buildings will be located on 

relatively flat terrain, which will require minimum soil movement to create level pads for 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-43 

construction. Surface water runoff from precipitation (rain and snowmelt) will flow from 

the Burdock central plant area and the Dewey satellite facility area to natural drainages 

(Figure 4.5-1). Facility buildings will be located away from these intermittent drainage channels 

and outside of floodplains so facilities will not flood. If an accidental spill occurs during the 

construction phase, the applicant will promptly mitigate it by following surface water monitoring 

and spill response procedures, which will be established as part of the NPDES permit 

(Powertech, 2009a). 

Although facility buildings at the proposed project site will be outside the 100-year floodplain of 

Pass and Beaver Creeks and small ephemeral drainages, other facilities (e.g., storage ponds), 

infrastructure (e.g., access roads and the plant-to-plant pipeline), and wellfields will be within the 

100-year floodplain of Pass and Beaver Creeks and small ephemeral drainages (see SEIS 

Section 3.5.1). To protect facilities and infrastructure from flood damage and avoid discharges 

from storage ponds that are located within the 100-year inundation boundary, the applicant 

proposes a system of structures, such as straw bales, collector ditches, and engineered 

diversion structures or berms (Powertech, 2011). 

Applicant-proposed measures to protect against flooding in the wellfields include (i) locating 

above-grade wellfield infrastructure outside the 100-year flood inundation boundary, (ii) 

constructing diversion or erosion control structures to divert flow and protect any well heads 

placed within the 100-year inundation boundary, and (iii) sealing all well heads to withstand brief 

periods of submergence. All pipelines, including the proposed plant-to-plant pipeline, will be 

buried below the frost line and, therefore, will not be impacted by flooding (Powertech, 2011). 

The applicant will use a phased approach to wellfield development. The Burdock B-WF1 

wellfield and Dewey D-WF1 wellfield will be constructed during the initial construction phase of 

the project (Figure 4.5-1). Wellfield B-WF1 will be situated at least 1,006 m [3,300 ft] from 

Pass Creek and the ephemeral tributary to Pass Creek identified as a jurisdictional wetland. 

Wellfield D-WF1 is located at least 101 m [330 ft] north of Beaver Creek and 305 m [1,000 ft] 

northwest of the ephemeral tributary to Beaver Creek, which is a jurisdictional wetland (see 

Figure 4.5-1). However, wellfield D-WF1 crosses over ephemeral tributaries upstream of the 

tributary to Beaver Creek identified as a jurisdictional wetland. 

Additional wellfields will be built and developed in phases as operations in preceding wellfields 

become uneconomical. Figure 4.5-1 shows that Dewey wellfield D-WF2 and a portion of Dewey 

wellfield D-WF4 are located 101 m [330 ft] north of the ephemeral tributary to Beaver Creek 

identified as a jurisdictional wetland. However, like wellfield D-WF1, wellfields D-WF2 and 

D-WF4 cross over ephemeral tributaries upstream of the tributary to Beaver Creek identified as 

a jurisdictional wetland. Figure 4.5-1 also shows that Burdock wellfields B-WF9 and B-WF10 

cross nearby ephemeral tributaries upstream of Pass Creek. In addition, Figure 4.5-1 shows 

that the ephemeral tributary to Pass Creek identified as a jurisdictional wetland bisects 

wellfield B-WF5. 

USACE permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are required for placing fill material, 

excavating, or using earthmoving equipment to clear land in wetlands or WUS. The presence of 

wellfields within jurisdictional wetlands and crossing tributaries upstream of jurisdictional 

wetlands may require the applicant to obtain USACE permits before construction activities (e.g., 

drilling wells, laying pipeline, and constructing access roads). In addition, the applicant’s plantto-plant pipeline crosses Pass Creek between wellfields B-WF9 and B-WF10 in the Burdock 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-44 

area (see Figure 4.5-1) and may also require the applicant to obtain a USACE permit prior to 

construction. The USACE permitting process ensures that proper filling and dredging 

techniques are used and proper mitigation measures are defined and implemented to ensure 

protection of wetland habitat and water quality in affected jurisdictional wetlands. The applicant 

has committed to seek authorization from USACE and comply with Section 404 permitting 

requirements before conducting work in jurisdictional wetlands identified in the project area 

(Powertech, 2009a). At this time, the applicant has not applied for a Section 404 permit. 

Therefore, USACE has not conducted additional Section 404 permitting activities at the 

proposed project site, such as determining specific acreages of jurisdictional wetlands that could 

be impacted or identifying mitigation measures to be implemented to minimize wetland impacts. 

Construction activities may generate a limited amount of surface water runoff. The applicant 

indicates surface waters will not be consumed and long-term discharge to surface waters will 

not occur during construction (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant will implement a stormwater 

pollution management plan (SWMP) to control stormwater runoff during construction and to 

ensure that surface water runoff from disturbed areas will not contaminate surface waters and 

wetlands (Powertech, 2009a). SWMP control measures will (i) minimize disturbance of surface 

areas, drainage channels, and vegetation; (ii) employ grading to direct stormwater runoff away 

from water bodies; (iii) use riprap at intersections to make bridges and culverts more effective; 

(iv) stabilize slopes; (v) avoid unnecessary off-road travel; (vi) provide rapid response cleanup 

procedures and training for potential spills; (vii) require storage of hazardous materials and 

chemicals in bermed or curbed areas; (viii) place surface piping outside identified 100-year 

floodplain levels; and (ix) build curbs around facilities and structures to control process 

fluid spills. 

Proposed sites for radium settling and holding ponds for the deep well liquid waste disposal 

option are shown in Figure 2.1-10. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, radium settling 

and holding ponds will be constructed with linings that meet the requirements of NRC 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5 (NRC, 2003b, 2008). Approved 

construction uses liners, underdrains, and a leak detection system to identify and reduce the 

impact on the environment from any leaks. 

Because the applicant has committed to (i) implementing mitigation measures to control 

erosion, stormwater runoff, and sedimentation; (ii) complying with USACE Section 404 

permitting requirements for wetlands; (iii) complying with NPDES permit requirements for 

discharge to surface waters; and (iv) following NRC regulations concerning the construction of 

settling and holding ponds (e.g., use of liners, underdrains, and leak detection systems), NRC 

finds impacts to surface waters and wetlands during the construction phase to be SMALL. 

4.5.1.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

The NRC staff has considered site-specific hydrological factors in assessing environmental 

impacts to surface water and wetlands during ISR operations in conjunction with the deep well 

disposal of liquid wastes option. The staff evaluated the occurrence of surface water and 

wetlands and found it to be limited in area and quantity. Beaver Creek is a perennial stream 

and does not bisect any wellfields in the Dewey area. Pass Creek and tributaries of Pass and 

Beaver Creeks have ephemeral surface water flows. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.3, the Fall River and Chilson aquifers make up the 

Inyan Kara Group aquifer and contain the uranium mineralization that will be extracted at the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-45 

proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). Beaver and Pass Creeks do not have a natural hydraulic 

connection with the underlying Fall River and Chilson aquifers across the Dewey-Burdock site. 

However, standing water in the Triangle Pit in the Burdock area is hydraulically connected to the 

Fall River Formation. In addition, pumping tests in the Burdock area indicated a certain degree 

of hydraulic communication between the Fall River aquifer and Chilson aquifer through the 

intervening Fuson Shale (see SEIS Section 3.5.3.2). Because the Triangle Pit is not a source of 

water for domestic use or livestock watering due to its poor water quality [specifically, elevated 

uranium and gross alpha concentrations exceeding EPA-regulated MCLs for drinking water (see 

SEIS Section 3.12.1)], the potential environmental impacts to the standing water at the 

abandoned Triangle Pit mine during ISR operations in conjunction with the Class V injection well 

disposal option will be SMALL. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.5.1, groundwater from the Fall River and Chilson aquifers is 

discharging to the ground surface through improperly plugged exploratory boreholes at an area 

in the southwest corner of the Burdock area known as the “alkali flats” (Powertech, 2011). This 

area is within the proposed B-WF2 wellfield (see Figure 4.5-1). Although the alkali flats area is 

located outside the drainage areas of Beaver and Pass Creeks, it is near surface impoundments 

used for stock watering. As described in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.2.3.3 and 2.1.1.1.2.3.4, prior to 

wellfield development, the applicant proposes to identify and evaluate unplugged and 

improperly sealed boreholes using delineation drilling and wellfield pump testing. Based on the 

results of the delineation drilling and pump testing, the applicant will plug or otherwise mitigate 

the potential effects of any boreholes that will potentially affect surface waters and wetlands 

during ISR operations (Powertech, 2011). 

The Class V injection well disposal option involves injecting process-related effluents into the 

Deadwood and Minnelusa Formations, which lie below the Morrison Formation (Powertech, 

2011, Appendix 2.7L). The depth from the ground surface to the disposal horizon for the first 

4 Class V injection wells ranges from 492 to 1,076 m [1,615 to 3,530 ft] (Powertech, 2011; 

Appendix 2.7L). As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, an EPA Class V UIC permit is 

required for the applicant to use deep well disposal. EPA will evaluate the suitability of the 

formations proposed for Class V well injection. Class V injection disposal will be allowed only if 

the applicant demonstrates liquid waste can be isolated safely in a deep aquifer. In the 

Dewey-Burdock area, there is no evidence of any hydraulic connection between surface waters 

and proposed aquifers for the Class V injection well disposal option. Therefore, the potential 

environmental impacts to surface waters and wetlands from the Class V injection well disposal 

option during ISR operations will be SMALL. 

In addition to site-specific hydrological information and a Class V deep well injection permit, the 

NRC staff have considered other permit requirements and mitigation measures to which the 

applicant has committed in assessing environmental impacts to surface water and wetlands 

during ISR operations in conjunction with the Class V injection well disposal option. The 

applicant will construct the central plant and satellite facility on concrete slabs surrounded by 

protective berms or curbs to contain and control accidental spills. Permitted discharge of 

processing effluents to surface waters will not be undertaken. Earthmoving activities sufficient 

to generate surface water runoff will not take place. The applicant will use its delineation drilling 

and pump testing program to identify and plug improperly sealed boreholes that may impact 

surface waters. The applicant will implement SWMP as part of the NPDES permit in 

accordance with SDDENR requirements to detain and treat stormwater runoff for these facilities 

and to ensure that runoff does not contaminate surface waters and wetlands (Powertech, 

2009a). The SWMP will identify and evaluate routes by which spills could leave the facility and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-46 

lay out BMPs as preventative measures to minimize stormwater contamination. Stormwater 

runoff will be diverted away from the facility and absorbed into soils. The applicant has 

committed to implement mitigation measures to control erosion and sedimentation, as part of 

the SWMP. The applicant will implement an emergency response plan to identify and clean up 

accidental spills and leaks (Powertech, 2009a). Pipelines will be buried to avoid freezing, and 

pipeline pressure will be monitored to detect leaks. 

In conclusion, based on the aforementioned hydrological factors and the applicant’s 

commitment to comply with permit requirements, the NRC staff conclude that environmental 

impacts to surface waters and wetlands from ISR operations in conjunction with the Class V 

injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.5.1.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1.1, the primary method of aquifer restoration for the 

Class V deep injection well option is RO treatment with permeate injection. The RO reject, or 

brine, will undergo radium removal in the radium settling ponds and then will be disposed of in 

deep Class V injection wells. Under the EPA Class V UIC permit, deep well disposal of treated 

liquid wastes must not lead to concentration levels of hazardous constituents that cause 

adverse environmental impacts on surface waters and wetlands. For the Class V injection well 

disposal option, automated sensors will monitor the injection process to detect potential pipeline 

leaks or well ruptures that could result in a surface discharge. When monitoring detects 

potential problems, the applicant will take corrective actions, which include inspections for leaks 

and spills and rapid response cleanup and remediation to minimize impacts to soils and surface 

water (Powertech, 2009a). Liquid effluents will not be discharged to running or standing surface 

waters (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant’s NPDES permit requirements for discharges to 

surface water and SWMP will be in place to ensure that stormwater runoff will not degrade 

surface water quality. The applicant’s emergency response plan will be in place to address and 

clean up accidental spills and leaks (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant will follow NRC and 

state regulations concerning the construction of settling and holding ponds (e.g., use of liners, 

underdrains, and leak detection systems) used to treat and store restoration fluid prior to 

injection in the Class V well. The applicant is required to follow groundwater restoration 

activities in compliance with NRC’s regulatory requirements (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4). The 

goal of aquifer restoration is to return groundwater quality in the wellfields consistent with 

background water quality conditions or to standards consistent with NRC requirements at 10 

CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). Because the applicant commits to complying with 

permitting and regulatory requirements, NRC finds impacts to surface waters and wetlands 

during the aquifer restoration phase in conjunction with the Class V injection well disposal option 

at the proposed project site will be SMALL. 

4.5.1.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The central plant, satellite facility, storage facilities, and pipelines of the facility will be removed 

during the decommissioning phase, in accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning 

plan. The wells, including Class V injection wells, will need to be plugged and abandoned. The 

removal of buildings and infrastructure will have impacts similar to those for the construction 

phase as described in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.1. The applicant will implement the mitigation 

measures described in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.1 to control erosion, stormwater runoff, and 

sedimentation during decommissioning activities. The applicant’s NPDES permit requirements 

will ensure that stormwater runoff will not contaminate surface water. The applicant is 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-47 

committed to implement an emergency response plan to address cleanup of accidental spills 

and leaks. After removal of surface structures, the applicant will replace topsoil in previously 

disturbed areas. The applicant will recontour the land surface to restore it to a surface 

configuration to blend with the natural terrain and will seed disturbed areas in wellfields in 

accordance with the NRC and SDDENR regulations (Powertech, 2009b). Access roads will be 

reclaimed and restored in a similar manner. 

Well plugging and abandonment and pipeline removal requires temporary soil disturbance that 

may affect water quality of identified jurisdictional wetlands in the proposed project area. The 

applicant has committed to seek authorization from USACE and comply with Section 404 

permitting requirements before conducting work in jurisdictional wetlands to ensure that wetland 

habitat and water quality is not impacted (Powertech, 2009a). Because the applicant commits 

to complying with permitting and regulatory requirements, NRC concludes that impacts to 

surface waters and wetlands during the decommissioning phase for the Class V injection well 

disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.5.1.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant will dispose of 

liquid waste by land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.4.2). The environmental impacts to 

surface waters and wetlands from the construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning associated with the land application liquid waste disposal are discussed in the 

following sections. 

4.5.1.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

For the land application option, a total of 565.7 ha [1,398 ac] of land or 13.2 percent of the 

proposed permit area will be disturbed by activities associated with construction of facilities, 

pipelines, wellfields, storage ponds, irrigation areas, and access roads (Powertech, 2010a). 

This area of land disturbance is larger than for the Class V injection well disposal option 

{approximately 98 ha [243 ac]} due to the addition of land irrigation areas {426 ha [1,052 ac]} 

and the need for increased pond capacity for storage during nonirrigation periods {35 ha 

[136 ac]} (see Table 4.2-1). 

All the surface disturbance and associated impacts to surface waters and wetlands discussed in 

SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.1, except for the ground surface disturbance and the impacts to surface 

waters and wetlands from construction of Class V deep injection wells, will be applicable during 

the construction phase for the land application disposal option. 

Irrigation areas are situated on flat topography along Pass Creek and its tributaries in the 

Burdock area and along Beaver Creek and its tributaries in the northwest part of the Dewey 

area (see Figure 4.5-1). The applicant will apply treated liquid effluents to native vegetation or 

to existing soil after it has been prepared to grow crops such as alfalfa or salt-tolerant 

wheatgrass (Powertech, 2012c). Significant earthmoving activities will not be conducted to 

prepare irrigation areas. Runoff from precipitation events or snowmelt on land application areas 

will be conveyed to catchment areas downgradient of land application areas and allowed to 

evaporate or infiltrate (Powertech, 2012c). The soil horizon found throughout most of the 

project area is clayey (see SEIS Section 3.4.2), which will minimize infiltration and 

enhance evaporation. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-48 

Implementation of mitigation measures associated with the applicant’s SWMP will control 

erosion, stormwater runoff, and sedimentation from disturbed areas, as part of the NPDES 

permit. The applicant’s NPDES permit requirements for discharges to surface water will ensure 

that surface runoff, if any, will not contaminate surface water and wetlands. Additionally, the 

applicant will implement an emergency spill response plan to address cleanup of accidental 

spills and leaks. The applicant has committed to seek authorization from USACE and comply 

with Section 404 permitting requirements before conducting work in jurisdictional wetlands 

identified in the project area (Powertech, 2009a). The USACE permit ensures that proper filling 

and dredging techniques are used and proper mitigation measures are defined and 

implemented and to protect wetland habitat and water quality in affected jurisdictional wetlands. 

Because minimal land disturbance will occur during preparation of irrigation fields, and the 

applicant has committed to implement mitigation measures discussed previously and to 

comply with permitting and regulatory requirements, the NRC staff conclude that impacts to 

surface waters and wetlands during the construction phase for the land application option will 

be SMALL. 

 

4.5.1.1.2.2 Operational Impacts 

Stormwater runoff from land irrigation areas and their potential discharge into surface waters will 

be the primary differences in surface water and wetlands impacts between the land application 

and Class V injection well disposal options. All hydrological factors (hydrological interactions 

between ore-bearing aquifers, creeks, and abandoned open pit mines) and the resultant 

assessment of SMALL impacts to surface waters and wetlands due to ISR operations in 

conjunction with the Class V injection well disposal option (see SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.2) also 

apply to ISR operations in conjunction with the land application option. 

Because irrigation fields are located on flat topography (Figure 2.1-11), runoff of treated liquid 

wastes applied to land irrigation areas is not expected. Additionally, the SDDENR groundwater 

discharge plan will require land application activities to be conducted so that no ponding and no 

runoff of effluent (i.e., wastewater solutions) occur. As described in SEIS Section 3.5.1, 

proposed land application areas are located outside the applicant-modeled 100-year flood 

inundation boundaries of Beaver Creek and Pass Creek. Potential runoff produced by 

snowmelt or precipitation in land application areas will be diverted to adjacent catchment areas 

and allowed to evaporate or infiltrate (Powertech, 2012c). The applicant will grow crops on 

irrigation fields, which may require adjustments in water application rates to optimize both 

evaporation and crop production during the irrigation season (Powertech, 2009a, Section 4.5.2). 

However, the applicant’s NPDES permit requirements will ensure that surface runoff at the ISR 

facilities and irrigation fields from rain events will not contaminate surface water bodies and 

wetlands. Implementation of mitigation measures will control erosion, runoff, and sedimentation 

over the land application areas. In addition, the applicant will implement an emergency spill 

response plan to address cleanup of accidental spills and leaks. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.4.1.2.2, licensees must ensure that radioactive constituents in 

liquid effluents applied to land application areas are within allowable release limits (NRC, 

2009a). The applicant proposes to treat liquid wastes applied to land application areas so they 

meet NRC release limit criteria for radiological contaminants, as referenced in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 (see Table 7.5-3) (Powertech, 2011). SDDENR also regulates 

land application of treated wastewater, which requires the applicant to obtain an approved GDP 

and to comply with applicable state discharge requirements for land application of treated 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-49 

wastewater. Additionally, the GDP will require land application activities to be conducted so that 

no ponding and no runoff of effluent (i.e., wastewater solutions) occur. Therefore, the NRC staff 

conclude that treated liquid wastes applied to land application areas will contain contaminant 

levels below NRC and SDDENR requirements. 

Based on the aforementioned hydrological factors and permit requirements, the NRC staff 

conclude that environmental impacts to surface waters and wetlands from ISR operations in 

conjunction with the land application option will be SMALL. 

4.5.1.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

The aquifer restoration phase of the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will generate liquid wastes that 

will be disposed of via land application. As described in the previous section, the applicant 

proposes to treat liquid wastes applied to land application areas so they meet NRC release limit 

criteria for radiological contaminants, as referenced in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B (Powertech, 

2011). SDDENR also regulates land application of treated wastewater, which requires the 

applicant to obtain an approved GDP and to comply with applicable state discharge 

requirements for land application of treated wastewater. Liquid effluents will not be discharged 

into running or standing surface waters (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant’s NPDES permit and 

SWMP will be in place to ensure that runoff from rain events will not contaminate surface waters 

and wetlands. The applicant’s emergency response plan will be in place to address and clean 

up accidental spills and leaks (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant will follow NRC and state 

regulations concerning the construction of settling and holding ponds (e.g., use of liners, 

underdrains, and leak detection systems). 

Because treated water applied onto irrigation fields will comply with NRC and state release 

limits for radioactive and hazardous constituents and because the applicant commits to 

complying with NPDES permitting and regulatory requirements, the NRC staff find impacts to 

surface waters and wetlands during the aquifer restoration phase in conjunction with the land 

application option to be SMALL. 

 

4.5.1.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

All the ground surface disturbance and the resultant impacts to surface waters discussed in 

SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.4 for the Class V injection well disposal option will be applicable for the 

land application option, except that the latter will not involve plugging and abandonment of 

Class V injection wells in the decommissioning phase. Under the land application option, 

production, injection, and monitoring wells will be plugged and abandoned, and the central 

plant, satellite facility, storage facilities, and associated pipelines will be removed in accordance 

with an NRC-approved decommissioning plan. The applicant has committed to seek 

authorization from USACE and comply with Section 404 permitting requirements before 

conducting work in jurisdictional wetlands to ensure that wetland habitat and water quality are 

not impacted (Powertech, 2009a). As part of the NPDES permit, the applicant will implement 

mitigation measures to control erosion, runoff from rain events, and sedimentation to ensure 

that surface water and wetlands are not contaminated. Additionally, the applicant is committed 

to implementing an emergency response plan to address cleanup of accidental spills and leaks. 

After removal of surface structures, the applicant will replace topsoil in previously disturbed 

areas. Disturbed land surfaces, including irrigation fields used for land application of treated 

process fluid, will be recontoured to restore the surface configuration to blend with the natural 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-50 

terrain and seed disturbed areas in wellfields in accordance with the NRC and SDDENR 

regulations (Powertech, 2009b). Access roads will be reclaimed and restored in a similar 

manner. Because the applicant commits to complying with permitting and regulatory 

requirements, NRC concludes that impacts to surface waters and wetlands during the 

decommissioning phase for the land application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.5.1.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If the applicant obtains the permit for Class V injection from EPA, but the capacity of the deep 

disposal wells is insufficient to dispose of all liquid effluents generated at the Dewey-Burdock 

ISR project, the applicant will dispose of liquid waste by a combination of Class V injection wells 

and land application (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). In this case, land application facilities and 

infrastructures will be constructed, operated, and restored, and decommissioned as needed, 

based on the required capacity of Class V injection wells and produced volume of liquid 

effluents (Powertech, 2011). 

If the capacity of Class V injection wells is sufficient to dispose of all liquid effluents, land 

application sites, facilities, and infrastructures for irrigation will be avoided. In this case, 

potential environmental impacts to surface waters and wetlands due to erosion and surface 

runoff of rainwater over land application sites will be eliminated. Therefore, the resultant 

environmental impacts to surface water and wetlands for the Class V injection well disposal 

option will be smaller than for the land application disposal option. Furthermore, only a portion 

of land application facilities and infrastructure (e.g., irrigation areas and storage ponds) will be 

constructed, operated, and decommissioned for the combined Class V injection well and land 

application option. Therefore, potential environmental impacts to surface waters and wetlands 

for the combined disposal option will be less than for the land application option alone. 

Thus, NRC staff conclude that the environmental impacts of the combined Class V injection well 

and land application option for each phase of the proposed project will be bounded by the 

significance of environmental impacts of the Class V injection well option and the land 

application option as summarized in Table 4.5-1. 

4.5.1.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, NRC will not license the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and BLM 

will not approve the applicant’s modified Plan of Operations. The central processing plant in the 

Table 4.5-1. Significance of Environmental Surface Water and Wetland Impacts for the 

Proposed Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning SMALL SMALL SMALL 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of 

environmental impacts for the Class V injection well and land application disposal options. 

 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-51 

Burdock area and the satellite facility in the Dewey area with their associated infrastructure 

(i.e., access roads and piping) will not be constructed. Furthermore, wellfields, surface 

impoundments, Class V injection wells, and land application sites will not be developed. The 

current land uses on and near the project area, including grazing lands and recreational 

activities, will continue. Therefore, there will not be any environmental impact to surface waters 

and wetlands from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning activities. 

4.5.2 Groundwater Impacts

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.4.1, potential environmental impacts to groundwater could 

occur during all phases of an ISR facility’s lifecycle, although impacts are more likely to occur 

during operations and aquifer restoration (NRC, 2009a). At ISR sites, ore-bearing aquifers are 

typically separated from adjacent aquifers at varying depths by confining layers, also known as 

aquitards. If the confining layers do not effectively isolate the ore-bearing aquifer from the 

hydrogeological system, the aquifers above and below the uranium-bearing aquifer can be 

adversely affected during ISR operations. 

NRC staff reported in the GEIS that ISR facility impacts on groundwater resources can result 

from surface spills, leaks from buried piping, consumptive water use (i.e., water removed from 

available supplies without return to a water resource system), horizontal and vertical excursions 

of lixiviant from production aquifers, degradation of water quality from changes in production 

zone aquifer chemistry, and waste management practices involving land application and/or 

deep well injection. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

NRC staff reported in the GEIS that potential impacts to groundwater during construction of an 

ISR facility are from the consumptive use of groundwater, injection of drilling fluids and mud 

during well drilling, and spills of fuels and lubricants from construction equipment. Surface 

activities that can introduce contaminants into soils are more likely to affect near-surface and 

shallow aquifers during construction. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that during construction, 

groundwater use is limited and groundwater quality is protected by implementing BMPs, which 

include spill prevention and cleanup programs. In addition, the volume of drilling fluids and mud 

to be introduced into the environment during well installation is limited compared to the existing 

aquifer volume. Therefore, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that construction impacts to 

groundwater resources are SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

GEIS Section 4.4.4.2.2 discussed potential environmental impacts to shallow (near-surface) 

aquifers during ISR operations. During this phase, shallow aquifers could potentially be affected 

by lixiviant leaks from pipelines, wells, or header houses and from waste management practices 

such as the use of settling and holding ponds and disposal of treated wastewater by land 

application. Potential environmental impacts to groundwater resources in the production and 

surrounding aquifers also include consumptive water use and changes to water quality that 

could result from normal operations in the production aquifer and from possible horizontal and 

vertical lixiviant excursions beyond the production zone. Disposal of processing wastes by deep 

well injection during ISR operations could also impact groundwater in deep aquifers. 

(NRC, 2009a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-52 

Shallow (Near-Surface) Aquifers 

In the GEIS, NRC staff discussed the potential environmental impacts to shallow, near-surface 

aquifers during ISR operations. A network of buried pipelines transports lixiviant between the 

header house and the satellite or main processing facility. Piping connects injection and 

extraction wells to manifolds inside the header houses. Failure of pipeline fittings or valves, or 

failure of well mechanical integrity in shallow aquifers, could result in leaks and spills of 

pregnant and barren lixiviant, with adverse impacts on water quality in shallow aquifers. The 

potential environmental impacts of pipeline, valve, or well integrity failure depend on the depth 

to shallow groundwater; the current and anticipated future uses of shallow groundwater for 

domestic, agricultural, and livestock water demands; and the degree of hydraulic connection 

between shallow aquifers, production aquifers, and regionally important aquifers. Shallow 

aquifers may also be affected by disposal of treated process effluents by land application and 

hazardous wastewater leaks and spills from settling and holding ponds. NRC staff concluded in 

the GEIS that environmental impacts will range from MODERATE to LARGE if (i) groundwater 

in shallow aquifers is close to the ground surface, (ii) shallow aquifers are important sources for 

local domestic or agricultural water supplies, and (iii) shallow aquifers are hydraulically 

connected to other locally or regionally important aquifers. NRC staff concluded that 

environmental impacts will be SMALL if (i) shallow aquifers have poor water quality or 

noneconomic production yields and (ii) shallow aquifers are hydraulically separated from other 

locally and regionally important aquifers. Land application of treated process effluents during 

ISR operations is an accepted waste management practice at ISR facilities. Process-related 

effluents applied to land application areas undergo treatment to reduce radiological and 

hazardous constituents to levels that are protective of human health and the environment. 

Additionally, the GDP will require land application activities to be conducted so that no ponding 

and runoff of effluent (i.e., wastewater solutions) occurs during these activities. BMPs will also 

be in place to prevent surface runoff and erosion from rain events. Therefore, NRC staff 

concluded in the GEIS that the impacts of land disposal application of effluents on groundwater 

in shallow aquifers during ISR operations will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Production and Surrounding Aquifers 

During ISR operations, potential environmental impacts to groundwater resources in the 

production and surrounding aquifers include consumptive water use. NRC staff reported in the 

GEIS that short term impacts of consumptive water use will be localized in the South Dakota 

region and will be SMALL to MODERATE, depending on aquifer characteristics. The localized 

effects are expected to be temporary because drawdown near wellfields will dissipate after 

pumping stops. After consideration of these factors, the NRC staff concluded long term impacts 

of consumptive water use will be SMALL in most cases. (NRC, 2009a) 

NRC staff reported in the GEIS that degradation of groundwater quality in the production aquifer 

will occur during ISR operations. Groundwater quality in the overlying and underlying aquifers 

and adjacent aquifers could be degraded if horizontal or vertical lixiviant excursions occur 

beyond the production zone. The production portion of an ore-bearing aquifer will be 

exempted from being an underground source of drinking water (USDW) according to the criteria 

in 40 CFR 146.4 as long as (i) the production portion of the aquifer does not currently serve as a 

source of drinking water and, (ii) the permit applicant can demonstrate as part of a UIC permit 

application that the production portion contains minerals that, considering their quantity and 

location, are expected to be commercially producible. After uranium recovery is complete, the 

licensee must initiate aquifer restoration activities to restore the production zone to Commission-
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-53 

approved background water quality, if possible. If the water quality in the production aquifer 

cannot be restored to background conditions, NRC requires the production aquifer be restored 

to the MCLs provided in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Table 5C or to NRC-approved alternate 

concentrations limits (ACLs). Only after demonstrating that it cannot restore a particular 

hazardous constituent to the background concentration or MCL could a licensee request a 

license amendment from NRC for an ACL. To be approved, ACLs must demonstrate that the 

level will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment 

as long as the ACLs are not exceeded (NRC, 2003b). After consideration of these factors, NRC 

staff concluded in the GEIS that potential impacts of ISR operations on water quality of a 

uranium-bearing production zone aquifer will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Deep Aquifers Below the Production Aquifers 

In the GEIS, NRC staff found that disposal of processing effluents by deep well injection during 

ISR operations and restoration could impact groundwater quality in deep aquifers (NRC, 

2009a). However, NRC staff concluded that impacts from deep disposal of process effluents in 

the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region are expected to be SMALL if 

(i) water production from deep aquifers is not economically feasible (e.g., low water yield); 

(ii) the groundwater quality in the deep aquifers is not suitable for domestic or agricultural uses; 

and (iii) the aquifers are confined above by sufficiently thick and continuous low permeability 

layers (NRC, 2009a). 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

NRC staff reported in the GEIS that the potential environmental impacts on groundwater 

resources during aquifer restoration are related to groundwater consumptive use and waste 

management practices, including discharge to waste storage ponds and potential deep disposal 

of brine resulting from reverse osmosis. In addition, aquifer restoration directly affects 

groundwater quality in the vicinity of the wellfield being restored. (NRC, 2009a) 

The purpose of aquifer restoration is to return the groundwater quality in the production zone to 

groundwater protection standards in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5). These 

standards state that the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed (i) the 

Commission-approved background concentration of that constituent in groundwater, (ii) the 

respective value in the table in paragraph 5C if the constituent is listed in the table and if the 

background level of the constituent is below the value listed, or (iii) an alternate concentration 

limit the Commission establishes. Potential environmental impacts are affected by the 

restoration techniques chosen, the severity and extent of the contamination, and the current and 

future use of the production and surrounding aquifers in the vicinity of an ISR facility. 

Consequently, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential environmental impacts of 

groundwater consumption during restoration could range from SMALL to MODERATE 

depending on site conditions. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

In the GEIS, NRC staff noted that environmental impacts to groundwater during dismantling and 

decommissioning of ISR facilities will result primarily from consumptive use of groundwater, 

potential spills of fuels and lubricants, and well abandonment. Consumptive groundwater use 

includes using water for dust suppression, revegetation of landscapes, and reclamation of 

disturbed areas. The environmental impacts expected during the decommissioning phase are 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-54 

the same impacts identified in the staff’s analysis of the construction phase. In the GEIS, NRC 

staff concluded that consumptive use of groundwater during decommissioning will be less than 

during operations or aquifer restoration phases. Following BMPs as part of state-enforced 

NPDES permits and NRC-approved decommissioning plans will reduce the occurrence and 

effects of spills and facilitate cleanup (NRC, 2003a). Therefore, NRC staff concluded in the 

GEIS that the impact to groundwater resources in shallow aquifers from decommissioning will 

be SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

Discussion of the potential environmental impacts to groundwater from the construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project follows. 

4.5.2.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.3, ISR methods will be used to recover uranium from 

sandstone-hosted uranium orebodies in the Fall River and Chilson aquifers that make up the 

Inyan Kara Group aquifer. Orebodies in unconfined portions of the Fall River Formation in the 

Burdock area are not part of the recovery plan (Powertech, 2010a). However, the recovery plan 

does include partially saturated portions of the Chilson aquifer in the eastern portion of the 

Burdock area (see Figure 3.5-7). NRC staff determined that a license condition will be 

necessary for ISR operations in partially saturated portions of the Chilson aquifer, which will 

require the applicant to demonstrate the ability to detect and remediate excursions in partially 

saturated zones (NRC, 2013). 

Potential impacts to groundwater at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR project may result from 

pumping water to meet required consumptive water demands and from potential water quality 

degradation. In the construction phase of the proposed project, groundwater in surficial 

(alluvium) and shallow aquifers could be impacted. In the operations and restoration phases of 

the proposed project, groundwater in the Fall River and Chilson aquifers could be impacted. If 

Class V injection well disposal of liquid wastes into the Deadwood and Minnelusa Formations 

that lie below the Morrison Formation is approved, groundwater in these aquifers could be 

impacted during the operations and restoration phases. If the land application liquid waste 

disposal option is used in the operations and restoration phases, the groundwater impacts will 

likely be localized and limited to near-surface aquifers. Near-surface aquifers include the Fall 

River aquifer in the northeastern part of the Burdock area. 

In South Dakota, a water rights permit from SDDENR is required to withdraw water from an 

aquifer. The water rights permit ensures that unappropriated water is available in the aquifer for 

the use and withdrawal amount specified in the permit. In June 2012, the applicant submitted 

water appropriation permit applications to use Inyan Kara aquifer and Madison aquifer water at 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (see Table 1.6-1). 

The water permit application for the Inyan Kara aquifer proposes to appropriate up to 33.8 ha-m 

[274.2 ac-ft] of water annually (Powertech, 2012h). This water is to be used primarily for the 

ISR process during the operations phase of the proposed project. The application proposes a 

gross withdrawal (pumping) rate of 32,172 Lpm [8,500 gpm] or an estimated annual withdrawal 

of approximately 1, 691 ha-m [13,710 ac-ft]. The consumptive use of water will be a small 

portion of the gross withdrawal rate. As described in the application, approximately 2 percent of 

the water {558 Lpm [170 gpm]} is production bleed, which will be disposed of as liquid waste 

(Powertech, 2012h). The remaining approximately 98 percent of the water is not lost, it is 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-55 

recirculated and reinjected back into the aquifer as part of the ISR process. Based on a review 

of the water permit application, which included an analysis of water availability and existing 

water rights, SDDENR concluded (i) approval of the application will not result in average annual 

withdrawals from the Inyan Kara aquifer that exceed the average annual recharge to the aquifer; 

(ii) there is reasonable probability that there is at least 33.8 ha-m/yr [274.2 ac-ft/yr] of 

unappropriated water available from the aquifer; (iii) SDDENR Water Rights Program 

observation well data indicate that unappropriated water is available from the Inyan Kara 

aquifer; and (iv) there is a reasonable probability that the withdrawals proposed in the 

application can be made without unlawful impairment of existing water rights or domestic wells 

(SDDENR, 2012a). 

The water permit application for the Madison aquifer proposes to appropriate 109.6 ha-m 

[888.8 ac-ft] of water annually at a withdrawal rate of 2,085 Lpm [551 gpm] (Powertech, 2012i). 

This water would be used primarily during the aquifer restoration phase of the project. The 

amount of water that will be withdrawn from the Madison will depend on the liquid waste 

disposal method that will be used as part of the ISR process. The use of land application will 

require a diversion rate of 2,085 Lpm [551 gpm] and using deep Class V injection wells will 

require a withdrawal rate of 606 Lpm [160 gpm]. Based on a review of the application, which 

included an analysis of water availability and existing water rights, SDDENR concluded (i) there 

is reasonable probability that unappropriated water is available in the Madison aquifer to supply 

the proposed appropriation; (ii) approval of the application will not result in average annual 

withdrawals from the Madison aquifer that exceed the average annual recharge to the aquifer; 

and (iii) there is a reasonable probability that withdrawal proposed in the application can be 

made without impacting existing rights including domestic users (SDDENR, 2012b). 

Environmental impacts to groundwater for each of the applicant-proposed liquid waste 

disposal options (i.e., disposal via Class V injection wells, disposal via land application, or 

disposal via combination of Class V injection wells and land application) are discussed in the 

following sections. 

4.5.2.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

The applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid wastes is deep well disposal via Class V 

injection wells (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4). The applicant plans to inject process-related 

effluents into the Deadwood and Minnelusa Formations that lie below the Morrison Formation 

(Powertech, 2011, Appendix 2.7-L). Powertech estimates the injection zone depths for the 

Minnelusa Formation to be approximately 492 to 672 m [1,615 to 2,205 ft] below ground surface 

and for the Deadwood Formation to be approximately 943 to 974 m [3,095 to 3,195 ft] below 

ground surface in the Burdock area. In the Dewey area, the estimated Minnelusa Formation 

injection zone depth is approximately 594 to 774 m [1,950 to 2,540 ft] below ground surface and 

the estimated Deadwood Formation depth is approximately 1,045 to 1,076 m [3,430 to 3,530 ft] 

below ground surface. The use of deep well disposal requires an EPA Class V UIC permit (SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.2). EPA evaluates the suitability of formations for deep well injection and 

allows Class V injection only after an applicant demonstrates liquid waste can be isolated safely 

in a deep aquifer. NRC staff review of local and regional stratigraphies and local geologic cross 

sections shows no evidence of hydraulic connection between surface waters and aquifers 

targeted for deep well injection. In addition, NRC staff review of applicant calculations of the 

radius of fluid displacement resulting from Class V injection into the Minnelusa and Deadwood 

Formations indicates that the Dewey Fault will not act as a conduit for fluid to rise to a USDW 

via the faulted interface. Applicant calculations based on formation parameters derived from 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-56 

correlation of type logs and proposed injection rates show that the radius of fluid displacement 

around the deep injection wells will end more than 2,500 m [1.5 mi] from the Dewey Fault 

(Powertech, 2011, Appendix 2.7-L). The UIC permit will not allow injection into the Class V 

deep disposal wells unless the permittee demonstrates the wells are properly sited, such that 

confinement zones and proper well construction minimize the potential for migration of fluids 

outside of the approved injection zone. 

Potential environmental impacts to groundwater from construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning associated with the Class V injection well disposal option are 

discussed next. 

4.5.2.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

The construction of facilities, pipelines, wellfields, deep disposal injection wells, holding ponds, 

and access roads in the construction phase for the onsite, deep well, liquid waste disposal 

option will disturb 98 ha [243 ac] of land (Powertech 2010a). The total land disturbance will be 

2.3 percent of the permit area. The deep well disposal facilities, if approved, will be located 

near the satellite plant in the Dewey area and near the central processing plant in the Burdock 

area (see Figure 2.1-10). 

Consumptive water use during construction will be limited to dust control, cement mixing, 

pump tests, delineation drilling, and well drilling and completion. The applicant estimates 

that groundwater consumption during construction at the Dewey and Burdock areas will be 

8.25 × 107

 L and 1.16 × 108 L [21.8 × 106 gal and 30.6 × 106 gal], respectively (Powertech, 

2010a). Initially, water for construction activities will be withdrawn from existing wells in the 

Inyan Kara Group aquifers. The applicant plans to install wells in the deeper Madison aquifer 

early in the construction phase (Powertech, 2010a). As described previously, the applicant’s 

water permit application for the Madison aquifer proposes to appropriate 109.6 ha-m 

[888.8 ac-ft] or 1.09 × 109

 L [28.9 × 107 gal] of water annually to provide water for the 

proposed project (Powertech, 2012i). If permitted, the Madison aquifer will become the 

primary source of water for the project (Powertech, 2010a). 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.3.5, the applicant plans to use standard mud rotary 

drilling techniques to construct production, injection, and monitoring wells. Wells will be 

constructed using a small rotary drilling unit that uses bentonite or polymer drilling mud 

containing water that is pH-adjusted and mixed to control viscosity (Powertech, 2012g). The 

volume of drilling fluids and mud used during well installation will be limited. The introduction of 

drilling fluids to surficial (alluvial) aquifers at the proposed project might occur during well 

drilling, but the amount will be minor because drilling mud is designed to seal boreholes to set 

the casing. As part of the applicant’s Class III UIC permit, all production, injection, and 

monitoring wells will be cased and cemented to prevent the migration of fluids into and between 

USDWs in accordance with EPA regulations in 40 CFR 146.32. In addition, the design and 

construction of Class V deep injection wells must meet EPA requirements. Prior to entering 

service, all wells will undergo mechanical integrity tests of the casing to ensure against 

well leakage. 

During well installation, drilling fluids and mud will be stored in temporary mud pits to control the 

spread of fluids, protect the soil from contamination, and enhance evaporation. The applicant 

could choose alternative methods to manage drilling fluids to further limit the potential impacts 

from the use of mud pits during well drilling activities. These could include lining the mud pits 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-57 

with an impermeable membrane, offsite disposal of potentially contaminated drilling mud and 

other fluids, and the use of portable tanks or tubs to contain drilling mud and other fluids. The 

soil horizon found throughout most of the project area is clayey (see SEIS Section 3.4.2), which 

will minimize leakage from the mud pits and degradation of water quality of surficial and 

shallow aquifers. 

The groundwater quality of near-surface aquifers can potentially be affected by stormwater 

runoff during construction, which in turn will be controlled by the applicant’s SWMP that is part 

of the SDDENR-issued NPDES permit (see SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.1). The NPDES permit sets 

limits on the amount of pollutants entering ephemeral drainages that may be in hydraulic 

communication with alluvial aquifers at the site. The NPDES permit will also specify mitigation 

measures and BMPs to prevent and clean up spills. The applicant has not yet submitted an 

application for an NPDES permit to SDDENR. 

Fuels and lubricants may enter surficial and shallow aquifers as spills during facility construction 

and drilling activities and during the installation of injection, production, and monitoring 

wells. Impacts to groundwater quality of near-surface aquifers will be minimized by UIC and 

NPDES permit requirements and implementation of BMPs during construction. The applicant 

commits to implement spill prevention and cleanup plans to minimize impacts to soils and 

groundwater, including rapid response cleanup and remediation (Powertech, 2009a). 

Additionally, only small volumes of fuel and lubricants will be stored at the site. Leaks or spills 

will be cleaned immediately to avert soil contamination and infiltration to surficial aquifers. 

Under the terms of the NPDES permit (or regulations), spills of petroleum product or hazardous 

chemicals that threaten groundwater and related habitats must be reported to SDDENR. 

In summary, groundwater use during construction will be limited to routine activities, such as 

dust suppression, mixing cements, and drilling support. As noted previously, the applicant 

estimates that groundwater consumption during construction at the Dewey and Burdock areas 

will be 8.25 × 107

 L and 1.16 × 108 L [21.8 × 106 gal and 30.6 × 106 gal], respectively 

(Powertech, 2010a). If the applicant is granted a water appropriation permit to use Madison 

aquifer water, NRC staff determine that the applicant will rely less on local water supplies in the 

permit area, and hence, environmental impacts on local aquifers (e.g., the Inyan Kara aquifer) 

and domestic and livestock wells from consumptive water use during construction will be 

SMALL. However, if the water appropriation permit is denied, water use from local shallow 

aquifers during construction could significantly impact domestic and livestock wells. For 

example, the applicant estimates consumptive groundwater use during construction to be the 

same as that currently being withdrawn for domestic and livestock use from the Inyan Kara 

aquifer within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the Dewey-Burdock site (see SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.2). 

However, the applicant has committed to removing all existing domestic wells within the project 

area from private use prior to ISR operations (Powertech, 2011). This process will begin during 

the construction phase and, therefore, the current usage rate from the Inyan Kara within the 

proposed project area will decline. In addition, results of numerical groundwater simulations 

indicate the Inyan Kara aquifer can sustain net extraction rates of up to 556 Lpm [147 gpm] over 

the 2 year construction phase (Petrotek, 2012). This equates to total groundwater consumption 

of 5.83 × 108

 L [1.54 × 108] gal. Therefore, the NRC staff anticipates that the potential impact to 

shallow local aquifers and domestic and livestock wells from consumptive water use during the 

construction phase of the proposed project will be SMALL. 

In addition to potential stress on local aquifers due to consumptive water use demands, 

groundwater quality in shallow aquifers (mostly alluvium and also the Inyan Kara aquifer at its 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-58 

outcrop areas in the eastern part of the Burdock area) could be threatened by stormwater runoff 

and spills of fuels and lubricants during construction activities. However, required NPDES 

permit compliance activities, such as monitoring and BMPs, will protect groundwater quality of 

shallow aquifers. Specifically, the NPDES permit requirements provide controls on the amount 

of pollutants entering ephemeral drainages during construction. The permit will also specify 

mitigation measures and BMPs to prevent and cleanup spills. The applicant has committed to 

implementation of BMPs, such as a spill prevention and cleanup plan to minimize soil 

contamination and infiltration (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the 

impacts to groundwater during the construction phase for the Class V injection well disposal 

option at the proposed project will be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

Groundwater in near-surface (alluvial) and shallow aquifers, production aquifers, aquifers 

overlying and underlying the production aquifers, and deep aquifers could be impacted during 

ISR operations if the deep disposal well option is used at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site. 

Potential impacts to these aquifers could result from pumping water to meet the required 

consumptive water demands and from potential water quality degradation during ISR 

operations. Such potential impacts are discussed in the following sections. 

4.5.2.1.1.2.1 Shallow (Near-Surface) Aquifers 

Alluvial aquifers with thicknesses up to 12 m [40 ft] are present along Beaver Creek, Pass 

Creek, and the Cheyenne River (see SEIS Section 3.5.3.2). The alluvial aquifers may be locally 

confined, and they are separated from the underlying Fall River aquifer by the low permeability 

Graneros Group, which consists of the combined Skull Creek Shale, Mowry, and Belle Fourche 

Shales. Within the project area, the Graneros Group ranges in thickness from 61 to 168 m 

[200 to 550 ft], except in the eastern part of the Burdock area, where it has eroded, leaving the 

Fall River Formation exposed at the surface (see SEIS Section 3.4.1.2 and Figure 3.4-3). An 

inventory of private wells within a 2-km [1.2-mi] radius of the site indicates that seven wells are 

completed in alluvial aquifers (Powertech, 2011). The alluvial wells are used solely for 

monitoring purposes and do not serve as water supply for domestic purposes or livestock 

watering (Powertech, 2011). 

The Inyan Kara Group aquifer is the first near-surface aquifer encountered within the project 

area, and it is made up of two subaquifers: the Fall River and Chilson aquifers (see SEIS 

Section 3.5.3.1). The Fall River aquifer has an average thickness of 46 m [150 ft] within the 

project area and is exposed at the surface in the eastern part of the Burdock area, where the 

Graneros Group has been eroded (see Figure 3.4-3). The underlying Chilson aquifer varies in 

thickness from 37 to 61 m [120 to 200 ft] across the project area and is separated from the 

Fall River aquifer by the Fuson Shale, which has an average thickness of 15 m [50 ft] across 

the project area. The Chilson aquifer is underlain by a 30-m [100-ft]-thick section of the 

impermeable Morrison Formation, which hydrologically isolates the Chilson aquifer from deeper 

aquifers. Based on an inventory of private wells within a 2-km [1.2-mi] radius of the proposed 

project site, 33 wells obtain water from the Fall River aquifer, 41 wells obtain water from the 

Chilson aquifer, and 17 wells obtain water from an unknown component of the Inyan Kara 

aquifer (Powertech, 2011). These wells serve as water supplies for livestock, domestic 

purposes (e.g., drinking water), and monitoring. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-59 

Over the western and central parts of the proposed project area (i.e., the Dewey area and 

the western part of the Burdock area), the Fall River Formation is overlain by a 61-m to 168-m 

[200-ft to 550-ft] thick confining layer composed of the combined Skull Creek Shale, Mowry, and 

Belle Fourche Shales (Graneros Group). Where the Fall River aquifer is overlain by a thick 

confining layer, impacts to groundwater in this aquifer due to spills and leaks of pregnant or 

barren lixiviant on the ground surface resulting from pipeline, valve, and well integrity failure will 

be SMALL. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.3, the Fall River Formation forms a shallow (near-surface) 

unconfined aquifer where it is exposed at the surface in the eastern part of the Burdock area. 

As a result, spills and leaks of pregnant or barren lixiviant on the ground surface resulting from 

pipeline, valve, and well integrity failure could impact water quality. Uranium orebodies are 

present in unconfined portions of the Fall River Formation in the eastern part of the Burdock 

area. However, the applicant stated that ISR operations will not be conducted in unconfined 

portions of the Fall River aquifer (Powertech, 2010a). The applicant stated that ISR operations 

in the Fall River Formation will be limited to uranium orebodies in confined aquifers in the 

Dewey portion of the project area, except for one proposed Burdock wellfield (B-WF10) 

(Powertech, 2010a; Petrotek, 2012). Wellfield B-WF10 is proposed in a confined and fully 

saturated portion of the Fall River Formation in the western part of the Burdock area 

(Petrotek, 2012). 

The GEIS reported that NRC-required leak detection and cleanup programs greatly reduce the 

impact of radiological releases at or near the ground surface in shallow groundwater. The 

applicant is required to have leak detection, spill response, and cleanup programs as part of the 

NPDES permit (see SEIS Section 7.3.2). The applicant commits to implementing a spill 

prevention and cleanup plan that includes rapid response cleanup and remediation programs to 

minimize impacts on soils and groundwater (Powertech, 2009a). In addition, preventive 

measures, such as NRC-required mechanical integrity testing (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.3.5) 

and UIC permits obtained from EPA, will limit the likelihood of well integrity failure during 

operations, and hence, will minimize the risk of process fluid leaks from operational wells 

entering (or contaminating) shallow aquifers. 

NRC staff determine that near-surface (alluvium) aquifers in the project area have limited 

occurrences near creeks and are not being used for domestic, agricultural, or livestock watering. 

Shallow aquifers occur in the eastern part of the Burdock area, where the Fall River aquifer 

crops out and/or is present in an unconfined condition. The applicant commits to refrain 

from extracting uranium in the shallow, unconfined Fall River aquifer in the Burdock area. 

Near-surface and shallow aquifers are hydrologically isolated from deep aquifers below the 

Chilson aquifer by the impermeable Morrison Formation. In addition, the NRC staff 

recognize that during ISR operations groundwater impacts will be mitigated and reduced by 

(i) implementation of leak detection and cleanup programs, (ii) mechanical integrity testing of 

wells, and (iii) adherence to UIC permit requirements. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that 

impacts to shallow (near-surface) groundwater during operations for the Class V injection well 

disposal option at the proposed project will be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.1.2.2 Operations Impacts to Production and Surrounding Aquifers 

The potential environmental impact to groundwater in the production and other surrounding 

aquifers is related to consumptive water use and groundwater quality. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-60 

Water Consumptive Use 

GEIS Section 4.4.4.2.2.2 included a discussion of the potential impacts of groundwater 

withdrawal and reinjection into the production zone during ISR operations (NRC, 2009a). 

Most of the water withdrawn from the aquifer is returned to the aquifer. The portion not 

returned to the aquifer is referred to as “consumptive use.” Consumptive use for ISR 

operations is primarily due to production bleed and other small losses. Production bleed is 

the net withdrawal maintained to ensure groundwater hydraulic gradients draw water in 

toward the production wells to minimize the potential movement of lixiviant and its associated 

contaminants out of the wellfield. 

Consumptive water use during ISR operations could impact those who use local water from the 

production aquifer outside the exempted zone. This potential impact will lower water levels in 

nearby wells and reduce the yield of these wells. In addition, if the production zone is 

hydraulically connected to other aquifers above and/or below the production zone, consumptive 

use may impact the water levels in these overlying and underlying aquifers and reduce the yield 

in any nearby wells withdrawing water from these aquifers. (NRC, 2009a) 

The applicant has committed to removing all existing domestic wells within the project area from 

private use prior to ISR operations (Powertech, 2011). The applicant will work with well owners 

to provide an alternative water source, such as a replacement well or alternative water supply 

for domestic use. Replacement wells will be located an appropriate distance from wellfields and 

target an aquifer outside the production zone that provides water in a quantity equal to that of 

the original well and of a quality suitable for the same uses as the original well (Powertech, 

2011). In addition, the applicant will remove all stock wells within 0.4 km [0.25 mi] of any 

wellfield from private use prior to operation of the wellfield. Furthermore, the applicant will 

remove stock wells from private use that could be adversely impacted by or could adversely 

impact ISR operations. The applicant will also assume control of all wells used for monitoring 

within the project area boundary and secure the well heads to prevent unauthorized use. 

During operations, the applicant will monitor all domestic wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the 

wellfields and all stock wells within the project area (Powertech, 2011). In the event of 

significant drawdown or degradation of water quality in these wells, the applicant will provide 

alternative sources of water (e.g., a replacement well) to the well owner as described previously 

(Powertech, 2009a, 2011). 

Based on historical records and field investigations of the proposed project area, 107 water 

wells were identified within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the proposed project site (Powertech, 2011). In 

addition, field investigations of 36 wells documented in historical records were conducted. Of 

the 36 wells, 8 were visually confirmed to be plugged and abandoned, while 28 wells were not 

identified at the surface during the field investigation (Powertech, 2011). The 107 identified 

water wells are screened in the following aquifers: Fall River (33 wells; 12 of these wells are 

flowing artesian wells), Chilson (41 wells; 14 of these wells are flowing artesian wells), unknown 

aquifer (17 wells), Inyan Kara (either the Fall River or Chilson or both; 3 wells), Unkpapa 

(5 wells), Sundance (1 well), and alluvial aquifers (7 wells) (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). The total 

estimated groundwater use from wells placed in the Fall River aquifer is 57 Lpm [15 gpm]. 

From wells placed in the Chilson aquifer, the total estimated groundwater use is 174 Lpm 

[46 gpm] (Powertech, 2009a). The total estimated flow from wells placed in the Inyan Kara 

Group aquifers (Fall River, Chilson, or both) is 265 Lpm [70 gpm]. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-61 

Ore production zone pumping rates are estimated to be 9,084 Lpm [2,400 gpm] in the Burdock 

area and 6,056 Lpm [1,600 gpm] in the Dewey area during ISR operations (Powertech, 2011). 

These pump rates will draw down water levels in nearby wells in the production zones, 

potentially reducing the yield of these wells for livestock watering and domestic use. The 

applicant estimates that the maximum drawdown outside the project area resulting from 

projected ISR operations will be approximately 3.65 m [12 ft] in the Fall River aquifer and 3.05 m 

[10 ft] in the Chilson aquifer (Petrotek, 2012). The estimates are based on numerical modeling 

developed from site-specific parameters and calibrated to historical pumping test data (Petrotek, 

2012). The numerical simulations were for net extraction rates resulting from a gross production 

pumping rate of 30,280 Lpm [8,000 gpm] (twice the applicant’s estimated proposed pumping 

rate of 15,140 Lpm [4,000 gpm]), a 1 percent production bleed rate, and the use of groundwater 

sweep during aquifer restoration. As described previously, the applicant has committed to 

removing domestic wells within the proposed project area prior to operations. Therefore, the 

drawdown estimates represent the maximum anticipated drawdown amount for nearby domestic 

wells. The NRC staff analyzed the hydrogeologic characteristics of the Fall River and Chilson 

aquifers (i.e., formation thicknesses and potentiometric surfaces) and concluded that these 

estimated drawdowns will have a SMALL impact on nearby wells located in the Fall River and 

Chilson aquifers. 

The NRC staff recognize that the Chilson aquifer is separated from the Sundance/Unkpapa 

Formation by a 30-m [100-ft] thick section of the impermeable Morrison Formation, which 

hydrologically isolates the Chilson aquifer from underlying aquifers (i.e., Sundance/Unkpapa). 

Therefore, the staff find that, for the Class V injection well disposal option, the impacts on water 

levels and water yields in wells located in the Sundance/Unkpapa Formation (Powertech 

identified six wells) due to pumping and drawdown in the Chilson aquifer during ISR production 

will be SMALL. 

During ISR operations, the applicant plans to maintain a typical bleed rate of 0.875 percent of 

the production flow rate over the life of the proposed project (Powertech, 2011). However, 

instantaneous bleed rates may vary from 0.5 to 3 percent for short durations, ranging from days 

to months, to ensure a cone of depression is maintained and that no production fluids are 

released from the production zone (Powertech, 2009a). Because there is no evidence for fast 

flow paths, such as fractures, in the ore-bearing aquifers, NRC staff conclude that the cone of 

depression will be maintained during ISR operations. If the applicant uses a bleed rate of 

3 percent during the operations phase, drawdowns in the nearest domestic wells in the Fall 

River and Chilson aquifers will be greater than those estimated in the previous paragraph for a 

1 percent bleed rate. However, as noted previously, the maximum simulated drawdown was 

performed for a gross production pumping rate of twice that proposed by the applicant and for 

the optional groundwater sweep during aquifer restoration. Therefore, it represents a 

conservatively high estimate of the potential drawdown resulting from operation and 

restoration. In addition, drawdowns resulting from higher bleed rates (i.e., bleed rates greater 

than 1 percent) will be temporary (days to months). After production and restoration are 

complete and groundwater withdrawals are terminated at the proposed project, groundwater 

levels will tend to recover with time. Based on numerical modeling, the applicant estimates that 

water levels will recover to near pre-operational levels within 1 year after groundwater 

withdrawals cease (Petrotek, 2012). 

Furthermore, the applicant will 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 domestic and livestock wells within and adjacent to the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-62 

proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, potential impacts to water yields and 

pumping costs in nearby wells due to drawdowns associated with higher bleed rates for the 

Class V injection well option will be short-term and SMALL. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1, the applicant’s water permit application to SDDENR for 

groundwater use from the Madison aquifer proposes to appropriate 109.6 ha-m [888.8 ac-ft] or 

1.09 × 109

 L [28.9 × 107 gal] of water annually (Powertech, 2012i). If this permit is granted, the 

applicant will rely largely on Madison aquifer water during ISR operations. The Madison aquifer 

is approximately 844 m [2,765 ft] bgs in the Burdock area and approximately 945 m [3,100 ft] 

bgs in the Dewey area (Powertech, 2011, Appendix 2.7–L). Otherwise, the applicant will pump 

water from the Inyan Kara Group aquifers to meet operational needs at an estimated 

sustainable rate of 151 to 246 Lpm [40 to 65 gpm] (Powertech, 2009a, 2010a). Results of 

numerical groundwater simulations indicate the Inyan Kara aquifer can sustain net extraction 

rates of up to 363 Lpm [96 gpm] over the 8-year operations phase (Petrotek, 2012). 

To mitigate impacts on the use of shallow groundwater, the applicant commits to (i) removing 

all existing domestic wells within the project area from private use prior to ISR operations, 

(ii) removing all stock wells within 0.4 km [0.25 mi] of any wellfield from private use prior to 

operation of the wellfield, (iii) removing stock wells that could be adversely impacted by or could 

adversely impact ISR operations from private use, (iv) controlling all monitor wells within the 

proposed project boundary, and (v) providing alternative sources of water to landowners in the 

event of significant drawdown or degradation of water quality to domestic wells within 2 km 

[1.2 mi] of the project boundary and stock wells within the proposed project area (Powertech, 

2009a, 2011). After production and restoration are complete and groundwater withdrawals are 

terminated at the Dewey-Burdock Project, groundwater levels will tend to recover with time. 

Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the overall environmental impacts on local aquifers, 

production aquifers, and domestic and livestock wells from consumptive use during operations 

for the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed project will be SMALL. 

Excursions and Groundwater Quality 

As described in the GEIS, groundwater quality in the production zone will be degraded during 

ISR operations (NRC, 2009a). The production portion of the aquifer will need to be exempted 

from being a USDW though an EPA-issued aquifer exemption in accordance with the criteria 

under 40 CFR 146.4. After production is completed, the licensee must initiate aquifer 

restoration activities to restore the production zone to Commission-approved background water 

quality, if possible. If the aquifer cannot be returned to background conditions, NRC requires 

that the production aquifer be returned to the MCLs provided in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, 

Table 5C or to NRC-approved ACLs. Appendix B explains the process for granting an ACL. 

For proposed ACLs to be approved, they must be shown to protect human health at the site. 

For these reasons, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential impacts to the water 

quality of the uranium-bearing production zone aquifer as a result of ISR operations will be 

SMALL (NRC, 2009a). 

To prevent horizontal excursions, inward hydraulic gradients need to be maintained in the 

production aquifer during ISR operations (NRC, 2009a). These inward hydraulic gradients are 

created by the net groundwater withdrawals (production bleeds) maintained through continued 

pumping during ISR operations. For the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the applicant plans to 

maintain a 0.5 to 3 percent production bleed rate (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3.1.2). The inward 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-63 

hydraulic gradients will ensure that groundwater flow is toward the production zone and that 

horizontal excursions will not occur. 

As required by NRC license condition, a licensee must take preventive measures to reduce the 

likelihood and consequences of potential excursions. An applicant must design and install a 

monitoring network capable of detecting both horizontal and vertical excursions from the 

production zone to demonstrate that restoration is feasible. A ring of monitoring wells within and 

encircling the production zone is required for early detection of horizontal excursions. The 

applicant’s groundwater monitoring program is detailed in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.3.1.3 and 

7.3.1.2. If excursions are detected in the monitoring well ring, corrective actions to either stop or 

reverse the fluid movement (i.e., excursions) are required. The applicant will need to modify 

wellfield operations, as necessary, to correct the excursion. As described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.3.1.3, corrective actions to monitor and stop or reverse an excursion may 

include increasing sampling frequency to weekly, increasing the pumping rates (and thus the 

net bleed) of production wells in the area of the excursion, and pumping individual wells to 

enhance recovery of extraction solutions. If these actions do not effectively retrieve the 

excursion within 60 days, the applicant is required by license condition to suspend injecting 

lixiviant into the production zone adjacent to the excursion until the excursion is retrieved 

and the upper control limit parameters are no longer exceeded. 

Vertical excursions may also occur in aquifers overlying or underlying the production zone 

aquifer. An analysis presented in the GEIS indicated the potential for migration of production 

solutions into an overlying or underlying aquifer is minor if the aquitard (confining layer) 

separating the production zone from the overlying and underlying aquifer is sufficiently thick and 

the aquitard has low permeability (NRC, 2009a). The hydraulic gradient between the production 

zone and overlying or underlying aquifers is also used to determine the potential for vertical 

excursions. The upper confining layer (Skull Creek, Mowry, and Belle Fourche Shales, which 

are collectively referred to as the Graneros Group) at the Dewey-Burdock site has a thickness of 

approximately 61 to 168 m [200 to 550 ft] (see Figure 3.5-5). The applicant stated that it will not 

likely place any monitoring wells below the Lakota Formation due to the presence of a 30-m 

[100-ft]-thick underlying confining layer (Morrison Formation) and the upward vertical hydraulic 

gradient at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (Powertech, 2009a). The thicknesses of the 

upper confining layer {approximately 61 to 168 m [200 to 550 ft]} and the lower confining layer 

{approximately 30 m [100 ft]} will minimize the potential impacts of vertical excursions. To 

ensure the detection of vertical excursions, NRC requires monitoring in the overlying and 

underlying aquifers. The applicant’s groundwater monitoring program is detailed in SEIS 

Sections 2.1.1.1.3.1.3 and 7.3.1.2. 

Vertical excursions can also occur due to improperly sealed boreholes, poorly completed 

wells, or loss of mechanical integrity of ISR injection and production wells. The applicant will 

use its delineation drilling and pump testing program to identify and plug improperly sealed 

boreholes that could result in vertical excursions (Powertech, 2011). The applicant will use its 

mechanical integrity testing program to mitigate the impacts of potential vertical excursions 

resulting from borehole failure of injection, production, and monitoring wells (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.2.3.5). The applicant must also conduct periodic mechanical integrity testing of 

each well to check for leaks or cracks in the casing, as required by 40 CFR 146.8. Because 

mechanical integrity testing reduces the likelihood of poor well integrity, the impacts from 

excursions involving failure or damage to a well casing will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-64 

In GEIS Section 2.11.4, NRC staff discussed excursions that occurred at operating ISR facilities 

(NRC, 2009a). Separately, NRC staff analyzed the environmental impacts from both horizontal 

and vertical excursions that occurred at three NRC-licensed ISR facilities (NRC, 2009b). In that 

analysis, which considered 60 events at 3 facilities, NRC staff found that, for most of the events, 

the licensees were able to control and reverse the excursions through pumping and extraction 

at nearby wells. Most excursions were short-lived, although a few continued for several years. 

In all cases, however, no impacts occurred to nonexempted portions of the aquifer 

(NRC, 2009b). 

Many of the hydrogeologic conditions at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are similar 

to those at other ISR facilities. Groundwater in the production zone aquifers displays 

sufficient hydraulic conductivity to minimize excursions during ISR activities. However, the 

Dewey-Burdock site has several distinctive man-made and hydrogeological features that could 

contribute to potential vertical or horizontal excursions. 

First, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) drilled several thousand exploratory boreholes within 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area, which penetrate the Inyan Kara Group aquifers 

to the Morrison Formation (Powertech, 2010a). These boreholes may provide pathways to 

aquifers above and below production zone confining units, such as alluvial aquifers above the 

Graneros Group and deep aquifers below the Morrison Formation, although few explorations 

holes penetrated the entire thickness of the Morrison Formation (Powertech, 2011). Before 

developing wellfields, the applicant commits to properly plugging and abandoning or mitigating 

any historical wells and exploration holes that may potentially impact the control and 

containment of wellfield solutions within the proposed wellfield (Powertech, 2011). The 

applicant will use available information and best professional practices—including historical 

records, color infrared imagery, field investigations, and potentiometric surface evaluation—to 

locate or detect improperly plugged boreholes or wells in the vicinity of potential wellfield areas. 

In addition, the applicant will use pumping test results conducted as part of routine wellfield 

hydrogeologic package development to identify improperly plugged wells and exploration 

boreholes (Powertech, 2011). 

Second, hydraulic communication (i.e., leakage) between the Fall River and Chilson aquifers 

through the intervening Fuson Shale (see Figure 3.5-5) in the Burdock area has been identified 

based on aquifer pumping tests [see safety evaluation report (SER) Section 2.4.3.4] and 

potentiometric surface differences (see SEIS Section 3.5.3.2). Leakage through the Fuson 

Shale has implications when evaluating the capability of reversing potential vertical excursions 

by drawing water back into producing wells. Using exploratory drilling data the applicant 

provided (Powertech, 2010b), NRC staff independently constructed isopach maps (i.e., maps 

showing the thickness of a bed or formation throughout a geographic area) for the Fuson Shale 

underlying the Burdock area using different statistical methods (e.g., kriging, inverse distance). 

The resultant isopach maps for the Fuson Shale were in good agreement with the isopach map 

for the Fuson Shale the applicant presented (see Figure 3.5-6). However, the thickness of the 

Fuson Shale at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site may be different from other areas, and the 

applicant has committed to collecting more detailed lithologic data in each wellfield prior to ISR 

operations to ensure hydraulic control of the production zone (Powertech, 2010a). The 

applicant also developed a numerical groundwater model using site-specific geologic and 

hydrologic information (Petrotek, 2012). Based on results of the numerical model, the applicant 

concluded that vertical leakage through the Fuson Shale is caused by improperly installed wells 

or improperly abandoned boreholes. NRC staff reviewed the applicant’s numerical groundwater 

model and calibration, and it determined that the model was appropriately developed and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-65 

sufficiently calibrated. As noted previously, the applicant has committed to locating unknown 

boreholes and wells, and committed to plugging and abandoning historical wells and exploration 

holes, holes drilled by the applicant, and any wells that fail mechanical integrity tests 

(Powertech, 2011). 

Finally, the applicant plans to conduct ISR operations in partially saturated portions of the 

Chilson aquifer in the Burdock area (Powertech, 2011). ISR operations in partially saturated 

aquifers present special challenges with regard to controlling production fluids and detecting 

and remediating excursions. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.3, the applicant has 

committed to collect more detailed lithologic data through delineation drilling and conduct 

additional hydrogeologic investigations (including pump tests) in each proposed wellfield to 

ensure that hydraulic control of the production zone can be maintained (Powertech, 2010a, 

2011). The applicant will be required to submit detailed operational plans, including monitoring 

well layouts, for NRC and EPA approval before conducting ISR operations in partially saturated 

aquifers at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (Powertech, 2010a, 2011). NRC staff have also 

included a license condition for ISR operations in partially saturated portions of the Chilson 

aquifer. This license condition will require the applicant to demonstrate the ability to detect and 

remediate excursions in partially saturated zones (NRC, 2013). 

In summary, NRC staff conclude that the impact from excursions at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be SMALL because (i) EPA will exempt uranium-bearing 

production aquifers from USDW classification according to the criteria under 

40 CFR 146.4,(ii) the applicant will be required to submit wellfield operational plans for 

NRC and EPA approval, (iii) inward hydraulic gradients will be maintained to ensure 

groundwater flow is toward the production zone, and (iv) the applicant’s NRC-mandated 

groundwater monitoring plan will ensure that excursions are detected and corrected. Impacts 

from vertical excursions will be SMALL because (i) uranium-bearing production zones in the 

Fall River and Chilson aquifers are hydrologically isolated from adjacent aquifers by thick, low 

permeability shale layers (i.e., the overlying Graneros Group and underlying Morrison 

Formation); (ii) a prevailing upward hydraulic gradient occurs across the major aquifers; (iii) the 

applicant’s required mechanical integrity testing program will mitigate the impacts of potential 

vertical excursions resulting from borehole failure; and (iv) the applicant commits to properly 

plugging and abandoning or mitigating any previously drilled wells and exploration holes that 

may potentially impact the control and containment of wellfield solutions within the proposed 

project area. Moreover, because the applicant must initiate aquifer restoration in the production 

aquifers (i.e., Fall River and Chilson aquifers) to return groundwater to Commission-approved 

background levels or to NRC-approved alternative water quality levels at the end of ISR 

operations, NRC staff conclude that groundwater quality impacts to the production and 

surrounding aquifers as a result of ISR operations for the Class V injection well disposal option 

will be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.1.2.3 Operations Impacts to Deep Aquifers Below the Production Aquifers 

Potential environmental impacts to confined, deep aquifers below the production aquifers could

occur from deep well injection of process-related liquid effluents. Under the SDWA, EPA has 

statutory authority to permit and regulate injection well activities that may affect the 

environment. EPA Region 8 administers the deep well disposal UIC program in South Dakota 

and is responsible for issuing any permits for deep well disposal at the proposed DeweyBurdock Project site. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-66 

At the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the applicant plans to dispose of liquid waste 

using Class V (nonhazardous) deep injection wells, land application, or a combination of both 

deep well injection and land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4). For the Class V 

injection well disposal option at the proposed project, the applicant will inject process-related 

liquid waste into the Deadwood and Minnelusa Formations, which both lie below the Morrison 

Formation (Powertech, 2011, Appendix 2.7-L). However, deep well injection into these 

formations depends on securing a Class V (nonhazardous) UIC permit through an 

EPA-permitting process. For disposal through a UIC Class V well, an EPA permit, if granted, 

will require that the waste stream to be injected will not be classified as hazardous under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA will also evaluate the suitability of the 

proposed deep injection wells. EPA will only allow deep well injection if the liquid wastes 

can be safely isolated in the deep aquifers. If a license is granted, NRC will also require 

the liquid wastes to be treated and monitored to verify they meet NRC release standards in 

10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2. If the proposed 

injection zones are underground sources of drinking water {have a total dissolved solids 

concentration below 10,000 mg/l [10,000 ppm]}, the EPA UIC permit will require the injectate to 

be treated to meet drinking water standards or contaminant-specific background concentrations 

for constituents regulated under the SDWA, unless the applicant applies for and is granted an 

aquifer exemption. The applicant’s Class V injection well monitoring program is detailed in SEIS 

Section 7.6. 

At the Dewey-Burdock site, the Madison aquifer is an important aquifer in the region supplying 

municipal water for numerous communities, including Rapid City and Edgemont, South Dakota. 

As noted previously, the proposed injection zones for the deep disposal wells are the Minnelusa 

Formation and the Deadwood Formation, which respectively lie above and below the Madison 

Formation (Figure 3.5-5). There are confining layers at the base of the Minnelusa Formation, 

which separate the Madison Formation from the overlying Minnelusa Formation. Locally, these 

confining layers may be absent or provide ineffective confinement, which could enhance 

hydraulic connection between the Minnelusa aquifer and the underlying Madison aquifer (Naus, 

et al., 2001). However, based on water levels in Minnelusa and Madison observation wells in 

the area, SDDENR concluded that there is a significant difference in the potentiometric surfaces 

of the two aquifers suggesting that the aquifers are hydraulically separated in the vicinity of the 

site (SDDENR, 2012b). The Englewood Formation underlies the Madison Formation and 

should provide a confining layer between the Madison Formation and the underlying Deadwood 

Formation. As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.1, the Whitewood and Winnipeg Formations 

(see Figure 3.5-5) are not expected to be present in the southern Black Hills (Naus, et al., 

2001). As stated previously, the UIC permit will not allow injection into the Class V deep 

disposal wells unless the permittee demonstrates the wells are properly sited, such that 

confinement zones and proper well construction minimize the potential for migration of fluids 

outside of the approved injection zone. Based on the protective requirements of the EPA UIC 

Class V permit, NRC staff conclude that the impact of the deep Class V disposal wells on the 

deep aquifers will be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

Consistent with the GEIS, the primary goal of aquifer restoration at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is to return groundwater quality within the production zone of a 

wellfield to Commission-approved background water quality conditions or to standards 

consistent with NRC requirements at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(5) (Powertech, 

2009b). These standards state the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-67 

(i) the Commission-approved background concentration of that constituent in groundwater; 

(ii) the respective value in the table in paragraph 5C (in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A) if the 

constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the 

value listed; or (iii) an ACL the Commission establishes. Appendix B explains the process for 

granting an ACL. For proposed ACLs to be approved, they must be shown to protect human 

health at the site. 

In addition to NRC requirements at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 5B(B), groundwater 

in the production zone aquifer will have to be restored to State of South Dakota standards. In 

accordance with ARSD 74:54:01:04, groundwater in the production zones will be required to be 

restored to established ambient concentrations or South Dakota groundwater quality standards. 

NRC staff examined available groundwater restoration data from three NRC-licensed ISR 

facilities (COGEMA’s Irigary/Christensen Ranch facility, Power Resources Inc.’s 

Smith Ranch/Highland Uranium Project facility, and Crow Butte Resources Crow Butte facility) 

(NRC, 2009b). NRC staff has approved 11 wellfield restorations at the three sites. The 

restoration data show that pre-operational concentrations are attainable for many parameters 

(50 to 70 percent of the 35 parameters commonly monitored) but are not attainable for other 

constituents, in particular, the major and trace cations with solubilities most susceptible to the 

oxidation state of the aquifer water (i.e., iron, manganese, arsenic, selenium, uranium, 

vanadium, and radium-226). However, for the approved restorations, the impacts to 

groundwater in the exempted aquifer met all regulatory standards for the state or EPA UIC 

program, met the quality designated for its class of use prior to ISR operations, have been 

shown to decrease in the future due to natural attenuation processes, and have been shown to 

meet drinking water standards at the perimeter of the exempted aquifer. Therefore, the impacts 

to the exempted aquifer for each of the approved restorations do not pose a threat to human 

health and the environment. 

Hydraulic control of the ore zone must be maintained during aquifer restoration. This 

is accomplished by maintaining an inward hydraulic gradient through a restoration bleed. 

During aquifer restoration at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, the restoration bleed will 

typically be 1 percent of the restoration flow (Powertech, 2011). The applicant plans to begin 

restoration of the first wellfield in both the Burdock and Dewey areas immediately after 

production activities end in that wellfield (Powertech, 2009a). Subsequently, as additional 

wellfields are completed, the applicant plans to restore each wellfield as soon as reasonably 

achievable or practicable following production (Powertech, 2011). 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1, the applicant’s primary method of aquifer restoration 

for the Class V injection well disposal option is groundwater treatment with RO and permeate 

injection (Powertech, 2009b, 2011). This method uses a RO system consisting of pressurized, 

semipermeable membranes that will treat groundwater removed from the wellfields in the 

Dewey and Burdock areas. The RO system removes more than 90 percent of the total 

dissolved solids in groundwater being restored. The reverse RO reject, or brine, undergoes 

radium removal in the radium settling ponds and then disposal in one or more Class V injection 

wells. The total liquid waste flow rate will be approximately 746 Lpm [197 gpm] during 

concurrent uranium production and aquifer restoration and approximately 568 Lpm [150 gpm] 

during aquifer restoration alone (Powertech, 2011). These liquid waste flow rates are lower 

than the proposed disposal capacity of up to 1,135 Lpm [300 gpm] for the Class V injection well 

disposal option (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-68 

About 70 percent of the water withdrawn from the wellfields and passed through the RO 

membranes will be recovered as permeate. Before reinjection into the wellfields, the permeate 

will be supplemented with makeup water from wells in the Madison Formation and injected into 

the wellfields at an amount slightly less than the amount withdrawn to maintain a slight 

restoration bleed. As noted previously, the restoration bleed will maintain hydraulic control of 

the wellfields during aquifer restoration and will typically be 1 percent of the restoration flow 

unless groundwater sweep is used in conjunction with RO treatment with permeate injection, in 

which case the restoration bleed will average approximately 17 percent as described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1..4.1.3. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1, the applicant submitted a water appropriation permit to 

SDDENR in June 2012 for groundwater use from the Madison aquifer. However, if the applicant 

cannot secure a water appropriation for use of Madison aquifer water, the applicant will have to 

either identify an alternative source of water to meet aquifer restoration water requirements or 

reduce pumping rates to meet the estimated sustainable net extraction rate from the Inyan Kara 

aquifer, which is estimated to be at least 556 Lpm [147 gpm] for 2 years and 363 Lpm [96 gpm] 

for 8 years (see SEIS Sections 4.5.2.1.1.1 and 4.5.2.1.1.2.2.). Reducing the pumping rate will 

extend the aquifer restoration phase (Powertech, 2010a). After production and restoration are 

complete and groundwater withdrawals are terminated, groundwater levels will tend to recover 

with time (NRC, 2009a). Based on numerical modeling, the applicant estimates that water 

levels will recover to near pre-operational levels within 1 year after groundwater withdrawals 

cease (Petrotek, 2012). Thus, the potential long-term environmental impact from consumptive 

use during the restoration phase at the proposed project for the Class V injection well disposal 

option will be SMALL. 

Aquifer restoration will directly impact groundwater quality in the production zone. At the end of 

operations in wellfields, the applicant must initiate aquifer restoration to return groundwater to 

Commission-approved background conditions. If these aquifers cannot be returned to 

Commission-approved background conditions, NRC will require that the production aquifer be 

returned to the MCLs provided in 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Table 5C, or to NRC-approved 

alternate concentration limits. Restoration to these standards will ensure that groundwater 

within the exemption boundary will not pose a threat to surrounding groundwater. For these 

reasons, potential impacts to the water quality of the Fall River and Chilson aquifers and 

surrounding aquifers as a result of aquifer restoration for the Class V injection well disposal 

option will be SMALL. 

As described previously, leakage between the Fall River and Chilson aquifers through the 

intervening Fuson Shale in the Burdock area has been identified based on aquifer 

pumping tests (see SER Section 2.4.3.4) and potentiometric surface differences (see SEIS 

Section 3.5.3.2). Because leakage may occur through the Fuson Shale, a potential exists for 

drawdown-induced migration of radiological contaminants from abandoned open pit mines in the 

Burdock area (e.g., Triangle Pit mine) from the Fall River aquifer into the hydraulically 

connected Chilson aquifer. 

To address uncertainties in the confining properties of the Fuson Shale in the Burdock area, the 

NRC staff will impose by license condition that the applicant design and implement a monitoring 

well network (NRC, 2013). Specifically, for wellfields in the Burdock area where the production 

zone is located in the Chilson aquifer, the NRC will require monitoring wells to be placed in the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-69 

Fall River aquifer to identify any lack of confinement. A proposal for the monitoring well 

network must be submitted to NRC staff for review and written verification at least 60 days prior 

to construction. 

In addition, the applicant committed to conducting hydrogeological characterization and aquifer 

pumping tests in each wellfield, in order to examine the hydraulic integrity of the Fuson Shale 

and ensure drawdown-induced migration of potential contaminants will not impact aquifer 

restoration goals (Powertech, 2010a). By license condition, NRC will also require the applicant 

to provide the results of the hydrogeological characterization and aquifer pumping tests for 

review and written verification before any proposed wellfields are developed (NRC, 2013). 

Further, wellfields in the vicinity of the abandoned mine pits in the Burdock area, specifically 

wellfields B-WF6, B-WF7, and B-WF8 (see Figure 2.1-6), will be prohibited from operating until 

NRC staff have reviewed and approved the hydrogeologic data packages for those wellfields 

(NRC, 2013). 

Based on NRC requirements and applicant commitments, the potential for contaminants from 

abandoned open pit mines in the Burdock area to be drawn through the Fuson Shale into 

production zones within the Chilson aquifer during aquifer restoration will be SMALL. 

As with the operations phase, a network of buried pipelines is used during the restoration phase 

for transporting fluids between the pump house and the satellite facility, or central processing 

plant. These pipelines are also used to connect injection and extraction wells to manifolds 

inside the header houses. However, the fluids transported in these pipes during restoration are 

generally less concentrated than during production. The failure of pipeline fittings or valves, or 

failures of well mechanical integrity in shallow aquifers, could result in leaks and spills of 

these fluids that could impact water quality in shallow aquifers. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.1, the applicant committed to implementing a leak-detection and 

spill-cleanup program (Powertech, 2009a). The EPA-mandated UIC program will also 

require preventive measures, such as well mechanical integrity testing. Consequently, 

implementing these measures will result in potential SMALL impacts to alluvial or shallow 

(near-surface) aquifers during the aquifer restoration phase at the proposed project. 

As previously discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.3, it is assumed that the potential 

environmental impact to deep aquifers below the production aquifers from deep well injection of 

treated liquid wastes will be SMALL. The applicant will need an EPA UIC Class V permit for 

deep disposal wells at the proposed project (Powertech, 2009c). EPA will evaluate the 

suitability of the proposed deep injection wells and will only allow deep well injection if the waste 

fluids can be suitably isolated in a deep aquifer. Consequently, NRC staff determine that the 

potential environmental impact from the Class V injection well disposal option on targeted deep 

aquifers located below the production zone aquifers will be SMALL. 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.2, the applicant will implement a restoration monitoring 

plan to detect and correct horizontal and vertical excursions during aquifer restoration. After 

aquifer restoration is complete, groundwater levels will tend to recover with time (NRC, 2009a), 

and therefore long-term impacts to consumptive water use will be SMALL. Continued 

implementation of a leak-detection and spill-cleanup program and preventative measures, such 

as well mechanical integrity testing, will result in SMALL impacts to alluvial or shallow 

(near-surface) aquifers. The applicant’s UIC Class V permits from EPA for deep well disposal 

will ensure that the impact to deep aquifers during aquifer restoration will be SMALL. Moreover, 

restoration to Commission-approved background conditions (or NRC-approved water quality 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-70 

standards) in accordance with NRC license conditions will ensure that groundwater within the 

exemption boundary will not threaten surrounding groundwater. 

Before NRC terminates an ISR source material license, a licensee is required to demonstrate 

that there will be no long-term impacts to USDWs. NRC review and approval of the wellfield 

restoration will ensure that the restoration standards are met and that these standards are 

protective of public health and the environment. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the impacts 

from aquifer restoration in the Burdock and Dewey areas for the Class V injection well disposal 

option will be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

After completion of ISR operations at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site, improperly 

plugged and abandoned wells could potentially impact aquifers above the production zone by 

providing hydrologic connections between aquifers. As part of the restoration and reclamation 

activities, all monitor, injection, and recovery wells at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site will be 

plugged and abandoned in accordance with SDDENR and EPA UIC regulations (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.5.2). In addition, the applicant will submit decommissioning plans, including 

detailed plans for plugging and abandoning wells, to NRC for review and approval. 

The applicant has committed to implementing an emergency response plan to address cleanup 

of accidental spills and leaks that may occur during decommissioning. The applicant will 

implement the mitigation measures to control erosion and stormwater runoff. The applicant’s 

NPDES permit will ensure that stormwater runoff will not contaminate surface water or shallow 

groundwater. After removal of surface structures, the applicant will replace topsoil in previously 

disturbed areas, recontour the land surface to restore it to a surface configuration to blend with 

the natural terrain, and seed disturbed areas in wellfields in accordance with the NRC and 

SDDENR regulations (Powertech, 2009b). Access roads will be reclaimed and restored in a 

similar manner. 

If this process is properly implemented following the NRC-approved decommissioning plan and 

the abandoned wells are properly isolated from the flow domain, the potential environmental 

impacts to groundwater from decommissioning for the Class V injection well disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If the permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant proposes to 

dispose of liquid waste generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by land 

application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.4.2). Potential environmental impacts to groundwater 

from construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning for the land application 

disposal option are discussed in the following sections. 

4.5.2.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

The construction of facilities, pipelines, wellfields, holding ponds, irrigation areas, and access 

roads in the construction phase of the land application disposal option will disturb 566 ha 

[1,398 ac] of land (Powertech 2010a). The total land disturbance will be 13.2 percent of the 

permit area. The locations of land application areas are shown in Figure 2.1-12. As described 

in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.2.1, significant earthmoving activities will not be conducted to prepare 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-71 

land irrigation areas. All the ground surface disturbances and the resultant impacts to 

groundwater discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.1, except for those from construction of deep 

well disposal facilities, will be applicable during the construction phase of the proposed ISR 

project for the land application disposal option. 

The applicant must obtain a Class III UIC permit, an NPDES permit, and a water appropriation 

permit before construction activities begin. Consumptive water use during construction will be 

limited to dust control, cement mixing, pump tests, delineation drilling, and well drilling and 

completion. The volume of drilling fluids and mud used during well installation will be limited. 

The introduction of drilling fluids to surficial (alluvial) aquifers at the proposed project might 

occur during well drilling, but the amount will be minor because drilling mud is designed to seal 

boreholes to set the casing. As part of the applicant’s Class III UIC permit, all production, 

injection, and monitoring wells will be cased and cemented to prevent the migration of fluids into 

and between USDWs in accordance with EPA regulations in 40 CFR 146.32. All wells will 

undergo mechanical integrity tests of the casing to ensure against well leakage prior to 

entering service. 

During well installation, drilling fluids and mud will be stored in temporary mud pits to control the 

spread of fluids, prevent soil contamination, and enhance evaporation. The applicant could 

choose alternative methods to manage drilling fluids that will further limit the potential impacts 

from the use of mud pits during well drilling activities (e.g., lining the mud pits with an 

impermeable membrane, offsite disposal of potentially contaminated drilling mud and other 

fluids, and the use of portable tanks or tubs to contain drilling mud and other fluids). The soil 

horizon found throughout most of the project area is clayey (see SEIS Section 3.4.2), which 

will minimize leakage from the mud pits and degradation of water quality of surficial and 

shallow aquifers. 

Stormwater runoff during construction will be controlled by the applicant’s SWMP, which is part 

of the SDDENR-issued NPDES permit (see SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.1). Runoff from precipitation 

events or snowmelt on land application areas will be conveyed to catchment areas 

downgradient of land application areas and allowed to evaporate or infiltrate (Powertech, 

2012c). The NPDES permit sets limits on the amount of pollutants entering ephemeral 

drainages that may be in hydraulic communication with alluvial aquifers at the site. The NPDES 

permit will also specify mitigation measures and BMPs to prevent and clean up spills. The 

applicant has not yet submitted an application for an NPDES permit to SDDENR. 

 

Potential environmental impacts to groundwater during construction will be localized and limited 

to groundwater in near-surface (alluvial) aquifers. As described in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.2.1 for 

the Class V injection well disposal option, impacts on local aquifers and domestic and livestock 

wells from consumptive water use during the construction phase of the project will be SMALL. 

If the applicant is granted a water appropriation permit to use Madison aquifer water, 

environmental impacts on local aquifers (e.g., the Inyan Kara aquifer), and domestic and 

livestock wells from consumptive water use during construction will be minimal. In the event 

SDDENR denies the applicant’s water appropriation permit, the applicant will rely solely on 

Inyan Kara aquifer water during the construction phase. Results of numerical groundwater 

simulations indicate the Inyan Kara aquifer can sustain net extraction rates of up to 556 Lpm 

[147 gpm] over the 2 year construction phase (Petrotek, 2012). This equates to total 

groundwater consumption of 5.83 × 108

 L [1.54 × 108] gal, which exceeds the project-wide 

construction phase groundwater consumptive use estimate of 1.98 × 108

 L [5.24 × 107 gal] 

(Powertech, 2010a). In addition, the applicant has committed to removing all domestic wells 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-72 

within the proposed project area from private use prior to operations (Powertech, 2011). 

Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the impacts to groundwater during construction for the land 

application option at the proposed project will be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

Groundwater in near-surface (alluvial) and shallow aquifers, production aquifers, aquifers 

overlying and underlying the production aquifers, and deep aquifers could be impacted during 

ISR operations for the land application disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

project. Potential environmental impacts on groundwater could result from consumptive water 

uses from these aquifers and potential water quality degradations in these aquifers during ISR 

operations. Such potential impacts are discussed in the following sections. 

4.5.2.1.2.2.1 Shallow (Near-Surface) Aquifers 

All the ground surface disturbances and the potential resultant impacts to groundwater in 

shallow (near-surface) aquifers discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.1, except for those from 

construction of Class V injection well disposal facilities, will be applicable during the operations 

phase of the proposed ISR project for the land application disposal option. Briefly, NRC staff 

find that near-surface (alluvium) aquifers in the project area occur only near creeks and are not 

being used for domestic, agricultural, or livestock watering. Near-surface and shallow aquifers 

are not hydraulically connected to the deep aquifers the applicant proposed for the Class V 

injection well disposal option. Shallow aquifers occur in the eastern portion of the Burdock area, 

where the Fall River aquifer crops out and/or is present in an unconfined condition. The 

applicant commits to refrain from extracting uranium in the shallow unconfined Fall River aquifer 

in the Burdock area; however, there will be wellfields in this area for extracting uranium from the 

partially saturated Chilson sandstone. Moreover, the applicant is required to have 

leak detection, spill response, and cleanup programs as part of the NPDES permit. The 

applicant commits to implementing a spill prevention and cleanup plan that includes rapid 

response cleanup and remediation programs to minimize impacts on soils and groundwater. In 

addition, preventive measures, such as NRC-required mechanical integrity testing and UIC 

permits obtained from EPA, will limit the likelihood of well integrity failure during operations, and 

hence, will minimize the risk of process fluid leaks from operational wells into aquifers. 

The applicant’s proposed land application areas in the Dewey area and in the Burdock area 

(see Figure 2.1-12) cover approximately 426 ha [1,052 ac] of the permitted land. These areas 

include all normally operating irrigation pivots, standby irrigation pivots, and areas constructed 

to contain surface stormwater runoff. In the Dewey area, the proposed land application sites 

are over confined portions of the Fall River and Chilson aquifers and away from their outcrop 

areas. In the Burdock area, the easternmost irrigation fields are located downdip of the outcrop 

area of the Fall River aquifer. The minimum estimated thickness of the Graneros Group in this 

area is 7.6 m [25 ft] (see Figures 2.1-12 and 3.5-7). Therefore, treated liquid waste applied to 

the easternmost land application areas is unlikely to recharge the Fall River aquifer due to the 

presence of the overlying Graneros Group shale. For the rest of the proposed land application 

sites, the impacts to groundwater will be localized and limited to near-surface (alluvial) aquifers, 

if they exist underneath the proposed irrigation fields, because alluvial aquifers are separated 

from the underlying Fall River aquifer by the low permeability, 61-m [200-ft]-thick Skull Creek 

shale. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.1, the applicant has proposed to remove all 

existing domestic wells within the project area from private use prior to ISR operations 

(Powertech, 2011). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-73 

As described in SEIS Section 4.4.1.2.2, licensees must ensure that radioactive constituents in 

liquid effluents applied to land application areas are within allowable release limits (NRC, 

2009a). The applicant proposes to treat liquid wastes applied to land application areas so they 

meet NRC release limit criteria for radiological contaminants, as referenced in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B (Standards for Protection Against Radiation) (Powertech, 2011). SDDENR also 

regulates land application of treated wastewater, requiring the applicant to obtain an approved 

GDP and comply with applicable state discharge requirements for land application of treated 

wastewater. State regulations also prohibit surface runoff from permitted land application areas 

and the GDP will require land application activities to be conducted so that no ponding and 

runoff of effluent (i.e., wastewater solutions) occurs during these activities. Therefore, the NRC 

staff conclude that applied treated effluents on land application sites will not introduce additional 

contamination to the soil or surface runoff that is harmful to human health or the environment. 

Due to existing hydrological conditions at the site, and the permitting and regulatory 

requirements the applicant must meet, NRC staff conclude that potential environmental impacts 

to groundwater in shallow aquifers from operations for the land application disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.2.2.2 Operations Impacts to Production and Surrounding Aquifers 

The potential environmental impact to groundwater in the production and other surrounding 

aquifers is related to consumptive water use and groundwater quality. 

Water Consumptive Use 

The potential impacts to groundwater in the production and surrounding aquifers due to 

consumptive water uses—impacts the staff discusses in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.2—will also 

apply during ISR operations for the land application liquid waste disposal option. To 

summarize, in June 2012 the applicant submitted a water appropriation permit for use of the 

Madison aquifer. If SDDENR approves the permit application, the applicant will rely largely on 

Madison aquifer water during ISR operations. Otherwise, the applicant will pump water from the 

Inyan Kara aquifer to meet operational needs at an estimated sustainable rate of 151 to 

246 Lpm [40 to 65 gpm] (Powertech, 2009a, 2010a). Results of numerical groundwater 

simulations indicate the Inyan Kara aquifer can sustain net extraction rates of up to 363 Lpm 

[96 gpm] over the 8 year operations phase (Petrotek, 2012). Therefore, NRC staff conclude that 

the impacts on local aquifers and domestic and livestock wells from consumptive water use 

during ISR operations will be SMALL. In addition, the applicant will monitor and provide 

alternative sources of water to landowners in the event of significant drawdown to domestic 

wells within and adjacent to the proposed project area. After production and restoration are 

complete and groundwater withdrawals are terminated at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, 

groundwater levels will tend to recover with time. Land application of treated liquid wastes will 

not require additional consumptive water demands. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the 

overall environmental impacts on local aquifers, production aquifers, and domestic and livestock 

wells from consumptive use during operations for the land application option will be SMALL. 

Excursions and Groundwater Quality 

Potential impacts to groundwater quality from excursions in the production and surrounding 

aquifers during ISR operations (discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.2) will also be applicable 

during ISR operations for the land application liquid waste disposal option. Impacts from 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-74 

horizontal excursions will be SMALL because (i) uranium-bearing production aquifers will be 

exempted as USDWs through the EPA-issued aquifer exemption in accordance with the criteria 

under 40 CFR 146.4, (ii) the applicant will be required to submit wellfield operational plans for 

NRC and EPA approval, (iii) inward hydraulic gradients will be maintained to ensure 

groundwater flow is toward the production zone, and (iv) the applicant’s NRC-mandated 

groundwater monitoring plan will ensure that excursions are detected and corrected. Impacts 

from vertical excursions will be SMALL because (i) uranium-bearing production zones in the 

Fall River and Chilson aquifers are hydrologically isolated from adjacent aquifers by thick, low 

permeability shale layers (i.e., the overlying Graneros Group and underlying Morrison 

Formation); (ii) a prevailing upward hydraulic gradient occurs across the major aquifers; (iii) the 

applicant’s required mechanical integrity testing program will mitigate the impacts of potential 

vertical excursions resulting from borehole failure; and (iv) the applicant commits to properly 

plugging and abandoning or mitigating any previously drilled wells and exploration holes that 

may potentially impact the control and containment of wellfield solutions within the proposed 

project area. Moreover, at the end of ISR operations, the applicant must to initiate aquifer 

restoration in the production aquifers (i.e., Fall River and Chilson aquifers) to return groundwater 

to Commission-approved background levels or to NRC-approved alternative water quality 

levels. Therefore, NRC staff conclude the impact to groundwater quality from potential 

horizontal and vertical excursions will be SMALL. 

The applicant proposes land irrigation areas in both the Dewey and Burdock areas of the project 

(Figure 2.1-12). NRC staff find that no additional contamination will be introduced into the 

production and surrounding aquifers due to land application of effluents, because (i) the 

applicant will treat process effluents to meet NRC release limit criteria for radiological 

contaminants as referenced in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 and applicable 

SDDENR release limit requirements before applying them onto irrigation fields and (ii) the 

irrigation fields are underlain by low permeability shale layers (Graneros Group). Any recharge 

to the Fall River aquifer from land application of liquid wastes during proposed ISR operations 

will be remediated as part of restoration activities. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.2.1, 

the applicant has proposed to remove all existing domestic wells within the project area from 

private use prior to ISR operations (Powertech, 2011). Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the 

overall environmental impacts to production and surrounding aquifers from potential horizontal 

and vertical excursions during ISR operations for the land application option will be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.2.2.3 Operations Impacts to Deep Aquifers Below the Production Aquifers 

Production zone aquifers at the Dewey-Burdock site are separated from deeper aquifers by a 

continuous and hydrologically impermeable 30-m [100-ft]-thick section of the Morrison 

Formation. In addition, there are no known unplugged or improperly abandoned wells or 

exploratory drills extending from ground surface to aquifers below the Morrison Formation within 

the project area. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that, for the land application disposal 

option, environmental impacts to groundwater in the deep aquifers below the production 

aquifers from ISR operations will be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

As discussed in the GEIS, the impacts of consumptive groundwater use during aquifer 

restoration are generally greater than during ISR operations (NRC, 2009a). This is particularly 

true during the sweep phase, when a larger volume of groundwater is generally withdrawn from 

the production aquifer. During the sweep phase, groundwater is not reinjected into the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-75 

production aquifer and all withdrawals should be considered consumptive. Larger withdrawals 

will produce larger drawdowns in the production aquifer, resulting in a greater impact on the 

yields of nearby wells. 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1.2, the primary method of aquifer restoration for the 

land application disposal option will be groundwater sweep with Madison Formation water 

injection (Powertech, 2011). In this method, water from production zones will be pumped to the 

Burdock central processing plant or Dewey satellite facility for removal of uranium and other 

dissolved species in ion exchange columns. The partially treated water undergoes radium 

removal in the radium settling ponds and then disposal in land application areas. The typical 

liquid waste flow rates for the land application option will be approximately 2,070 Lpm [547 gpm] 

during concurrent uranium production and aquifer restoration and approximately 1,892 Lpm 

[500 gpm] during aquifer restoration alone. None of the water recovered from the wellfields will 

be reinjected back into the wellfields. Instead, makeup water from the Madison Formation will 

be injected into the wellfields at a flow rate sufficient to maintain the restoration bleed, which will 

typically be 1 percent of the restoration flow rate (Powertech, 2011). 

As described in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1, the applicant submitted a water appropriation permit to 

SDDENR in June 2012 for groundwater use from the Madison aquifer. However, if the applicant 

cannot secure a water appropriation for use of Madison aquifer water, the applicant will have to 

either identify an alternative source of water to meet aquifer restoration water requirements or 

reduce pumping rates to meet the estimated sustainable net extraction rate from the Inyan Kara 

Group aquifers, which the applicant estimates is at least 363 to 556 Lpm [96 to 147 gpm] (see 

SEIS Sections 4.5.2.1.1.1 and 4.5.2.1.1.2.2.). Based on the typical liquid waste flow rates 

stated in the previous paragraph, reducing the pumping rate to 363 to 556 Lpm [96 to 147 gpm] 

will extend the aquifer restoration phase. After production and restoration are complete and 

groundwater withdrawals are terminated, groundwater levels will tend to recover with time. 

Based on numerical modeling, the applicant estimates that water levels will recover to near 

pre-operational levels within 1 year after groundwater withdrawals cease (Petrotek, 2012). 

Thus, the potential long-term environmental impact from consumptive use during the restoration 

phase for the land application disposal option will be SMALL. 

The applicant will implement a restoration monitoring plan to detect and correct horizontal and 

vertical excursions during aquifer restoration (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.2). Continued 

implementation of a leak-detection and spill-cleanup program and preventive measures, such 

as well mechanical integrity testing, will result in SMALL impacts to alluvial or shallow 

(near-surface) aquifers. Moreover, restoration to Commission-approved background 

conditions (or NRC-approved water quality standards) in accordance with NRC license 

conditions will ensure that groundwater within the exemption boundary will not threaten 

surrounding groundwater. 

Before NRC terminates an ISR source material license, the licensee must demonstrate that 

there will be no long-term impacts to USDWs. NRC review and approval of the wellfield 

restoration will ensure that the restoration standards are met and that they are protective of 

public health and the environment. Although consumptive water use will increase during aquifer 

restoration, groundwater levels will tend to recover with time after-aquifer restoration activities 

are complete. As described in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.3, license conditions and applicant 

commitments will ensure that potential drawdown-induced migration of radiological and 

hazardous contaminants from abandoned open pit mines (e.g., Triangle pit mine) in the 

Burdock area through the Fuson Shale into production zones in the Chilson aquifer will not 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-76 

impact aquifer restoration goals. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the impacts from aquifer 

restoration in the Burdock and Dewey areas for the land application disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

4.5.2.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

All impacts to groundwater discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2.1.1.4 for the Class V injection 

well disposal option are applicable during the decommissioning phase for the land application 

liquid waste disposal option. The applicant is committed to implement an emergency 

response plan to address cleanup of accidental spills and leaks that may occur during 

decommissioning. The applicant will implement mitigation measures to control erosion and 

stormwater runoff. The NPDES permit will ensure that stormwater runoff will not contaminate 

groundwater. After removal of surface structures, the applicant will replace topsoil in previously 

disturbed areas, recontour the land surface to restore it to a surface configuration to blend with 

the natural terrain, and seed disturbed areas in wellfields in accordance with the NRC and 

SDDENR regulations (Powertech, 2009b). Access roads will be reclaimed and restored in a 

similar manner. 

As part of the restoration and reclamation activities, all monitor, injection, and recovery wells 

at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with 

SDDENR and EPA UIC regulations (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5.2). The applicant will submit 

decommissioning plans, including detailed plans for plugging and abandoning wells, to NRC for 

review and approval. If this process is properly implemented and the abandoned wells are 

properly isolated from the flow domain, the potential environmental impacts to groundwater from 

decommissioning for the land application disposal option will be SMALL 

4.5.2.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If the applicant obtains the permit for Class V injection from EPA, but the capacity of the Class V 

injection wells is insufficient to dispose of all liquid effluents generated at the Dewey-Burdock 

ISR project, the applicant will dispose of liquid waste by a combination of Class V injection wells 

and land application (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). In this case, land application facilities and 

infrastructures will be constructed, operated, restored, and decommissioned as needed, based 

on the produced volume of liquid effluents exceeding the disposal capacity of the Class V 

injection wells (Powertech, 2011). 

If the capacity of Class V injection wells is sufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes, there will be 

no need for land application sites, facilities, and infrastructures for irrigation. In this case, 

environmental impacts will be avoided to shallow aquifers underneath the irrigation fields, if they 

exist, in the Burdock and Dewey areas and to the Fall River aquifer in the easternmost land 

application fields in the Burdock area near its outcrop. Therefore, the resultant environmental 

impacts to near-surface aquifers will be smaller than when partially or fully developed land 

application sites are needed for disposal of liquid wastes. Similarly, environmental impacts to 

shallow aquifers during ISR operations and aquifer restoration will be larger for fully developed 

irrigation sites than partially developed irrigation sites. However, because shallow aquifers are 

of limited extent and will be removed from domestic use prior to ISR operations, NRC staff 

determine that impacts to shallow aquifers as a result of ISR operations with the combined 

Class V injection well and land application option will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-77 

Impacts to the production aquifers and groundwater wells within the project area from ISR 

operations and aquifer restoration with the combined disposal option will be similar to those for 

the Class V injection well disposal option alone or for the land application option alone, because 

(i) the production aquifers are overlain and underlain by a thick, hydrologically impermeable 

shale layer over most of the project site, except for the eastern part of the Burdock area; (ii) the 

applicant is committed to restricting ISR operations to confined aquifers; and (iii) process 

effluents will be treated before they are applied on land application areas, and hence, will not 

introduce additional contamination to the Fall River aquifer at or near its outcrop areas. 

 

Impacts to the deep aquifers from ISR operations and aquifer restoration with the combined 

Class V injection well and land application option will be similar to those for the Class V injection 

well disposal option alone, because aquifers proposed for deep well injection do not have 

hydrogeologic interaction with near-surface or production aquifers. 

Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the environmental impacts of the combined Class V injection 

well and land application option for each phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

be bounded by the significance of environmental impacts of the Class V injection well option 

and the land application option, as summarized in Table 4.5-2. 

4.5.2.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, NRC will not license the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and BLM 

will not approve the applicant’s modified Plan and Operations. The Burdock central processing 

plant and the Dewey satellite facility with their associated infrastructure (i.e., access roads and 

piping) will not be constructed. Furthermore, wellfields, surface impoundments, Class V 

injection wells, and land application sites will not be developed or operated. Lixiviant will not be 

injected into the production aquifer. Consumptive use of groundwater will not occur. Liquid 

effluent waste will not be generated; therefore, there will be no threat to groundwater quality. 

Wells that have already been constructed will be plugged and abandoned to prevent potential 

degradation and contamination. The current land uses on and near the project area, including 

grazing lands and recreational activities, will continue. Consequently, the No-Action alternative 

will result in no impacts to groundwater. 

4.6 Ecological Resources Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.5, potential environmental impacts to ecological resources, 

including both flora and fauna, could occur during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle (NRC, 

Table 4.5-2. Significance of Environmental Groundwater Impacts for the Proposed 

Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning SMALL SMALL SMALL 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of 

environmental impacts for the Class V injection well and land application disposal options. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-78 

2009a). Impacts could include removal of vegetation from the site (with the associated 

reduction in wildlife habitat and forage productivity and an increased risk of soil erosion and 

weed invasion); modification of existing vegetative communities as a result of site activities; loss 

of sensitive plants and habitats; and the potential spread of invasive species and noxious weed 

populations. Impacts to wildlife could include loss, alteration, and/or incremental fragmentation 

of habitat; displacement of and stresses on wildlife; and direct and/or indirect mortalities. 

Aquatic species could be affected by disturbance of stream channels, increases in suspended 

sediments, fuel spills, and habitat reduction. 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.5.1, during construction, terrestrial vegetation may be 

affected through (i) the removal of vegetation from the milling site (and associated reduction in 

wildlife habitat and forage productivity and an increased risk of soil erosion and weed invasion); 

(ii) the modification of existing vegetative communities; (iii) the loss of sensitive plants and 

habitats as a result of clearing and grading; and (iv) the potential spread of invasive species 

and noxious weed populations. (NRC, 2009a) 

The percentage of vegetation removed and land disturbed by construction activities evaluated in 

the GEIS (from less than 1 percent up to 20 percent) will cause a SMALL impact compared to 

the total permit area and surrounding plant communities. The GEIS evaluated ISR facilities that 

ranged in facility size from 1,000 to 7,000 ha [2,471 to 17,297 ac] with disturbed area estimates 

of 49 to 753 ha [120 to 1,860 ac]. Additionally, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that clearing of 

herbaceous vegetation in an open grassland or shrub steppe community was expected to have 

a short-term SMALL impact, given the rapid colonization of annual and perennial species in the 

disturbed areas. The clearing of wooded areas could have a long-term impact given the pace of 

natural succession, and such impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on 

the amount of surrounding woody areas. Noxious weeds will be expected to be controlled with 

appropriate spraying techniques, and therefore impacts will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS evaluation of impacts during construction included terrestrial wildlife that may be affected 

through (i) habitat loss or alteration and incremental habitat fragmentation, (ii) displacement of 

wildlife from project construction, and (iii) direct and/or indirect mortalities from project 

construction. NRC staff noted in the GEIS that construction impacts to wildlife habitat will be 

minimized with the timely reseeding of disturbed areas following construction. In general, 

wildlife species will be expected to disperse from the proposed license area as construction 

activities approached, although smaller, less mobile species could perish during clearing and 

grading. Habitat fragmentation, temporary displacement, and direct or indirect mortalities will be 

possible; thus, the potential impact on terrestrial wildlife from construction could range from 

SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.5.2, wildlife habitats could be altered by operations (fencing, 

traffic, and noise), and limited wildlife mortalities could occur due to conflicts between species 

habitat and operations. Fencing could limit access to crucial wintering habitat and water. 

South Dakota does not specify fencing construction. However, SDGFP field and regional 

personnel evaluate fencing construction design on a case-by-case basis, which may minimize 

impediments to big game movement (SDGFP, 2008). NRC staff noted in the GEIS that

potential impacts to vegetation may occur as a result of land application of wastewater, 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-79 

increasing vegetation growth and/or negatively affecting vegetation from the build-up of salts in 

the soils. Licensee requirements to monitor and control irrigated areas will limit impacts to 

ensure release limits are met (NRC, 2009a).

As further indicated in GEIS Section 4.4.5.2, temporary contamination or alteration of soils could 

occur from operational leaks and spills and possibly from transportation or land application of 

treated wastewater. However, detection and response to leaks and spills (e.g., soil cleanup) 

and eventual survey and decommissioning of all potentially impacted soil will limit the magnitude 

of impacts to terrestrial ecology. The implementation of spill detection and response plans will 

mitigate impacts to aquatic species from spills around well heads and from pipeline leaks. 

Mitigation measures, such as SDGFP-recommended fencing and netting for ponds (SEIS 

Section 1.7.3.7), leak detection and spill response plans, and periodic wildlife surveys, will also 

limit the potential impact, and the NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impact to wildlife 

and vegetation will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

GEIS Section 4.4.5.3 describes potential impacts to ecological resources during the 

aquifer restoration phase that are similar to operations. These impacts could include habitat 

disruption, spills and leaks, and animal mortalities. Because existing (in-place) infrastructure 

will be used during aquifer restoration, little additional ground disturbance will occur, and 

therefore potential impacts will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that land use impacts from decommissioning an ISR facility 

will be comparable to, but overall less than, those described for construction and will further 

decrease as decommissioning and reclamation proceed. As described in GEIS Section 4.4.5.4, 

during decommissioning and reclamation, there will be temporary land disturbance from soil 

excavation, recovery and removal of buried piping, and demolition and removal of structures. 

Wildlife will be temporarily displaced, but will be expected to return after decommissioning and 

reclamation are complete and vegetation and habitat are reestablished. Wildlife could come in 

conflict with heavy equipment or vehicles. Decommissioning and reclamation activities could 

also result in temporary increases in sediment load in local streams, but aquatic species will 

recover quickly as sediment load decreases. However, revegetation and recontouring will 

restore habitat previously altered during construction and operations. Land that is used for 

irrigation will be included in decommissioning surveys to ensure potentially impacted 

(contaminated) areas will be appropriately characterized and remediated, as necessary, in 

accordance with NRC regulations. As a result, the potential impacts to ecological resources 

during decommissioning are expected to be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Potential environmental impacts to ecological resources from construction, operations, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are provided in 

the following sections. 

4.6.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

The staff’s ecological impact analysis for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site involves 

evaluating interactions between the proposed project activities and the local animals and habitat 

that could be affected by the project. If an applicant or licensee adhered to recommended 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-80 

standard management practices from appropriate agencies, the potential ecological impacts 

could be mitigated as discussed in the following sections. NRC staff correspondence is ongoing 

throughout the SEIS process for the proposed project. BLM’s 1986 Resource Management 

Plan (RMP) for South Dakota is currently being revised. The most recent, working BLM 

mitigation and reclamation guidelines (BLM, 2012a) were made available to NRC staff and are 

incorporated into this SEIS. 

ISR facility lifecycle phases can have direct and indirect impacts on local habitat and wildlife 

populations. These impacts are both short-term (lasting until successful reclamation is 

achieved) and long-term (persisting beyond successful completion of reclamation). However, 

long-term impacts are not expected to be substantial due to the relatively limited habitat 

disturbance associated with the ISR extraction method. Because of increased traffic levels and 

physical disturbance during the construction phase, injury or mortality to wildlife will be more 

likely than during any of the other waste project phases. Plant and animal community alteration 

will be greatest under the land application option because of the large amount of land {about 

308 ha [760 ac]} that will receive treated liquid waste annually from April through October. 

4.6.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

wastes is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. Potential environmental impacts on 

ecology from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated 

with the deep Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

are discussed in the following sections. 

4.6.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

The construction phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project could potentially impact 

ecological resources from clearing vegetation; constructing the central processing plant and the 

satellite facility; developing the holding ponds and wellfields, including drilling wells and laying 

pipeline; building header houses; and constructing access roads. Construction activities will 

also result in an increase in vehicular traffic and the potential for animal collisions with vehicles. 

There will also be a temporary increase in dust from construction, some of which will deposit on 

vegetation, both on- and offsite, affecting the ability for obligate species to forage. However, 

vegetation in this naturally dusty, arid region will likely have adapted to moderate, temporary 

increases of dust coverage. Potential impacts on wildlife from dust adjacent to access roads 

and disturbed land near the plant site will be limited by applicant dust control measures, such as 

water application (Powertech, 2009a). However, fugitive dust will still be generated from travel 

on unpaved roads and disturbed land (see fugitive dust analysis in SEIS Sections 4.7.1.1.1 and 

4.7.1.2.1), and therefore localized areas will likely experience short-term and intermittent dust 

accumulation potentially affecting wildlife. 

The applicant’s implementation of the road and right-of-way, SDGFP-recommended fencing and 

netting for ponds (SEIS Section 1.7.3.7), post-construction restoration/reclamation measures, as 

well as those measures intended to reduce human disturbance and incidental wildlife 

mortalities, will minimize impacts on wildlife. The standard recommended construction 

mitigation measures including perimeter fencing, netting, leak detection and spill response 

plans, erosion controls, and other BMPs described elsewhere in the SEIS will also minimize 

overall ecological impacts. BLM (2012b–d) has determined wildlife timing stipulations for certain 

species to protect their populations and habitats (in the table in the Raptors section). The 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-81 

applicant plans to initiate construction activities outside the recommended time restriction 

periods (Powertech, 2009a); however, activities will continue year round within the area of 

approved disturbance (e.g., wellfield patterns, roads, plant areas). BLM South Dakota wildlife 

timing restrictions are included in the table in the Raptors section. 

4.6.1.1.1.1 Construction Impacts on Terrestrial Ecology 

The terrestrial ecology of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is discussed in the 

following sections. Potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife from construction for the 

deep Class V injection well disposal option are described in Sections 4.6.1.1.1.1.1 and 

4.6.1.1.1.1.2, respectively. 

4.6.1.1.1.1.1 Construction Impacts on Vegetation 

For the deep Class V injection well disposal option, the applicant estimates that the land 

disturbed will be approximately 42 ha [103 ac] excluding wellfields (Powertech, 2010a). 

Potential wellfields will disturb an additional 57 ha [140 ac]. The wellfields, Burdock central 

plant, Dewey satellite plant, and deep Class V injection wells at the proposed project will be 

located primarily within the upland grassland and greasewood shrubland vegetation 

communities, and smaller disturbed areas within the big sagebrush shrubland, silver sagebrush 

shrubland, and ponderosa pine woodland communities. Table 4.6-1 provides the land 

disturbance by vegetation type for the Class V injection well disposal option. Figure 4.6-1 

depicts the planned activities in relation to the vegetation communities. 

Direct impacts from construction activities at the proposed project for the deep Class V injection 

well disposal option will include vegetation disturbance (modification of structure, species 

composition, and areal extent of cover types) of about 98 ha [243 ac]. Indirect impacts will 

include the short-term and long-term increased potential for noxious species [e.g., Canada 

thistle (Cirsium arvense), houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale), and field bindweed 

Table 4.6-1. Disturbed Land by Vegetation Type for Dewey-Burdock Deep Class V Injection Well 

 Disposal Option 

Activity 

Vegetation Community (Hectares [acres]) 

Total 

Disturbed 

Area 

Hectares 

[acres] 

Big 

SageBrush 

ShrubLand 

Cottonwood 

Gallery 

Greasewood 

Shrubland Mine 

Pit 

Ponderosa 

Pine Woodland 

Silver 

SageBrush 

Shrubland 

Upland 

Grassland 

Site 

Facilities 

0.8 

[2] 0 3.2 

 [8] 0 0.4 

[1] 0 5.7 

[14] 

9.7 

[24] 

Trunklines 2.4 

[6] 0 2.4 

[6] 0 1.2 

[3] 

0.8 

[2] 

3.2 

[8] 

10.1 

[25] 

Access 

Roads 

2.0 

[5] 0 2.0 

[5] 

0.4 

[1] 

0.8 

[2] 

0.4 

[1] 

2.4 

[6] 

8.5 

 [21] 

Well 

Fields 

8.5 

[21] 0 18.2 

[45] 

2.0 

[5] 

8.5 

[21] 

4.4 

[11] 

15.0 

[37] 

56.6 

[140] 

Impoundments 0 0 4.1 

[10] 0 0 0 9.3 [23] 

13.3 

[33] 

Totals 13.8 

[34] 0 29.9 [74] 

2.0 

[5] 

10.9 

[27] 

5.7 

[14] 

36.0 

[89] 

98.3 

[243] 

Source: Powertech 2012a 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-82 

Figure 4.6-1. Map of Dewey-Burdock Planned Facilities and Vegetation Communities for 

 the Deep Class V Injection Well Disposal Option 

 (Source: Powertech, 2012a)
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-83 

(Convolvulus arvensis)] invasion, establishment, and expansion; potential soil erosion; shifts in 

species composition or changes in vegetative density; reduction of wildlife habitat; reduction in 

livestock forage; and changes in visual aesthetics. 

As previously stated, the construction activities, increased soil disturbance, and increased traffic 

during construction for the Class V injection well disposal option could stimulate the introduction 

and spread of undesirable, invasive, nonnative species within the proposed license area. One 

state- and two county-listed noxious weeds, Canada thistle and field bindweed, respectively, 

were observed in the proposed project area during the applicant-conducted baseline surveys. 

These species are perennial and may quickly invade large areas depending on the season of 

the year. The applicant has proposed mitigation measures, which include conducting weed 

 control as needed to limit the spread of noxious, invasive, and nonnative species on disturbed 

areas (Powertech, 2009a). If the applicant uses herbicides as a weed control method, the 

applicant should take precautions to minimize potential impact to the environment. Herbicides 

can drift to unintended areas due to wind and soil erosion, eliminate desired species from an 

area, and leave soil susceptible to erosion if not used and managed properly. For example, 

herbicides formulated with surfactant are toxic to fish and aquatic life and should not be used in 

or near water (Zollinger, 2012). Plant and wildlife species could be unintentionally impacted 

during normal application from indirect contact of herbicide residue and consumption of prey 

affected during application. South Dakota State University published a 2013 weed control guide 

(Moechnig, et al., 2012) for pastures and range land with recommended techniques, herbicides, 

and precautions to control regional noxious, invasive, and nonnative vegetative species that the 

applicant could employ. Applicant use of weed control techniques that incorporate South 

Dakota State University weed control guidance (Moechnig, et al., 2012) and BLM mitigation and 

reclamation guidelines (BLM, 2012a) will reduce potential impacts to wildlife and desirable 

vegetation from use of herbicides. 

In areas where vegetation was removed, the applicant has committed to reestablish vegetation 

concurrently with construction activities according to NRC licensee requirements to conduct 

reclamation under an approved site reclamation plan (Powertech, 2009a). For the proposed 

Dewey Conveyor project, BLM concluded that reestablished vegetation in this region often 

consists of annual forbs and native cool grasses with few shrubs for the first couple of years 

(BLM, 2009). Reestablishment of herbaceous plant cover can usually be completed within a 

few years, but reestablishment of shrubland communities may take much longer. SDDNER 

recommends that the large-scale mine permit include conditions requiring (i) concurrent and 

interim reclamation in all areas where mining or land disturbance is completed; (ii) that 

revegetation success be equivalent to vegetative cover in reference areas using 

SDDENR-approved statistical methods; and (iii) that a post closure bond be held for 30 years 

after the reclamation bond is released to help ensure revegetation success. However, final 

permit conditions may change based on the final determination by the hearing board. 

If active revegetation measures are used with Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)-, 

SDDENR-, and BLM-approved seed mixtures, rapid colonization by annual and perennial 

herbaceous species in the disturbed staging areas and rights-of-way will restore most 

vegetative cover within the first growing season (NRC, 2009a). On BLM land, BLM reclamation 

guidelines will be required to provide for stable soils and achieve vegetation cover; however, the 

exact species is not necessarily required, similar to the predisturbance cover (BLM, 2012a). 

BLM could require the applicant to reseed areas where initial seeding was not successful. 

Reclamation and reseeding, as soon as practicable following project completion, in 

accordance with a reclamation plan will ensure that vegetative communities are restored as 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-84 

quickly as possible. To stabilize soils and support the ecosystem, the applicant commits to 

reestablishing, as soon as conditions allow, vegetation in disturbed areas with the BLM-, 

NRCS-, and SDDENR-approved native seed mixture and rate provided in Table 4.6-2 

(Powertech, 2009a, 2012b). 

Construction of wellfields will be phased and some vegetation will be affected, but impacts will 

not generally affect a sizeable segment of any species’ population. In general, vegetation 

development in the region is expected to be sparse due to the limited amount of annual 

precipitation. To mitigate the potential impact to vegetation, disturbed areas will be both 

temporarily and permanently revegetated and tilled where soil has been compacted to promote 

vegetation growth in accordance with SDDENR regulations and the mine permit (Powertech, 

2009a). Some encroachment from native populations and/or establishment of early 

successional species bordering disturbed areas will also be expected, which will facilitate the 

revegetation process. Additionally, the applicant will take mitigative measures to minimize the 

spread of noxious weeds (Powertech, 2009a). 

No federally listed threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur within the 

proposed project area (FWS, 2010). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude the impact on federally 

listed plant species during the construction phase will be SMALL, based on the foregoing 

analysis that about 98 ha [243 ac] of vegetation will be disturbed primarily in the upland 

grassland and greasewood shrubland vegetation communities. The applicant commits to 

mitigation measures that will reduce the overall impacts, but vegetation could still experience 

long-term impacts especially within the sagebrush shrubland communities. The NRC staff 

conclude construction impacts on vegetation for the deep Class V injection well disposal option 

will be SMALL. 

4.6.1.1.1.1.2 Construction Impacts on Wildlife 

As described in SEIS Section 1.2, the total amount of BLM-managed land expected to be 

disturbed by the applicant over the life of the proposed project is 4.7 ha [11.63 ac]. The majority 

of the disturbed BLM land consists of the upland grassland vegetation community southwest of 

the central processing plant in the Burdock area. A proposed access road will border BLM land in 

Table 4.6-2. Reclamation Seed Mixture 

Reclamation Seed Mixture 

Species* 

Drill Seeding Rate 

{kg/ha [lb/ac]} 

Broadcast Seeding Rate 

{kg/ha [lb/ac]} 

Western Wheatgrass (Elymus 

smithii)

2.17 [1.94] 5.43 [4.85] 

Sideoats Grama (Bouteloua 

curtipendula) 

1.62 [1.45] 4.06 [3.62] 

Green Needlegrass (Nassella

viridula) 

1.62 [1.45] 4.06 [3.62] 

Slender Wheatgrass (Elymus 

trachycaulus)

1.58 [1.41] 3.94 [3.52] 

Little Bluestem (Schizachyrium 

scoparium) 

1.02 [0.91] 2.54 [2.27] 

Totals 8.02 [7.16] 20.06 [17.90] 

*Pure live seed 

Source: Powertech, 2012b 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-85 

the greasewood shrubland vegetation community. A proposed “restoration line” will traverse a 

corner of BLM land in the big sagebrush shrubland vegetation community outside of the ISR 

project boundary. 

Planned land disturbance of about 98 ha [243 ac] during construction will be noncontiguous 

acres composed of the Burdock central plant, the Dewey satellite plant, and associated 

storage facilities; deep Class V disposal wells; wellfields and the associated infrastructure 

(e.g., pipelines and header houses); and new access roads. Most of the habitat disturbance will 

consist of scattered, confined drill sites for wells in the wellfields, which will not result in large 

expanses of habitat being dramatically transformed from their original character as in surface 

mining operations. 

Indirect impacts could occur from displacement of wildlife from increased noise, traffic, or other 

disturbances associated with the development of the proposed project and from small 

reductions in existing or potential cover and forage due to habitat alteration, fragmentation, or 

loss. Indirect impacts typically persist longer than direct impacts. However, ISR uranium 

extraction does not generally involve large-scale habitat alteration. 

Certain vegetative communities that exist in the proposed license area could be difficult to 

reestablish through artificial planting and natural seeding, and recovery could take many years. 

Consequently, wildlife species associated with specific habitats, such as blue grama (Bouteloua 

gracilis) grasslands and big sagebrush, could be reduced in number or replaced by generalist 

species with broader habitat requirements until natural reseeding of certain vegetation occurs or 

reclamation matures to its target mix. The proposed project area is dominated by big sagebrush 

shrubland followed by greasewood shrubland, ponderosa pine woodland, and upland grassland. 

The latter three vegetative communities are almost equal in area. The wildlife species using 

these habitat types are limited in their occurrence in the proposed license area (see SEIS 

Section 3.6.1.2), and because the actual surface disturbance will be small and noncontiguous, 

negative impacts to these wildlife species will be SMALL. In addition, the NRC staff conclude 

that construction impacts resulting from habitat loss or alteration, displacement of wildlife, and 

mortality due to encounters with vehicles or heavy equipment at the proposed project will be 

SMALL. The applicant commits to impose and enforce speed limits during all ISR phases to 

reduce impacts to wildlife throughout the year and particularly during the breeding season 

(Powertech, 2009a, Section 5.5). To mitigate habitat disturbance, the applicant will use existing 

roads when possible and limit construction of new primary and secondary roads to provide 

access to more than one drill site (Powertech, 2009a). In addition, the applicant will restore 

areas where topsoil has been replaced and construct brush piles and rock piles to enhance 

wildlife habitat (Powertech, 2009a). 

Big Game 

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed 

deer (O. virginianus), and elk (Cervus elaphus) are the four most common big game species 

that occur within the proposed project area, and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) and 

mountain lions (Felis concolor) are predicted to be in the vicinity of the site. As described in 

Section 3.6.1.2.1, no crucial big game habitat or migration corridors occur on or within at least 

1.6 km [1 mi] of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (SDGFP, 2010a; BLM, 2011). 

Pronghorn antelope, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk in the project area could be directly 

affected by the disturbance of a portion of yearlong range, loss of forage, and vehicular collision 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-86 

accidents. For the deep Class V injection well disposal option, an estimated maximum of 98 ha 

[243 ac] will be incrementally disturbed during the life of the proposed project. Pronghorn 

antelope will be the most impacted big game species because they are the most common within 

the project area. Pronghorn antelope are sagebrush obligates occupying shrubland habitat year 

round and eating shrubs. Shrubland vegetation communities cover about 45 percent of the 

proposed project areas. Mule deer are also found in the project area all year and eat shrubs, 

but mule deer also enjoy grassland and riparian vegetation habitats and eating grasses and 

forbs. Elk compete seasonally with horses and cattle in the grassland vegetation community for 

their preferred food in spring and summer, and are found mostly in the ponderosa pine 

woodland habitat on the proposed site in fall and winter. Grassland and pine woodland habitats 

together comprise about 22 percent of the proposed project area. White-tailed deer, the least 

common big game species in the proposed project area, prefer the treed cottonwood gallery 

vegetation habitat, which comprises about 2 percent of the proposed project area. 

(Powertech, 2009a) 

Because of these habitat disturbances, the yearlong range-carrying capacity for big game will 

 be reduced over the life of the ISR facility. The SDDENR large scale mine permit will 

require that reclaimed rangeland is capable of withstanding proper (animal) stocking rates for 

two consecutive years after the life of the ISR facility prior to bond release. During the 

construction phase of the proposed project, the projected daily traffic on Dewey Road, the road 

nearest the proposed site, is estimated to increase by approximately 182 percent (see SEIS 

Sections 4.3.1.1). This increase in traffic will increase the potential for traffic collisions and 

wildlife or livestock kills. However, direct impacts to pronghorn antelope, mule deer, white-tailed 

deer, and elk will be SMALL because the continued existence of the species will not be 

threatened as a result of vehicle collisions. 

Indirect impacts to pronghorn antelope, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk could include 

displacement into surrounding areas from increased human activity, noise, lighting, and the 

increased potential for poaching and/or harvest from improved access via new roads. Migration 

of these species toward the Black Hills may also increase predation from other animals. 

Mountain lions present in the Black Hills prey on white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, bighorn 

sheep, and mountain goats (SDGFP, 2010b). The human presence during construction could 

affect big game use of adjacent areas. Some short-term disturbance (during the lifecycle of the 

ISR facility) of big game habitat could occur because of the proposed project construction. 

Adequate big game habitat exists in the surrounding area; these species could return to the 

areas affected by construction once these activities were completed. The proposed staged 

reclamation of disturbed areas will provide grass and forage within a few years of habitat 

disturbance. To the extent practicable, the applicant has proposed implementing speed limits 

within the proposed project area and fencing to permit big game passage as mitigative actions, 

and vegetative forage losses from construction will be mitigated by the applicant’s plan for 

staged reclamation of disturbed areas to further reduce big game conflicts associated with the 

proposed construction activities (Powertech, 2009a). NRC staff conclude that because big 

game animals are highly mobile species and staff does not expect long-term effects on big 

game populations from the deep Class V injection well disposal option, the potential impacts to 

these species during the construction phase will be SMALL. 

Upland Game Birds 

The only upland game birds observed within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area are 

the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), which are 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-87 

common in the region. Mourning doves are the most abundant game bird in South Dakota and 

can be found across fields to woodlands and residential areas. Doves are opportunists and eat 

the seeds of grasses, forbs, and crops as they ripen, changing their feeding habits as different 

foods become available (SDGFP, 2009a). Essentially all of South Dakota and Wyoming 

provides habitat that support mourning doves, including the area that surrounds the proposed 

license area; therefore, the proposed project will not threaten the continued existence of 

mourning doves. 

Within the proposed project area, wild turkeys will most likely use the cottonwood gallery and 

ponderosa pine vegetative communities, woody draws, and riparian areas along Beaver Creek 

for roosting, feeding, nesting, and brood rearing (SDGFP, 2009b). Hens will also select the 

upland grassland community for nesting if tall grasses were present (SDGFP, 2009b). While 

woody corridors are not abundant in the proposed project area, they also are not unique in the 

surrounding area. Black Hills National Forest (BHNF) borders the proposed project area to the 

east and provides ample habitat that could support displaced turkeys during construction 

activities. Because turkeys wander great distances and require large areas of suitable habitat, 

NRC staff do not expect the proposed project construction will impact the general population of 

wild turkeys. 

SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.2 explains that sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), ruffed 

grouse (Bonasa umbellus), and Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) could 

potentially occur in the proposed project area. Greater sage-grouse is the most likely grouse 

species to potentially be impacted by construction of the proposed Dewey Burdock ISR project 

because of the regional decline and segmentation of sagebrush habitat. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 3.6.3, Greater sage-grouse are not reported to occur within 6.4 km [4 mi] of the 

proposed project boundary. Because NRC staff expect that similar habitat is present in the 

proposed project area that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) evaluated for the nearby 

Buffalo Gap National Grassland (described in SEIS Section 3.6.3; Hodorff, 2005), it is unlikely 

that optimum canopy coverage of sagebrush habitat is present to support breeding and 

wintering populations within the proposed project area. 

In recent years, BLM and state agencies in the region have developed strategies and 

management measures to preserve, conserve, and restore the sagebrush habitat to prevent 

further population decline and prevent the listing of the sage-grouse as threatened or 

endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). BLM is in the process of 

revising RPMs and has initiated scoping to prepare an EIS; this will require detailed studies on 

proposed and alternative policies, and analysis of how implementation of the policies may affect 

the environment (BLM, 2012d). The BLM Rocky Mountain Region expects several final EISs to 

be published in 2014, which may identify new issues and best management strategies for 

sage-grouse that may also benefit other upland game birds. FWS is required to make a 

decision in 2015 on whether to propose protecting the species under the ESA (FWS, 2012a). In 

August 2012, FWS issued a draft report to help achieve sage-grouse conservation objectives 

before the 2015 decision. Recommendations from these studies could be implemented at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project when they are finalized and become available. 

Portions of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site will be disturbed during construction 

activities; therefore, some birds will be displaced and some temporary habitat loss will occur. 

The applicant commits to (i) minimize disturbance of surface areas and vegetation, where 

possible; (ii) minimize construction of new access and secondary roads so more than one drill 

site can be accessed; and (iii) construct new roads, power lines, and pipelines in the same 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-88 

corridors to the extent possible to reduce overall disturbance and minimize new surface 

disturbance (Powertech, 2009a). All lands disturbed by project activities will be concurrently 

revegetated following approved reclamation practices (Powertech, 2009a), which will restore the 

habitat loss experienced from proposed construction activities. In addition, the applicant has 

committed in its application to adhere to regulatory timing and spatial restrictions (noise, 

vehicular traffic, and human proximity) as a mitigative measure that will decrease impacts during 

breeding season (Powertech, 2009a). Because the site does not support populations of upland 

game birds that depend on the site for continued existence and because mitigation measures 

are expected to limit potential impacts to upland game bids, NRC staff conclude potential 

impacts to upland game birds during the construction phase for the deep Class V injection well 

disposal option will be SMALL. 

Raptors 

Twelve species of raptors were recorded within the proposed license area during Powertech’s 

wildlife survey: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (nested), red-tailed hawk (Buteo 

jamaicensis) (nested), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), 

northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), turkey vulture (Cathartes 

aura), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), rough-legged hawk (Buteo lagopus), merlin (Falco 

columbarius) (nested), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (nested), and long-eared owl (Asio 

otus) (nested) (Powertech, 2009a). As explained in SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.3, the burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia), northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), and sharp-shinned hawk 

(Accipiter striatus) could be present in the vicinity of the proposed project area (Peterson, 1995). 

Although some of these raptors (bald eagle, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, and golden 

eagle) are considered BLM sensitive species, the populations of these species are not imperiled 

with the exception of the bald eagle, which is a state-threatened species (SDGFP, 2012a). The 

bald eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and northern harrier were the most commonly 

seen raptor species in the proposed project area and will be the primary raptor species 

impacted by project activities. Raptors are particularly sensitive to noise and the presence of 

human activity, which will be heightened during the ISR construction phase. Five raptor nests 

(four active and one unknown) were recorded within the proposed project area during surveys 

conducted in 2007 and 2008, as summarized by species in SEIS Table 3.6-2 (Powertech, 

2009a). Two other nest sites, one inactive and one defended but not confirmed active, 

occurred within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the proposed license area. As described in SEIS 

Section 3.6.1.2.2, one active bald eagle nest was reported in 2011 within the proposed 

project area along Beaver Creek, about 1.6 km [1 mi] west of the proposed Dewey satellite 

processing plant. 

Direct impacts to raptor species for the deep Class V injection well disposal option include 

displacement, loss of forage habitat, increased potential for collisions with structures and 

vehicles, increased potential for nest abandonment and reproductive failure due to increased 

human disturbances, and potential reduction in prey populations within the project site. Avian 

collision and electrocution with overhead power lines could occur year round. The potential for 

eagle collisions with electric transmission lines is considered to be low because their foraging 

behavior is relatively slow compared to falcons and other raptors. Indirect impacts to raptors 

could include nesting disruption and displacement of prey species, which may reduce food 

availability within the area. Nesting success by resident raptors could be reduced from 

disturbances caused by the proposed ISR construction and associated traffic. Birds may 

continue to use nest sites as they acclimate to the proposed ISR construction activities and 

could return to inactive nests in the area. The applicant has committed to adhering to timing 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-89 

and distance restrictions determined by appropriate regulatory agencies to protect raptor nests 

during breeding season (Powertech, 2009a). In addition, the applicant has committed to 

mitigation measures to limit noise and vehicular traffic (Powertech, 2009a) during the 

construction phase of the proposed project, which will reduce overall impacts to raptors. If a 

disturbance occurs (called a “take”) where birds protected under the conventions are pursued, 

hunted, shot, wounded, killed, trapped, captured or collected in violation of the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and/or Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the applicant will be 

required to perform a consultation and mitigation of the take with FWS. The applicant has 

committed to follow an FWS-approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan to minimize 

conflicts between active nest sites and project-related activities if direct impacts to raptors occur 

(Powertech, 2009a). However, NRC staff anticipate there will be fewer direct impacts to raptors 

compared to a higher potential for indirect impacts. Mitigation measures provided in SEIS 

Chapter 6 will support the continued nesting success of area raptors and minimize potential 

direct and indirect impacts. 

The applicant could mitigate potential impacts to raptor species from power distribution lines by 

following the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee guidance to avoid activities near active 

nests, especially prior to the fledging of young (Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, 2006). 

In addition, the applicant could site all planned facilities outside of the BLM-recommended 

buffer zone for all raptor nests identified within the proposed project area and adhere to 

BLM-recommended timing restrictions presented in table located in Table 4.6-3. Figure 4.6-2 

shows the 16-ha [40-ac] areas where raptor nests are located near the proposed project area. 

The potential wellfield areas in Figure 2.1-6 identify where potential drilling/disruptive activity 

could occur around each orebody, if a particular orebody were mined. Based on the applicant’s 

intent to follow a raptor mitigation plan and implementation of the mitigative measures 

previously described, the potential impact to raptor species during the construction phase of 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project for the deep Class V injection well disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

Eight avian species associated specifically with water and/or wetlands were observed during 

baseline surveys conducted at the proposed project site: the American white pelican 

(Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Canada goose (Branta 

canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), American wigeon (Anas americana), killdeer 

(Charadrius vociferus), long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), and upland sandpiper 

(Bartramia longicauda) (Powertech, 2009a). In western South Dakota, long-billed curlew and 

Table 4.6-3. BLM Recommended Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations 

Affected 

Areas/Species 

Activities and/or Timing 

Restriction Restricted Area 

Sharp-tailed 

grouse/greater 

prairie chicken 

Surface use prohibited 

March 1–June 15 except for 

operations and maintenance 

Prohibit surface 

disturbance/occupancy or 

human activity year round 

Within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of a lek 

in nesting/brood-rearing habitat* 

Within a 0.4-km [0.25-mi] radius of an 

occupied lek* 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-90 

Table 4.6-3. BLM Recommended Seasonal Wildlife Stipulations (Cont’d) 

Affected 

Areas/Species 

Activities and/or Timing 

Restriction Restricted Area 

 Siting structures that are 

more than 3 m [10 ft] tall or 

power lines 

Within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of 

nesting areas 

Peregrine falcon Prohibit surface 

disturbance/occupancy or 

human activity year round 

Within 1.6-km [1-mi] radius of a nest 

including nests recorded during the 

preceding 7 breeding seasons* 

Bald eagle Prohibit surface 

disturbance/occupancy or 

human activity year round 

Within a 0.8-km [0.5-mi] radius of a 

nest including nests recorded during 

the preceding 5 breeding seasons* 

Golden eagle, 

osprey, 

burrowing owl, 

ferruginous 

hawk, 

Swainson’s 

hawk, prairie 

falcon, other 

raptors 

Prohibit surface 

disturbance/occupancy or 

human activity year round 

Within a 0.4-km [0.25-mi] radius of 

occupied nest* 

Greater sagegrouse December 1–March 31 

March 1–July 1 

Prohibit surface 

disturbance/occupancy or 

human activity year round 

Within crucial winter range for greater 

sage-grouse. Routine maintenance, 

production, and emergency response 

activities are allowed.* 

Within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius of a lek 

in general habitat areas. Routine 

maintenance, production, and 

emergency response activities are 

allowed.* 

Within a 0.4-km [0.25-mi] radius of an 

occupied lek* 

Piping plover Prohibit surface 

disturbance/occupancy or 

human activity year round 

Within a 0.4-km [0.25-mi] radius of 

piping plover habitat* 

Interior least tern Prohibit surface 

disturbance/occupancy or 

human activity year round 

Within a 0.4-km [0.25-mi] radius of 

wetlands identified as least tern 

habitat* 

Big game 

winter ranges 

December 1–March 31 Surface-disturbing and disruptive 

activities in winter ranges* 

*The authorized officer may grant an exception, modification, or waiver to a stipulation based on 

certain criteria 

Source: BLM, 2012b,c,d 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-91 

Figure 4.6-2. Map of Raptor Nest Locations in the Dewey-Burdock Project Area and 

Planned Facilities for the Deep Class V Injection Well Disposal Option 

 Sources: BLM, 2012c; SDGFP, 2012c; Powertech, 2012a
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-92 

upland sandpiper are often found in grasslands, but habitat requirements in this environment 

are not well known (SDGFP, 2005a). As described in SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.2, the long-billed 

curlew is a rare species in South Dakota. A large portion of the curlew breeding range occurs in 

South Dakota, but does not include winter habitat (Fellows, 2009). The continued existence of 

the species is most threatened by fragmentation, vegetation conversion, and loss of breeding 

habitat consisting of open, mixed-grass prairie and grazed cattle pastures across its current 

breeding range (Fellows, 2009). Areas about 0.8 km2

 [0.5 mi2] or larger of the upland grassland 

vegetative community {total 885.27 ha [2,187.56 ac]} are found in the Burdock area east of Pass 

Creek, which is more than in the Dewey area. Construction impacts will affect nesting and 

breeding curlew the most from early March to mid-July.

At the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, relatively little habitat exists to support large groups 

or populations of either waterfowl or shorebirds and no breeding waterfowl or shorebirds 

were observed during wildlife surveys; therefore, NRC does not expect that proposed 

construction activities for the deep Class V injection well disposal option will destabilize 

waterfowl or shorebird populations. The applicant has committed to use existing roads 

when possible and obtain USACE permits when appropriate before construction activities 

(SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.1.). These actions, in addition to reseeding and other mitigation 

measures explained in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1, will limit potential long-term impacts to 

waterfowl and shorebird habitat. Therefore, the potential impact to waterfowl and shorebirds 

during the construction phase for the deep Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

Construction impacts to nongame and migratory birds for the Class V injection well disposal 

option are expected to be similar to those discussed for other birds previously described in this 

section associated with forested, grassland, and shrubland vegetative communities. Some 

long-term habitat loss {up to about 98 ha [243 ac]} and potential reduction in the carrying 

capacity for nongame/migratory birds within the proposed project area will occur; however, there 

is habitat available regionally for displaced animals. Direct impacts will include habitat loss and 

fragmentation, alteration of plant and animal communities, overhead electric line collisions and 

electrocution, and increased human activity or noise that could cause collision mortality or the 

birds to avoid a specific area or reduce breeding efficiency. 

Nongame and Migratory Birds 

Direct loss of ground nests, eggs, and birds from construction activities could occur; however, 

these impacts will affect only a few birds and are not expected to have any long-term impacts on 

the general population of the individual species. NRC expects the proposed project will not 

influence migratory movement patterns, because most bird species are able to fly over the area 

without restrictions. Nongame and migratory birds will benefit from mitigation measures 

described in Chapter 6 because these will limit noise, vehicular traffic, and other human 

disturbances near these areas. Therefore, the potential impact to nongame and migratory birds 

during the construction phase will be SMALL. 

Other Mammals 

A variety of small- and medium-sized mammal species occurs in all the vegetative communities 

present in the vicinity of the proposed license area, although not all have been observed on the 

proposed project area itself. These mammals include the coyote (Canis latrans), red fox 

(Vulpes vulpes), raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), badger (Taxidea taxus), beaver 

(Castor canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), skunk (Mephitis mephitis), porcupine 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-93 

(Erethizon dorsatum), bats (Myotis spp.), and weasel (Mustela spp.) (Powertech, 2009a). Prey 

species including rodents (mice, rats, voles, shrews, pocket gophers, ground squirrels, squirrels, 

chipmunks, prairie dogs), jackrabbits (Lepus spp.), and cottontails (hares) (Sylvilagus spp.) 

could also inhabit the proposed project area. 

Medium-sized mammals, such as rabbits, coyotes, and foxes, could experience some mortality 

or be temporarily displaced to other habitats during construction activities. Direct mortality or 

injury of some ground-dwelling small mammal species (e.g., voles, ground squirrels, mice) could 

be higher than for other wildlife because of their limited mobility and the likelihood they will 

retreat into burrows if disturbed. They could potentially be impacted by topsoil scraping or 

staging activities. However, given the limited, noncontiguous areas that will be affected by 

topsoil-disturbing construction activities (see Table 4.2-1), NRC expects no major changes or 

reductions in small- or medium-sized mammalian populations. Indirect impacts from accidental 

spills will be short term and localized to the impact area. The small- and medium-sized mammal 

species that occur in the proposed project area have a higher reproductive potential than do 

more vulnerable wildlife species that require large home ranges and occur in lower densities, 

such as large mammals (BLM, 2009). Construction disturbance associated with vehicles, 

equipment, noise, and dust will potentially cause wildlife species associated with all habitat 

types to avoid the area temporarily during construction activities; however, NRC staff expect 

that the area will not be uninhabitable after construction ends; therefore, the potential impact to 

other mammals from construction of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be SMALL. 

Potential construction impacts to black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) and swift fox 

(Vulpes velox), state endangered and state threatened species, respectively, are detailed in 

SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.4. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Three amphibian and one reptile species [boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), 

Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousei), great plains toad (B. cognatus), and western painted 

turtle (Chrysemys picta), respectively], which commonly occur in the region, were observed in 

the western portion of the project area along Beaver Creek where there are no currently 

planned activities associated with the proposed deep Class V injection well disposal option 

(Powertech, 2009a). Several other unidentified lizard species were observed during wildlife 

surveys conducted at the proposed site in 2007 and 2008 (Powertech, 2009a). The proposed 

project area provides limited habitat for amphibians and turtles due to the lack of aquatic habitat, 

which is concentrated along Beaver Creek and in old mine pits that make up about 10 ha [24 ac] 

of the total 14 ha [35 ac] of wetland habitat within the proposed project area. Within the 

proposed project area, Beaver Creek is a perennial stream and Pass Creek is an ephemeral 

stream that supports some intermittent habitat. All Beaver Creek and Pass Creek tributaries 

are ephemeral. During construction activities, reptile and amphibian species will experience 

impacts similar to those discussed for small- and medium-sized mammal species, which include 

loss or fragmentation of habitat, displacement, disturbance from noise and human proximity, 

and increased risk of vehicular collision. 

Because the applicant does not plan to disturb water bodies and perennial streams within the 

proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a), staff expect that aquatic habitat will not be directly 

affected by the proposed project activities. In addition, SEIS Sections 4.5.1.1.1.1 and 

4.5.1.1.1.2 describe mitigative measures in accordance with NPDES permit requirements; these 

measures will control the amount of pollutants entering surface water bodies, such as streams, 

wetlands, and lakes. For these reasons, NRC staff conclude potential impact to amphibian and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-94 

regional turtle species and reptiles that require a water body for survival will be SMALL. Other 

reptiles, such as lizards and snakes that prefer grassland habitat, may be more susceptible to 

the potential human disturbances previously described. However, due to the small amount of 

habitat {about 98 ha [243 ac]} that will be disturbed at any given time during the deep Class V 

injection well disposal option and low likelihood for direct mortalities, staff do not expect 

construction impacts to measurably affect any reptile species population. Therefore, the 

potential impact to reptile species during the construction phase will also be SMALL. 

4.6.1.1.1.1.3 Aquatic Ecology 

GEIS Section 4.4.5.1 discussed impacts to aquatic species that could be temporarily disturbed 

by in-stream channel activities and concluded the potential impact will be SMALL. Sediment 

loads in streams are expected to taper off quickly both in time and distance, and long-term 

impacts will be SMALL. Additionally, SDDENR standard management practices will help to limit 

impacts to aquatic life. (NRC, 2009a) 

Because of the limited and ephemeral nature of surface water at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project, the occurrence of aquatic species is also limited. Potential impacts to aquatic 

species at the proposed project site will occur primarily along Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, 

scattered stock ponds, and drainages. Beaver Creek is a perennial stream that experiences 

annual low flow conditions (see SEIS Section 3.6) and does not support sensitive species within 

the proposed project boundary. Further, EPA lists Beaver Creek as an impaired water body 

partially due to high dissolved and suspended solids (EPA, 2009). Pass Creek is an ephemeral 

stream that supports some intermittent habitat. However, Pass Creek does not provide a 

year-round source of surface water sufficient to maintain a population of aquatic species. The 

applicant’s surface water management plan will limit the loss of aquatic habitat resulting from 

planned construction activities at the proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). 

A baseline level of total uranium was detected in channel catfish during wildlife surveys (SEIS 

Section 3.6.2). SEIS Section 3.5.1 describes MCL exceedances in surface water samples 

collected onsite and offsite downstream for gross alpha, uranium, and Ra-226. EPA’s national 

recommended water quality criteria for aquatic life and for human health consumption do not 

include gross alpha, uranium, or radium (EPA, 2012). No surface water will be diverted, no 

process water will be discharged into aquatic habitat, and stormwater runoff will be managed 

through the NPDES permit (as discussed in Section 4.5.1.1). SEIS Section 4.5.2 further 

describes that EPA requires a Class V UIC permit for deep Class V well injection. EPA will only 

allow Class V injection if the applicant can demonstrate that liquid waste could be safely isolated 

in a deep aquifer. In the permitted area, there is no evidence for any hydraulic connection 

between surface waters and proposed aquifers for the deep Class V injection well disposal 

option. NRC staff expect planned ISR construction activities, as described in SEIS Section 

4.5.1.1, are unlikely to significantly affect surface water quality. Therefore, NRC staff conclude 

potential impacts to aquatic species and habitats from the construction phase for the deep Class 

V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.6.1.1.1.1.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.5.1, if threatened or endangered species are identified on the 

proposed project site, the potential impact could range from SMALL to LARGE, depending on 

site conditions. Mitigation plans to avoid and reduce impacts to potentially affected species will 

be developed. (NRC, 2009a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-95 

The results of wildlife surveys (Powertech, 2009a) have not identified federally listed threatened 

or endangered species on or within a 1.6-km [1-mi] radius of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site; these findings have been confirmed by the FWS (FWS, 2010, 2012b, 2013). NRC 

staff initially requested information for federally listed species on March 15, 2010 (NRC, 2010c); 

the FWS provided an initial response on March 29, 2010 (FWS, 2010). NRC staff requested 

updated information from FWS via e-mail on August 27, 2012; a response was provided the 

same day (FWS, 2012b). The FWS confirmed the finding made by the applicant that no federalor state-listed sensitive plant species, endangered or threatened plant species, or designated 

critical habitats were observed within the proposed project site during baseline wildlife surveys 

(Powertech, 2009a); therefore, there will be no direct impact to these species (see FWS, 2013). 

The FWS determination is that the NRC is not required to initiate consultations with FWS under 

Section 7 of the ESA (FWS, 2013). 

SEIS Section 3.6.3 explains that Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) could potentially occur in the 

proposed project area in the upland grassland vegetative community. Based on the information 

provided in SEIS Section 3.6.3, NRC staff conclude that it is unlikely this species will breed 

within the proposed project area. In addition, the Sprague’s pipit will likely avoid areas near 

roads, grasslands that have been cultivated, or near the edges of other vegetative community 

types (FWS, 2011). Because the primary breeding area for this species is north and northeast 

of the project area and the birds spend winters in the southern half of the United States, NRC 

staff believe it is reasonable to expect that individual birds may occur in the project vicinity 

during migration. NRC staff conclude that it is unlikely Sprague’s pipit will choose to inhabit the 

proposed project areas during the proposed ISR facility lifecycle; therefore, direct effects to the 

species are not expected. NRC staff further conclude that construction activities will not affect 

the existence of the species’ population in the proposed project area. 

Whooping cranes (Grus americana) currently do not breed in South Dakota; however, the 

proposed project area is located west of the migration path between Texas and Canada (FWS, 

2009). Although construction activities may not directly impact whooping cranes, the potential 

exists for whooping crane disturbances from proposed mining activities during spring and fall 

migrations (FWS, 2010). Cranes roost, rest, and forage in relatively shallow wetlands that occur 

on the proposed project site along Beaver Creek, parts of Pass Creek, mine pits, and 

depressions, but prefer sites with minimal human disturbance (FWS, 2009). Construction 

activities at the proposed project may indirectly impact migrating whooping cranes by reducing 

optimal or preferred resting habitat. NRC staff conclude that migrating whooping cranes will not 

likely occur at the proposed site based on their traditional migratory pathway (FWS, 2009). If 

cranes navigate west of the traditional migratory pathway, NRC staff conclude that it is likely 

cranes will select other appropriate habitat for roosting, resting, and foraging during the 

proposed ISR facility lifecycle, and that construction activities will not affect the existence of the 

species’ population in the proposed project area. 

Bald eagles were observed along Beaver Creek in the western portion of the proposed project 

area during winter roosting surveys within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the proposed Dewey satellite 

processing plant (Powertech, 2009a; SDGFP, 2012c). Most recently in 2011, SDGFP 

confirmed the presence of one active nest along Beaver Creek approximately 1.6 km [1 mi] west 

of the proposed Dewey satellite plant in a cottonwood tree along Beaver Creek. Active and 

inactive nests are located within 0.4 km [0.25 mi] of potential Dewey wellfield areas (Powertech, 

2009a; SDGFP, 2012a). Although the bald eagle is no longer federally listed as threatened, 

South Dakota still lists it as a threatened species. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the 

applicant plans to adhere to regulatory timing and spatial restrictions with regard to construction 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-96 

activities near raptor nests. In addition, the cottonwood gallery and ponderosa pine woodland 

vegetative communities where the bald eagles are found will not be physically impacted by the 

proposed project construction or operations (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, construction will 

not directly impact bald eagles. However, eagles nesting nearby or migrating through the area 

may use the proposed Dewey-Burdock site and surrounding lands for foraging during winter 

months and may not be able to use these lands during construction until the disturbed areas 

were reclaimed and prey species returned. The bald eagle is protected under the MBTA and 

the BGEPA, by which the applicant will have to abide. Although these statutes do not provide 

for habitat protection, disturbance of eagle habitat that directly takes or kills a bald eagle (such 

as cutting down a nest tree with chicks present) will constitute a violation of the MBTA, as well 

as the BGEPA. 

 

Black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) are not present in the site vicinity at this time (BLM, 

2009a; FWS, 2010; SEIS Section 3.6.3). However, the presence of the black-tailed prairie dog 

(Cynomys ludovicianus) in the northwestern corner of the proposed project area provides 

potentially suitable habitat for the black-footed ferret. Two other prairie dog towns were 

observed 1.6 km [1 mi] southwest of the proposed project area. The black-tailed prairie dog is a 

state endangered and BLM sensitive species (see Tables 3.6-7 and 3.6-8). As discussed in 

SEIS Section 3.6.3, FWS relieved the requirement for black-footed ferret surveys to be 

conducted in black-tailed prairie dog habitat within the State of South Dakota for the purpose of 

identifying previously unknown ferret populations; therefore, Powertech did not conduct ferret 

surveys on the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. FWS continues to direct federal 

agencies to assess whether a proposed action could have an adverse effect on the value of 

prairie dog habitat as a future reintroduction site for the black-footed ferret. Proposed 

construction activities may directly impact prairie dogs and habitat for the prairie dog and 

black-footed ferret within the proposed project boundary that could support populations of these 

species. Because there have been no occurrences of black-footed ferrets within the proposed 

project area and the prairie dog colony on the site is likely too small to support and sustain a 

breeding population of black-footed ferrets (as described in SEIS Section 3.6.3), NRC staff 

conclude that the proposed project construction will not result in a direct effect on current or 

future ferret populations. 

Potential impacts to sage-grouse, a federal candidate species and BLM sensitive species, were 

discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2 under Upland Game Birds. Listed threatened or 

endangered species or candidate animals will not be directly affected by construction activities 

for the deep Class V injection well option, nor will the habitats of these species’ be noticeably 

altered. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude potential impacts from construction activities on 

federally listed threatened or endangered species, and candidate or delisted species, will 

be SMALL. 

State and BLM Species of Concern 

In addition to the BLM sensitive species listed in Table 3.6-7 that could occur within the 

proposed project area, the following South Dakota-designated rare animals were observed 

within the proposed project area during wildlife surveys: long-billed curlew, great blue heron, 

golden eagle, Cooper’s hawk, American white pelican, long-eared owl, merlin, Clark’s 

nutcracker (Nucifraga Columbiana), ferruginous hawk, and plains topminnow (Fundulus 

sciadicus) (Powertech, 2009a). State rare and BLM sensitive species are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-97 

BLM sensitive species that are found in wetland or grassland/wetland habitats that could occur, 

but were not observed, during surveys at the proposed site [marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), 

trumpeter swan (Plegadis chihi), willet (Cataptrophorus semipalmatus), and Wilson’s phalarope 

(Phalaropus tricolorI)] and South Dakota rare animals observed during Dewey-Burdock wildlife 

surveys (long-billed curlew, great blue heron, and American white pelican in Table 3.6-8) are 

unlikely to be affected by construction activities because fairly limited suitable habitat exists year 

round to support large groups or populations of either waterfowl or shorebirds. None of the 

waterfowl or shorebirds observed during wildlife surveys were breeding; therefore, NRC staff 

do not expect that proposed construction activities will destabilize sensitive waterfowl or 

shorebird populations. 

Raptors listed as BLM sensitive species that could occur at the proposed site are bald eagle, 

burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrines), and 

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Each of these BLM sensitive species is protected under 

the MBTA, and the bald and golden eagles are also protected under the BGEPA. Similar to the 

bald eagle, the peregrine falcon is designated as threatened in South Dakota, but the peregrine 

falcon was not observed in the proposed project area. The peregrine falcon was once a 

federally listed species, but it was delisted in 1999. The falcon was presumed to be extirpated 

from the state by 1980 (USGS, 2006) and is not likely to occur within the proposed project area, 

although there are recent urban reintroduction efforts to restore the bird to the state (SDGFP, 

2012b). Burrowing owls are dependent on large prairie dog towns for food and nesting in 

western South Dakota (SDGFP, 2005a,b). Several predatory raptor species, such as the 

ferruginous hawk, feed on prairie dogs and other small vertebrates or burrowing animals found 

in prairie dog towns. Some raptors, such as the Swainson’s hawk, feed primarily on insects. 

During breeding season, the Swainson’s hawk may consume small vertebrates. 

State rare raptor species observed in the project area were Cooper’s hawk, long-eared owl, and 

merlin. Each species is also protected under the MBTA. All raptors that occur at the proposed 

project site will experience potential impacts similar to those described for raptors in SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2. Raptors are particularly sensitive to noise and the presence of human 

activity, which will be heightened during the construction period. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2, injury and mortality from encounters with power lines will be minimized by 

the applicant’s proposed use of raptor deterrent products and following regulatory timing and 

spatial restrictions with respect to construction activities near raptor nests. The applicant has 

also committed to follow an FWS-approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan to minimize 

conflicts between active nest sites and project-related activities if direct impacts to raptors occur 

(Powertech, 2009a). Nest abandonment and loss of eggs or fledglings could occur in raptor 

nests proximate to construction activities, especially during the early nesting period. Because of 

the presence of raptors within the proposed project area, sensitive and rare raptor species could 

be disturbed. However, the NRC staff conclude direct impact to raptors is unlikely and the 

continued existence of the species in the proposed project area will not be threatened due to 

proposed mitigation measures; these are further detailed in Chapter 6 and include best 

management practices for monitoring species. The NRC staff conclude the estimated impact on 

sensitive raptor species during the construction phase for the deep Class V injection well 

disposal option will be SMALL. 

Nongame and migratory birds, such as the Chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus),

dickcissel (Spiza americana), and long-billed curlew, may occur within the proposed project 

area, most likely in the upland grassland vegetative community. The loggerhead shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus) and blue-grey gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) may also occur within the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-98 

proposed project area, most likely in the shrubland communities. All of these birds are BLM 

sensitive species and protected by the MBTA. The gnatcatcher and curlew are also rare state 

species. Potential impacts from construction on the long-billed curlew and nongame and 

migratory birds are discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2. NRC staff expect that similar 

potential impacts described in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2, including injury or mortality from 

vehicles and electrical lines, fragmentation, vegetation conversion, and loss of breeding habitat, 

for nongame and migratory birds will also potentially impact chestnut-collared longspur, 

dickcissel, loggerhead shrike, and blue-grey gnatcatcher. For the proposed Dewey Conveyor 

Project, which is less than 1.6 km [1 mi] from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, BLM 

staff concluded that while some species reliant on grassland habitat could be displaced, the 

area contains high density, undisturbed grassland and disturbed grassland species will use 

similar adjacent habitat (BLM, 2009). The staff also conclude that the grassland habitat in the 

vicinity of the proposed Dewey Burdock project area will temporarily support grassland species 

of concern that may be disturbed during construction. Further, NRC staff expect applicant 

mitigation measures, like those described in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2 and Chapter 6, will 

prevent destabilization of habitat or populations for these species. Therefore, the NRC staff 

conclude that potential impacts from construction on chestnut-collared longspur, dickcissel, 

loggerhead shrike, and blue-grey gnatcatcher will be SMALL. 

Clark’s nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana), a BLM sensitive species and state rare species, is a 

nongame bird that was observed flying over the proposed project site during wildlife surveys. 

Nutcrackers prefer conifer forests (South Dakota Birds and Birding, 2012) and will most likely 

occur in the ponderosa pine woodland vegetative community in the proposed project site. 

Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), veery (Catharus fuscescens), and three-toed 

woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) are all BLM sensitive species that inhabit forested areas 

such as the ponderosa pine woodland and cottonwood gallery vegetative communities. The 

red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), a BLM sensitive species and state rare 

species, inhabits the edge of forested areas near open clearings. All of these birds are 

protected by the MBTA. NRC staff expect that potential impacts to these nongame and 

migratory birds associated with forest habitats will be less than those potential impacts 

described for nongame and migratory birds associated with grassland and shrubland habitats 

because (i) NRC expects that little to no treed areas will be directly disturbed during 

construction compared to other habitat types that will experience long-term or permanent 

impacts; (ii) the applicant has stated that no woody corridors will be disturbed by the proposed 

activities (Powertech, 2009a); and (iii) potential forest habitat is located in the adjacent BHNF 

dominated by ponderosa pine and other deciduous trees (Chapman, 2004) that could support 

displaced birds that depend on forest habitats. Therefore, the staff conclude the potential 

impact on Clark’s nutcracker, black-backed woodpecker, veery, three-toed woodpecker, and 

red-headed woodpecker during the construction phase will be SMALL. 

Two mammals, the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus), a state endangered species 

and BLM sensitive species, and the swift fox (Vulpes velox), a state threatened species and 

BLM sensitive species, could potentially occur within the project area. As described earlier in 

this section and in SEIS Section 3.6.3, a black-tailed prairie dog colony is located proximate to 

potential wellfields D-WF3 and D-WF4 in the Dewey area and proposed standby land 

application sites; therefore potential direct impacts could affect prairie dogs if the wellfields and 

land application sites are used. A 2008 survey reported that the prairie dog populations more 

than doubled in Custer and Fall River Counties between 2003 and 2008, and that state prairie 

dog 2008 conservation population goals were met (Kempema, et al., 2009). Because of 

management programs to protect the species, prairie dog populations in South Dakota are 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-99 

stable where the species occurs in most of the western two-thirds of the state (SDGFP, 2012d). 

According to SDGFP, private landowners and the public are allowed to shoot prairie dogs on 

private lands to manage the population in prairie dog towns (SDGFP, 2005b). Therefore, NRC 

expects that management of prairie dogs will be conducted in accordance with applicant and 

land owner agreements. 

The swift fox is typically found in short mixed grass prairies and preys on prairie dogs in addition 

to other small mammals and their carcasses, birds, insects, reptiles, fruits, and berries (FWS, 

2000a). Swift fox are burrowing animals known to dig their own dens or use the burrows of 

other animals, including those made by prairie dogs. Because of their association with prairie 

dogs, swift fox that may occur in the proposed project area could be affected by prairie dog 

control efforts, thereby limiting available food, shelter, and escape cover for swift fox (FWS, 

2000a). Other threats include the fact that swift fox are easily trapped or shot and can 

experience mortality from vehicle collisions (FWS, 2000a). Swift fox have demonstrated the 

ability to adapt to prairie-agricultural, sagebrush-grassland, and sagebrush-greasewood habitat 

types and to not be dependent on prairie dog colonies for their food (FWS, 2000a). For the 

proposed Dewey Conveyor Project, BLM concluded activities may impact individual prairie dogs 

and swift foxes or their habitat, but will not cause instability in their populations (BLM, 2009). 

NRC staff also conclude that, based on the reasons previously described in this section, the 

potential impacts to these species from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project construction 

activities will be SMALL. 

The banded killifish (Fundulus diaphanous), a BLM sensitive species and state endangered 

species found in the western part of the state, and the northern redbelly dace (Phoxinus eos), a 

BLM sensitive species and state threatened species, were not observed or expected to occur in 

western South Dakota or Custer or Fall River Counties (SDGFP, 2012c; Table 3.6-7). As 

discussed in SEIS Section 3.5.1, with the exception of perennial Beaver Creek, the streams 

within the proposed project area generally only flow during the wet season in response to snow 

melt or precipitation events. Beaver Creek and Pass Creek do not provide continuous, stable 

aquatic habitat to support these aquatic species; therefore, NRC staff predict potential impacts 

to be SMALL. 

Table 3.6-7 lists BLM sensitive amphibians, including frogs, and reptile species, including 

snakes and turtles, that could occur in the proposed project area. The snapping turtle (Cheldy 

serpentine) will be one of the most likely BLM sensitive turtle species to occur in the area 

(Bandas, 2004), although snapping turtles were not observed during wildlife surveys. This 

species can be found in any permanent water body in the state and are rarely seen out of the 

water except for nesting and basking in the sun (Bandas, 2004). The spiny softshell turtle 

(Apalone spinifera) is a state rare species that prefers highly oxygenated, fast flowing rivers, 

lakes, and streams, but is also found in impoundments and reservoirs (Somma, 2011; Bandas, 

2004). As described in SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.3, the applicant reported a spiny softshell 

subspecies in Beaver Creek during fish surveys downstream of the proposed project area. 

Turtles usually spend the winter in rivers, lakes, streams, and reservoirs with muddy or sandy 

bottoms and require soil exposed to sunlight, often near sand or gravel bars, during late spring 

or summer for a proper nest environment (Somma, 2011). Common toads and frogs were 

observed during wildlife surveys, but BLM sensitive amphibian species were not reported. For 

the same reasons explained in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2, NRC concludes potential impact to 

these sensitive reptiles and amphibians will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-100 

Snakes and lizards are generally less dependent than or nondependent on permanent water 

bodies compared to amphibians. Snakes and lizards could occur within grassland, shrubland, 

and sometimes woodland habitats depending on the species. The plains or western hognose 

snake (Heterodon nasicus ) is a BLM sensitive species that typically burrows into sandy, 

gravelly, or floodplain areas, but may also occur in agricultural, shrub, and woodland habitats 

(WGFD, 2010). The Greater short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi) is also a burrowing 

BLM sensitive species that prefers grassland and sagebrush habitats (BLM, 2009). Both of 

these species are known to be distributed within the region, but were not observed during 

Dewey-Burdock wildlife surveys. As described in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2, potential impacts 

to reptiles could include loss or fragmentation of habitat, displacement, disturbance from noise 

and human proximity, and increased risk of equipment encounters and vehicular collision. In 

addition, snakes can be unnecessarily killed by humans who think snakes are harmful. For 

example, the hognose snake resembles the rattlesnake and may invoke undue harm (WGFD, 

2010), although it is not venomous and does not typically respond to enemies by biting 

regardless of their dramatic defense display. Construction activities are not planned during the 

winter months when these species will be hibernating and less responsive to ground-disturbing 

activities that may result in loss of life. In addition, due to the sequential development and small 

amount of land that will be disturbed for construction under the deep Class V injection well 

disposal option {approximately 98 ha [243 ac]}, staff do not expect construction impacts to 

measurably affect any reptile species population. Therefore, potential impacts to these 

sensitive reptile species during the construction phase will also be SMALL. 

4.6.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

The potential impact to ecological resources during operations under the deep Class V injection 

well disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be consistent with the 

findings described in the GEIS summarized previously in SEIS Section 4.6. Only minor impacts 

to vegetative communities will occur because most of the clearing for the ISR facility will have 

occurred during the construction phase. Invasive and noxious weeds could potentially colonize 

disturbed areas, but the applicant has committed to monitor and control these. In addition, 

material spills and failure of settling and holding pond liners or embankment systems could also 

occur during the operations phase. The applicant has proposed to minimize vehicular access to 

specific roads and revegetate disturbed areas with an SDDENR- and BLM-approved seed 

mixture to prevent the establishment of competitive weeds and restore habitat to native species 

(Powertech, 2009a). There will be less noise and less traffic during the operations phase of the 

proposed project compared to the construction phase; therefore, the potential to disrupt wildlife 

populations will be reduced along with a decrease in the probability of vehicular collisions. 

Wildlife use of areas adjacent to ISR operations will be expected to increase as animals become 

habituated to site activities. Potential impacts to wildlife, including state and BLM species of 

concern, during the operations phase will continue to be SMALL because operations will not 

threaten the continued existence of any particular species in the proposed license area. Leak 

detection systems, soil monitoring, and spill response plans to remove affected soils and 

capture released fluids (SEIS Section 4.4.1) will minimize the impact of wildlife exposure to 

potentially toxic levels of chemicals. 

Potential conflicts between active raptor nest sites and operations-related activities, especially 

the expansion of wellfield areas, will be mitigated by adherence to regulatory timing and spatial 

restrictions with regard to construction activities near raptor nests. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-101 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s deep Class V injection well disposal 

option will require the use of settling and holding ponds. The proposed use of settling and 

storage ponds presents a potential for wildlife exposure to wastewater solutions. The applicant 

has proposed predisposal wastewater treatment, including ion-exchange treatment and radium 

settling, to remove or reduce some of the regulated constituents discharged to the storage 

ponds (SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.6.2 and 4.14.1). The proposed wastewater treatment approaches 

include monitoring the post-treatment water quality to ensure compliance with NRC, EPA, and 

SDDENR requirements as well as any applicable NRC license conditions (Section 4.14.1). 

Liquid wastes discharged to settling and holding ponds will be treated to water quality 

appropriate for discharge injection into permitted Class V (nonhazardous) deep disposal wells 

(Powertech, 2009a). 

To evaluate the potential hazards to wildlife from waste management operations, the NRC staff 

compared the applicant’s estimated concentrations of chemical constituents in the wastewater 

with aquatic-life and wildlife health effects thresholds. An aquatic life health effects threshold is 

a concentration of a chemical constituent in water that has been shown to cause health effects 

in aquatic life based on scientific studies. Selenium, in particular, was identified by the FWS as 

a constituent of concern in ISR wastewater because of low wildlife health effects thresholds in 

some sensitive species when compared with concentrations of selenium measured in ISR 

wastewater (FWS, 2007). The wildlife health effects thresholds described here establish the 

concentration of a chemical in water that is known to cause health effects in wildlife based on 

scientific studies. 

For this evaluation, the NRC staff compared the applicant’s estimated wastewater 

concentrations with EPA chronic (long-term) exposure-based water quality criteria (guidance) 

established for the protection of aquatic life (EPA, 2013). The staff found that the estimated 

concentrations of arsenic and selenium in the injectate the applicant proposes to use exceed 

the current EPA criteria. Additionally, the applicant’s estimated concentrations of selenium 

exceed levels referenced by FWS (2007) as hazardous to aquatic birds. Based on this 

comparison, the NRC staff concludes that direct chronic exposure of sensitive species to the 

applicant’s estimated arsenic and selenium concentrations in wastewater (undiluted) could 

adversely impact exposed individuals. However, NRC staff considers such chronic direct 

wildlife exposure to undiluted wastewater unlikely because the applicant’s proposed wastewater 

controls (e.g., pond design, leak detection and mitigation, pressure monitoring) and SDDENR 

permitting requirements will limit direct contact that aquatic life and terrestrial wildlife have with 

wastewater solutions. The SDDENR controls include limiting access to wastewater with fencing 

and implementing an avian protection plan for pond operations. 

Wastewater storage ponds present an opportunity for wildlife, primarily migratory birds, to have 

direct contact with wastewater solutions. One detailed wildlife field study of an ISR wastewater 

irrigation system has been published and observations made in that study identified only limited 

use of a wastewater storage reservoir by birds (FWS, 2000b). In the event that additional 

treatment to lower wastewater constituent concentrations or additional access controls for 

ponds are needed to protect wildlife, SDDENR has the authority to require these actions be 

implemented by the applicant. In the event that additional treatment to lower wastewater 

constituent concentrations or additional access controls for ponds are needed to protect wildlife, 

SDDENR has the authority to require these actions be implemented by the applicant. 

Based on the previous assessment, the potential impact to ecological resources 

(including vegetation, big game, upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-102 

nongame/migratory birds, other mammals, aquatic species, and sensitive and protected 

species) during the operations phase for the deep Class V injection well disposal option will be 

SMALL and less than that experienced during the construction phase. Therefore, NRC staff 

predict potential impacts to aquatic species will remain SMALL. 

4.6.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

Impacts to ecological resources for the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project during aquifer restoration will be consistent with the impact 

conclusions described in the GEIS, as summarized in SEIS Section 4.6, and consistent with 

those potential impacts described previously for the construction phase and the operations 

phase. Because the existing infrastructure from the operations phase will continue to be used 

during aquifer restoration and the applicant will continue to apply the mitigation measures 

described previously, the potential impact to ecological resources will be similar to that 

described for the operations phase. In addition, the applicant’s adherence to the BMPs 

proposed for seasonal noise, vehicular traffic, and human proximity measures will further reduce 

potential impacts to ecological resources. Therefore, the potential impact to ecological 

resources (including vegetation, big game, upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and 

shorebirds, nongame/migratory birds, other mammals, aquatic species, and protected and 

sensitive species) during aquifer restoration will be SMALL. 

4.6.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The activities resulting in impacts to ecological resources during the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project decommissioning activities under the Class V injection well disposal option are 

consistent with the activities described in the GEIS as summarized in SEIS Section 4.6. 

Impacts to ecological resources during the decommissioning phase will be similar to those 

experienced during the construction phase with respect to noise, traffic flow, and earthmoving 

activities. However, the decommissioning phase will temporarily disrupt slightly more natural 

habitat than will have occurred during the construction phase of the ISR process; this is 

because of an increase in land-disturbing activities for dismantling, removing, and disposing of 

facilities, equipment, and excavated contaminated soils. Decommissioning and reclamation 

activities, as described in SEIS Section 4.2 for land use, will primarily be conducted in the 

previously disturbed areas of the site in accordance with the NRC-approved decommissioning 

plan and BLM-approved reclamation plan (BLM, 2012a). Affected areas will be revegetated 

using a final reclamation seed mix developed through discussions with the landowner and 

approved by the SDDENR and BLM (Powertech, 2009a; BLM, 2012e). 

Little loss of vegetative communities beyond those disturbed during construction will 

be expected during decommissioning. Piping removal will have the greatest impact on 

vegetation that had reestablished itself since being disturbed during previous ISR phases. The 

dismantling of the proposed project facilities, infrastructure, and roads, and reseeding and 

placement/contouring of soil will have impacts similar in scale to the construction phase. 

SDDNER recommends that the large-scale mine permit require revegetation success be 

equivalent to vegetative cover in reference areas, using SDDENR-approved statistical methods. 

In addition, a post closure bond will be held for 30 years after the reclamation bond is released, in 

order to help ensure revegetation success. However, final permit conditions may change based 

on the final determination by the SDDENR hearing board. The decommissioning process will 

be expected to create increased noise, traffic, and sediment runoff as buildings are taken down 

and hauled away. During this time, wildlife could either come in conflict with heavy equipment 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-103 

or could move elsewhere due to higher-than-normal noise. As required, the applicant will 

submit an NRC-approved decommissioning plan and all decommissioning activities will be 

carried out in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40 and other applicable federal regulatory 

requirements. Decommissioning of plant facilities at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

is estimated to take 2 years. Temporarily displaced wildlife could return to the area once 

decommissioning and reclamation were completed. The applicant’s implementation of the 

previously discussed mitigation measures will further reduce potential impact. 

At the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the impact from dismantling and decontaminating 

the central plant, satellite facility, roads, and support facilities will be consistent with the 

conclusions reached in the GEIS. The potential impacts to ecological resources (including 

vegetation, big game, upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, 

nongame/migratory birds, other mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and protected species) 

during decommissioning for the deep Class V injection well disposal option will include 

disturbance of about 98 ha [243 ac] of vegetation, primarily in the upland grassland and 

greasewood shrubland vegetation communities. Although certain vegetative communities 

(shrubland) are difficult to reestablish and can take as many as 10 years to achieve full site 

recovery (WGFD, 2007), the applicant commits to ongoing vegetation reestablishment efforts 

throughout the ISR facility life cycle. New vegetative growth could be affected by future grazing, 

droughts, or intense winters, thus reducing the rate of plant productivity and delaying full 

recovery (WGFD, 2007). For these reasons, NRC staff conclude there will be a MODERATE 

impact on vegetation from decommissioning and reclamation under the deep Class V injection 

well disposal option; once vegetation has been reestablished, this impact will be SMALL. 

Potential impacts to big game, upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, 

nongame/migratory birds, other mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and protected species will 

remain SMALL and comparable to those described for the construction phase. The removal of 

perimeter fencing will increase big game passage and vegetative forage. As with construction, 

operations, and aquifer restoration phases, potential impacts to big game during 

decommissioning will remain SMALL. Potential impact to aquatic species and amphibians will 

also remain SMALL because of the limited occurrence of surface water, and the applicant’s plan 

to not disturb water bodies located on the proposed project site. 

4.6.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant proposes to 

dispose of liquid waste generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by land 

application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). Potential environmental impacts on ecology from 

construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated with the land 

application liquid waste disposal option are discussed in the following sections. 

4.6.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

Planned vegetation disturbance for the land application disposal option is provided in 

Table 4.6-3. Approximately 566 ha [1,398 ac] of land or 13.2 percent of the proposed permit 

area will be potentially disturbed by activities associated with construction of facilities, 

pipelines, wellfields, storage ponds, irrigation areas, and access roads (Powertech, 2012a, 

2010a). Disturbance to the vegetative communities will include that described in SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.1.1.1 for construction under the deep Class V injection well disposal option in 

addition to disturbance from increased pond capacity totaling approximately 55 ha [136 ac] and 

irrigation areas for potential land application totaling approximately 425.7 ha [1,052 ac]. The 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-104 

same area of BLM land will be disturbed during construction for both the deep Class V injection 

well and land application disposal options. 

Figure 4.6-3 shows the planned facilities and vegetation communities for the land application 

disposal option. The additional ponds in the Dewey and Burdock areas will be located primarily 

in the greasewood shrubland and upland grassland vegetative communities. Ponds in the 

Dewey area will also be located in the silver sagebrush shrubland community just west of 

Dewey Road. Land application areas in the Dewey area will primarily be located in the 

greasewood shrubland community and a portion within the upland grassland community. The 

land application areas in the Burdock area will be located in the greasewood shrubland, upland 

grassland, big sagebrush shrubland, and silver sagebrush shrubland vegetative communities. 

Table 4.6-4 provides the amount of disturbance in each vegetation community. 

During the construction phase, land application piping and pivot installation will create similar 

impacts described in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1 including (i) modification of vegetative structure, 

species composition, and areal extent of cover types (density); (ii) potential invasion, 

establishment, and expansion of invasive or nonnative species; (iii) potential soil erosion; 

(iv) reduction of wildlife habitat and livestock forage; and (v) changes in visual aesthetics. 

NRC staff expect the center pivot areas to consist of native vegetation or to be converted into 

agricultural land where alfalfa or salt-tolerant wheatgrass will be planted and grown (Powertech, 

2009b); however, application of liquid waste will not begin until the operations phase. NRC 

expects the applicant or landowners to use earth-moving equipment to clear and till the soil in 

preparation for planting crops in the land application areas. The applicant will employ similar 

mitigative measures previously discussed for the deep Class V injection well option to minimize 

potential construction impacts to vegetation and habitat during construction for the land 

application option. NRC staff expect potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife from the 

increased pond capacity totaling approximately 55 ha [136 ac] will not result in measurably 

higher impacts to wildlife because of the small amount of additional area that will be disturbed. 

However, combined with the land application areas (including operating and standby center 

pivot areas and catchment areas) of approximately 426 ha [1,052 ac], greater impacts to wildlife 

are expected. 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2, the maximum estimated area for land application is 

426 ha [1,052 ac] and includes operating irrigation pivots, standby irrigation pivots, and areas 

constructed to contain surface stormwater runoff. As described in SEIS Section 4.6, the GEIS 

evaluated ISR facilities that ranged in facility size from 1,000 to 7,000 ha [2,471 to 17,297 ac] 

with disturbed area estimates of 49 to 753 ha [120 to 1,860 ac] (NRC, 2009a) and land 

application of treated wastewater. The GEIS concluded that potential impacts from operations 

during land application will be small, but the GEIS did not evaluate the impacts of planting crops 

in the irrigation areas prior to land application activities, which could have a greater impact than 

conducting land application on native vegetation. Because of the long-term direct impacts of 

approximately 566 ha [1,398 ac] of native vegetation, of which up to 308 ha [760 ac] may be 

converted into crops, staff conclude impacts to vegetation will be MODERATE. 

BLM-managed lands within the project area are not located within proposed irrigation areas and 

will not experience any additional direct vegetation modification from irrigation activities under 

the land application disposal option. The applicant may construct fencing around land 

application areas to control livestock access, which could indirectly increase livestock grazing 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-105 

Figure 4.6-3. Map of Dewey-Burdock Planned Facilities and Vegetation Communities for 

 the Land Application Option 

 Source: Powertech, 2012a
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-106 

Table 4.6-4. Disturbed Land by Vegetation Type for Dewey-Burdock Land Application Option 

Activity 

Vegetation Community {Hectares [acres]} 

Total 

Disturbed 

Area 

Hectares 

[acres] 

Big 

Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Cottonwood 

Gallery 

Greasewood 

Shrubland 

Mine 

Pit 

Ponderosa 

Pine 

Woodland 

Silver

Sagebrush 

Shrubland 

Upland 

Grassland 

Site 

Facilities 

0.8 

[2] 0 3.2 

 [8] 0 0.4 

[1] 0 5.7 

[14] 

9.7 

[24] 

Trunklines 2.4 

[6] 0 2.4 [6] 0 1.2 [3] 

0.8 

[2] 

3.2 

[8] 

10.1 

[25] 

Access 

Roads 

2.0 

[5] 0 2.0 [5] 

0.4 

[1] 

0.8 

[2] 

0.4 

[1] 

2.4 

[6] 

8.5 

 [21] 

Well Fields 8.5 [21] 0 18.2 [45] 2.0 

[5] 

8.5 

[21] 4.4 [11] 15.0 [37] 56.6 

[140] 

Impoundments 1.6 

[4] 0 20.2 [50] 0 0.4 

[1] 

3.2 

[8] 29.5 [73] 55.0 

[136] 

Land 

Application 75.7 [187] 0 267.9 [662] 0 0 6.9 [17] 72.4 [179] 425.7 [1,052] 

Totals 90.6 [224] 0 314.4 

[777] 

2.0 

[5] 

11.3 

[28] 

15.8 

 [39] 

128.3 

[317] 

565.8 

[1,398] 

Source: Powertech 2012a 

activities on BLM lands, if BLM decides to allow such activities. Because BLM land is 

considered a public resource and is traditionally used for livestock grazing in this region, NRC 

staff expect the potential indirect impacts on the vegetation of these BLM lands to be SMALL. 

Staff also expect that in addition to potential impacts described earlier for the deep Class V 

injection well option, big game species may experience additional restricted movement due to 

fencing around land application areas and reduced forage and carrying capacity in the land 

application areas. However, because the project area is not within big game migration 

pathways and does not contain critical habitat and because big game species have larger home 

ranges and are highly mobile, the continued existence of big game species will not be 

threatened and impacts on big game will be SMALL. 

The black-tailed prairie dog colony located within the Dewey area in land application areas 

could attract black-footed ferrets. The colony supports small- to medium-sized mammals that 

burrow in the ground, raptors and ground dwelling birds, and reptiles as described in SEIS 

Sections 4.6.1.1.1.1.2 and 4.6.1.1.1.1.4. Figure 4.6-4 shows the 16-ha [40-ac] areas where 

raptors nests are located near the proposed project. The potential wellfield areas in SEIS 

Figure 2.1-6 identify where potential drilling/distruptive activity could occur around each 

orebody, if a particular orebody were mined. Converting land application areas into cropland 

during construction under this option will have a greater overall impact on such wildlife than 

during the construction phase under the deep Class V injection well disposal option due to the 

additional 481 ha [1,188] of habitat alteration and land disturbance (Table 2.1-8). The removal 

of sagebrush communities will most impact sagebrush obligate species, such as sage-grouse, 

sharp-tailed grouse, sage thrasher, and some small mammals. NRC staff expect that 

prey–predator relationships will be altered within the irrigation areas during construction 

activities and prey–predator species will leave those areas temporarily during construction 

activities. Raptors that nest within the proposed project area could abandon their nests. Staff 

expect some species to return to the area after the irrigation areas are reestablished because 

the cropland will provide additional nesting sites, cover, and food. Staff also expect that once 

the crops have been established, some raptors will also return to this area to use the cropland 

for active hunting. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-107 

Figure 4.6-4. Map of Raptor Nest Locations in the Dewey-Burdock Project Area and 

Planned Facilities for the Land Application Option 

 Source: Powertech, 2012a
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-108 

Because NRC staff expect the applicant or landowners to disturb the surface soil to plant crops 

in the irrigation areas, staff also expect an increase in potential soil erosion and sedimentation 

could impact surface water on and downstream from the site. Land application sites are located 

within 0.4 km [0.25 mi] of Beaver Creek within the Dewey area; however, ISR construction 

activities are not expected to significantly affect surface water quality unless irrigation activities 

cross over into jurisdictional waters. In addition, the applicant has committed to implementing 

mitigation measures to control erosion, stormwater runoff, and sedimentation (SEIS 

Section 4.5.1.1). Because the applicant does not plan to disturb any additional water bodies 

and perennial streams within the proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a), NRC staff expect 

that aquatic species and amphibians will not be directly affected by construction of land 

application areas and expect impacts to be SMALL. 

NRC staff expect the same mitigation measures will be followed for the land application option 

that were previously explained for the deep Class V injection well option. NRC staff conclude 

the additional amount of land that will be disturbed for construction under the land application 

disposal option is expected to noticeably alter, but not destabilize, the vegetation and important 

wildlife habitat that occur at the site. Therefore, the potential impact to ecological resources, 

including vegetation, upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, nongame/migratory 

birds, other mammals, reptiles, and some protected and sensitive species, will be MODERATE 

from construction of the land application option. Because no federally threatened or 

endangered species are expected to occur in the project area, potential impacts to threatened 

or endangered species will be SMALL. NRC staff expect that construction impacts will not 

threaten any species’ population or current existence. 

4.6.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

Surface disturbance, including the application of waste water, will be the primary change to 

ecology during the operations phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project under the 

land application option. Wellfield expansion that will disturb approximately 56.7 ha [140 ac] of 

land during the operations phase will have similar impacts to vegetation wildlife impacts as 

expected during the operations phase for the deep Class V injection well option. Disturbance of 

land application areas (including operating and standby center pivot areas and catchment 

areas) totaling approximately 426 ha [1,052 ac] will have similar impacts on vegetation and 

wildlife as impacts expected to vegetation and wildlife during the construction phase of the land 

application option. 

Potential exposure of wildlife to holding/settling pond constituents and potential failure of settling 

and holding pond liners or embankment systems will increase under the land application waste 

disposal option due the additional pond capacity. In addition, the GEIS identified the following 

potential land application impacts from operations related to ecology: (i) reduction in growth of 

vegetation due to soil salination; (ii) accumulation of contaminants, dissolved solids, and 

radionuclides in the root zone; and (iii) increased vegetation growth due to the increase of 

available water (NRC, 2009a). 

According to SEIS Chapter 2, the irrigation pivots will operate 24 hours a day and irrigated 

areas will receive approximately 1,124 Lpm [297 gpm] from March 29 to May 10, approximately 

2,472 Lpm [653 gpm] from May 11 to September 24, and approximately 1,124 Lpm [297 gpm] 

from September 25 to October 31. From November to March, land application will not be used 

and treated liquid waste will be temporarily stored in ponds located near the Burdock central 

plant and Dewey satellite facility (Powertech, 2011). Land application activities during 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-109 

operations under this option will have a similar land disturbance impact on wildlife as those 

expected during the construction phase because of the continuous disturbance from irrigation 

activities. NRC staff expect that few animals will inhabit the land application areas during 

continuous irrigation. NRC staff also expect that prey–predator relationships will be altered 

within the irrigation areas because of seasonal irrigation activities and may not return during the 

winter season when irrigation activities are not planned. Upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl 

and shorebirds, nongame and migratory birds, small- and medium-sized mammals, and reptiles 

will experience direct, long-term habitat loss and reduction in the carrying capacity during the 

operations phase of the land application option. Staff expect that in general, birds are mobile 

and able to relocate to other available regional habitat (SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.4). Temporary 

direct impacts to animals and nests could include disturbance from sprayed irrigation water that 

the wind carries outside of the land application areas. 

During the uranium recovery process, the groundwater extracted from the production zone is 

enriched in uranium and other metals that are typically associated with uranium in nature. In the 

license application technical report, Tables 4.2-7, 7.3-8 (Powertech, 2009b), and in their state 

GDP (Powertech, 2012c, Table 5.8-2) the applicant describes the expected radiological 

constituents and estimated concentrations in wastewater for the proposed land application 

activities. The radiological constituents include natural uranium, radium-226, thorium-230, and 

lead-210. At NRC-licensed in-situ leach facilities, the licensee is required to monitor and control 

radiological constituents in effluents to satisfy limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, and 

irrigation areas to maintain levels of radioactive constituents within allowable release standards 

outlined in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A both during and after disposal by land application (NRC, 

2009a). As stated in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2 for radiological emissions, the applicant proposes 

regular monitoring of air, soil, biomass (i.e., crops and livestock), surface water, and 

groundwater to identify the presence of NRC- and SDDENR-regulated constituents. The 

applicant’s proposed land application monitoring program is described in SEIS Section 7.5. 

Monitoring results must be reported to NRC semiannually (see SEIS Chapter 7). 

In the license application technical report (Powertech, 2009b, Tables 4.2-7 and 7.3-8) and in its 

South Dakota GDP (Powertech, 2012c, Table 5.8-2), the applicant described the expected 

chemical constituents and estimated concentrations in wastewater for the proposed land 

application activities. The list of chemical constituents includes arsenic, barium, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, and selenium. The NRC staff evaluated the toxicity of the proposed 

wastewater solutions and the potential for proposed land application activities to impact wildlife. 

Selenium, in particular, was identified by the FWS as a constituent of concern in ISR 

wastewater because of low wildlife health effects thresholds in some sensitive species when 

compared with concentrations of selenium measured in ISR wastewater (FWS, 2007). The 

wildlife health effects thresholds described here establish the concentration of a chemical in 

water that is known to cause health effects in wildlife based on scientific studies. 

The NRC staff compared the applicant’s estimated wastewater concentrations with EPA chronic 

(long-term) exposure-based water quality criteria (guidance) established for the protection of 

aquatic life and found the estimated concentrations of cadmium, chromium, lead, and selenium 

exceed the EPA criteria. The applicant’s estimated concentrations of both cadmium and lead 

also exceed the acute (short-term) exposure-based EPA water quality aquatic life criteria (EPA, 

2013a). Additionally, the applicant’s estimated concentrations of selenium exceed levels 

referenced by FWS (2007) as hazardous to aquatic birds. Based on this comparison, the NRC 

staff concludes that direct chronic and acute exposure of sensitive species to the applicant’s 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-110 

estimated cadmium, lead, and selenium concentrations in wastewater could adversely impact 

exposed individuals. 

However, the NRC staff considers such chronic direct wildlife exposure to undiluted wastewater 

unlikely because the applicant’s proposed wastewater controls (e.g., pond design, spill and leak 

detection and mitigation, pressure monitoring, runoff control and mitigation) and SDDENR 

permitting requirements limit direct contact that aquatic life and terrestrial wildlife will have with 

wastewater solutions. The SDDENR controls include limiting access to wastewater with 

fencing, implementing an avian protection plan for pond operations, and requiring no-runoff 

and no-ponding conditions for land application. These controls would limit direct terrestrial 

wildlife exposures and migration of wastewater to aquatic life habitat areas such as nearby 

surface water. 

Wastewater storage ponds present an additional opportunity for wildlife, primarily migratory 

birds, to have direct contact with wastewater solutions. The only detailed wildlife field study of 

an ISR wastewater irrigation system observed only limited use of a wastewater storage 

reservoir by birds (FWS, 2000b). In the event that additional treatment to lower wastewater 

constituent concentrations or additional access controls for ponds are needed to protect wildlife, 

SDDENR has the authority to require these actions be implemented by the applicant. 

While direct wastewater exposures will be limited, as noted in the GEIS and draft SEIS, land 

application could lead to accumulation of trace metal constituents in soils. The NRC staff 

evaluated the applicant’s estimated steady-state soil concentrations of trace metals from 

proposed land application with published EPA ecological soil screening guidance levels 

(Eco SSLs) (EPA, 2010). Eco-SSLs were developed to support screening analyses to identify 

potential ecological concerns at superfund sites that may need further, more detailed evaluation 

(e.g., ecological risk assessment). While Eco-SSLs were developed for superfund sites, EPA 

envisions that any federal, state, tribal, or private environmental assessment can use the values 

to screen soil contaminants (EPA, 2003). The applicant’s estimated steady-state soil 

concentrations of trace metals (Powertech, 2009b, Table 7.3-8) exceeded EPA Eco-SSLs for 

cadmium, lead, and selenium. This analysis suggests the land application activities described 

by the applicant have the potential to accumulate specific trace metal constituents in soils at 

levels that could impact wildlife. Soil constituents can also be taken up in plants. They may 

remobilize and transport to nearby surface water and shallow groundwater; even though 

transport of these constituents will involve dilution. In sum, plants, groundwater, and surface 

water containing concentrations of trace metals provide additional routes of exposure to wildlife. 

The SDDENR mine permit will establish monitoring requirements and action levels for trace 

metal concentrations in soils, vegetation, surface water, and groundwater that are protective of 

the environment. The SDDENR will review monitoring data and impose corrective actions if 

action levels are exceeded. Additionally, SDDENR will evaluate the environmental fate and 

transport of land-applied wastewater in detail (including environmental concentrations, pathways 

and food chains, bioaccumulation) prior to operation as part of its permitting and oversight 

processes. If SDDENR finds the waste management activities could impact wildlife, it will 

impose additional conditions on the applicant to mitigate impacts and protect the environment. 

In summary, some of the chemical constituent concentrations in proposed wastewater solutions 

and in land application area soils estimated by applicant exceed levels known to cause impacts 

to wildlife. NRC staff conclude that impacts to individual animals are possible even with the 

practices proposed by the applicant and the SDDENR regulatory controls that will be imposed 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-111 

by permit conditions, which include, monitoring, setting action levels, and requiring corrective 

actions if those controls do not limit all direct exposures to undiluted wastewater solutions. 

However, the NRC concludes the direct exposure of wildlife to wastewater solutions will be 

limited and that, under current regulatory controls, environmental concentrations of wastewater 

constituents are unlikely to reach levels that would lead to destabilization of wildlife populations. 

The NRC staff conclude the overall impact on vegetation, small- to medium-sized mammals, 

upland game birds, raptors, waterfowl and shorebirds, nongame and migratory birds, and 

reptiles from operations for the land application liquid waste disposal option will be MODERATE 

because of the potential for some wildlife exposures to harmful constituents and the planned 

8-year operation period that will alter approximately 426 ha [1,052 ac] of vegetation, wildlife 

distribution, and wildlife habitat. Based on the foregoing analysis, the impacts are expected to 

noticeably alter important attributes of the terrestrial environment; however, staff do not expect 

these impacts to threaten the continued existence of any species. 

Because the land application option will not disturb any additional water bodies and perennial 

streams within the proposed project area (Powertech, 2009a), and land application treated 

wastewater will be controlled to avoid runoff, staff expect that aquatic habitat will not be directly 

affected by land application activities and potential impacts to aquatic species and amphibians 

will be SMALL. For the same reasons explained for construction impacts on big game from the 

land application option, staff expect potential operations impacts to big game from operations 

during the land application option to be SMALL. 

4.6.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

During aquifer restoration, potential impacts to ecological resources for the land application 

liquid waste disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will remain similar to 

those described previously for the operations phase. Planned activities using existing 

infrastructure during the aquifer restoration phase are described in SEIS Section 4.2.1.2.3. 

NRC staff expect land application activities to continue during the aquifer restoration phase. 

Because construction and drilling equipment are not used during the aquifer restoration phase, 

NRC staff expect impacts from human presence, noise, and wildlife mortalities from equipment 

to decrease compared to human presence, noise, and wildlife mortalities expected during the 

operations phase. The expected liquid waste flow rates for the entire project will be 

approximately 2,070 Lpm [547 gpm] during concurrent uranium production and aquifer 

restoration and approximately 1,892 Lpm [500 gpm] during aquifer restoration alone (SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.4.1.2). 

As with the operations phase, impacts to potential land application areas during aquifer 

restoration will be mitigated by implementing a monitoring program and maintaining levels of 

radiological contaminants in treated waste water to allowable release limits contained in 

10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B (Powertech, 2009a, 2011) and chemical constituents in 

compliance with state requirements and permit conditions. Considering the potential for some 

wildlife exposures to harmful constituents and the continued alteration of approximately 426 ha 

[1,052 ac] of vegetation, wildlife distribution, and wildlife habitat, the NRC staff conclude that the 

overall potential impacts to vegetation, small- to medium-sized mammals, raptors, upland game 

birds, waterfowl and shorebirds, nongame and migratory birds, and reptiles will remain 

MODERATE. Based on the projected magnitude of expected liquid waste flow rates during 

aquifer restoration relative to operations, the potential impacts to big game, aquatic species, and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-112 

amphibians during the aquifer restoration phase will not increase beyond those of the 

operations phase and will therefore be SMALL. 

4.6.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Staff expect the potential ecological impacts of decommissioning for the land application liquid 

waste disposal option will be similar to those described in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.4 for the deep 

Class V injection well disposal option, including increased human presence, noise, and 

construction and field equipment. In addition to those activities planned for decommissioning 

under the deep Class V injection well disposal option, irrigation area pipelines, access roads, 

and larger pond areas will be directly impacted under the land application disposal option as 

explained in SEIS Section 4.6.1.2.1. 

The dismantling of the proposed project facilities, piping, infrastructure, and roads and 

reseeding and recontouring will have fewer ecological impacts than those experienced during 

the construction phase due to continuous revegetation efforts during the ISR lifecycle. 

SDDNER recommends that the large-scale mine permit require (i) the collection of baseline 

vegetation data within land application areas; (ii) concurrent and interim reclamation in all areas 

where mining or land disturbance is completed; (iii) that revegetation success be equivalent to 

vegetative cover in reference areas using SDDENR-approved statistical methods; and (iv) that a 

post closure bond be held for 30 years after the reclamation bond is released to help ensure 

revegetation success. However, final permit conditions may change based on the final 

determination by the South Dakota hearing board. Noise, vehicle and equipment use, and 

human presence will increase to levels similar to those experienced during the construction 

phase and for the same expected amount of time (2 years). For these reasons, NRC staff 

conclude there will be a MODERATE impact on vegetation, small- to medium-sized mammals, 

raptors, upland game birds, waterfowl and shorebirds, nongame and migratory birds, and 

reptiles from decommissioning and reclamation under the land application liquid waste disposal 

option until vegetation has been reestablished and preconstruction wildlife populations return to 

the area. For the same reasons explained in SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.4, potential impact to big 

game, aquatic species, and amphibians will remain SMALL from decommissioning under the 

land application option for the proposed project. 

4.6.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

For the combined deep Class V injection well disposal and land application option, land 

application facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, operated, restored, and 

decommissioned on an as-needed basis depending on the Class V injection well disposal 

capacity (Powertech, 2011). For the reasons explained in SEIS Section 4.2.1.3 for operations 

impacts to land use under the land application option, the significance of impacts that could 

impact either vegetation or wildlife populations for the combined disposal option will be less than 

for the land application option but greater than for the deep Class V injection well disposal 

option, as reflected in Table 4.6-5. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the ecological impacts of 

the combined deep Class V injection well and land application disposal option for each phase of 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will bound the significance of ecological impacts of 

the deep Class V injection well option and the land application option. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-113 

Table 4.6-5. Significance of Ecological Impacts for the Proposed Liquid Waste Disposal 

 Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

 Recovery Project 

 Class V Injection Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and Land 

Application* 

Construction SMALL for vegetation, 

terrestrial, and aquatic 

species 

MODERATE for 

vegetation, small- to 

medium-sized mammals, 

raptors, waterfowl and 

shorebirds, upland game 

birds, nongame and 

migratory birds, and 

reptiles 

SMALL for big game, 

aquatic species, 

amphibians 

SMALL to MODERATE for 

vegetation, terrestrial, and 

aquatic species 

Operations SMALL for vegetation, 

terrestrial, and aquatic 

species 

MODERATE for 

vegetation, small- to 

medium-sized mammals, 

raptors, waterfowl and 

shorebirds, upland game 

birds, nongame and 

migratory birds, and 

reptiles 

SMALL for big game, 

aquatic species, 

amphibians 

SMALL to MODERATE for 

vegetation, terrestrial, and 

aquatic species 

Aquifer 

Restoration 

SMALL for vegetation, 

terrestrial, and aquatic 

species 

MODERATE for 

vegetation, small- to 

medium-sized mammals, 

raptors, waterfowl and 

shorebirds, upland game 

birds, nongame and 

migratory birds, and 

reptiles 

SMALL for big game, 

aquatic species, 

amphibians 

SMALL for aquatic species 

and amphibians; SMALL to 

MODERATE for vegetation 

and terrestrial species 

Decommissioning MODERATE before 

vegetation is reestablished 

SMALL after vegetation is 

reestablished 

MODERATE before 

vegetation is 

reestablished 

SMALL after vegetation is 

restablished 

MODERATE before 

vegetation is reestablished 

SMALL after vegetation is 

reestablished 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of environmental 

impacts for the Class V injection well disposal and land application disposal options. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-114 

4.6.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, there will be no ISR facility construction, operations, aquifer 

restoration, or decommissioning associated with this project; therefore, there will be no land 

disturbance from the proposed action that could impact either vegetation or wildlife populations. 

The area will continue to sustain vegetation communities and wildlife habitat typical of the 

region, as characterized in SEIS Section 3.6. Land will continue to be used for livestock 

grazing. Grazing of existing vegetation, particularly the grassland communities, will continue. 

Wildlife within the proposed license area could be affected by ongoing grazing if species were 

displaced by cattle populations due to lack of forage and cover; however, there will be no 

impacts to ecological resources from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project under the 

No-Action alternative. 

4.7 Air Quality Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.6, potential environmental impacts to air quality could occur 

during all phases of the ISR facility lifecycle (NRC, 2009a). Nonradiological air emission 

impacts primarily involve fugitive road dust from vehicles traveling on unpaved roads and 

combustion engine emissions from vehicles and diesel equipment. In general, any 

nonradiological emissions from pipeline system venting, resin transfer, and elution will be 

expected to be at such low levels that they will be negligible Such emissions were not 

considered in the analysis. Radon could also be released from well system relief valves, resin 

transfer, or elution. Potential radiological air impacts, including radon release impacts, are 

addressed in the Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts analyses in SEIS 

Section 4.13. 

Factors NRC staff used in determining the magnitude of the potential impacts are described 

in GEIS Section 4.4.6 (NRC, 2009a) and include whether (i) the air quality of the site’s region of 

influence (ROI) is in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

(ii) the facility can be classified as a major source under the New Source Review or operating 

(Title V of the Clean Air Act) permit programs, and (iii) the presence of Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Class I areas within the region could be impacted by emissions from the 

proposed action. 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.6.1, fugitive dust and combustion (vehicle and 

diesel equipment) emissions during land-disturbing activities associated with construction 

will be expected to be short term and reduced through BMPs (e.g., wetting of roads and cleared 

land areas to reduce dust emissions). Estimated ISR-construction-phase fugitive dust annual 

concentrations used in the GEIS are expected to be well below the PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, 

particulate, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide concentration estimates used in the GEIS are 

expected to be below PSD Class II allowable increments (1 to 9 percent) and the stricter Class I 

increments (7 to 84 percent). NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that for NAAQS attainment 

areas, nonradiological impacts will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

GEIS Section 4.4.6.2 stated that operating ISR facilities are not major point source emitters and 

are not expected to be classified as major sources under the operation (Title V) permitting 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-115 

program. The GEIS states that the primary nonradiological emissions during operations include 

fugitive dust and combustion products from equipment, maintenance, transport trucks, and other 

vehicles. Additionally, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that any nonradiological emissions from 

pipeline system venting, resin transfer, and elution will be expected to be at such low levels that 

they will be negligible and were not considered in the analysis. For NAAQS attainment areas, 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that nonradiological air quality impacts will be SMALL. 

(NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.6.3, because the same infrastructure will be used during the 

aquifer restoration as during operations, air quality impacts from aquifer restoration will be 

similar to, or less than, those during operations. Additionally, fugitive dust and combustion 

emissions from vehicles and equipment during aquifer restoration will be similar to, or less than, 

the dust and combustion emissions during operations. For NAAQS attainment areas, NRC staff 

concluded in the GEIS that nonradiological air quality impacts will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.6.4, fugitive dust, vehicle emissions, and diesel emissions 

during land-disturbing activities from the decommissioning phase will come from many of the 

same sources as the construction phase. In the short term, emission levels are expected to 

increase given the activity (i.e., demolishing of process and administrative buildings, excavating 

and removing contaminated soils, and grading of disturbed areas). However, such emissions 

will be expected to decrease as decommissioning proceeds, and therefore, overall, impacts will 

be similar to, or less than, those associated with construction; will be short term; and will be 

reduced through BMPs (e.g., dust suppression). NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that for 

NAAQS attainment areas, nonradiological impacts will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Potential environmental impacts on air quality during construction, operations, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning phases of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

discussed in the following sections. The discussion also addresses the impacts on air quality 

during the peak year. The peak year accounts for the time when all four phases occur 

simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emissions the proposed action will 

generate in any 1 year. The applicant identifies 2 years when all four phases will occur 

simultaneously and 7 years when construction and operation phases will occur simultaneously 

(Powertech, 2012d). Appendix C describes nonradiological air emissions information for the 

proposed project including emission inventories and air dispersion modeling. 

4.7.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

As described in SEIS Section 3.7.2, the air quality of the Black Hills-Rapid City Intrastate 

Air Quality Control Region, where the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located, is 

designated as an attainment area for all NAAQS pollutants and is located in a Class II area for 

PSD designation. The nearest PSD Class I area, Wind Cave National Park, located about 

47 km [29 mi] northeast of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, is also located in this 

same air quality control region and is also classified as an attainment area. The attainment 

status of the air quality surrounding the proposed license area provides a measure of current air 

quality conditions and affects considerations for allowing new emission sources. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-116 

While NRC is responsible for assessing the potential environmental impacts from the proposed 

action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, NRC 

does not have the authority to develop or enforce regulations to control nonradiological air 

emissions from equipment licensees use. For the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, this 

authority rests with SDDENR. To ensure the air quality of South Dakota is adequately 

protected, in addition to addressing all NRC regulatory requirements for radiological emissions, 

NRC applicants and licensees must comply with all applicable state and federal air quality 

regulatory compliance and permitting requirements. 

The applicant submitted an air quality application to SDDENR in November, 2012 (see 

Table 1.6-1). Based on the information in the application, SDDENR determined that an air 

permit will not be required and the proposed project will not be subject to PSD requirements 

(SDDENR, 2013b). SDDENR’s review of the applicant’s air quality application included an 

assessment of potential greenhouse gas emissions relative to the 90,718 metric tons 

[100,000 short tons] standard identified in SEIS Section 3.7.2. This regulatory determination 

conducted by the SDDENR did not include mobile and fugitive sources as categorized in this 

SEIS (see Table 2.1-5). Since mobile and fugitive sources compose the majority of the project 

emissions, NRC staff determined that the SEIS analysis would include mobile and fugitive 

emission sources, as well as stationary sources. NRC staff will characterize the magnitude of 

air effluents from the proposed project throughout SEIS Section 4.7.1, in part, by comparing 

(i) the emission levels to PSD and Title V thresholds and (ii) the modeled concentrations to 

regulatory standards such as NAAQS. This characterization is meant to provide a context for 

understanding the magnitude of the proposed project’s air effluents, which are mostly from 

mobile and fugitive sources rather than stationary sources. The NRC analysis in this SEIS is for 

disclosure purposes and does not document or represent the formal SDDENR determination. 

This is an important distinction to remember when considering the analysis in this SEIS. 

The air impact analysis includes two types of modeling: AERMOD and CALPUFF. The 

AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict NAAQS and PSD pollutant concentrations and 

the CALPUFF model was used to generate Air Quality Related Values for Wind Cave National 

Park. The two types of modeling results and associated analyses will be discussed separately. 

Additional information concerning the Dewey-Burdock emission inventory, the modeling 

protocol, and the results for both the AERMOD and CALPUFF analyses is available in the 

Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact Analysis (IML, 2013a). 

The model options and approach for the air quality impact assessment selected by NRC staff in 

this EIS do not completely align with EPA’s guidelines on air quality models (40 CFR Part 51, 

Appendix W). Specifically, deviations from the regulatory default options are utilized. For 

example, the dry depletion option is used in the AERMOD analysis. The dry depletion option 

accounts for the partial settling and deposition of PM10 particles as the dust plume disperses 

away from the source. Similarly, the PM10 emission is not included in the CALPUFF analysis. 

NRC determined that it is appropriate to use dry depletion in the AERMOD analysis and exclude 

PM10 from the CALPUFF analysis for three main reasons. First, the nature of the project 

specific emission supports this decision (i.e., over 99 percent of the fugitive dust emissions are 

from ground-level emission sources where rapid deposition is expected). Second, 

modelingusing the regulatory default options can overestimate short-term PM10 impacts 

because the rapid deposition phenomenon is not adequately addressed. Third, EISs for 

coaland gas development in the western United States address PM10 emission in this same 

manner (TRC Environmental Corporation, 2006; Marquez Environmental Services, Inc., 2010). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-117 

SEIS Appendix C Section C.2.3 and Sections 3.2 and 3.9 of the Ambient Air Quality Final 

Modeling Protocol and Impact Analysis discuss these rationales in greater detail. 

The guideline in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W is used by EPA, States, and industry to prepare 

and review new source permits and State Implementation Plan revisions. This guideline 

recognizes the need to accommodate deviations from default conditions on a case-by-case 

basis to ensure accuracy. However, the guideline states that such deviations should be fully 

supported. Staff from EPA, SDDENR, and the Bureau of Land Management participated in the 

development of the protocol for this SEIS analysis. During the protocol development, EPA in 

particular expressed a strong preference for the SEIS impact analysis to rely on modeling that 

did not deviate from regulatory default options. For informational purposes only, at the end of 

impact assessment for each phase, NRC staff will present the impact analysis using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option as well as include the 

PM10 emission in the CALPUFF visibility analysis. However, The NRC staff based its impact 

analyses (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) in the SEIS on modeling that deviates from 

regulatory default options noting the reasons why the staff chose this option. 

Expressing the proposed project’s emissions in concentrations can help in characterizing the 

magnitude of the emission levels because thresholds, such as NAAQS and PSD increments, 

are also expressed in concentrations. The AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict 

pollutant concentrations at a total of 4,220 receptors that extend in all directions from the project 

site and fully encompass Wind Cave National Park, the nearest Class I area. Figures 4.7-1 and 

4.7-2 display the AERMOD receptor placement (i.e., locations where pollutant concentrations 

were estimated). The spacing between the receptors is not uniform across the model domain. 

In general, the receptor spacing is larger as the distance from proposed Dewey-Burdock site 

increases. The model domain includes fenceline, hot spot grid, intermediate grid, and coarse 

grid receptors. Fenceline receptors at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site boundary were placed 

at least every 100 m [109.4 yd] with a receptor placed at each boundary corner. For the hot 

spot grid, receptors were placed at 100-m [109.4-yd] spacing within a 500-m [546.8-yd] wide 

corridor along the western and southern portions of the project boundary and along the public 

road accessing the proposed site. The inclusion of the hot spot grid receptors is based on the 

initial modeling that predicts that high 24-hour PM10 values will be limited to this corridor. The 

modeling domain consists of two intermediate grids. For the first intermediate grid, receptors 

were placed at 500-meter [546.8-yard] spacing from the project fenceline outward to a distance 

of 5 km [3.11 mi] in all directions from the project center. For the second intermediate grid, 

receptors were placed at 1-km [0.62-mi] spacing from the outer edge of the first intermediate 

grid in all directions to a distance of 15 km [9.32 mi] from the project center. Figure 4.7-2 

displays the receptor placement of project fenceline, hot spot grid, and intermediate grids. The 

modeling domain consists of two coarse grids. For the first coarse grid, receptors were placed 

at 5-km spacing [3.11-mi] from the outer edge of the second intermediate grid outward in all 

directions to a distance of 35 km [21.7 mi] from the project center. For the second coarse grid, 

receptors were placed at 10-km [6.21-mi] spacing from the outer edge of the first coarse grid in 

all directions to a distance of 55 km [34.2 mi] from the project center. Figure 4.7-1 displays the 

receptor placement of the coarse grids as well as the second intermediate grid. In addition, 

44 fenceline receptors were placed at roughly uniform spacing around the Wind Cave National 

Park boundary. 

The modeling was conducted for the peak year emission inventory (see Table 2.1-5) 

and included stationary (see Table 2.1-1), mobile (see Table 2.1-2), and fugitive dust (see 

Table 2.1-3) sources. Although the modeling was conducted using one year of emission data 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-118 

Figure 4.7-1. Macroscale View of Locations Where National Ambient Air Quality 

 Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Air Pollutant 

 Estimates (Concentrations) Were Calculated Using the AERMOD 

 Dispersion Model 

 Source: Modified From IML (2013a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-119 

Figure 4.7-2. Microscale View of Locations Where National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Pollutant Estimates 

(Concentrations) Were Calculated Using the AERMOD Dispersion Model 

 Source: Modified From IML (2013a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-120 

(i.e., the peak year), the model uses three years of hourly meteorological data. EPA 

recommends that AERMOD be run with a minimum of three years of meteorological data (IML, 

2013a). Table 4.7-1 presents the AERMOD modeling results with respect to the NAAQS and 

Table 4.7-2 presents the results with respect to the PSD increments. The NAAQS and PSD 

thresholds are described in SEIS Section 3.7.2. As described in the notes for Table 4.7-1, the 

model results form for the NO2 annual and SO2 3 hour values are not the same as the NAAQS 

form. The form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, 98th percentile, etc.) and 

the time period (e.g., once per year, over one year, over 3 years, etc.) associated with a value. 

As described in the notes for Table 4.7-2, none of the model results forms are the same as the 

PSD increments forms. The lack of continuity between the model results form and the NAAQS 

and PSD increment forms, as well as the values used to represent project level concentrations, 

is addressed in SEIS Appendix C, Section C2.3.1. Additional information concerning the 

emission inventory, AERMOD modeling protocol, and results is available in the Ambient Air 

Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact Analysis (IML, 2013a). 

Protection of Class I air quality is not limited to consideration of PSD Class I increments. As 

described in SEIS Section 3.7.2, the Air Quality Related Values of visibility and acid deposition 

are also used to characterize the air quality at Class I areas. Evaluation of the impacts on the 

Air Quality Related Values at Wind Cave National Park was conducted using the CALPUFF 

model. Figure 4.7-3 identifies the CALPUFF modeling domain. In order to adequately 

characterize the Air Quality Related Values impacts to Wind Cave National Park, the modeling 

domain extended 100 km [62 mi] in all directions from the proposed project area, which includes 

a 50-km [31-mi] buffer around the Class I area to provide meteorological model continuity. 

Although the modeling domain is large, the 192 model receptors are located only within the 

Wind Cave National Park itself as shown in Figure 4.7-4. The CALPUFF modeling was 

conducted for the peak year emission inventory (see Table 2.1-5) and included stationary (see 

Table 2.1-1), mobile (see Table 2.1-2), and fugitive dust (see Table 2.1-3) sources. 

Although the modeling was conducted using one year of emission data (i.e., the peak year), the 

model uses three years of hourly meteorological data. Modeled emission sources and emission 

rates are identical to those used in the AERMOD modeling. The visibility impacts are modeled 

Table 4.7-1. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates (i.e., AERMOD Modeling Results) From 

 Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year* Compared to the National 

 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Modeling 

Results Form† 

Modeling 

Results 

(ug/m3) 

Background 

Concentration 

(ug/m3) 

Total 

Concentration 

(ug/m3) 

NAAQS 

Limit 

(ug/m3) 

% of 

NAAQS 

Limit 

Carbon 

Monoxide 

1 hour Not to be 

exceeded more 

than once per 

year 

2101.1 1097.3 3198.4 40000 8.0 

8 hour Not to be 

exceeded more 

than once per 

year 

262.6 315.5 578.1 10000 5.8 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

1 hour 98th percentile, 

averaged over 

3 years 

156.9 5.6 162.5 187 86.9 

Annual Annual mean‡ 3.3 0.4 3.7 100 3.7 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM2.5

24 hour 98th percentile, 

averaged over 

3 years 

6.9 10.9 17.8 35 50.9 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-121 

Table 4.7-1. Nonradiological Concentration Estimates (i.e., AERMOD Modeling Results) From 

 Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the Peak Year* Compared to the National 

 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Cont’d) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Modeling 

Results Form† 

Modeling 

Results 

(ug/m3) 

Background 

Concentration 

(ug/m3) 

Total 

Concentration 

(ug/m3) 

NAAQS 

Limit 

(ug/m3) 

% of 

NAAQS 

Limit 

 Annual Annual mean, 

averaged over 

3 years 

1.0 4.8 5.8 12§ 48.3 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10

Initial 

Run║

24 hour Not to be 

exceeded more 

than once per 

year on average 

over 3 years 

187.2 41.0 228.2 150 152.1 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10 Final 

Run¶ 

24 hour Not to be 

exceeded more 

than once per 

year on average 

over 3 years 

83.6 41.0 124.6 150 83.1 

Sulfur 

Dioxide 

1 hour 99th percentile 

of 1-hour daily 

maximum 

concentrations 

48.3 15.7 63.9 200 31.9 

 3 hour Not to be 

exceeded more 

than once per 

year# 

100.1 20.9 121.0 1300 9.3 

Source: Modified from IML (2013a) and Powertech (2013c) 

*Peak year accounts for when all four phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emission. 

†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 3 years) associated with the numerical value. Unless otherwise noted, the modeling results form and the NAAQS form are 

the same. 

‡Initial modeling form (maximum annual average over a three year period) is not the same as the NAAQS form (maximum annual average 

over a single year). The value in this table has a form that matches the NAAQS form and was calculated from the initial model result as 

described in Appendix C Section C2.3. 

§The table identifies the primary standard limit. The secondary standard limit is larger (i.e., 15 μg/m3

). Results that meet the primary 

standard will automatically meet the secondary standard. 

║Initial modeling run without dry depletion for all receptor locations. 

¶Final modeling run with dry depletion for the top 50 receptor locations. 

#The model result form (the highest value over any single calendar year) is not the same as the prevention of significant deterioration 

increment form (not to be exceeded more than once per year). The value in this table has a form that matches the NAAQS form and was 

calculated from the initial model result as described in Appendix C, Section C2.3. 

under two scenarios. The first scenario includes the coarse particulate matter (i.e., PM10) when 

computing the results and the second scenario excludes the PM10 from the computation. 

Project emission of fine particulate matter (i.e., PM2.5) is included in both scenarios. The reason 

for the second scenario is to account for the settling and deposition of heavier particles as the 

dust plume dissipates from the source. NRC staff will base the impact analyses in this SEIS on 

the second scenario, which excludes the PM10 emissions from the computation. The rationale 

for the exclusion of the PM10 emissions from the computation is presented in Appendix C 

Section C2.3.1. For information purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analysis for 

the first scenario, which includes the PM10 emissions in the analysis. The acid deposition 

impacts are modeled under one scenario using the complete emission inventory. Acid 

deposition impacts are modeled as the deposition of a variety of compounds containing nitrogen 

and sulfur. The sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from the proposed project 

constitute the potential sources of acid deposition. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-122 

Table 4.7-2. Nonradiological Concentration Values From Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the 

Peak Year* Compared to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

PSD 

Increment 

Form† 

Class I Class II

Value‡ 

(μg/m3

) 

Increment 

(μg/m3) 

Percentage

of PSD 

Increment 

Value‡ 

(μg/m3) 

PSD 

Increment 

(μg/m3) 

Percentage

of PSD 

Increment 

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

Annual Not to be 

exceeded 

during the 

year at any 

one location 

0.03 2.5 1.2 3.3 25 13.2 

Particulate 

Matter PM2.5

24 hour Not to be 

exceeded 

more than 

once per 

year at any 

one location 

0.45 2 22.5 7.9 9 87.8 

Annual Not to be 

exceeded 

during the 

year at any 

one location 

0.03 1 3.0 3 4 75 

Particulate 

Matter PM10 

Initial Run§ 

24 hour Not to be 

exceeded 

more than 

once per 

year at any 

one location 

8 8 100 187.2 30 624 

Annual Not to be 

exceeded 

during the 

year at any 

one location 

0.15 4 3.7 9.22 17 54.1 

Particulate 

Matter PM10 

Final Run║

24 hour Not to be 

exceeded 

more than 

once per 

year at any 

one location 

3.6 8 45 83.126 30 279 

Annual Not to be 

exceeded 

during the 

year at any 

one location 

0.15 4 3.7 6.1 17 35.9 

Sulfur Dioxide 3 hour Not to be 

exceeded 

more than 

once per 

year at any 

one location 

1.64 25 6.6 100.1 512 19.5 

24 hour Not to be 

exceeded 

more than 

once per 

year at any 

one location 

0.25 5 5 12.6 91 13.8 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-123 

Table 4.7-2. Nonradiological Concentration Values From Stationary, Mobile, and Fugitive Sources for the 

Peak Year* Compared to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments (Cont’d) 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

PSD 

Increment 

Form† 

Class I Class II

Value‡ 

(μg/m3

) 

Increment 

(μg/m3) 

Percentage

of PSD 

Increment 

Value‡ 

(μg/m3) 

PSD 

Increment 

(μg/m3) 

Percentage

of PSD 

Increment 

 Annual Not to be 

exceeded 

during the 

year at any 

one location 

0.00 2 0 0.6 20 3 

Source: Modified from IML (2013a and b) and Powertech (2013c) 

*Year accounts for when all four phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emission the proposed 

action would generate in any one project year 

†Form expresses both the statistic (e.g., maximum, average, 98th percentile, etc) and the time period (e.g., once per year, over 

1 year, over 3 years, etc.) associated with the numerical value. 

‡None of the forms for the modeling results (see Table C-10) are the same as the PSD increment forms. Values were 

generated as described in Appendix C, Section C2.3.1 to create numbers appropriate to comparison to PSD increments. 

§Initial run without dry depletion for all receptor locations. 

║Final run with dry depletion for the top 50 receptor locations. 

Table 4.7-3 presents the visibility analysis results and Table 4.7-4 presents the acid deposition 

analysis results. NRC staff considers comparing project emission levels to thresholds useful for 

characterizing the magnitude of the potential impacts. Both tables compare the project 

specific results to appropriate thresholds. The visibility analysis in Table 4.7-3 specifies a 

threshold parameter identified by EPA, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and FWS. This threshold 

indicates that a visibility impact on a Class I area is considered significant when the source's 

contribution to visibility impairment, modeled as the 98th percentile of the daily (i.e., 24-hour), 

results in changes in deciviews that are equal to or greater than the contribution threshold of 

0.5 deciviews (IML, 2013a). Expressed in another way, a source can be reasonably anticipated 

to cause or contribute to visibility impairment if the 98th percentile change in light extinction 

(i.e., the scattering of light) is greater than 0.5 deciviews. 

Two different thresholds are presented in Table 4.7-4 for comparison to the project acid 

deposition results. The first threshold is a concern threshold, also called the Deposition 

Analysis Threshold, established by USFS. Below this threshold, deposition impacts from a 

source are considered negligible (IML, 2013a). The second threshold is the estimated critical 

loads for Wind Cave National Park. The term critical load describes the threshold of air pollution 

deposition below which significant harmful effects on sensitive resources in an ecosystem are 

not expected to occur. The critical load threshold is an emerging guideline to help in the 

protection of Class I areas. Table 4.7-4 also presents the measured deposition rates at Wind 

Cave National Park. Additional information concerning these thresholds is available in the 

Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact Analysis (IML, 2013a). 

The NRC staff conclude that the site-specific conditions at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project are not bounded by those described in the GEIS for air quality. The estimated emission 

levels and associated pollutant concentrations for the proposed project described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.1.1 are greater than those cited in GEIS Table 2.7-2 (NRC, 2009a). The 

pollutant with the highest emission level for the proposed action is particulate matter PM10 with 

most being generated in the construction phase (see Table 2.1-3). The GEIS estimates that the 

construction phase an ISR facility generates an annual fugitive dust concentration of 0.28 μg/m3

based on a 10.0 metric ton emission level (NRC, 2009a). This estimate did not categorize the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-124 

Figure 4.7-3. View of Dewey-Burdock Air Quality Related Values Analysis Domain for the 

CALPUFF Analysis 

 Source: Modified From IML (2013a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-125 

Figure 4.7-4. Locations Where Air Quality Related Values Were Calculated Using the 

 CALPUFF Dispersion Model 

 Source: Modified From IML (2013a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-126 

Table 4.7-3. Visibility Modeling Results for the Peak Year* at Wind Cave National Park 

Scenario Statistic 

Modeled 

3-Year 

Result 

Contribution 

Threshold 

Modeled Results 

2009 2010 2011 

Modeled 

with 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10

98th percentile 

∆dv† 

0.35 0.50 0.33 0.31 0.40 

Number of days > 

0.5 ∆dv 

11 NA‡ 3 4 4 

Number of days > 

1 ∆dv 

0 NA 0 0 0 

Maximum ∆dv 0.83 NA 0.55 0.83 0.58 

Modeled 

without 

Particulate 

Matter 

PM10

98th percentile 

∆dv note1 

0.11 0.50 0.10 0.11 0.12 

Number of days > 

0.5 ∆dv 

0 NA 0 0 0 

Number of days > 

1 ∆dv 

0 NA 0 0 0 

Maximum ∆dv 0.20 NA 0.15 0.20 0.15 

Source: IML (2013a) 

*Peak year accounts for when all four phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emission 

the proposed action will generate in any one project year. 

†∆dv = change in deciviews 

‡NA = not applicable 

Table 4.7-4. Total (Wet and Dry) Acid Deposition Modeling Results for the Peak Year* at 

Wind Cave National Park 

Parameter 

Sulfur 

(kg/ha/yr)† 

Nitrogen 

(kg/ha/yr) 

Sulfur and 

Nitrogen 

(kg/ha/yr) 

Modeled Results 

(3-Year Average) 

0.0010 0.0016 0.0026 

Concern Threshold (annual) 0.005 0.005 0.010 

Wind Cave Nation Park 

Measurements 

2009 1.00 2.72 3.72 

2010 1.16 3.56 4.72 

2011 0.90 2.87 3.77 

3-year 

average 

1.02 3.05 4.07 

Estimated Critical Load (Annual) 12 5 17 

Source: IML (2013a). 

*Peak year accounts for when all four phases occur simultaneously and represents the highest amount of emission 

the proposed action will generate in any one project year. 

†Units only expressed in metric form. 

particulates as PM10 or PM2.5. This SEIS estimates that the construction phase of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock project generates an annual PM10 concentration of 2.4 μg/m3

 based on a 

172 metric ton [190 short ton] emission level and an annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.41 μg/m3

based on a 18.8 metric ton [20.7 short ton] emission level (see Tables 2.1-5, C–9, and C–10). 

The environmental impacts on air quality for each of the liquid waste disposal options the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-127 

applicant proposed (i.e., deep well disposal via Class V injection wells, land application, or 

combined deep well disposal and land application) are discussed in the following sections. 

4.7.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

wastes is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. Potential environmental impacts on air 

quality from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated with 

the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

discussed in the following sections. 

4.7.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

To help characterize the magnitude of the proposed project’s air effluents, the emission levels 

are compared to regulatory thresholds, such as the New Source Review program threshold for 

classification as a major source. The estimated emission levels of NAAQS pollutants for 

stationary sources for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project listed in Table 2.1-1 are well 

below the New Source Review program threshold of 227 metric tons [250 short tons] for 

classification as a major source as described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.1.1. The pollutant with 

the highest stationary source emission level is NOx at 1.54 metric tons [1.70 short tons]. For 

the construction phase, all of the estimated annual emission levels of nonradiological 

pollutants from all sources (i.e., stationary, mobile, and fugitive) were lower than the New 

Source Review threshold (see Table C–11). The pollutant with the highest emission level is 

PM10 at 172.2 metric tons [189.8 short tons] (see Table 2.1-3). However, for the peak year, 

the one pollutant emission level that exceeds the New Source Review threshold is PM10 at 

419.0 metric tons [461.9 short tons] (see Table 2.1-5). 

Air emission during the construction phase of the proposed project will consist primarily of 

combustion emissions and fugitive road dust. The construction phase generates the highest 

levels of fugitive dust relative to the other phases (see Table 2.1-3). Travel on unpaved roads 

generates about 84 percent of the PM10 emission levels with wind erosion accounting for the 

remaining 16 percent (see Table 2.1-3). For the mobile combustion emissions, the construction 

phase generates the highest levels of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide 

when compared with the other three phases (see Table 2.1-2). For the construction phase 

combustion emissions, the NAAQS pollutants with the highest emission levels are NOx and CO 

(see Table 2.1-2). 

The total pollutant concentrations (i.e., the modeling results for the project emissions when 

added to the background concentration levels) for the initial modeling run reveal that the peak 

year pollutant concentrations are below the NAAQS, except for the PM10 24-hour estimate (see 

Table 4.7-1). These concentrations include the stationary sources from Table 2.1-1, the mobile 

sources from Table 2.1-2, and the fugitive sources from Table 2.1-3. All 50 receptor locations 

where the PM10 24-hour total pollutant concentration exceeded the NAAQS occur within 

500 meters [546.8 yards] of the Dewey-Burdock project boundary and the public road over 

which commuter traffic accesses the site (IML, 2013a). In fact the receptors with the ten highest 

PM10 24-hour concentrations occur along the public road rather than the project boundary (IML, 

2013a). Fugitive dust sources account for 99.1 percent of the peak year PM10 emissions for all 

sources (see Table C–8). For the construction phase, travel on unpaved roads accounts for 

84 percent of the PM10 emissions (see Table 2.1-3). This indicates that travel on the unpaved 

roads is a key source for the fugitive dust estimates. The fact that the exceedences occur for 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-128 

the 24-hour standard and not the annual standard indicates that potential impacts are 

associated with the short-term time frame. 

The initial modeling run for PM10 was conducted without implementing the dry depletion option. 

The AERMOD dry depletion option accounts for the partial settling and deposition of PM10

particles as the dust plume disperses away from the source. In simple terms, heavier particles 

tend to fall out of the air sooner than lighter particles. A more detailed explanation of dry 

depletion and the rationale for its use in this SEIS is presented in Appendix C Section C2.3.1. 

NRC staff will base the impact analyses (i.e. SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) in this SEIS on 

the PM10 modeling results that implement the dry depletion option (i.e., the final modeling run). 

For information purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analysis for the results that do 

not implement the dry depletion option (i.e., the initial modeling run). However, the impact 

assessment in this SEIS will not be based on the PM10 estimates generated in the initial 

modeling run. Implementation of the dry depletion option for the final modeling results only 

changes the PM10 estimates. Put another way, the initial modeling results provide the estimates 

used in the SEIS for all of the pollutants other than PM10. When the modeling implements the 

dry depletion option, the peak year total concentration for the PM10 24-hour estimate is below 

the NAAQS (i.e., 83.1 percent) and the estimated peak year total concentrations for all of the 

pollutants are below the NAAQS ranging between 3.7 and 86.9 percent of the applicable 

threshold (see Table 4.7.1). As described in Table C–11, the construction phase contribution to 

the peak year emissions varies between 40.5 and 70.8 percent depending on the particular 

pollutant. For the construction phase, the total pollutant concentrations for the initial modeling 

run (i.e. without implementing dry depletion) are below the NAAQS ranging between 2.4 and 

78.6 percent of the applicable standard (see Table C–12). This includes the PM10 24-hour 

estimate which drops from 78.6 percent of the NAAQS to 50.2 percent when dry depletion is 

implemented (see Table C–12). 

 

While the NAAQS primarily relate to an area’s attainment classification (see SEIS 

Section 3.7.2), the PSD increments relate to pollution levels made by individual projects. The 

modeling domain for this project included both Class I areas (i.e., Wind Cave National Park) and 

Class II areas (i.e., all other areas within the domain). Wind Cave National Park is located 

about 46.7 km [29.0 mi] northeast of the proposed project area, and the predominant wind 

direction is from the northwest (see Figure 3.7-1). The Class II analysis will be addressed first 

followed by the Class I analysis. 

For the peak year, the estimated PM10 24-hour project level concentration is above the 

allowable PSD Class II increment for both the initial and final modeling runs (see Table 4.7-2). 

The estimated project level PM10 24-hour concentration for the final model run is almost three 

times the PSD Class II increment and the initial modeling result is over six times the PSD Class 

II increment. The estimated project level concentrations for all of the other pollutants are below 

the PSD Class II increments ranging between 3 and 87.8 percent of the applicable threshold 

(see Table 4.7-2). As described in Table C-11, the construction phase contribution to the peak 

year emissions varies between 40.5 and 70.8 percent depending on the particular pollutant. For 

the construction phase, the estimated PM10 24-hour project level concentrations for the final 

modeling run (34.4 μg/m3

) and initial modeling run (76.9 μg/m3) are both above the allowable 

PSD Class II increment of 30 μg/m3

. For all of the other pollutants, the estimated project level 

concentrations for the construction phase are below the applicable PSD Class II increments. 

For the peak year, none of the estimated project level concentrations exceed the allowable 

Class I PSD increments (see Table 4.7-2). For the final modeling run, the project level 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-129 

concentration estimates range between zero and 45 percent of the applicable threshold. If the 

initial modeling run is considered, this range increases to 100 percent due to the PM10 24-hour 

project level concentrations. As described in Table C–11, the construction phase contribution to 

the peak year emissions varies between 40.5 and 70.8 percent depending on the particular 

pollutant. For the construction phase, all of the estimated project level concentrations are below 

the applicable PSD Class I thresholds. 

 

NRC staff consideration of the Air Quality Related Values begins with the peak year analysis for 

the visibility. Table 4.7-3 presents the visibility analysis results both with and without PM10

included in the emission inventory. For the modeled results without the PM10 included, the 

98th percentile of the annual, 24-hour average change in deciviews is less than the contribution 

threshold for both the 3-year average as well as for each individual year. There are no days 

during the 3-year model period with a change in light extinction exceeding 0.5 deciviews. For 

the modeled results with the PM10 included, the 98th percentile of the annual, 24-hour average 

change in deciviews is also less than the contribution threshold for both the three-year average, 

as well as for each individual year. However, there are eleven days during the 3-year model 

period with a change in light extinction exceeding 0.5 deciviews. Visibility impacts are not 

generated for the individual project phases. The analyses with and without PM10 both reveal 

that the annual peak year results are below the threshold. The individual phase results, as a 

fraction of the peak year results, are also below the threshold. In addition, the visibility result is 

a value computed from several pollutants with varying contributions rather than just a single 

pollutant. This complicates any attempt to generate phase specific contribution values. 

Table 4.7-4 presents the total (i.e., wet and dry) acid deposition peak year results for the Wind 

Cave National Park. The modeled results for the 3-year average are below the concern 

threshold. This will remain true even if all of the modeled emissions occur in a single year. The 

modeled results when combined with the measured 3-year average at Wind Cave National Park 

are below the estimated critical load. This will remain true if the modeled results are combined 

with any of the single year measured averages. Acid deposition impacts are not generated for 

the individual project phases. The annual peak year results are below the threshold. The 

individual phase results, as a fraction of the peak year results, will also be below the threshold. 

 

The air emission inventory used in this SEIS incorporates the following mitigation measures the 

applicant committed to implement (IML, 2013a and Powertech, 2012d): 

• Lowering the drill rig engine horsepower from 550 horsepower to 300 horsepower, 

except for the deep well drill rig. 

• Using Tier 1, or higher, drill rig engines and Tier 3, or higher, construction 

equipment engines. 

• Car pooling. 

• Water suppression for unpaved roads. 

The various tiers refer to a phased program of federal standards that requires newly 

manufactured engines to generate lower pollutant emission levels. Higher tier numbers 

correlate with stricter emission standards and lower pollutant levels. Section C2.1 describes 

how changes in engines used are incorporated into the calculation of the revised emissions 

inventory. Table C–5 describes the effectiveness (i.e., the percentage of emissions reduction) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-130 

of the different tier levels based on the associated emission factors. The applicant committed to 

implement carpooling. Reducing the number of vehicles commuters use results in fewer 

emissions and lower pollutant levels. Table C–6 described the effectiveness (i.e., the percent 

that the emissions are reduced) of the carpooling implemented by the applicant. A 60 percent 

reduction in the fugitive dust emissions associated with travel on unpaved roads within the 

proposed project boundary is incorporated into the inventory. The watering frequency of more 

than twice per hour is the basis for using the 60 percent control efficiency. Appendix D of the 

Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact Analysis (IML, 2013a) provides 

additional details for the project specific watering control of fugitive dust and the 60 percent 

control efficiency basis. No reduction in the fugitive dust emission associated with travel on the 

unpaved road outside of the project boundary is incorporated into the emission inventory. The 

applicant identified other mitigation measures it will implement (see Table 6.2-1); however, 

these other measures are not incorporated in the calculation of the revised emissions inventory. 

In addition, the applicant has proposed the following mitigation measures to further reduce and 

control air emissions (IML, 2013a and Powertech, 2009a): 

• Implement standard dust control measures such as speed limits. 

• Coordinate dust-producing activities to reduce maximum dust levels. 

• Maintain vehicles to meet applicable EPA emission standards. 

• Restore and reseed disturbed areas. 

• Assist Fall River County in the maintenance and application of dust suppressant on the 

unpaved road beyond the project boundary. 

All phases of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will produce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Table 2.1-6 presents the carbon dioxide emission estimates for the proposed action for each of 

the four phases and for the various source categories. The only greenhouse gas included in the 

emission estimates is carbon dioxide. NRC staff consider the exclusion of other greenhouse 

gases from the inventory acceptable because carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas 

emitted by the proposed action (IML, 2013a) and the analysis in this SEIS is for disclosure 

purposes rather than a formal regulatory determination. SEIS Appendix C Section C3 contains 

additional information on the greenhouse gas emission estimates presented in Table 2.1-6. The 

estimated carbon dioxide emission level for the stationary sources is lower than the current EPA 

permitting threshold, as described in SEIS Section 3.7.2. In fact, both the peak year and 

construction phase emissions levels for all of the sources (i.e., facility, mobile, and electric 

consumption) are below this threshold. For comparison, the annual estimated greenhouse gas 

emissions for the peak year from all sources is 38,621 metric tons [42,572 short tons], which is 

a small fraction of those produced annually in South Dakota {36.5 million metric tons 

[40.2 million short tons] of gross CO2e emissions} (Center for Climate Strategies, 2007). NRC 

staff conclusions concerning potential greenhouse gas impacts are addressed in SEIS Section 

5.7 on air quality cumulative effects. 

 

As described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, NRC staff will base the impact analyses (i.e. SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE) in this SEIS using the PM10 modeling results that implement the 

AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the final modeling run) and exclude the PM10 emissions 

from the CALPUFF visibility analysis. The proposed action’s dispersion modeling results that 

address fugitive dust emissions as well as emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-131 

stationary and mobile sources indicate that pollution concentration levels within the modeling 

domain are generally low. Pollutant concentrations for both the peak year and construction 

phase only pollutant concentrations are below the NAAQS. All the estimated project level 

concentrations for both the peak year and construction phase are below the PSD Class II 

increments, except for the 24-hour PM10 values. As described in SEIS Section 4.7.1, the 

SDDENR formally determined that the project will not be subject to PSD requirements. 

Therefore, for this analysis, NRC staff consider comparison of project level pollutant 

concentrations to PSD increments for disclosure purposes (e.g., indicating the type of project 

level emission the analysis should focus on for potential environmental impacts) rather than a 

regulatory concern. For both the peak year and construction phase only, all of the estimated 

project level concentrations are below the PSD Class I increments. Due to the level (i.e., above 

PSD Class II increments) and nature of these fugitive PM10 emissions, there is a potential for 

noticeable localized dust emissions for only the peak year and construction phase. Short-term, 

intermittent impacts are possible to the area in and around the site, particularly when vehicles 

travel on unpaved roads. At times, the fugitive emissions will result in a MODERATE impact on 

air quality for the peak year and construction phase. For the visibility analyses, the annual 

modeled peak year results are below the contribution threshold. In fact, there are no individual 

days over the three year period modeling period with a change in light extinction exceeding 

0.5 deciviews. For the acid deposition results, the peak year results are below the contribution 

threshold. The modeled results when combined with the measured results at the Wind Cave 

National Park are below the estimated critical load. The individual phase results, as a fraction of 

the peak year results will be below the visibility and acid deposition thresholds. Due to the level 

of the visibility and acid deposition results relative to the applicable thresholds, NRC staff 

conclude that that the peak year and construction phase project emission will result in a SMALL 

impact on air quality. 

The NRC staff conclude that the overall impact to air quality during the construction phase for 

the Class V injection well disposal option will range from SMALL to MODERATE. The NRC 

staff reiterate that the peak year represents the greatest project impacts and conclude that the 

peak year impact will range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

For information purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and include the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF analysis. The tables and 

discussion in the SEIS text already include the information for the initial AERMOD modeling 

results and inclusion of the PM10 emission in the CALPUFF visibility analysis. This discussion 

will focus on distinctions between the two analyses (i.e., the analysis NRC is using to determine 

the impact magnitude for this SEIS and the analysis the NRC is presenting for informational 

purposes only) that could result in a different impact magnitude conclusion. 

There is an important distinction between the initial and final AERMOD modeling runs in terms 

of the results relative to the NAAQS. For the peak year, the total pollutant concentrations for the 

initial modeling run reveal that the concentrations for each of the NAAQS pollutants are below 

the NAAQS except for the PM10 24-hour estimate (see Table 4.7-1). Implementation of the dry 

depletion option for the peak year total concentrations results in this value being below the 

standard. The NRC will characterize the initial modeling run results for the peak year 

concentrations as a LARGE impact, if mitigating measures are not incorporated by the 

applicant. One factor or measure that could reduce concentrations is the incorporation of 

mitigation into the emission inventory calculation such as water suppression for travel on 

unpaved roads beyond the boundary of the proposed project. Other factors that can be 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-132 

considered are the implementation of particulate monitoring and an associated contingency plan 

that identifies steps that will be undertaken, if the monitoring shows that fugitive dust is an issue. 

In the Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact Analysis, the applicant expressed 

willingness to perform air monitoring. During interactions with the NRC, EPA staff 

recommended the development of a contingency plan associated with such monitoring. 

However, NRC staff will not require additional measures be undertaken by the applicant 

because the impact analyses based on the modeling results implementing the deviations from 

the default conditions correctly estimate the impact magnitude. NRC suggests that the applicant 

coordinate with appropriate entities, such as Fall River County, for mitigation to the unpaved 

public road outside the proposed project boundary, or the SDDENR and EPA for fugitive dust 

monitoring and associated contingency plans. 

Although there is a distinction between the initial and final AERMOD modeling runs for the peak 

year analysis, this is not an issue for the construction phase analysis because both the initial 

and final modeling PM10 24-hour results are below the NAAQS. NRC staff acknowledge that, 

for the visibility analysis that includes PM10, there are eleven days during the three-year 

modeling period where the change in light extinction exceeds 0.5 deciviews. NRC staff further 

acknowledge that some may consider a statistic other than the 98th percentile (e.g., the 

maximum change in deciviews or the number of day greater than a 0.5 change in deciviews) the 

appropriate value to determine the impact magnitude. However, NRC staff considers the 

98th percentile statistic as an appropriate basis for determining the impact magnitude. As a 

result, there is no difference in impact magnitude between the analyses with and without PM10. 

4.7.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

The estimated emission levels of NAAQS pollutants for stationary sources for the proposed 

action listed in Table 2.1-1 are well below the Title V or operating permit threshold of 90.7 metric 

tons [100 short tons] for classification as a major source in an attainment area as described in 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.1.1. The pollutant with the highest stationary source emission level is 

NOx at 1.54 meteric tons [1.70 short tons]. For the operation phase, all of the estimated annual 

emission levels of nonradiological pollutants from all sources were lower than the operating 

permit threshold, except for PM10 at 138.3 metric tons [152.4 short tons] (see Table 2.1-3 and 

Table C–11). For the peak year, the only pollutant emission level that exceeds the operating 

permit threshold is PM10 at 419.0 metric tons [461.9 short tons] (see Table 2.1-5). 

Air emissions during the operation phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

consist primarily of combustion emissions and fugitive road dust. Travel on unpaved roads 

generates about 81 percent of the PM10 emission levels with wind erosion accounting for the 

remaining 19 percent (see Table 2.1-3). For the operations phase combustion emissions, the 

NAAQS pollutants with the highest emission levels are NOX and CO (see Table 2.1-2). The 

construction phase analysis in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1 discusses the inclusion of mitigation in 

the calculation of the emissions inventory and the effectiveness of this mitigation. This 

information also applies to the operation phase impact analysis. In addition, the applicant 

has proposed other mitigation measures to further reduce and control air emissions (see 

Table6.2-1). 

 

The discussion of the peak year project level emissions compared to the NAAQS, Class II PSD 

increments, and Class I PSD increments presented in the construction phase analysis in SEIS 

Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. As described in Table C–11, the operation phase 

contribution to the peak year emissions varies between 15.8 and 33.0 percent depending on the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-133 

particular pollutant. For the operation phase, the total pollutant concentrations for the initial 

modeling run are below the NAAQS ranging between 1.1 and 68.5 percent of the applicable 

standard (see Table C–13). This includes the PM10 24-hour estimate, which drops from 

68.5 percent of the NAAQS to 45.7 percent when dry depletion is implemented (see 

Table C–13). The estimated operation phase PM10 24-hour project level concentration for the 

final modeling run (27.6 μg/m3

) is below the allowable PSD Class II increment, while the initial 

modeling run value (61.8 μg/m3

) remains above this threshold. For all of the other pollutants, 

the estimated project level concentrations for the operations phase are below the applicable 

PSD Class II increments. For the peak year, none of the estimated projected level 

concentrations for both the initial and final modeling run exceed the applicable Class I PSD 

increment (see Table 4.7-2). The estimated projected level concentrations for the operation 

phase, as a fraction of the peak year results, are also below the PSD Class I increments. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1, Air Quality Related Value impacts are not generated for 

the individual project phases. Instead, the impacts are based on the peak year values. The 

analysis presented here is a summary of the analysis presented in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1. For 

the visibility analysis, the modeled peak year results with and without the PM10 included are both 

below the contribution threshold. With the PM10 emissions included there are eleven days over 

the three-year period with a change in light extinction that exceeds 0.5 deciviews. The acid 

deposition peak year results were below the applicable thresholds. The operation phase 

results, as a fraction of the peak year results, will also be below the applicable visibility and acid 

deposition thresholds. 

The operations phase generates the most overall carbon dioxide emissions relative to the other 

three phases. Table 2.1-6 presents the carbon dioxide emission estimates for the proposed 

action for each of the phases and for the various source categories. The annual estimated 

carbon dioxide emission for the operation phase from all sources (i.e., facility, mobile, and 

electrical consumption) were 25,466 metric tons [28,072 short tons]. Stationary sources 

accounted for less than 6 percent of the overall carbon dioxide emissions (Table 2.1-6). These 

estimated levels of carbon dioxide gas emissions are lower than the current EPA permitting 

threshold as described in SEIS Section 3.7.2. NRC staff conclusions concerning potential 

greenhouse gas impacts are addressed in SEIS Section 5.7 on air quality cumulative effects. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, NRC staff will base the impact analyses (i.e. SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE) in this SEIS using the PM10 modeling results that implement the 

AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the final modeling run) and excluding the PM10 emissions 

from the CALPUFF analysis. The discussion of the peak year project level impact magnitude 

presented in the construction phase analysis in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. The 

discussion here will focus on the operation phase impact magnitude. The proposed action’s 

dispersion modeling results, that address fugitive dust emissions as well as emissions from the 

burning of fossil fuels for the stationary and mobile sources associated with the operation 

phase, indicate that pollution concentration levels within the modeling domain are generally low. 

For the final modeling run, the operation phase pollutant concentrations are below the 

applicable NAAQS, Class II PSD increments, and Class I PSD increments. Due to the level of 

the operation phase pollutant concentrations, NRC staff conclude that the pollutant 

concentrations when compared to applicable NAAQS and PSD increments will result in a 

SMALL impact on air quality. For the visibility analyses, the annual modeled peak year results 

are below the contribution threshold. There are no individual days over the three year period 

modeling period with a change in light extinction exceeding 0.5 deciviews. For the acid 

deposition results, the peak year results are below the contribution threshold. The modeled 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-134 

results when combined with the measured results at the Wind Cave National Park are below the 

estimated critical load. The individual phase results, as a fraction of the peak year results, will 

be below the visibility and acid deposition thresholds. Due to the level of the visibility and acid 

deposition results relative to the applicable thresholds, NRC staff conclude that that operation 

phase project emissions will result in a SMALL impact on air quality. 

The NRC staff conclude that the overall impact to air quality during the operation phase for the 

Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. The NRC staff reiterate that the peak year 

represents the greatest project impacts and, as described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1, conclude 

that the peak year impact will range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

For information purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and include the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF analysis. The tables and 

discussion in the SEIS text already include the information for the initial AERMOD modeling 

results and inclusion of the PM10 emission in the CALPUFF visibility analysis. This discussion 

will focus on distinctions between the two analyses (i.e., the analysis NRC is using to determine 

the impact magnitude for this SEIS and the analysis the NRC is presenting for informational 

purposes only) that could result in a different impact magnitude conclusion. The discussion of 

the peak year project level impact magnitude presented in the construction phase analysis in 

SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. Without additional consideration (e.g., incorporation 

of additional mitigation into the emission inventory), NRC will characterize the initial modeling 

run results for the peak year concentrations as a LARGE impact. 

When considering the operation phase, there is an important distinction between the initial and 

final AERMOD modeling runs in terms of the results relative to the Class II PSD increments. 

The estimated PM10 24-hour project level concentrations for the final modeling run is below the 

allowable PSD Class II increment, while the estimated PM10 24-hour project level concentration 

for the initial modeling run value is above this threshold. For the initial modeling run, due to the 

level (i.e., above PSD Class II increments) and nature of these fugitive PM10 emissions, there is 

a potential for noticeable localized dust emissions for both the peak year and operation phase 

only. Short-term, intermittent impacts are possible to the area in and around the site, 

particularly when vehicles travel on unpaved roads. At times, the fugitive emission will result in 

a MODERATE impact on air quality. This conclusion differs from the final modeling run results 

analysis, which classifies the PM10 24-hour Class II impacts as SMALL. 

4.7.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

Air emissions during the aquifer restoration phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

will consist primarily of combustion emissions and fugitive road dust. For the proposed project, 

the aquifer restoration phase generates by far the lowest levels of air emission relative to the 

other three phases. For the aquifer restoration phase combustion emissions, the NAAQS 

pollutants with the highest emission levels are NOx and CO (see Table 2.1-2). The construction 

phase analysis in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1 discusses the inclusion of mitigation in the calculation 

of the emissions inventory and the effectiveness of this mitigation. This information also applies 

to the aquifer restoration phase impact analysis. In addition, the applicant has proposed other 

mitigation measures to further reduce and control air emissions (see Table 6.2-1). 

The discussion of the peak year project level emission compared to the NAAQS, Class II PSD 

increments, and Class I PSD increments presented in the construction phase analysis in SEIS 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-135 

Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. As described in Table C–11, the aquifer restoration phase 

contribution to the peak year emissions varies between 0.5 and 5.5 percent depending on the 

particular pollutant. For the aquifer restoration phase, the total pollutant concentrations for the 

initial modeling run are below the NAAQS ranging between 0.5 and 40.5 percent of the 

applicable standard (see Table C–14). This includes the PM10 24-hour estimate, which drops 

from 33.3 percent of the NAAQS to 30.0 percent when dry depletion is implemented (see 

Table C–14). All of the estimated aquifer restoration phase project level pollutant 

concentrations, including the PM10 24-hour final modeling run (4.0 μg/m3

) and initial modeling 

run (9.0 μg/m3

) estimates, are below the applicable PSD Class II increments. For the peak 

year, none of the estimated projected level concentrations for both the initial and final modeling 

run exceed the applicable Class I PSD increment (see Table 4.7-2). The estimated projected 

level concentrations for the aquifer restoration phase, as a fraction of the peak results, are also 

below the PSD Class I increments. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1, Air Quality Related Value impacts are not generated for 

the individual project phases. Instead, the impacts are based on the peak year values. The 

analysis presented here is a summary of the analysis presented in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1. For 

the visibility analysis, the modeled peak year results with and without the PM10 included are both 

below the contribution threshold. With the PM10 emissions included there are eleven days over 

the three-year period with a change in light extinction exceeding 0.5 deciviews. The acid 

deposition peak year results were below the applicable thresholds. The aquifer restoration 

phase results, as a fraction of the peak year results, will also be below the applicable visibility 

and acid deposition thresholds. 

Overall, the total carbon dioxide emissions from the aquifer restoration phase are about three 

times lower than the operations phase (see Table 2.1-6). Most of the aquifer restoration phase 

carbon dioxide gas emissions are attributed to indirect electrical consumption (Table 2.1-6). 

The estimated aquifer restoration phase levels of carbon dioxide emission from all sources is 

lower than the current EPA permitting threshold as described in SEIS Section 3.7.2. NRC staff 

conclusions concerning potential greenhouse gas impacts are addressed in SEIS Section 5.7 

on air quality cumulative effects. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, NRC staff will base the impact analyses (i.e. SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE) in this SEIS using the PM10 modeling results that implement the 

AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the final modeling run) and excluding the PM10 emissions 

from the CALPUFF analysis. The discussion of the peak year project level impact magnitude 

presented in the construction phase analysis in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. The 

discussion here will focus on the aquifer restoration phase impact magnitude. The proposed 

action’s dispersion modeling results that address fugitive dust emissions as well as emissions 

from the burning of fossil fuels for the stationary and mobile sources associated with the aquifer 

restoration phase indicate that pollution concentration levels within the modeling domain are 

low. For the final modeling run, the aquifer restoration phase pollutant concentrations are below 

the applicable NAAQS, Class II PSD increments, and Class I PSD increments. Due to the level 

of the aquifer restoration phase pollutant concentrations, NRC staff conclude that the pollutant 

concentrations when compared to applicable NAAQS and PSD increments will result in a 

SMALL impact on air quality. For the visibility analyses, the annual modeled peak year results 

are below the contribution threshold. There are no individual days over the three year period 

modeling period with a change in light extinction exceeding 0.5 deciviews. For the acid 

deposition results, the peak year results are below the contribution threshold. The modeled 

results when combined with the measured results at the Wind Cave National Park are below the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-136 

estimated critical load. The individual phase results, as a fraction of the peak year results, will 

be below the visibility and acid deposition thresholds. Due to the level of the visibility and acid 

deposition results relative to the applicable thresholds, NRC staff concludes that the aquifer 

restoration phase project emission will result in a SMALL impact on air quality. 

The NRC staff conclude that the overall impact to air quality during the aquifer restoration phase 

for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. The NRC staff reiterate that the 

peak year represents the greatest project impacts and, as described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1, 

conclude that the peak year impact will range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

For information purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and include the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF analysis. The tables and 

discussion in the SEIS text already include the information for the initial AERMOD modeling 

results and inclusion of the PM10 emission in the CALPUFF visibility analysis. This discussion 

will focus on distinctions between the two analyses (i.e., the analysis NRC is using to determine 

the impact magnitude for this SEIS and the analysis the NRC is presenting for informational 

purposes only) that could result in a different impact magnitude conclusion. The discussion of 

the peak year project level impact magnitude presented in the construction phase analysis in 

SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. Without additional consideration (e.g., incorporation 

of additional mitigation into the emission inventory), NRC will characterize the initial modeling 

run results for the peak year concentrations as a LARGE impact. When considering the aquifer 

restoration phase, there are no distinctions between the two analyses that will result in a 

difference in impact magnitude conclusions. 

4.7.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

 

Air emissions during the decommissioning phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will consist primarily of combustion emissions and fugitive road dust. For the 

decommissioning phase combustion emissions, the NAAQS pollutants with the highest 

emission levels are NOx and CO (see Table 2.1-2). The construction phase analysis in SEIS 

Section 4.7.1.1.1 discusses the inclusion of mitigation in the calculation of the emissions 

inventory and the effectiveness of this mitigation. This information also applies to the aquifer 

restoration phase impact analysis. In addition, the applicant has proposed other mitigation 

measures to further reduce and control air emissions (see Table 6.2-1). 

The discussion of the peak year project level emission compared to the NAAQS, Class II PSD 

increments, and Class I PSD increments presented in the construction phase analysis in SEIS 

Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. As described in Table C–11, the decommissioning phase 

contribution to the peak year emissions varies between 12.1 and 21.2 percent depending on the 

particular pollutant. For the decommissioning phase, the total pollutant concentrations for the 

initial modeling run are below the NAAQS, ranging between 1.0 and 53.7 percent of the 

applicable standard (see Table C–15). This includes the PM10 24-hour estimate, which drops 

from 53.7 percent of the NAAQS to 39.1 percent when dry depletion is implemented (see 

Table C–15). The estimated decommissioning phase PM10 24-hour project level concentrations 

for the final modeling run (17.6 μg/m3

) are below the allowable PSD Class II increment, while 

the initial modeling run value (39.5 μg/m3

) remains above this threshold. For all of the other 

pollutants, the estimated project level concentrations for this phase are below the applicable 

PSD Class II increments. For the peak year, none of the estimated projected level 

concentrations for both the initial and final modeling run exceeds the applicable Class I 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-137 

PSD increment (see Table 4.7-2). The estimated projected level concentrations for the 

decommissioning phase, as a fraction of the peak year results, are also below the PSD 

Class I increments. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1, Air Quality Related Value impacts are not generated for 

the individual project phases. Instead, the impacts are based on the peak year values. The 

analysis presented here is a summary of the analysis presented in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1. For 

the visibility analysis, the modeled peak year results with and without the PM10 included are both 

below the contribution threshold. With the PM10 emissions included there are eleven days over 

the three-year period with a change in light extinction exceeding 0.5 deciviews. The acid 

deposition peak year results were below the applicable thresholds. The decommissioning 

phase results, as a fraction of the peak year results, will also be below the applicable visibility 

and acid deposition thresholds. 

All phases of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project generate carbon dioxide, with the 

operations phase producing the most. Overall, the total carbon dioxide emissions from the 

decommissioning phase are about 8 times lower than the operations phase (see Table 2.1-6). 

The estimated decommissioning phase level of carbon dioxide emissions from all sources is 

lower than the current EPA permitting threshold described in SEIS Section 3.7.2. NRC staff 

conclusions concerning potential greenhouse gas impacts are addressed in SEIS Section 5.7 

on air quality cumulative effects. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, NRC staff will base the impact analyses (i.e. SMALL, 

MODERATE, or LARGE) in this SEIS on PM10 modeling results that implement the AERMOD 

dry depletion option (i.e., the final modeling run) and exclude the PM10 emissions from the 

CALPUFF analysis. The discussion of the peak year project level impact magnitude presented 

in the construction phase analysis in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. The discussion 

here will focus on the decommissioning phase impact magnitude. The proposed action 

dispersion modeling results addressing fugitive dust emissions as well as emissions from the 

burning of fossil fuels for the stationary and mobile sources associated with the 

decommissioning phase indicate that pollution concentration levels within the modeling domain 

are generally low. For the final modeling run, the decommissioning phase pollutant 

concentrations are below the applicable NAAQS, Class II PSD increments, and Class I PSD 

increments. Due to the level of the decommissioning phase pollutant concentrations, NRC staff 

conclude that the pollutant concentrations when compared to applicable NAAQS and PSD 

increments will result in a SMALL impact on air quality. For the visibility analyses, the annual 

modeled peak year results are below the contribution threshold. There are no individual days 

over the three year modeling period with a change in light extinction exceeding 0.5 deciviews. 

For the acid deposition results, the peak year results are below the contribution threshold. The 

modeled results when combined with the measured results at Wind Cave National Park are 

below the estimated critical load. The individual phase results, as a fraction of the peak year 

results, will be below the visibility and acid deposition thresholds. Due to the level of the 

visibility and acid deposition results relative to the applicable thresholds, NRC staff conclude 

that the decommissioning phase project emission will result in a SMALL impact on air quality. 

The NRC staff conclude that the overall impact to air quality during the decommissioning phase 

for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. The NRC staff reiterate that the 

peak year represents the greatest project impacts and, as described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1, 

conclude that the peak year impact will range from SMALL to MODERATE. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-138 

For information purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and include the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF analysis. The tables and 

discussion in the SEIS text already include the information for the initial AERMOD modeling 

results and inclusion of the PM10 emission in the CALPUFF visibility analysis. This discussion 

will focus on distinctions between the two analyses (i.e., the analysis NRC is using to determine 

the impact magnitude for this SEIS and the analysis the NRC is presenting for informational 

purposes only) that could result in a different impact magnitude conclusion. The discussion of 

the peak year project level impact magnitude presented in the construction phase analysis in 

SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.1 remains the same. Without additional consideration (e.g., incorporation 

of additional mitigation into the emission inventory), NRC will characterize the initial modeling 

run results for the peak year concentrations as a LARGE impact. 

When considering the decommissioning phase, there is an important distinction between the 

initial and final AERMOD modeling runs in terms of the results relative to the Class II PSD 

increments. The estimated PM10 24-hour project level concentrations for the final modeling run 

is below the allowable PSD Class II increment, while the estimated PM10 24-hour project level 

concentration for the initial modeling run value is above this threshold. For the initial modeling 

run, due to the level (i.e., above PSD Class II increments) and nature of these fugitive PM10

emissions, there is a potential for noticeable localized dust emissions for the decommissioning 

phase. Short-term, intermittent impacts are possible to the area in and around the site, 

particularly when vehicles travel on unpaved roads. At times, the fugitive emission will result in 

a MODERATE impact on air quality. This conclusion is different from the final modeling run 

results analysis, which classifies the PM10 24-hour Class II impacts as SMALL. 

4.7.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant proposes to 

dispose of liquid waste generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by land 

application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). Potential environmental impacts on air quality 

from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated with the 

land application liquid waste disposal option are discussed in the following sections. The 

discussion also addresses the impacts on air quality during the peak year when all four phases 

occur simultaneously. 

4.7.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

When examining combustion emissions, the land application liquid waste disposal option will not 

require the drilling of up to eight Class V deep disposal wells. The percentage of combustion 

emission from drill rigs (excluding the deep well rig) ranges from 45 to 70 percent depending on 

the pollutant (see Table C–2). However, the drilling of eight Class V deep disposal wells 

constitutes no more than one half of 1 percent of the construction phase emissions for any 

single NAAQS pollutant. NRC staff conclude that the elimination of drilling the Class V deep 

disposal wells will result in a very small reduction in the NAAQS pollutant emissions generated. 

The source that generates the majority of remaining combustion emissions is the construction 

and drilling field equipment (see Table C–2). As detailed in Table 4.2-1, the land application 

option will result in more land being disturbed than in the deep well disposal option. Specifically, 

the land application will require 425.7 ha [1,052 ac] of irrigation area and an additional 41.6 ha 

[103 ac] for impoundments. These types of land disturbances, particularly the addition of 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-139 

irrigation areas, will not be expected to generate many air emissions from the use of 

construction or field equipment. The amount of land disturbed for wellfields, access roads, 

trunkline installation, and site buildings is identical for the deep well disposal and land 

application options. These types of land disturbances will be associated with the generation of 

air emissions from construction and field equipment use. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that 

the additional land disturbance associated with the land disposal option will result in a very small 

increase in the NAAQS pollutants generated from combustion emission sources other than the 

drilling rigs. 

For combustion emissions, NRC staff do not expect to see any appreciable difference in the 

overall NAAQS emission levels between the land disposal option and the deep well disposal 

option. Therefore, the magnitude of the air quality impacts will be expected to the same for the 

two disposal options for both the construction phase and the peak year (i.e., all 

phases combined). 

The land application option analysis for greenhouse gases will mirror the NAAQS pollutant 

analyses because the combustion emission sources for the NAAQS pollutants and the 

greenhouse gases are the same. Using the same rationale as the NAAQS pollutant analysis, 

NRC staff do not expect to see any appreciable difference in the overall greenhouse gas 

emission levels between the land disposal option and the deep well disposal option for the 

construction phase. The impact analysis for greenhouse gases is addressed in SEIS 

Section 5.7 on air quality cumulative effects. 

Fugitive emissions are generated by both travel on unpaved roads and wind erosion of 

disturbed land. For the construction phase, travel on unpaved roads is the main source of 

fugitive emissions. As described in Table 4.2-1, the land application option will not require more 

access roads to be constructed. Furthermore, the land application option will not require 

additional land for wellfield or facility construction. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the 

additional land disturbance associated with the land disposal option will result in a very small 

change in fugitive emissions from travel on unpaved roads. 

The amount of fugitive emissions from wind erosion is a function of the amount of disturbed 

land. The two liquid waste disposal options vary in the amount of land disturbed and, 

therefore, the amount of fugitive dust generated. As described in Table 2.1-4, the annual 

mass flow emission rate estimates from wind erosion varied little over the project lifetime with 

the deep well and land application options generating 10.1 metric tons [11.1 short tons] and 

29.7 metric ton [32.7 short tons] of PM10, respectively. When considered in conjunction with the 

fugitive emissions from unpaved roads, the peak year land application option will generate 

about 5 percent more PM10 emissions and about 7 percent more PM2.5 than the deep well 

disposal option. When wind erosion emissions are considered in conjunction with fugitive 

emissions from unpaved roads, the construction phase land application option will generate 

about 10 percent more PM10 emissions and about 14 percent more PM2.5 than the deep well 

disposal option. 

Although there is some difference in the overall fugitive dust emission levels between the two 

disposal options, the impact magnitude will be expected to be similar. Therefore, the analyses 

presented for the deep well disposal option will still apply. 

As mentioned earlier in this section, the magnitude of the air quality impacts will be expected to 

be the same for the two disposal options for both the construction phase and the peak year 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-140 

(i.e., all phases combined). The low level of combustion emissions will result in a SMALL 

impact on air quality. At times, fugitive emissions will result in a MODERATE impact on air 

quality from localized dust emissions that are short term and intermittent in nature. The NRC 

staff conclude that the overall impact on air quality during the construction phase for the land 

application disposal option will range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

For informational purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and include the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF analysis. The only difference 

between the two analyses (i.e., the analysis NRC is using to determine the impact magnitude for 

the SEIS and the analysis the NRC is presenting for informational purposes only) for the peak 

year and construction phase only impact assessment is that NRC staff will characterize the 

initial modeling run results for the peak year concentrations as a LARGE impact based on the 

PM10 24-hour emission levels. The magnitude of the difference in the PM10 emission levels 

between the two disposal options will not be expected to change this impact assessment. 

4.7.1.2.2 Operation Impacts 

For the operations phase, combustion emissions for NAAQS pollutants are basically evenly 

divided between the light duty vehicles and the construction and drilling field equipment (see 

Table C–2). As detailed in Table 4.2-1, the land application option will result in more land being 

disturbed than in the deep well disposal option. Specifically, the land application will require 

425.7 ha [1,052 ac] of irrigation area and an additional 41.6 ha [103 ac] for impoundments. 

These types of land disturbances, particularly the addition of irrigation areas, will not be 

expected to generate many air emissions from the use of construction or field equipment. The 

amount of land disturbed for wellfields, access roads, trunkline installation, and site buildings is 

identical for the deep well disposal and land application options. These types of land 

disturbances will be more associated with the generation of air emissions from construction and 

field equipment use. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the additional land disturbance 

associated with the land disposal option will result in a very small increase in the NAAQS 

pollutants generated from combustion emission sources. 

For combustion emissions, NRC staff do not expect to see any appreciable difference in the 

overall NAAQS emission levels between the land disposal option and the deep well disposal 

option. Therefore, the magnitude of the air quality impacts will be expected to the same for the 

two disposal options for the operation phase. 

The land application option analysis for greenhouse gases will mirror the NAAQS pollutant 

analyses because the combustion emission sources for the NAAQS pollutants and the 

greenhouse gases are the same. Using the same rationale as the NAAQS pollutant analysis, 

NRC staff do not expect to see any appreciable difference in the overall greenhouse gas 

emission levels between the land disposal option and the deep well disposal option for the 

operation phase. The impact analysis for greenhouse gases is addressed in SEIS Section 5.7 

on air quality cumulative effects. 

Fugitive emissions are generated by both travel on unpaved roads and wind erosion of 

disturbed land. For the operation phase, travel on unpaved roads is the main source of fugitive 

emissions. As described in Table 4.2-1, the land application option will not require more access 

roads to be constructed. Furthermore, the land application option will not require additional land 

for wellfield or facility construction. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the additional land 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-141 

disturbance associated with the land disposal option will result in a very small change in fugitive 

emissions from travel on unpaved roads. 

 

The amount of fugitive emissions from wind erosion is a function of the amount of disturbed 

land. The two liquid waste disposal options vary in the amount of land disturbed and, therefore, 

the amount of fugitive dust generated. As described in Table 2.1-4, the annual mass flow 

emission rate estimates from wind erosion varied little over the project lifetime with the 

deep well and land application options generating 10.1 metric tons [11.1 short tons] and 

29.7 metric ton [32.7 short tons] of PM10, respectively. When wind erosion emissions are 

considered in conjunction with fugitive emissions from unpaved roads, the operation phase land 

application option will generate about 12 percent more PM10 emissions and about 17 percent 

more PM2.5 than the deep well disposal option. 

Although there is some difference in the overall fugitive dust emission levels between the two 

disposal options, the impact magnitude will be expected to be similar. Therefore, the analyses 

presented for the deep well disposal option will still apply. 

As mentioned earlier in this section, the magnitude of the air quality impacts will be expected to 

the same for the two disposal options for the operation phase. The NRC staff conclude that the 

operation phase pollutant concentrations when compared to applicable NAAQS, PSD 

increments, visibility thresholds, and acid deposition thresholds will result in a SMALL impact on 

air quality. The NRC staff conclude that the overall impact on air quality during the operation 

phase for the land application disposal option will be SMALL. 

For informational purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and include the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF analysis. The only difference 

between the two analyses (i.e., the analysis NRC is using to determine the impact magnitude for 

the SEIS and the analysis the NRC is presenting for informational purposes only) for the 

operation phase impact assessment is that NRC staff will characterize the initial modeling run 

results as MODERATE at times because of the PM10 24-hour concentrations relative to the PSD 

Class II increment. The magnitude of the difference in the PM10 emission levels between the 

two disposal options will not be expected to change this impact assessment. 

4.7.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

For the aquifer restoration phase, combustion emissions are limited to light duty vehicles 

(see Table C–2). As detailed in Table 4.2-1, the land application option will result in more land 

being disturbed than in the deep well disposal option. Specifically, the land application will 

require 425.7 ha [1,052 ac] of irrigation area and an additional 41.6 ha [103 ac] for 

impoundments. These types of land disturbances, particularly the addition of irrigation areas, 

will not be expected to generate much change in air emissions from light duty vehicles. 

Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the additional land disturbance associated with the land 

disposal option will result in a very small increase in the NAAQS pollutants generated from 

combustion emission sources. 

For combustion emissions, NRC staff do not expect to see any appreciable difference in the 

overall NAAQS emission levels between the land disposal option and the deep well disposal 

option. Therefore, the magnitude of the air quality impacts will be expected to the same for the 

two disposal options for the aquifer restoration phase. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-142 

The land application option analysis for greenhouse gases will mirror the NAAQS pollutant 

analysis because the combustion emission sources for the NAAQS pollutants and the 

greenhouse gases are the same. Using the same rationale as the NAAQS pollutant analysis, 

NRC staff do not expect to see any appreciable difference in the overall greenhouse gas 

emission levels between the land disposal option and the deep well disposal option for the 

aquifer restoration phase. The impact analysis for greenhouse gases is addressed in SEIS 

Section 5.7 on air quality cumulative effects. 

Fugitive emissions are generated by both travel on unpaved roads and wind erosion of 

disturbed land. For the aquifer restoration phase, wind erosion generates more fugitive 

emissions than travel on unpaved roads. As described in Table 4.2-1, the land application 

option will not require more access roads to be constructed. Furthermore, the land application 

option will not require additional land for wellfield or facility construction. Therefore, NRC staff 

conclude that the additional land disturbance associated with the land disposal option will result 

in a very small change in fugitive emissions from travel on unpaved roads. 

The amount of fugitive emissions from wind erosion is a function of the amount of disturbed 

land. The two liquid waste disposal options vary in the amount of land disturbed and, 

therefore, the amount of fugitive dust generated. As described in Table 2.1-4, the annual mass 

flow emission rate estimates from wind erosion varied little over the project lifetime with the 

deep well and land application options generating 10.1 metric tons [11.1 short tons] and 

29.7 metric ton [32.7 short tons] of PM10, respectively. When wind erosion emissions are 

considered in conjunction with fugitive emissions from unpaved roads, the aquifer restoration 

phase land application option will generate about 46 percent more PM10 emissions and about 

51 percent more PM2.5 than the deep well disposal option. 

Although there is some difference in the overall fugitive dust emission levels between the land 

disposal option and the deep well disposal option, the impact magnitude will be expected to be 

similar. Therefore, the analyses presented for the deep well disposal option will still apply. 

As mentioned earlier in this section, the magnitude of the air quality impacts will be expected to 

be the same for the two disposal options for the aquifer restoration phase. The NRC staff 

conclude that the aquifer restoration phase pollutant concentrations when compared to 

applicable NAAQS, PSD increments, visibility thresholds, and acid deposition thresholds will 

result in a SMALL impact on air quality. The NRC staff conclude that the overall impact on 

air quality during the aquifer restoration phase for the land application disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

For informational purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and include the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF visibility analysis. When 

considering the aquifer restoration phase, there are no distinctions between the two analyses 

(i.e., the analysis NRC is using to determine the impact magnitude for the SEIS and the analysis 

the NRC is presenting for informational purposes only) that will result in a difference in impact 

magnitude conclusions. NRC staff conclude that the aquifer restoration phase pollutant 

concentrations when compared to applicable NAAQS, PSD increments, visibility thresholds, and 

acid deposition thresholds will result in a SMALL impact on air quality. The magnitude of the 

difference in the emission levels between the two disposal options will not be expected to 

change this impact assessment. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-143 

4.7.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

For the decommissioning phase, the majority of the combustion emissions are from the 

construction and drilling field equipment. As detailed in Table 4.2-1, the land application option 

will result in more land being disturbed than in the deep well disposal option. Specifically, the 

land application will require 425.7 ha [1,052 ac] of irrigation area and an additional 41.6 ha 

[103 ac] for impoundments. Reclaiming the additional disturbed land, particularly the 

impoundments, could result in a slight increase in the emissions from construction and drilling 

field equipment. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the additional land disturbance associated 

with the land disposal option will result in a very small increase in the NAAQS pollutants 

generated from combustion emission sources. 

For combustion emissions, NRC staff do not expect to see any appreciable difference in the 

overall NAAQS emission levels between the land disposal option and the deep well disposal 

option. Therefore, the magnitude of the air quality impacts will be expected to the same for the 

two disposal options for the decommissioning phase. 

The land application option analysis for greenhouse gases will mirror the NAAQS pollutant 

analysis because the emission sources for the NAAQS and greenhouse gases are the same. 

Using the same rationale as the NAAQS pollutant analysis, NRC staff do not expect to see any 

appreciable difference in the overall greenhouse gas emission levels between the land disposal 

option and the deep well disposal option for the decommissioning phase. The impact analysis 

for greenhouse gases is addressed in SEIS Section 5.7 on air quality cumulative effects. 

Fugitive emissions are generated by both travel on unpaved roads and wind erosion of 

disturbed land. For the decommissioning phase, travel on unpaved roads is the main source of 

fugitive emissions. As described in Table 4.2-1, the land application option will not require more 

access roads to be constructed. Furthermore, the land application option will not require 

additional land for wellfield or facility construction. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the 

additional land disturbance associated with the land disposal option will result in a very small 

change in fugitive emissions from travel on unpaved roads. 

The amount of fugitive emissions from wind erosion is a function of the amount of disturbed 

land. The two liquid waste disposal options vary in the amount of land disturbed and, 

therefore, the amount of fugitive dust generated. As described in Table 2.1-4, the annual 

mass flow emission rate estimates from wind erosion varied little over the project lifetime with 

the Class V deep injection well and land application options generating 10.1 metric tons 

[11.1 short tons] and 29.7 metric ton [32.7 short tons] of PM10, respectively. When wind erosion 

emissions are considered in conjunction with fugitive emissions from unpaved roads, the 

decommissioning phase land application option will generate about 18 percent more PM10

emissions and about 23 percent more PM2.5 than the deep well disposal option. 

Although there is some difference in the overall fugitive dust emission levels between the two 

disposal options, the impact magnitude will be expected to be similar. Therefore, the analyses 

presented for the deep well disposal option will still apply. 

As mentioned earlier in this section, the magnitude of the air quality impacts will be expected to 

be the same for the two disposal options for decommissioning phase. The NRC staff conclude 

that the decommissioning phase pollutant concentrations when compared to applicable NAAQS 

and PSD increments will result in a SMALL impact on air quality. The NRC staff conclude that 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-144 

the overall impact on air quality during the decommissioning phase for the land application 

disposal option will be SMALL. 

For informational purposes, NRC staff will also present the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and include the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF analysis. The only difference 

between the two analyses (i.e., the analysis NRC is using to determine the impact magnitude for 

the SEIS and the analysis the NRC is presenting for informational purposes only) for the 

decommissioning phase impact assessment is that NRC staff will characterize the initial 

modeling run results as MODERATE at times because of the PM10 24-hour concentrations 

relative to the PSD Class II increment. The magnitude of the difference in the PM10 emission 

levels between the two disposal options will not be expected to change this impact assessment. 

4.7.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project, the applicant has proposed to dispose of liquid waste by a combination of Class V 

injection wells and land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). For the combined option, 

land application facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, operated, restored, and 

decommissioned on an as-needed basis depending on the deep well disposal capacity 

(Powertech, 2011). 

The potential environmental impacts from fugitive dust emissions for all of the phases will be 

greater for the land application option because of the increased wind erosion emission levels 

caused by the increased amount of land disturbed. When considering the combustion 

emissions, the main difference between the two disposal options is the emissions from the deep 

well rig used to drill the Class V wells. The land application option eliminates this particular 

source. This distinction will only affect the construction phase because this is where all of the 

drill rig emissions occur. For the combustion emissions, the potential environmental impacts for 

the construction phase will be greater for the Class V injection well option because of the 

additional drill rig emissions. For the remaining three phases, the combustion emissions will be 

basically the same for both disposal options. 

For the combined option, the air emissions associated with the development of all the Class V 

injection disposal wells will be supplemented with the emissions associated with the 

development, at some level, of the irrigation areas and increased pond capacity. Fugitive dust 

emissions for all four phases will include the additional contribution of the wind erosion from the 

increased land disturbance from the land application option. The construction phase will include 

the combustion emissions from the deep well drill rig. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the 

environmental impacts of the combined option for the construction, operation, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning phases of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be 

greater than either the Class V deep injection well option or the land application option. 

However, for each phase of the proposed project, the changes in air emissions levels will be 

subtle and not result in any distinctions concerning the magnitude of the environmental impacts 

(Table 4.7-5). NRC staff concludes this will also be the case when the impact analysis uses the 

PM10 modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and includes the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF visibility analysis. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-145 

Table 4.7-5. Significance of the Air Quality Environmental Impacts for the Proposed 

Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase* of the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application 

Construction SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning SMALL SMALL SMALL 

*The peak year (i.e., when all four phases occur simultaneously) impacts will range between SMALL to MODERATE. 

4.7.2 No Action (Alternative 2) 

Under this alternative, there will be no change in the air quality at this site or at any surrounding 

receptors. The Black Hills-Rapid City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region currently meets the 

NAAQS, and it is expected that this area will continue to meet the NAAQS based on the current 

land use. 

4.8 Noise Impacts 

NRC staff concluded in GEIS Section 4.4.7 that the noise impact at an ISR facility may range 

from SMALL to MODERATE during all four phases of an ISR project, depending on the distance 

between the nearest resident and the activities occurring at the ISR facility (NRC, 2009a). 

Noise may also impact wildlife in the vicinity of the ISR facility. These impacts will be from the 

operation of equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and compressors; from either commuting 

worker traffic or material and waste shipments; and from operation of the wellfields, central 

processing plant, satellite plant, and associated equipment. For workers at an ISR 

facility, administrative and engineering controls will be used to maintain noise levels in work 

areas below Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory limits 

(29 CFR 1910.95) and will be further mitigated by use of personal hearing protection. 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

Potential noise impacts will be greatest during construction of an ISR facility. The use of drill 

rigs, heavy trucks, bulldozers, and other equipment used to construct and operate wellfields, 

drill wells, construct access roads, and build the processing facilities will generate noise 

exceeding undisturbed background levels. Noise levels are expected be higher during daylight 

hours when construction is more likely to occur and more noticeable in proximity to the 

operating equipment. For individuals living in the vicinity of the site, ambient noise levels will 

return to background at distances more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from the construction activities. 

Wildlife will be expected to avoid areas where noise-generating activities occur, although 

continuous elevated noise levels may reduce the breeding success of certain wildlife 

(e.g., sage-grouse). Overall, these types of noise impacts will be SMALL, given the use of 

hearing controls for workers and the expected distance of nearest residents to the site. Traffic 

noise during construction (e.g., commuting workers; truck shipments to and from the facility, and 

construction equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and compressors) is expected to be 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-146 

localized and limited to highways in the vicinity of the site, access roads within the site, and 

roads in the wellfields. The relative short-term increase in noise levels from passing traffic will 

be SMALL for the larger roads, but could be MODERATE for lightly traveled rural roads through 

smaller communities. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

During ISR operations, noise-generating activities will occur mainly indoors within the central 

uranium processing facilities; therefore, offsite sound levels will be reduced during the 

operations phase. Wellfield equipment (e.g., pumps, compressors) will be contained within 

structures (e.g., header houses, satellite facilities), thus limiting the propagation of noise to 

offsite individuals. Traffic noise from commuting workers, truck shipments to and from the 

facility, and facility equipment will be localized and limited to highways in the vicinity of the site, 

access roads within the proposed license area, and wellfield roads. Relative short-term 

increases in noise levels from traffic will be SMALL for the larger roads, but could be 

MODERATE for lightly traveled rural roads through smaller communities. Thus, NRC staff 

concluded in the GEIS that potential impacts from noise during the operations phase may range 

from SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

General noise levels during aquifer restoration will be expected to be similar to, or less than, 

noise levels during operations. The noise from pumps and other wellfield equipment contained 

within buildings will reduce sound levels to offsite receptors. The existing operational 

infrastructure will be used, and traffic volume will be less than during the construction and 

operations phases. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS the potential impact from noise during 

aquifer restoration will range from SMALL to MODERATE, depending on the location of the 

nearest resident. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

General noise levels generated during decommissioning and reclamation will be similar to the 

noise generated during construction. Equipment used to dismantle buildings and milling 

equipment, remove potentially contaminated soils, or grade the surface as part of reclamation 

activities will generate audible noise at above-background levels. This noise will be temporary, 

and when decommissioning and reclamation activities are completed, noise levels will return to 

baseline, with occasional noise from longer term monitoring activities. Like the construction 

phase, the noise level will be greater during daylight hours when decommissioning and 

reclamation are more likely to occur and most noticeable in proximity to the operating 

equipment. Given the likely distance to nearby residents {i.e., greater than 305 m [1,000 ft]}, 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that noise will not be discernible to offsite residents or 

communities. Therefore, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impact from noise generated 

during decommissioning may range from SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 

The potential site-specific environmental impacts from noise during construction, operations, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

described in the following sections. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-147 

4.8.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

As described in SEIS Section 3.8, the majority of existing ambient noise (i.e., background noise) 

in the vicinity of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site will be generated by traffic from 

U.S. Highway 18 and State Highway 89 (see Figure 3.3-1) and freight/coal trains from the 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad (see Figure 3.2-1). Dwellings within and in the vicinity of 

the proposed site that may be impacted by noise generated by ISR activities are listed in 

Table 3.2-1 and shown in Figure 3.2-1. Edgemont, South Dakota (population 774), is the 

closest community to the proposed site, approximately 21 km [13 mi] to the south-southeast 

(see Figure 1.1-1). Other towns within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed project area include 

Hot Springs and Custer, South Dakota, and Newcastle, Wyoming. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 3.6.3, no federally listed threatened or endangered species are known to occur within 

the proposed project area. However, five raptor nests were observed within the proposed 

project area and two raptor nests were observed within 1.6 km [1 mi] of the proposed project 

area during applicant surveys. As described in SEIS Section 3.6.1.2.2, one active bald eagle 

nest (a state-listed species) was reported in 2011 within the proposed project area along Beaver 

Creek, about 1.6 km [1 mi] west of the proposed Dewey satellite facility. The nearest 

recreational areas that may be impacted by noise are parcels of the BHNF bordering the 

proposed project area to the east and northeast and the Buffalo Gap National Grassland located 

about 4.8 km [3 mi] south of the project boundary. 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, options for liquid waste disposal at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are (i) Class V deep injection wells, (ii) land application, or 

(iii) combined Class V deep injection wells and land application. The environmental impacts 

from noise for each of the waste disposal options are discussed in the following sections. 

4.8.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

wastes is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. EPA is currently reviewing the 

applicant’s UIC permit application for Class V injection wells. The locations of the first four 

Class V injection wells are shown in Figure 2.1-10. 

4.8.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As noted in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, the construction phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will involve the use of heavy equipment to create and improve road surfaces, transport 

supplies, excavate foundations, erect buildings, and install wells and pipelines in the wellfields. 

Equipment such as bulldozers, graders, tractor trailers, excavators, cranes, and drill rigs will 

create noise that will be audible above background noise levels. For the Class V injection well 

disposal option, additional noise will be generated by the installation of the Class V injection 

wells. Noise will also be generated by heavy equipment used to construct pipelines to transport 

liquid waste from the processing facilities to the Class V injection wells. Construction of 

processing facilities, pipelines, access roads, ponds, Class V injection wells, and wellfields is 

expected to be completed within 2 years (see Figure 2.1-1), followed by phased construction of 

additional wellfields during the operations phase. 

Expected noise levels generated during construction activities at the Dewey-Burdock site will be 

most noticeable in proximity to operating equipment, such as drill rigs, heavy trucks, and 

bulldozers. Mitigation measures that the applicant will implement to minimize noise impacts 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-148 

include avoiding construction activities during the night, using sound abatement controls on 

operating equipment and facilities, and using personal hearing protection for workers in any high 

noise areas (Powertech, 2009a). These mitigation measures will ensure that noise levels 

remain below guidelines for offsite receptors [e.g., 55-decibel daytime guideline to protect 

against activity interference and annoyance (EPA, 1974)] and below OSHA regulatory limits for 

workers in 29 CFR 1910.95. 

 

As described in SEIS Section 3.2, two permanently occupied dwellings (Putnam residence and 

Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters), one vacant dwelling (Spencer residence), and one 

seasonally occupied dwelling (Daniel residence) are located within the proposed project area 

(see Figure 3.2-1). All of these onsite dwellings are located more than 1.6 km [1.0 mi] from 

proposed processing facilities and Class V injection wells in the Dewey and Burdock areas. The 

permanently occupied Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters and Putnam residence are located 

approximately 0.8 km [0.5 mi] west and 1.3 km [0.8 mi] south of proposed wellfields in the 

Dewey area (see Figure 3.2-1). These distances are greater than the 305-m [1,000-ft] radius for 

noise from construction activities to return to background ambient noise levels (NRC, 2009a). 

However, the seasonally occupied Daniel residence is located within 305 m [1,000 ft] of defined 

wellfield areas B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area (see Figure 2.1-6). Therefore, the Daniel 

residence is expected to experience short-term (1 to 2 years) noise above background levels 

during construction activities associated with development of these wellfields. 

All offsite residential receptors are located more than 1.6 km [1.0 mi] from proposed processing 

facilities and deep Class V injection wells in the Dewey and Burdock areas. The nearest 

offsite residential receptors are located approximately 1.3 km [0.8 mi] south (Kennobie 

residence) and 1.3 km [0.8 mi] southwest (Peterson residence) of proposed wellfields in the 

Burdock area (see Figure 3.2-1). This distance also exceeds the 305-m [1,000-ft] radius for 

noise from construction activities to return to background ambient noise levels (NRC, 2009a). 

In addition, because of decreasing noise levels with distance, construction activities will have 

only SMALL and temporary noise impacts for nearby communities (e.g., Edgemont, 

Hot Springs, Custer, and Newcastle) and recreational areas (e.g., BHNF and Buffalo Gap 

National Grassland). 

Truck transport of construction materials will be the primary noise source that may potentially 

affect the public. The incremental increase in construction-related noise due to traffic on the 

heavily traveled public roadways in the area (e.g., U.S. Highway 18 and State Highway 89) will 

not be expected to be noticeable. Traffic noise along Dewey Road from Edgemont to the 

Dewey-Burdock site will increase during construction activities due to workers commuting to and 

from the job site and truck shipments to and from the facilities during daylight hours. As 

described in SEIS Section 3.8, the maximum sound levels from heavy trucks (70 dBA) traveling 

along Dewey Road will diminish to approximately 57 dBA at a distance of approximately 480 m 

[1,575 ft] from the source. At distances beyond 480 m [1,575 ft] from Dewey Road, it is 

assumed that sound levels generated by heavy trucks will be approximately 40 dBA. Based on 

typical land uses within and surrounding the project site (e.g., rangeland, wildlife habitat, and 

recreation), sound levels ranging from 40 to 57 dBA are within Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) noise abatement criteria established in 23 CFR Part 772. These criteria are described 

in Table 3.8-1. In addition, Dewey Road is a lightly traveled county road with few residences, 

and increases in noise levels associated with passing heavy truck traffic during the construction 

phase will be short term (1 to 2 years; see Figure 2.1-1). 

 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-149 

Elevated noise levels associated with construction activities may affect wildlife behavior 

(Federal Highway Administration, 2004; Brattstrom and Bondello, 1983; BLM, 2008). As noted 

in GEIS Section 4.4.7.1, wildlife is expected to avoid areas where noise-generating activities are 

ongoing (NRC, 2009a). However, raptors are particularly sensitive to noise and the presence of 

human activity, which will be heightened during the construction phase. As noted in SEIS 

Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2, the bald eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, and northern harrier 

were the most commonly seen raptor species in the proposed project area and will be the 

primary raptor species impacted by project activities. These species are not imperiled with the 

exception of the bald eagle, which is a state-threatened species (SDGFP, 2010c). Direct 

impacts to raptor species from noise will include displacement, increased potential for nest 

abandonment and reproductive failure, and potential reduction in prey populations. To reduce 

noise impacts to raptors, the applicant has committed to adhering to FWS and SDGFP seasonal 

noise, vehicular traffic, and human proximity guidelines during the construction phase of the 

proposed project (see SEIS Section 4.6.1.1.1.1.2). The applicant will adhere to regulatory 

timing and spatial restrictions with regard to construction activities near raptor nests (Powertech, 

2009a). Furthermore, the applicant has committed to follow an FWS-approved raptor 

monitoring and mitigation plan to reduce conflicts between active nest sites and project-related 

activities if direct impacts to raptors occurs (Powertech, 2009a). 

With the exception of the seasonally occupied Daniel residence in the Burdock area, noise 

levels associated with project-related construction activities will not impact onsite or offsite 

residential receptors. Residents at the Daniel residence will experience noise levels above 

background due to heavy equipment use associated with the development of wellfields B-WF6 

and B-WF7. However, these noise levels will be short term (1 to 2 years for each wellfield) and 

the residence will not be occupied year round. Implementation of mitigation measures, such as 

using sound abatement controls on operating equipment and facilities and using personal 

hearing protection for workers in high noise areas, will ensure that noise levels remain within 

guidelines for offsite receptors and workers. Noise levels associated with project-related 

transportation activities on Dewey Road leading to and from the site will be within FHWA noise 

abatement criteria at a distance of 480 m [1,575 ft] or greater and will be temporary (1 to 

2 years). Noise impacts to raptors will be mitigated by adhering to FWS and SDGFP seasonal 

noise guidelines, adhering to regulatory timing and spatial restrictions with regard to 

construction activities near raptor nests, and following an FWS-approved raptor monitoring and 

mitigation plan. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the overall site-specific impacts from 

noise during construction for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

 

4.8.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

The potential impact from onsite-generated noise during the operations phase of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be less than during the construction phase because fewer 

pieces of heavy machinery will be used. However, a variety of mechanical equipment 

(e.g., generators; pumps; air compressors; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

systems) at the Burdock central processing plant, at the Dewey satellite facility, and in the 

wellfields will generate noise during the operations phase. Equipment such as pumps used to 

recover uranium from the pregnant lixiviant and dryers used to process and package the 

uranium slurry into yellowcake will be contained within the processing buildings, thus limiting the 

propagation of noise to onsite and offsite receptors. In the wellfields, pumps and compressors 

used for injection, recovery, and transfer of lixiviant will be contained within header houses. 

Likewise, pumps and compressors used to inject liquid wastes into deep disposal wells will be 

contained within locked buildings constructed around the wells (Powertech, 2010a). Mitigation 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-150 

measures, such as the use of sound abatement controls on operating equipment in processing 

facilities and wellfields, will further reduce the propagation of noise to onsite and offsite 

receptors. Noise impacts to workers during operations will be mitigated by the use of 

personal hearing protection in areas where noise levels exceed OSHA exposure limits in 

29 CFR 1910.95 (Powertech, 2009a). 

As noted in the previous section, the seasonally occupied Daniel residence is within 305 m 

[1,000 ft] of proposed wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area (see Figure 2.1-6). 

Therefore, the Daniel residence may experience noise above background levels during activities 

associated with operations in these wellfields. Because wellfields will be developed and 

operated sequentially, these potential noise levels will be short term (1 to 2 years for each 

wellfield; see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1). In addition, the Daniel residence will not be occupied 

year round. 

Heavy truck traffic associated with transporting uranium-loaded resins to and from the 

central processing plant and shipments of yellowcake will result in temporary noise. Shipments 

of yellowcake will be infrequent (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.7) and will have only a SMALL impact 

on noise levels on Dewey Road and highways in the vicinity of the site (e.g., U.S. Highway 18 

through Edgemont). Traffic noise from commuting workers on highways in the vicinity of the site 

and on Dewey Road leading to and from the site will increase during operations when facilities 

are experiencing peak employment. However, because of the remote location of the site and 

lack of sensitive receptors leading to the site, noise impacts from passing traffic during 

operations will be SMALL. 

As noted previously, there will be less noise from heavy equipment during the operations phase 

of the proposed project compared to the construction phase; therefore, the potential for noise to 

disrupt wildlife will be reduced. During operations, wildlife is anticipated to avoid areas where 

noise-generating activities are ongoing (NRC, 2009a). Potential noise-related impacts to active 

raptor nests due to operations-related activities will continue to be mitigated by adherence to 

timing and spatial restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as determined by 

appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM) (Powertech, 2009a). 

In summary, much of the noise generated during the operations phase of the proposed project 

will be contained within buildings and structures. Because of decreasing noise levels with 

distance, noise from operation activities will have no impact on residents, communities, or 

recreational areas that are located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific noise-generating 

activities (NRC, 2009a). As noted previously, the seasonally occupied Daniel residence is 

located within 305 m [1,000 ft] of proposed wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area 

and may experience noise above background levels during activities associated with operations 

in these wellfields. Because wellfields will be developed and operated sequentially (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1), potential noise levels above background at the Daniel residence will be short 

term (1 to 2 years for each wellfield). In addition, the Daniel residence will not be occupied year 

round. Noise levels to onsite and offsite receptors will be mitigated by use of sound abatement 

controls on operating equipment, adherence to OSHA regulatory limits, and use of personal 

hearing protection. Heavy truck traffic associated with yellowcake shipments will be infrequent 

and result in only short-term noise on local roads and highways. Noise impacts to raptors will 

continue to be mitigated by adhering to FWS and SDGFP seasonal noise guidelines, adhering 

to regulatory timing and spatial restrictions with regard to construction activities near raptor 

nests, and following an FWS-approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan (Powertech, 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-151 

2009a). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the overall site-specific impacts from noise 

during operations for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.8.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

NRC staff conclude that noise generated during the aquifer restoration phase of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will either be similar to, or less than, noise generated during the 

operations phase. Pumps and compressors used to inject liquid wastes generated by aquifer 

restoration activities into Class V injection wells will be contained within locked buildings 

constructed around the wells (Powertech, 2010a). Noise from traffic will be limited to delivery of 

supplies and workers traveling to and from the site; therefore, there will be fewer vehicular trips 

than during the operations phase. In the wellfields, compressors and pumps will be the largest 

contributors to noise, but will be operated only for a relatively short daytime duration. Although 

potential noise generation during aquifer restoration is expected to be of short duration, aquifer 

restoration activities will continue over much of the life of the proposed project as operations are 

completed in sequentially developed wellfields (see Figure 2.1-1). 

Because the amount of equipment used and the volume of traffic will be less than during the 

operations phase, noise impacts during aquifer restoration will remain SMALL. Furthermore, 

because of decreasing noise levels with distance, aquifer restoration activities and associated 

traffic will be expected to have only SMALL and temporary noise impacts for residences, 

communities, or sensitive areas that are located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific 

noise-generating activities (NRC, 2009a). The seasonally occupied Daniel residence, which is 

located within 305 m [1,000 ft] of proposed wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area 

may experience noise above background levels during activities associated with aquifer 

restoration. Because wellfields will be operated and restored sequentially, potential noise levels 

above background at the Daniel residence will be short term (1 to 2 years for each wellfield). In 

addition, the Daniel residence will not be occupied year round. Noise impacts to workers during 

aquifer restoration will be mitigated by adherence to OSHA noise regulations, and wildlife is 

anticipated to avoid areas where noise-generating activities are ongoing (NRC, 2009a). 

Potential noise-related impacts to active raptor nest sites will continue to be mitigated by 

adherence to timing and spatial restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as 

determined by appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM) and by following 

an FWS-approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, NRC 

staff conclude that the potential impact from noise during aquifer restoration for the Class V 

injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.8.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The noise generated during decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

be similar to or less than that generated during the construction phase. The sources of noise 

will include earthmoving, excavation, and building demolition activities. In the wellfields, the 

greatest source of noise will be from equipment used during plugging and abandonment of 

production, injection, and monitoring wells. Cement mixers, compressors, and pumps will be 

the largest contributors to noise, but will be operated only for a relatively short daytime duration. 

Fewer shipments to and from the proposed site will occur as decommissioning progresses, 

resulting in less noise from traffic. Because of decreasing noise levels with distance, 

decommissioning activities and associated traffic will be expected to have only SMALL and 

temporary noise impacts for residences, communities, or sensitive areas that are located 

more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific noise-generating activities (NRC, 2009a). The 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-152 

seasonally occupied Daniel residence, which is located within 305 m [1,000 ft] of 

proposed wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area, may experience noise above 

background levels during activities associated with decommissioning in these wellfields. 

However, potential noise levels above background at the Daniel residence during wellfield 

decommissioning will be temporary and the Daniel residence will not be occupied year round. 

Noise impacts to workers during decommissioning will be mitigated by adherence to OSHA 

noise regulations, and wildlife is expected to avoid areas where noise generating activities are 

ongoing (NRC, 2009a). Potential noise-related impacts between active raptor nest sites and 

decommissioning activities will continue to be mitigated by adherence to timing and spatial 

restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as determined by appropriate 

regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM) and by following an FWS-approved raptor 

monitoring and mitigation plan (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the 

potential impact from noise during decommissioning for the Class V injection well disposal 

option will be SMALL. 

4.8.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant will dispose of 

liquid waste generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by land application (see 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). The locations of land application areas for this disposal option are 

shown in Figure 2.1-12. Potential environmental impacts from noise during construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning for the land application option are 

discussed in the following sections. 

4.8.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

For the land application disposal option, noise impacts to onsite and offsite human receptors 

and wildlife from the use of heavy equipment to create and improve road surfaces, transport 

supplies, excavate foundations, erect buildings, and install wells and pipelines during the 

construction phase will be similar to those described in SEIS Section 4.8.1.1.1 for the Class V 

injection well disposal option. However, additional noise will be generated by heavy equipment 

used to construct (i) pipelines that transport the liquid waste from the processing facilities to land 

application areas and (ii) catchment areas adjacent to land application areas to control 

stormwater runoff. To minimize noise impacts due to construction activities in land application 

areas, the same mitigation measures described in SEIS Section 4.8.1.1.1 will be implemented. 

These mitigation measures will include using sound abatement controls on operating equipment 

and facilities, avoiding construction activities during the night, and using personal hearing 

protection for workers operating heavy equipment (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant will limit 

worker exposure to noise in accordance with OSHA regulations in 29 CFR 1910.95. 

In addition to the seasonally occupied Daniel residence, which is located within 305 m [1,000 ft] 

of proposed wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area, the permanently occupied 

Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters is located within 305 m [1,000 ft] of land application areas in 

the Dewey area. Because of its proximity to land application areas, residents at the Beaver 

Creek Ranch Headquarters may be impacted by noise associated with construction of pipelines 

and catchment areas in proposed land application areas in the Dewey area. Therefore, onsite 

receptors at both the Daniel residence and the Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters may 

experience short-term (1 to 2 years) noise levels above background during construction phase 

activities if land application is implemented to dispose of liquid wastes. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-153 

With the exception of the Stodart residence (see Figure 3.2-1), all offsite residences are located 

more than 1.6 km [1.0 mi] from proposed land application areas. The Stodart residence is 

located approximately 0.8 km [0.5 mi] northwest of land application areas in the Dewey area. 

This distance is greater than the 305-m [1,000-ft] radius for noise from construction activities to 

return to background noise levels (NRC, 2009a). 

With the exception of the seasonally occupied Daniel residence in the Burdock area and 

the Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters in the Dewey area, noise levels associated with 

project-related construction activities will not impact onsite or offsite residential receptors. 

Residents at the Daniel residence and Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters will experience noise 

levels above background due to heavy equipment use associated with the development of 

wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area and land application areas in the Dewey area. 

However, these noise levels will be short term (1 to 2 years). Implementation of mitigation 

measures, such as using sound abatement controls on operating equipment and facilities and 

using personal hearing protection for workers in high noise areas, will ensure that noise levels 

remain within guidelines for offsite receptors and workers. Noise levels associated with 

project-related transportation activities on Dewey Road leading to and from the site will be within 

FHWA noise abatement criteria at distances of 480 m [1,575 ft] or greater and will be temporary 

(1 to 2 years). Noise impacts to raptors at the proposed project will be mitigated by adhering to 

FWS and SDGFP seasonal noise guidelines, locating all planned facilities outside of BLM 

recommended buffer zones of all raptor nests, and following an FWS-approved raptor 

monitoring and mitigation plan (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the 

overall site-specific impacts from noise during construction for the land application disposal 

option will be SMALL. 

4.8.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

For the land application disposal option, noise impacts to onsite and offsite human receptors 

and wildlife generated by mechanical equipment at the processing facilities and wellfields and 

by heavy truck and commuter traffic during the operations phase of the project will be similar to 

those described in SEIS Section 4.8.1.1.2 for the Class V injection well disposal option. 

Additional noise will be generated by pumps and the motors or engines used to drive irrigation 

pivots in land application areas. Noise levels generated by irrigation equipment in land 

application areas may be substantially reduced by installing exhaust and inlet silencers on 

engines, using electric motor drives instead of internal combustion engines, and erecting 

acoustic barriers to block the line of hearing from the exhaust engine and inlet toward the 

receptors (either human or wildlife) to be protected from noise. 

As noted in the previous section, the seasonally occupied Daniel residence is located within 

305 m [1,000 ft] of proposed wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 in the Burdock area and the Beaver 

Creek Ranch Headquarters is located within 305 m [1,000 ft] of proposed land application areas 

in the Dewey area (see Figure 2.1-6). Therefore, these residences may experience noise 

above background levels during activities associated with wellfield and land application 

operations. Because wellfields will be developed and operated sequentially, potential noise 

levels above background due to wellfield operations will be short term (1 to 2 years for each 

wellfield). In addition, land application areas will not be operated year round. As described in 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2, treated wastewater will be applied to the land during the growing 

season (approximately April through October). Beyond the growing season, land irrigation will 

be conducted as conditions permit, relying on evaporation to remove water from soils. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-154 

Much of the noise generated during the operations phase of the project will be contained within 

buildings and structures. Because of decreasing noise levels with distance, noise from 

operation activities will have no impact on residents, communities, or recreational areas that are 

located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific noise-generating activities (NRC, 2009a). As 

noted previously, residents at the seasonally occupied Daniel residence and the Beaver Creek 

Ranch Headquarters may experience noise above background levels during activities 

associated with operations in wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 and land application areas in the 

Dewey area. Because wellfields will be developed and operated sequentially (see SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1), potential noise levels above background at the Daniel residence will be short 

term (1 to 2 years for each wellfield). In addition, the Daniels residence will not be occupied 

year round. Likewise, residents at the Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters will only be 

exposed to noise from nearby land application areas during the growing season (approximately 

April through October). Noise levels to onsite and offsite receptors will be further mitigated by 

use of sound abatement controls on operating equipment, adherence to OSHA regulatory limits, 

and use of personal hearing protection. Heavy truck traffic associated with yellowcake 

shipments will be infrequent and result in only short-term noise on local roads and highways. 

During operations, wildlife is expected to avoid areas where noise-generating activities are 

ongoing (NRC, 2009a). Noise impacts to raptors at the proposed project will continue to be 

mitigated by adhering to FWS and SDGFP seasonal noise guidelines and by following an 

FWS-approved raptor monitoring and mitigation plan (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, the NRC 

staff conclude that the overall site-specific impacts from noise during operations for the land 

application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.8.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

For the land application liquid waste disposal option, noise generated during the aquifer 

restoration phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will either be similar to, or less 

than, noise generated during the operations phase. Noise levels generated by irrigation 

equipment in land application areas may be substantially reduced by installing exhaust and inlet 

silencers on engines, using electric motor drives instead of internal combustion engines, and 

erecting acoustic barriers to block the line of hearing from the exhaust engine and inlet toward 

the receptors (either human or wildlife). Noise from traffic will be limited to delivery of supplies 

and workers traveling to and from the site; therefore, there will be fewer vehicular trips than 

during the operations phase. In the wellfields, compressors and pumps will be the largest 

contributors to noise, but will be operated only for a relatively short daytime duration. Although 

potential noise generation during aquifer restoration in each wellfield is expected to be of short 

duration, aquifer restoration activities will continue over much of the life of the project as 

operations are completed in sequentially developed wellfields (see Figure 2.1-1). 

Because the amount of equipment used and the volume of traffic will be less than during the 

operations phase, noise impacts during aquifer restoration will remain SMALL. Furthermore, 

because of decreasing noise levels with distance, aquifer restoration activities and associated 

traffic will be expected to have only SMALL and temporary noise impacts for residences, 

communities, or sensitive areas that are located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific 

noise-generating activities (NRC, 2009a). Residents at the seasonally occupied Daniel 

residence and the Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters may experience noise above background 

levels during activities associated with aquifer restoration activities in wellfields B-WF6 and 

B-WF7 and land application areas in the Dewey area. Because wellfields will be developed and 

operated sequentially (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1), potential noise levels above background at 

the Daniel residence will be short term (1 to 2 years for each wellfield). In addition, the Daniel 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-155 

residence will not be occupied year round. Likewise, residents at the Beaver Creek Ranch 

Headquarters will only be exposed to noise from nearby land application areas during the 

growing season. Noise impacts to workers during aquifer restoration will be mitigated by 

adherence to OSHA noise regulations, and wildlife is anticipated to avoid areas where 

noise-generating activities are ongoing (NRC, 2009a). Potential noise-related impacts between 

active raptor nest sites and aquifer restoration activities will continue to be mitigated by 

adherence to timing and spatial restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as 

determined by appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM) (Powertech, 

2009a). Therefore, the potential impact from noise during aquifer restoration for the land 

application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.8.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The noise generated during decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

be similar to or less than that generated during the construction phase. The sources of noise 

will include earthmoving, excavation, and building demolition activities. In the wellfields, the 

greatest source of noise will be from equipment used during plugging and abandonment of 

production, injection, and monitoring wells. Cement mixers, compressors, and pumps will be 

the largest contributors to noise, but will be operated only for a relatively short daytime duration. 

Fewer shipments to and from the proposed site will occur as decommissioning progressed, 

resulting in less noise from traffic. Because of decreasing noise levels with distance, 

decommissioning activities and associated traffic will be expected to have only SMALL and 

temporary noise impacts for residences, communities, or sensitive areas that are located more 

than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific noise-generating activities (NRC, 2009a). The seasonally 

occupied Daniel residence and the Beaver Creek Ranch Headquarters may experience noise 

above background levels during activities associated with decommissioning activities in 

wellfields B-WF6 and B-WF7 and land application areas in the Dewey area. However, potential 

noise levels above background at the Daniel residence and the Beaver Creek Ranch 

Headquarters during decommissioning will be temporary. In addition, the Daniel residence will 

not be occupied year round. Noise impacts to workers during decommissioning will be 

mitigated by adherence to OSHA noise regulations, and wildlife is expected to avoid areas 

where noise-generating activities are ongoing (NRC, 2009a). Potential noise-related impacts 

between active raptor nest sites and decommissioning activities will continue to be mitigated by 

adherence to timing and spatial restrictions within specified distances of active raptor nests as 

determined by appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., FWS, SDGFP, and BLM) (Powertech, 

2009a). Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the potential impact from noise during 

decommissioning for the land application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.8.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project, the applicant will dispose of liquid waste by a combination of Class V injection wells and 

land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). For the combined Class V injection well 

disposal and land application option, land application facilities and infrastructure will be 

constructed, operated, restored, and decommissioned on an as-needed basis depending on 

the Class V injection well disposal capacity (Powertech, 2011). As described in SEIS 

Sections 4.8.1.1 and 4.8.1.2, many project-related noise impacts to onsite and offsite receptors 

will be similar for either the Class V injection well or land application disposal options. However, 

for the land application option, additional noise will be generated by construction of land 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-156 

application facilities and infrastructure (e.g., irrigation areas, pipelines, and ponds for liquid 

waste storage during nonirrigation periods) and operation of center pivot irrigation systems. In 

comparison, for the Class V injection well disposal option, additional noise will be generated by 

construction of four to eight Class V injection wells (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1). During 

operations, pumps and compressors used to inject liquid wastes into Class V injection wells will 

be contained within buildings constructed around the wells (Powertech, 2010a), which will 

reduce noise impacts to onsite and offsite residents and workers. Therefore, the environmental 

noise impacts of liquid waste disposal by land application for all phases of the ISR process will 

be greater than for liquid waste disposal by Class V well injection. Furthermore, because only a 

portion of land application facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, operated, and 

decommissioned, the significance of environmental noise impacts for the combined disposal 

option will be less than for the land application option alone. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that 

the environmental noise impacts of the combined Class V injection well and land application 

option for each phase of the proposed project will be bounded by the significance of 

environmental noise impacts of the Class V injection well option and the land application option 

as summarized in Table 4.8.1. 

4.8.2 No Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, there will be no change to the sound levels either within the 

proposed license area or to surrounding receptors. While natural resource exploration activities 

will continue and could potentially expand in the future, they will typically be of short duration 

and will involve few vehicles and no permanent, noise-emitting infrastructure. The natural 

setting of the proposed project area and the continuation of ongoing natural resource 

exploration activities will result in sound levels remaining at ambient levels. 

4.9 Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.8, potential environmental impacts on historic and cultural 

resources may occur during all phases of an ISR facility’s lifecycle (NRC, 2009a). Loss of and 

damage to historic, cultural, and archaeological resources may result from land disturbance as 

part of construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning activities. In addition, 

the introduction of new visual, auditory, or other sensory elements has the potential to impact 

the integrity of historic properties. 

Table 4.8-1. Significance of Environmental Noise Impacts for the Proposed Liquid 

Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock 

In-Situ Recovery Project 

 Class V Injection Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning SMALL SMALL SMALL 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of 

environmental impacts for the Class V injection well and land application disposal options. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-157 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.8.1, the potential impacts during ISR facility construction may 

include loss of or damage to historic and cultural resources due to excavation and earthmoving 

activities. An NRC licensee condition that requires the stoppage of work upon discovery of 

undocumented historic or cultural resources may be imposed. Such a condition will require 

notification of the appropriate federal, tribal, and state agencies to implement mitigation 

measures. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that potential impacts to historic and cultural 

resources from construction will be SMALL to LARGE depending on whether historic and 

cultural resources are present within the project area. Mitigation measures identified in the 

licensee’s management plan or site specific Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) could reduce an adverse impact to a historic or cultural resource 

by reducing the adverse effect on a historic property. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.8.2, it is expected potential impacts to historic and cultural 

resources from operations will be less than during construction, because less land disturbance 

occurs during this phase. Additionally, conditions in the NRC license typically require the 

licensee to stop work upon discovery of previously undocumented historic or cultural resources 

and to notify the appropriate federal, tribal, and state agencies to implement mitigation 

measures. For these reasons, NRC staff determined in the GEIS that potential impacts to 

historic and cultural resources from ISR operations will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

In GEIS Section 4.4.8.3, NRC staff determined that potential impacts to historic and cultural 

resources from aquifer restoration are expected to be similar to, or less than, potential impacts 

from operations. Aquifer restoration activities are generally limited to the existing infrastructure 

and previously disturbed areas (e.g., access roads, central processing plant). Additionally, 

typical conditions in the NRC license regarding the discovery of previously undocumented 

historic or cultural resources will remain in effect and could minimize potential adverse impacts. 

For these reasons, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the potential impacts from aquifer 

restoration on historic and cultural resources will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

GEIS Section 4.4.8.4 discussed potential impacts from decommissioning to historic and 

cultural resources. Decommissioning and reclamation activities will focus on those areas that 

have been disturbed; therefore, historic and cultural resources within the potential area of effect 

will already be known. For these reasons, NRC staff determined in the GEIS the potential 

impacts to historic, cultural, and archaeological resources during decommissioning and 

reclamation will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

The potential impacts to historic and cultural resources from construction, operations, aquifer 

restoration, and decommissioning for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are discussed 

in the following sections. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-158 

4.9.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

Potential impacts on historic and cultural resources at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

will be linked to the physical structures and infrastructure associated with the proposed action. 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2, a central processing plant in the Burdock area, a satellite 

facility in the Dewey area, access roads, wellfields, pipelines, surface impoundments, and 

potential land irrigation areas will be constructed at the proposed project site. As described in 

SEIS Section 3.9.1.2, the area of potential effects (APE) for the review of historic and cultural 

resources at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is defined as the area that will be 

directly or indirectly impacted by construction, operation, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning activities. The APE for the proposed project coincides with the extent of 

potential ground disturbance resulting from proposed facility construction and operations. The 

introduction of new visual and auditory elements also has the potential to diminish the integrity 

of historic properties in the project area. 

The extent of the APE for facility construction and operations at the proposed project will 

depend on the disposal option used to dispose of liquid waste. The applicant is proposing 

options for liquid waste disposal that include deep well disposal via Class V injection wells, land 

application, or a combination of both methods (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4). The APE for 

facility construction and operations for all the liquid waste disposal options totals 1,067 ha 

[2,637 ac] (see Figure 3.9-1). This area includes a 969-ha [2.394-ac] buffer zone surrounding 

98.3-ha [243-ac] of projected disturbance areas for the plant facilities, wellfields, ponds, roads, 

and pipelines. If land application is used for liquid waste disposal, the APE for facility 

construction and operations will include an additional maximum area of approximately 506 ha 

[1,250 ac] surrounding proposed land application areas (see Figure 3.9-1). 

The introduction of new visual effects is expected to have the greatest potential to diminish the 

integrity of historic properties in the project area. The extent of the APE for visual impacts 

includes areas within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the central processing plant in the Burdock area 

and the satellite processing facility in the Dewey area (see Figure 3.9-1). The central 

processing plant and satellite processing facility will be the tallest buildings constructed at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site (Powertech, 2009a). Based on proposed locations of 

the central processing plant and the satellite processing facility, the APE for visual impacts will 

extend a maximum of 2.33 km [1.45 mi] from the eastern project boundary in the Burdock area 

and a maximum of 2.7 km [1.7 mi] from the western project boundary in the Dewey area (see 

SEIS Figure 3.9-1). 

The potential impacts on historic and cultural resources for each of the applicant-proposed liquid 

waste disposal options (i.e., disposal via Class V injection wells, disposal via land application, or 

disposal via combination of Class V injection wells and land application) are discussed in the 

following sections. 

4.9.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred disposal option for liquid 

waste is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. Potential impacts on historic and cultural 

resources from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated 

with the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

discussed in the following sections. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-159 

4.9.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As discussed in the SEIS Section 4.2.1.1.1, a total of 98.3 ha [243 ac] or 2.3 percent of the 

proposed permit area will be potentially disturbed by activities associated with construction of 

site buildings, pipelines, wellfields, ponds, and access roads for the Class V injection well 

disposal option (Powertech, 2010a). As described previously, the APE for facility construction 

and operations for the Class V injection well disposal option totals 1,067 ha [2,673 ac] as 

illustrated in Figure 3.9-1. This area includes a 969-ha [2,394-ac] buffer zone surrounding the 

98.3-ha [243-ac] area of projected land disturbance. 

As part of the environmental review of historic and cultural resources, the NRC evaluated the 

results of historic and cultural resource surveys conducted at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site (see SEIS Section 3.9.3). These surveys included: (i) a Level III cultural resource 

investigation conducted as part of prelicense application activities; (ii) a tribal cultural survey; 

and (iii) a visual impacts assessment. In addition to the visual impacts assessment, NRC 

evaluated whether the proposed project has the potential to introduce new auditory changes to 

the project area that could impact historic properties located within or outside the limits of 

proposed ground disturbance. 

In making recommendations on the eligibility of historic properties for the National Register for 

Historic Places (NRHP), NRC applies the criteria found in the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) implementing regulations at 36 CFR 60.4(a)–(d). The criteria are: (A) association with 

significant events in history; (B) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; 

(C) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, period, or construction; and (D) sites or 

places that have yielded or are likely to yield important information (ACHP, 2012). The NRC 

NRHP eligibility determinations and impact assessment for cultural and historic properties 

identified at the Dewey-Burdock site are discussed in the sections below. 

Level III Cultural Resource Investigations 

As described in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1, NRC staff reviewed Level III cultural resource 

investigations and evaluative testing reports prepared by the Archaeology Laboratory, 

Augustana College (ALAC) on behalf of the applicant for the Dewey-Burdock site (Kruse, et al., 

2008; Palmer and Kruse, 2008; Palmer 2008, 2009, 2012). More than 200 archaeological sites 

were recorded during archeological field investigations. One-hundred and forty-nine (149) sites 

were recommended as ineligible for listing in the NRHP. Seventy-nine (79) of these sites 

consisted of isolated finds lacking physical integrity or context. Approximately 140 ineligible 

sites were mostly prehistoric sites located on high disturbed and eroded landforms and have 

little potential to possess intact, significant buried cultural deposits. Sites that are not eligible for 

listing in the NRHP are not expected to be impacted by activities associated with facility 

construction and operations. Therefore, NRC staff expects SMALL impacts to these sites 

during the construction phase for the Class V injection well disposal option. 

Based on archaeological field investigations, a total of 18 historic properties within the proposed 

project area are listed or recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP. Table 4.9-1 lists 

these sites, as well as the NRC NRHP-eligibility determinations, the locations of eligible sites 

within the APE affected by facility construction and operations, the NRC assessment of the 

significance of impact, and NRC management recommendations. The South Dakota State 

Historic Presevation Office (SD SHPO) concurred on the NRC determination of sites eligible to 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-160 

Table 4.9-1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis for 

Historic Properties Within the Proposed Project Area Listed in NRHP or 

Recommended as Eligible for Listing in the NRHP 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

StateSite 

Number Description 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination 

Location with 

Respect to the 

Area of 

Potential Effect 

(APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance 

of Impact 

Management 

Recommendation 

Historic District 

90000949- Edna 

and Ernest Young 

Ranch 

This historic district 

covers 52.6 ha [130 ac] 

and is located 

approximately 4.8 km [3 

mi] south of Dewey and 

south of Beaver Creek. 

The area of significance 

is exploration/settlement 

during 1900–1924 and 

1925–1949. There are 

13 contributing 

buildings, one 

contributing structure, 

and one noncontributing structure. 

Eligible, 

Criteria A and C Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Listed in the NRHP in 

1990. National 

Register Historic 

District will be 

avoided. 

Bakewell Ranch 

(Structure 

CU00000050) 

The Bakewell Ranch is 

located within the Edna 

and Ernest Young 

Ranch National Register 

Historic District. 

Eligible, 

Criteria A and C Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Listed on the NRHP. 

Historic property will 

be avoided. 

Log Barn 

(Structure 

CU02500002) 

Log barn at the 

Richardson Homestead 

was found eligible for 

listing on NRHP in April 

2012 under Criteria A. 

Eligible, 

Criterion A 

Wiithin APE for 

LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site is located 

approximately 76 m 

[250 ft] south of land 

application areas. 

The site will be 

fenced off to ensure 

avoidance. 

39CU0271 

Native American and 

Archaic artifact scatter 

and occupation site on a 

ridge slope with a cairn 

feature. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site is located 

approximately 61 m 

[200 ft] east of 

proposed wellfield 

areas. Site will be 

avoided. 

39CU0577 

Native American/ 

Euroamerican/ 

Occupation site; artifact 

scatter. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D 

 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU0578 

Euroamerican/Native 

American 

Historic dump and 

occupation site located 

on a ridge slope. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU0584 

Native American 

occupation site and 

burial (affiliation 

unknown) on a ridge 

slope. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU0586 

Native American and 

Late Archaic occupation 

site on a ridge crest. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-161 

Table 4.9-1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis for 

Historic Properties Within the Proposed Project Area Listed in NRHP or 

Recommended as Eligible for Listing in the NRHP (Cont’d) 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

StateSite 

Number Description 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination 

Location with 

Respect to the 

Area of 

Potential Effect 

(APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance 

of Impact 

Management 

Recommendation 

39CU0588 

Native American 

occupation site on a 

ridge crest. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU0590 

Native American artifact 

scatter on a ridge 

saddle. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU0593 

Native American and 

Euroamerican 

occupation and artifact 

scatter on a hillslope. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU2000 Historic Railroad. Eligible, Criteria 

A and C 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site crosses 

proposed wellfield 

areas. Site will be 

avoided. 

39CU2733 

Native American hearth 

and artifact scatter on a 

ridge slope. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU2735 Archaic- Prehistoric 

occupation site. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU2738 

Native American 

occupation site on a 

ridge crest. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. 

39CU3592 Native American artifact 

scatter and hearth site. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA LARGE 

potential impact 

Site is located within 

a proposed wellfield 

area south of the 

Dewey satellite 

facility. Site will be 

fenced off to ensure 

avoidance. 

39FA1941 Native American artifact 

scatter and hearth site. 

Eligible, 

Criterion D 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site is located 

approximately 91 m 

[300 ft] east of the 

proposed Burdock 

central processing 

plant and is within a 

proposed wellfield 

area. Site will be 

avoided or mitigated 

as necessary. 

39FA2000 Historic Railroad. 

Eligible, Criteria 

A and C 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site crosses 

proposed wellfield 

areas. Site will be 

avoided. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-162 

the NRHP in Table 4.9-1 (SD SHPO, 2012, 2014). Avoidance of historic properties is the goal 

during development and production phases of the proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). 

Archaeological and tribal monitors are expected to be present during ground disturbing activities 

in order to protect known historic properties (Powertech, 2009a). The 18 historic properties 

currently listed or recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP are discussed next. Sites 

39CU0577, 39CU0578, 39CU0586, 39CU0588, 39CU2733, 39CU2738, and 39CU0590 are 

Native American occupation sites. Site 39CU2735 is an Archaic occupation site. Site 

39CU0593 contains both Native American and Euroamerican components, with artifact scatters 

extending down a hillslope. Site 39CU0584 is a Native American occupation site and burial 

(affiliation unknown) located on a ridge slope. Each of these sites is recommended as eligible 

for listing in the NRHP (Kruse, et al., 2008). However, all are located outside the APE for facility 

construction and operations. Because these properties are not threatened by site activities and 

will be avoided, no impacts to these sites are anticipated. 

The Edna and Ernest Young Ranch Historic District (90000949) and the Bakewell Ranch 

(CU0000050) within this historic district are listed on the NRHP and were described in detail 

in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.2. The properties are located south of Beaver Creek in the 

northwestern part of the project area, southwest of the proposed wellfield areas in the Dewey 

area. These properties are located outside the APE for facility construction and operations and 

will be avoided. Therefore, no potential impacts to these historic properties from ground 

disturbing activities are anticipated. 

Five historic properties (39CU3592, 39CU0271, 39FA1941, 39CU2000, and 39FA2000) may be 

impacted by proposed construction activities associated with the Class V injection well disposal 

option. These sites are described next. 

Site 39CU3592 is a Native American artifact scatter and hearth site located within a proposed 

wellfield area south of the Dewey satellite facility. NRC staff has recommended that a buffer 

zone and protective fencing be erected around 39CU3592 to ensure this historic property is not 

adversely impacted during project activities. The applicant committed to protect this property by 

establishing a buffer zone and installing protective fencing around the site (Powertech, 2012e). 

Site 39CU0271 is an Archaic occupation site with 238 associated hearth features and a cairn 

feature. Site 39CU0271 is located to the east of a proposed monitoring well ring in the Dewey 

area. NRC staff recommend avoidance of site 39CU271 and the applicant committed to avoid 

this site (Powertech, 2012e). During the tribal cultural survey, site 39CU0271 was visited and 

recorded but the tribes did not provide an eligibility recommendation for this site. The Tribal 

Cultural Survey is discussed later in this section. 

Site 39FA1941 is an Archaic artifact scatter and hearth site located on a ridgetop, east of the 

proposed Burdock central processing plant. The southern portion of this site lies within a 

proposed wellfield area. NRC staff recommend avoidance of site 39FA1941 and the applicant 

committed to avoid this site and if necessary to mitigate impacts (Powertech, 2012e). If 

avoidance of this historic property is not possible, NRC staff recommend a treatment plan for 

mitigation and data recovery measures be developed by the applicant in consultation with the 

NRC, SD SHPO, BLM, and tribal representatives. 

Sites 39CU2000 and 39FA2000 are historic properties containing 1889 portions of the 

Burlington Northern Railroad, which runs the length of the project area. Site 39CU2000 crosses 

proposed wellfield areas east of the proposed Dewey satellite facility. Additionally, a portion of 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-163 

site 39FA2000 crosses a proposed wellfield area located southwest of the Burdock central 

processing plant. NRC staff recommends avoidance of the railroad segments and the applicant 

has committed to avoid these historic properties (Powertech, 2012e). 

One historic property (CU02500002; a log barn structure) may be impacted by proposed 

construction activities associated with land application disposal. Site CU02500002 is discussed 

in SEIS Section 4.9.1.2.1. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.1, sixty-eight (68) recorded archaeological sites within the 

proposed project area have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. NRC treats unevaluated 

archaeological sites as eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. Assessments of 

unevaluated archaeological sites containing burial and cairn features, as well as unevaluated 

archaeological sites that may be impacted by ground disturbance activities are discussed next. 

As discussed in SEIS Sections 3.9.3.1.1, historic and ethnographic evidence indicate cairn 

features served as markers for trails, camps, burials, caches, and ceremonial centers. Sites 

containing burial or cairn features are protected by law in South Dakota, pursuant to South 

Dakota Codified Law 34-27. Unevaluated sites with burials or cairn features that were identified 

and recorded during archaeological field investigations are listed in Table 4.9-2 along with NRC 

NRHP-eligibility determinations, the locations of eligible sites within the APE affected by facility 

construction and operations, the NRC assessment of the significance of impacts, and NRC 

management recommendations. 

As noted previously, NRC considers unevaluated sites eligible for listing in the NRHP under 

Criterion D. NRC staff recommend avoidance of unevaluated sites pending further evaluation to 

determine NRHP eligibility. 

Site 39FA1902 is a historic site with a possible Euroamerican burial located approximately 

152 m [500 ft] west of the proposed Burdock central processing plant and will not be disturbed 

by project construction or operational activities. As described in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.2, this site 

contains a historic bridge structure (FA00000151). Because the site has not been evaluated for 

eligibility for listing on the NRHP, the applicant has committed to avoid this site by means of a 

buffer zone and protective fencing (Powertech, 2012f). During the tribal cultural survey, site 

39FA1902 was identified as of no interest to the Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho 

tribes (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). Representatives of both tribes examined the possible 

gravesite and determined it most likely did not have a tribal affiliation because modern materials 

including broken concrete were among the stones marking the location. 

During tribal cultural surveys of the Dewey-Burdock site, five of the unevaluated archaeological 

sites listed in Table 4.9-2 (39CU3620, 39FA1862, 39FA1881, 39FA1890, and 39FA1927) were 

visited, recorded, and recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP under one or more criteria 

of eligibility (see Table 3.9-5). The following section (Tribal Cultural Survey) provides the NRC 

NRHP-eligibility determination, the significance of impact, and management recommendations 

for these five sites based on information from the tribal cultural survey. Four unevaluated burial 

and cairn sites listed in Table 4.9-2 (39CU0530, 39CU3564, 39CU3587, and 39FA1863) are 

located outside the APE for facility construction and operations for the Class V injection well 

disposal option and, therefore, potential impacts to these sites are not anticipated. One 

unevaluated site listed in Table 4.9-2 (39CU3584) is located within the APE for facility 

construction and operations for the land application disposal option. Site 39CU3584 is 

discussed in SEIS Section 4.9.1.2.1. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-164 

Table 4.9-2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis for 

Unevaluated Sites Containing Burial and Cairn Features Identified During 

Archaeological Field Investigations. 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

StateSite 

Number Description 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to the 

Area of 

Potential Effect 

(APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance 

of Impact 

Management 

Recommendation 

39CU0530 Cairn site Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

39CU3564 Cairn site Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

39CU3584 Cairn site Unevaluated Within APE for 

LA 

LARGE 

potential impact Avoidance 

39CU3587 Two historic 

Euroamerican burials Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

39CU3620 Cairn site Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

39FA1862 Cairn site with stone 

circles Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

39FA1863 Cairn site with stone 

circles Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

39FA1881 Cairn site Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

39FA1890 Cairn site Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

39FA1902 Historic site with 

Euroamerican burial Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Euroamerican burial 

site is located 

approximately 152 m 

[500 ft] west of the 

proposed Burdock 

central processing 

plant. Site will be 

protected by a buffer 

zone and fencing. 

39FA1927 Cairn site Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

*Unevaluated sites are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D pending further evaluation. 

 

As described in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.1, several unevaluated archaeological sites are located 

within or adjacent to the APE for facility construction and operations and, therefore, could be 

potentially impacted by ISR activities. These unevaluated archaeological sites are listed in 

Table 4.9-3 along with NRC’s NRHP eligibility determination, the location of eligible sites within 

the APE affected by facility construction and operations, the NRC assessment of the 

significance of impacts, and NRC management recommendations. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-165 

Table 4.9-3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis on 

Unevaluated Sites Identified During Archaeological Field Investigations 

Within the APE for Facility Construction and Operations. 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

StateSite 

Number Description 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Area 

of Potential 

Effect (APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance 

of Impact 

Management 

Recommendation 

39CU0554 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39CU0558 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39CU0653 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Within APE for 

LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39CU3603 Artifact scatter, hearth Unevaluated Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39CU3615 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Within APE for 

LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39CU3624 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Adjacent to APE 

for DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Site will be 

avoided. 

39FA0096 Historic cabin Unevaluated Within APE for 

DDW and LA LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed 

39FA0274 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39FA0556 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39FA0740 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Adjacent to APE 

for LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39FA0777 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Adjacent to APE 

for LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39FA0778 Historic farmstead Unevaluated 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing and mitigation, 

as necessary. Avoid 

until testing is 

completed. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-166 

Table 4.9-3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis on 

Unevaluated Sites Identified During Archaeological Field Investigations 

Within the APE for Facility Construction and Operations (Cont’d). 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

StateSite 

Number Description 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Area 

of Potential 

Effect (APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance 

of Impact 

Management 

Recommendation 

39FA1880 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Adjacent to APE 

for DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

39FA1920 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Adjacent to APE 

for DDW and LA 

LARGE 

potential impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Site will be 

protected by fencing 

and avoided. 

*Unevaluated sites are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D pending further evaluation. 

Site 39FA0778 is an historic farmstead located near the center of the proposed Burdock central 

processing plant footprint. NRC staff recommends that construction activities be delayed until 

evaluative testing is completed and a determination of eligibility for listing on the NRHP is made. 

The applicant committed to further evaluative testing of site 39FA0778 and implementation of 

mitigation measures, as necessary (Powertech, 2012e,f). 

Site 39FA0096, located at the south-central portion of the proposed project area, is a large 

occupation site with components that may date from the Paleolithic through the Historic period. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.1, Area 8 is a historic component of this multi-component 

site. Evaluative testing of the prehistoric component of site 39FA0096 demonstrated the 

prehistoric component is a deflated surface scatter of artifacts and hearths and therefore not 

eligible for listing on the NRHP, under Criterion D (Palmer and Kruse, 2012; BLM, 2012f). 

However, preliminary information gathered through consultation with the tribes indicates Areas 1 

and 6 at site 39FA0096 have the potential to be of religious and cultural significance to the 

tribes because of the large size of these areas and the number of hearth features identified. 

During the tribal cultural survey, site 39FA0096 was visited, recorded, and recommended as 

eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A (see Table 3.9.5). Tribal consultation regarding 

the nature of the features and cultural deposits located at site 39FA0096 and the cultural 

importance of the site is ongoing. As described in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.1, a small portion of site 

39FA0096 extends onto BLM surface lands. Therefore, BLM requested that site 39FA0096 be 

designated as “unevaluated” until further information is obtained to support a Criterion A 

eligibility determination (BLM, 2014). Therefore, NRC staff considers site 39FA0096 as 

“unevaluated” pending further evaluation by BLM staff. Until evaluation is completed, BLM will 

require the site boundaries be avoided by all project-related activities with a standard 61 m 

[200 ft] buffer surrounding the site boundary. 

Sites 39CU0554, 39CU0558, 39CU3624, 39FA0274, 39FA0556, 39FA1880, and 39FA1920 are 

artifact scatters within or adjacent to proposed wellfield areas. Sites 39CU0554, 39FA0274, and 

39FA0556 are located within proposed wellfield areas in the Burdock area and site 39CU0558 is 

located within proposed wellfied areas in the Dewey area. Site 39CU3624 is located south of 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-167 

Pass Creek and is less than 30.5 m [100 ft] north of a proposed wellfield area in the Burdock 

area. The applicant has committed to avoid site 39CU3624 (Powertech, 2012e). Site 

39FA1880 is located approximately 30.5 m [100 ft] south of a proposed wellfield area in the 

Burdock area. Site 39FA1920 is located at the southeast corner of the project area and is 

approximately 30.5 m [100ft] south of a proposed wellfield area in the Burdock area. The 

applicant committed to protect this property by installing protective fencing around the site 

(Powertech, 2012e). NRC staff recommend that these unevaluated sites undergo further 

evaluative testing. Until testing is completed, avoidance of these sites is recommended. 

Site 39CU3603 is an artifact scatter and hearth site located within the right of way of a proposed 

pipeline connecting the Burdock central processing plant and the Dewey satellite facility. NRC 

staff recommend that this site undergo further evaluative testing. Until testing is completed, 

avoidance of site 39CU3603 is recommended. 

Sites 39CU0653, 39CU3615, 39FA0740, and 39FA0777 are artifact scatters within or 

adjacent to land applications areas. Sites 39CU0653 and 39CU3615 are located within land 

application areas in the Burdock area. Site 39FA0740 is located approximately 3.05 m [10 ft] 

southwest of land application areas in the Burdock area and site 39FA0777 is located 

approximately 3.05 [10 ft] southeast of land application areas in the Burdock area. NRC staff 

recommend that these sites undergo further evaluative testing and that the sites be avoided 

until testing is completed. 

Archaeological investigations did not identify other sites (unevaluated, NRHP-listed, or 

NRHP-eligible) within or in the vicinity of construction impact areas for the Class V injection well 

disposal option. Based on its review and evaluation of archaeological field investigations, NRC 

concludes 15 historic properties may experience LARGE potential impacts because they are 

located within or adjacent to the APE for facility construction and operations for the deep Class 

V injection well disposal option. Included are five properties eligible for listing in the NRHP (see 

Table 4.9-1) and ten unevaluated properties considered eligible for listing in the NRHP, under 

Criterion D (see Table 4.9-3). 

The applicant stated the overall goal during development and production of the proposed project 

is the avoidance of archaeological sites (Powertech, 2009a, Section 3.8.1). As discussed 

previously, the applicant has committed to protect historic and unevaluated sites by avoidance 

or for certain sites by constructing protective fencing (Powertech, 2012e,f). In addition, 

construction personnel will be notified of the location of historic properties and unevaluated sites 

prior to any ground-disturbing activities (Powertech, 2009a). By license condition, the applicant 

is required to stop any work resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts 

(NRC, 2013; License Condition 9.8). All newly discovered artifacts will be inventoried and 

evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from 

the NRC, SD SHPO, and BLM to proceed. The use of archaeological and tribal monitors to 

protect known historic properties was proposed during ground disturbing activities (Powertech, 

2009a). The NRC staff is currently developing a PA with all consulting parties to develop 

measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate sites that could be impacted such as those listed in 

Table 4.9-1 and 4.9-3). A license condition to ensure successful implementation of any 

agreement made in the PA will lessen the impacts to historic properties from this undertaking 

(NRC, 2013; License Condition 9.8). Based on implementation of mitigation measures and 

management recommendations documented here and within the PA, potential impacts to 

historic properties and unevaluated sites identified during archaeological field investigations are 

not anticipated. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-168 

Tribal Cultural Survey 

SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2 presents the results of tribal cultural surveys and NRHP-eligibility 

recommendations for previously recorded archaeological sites, as well as newly discovered 

tribal sites described by the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) for the Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, the Northern Arapaho Tribe, the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, 

and the Crow Nation. Sites identified during the tribal cultural survey with management 

recommendations are detailed in a tribal cultural survey report included as Appendix F of this 

SEIS. 

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites 

Tribal survey teams recorded 81 cultural features within the boundaries of 24 known 

archaeological sites. Tribal survey teams also provided specific recommendations on 

four (4) archaeological sites that were investigated without identifying new cultural features. 

Tribal survey teams collectively recommended that 17 known archaeological sites be 

considered as eligible for listing in the NRHP under one or more eligibility criteria. A 

summary of these recommendations is provided in Table 3.9-5. NRHP-eligibility 

recommendations were not provided by tribes for other known archaeological sites. 

The NRC NRHP-eligibility determinations, the NRC assessment of the significance of impacts, 

and management recommendations for known archaeological sites identified during the tribal 

cultural surveys are summarized in Table 4.9-4. In assessing the significance of impacts to 

these sites, NRC considered its NRHP-eligibility determinations and the locations of eligible 

sites within the APE affected by facility construction and operations. In cases where the tribes 

did not make recommendations for known archaeological sites, NRC used data from the Level 

III cultural resources investigations to make NRHP-eligibility determinations, assessments of 

significance of impacts, and management recommendations. 

Table 4.9-4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis for 

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Also Identified During Tribal 

Cultural Surveys 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

State Site 

Number 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) Tribal Features 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Area 

of Potential 

Effect (APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance of 

Impact 

Management 

Recommendation/ 

Comments 

39CU0251 TS096 Stone Circle Not Eligible Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-169 

Table 4.9-4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis for 

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Also Identified During Tribal 

Cultural Surveys (Cont’d) 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

State Site 

Number 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) Tribal Features 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Area 

of Potential 

Effect (APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance of 

Impact 

Management 

Recommendation/ 

Comments 

39CU0271 

TS019 

 TS035 

 TS130 

Cairn; Possible 

Gravesite; Earth 

Paint 

Eligible 

Criterion D 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE potential 

impact 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 

Site is located 

approximately 61 m 

[200 ft] east of 

proposed wellfield 

areas. Site will be 

avoided as possible 

gravesite. 

39CU0459 TS108-111 

Cairn; stone 

circle; 

fasting/prayer 

circles 

Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance. The 

boundary for 

39CU0459 also 

includes two smaller 

artifact scatters: 

39CU0461 and 

39CU0528. 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A and C† 

39CU0584 

TS043-046, 

TS053, 

TS132-140 

possible 

medicine wheel, 

4 directions 

marker, burial, 

fasting site, 

cairns, stone 

circle, hearth 

Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as possible 

gravesite. 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A and C† 

39CU3567 TS031-033, 

TS141 

3 stone circles, 

scattered hearth 

Eligible 

Criterion A Within APE for LA LARGE potential 

impact 

Avoidance with no 

less than 300 m [984 

ft] protective barrier. 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A and D† 

39CU3572 TS034 

Stone circles; 

possible 

medicine wheel 

Not eligible Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 

39CU3574 TS021-022 stone circle, 

scraper Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 

39CU3576 TS020 tested cobble Not eligible Within APE for LA 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 

39CU3584 TS025-027, 

TS-029 

cairn alignment, 

stone circle Unevaluated Within APE for LA LARGE potential 

impact 

Avoidance. Tribes 

recorded site but did 

not make eligibility 

recommendations. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-170 

Table 4.9-4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis for 

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Also Identified During Tribal 

Cultural Surveys (Cont’d) 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

State Site 

Number 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) Tribal Features 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Area 

of Potential 

Effect (APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance of 

Impact 

Management 

Recommendation/ 

Comments 

39CU3593 TS055 Cairn Not eligible Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 

39CU3596 TS054 disturbed Not eligible Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 

39CU3600 TS114-115 2 fasting/prayer 

circles 

Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A and C† 

39CU3602 TS119 scattered hearth Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

39CU3604 TS121-122 fasting/prayer 

circles 

Eligible 

Criterion A 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA LARGE potential 

impact 

Avoidance 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A and C† 

39CU3607 TS116-117 chert core & 

flake 

Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

39CU3620 

Cairn, 

 Prayer/ 

fasting circle 

Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance. Partly 

located on USFS 

property. Possibly 

associated with 

TS106 and TS107. 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A and C† 

39FA0096 

TS001, 

TS004, 

TS013 

hearth, 

earth paints Unevaluated 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE potential 

impact 

Site will undergo 

further evaluative 

testing. Avoid until 

testing is completed. 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A 

39FA1862 TS112-113 stone circles Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance. Located 

outside license 

boundary 

39FA1881 cairn Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A and D† 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-171 

Table 4.9-4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-Eligibility and Impact Analysis for 

Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Also Identified During Tribal 

Cultural Surveys (Cont’d) 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

State Site 

Number 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) Tribal Features 

NRC’s NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Area 

of Potential 

Effect (APE) for 

Facility 

Construction 

and Operations 

Significance of 

Impact 

Management 

Recommendation/ 

Comments 

39FA1890 TS012 2 Cairns Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

39FA1902 

Artifact Scatter; 

Well/cistern; 

Burial, Road 

Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as possible 

gravesite. No 

interest to tribes. 

39FA1922 TS014-017 

3 stone circles, 

possible 

medicine wheel 

Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance. Located 

on BLM property. 

39FA1923 TS018, 

TS142-143 2 cairns Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance. Located 

on BLM property. 

39FA1926 TS067-074, 

TS076-078 6 stone circles Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

Tribes recommended 

site eligible under 

Criteria A, C, and D† 

39FA1927 6 cairns Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

39FA1952 TS123-124 scattered hearth, 

flake 

Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

39FA1962 TS056-060 cairn, stone 

circles Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 

39FA1964 TS099-105 

2 hearths, 

alignment, 4 

fasting/prayer 

circles 

Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no 

impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site 

but did not make 

eligibility 

recommendations. 

*Unevaluated sites are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D pending further evaluation. 

†SD SHPO concurred with NRC’s Criterion A NRHP-eligibility determinations for previously recorded archaeological sites listed 

above (SD SHPO, 2014). However, SD SHPO indicated that submission of additional information will be required to evaluate tribal 

NRHP-eligibility recommendations under Criteria C and D for previously recorded archaeological sites (SD SHPO, 2014). 

As described in SEIS Seciton 3.9.3.2.2, the tribal survey teams recommended sites 39CU3602, 

39CU3607, 39FA0096, 39FA1890, 39FA1862 (outside APE), and 39FA1952 as eligible for 

listing in the NRHP under Criterion A. Sites 39CU0459, 39CU0584, 39CU3600, 39CU3604, 

and 39CU3620 were recommended eligible under criteria A and C. Sites 39CU3567, 

39FA1881, and 39FA1927 were recommended eligible under criteria A and D. Site 39FA1926 

was recommended eligible under criteria A, C, and D. The tribes recommended avoidance 

for all sites recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP (see Appendix F of this SEIS). 

SD SHPO indicated that submission of additional information will be required to assess tribal 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-172 

NRHP-eligibility recommendations under Criteria C and D for the previously recorded 

archaeological sites listed above (SD SHPO, 2014). 

As described previously, tribal consultation regarding the nature of the features and cultural 

deposits located at site 39FA0096 and the cultural importance of the site is ongoing. Because 

the site is partially located on BLM property, BLM requested that the site be designated as 

“unevaluated” until its NRHP eligibility is evaluated by BLM staff (BLM, 2014). Therefore, NRC 

staff considers site 39FA0096 as “unevaluated” pending further evaluation. Until evaluation is 

completed, BLM will require the site boundaries be avoided by all project-related activities with a 

standard 61 m [200 ft] buffer surrounding the site boundary. 

In addition, tribal survey teams recommended two (2) sites (39FA1922 and 39FA1923) located 

on BLM property as NRHP-eligible (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). Site 39FA1922 was 

recommended as eligible under Criteria A, C, and D and site 39FA1923 was recommended as 

eligible under Criteria A and C. Because the sites are located on BLM property, BLM requested 

that these sites be designated as “unevaluated” until their NRHP eligibility is evaluated by BLM 

staff (BLM, 2014). Therefore, NRC staff considers sites 39FA1922 and 39FA1923 as 

“unevaluated” pending further evaluation by BLM staff. Until evaluation is completed, BLM will 

require the site boundaries be avoided by all project-related activities with a standard 61 m [200 

ft] buffer surrounding the site boundary. 

No NRHP-eligibility recommendations were offered by tribal survey teams for sites 39CU0251, 

39CU0271, 39CU3572, 39CU3574, 39CU3576, 39CU3584, 39CU3593, 39CU3596, 39FA1962, 

and 39FA1964. NRC has determined site 39CU0271 is eligible for listing in the NRHP under 

Criterion D (see Table 4.9-1). The site is located approximately 61 m [200 ft] east of proposed 

wellfield areas and will be avoided. Site 39CU3584 is an unevaluated cairn site located within a 

land application area and is considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D (see 

Table 4.9-2). Site 39CU3584 is discussed in SEIS Section 4.9.1.2.1. NRC considers the 

remaining sites with no NRHP eligibility recommendations as being “not eligible” for listing in 

the NRHP. 

Site 39FA1902 was specifically identified as being of no interest to the Northern Cheyenne and 

Northern Arapaho tribes. Site 39FA1902 marks the location of a historic artifact scatter and a 

possible gravesite; it is likely an historic homestead. Northern Cheyenne and Northern Arapaho 

representatives examined the possible gravesite and because of the presence of broken 

concrete among the stones, they determined it was not likely of tribal origin. NRC considers site 

39FA1902 unevaluated and, therefore, should be treated as eligible for listing in the NRHP 

under Criterion D (see Table 4.9-2). The applicant committed to installing protective fencing 

around the Euroamerican burial site identified on site 39FA1902 before undertaking land 

disturbing activities in the area (Powertech, 2012f). 

Tribal Sites: New Discoveries 

A total of 47 new discoveries were recorded as a result of the tribal cultural survey. A summary 

of tribal NRHP-eligibility recommendations for these sites is provided in Table 3.9.6. The NRC 

NRHP-eligibility determinations, the NRC assessment of the significance of impacts, and 

management recommendations for new sites identified during the tribal cultural surveys are 

summarized in Table 4.9-5 and discussed below. In assessing the significance of impact to 

these sites, NRC considered its NRHP-eligibility determinations and the location of the site with 

respect to the APE for facility construction and operations. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-173 

Table 4.9-5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of NRHP 

Eligibility and Impact Analysis for New Discoveries Identified and 

Recorded During Tribal Cultural Surveys 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) 

Tribal 

Features 

NRC's NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Are of 

Potential Effect 

(APE) for Facility 

Construction and 

Operations 

Significance of 

Impact 

Management 

Recommendation/ 

Comments 

TS002 Stone circle Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

TS003 Buffalo 

bones Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS005 Flake Not eligible Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS006 Cairn Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as gravesite 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criteria A, C, 

and D† 

TS007-011 Stone circle; 

alignment 

Eligible 

Criterion A 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA LARGE potential 

impact 

Avoid with no less than a 

300 m [984 ft] protective 

buffer. 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criteria A and 

D† 

TS023 Burial Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as possible gravesite. 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS024 Stone circle Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Outside license boundary. 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS028 

Stone circles 

(3); 

campsite; 

ceremonial 

site 

Not eligible Within APE for LA SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS030 stone circle Not eligible Within APE for LA SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS036 Small cairn 

or marker Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS037 Small cairn Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS040 Ceremonial 

site 

Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criteria A and 

C† 

TS041-042 Ceremonial 

site 

Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criteria A and 

C† 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-174 

Table 4.9-5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of NRHP 

Eligibility and Impact Analysis for New Discoveries Identified and 

Recorded During Tribal Cultural Surveys (Cont’d) 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) 

Tribal 

Features 

NRC's NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Are of 

Potential Effect 

(APE) for Facility 

Construction and 

Operations 

Significance of 

Impact 

Management 

Recommendation/ 

Comments 

TS047 Ceremonial 

site 

Eligible 

Criterion A 

Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoidance 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criteria A and 

C† 

TS048 bBial Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as possible gravesite. 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS049 Burial Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as possible gravesite. 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS050 Burial Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as possible gravesite. 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS051 Fasting site Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS052 Stone circle Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS061 Stone circle Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Site will be avoided. Located 

just outside license boundary. 

TS062 Effigy Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located 600 m [1,968 ft] 

outside license boundary 

TS063 No 

identification Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS064 Stone circle Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS065 Fasting site Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS066 Cairn Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS075 Cairn Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located 60 m [196 ft] outside 

license boundary. 

TS079 Stone circle Unevaluated Outside APE 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located 230 m [754 ft] outside 

license boundary. 

TS080-089, 

TS098 

Alignment 

and Arc; 

ceremonial 

site; pipe 

ceremony 

location 

Eligible 

Criterion A 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE potential 

impact 

Avoidance 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criteria A and 

C† 

TS090 Cairn Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located outside but near 

39CU3622. Tribes recorded 

site but did not make eligibility 

recommendations. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-175 

Table 4.9-5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of NRHP 

Eligibility and Impact Analysis for New Discoveries Identified and 

Recorded During Tribal Cultural Surveys (Cont’d) 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) 

Tribal 

Features 

NRC's NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Are of 

Potential Effect 

(APE) for Facility 

Construction and 

Operations 

Significance of 

Impact 

Management 

Recommendation/ 

Comments 

TS091 Ceremonial 

site Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located outside but near 

39CU3621. Tribes recorded 

site but did not make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS092 Cairn Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS093 Possible 

cairn Not eligible Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS094 Cairn Not eligible Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS095 

Disturbed 

cairn 

(modern 

survey 

marker) 

Not eligible 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS097 Cairn Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS106 Fasting circle Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located on U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) property 40 m 

[131 ft] outside license 

boundary. Possibly associated 

with 39CU3620. 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criteria A and 

C† 

TS107 

Possible 

gravesite 

and fasting 

circle 

Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located on USFS property 

60 m [196 ft] outside license 

boundary. Avoid as possible 

gravesite. Possibly associated 

with 39CU3620. 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criteria A and 

C† 

TS118 Hearth Eligible 

Criterion A Outside APE 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated Avoidance 

TS120 Hearth Eligible 

Criterion A Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

LARGE potential 

impact Avoidance 

TS125 Burial Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as possible gravestie. 

Located on U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) 

property 60 m [196 ft] outside 

license boundary 

TS126 Staff Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located on BLM 

property180 m [590 ft] outside 

license boundary 

TS127 Fasting site Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located on BLM property 

200 m [656 ft] outside license 

boundary 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-176 

Table 4.9-5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Determination of NRHP 

Eligibility and Impact Analysis for New Discoveries Identified and 

Recorded During Tribal Cultural Surveys (Cont’d) 

(DDW=Deep Class V Disposal Well Option; LA=Land Application Option) 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) 

Tribal 

Features 

NRC's NRHP 

Determination* 

Location with 

Respect to Are of 

Potential Effect 

(APE) for Facility 

Construction and 

Operations 

Significance of 

Impact 

Management 

Recommendation/ 

Comments 

TS128 Fasting site Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located on BLM property 

200 m [656 ft] outside license 

boundary 

TS129 Fasting 

site/ring Unevaluated Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Located on BLM property 

290 m [951 ft] outside license 

boundary 

TS131 Possible 

grave Not eligible Outside APE SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Avoid as possible gravesite. 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS144 Cairn Not Eligible Within APE for 

DDW and LA 

SMALL; no impact 

anticipated 

Tribes recorded site but did not 

make eligibility 

recommendations. 

TS145 

Prayer/ 

offering 

location 

Unevaluated 

Within APE for 

DDW and LA LARGE potential 

impact 

Site location was not recorded 

by GPS but is known to be 

within an 32.4-ha [80-ac] 

parcel. Would require 

relocation to assess potential 

for site avoidance. 

Tribes recommended site 

eligible under Criterion D† 

*Unevaluated sites are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D pending further evaluation. 

†SD SHPO concurred with NRC’s Criterion A NRHP-eligibility determinations for newly discovered tribal sites listed above (SD 

SHPO, 2014). However, SD SHPO indicated that submission of additional information will be required to evaluate tribal NRHPeligibility recommendations under Criteria C and D for newly discovered tribal sites (SD SHPO, 2014). 

Twelve (12) of the 47 newly discovered cultural features were identified outside the license 

boundary. These features include five (5) discoveries on private land (TS024, TS061, TS062, 

TS075, TS079), five (5) discoveries on BLM property (TS125, TS126, TS127, TS128, TS129), 

and two (2) discoveries on U.S. Forest Service property (TS106, TS107). TS106 and TS107 

were recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP under criteria A and C. No eligibility 

recommendations were provided for the other 10 cultural features or sites. NRC considers 

these 10 sites as “unevaluated” and eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D pending 

further evaluation. 

Thirty-five (35) of the 47 new discoveries were identified within the project’s license boundary. 

Ten (10) of these tribal sites were recommended as eligible for listing on NRHP under one or 

more eligibility criteria. TS002, TS118, TS120 were recommended as eligible under Criterion A. 

TS145 is recommended as eligible under Criterion D. TS007-011 is recommended as eligible 

under criteria A and D. TS040, TS041-TS042, TS047, and TS080-T089, TS098 are 

recommended as eligible under criteria A and C. TS006, a gravesite, is recommended as 

eligible under criteria A, C, and D. The tribes recommended avoidance for all sites 

recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP (see Appendix F of this SEIS). SD SHPO 

indicated that submission of additional information will be required to assess tribal 

NRHP-eligibility recommendations under Criteria C and D for the newly discovered tribal 

sites listed above (SD SHPO, 2014). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-177 

NRHP recommendations were not provided for 25 of the 44 new discoveries recorded within the 

project license boundary (TS003, TS005, TS023, TS028, TS030, TS036, TS037, TS048, 

TS049, TS050, TS051, TS052, TS063, TS064, TS065, TS066, TS090, TS091, TS092, TS093, 

TS094, TS095, TS097, TS131, and TS144). Where no NHRP eligibility recommendations were 

offered by the tribes for new discoveries within the project’s license boundary, NRC assumed 

the tribal site to be “not eligible” for listing on NRHP. These sites included locations identified as 

artifact finds, animal bone concentrations, stone circles, cairns, and possible fasting sites. NRC 

notes that five specific tribal sites included in this group were identified during the field survey as 

possible gravesites (TS023, TS048, TS049, TS050, and TS131). NRC recommends avoidance 

of these sites due to the potential for human remains to be present even though tribes and NRC 

may not consider these locations eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Based on its review and evaluation of tribal cultural surveys, NRC concludes that two previously 

recorded archaeological sites (39CU3604 and 39FA0096), two tribal sites represented by single 

survey numbers (TS120 and TS145), and two tribal sites represented by multiple survey 

numbers (TS007-011 and TS080-089, TS098) may experience LARGE potential impacts due 

to their location within the APE for facility construction and operations for the deep Class V 

injection well disposal option (see Tables 4.9-4 and 4.9-5). Sites 39CU3604, TS210, 

TS007-011, and TS080-089, TS098 have been recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP 

under one or more eligibility criteria. As previously described, NRC staff considers sites 

39FA0096 as “unevaluated” pending further evaluation. SD SHPO recommended that site 

TS145 be designated “unevaluated” until further information is obtained to support a Criterion D 

eligibility determination (SD SHPO, 2014). Therefore, NRC staff considers site TS145 as 

“unevaluated’ pending further evaluation. Avoidance is recommended for all of these sites. 

Potential impacts to previously recorded archaeological and tribal sites identified during the 

tribal cultural surveys will be reduced through mitigation strategies developed during NHPA 

Section 106 consultations. As discussed in SEIS Section 1.7.3.5, consultation involving NRC, 

the applicant, SD SHPO, BLM, and interested Indian tribes is being conducted to determine 

what measures can be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to historic 

properties that may be impacted by site activities. Before beginning construction activities at 

the proposed project site, an agreement between NRC, SD SHPO, BLM, ACHP, interested 

Native American tribes (tribal government or designated THPO), the applicant, and other 

interested parties will be developed in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(b)(2). The agreement 

will outline the mitigation process for each affected resource identified at the site pursuant to 

36 CFR 800.6. Therefore, potential impacts to previously recorded archaeological sites and 

newly discovered tribal sites identified during tribal cultural surveys are not anticipated. 

Visual Impacts Assessment 

As described in SEIS Section 3.9.3.3, the NRC staff completed an assessment of potential 

visual impacts on historic properties (i.e., properties of any type listed in or considered eligible 

for listing in the NRHP). NRC’s assessment of visual impacts included historic properties 

situated within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the tallest or most prominent building within each 

processing facility. The tallest building within each processing facility is the satellite facility (SF) 

in the Dewey area and the central processing plant (CPP) in the Burdock area. 

NRC staff compiled a list of 31 historic properties that are either listed on the NRHP or 

considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under criteria A and/or C due in part to their integrity 

of setting and are also located within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the SF in the Dewey area and the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-178 

CPP in the Burdock area (Table 4.9-6). Historic properties considered eligible for the NRHP 

solely under Criterion D were not evaluated for potential visual impacts because integrity of 

setting is not often considered a contributing characteristic for properties considered eligible on 

the basis of their historic information contents (i.e., Criterion D). The group of 31 historic sites 

evaluated for visual impacts includes one NRHP-listed historic district, the Edna and Ernest 

Young Ranch (90000949) also known as the Bakewell Ranch (CU00000050). The Young 

Ranch historic district includes several contributing ranch buildings including the principal 

residence. A nearby homestead district, known as the Richardson Homestead (CU00000052), 

includes one individually eligible log barn (CU02500002). Other NRHP-eligible properties 

include one historic bridge (Beaver Creek Bridge, FA00000111), and 28 sites that include 19 

archaeological sites and 9 tribal sites. 

Table 4.9-6. 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 Assessment. 

(SF=Dewey Satellite Facility; CPP=Burdock Central Processing Plant)

State Property 

Number 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) 

NRC's NRHP 

Determination 

Facilities 

Visible 

From 

Property 

Distance 

to 

Nearest 

Visible 

Facility 

Mitigating 

Considerations 

Significance 

of Impact 

Recommended 

Action/ 

Comments 

Bakewell 

Ranch 

(CU00000050)/ 

Edna and 

Ernest Young 

Ranch Historic 

District 

(90000949) 

Eligible, 

Criterion A SF only 1.6 km 

[1.0 mi] None 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

Minimize visual 

effect of building 

with low profile 

design and 

compatible 

exterior color to 

avoid potential 

adverse effect 

Building 1 

(CU02500002) 

at the 

Richardson 

Homestead 

(CU00000052) 

Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 2,25 km [1.4 mi] 

Diminished 

integrity of 

overall 

homestead 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

Beaver Creek 

Bridge 

(24020020) 

Eligible 

Criterion C Neither 4.5 km 

[2.8 mi] None SMALL; no 

visual impact 

39CU0459 TS108-111 Eligible, 

Criterion A Both 

2.7 km 

[1.7 mi] 

(SF) 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

39CU0584 

TS043-

046, 

TS053, 

TS132-140 

Eligible, 

Criteria A, D SF only 2.25 km 

[1.4 mi] 

Viewshed 

obstructed by 

tree cover 

SMALL; no 

visual impact 

Maintain 

existing tree 

cover 

39CU2000 Eligible, 

Criteria A, C Both 

0.8 km 

[0.5 mi] 

(SF) 

Setting is 

confined to 

narrow corridor 

along railroad 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

39CU3567 TS031-

033, TS141 

Eligible, 

Criterion A SF only 0.96 km 

[0.6 mi] 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

39CU3600 TS114-115 Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 3.1 km 

[1.9 mi] 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

39CU3602 TS119 Eligible, 

Criterion A SF only 2.25 km 

[1.4 mi] 

Viewshed 

obstructed by 

tree cover 

SMALL; no 

visual impact 

Maintain 

existing tree 

cover 

39CU3604 TS121-122 Eligible, 

Criterion A Both 2.9 km 

[1.8 mi] 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-179 

Table 4.9-6. 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 Assessment (Cont’d). 

(SF=Dewey Satellite Facility; CPP=Burdock Central Processing Plant)

State Property 

Number 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) 

NRC's NRHP 

Determination 

Facilities 

Visible 

From 

Property 

Distance 

to 

Nearest 

Visible 

Facility 

Mitigating 

Considerations 

Significance 

of Impact 

Recommended 

Action/ 

Comments 

39CU3607 TS116-117 Eligible, 

Criterion A SF only 2.6 km 

[1.6 mi] 

Viewshed 

obstructed by 

tree cover 

SMALL; no 

visual impact 

Maintain 

existing tree 

cover 

39CU3620 Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 3.4 km 

[2.1 mi] 

Viewshed 

obstructed by 

tree cover 

SMALL; no 

visual impact 

Maintain 

existing tree 

cover 

39FA0096 

TS001, 

TS004, 

TS013 

Unevaluated Both 1.4 km 

[0.9 mi] 

Viewshed 

obstructed by 

tree cover; Other 

modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

Maintain 

existing tree 

cover 

Included in 

visual impacts 

assessment 

because Tribes 

considered site 

eligible under 

Criterion A 

39FA1862 TS112-113 Eligible, 

Criterion A SF only 

2.9 km 

[1.8 mi] 

(SF) 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

39FA1881 Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 1.3 km 

[0.8 mi] 

Partially 

screened by 

topography; 

other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

39FA1890 TS012 Eligible, 

Criterion A Neither - None SMALL; no 

visual impact 

39FA1922 TS014-017 Unevaluated Neither - None SMALL; no 

visual impact 

Included in 

visual impacts 

assessment 

because Tribes 

considered site 

eligible under 

Criterion A 

39FA1923 TS018, 

TS142-143 Unevaluated Neither - None SMALL; no 

visual impact 

Included in 

visual impacts 

assessment 

because Tribes 

considered site 

eligible under 

Criterion A 

39FA1926 

TS067-

074, 

TS076-078 

Eligible, 

Criterion A Neither - None SMALL; no 

visual impact 

39FA1927 Eligible, 

Criterion A Neither - None SMALL; no 

visual impact 

39FA1952 TS123-124 Eligible, 

Criterion A SF only 2.4 km 

[1.5 mi] 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

39FA2000 Eligible, 

Criteria A, C Both 

0.8 km 

[0.5 mi] 

(SF) 

Setting is 

confined to 

narrow corridor 

along railroad 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

 TS002 Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 0.96 km 

[0.6 mi] 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-180 

Table 4.9-6. 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 Assessment (Cont’d). 

(SF=Dewey Satellite Facility; CPP=Burdock Central Processing Plant)

State Property 

Number 

Tribal 

Survey 

Number(s) 

NRC's NRHP 

Determination 

Facilities 

Visible 

From 

Property 

Distance 

to 

Nearest 

Visible 

Facility 

Mitigating 

Considerations 

Significance 

of Impact 

Recommended 

Action/ 

Comments 

 TS006 Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 1.9 km 

[1.2 mi] 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

TS007-

0011 

Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 0.64 km 

[0.4 mi] 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

 TS040 Eligible, 

Criterion A Both 2.25 km 

[1.4 mi] 

Partially 

screened by 

timber; other 

modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

Maintain 

existing tree 

cover 

 TS041-042 Eligible, 

Criterion A Both 2.25 km 

[1.4 mi] 

Partially 

screened by 

timber; other 

modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

Maintain 

existing tree 

cover 

 TS047 Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 5.9 km 

[3.7 mi] 

Distance 

between site and 

facility > 4.8 km 

[3 mi] 

SMALL; no 

visual impact 

TS080-

089, TS098 

Eligible, 

Criterion A CPP only 0.64 km 

[0.4 mi] 

Mostly screened 

by topography; 

other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

 TS118 Eligible, 

Criterion A SF only 2.4 km 

[1.5 mi] 

Viewshed 

obstructed by 

tree cover 

SMALL; no 

visual impact 

Maintain 

existing tree 

cover 

 TS120 Eligible, 

Criterion A SF only 2.0 km 

[1.25 mi] 

Other modern 

intrusions 

MODERATE; 

no adverse 

visual impact 

Only one historic property located outside the license boundary was included in this review. 

The Beaver Creek Bridge (Structure FA00000111) is located southwest of the project boundary 

but falls within the 4.8-km [3-mi] radius for the central processing plant. Two rock art sites in 

Fall River County (39FA2530, 39FA2531) fell just outside the 4.8-km [3-mi] range for the central 

processing plant. No other NRHP-listed or eligible properties were identified outside the 

license boundary. 

NRC staff used a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based Line of Sight (LOS) analysis to 

determine whether the proposed processing facilities would be visible from the vantage point of 

each individual historic property. This analytical approach uses GIS software to estimate the 

viewshed surrounding each historic property. It uses variation in elevation and ground terrain to 

determine whether a direct line of sight exists between two points, in this case a line-of-sight 

between the historic property and each of the two processing facilities. The analysis produces a 

map of the area with visible portions of the landscape shaded to illustrate what portions would 

be visible. While this approach is useful for showing where elevated terrain will interfere with or 

block the view of the facilities, it does not account for other types of potential visual obstructions 

such as trees or buildings. It does however provide a quantitative means to determine if a 

potential visual effect is present (i.e., if one or both of the processing facilities would be visible 

from the vantage point of each historic property). NRC’s determination of impact and NRC’s 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-181 

assessment of the magnitude of that impact is then based on consideration of the LOS data, the 

type of historic property involved, and the distance between the historic property and the 

proposed processing facility. 

Based on the LOS analysis, NRC calculates that the proposed project will have a SMALL visual 

impact on 12 of the 31 historic properties included in this study (Table 4.9.6). Neither of the 

facilities will be visible from six (6) historic properties (Beaver Creek Bridge-24-020-020; 

39FA1890, 39FA1922, 39FA1923, 39FA1926, 39FA1927). One (1) historic property (TS047) is 

located in area where at least one facility would be visible, but at a distance of 5.9 km [3.7 mi] 

that is greater than the estimated 4.8-km [3-mi] range considered to have potential effect. Five 

(5) other historic properties (39CU0584, 39CU3602, 39CU3607, 39CU3620, TS118) are located 

in areas where the local terrain would permit a view of at least one facility; however, in each 

instance the viewshed in the direction of the proposed facility is obstructed by existing tree 

cover. As long as the existing tree cover is not altered by the proposed project, NRC has 

concluded that the existing conditions warrant a finding of a SMALL visual impact. 

A total of 19 historic properties have been assessed as having potential visual impacts based 

the results of the LOS analysis. The NRC considered the significance of a site, qualities that 

contribute to the significance of sites, and environmental factors and conditions in assessing 

sites. The NRC concluded modern intrusions, such as public roads, an active railroad corridor, 

several modern residences and farms, and former open pit mines diminished the qualities of 

setting, feeling and association of 15 archaeological and tribal cultural properties with potential 

visual effects (39CU0459, 39CU3567, 39CU3600, 39CU3604, 39FA0096, 39FA1862, 

39FA1881, 39FA1952, TS002, TS006, TS007-011, TS040, TS041-042, TS080-089/098, 

TS120). NRC concluded the introduction of new visual changes to the viewsheds of the 

Bakewell Ranch (CU00000050)/Edna and Ernest Young Ranch Historic District (NRIS 

#90000949) and the Burlington Northern Railroad (39CU2000 and 39FA2000) will have minimal 

effect based on distances from the properties. NRC also judged that new visual changes to the 

viewshed of the Richardson Log Barn (CU02500002) will be minimal due to the diminished 

integrity of the abandoned building and the surrounding homestead property (CU00000052). 

Based on these assessments, NRC staff has concluded that the proposed project will have 

MODERATE visual impacts on this group of 19 historic properties. 

It is important to note that these assessments of impact are based on current designs for the 

processing facilities, existing topography, and other environmental conditions including tree 

cover. Other project activities such as grading for project construction or clearing of vegetation 

could result in changes to the immediate surroundings of individual historic properties that could 

increase the potential for adverse impacts. Therefore, unanticipated changes in these conditions 

may warrant reconsideration of these assessments. 

Auditory Impact Assessment 

This assessment considers whether the proposed project will have the potential to introduce 

new auditory changes that could impact historic properties within or outside the limits of 

proposed ground disturbance. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that activities associated with 

construction and operations at ISR facilities will not introduce significant audible elements to the 

project area (NRC, 2009a). NRC’s assessment of auditory impacts included the 31 historic 

properties that are either listed on the NRHP or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP 

under criteria A and/or C due in part to their integrity of setting and are also located within a 

4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the SF in the Dewey area and the CPP in the Burdock area 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-182 

(Table 4.9-6). As discussed previously, historic properties considered eligible for the NRHP 

solely under Criterion D were not evaluated for potential visual impacts because integrity of 

setting is not often considered a contributing characteristic for properties considered eligible on 

the basis of their historic information contents (i.e., Criterion D). 

NRC concluded in the GEIS that impacts from noise will be greatest during the construction and 

decommissioning phases of an ISR project due to noise generated by earthmoving, excavation, 

building construction, and demolition activities (NRC, 2009a). Noise levels decrease with 

distance from the source and NRC determined that noise impacts will be SMALL for residences, 

communities, and sensitive areas that are located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific 

noise-generating activtives (NRC, 2009a). None of the historic properties included in this 

assessment are located closer than 640 m [2,100 ft] from the nearest processing facility, which 

exceeds the estimated 305 m [1,000 ft] zone for potential auditory impacts. Therefore, NRC 

staff conclude that potential auditory impacts on historic properties during the construction 

phase for the deep Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

Construction Impacts Conclusion 

The NRC environmental review of historic and cultural resources is based on analyses of 

historic and cultural resource investigations (Kruse, et al., 2008; Palmer and Kruse, 2008; 

Palmer 2008, 2009, 2012); tribal cultural surveys (SEIS Appendix F); visual and auditory impact 

assessments conducted by NRC staff; and commitments made by the applicant to implement 

mitigation measures for potentially impacted sites. Based on results of the environmental 

review, NRC staff conclude that the potential impacts to historic and cultural resources during 

the construction phase of the proposed project for the Class V injection well disposal option will 

range from SMALL to LARGE. 

4.9.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

As discussed in the GEIS, it is expected that potential impacts to historic and cultural resources 

from operations will be less than during construction, because less land disturbance occurs 

during this phase (NRC, 2009a). In addition, there will be minimal impacts from facility 

operations or maintenance on identified historic and cultural resources because any potential 

impacts to these sites will be mitigated prior to facility construction. Potential visual and auditory 

impacts on historic properties at the proposed project site will be the same as described in 

Section 4.9.1.1.1 (potential visual impacts will range from SMALL to MODERATE and potential 

auditory impacts will be SMALL). If there is a discovery of historic and cultural resources during 

routine maintenance activities, the applicant is required by license condition to stop work (NRC, 

2013; License Condition 9.8). The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in 

accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, 

SD SHPO, and BLM to proceed. For these reasons, the potential impacts to historic and 

cultural resources during the operations phase for the Class V injection well disposal option will 

be SMALL to MODERATE. 

4.9.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

As discussed in the GEIS, it is expected that aquifer restoration impacts to historic and cultural 

resources will be similar to, or less than, potential impacts from operations (NRC, 2009a). 

Aquifer restoration activities are generally limited to the existing infrastructure and previously 

disturbed areas (e.g., access roads, satellite facility, and central processing plant). Potential 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-183 

impacts to identified historic and cultural resources will have been mitigated prior to facility 

construction. Potential visual and auditory impacts on historic properties at the proposed project 

site will be the same as described in Section 4.9.1.1.1 (potential visual impacts will range from 

SMALL to MODERATE and potential auditory impacts will be SMALL). If there is a discovery of 

historic and cultural resources during routine maintenance activities, the applicant is required by 

license condition to stop work and notify NRC, SD SHPO, and BLM (NRC, 2013; License 

Condition 9.8). The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 

36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, SD SHPO, and 

BLM to proceed. Therefore, the potential impacts to historic and cultural resources during 

the aquifer restoration phase for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL 

to MODERATE. 

4.9.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

As discussed in the GEIS, decommissioning and reclamation activities will be limited to 

previously disturbed areas, and historic and cultural resources within the APE will already be 

known (NRC, 2009a). There will be minimal impacts on historic and cultural resources because 

potential impacts to identified historic properties will have been mitigated. Identified historic 

sites will have been avoided from the construction phase through the decommissioning phase. 

Until processing facilities and infrastructure is dismantled and removed, potential visual and 

auditory impacts on historic properties at the proposed project site will be the same as 

described in Section 4.9.1.1.1 (potential visual impacts will range from SMALL to MODERATE 

and potential auditory impacts will be SMALL). Potential visual impacts will be reduced to 

SMALL after processing facilities are dismantled and removed. If historic and cultural resources 

are encountered during decommissioning and reclamation activities, the applicant is required by 

license condition to stop work and notify NRC, SD SHPO, and BLM (NRC, 2013; License 

Condition 9.8). The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 

36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, SD SHPO, and 

BLM to proceed. Therefore, the overall potential impacts to historic and cultural resources 

during decommissioning for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.9.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant proposes to 

dispose of liquid waste generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by land 

application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). The potential impacts on historic and cultural 

resources during construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated 

with the land application liquid waste disposal option are discussed in the following sections. 

4.9.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

As noted in SEIS Section 4.9.1, if land application is used for liquid waste disposal, the APE for 

facility construction and operations will include an additional maximum area of approximately 

506 ha [1,250 ac] surrounding proposed land application areas (see Figure 3.9-1). As with the 

Class V injection well disposal option, mitigation measures, such as limiting construction of new 

access and secondary roads, will minimize surface disturbance (Powertech, 2009a) during this 

option and will limit potential impacts to historic and cultural resources. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1, as part of the environmental review of historic and 

cultural resources, the NRC evaluated the results of historic and cultural resource surveys 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-184 

conducted at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site (see SEIS Section 3.9.3). These 

surveys included (i) a Level III cultural resource investigation conducted as part of prelicense 

application activities; (ii) a tribal cultural survey; and (iii) a visual impacts assessment. In 

addition to the visual impacts assessment, NRC evaluated whether the proposed project has 

the potential to introduce new auditory changes to the project area that may impact historic 

properties located within or outside the limits of proposed ground disturbance. NRC’s NRHP 

eligibility determinations and assessment for cultural and historic properties identified at the 

Dewey-Burdock site that may be impacted by the land application disposal option are discussed 

in the sections below. 

Level III Cultural Resource Investigation 

As described in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1, archaeological field investigations identified a total of 

18 historic properties within the proposed project area that are listed or recommended as 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. These sites are listed in Table 4.9-1 along with the NRC 

NRHP-eligibility determinations, the locations of eligible sites within the APE affected by facility 

construction and operations, NRC assessment of the significance of impact, and NRC 

management recommendations. With the exception of site CU02500002, the impacts of 

construction activities and recommended mitigation measures for these sites are expected 

to be identical to those described in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1 for the Class V injection well 

disposal option. 

Site CU02500002 is a log barn structure located approximately 76 m [250 ft] south of proposed 

land application areas in the Burdock area. Site CU02500002 is part of the Richardson 

Homestead (CU00000052), which contains three other standing structures (CU02500001, 

CU02500003, and CU02500004). SD SHPO indicated that all four standing structures at the 

Richardson Homestead are related and should be considered as a district (SD SHPO, 2014). In 

this context, SD SHPO recommended that the Richardson Homestead be considered eligible 

under Criterion A. In addition, SD SHPO recommended that the archaeological component of 

the Richardson Homestead represented by site 39CU3619 be considered “unevaluated” until 

additional information is submitted (SD SHPO, 2014). NRC recommends that the NRHPeligibility of sites CU00000052 (Richardson Homestead) and 39CU3619 be further evaluated 

during development of a PA associated with ongoing Section 106 consultation activities. 

Site CU02500002 (the log barn structure) is located within the APE for facility construction and 

operations for the land application option. NRC recommended and the applicant committed to 

creating a buffer zone and erecting protective fencing around the perimeter of the log barn 

structure to minimize potential impacts during construction (Powertech, 2012e). If avoidance is 

not possible, NRC recommends that the structure be mitigated through Historic American 

Buildings Survey (HABS) level documentation. 

As noted in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.1, historic and ethnographic evidence indicate that cairn 

features may have served as markers for trails, camps, burials, caches, and ceremonial centers 

for Native American tribes. Unevaluated sites with burials or cairn features are listed in 

Table 4.9-2 along with the NRC NRHP-eligibility determinations, the locations of eligible sites 

within the APE affected by facility construction and operations, NRC assessment of the 

significance of impact, and NRC management recommendations (see SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1). 

NRC considers unevaluated archaeological sites eligible for listing in the NRHP under 

Criterion D. With the exception of site 39CU3584, impacts of construction activities and 

recommended mitigation measures for these sites are expected to be identical to those 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-185 

described in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1 for the Class V injection well disposal option. Cairn site 

39CU3584 is located within a proposed land application area at the Dewey site. As described in 

SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.1, site 39CU3584 underwent archaeological testing and was 

recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria D, based on a lack of diagnostic 

artifacts and intact cultural deposits (Kruse, et al., 2008; Palmer and Kruse, 2012). SD SHPO 

recommended that site 39CU3584 be considered unevaluated for listing on the NRHP until all 

eligibility criteria have been determined (SD SHPO, 2012). Site 39CU3584 was visited and 

recorded during tribal cultural surveys; however, the tribes offered no NRHP recommendations 

for this site (see SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2). NRC recommends avoidance of site 39CU3584 and 

considers this site eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D pending further evaluation. 

With the exception of 39CU3584, no other unevaluated cairn sites are located within proposed 

construction impact areas for the land application disposal option. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.9.3.1.1, several unevaluated archaeological sites are located 

within or adjacent to the APE for facility construction and operations and, therefore, could be 

potentially impacted by ISR activities. These unevaluated archaeological sites are listed in 

Table 4.9-3 along with the NRC NRHP-eligibility determinations, the locations of eligible sites 

within the APE affected by facility construction and operations, NRC assessment of the 

significance of impact, and NRC management recommendations. NRC considers unevaluated 

archaeological sites eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 3.9.3.1.1, unevaluated sites 39CU0653, 39CU3615, 39FA0740, and 39FA0777 are 

artifact scatters within or adjacent to land applications areas. With the exception of these sites, 

impacts and recommended mitigation measures to ensure that unevaluated sites are not 

impacted by construction activities will be identical to those described in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1 

for the Class V injection well disposal option. Sites 39CU0653 and 39CU3615 are located 

within land application areas in the Burdock area. Site 39FA0740 is located approximately 

3.05 m [10 ft] southwest of land application areas in the Burdock area and site 39FA0777 is 

located approximately 3.05 [10 ft] southeast of land application areas in the Burdock area. NRC 

staff recommend that these sites undergo further evaluative testing to determine their eligibility 

for listing in the NRHP. Until testing is completed, avoidance of these sites is recommended. 

Archaeological investigations have not identified other unevaluated or NRHP-eligible sites within 

or in the vicinity of construction impact areas for the land application disposal option. Based on 

its review and evaluation of archaeological field investigations, NRC concludes that six (6) 

historic properties could experience LARGE potential impacts due solely to their location within 

or adjacent to the APE for facility construction and operations for the land application disposal 

option. This includes one (1) property eligible for listing in the NRHP (CU02500002) and five (5) 

unevaluated properties considered eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D pending 

further evaluation (39CU3584, 39CU0653, 39CU3615, 39FA0740, and 39FA0777). 

The applicant stated the overall goal during development and production of the proposed project 

is the avoidance of archaeological sites (Powertech, 2009a, Section 3.8.1). As discussed 

previously, the applicant has committed to protect historic and unevaluated sites by avoidance 

or in some cases constructing protective fencing to ensure avoidance (Powertech, 2012e, f). In 

addition, construction personnel will be advised of the location of historic properties and 

unevaluated sites prior to any ground-disturbing activities (Powertech, 2009a). By license 

condition, the applicant is required to stop any work resulting in the discovery of previously 

unknown cultural artifacts (NRC, 2013; License Condition 9.8). All newly discovered artifacts 

will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart 

without authorization from the NRC, SD SHPO, and BLM to proceed. The use of archaeological 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-186 

and tribal monitors to protect known historic properties was proposed during ground disturbing 

activities (Powertech, 2009a). The NRC staff is currently developing a PA with all consulting 

parties to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate sites that could be impacted such 

as those listed in Tables 4.9-1 and 4.9-3). A license condition to ensure successful 

implementation of any agreement made in the PA will lessen the impacts to historic properties 

from this undertaking (NRC, 2013, License Condition 9.8). Based on implementation of 

mitigation measures and management recommendations documented here and within the PA, 

potential impacts to historic properties and unevaluated sites identified during archaeological 

field investigations are not anticipated. 

Tribal Cultural Survey 

SEIS Section 3.9.3.2.2 presents the results of tribal cultural surveys and eligibility 

recommendations for recorded archaeological sites and newly discovered tribal sites provided 

by the THPOs for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Northern Arapaho Tribe, the Cheyenne and 

Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, and the Crow Nation. Sites identified during the tribal cultural 

survey with management recommendations are included as Appendix F of this SEIS. 

The NRC NRHP-eligibility determinations, assessment of significance of impact, and 

management recommendations for known archaeological sites and newly discovered tribal sites 

identified during the tribal cultural surveys are presented in Tables 4.9-4 and 4.9-5, respectively. 

In assessing the significance of impact to these sites, NRC considered its NRHP eligibility 

determination and the location of the site with respect to the APE for facility construction and 

operations. With the exception of site 39CU3567, impacts and recommended mitigation 

measures to ensure that these sites are not impacted by construction activities will be identical 

to those described in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1 for the Class V injection well disposal option. 

Site 39CU3567 is a previously recorded archaeological site that could experience LARGE 

potential impacts due to its location within the APE for facility construction and operations for the 

land application option (see Table 4.9-4). Tribal survey teams recommended avoidance of this 

site with no less than a 300 m [964 ft] protective buffer. 

Potential impacts to known archaeological and newly discovered tribal sites identified during 

the tribal cultural surveys will be reduced through mitigation strategies developed during 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 consultations. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 1.7.3.5, consultation involving NRC, the applicant, SD SHPO, BLM, and interested 

Indian tribes is being conducted to determine what measures can be used to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse impacts to historic properties that may be impacted by site activities. Before 

beginning construction activities at the proposed project site, an agreement between NRC, 

SD SHPO, BLM, ACHP, interested Native American tribes (tribal government or designated 

THPO), the applicant, and other interested parties will be developed in accordance with 

36 CFR 800.14(b)(2). The agreement will outline the mitigation process for each affected 

resource identified at the site pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)(v). Therefore, potential impacts to 

previously recorded archaeological sites and newly discovered tribal sites identified during tribal 

cultural surveys are not anticipated. 

 

Visual Impact Assessment 

As described in SEIS Section 3.9.3.3, NRC staff completed an assessment of the proposed 

project’s potential to have visual impacts on historic properties (i.e., properties of any type listed 

in or considered eligible for listing in the NRHP). As discussed in SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1, NRC’s 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-187 

assessment of visual impacts included 31 historic properties that are either listed on the NRHP 

or considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under criteria A and/or C due in part to their 

integrity of setting. They are also located within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the SF in the Dewey 

area and the CPP in the Burdock area (Table 4.9-6). Historic properties eligible for the NRHP 

solely under Criterion D were not evaluated for potential visual impacts because integrity of 

setting is not a contributing characteristic for these types of properties eligible for their historic 

information contents (i.e., Criterion D). 

NRC staff used a GIS-based LOS analysis to determine whether the proposed processing 

facilities would be visible from the vantage point of each individual historic property. The Dewey 

SF and the Burdock CPP will be situated at identical locations for both the land application and 

Class V injection well disposal options. Therefore, potential visual and auditory impacts to 

historic properties for the land application option will be identical to those described in SEIS 

Section 4.9.1.1.1 for the Class V injection well disposal option. Based on the LOS analysis, 

NRC calculates that the proposed project will have a SMALL visual impact on 12 of the 

31 historic properties included in this study (Table 4.9.6) and a MODERATE visual impact on 

19 historic properties included in the visual impact assessment (see SEIS Section 4.9.1.1.1 and 

Table 4.9-6). 

Auditory Impact Assessment 

NRC concluded in the GEIS that impacts from noise will be greatest during the construction and 

decommissioning phases of an ISR project due to noise generated by earthmoving, excavation, 

building construction, and demolition activities (NRC, 2009a). Noise levels decrease with 

distance from the source and NRC determined that noise impacts will be SMALL for residences, 

communities, and sensitive areas that are located more than 305 m [1,000 ft] from specific 

noise-generating activtives (NRC, 2009a). NRC’s assessment of auditory impacts included the 

31 historic properties that are either listed on the NRHP or considered eligible for listing on the 

NRHP under criteria A and/or C due in part to their integrity of setting and are also located 

within a 4.8-km [3-mi] radius of the SF in the Dewey area and the CPP in the Burdock area 

(Table 4.9-6). None of the historic properties included in this assessment are located closer 

than 640 m [2,100 ft] from the nearest processing facility, which exceeds the estimated 305 m 

[1,000 ft] zone for potential auditory impacts. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that potential 

auditory impacts on historic properties during the construction phase for the land application 

disposal option will be SMALL. 

Construction Impacts Conclusion 

The NRC environmental review of historic and cultural resources is based on analyses of 

historic and cultural resource investigations ((Kruse, et al., 2008; Palmer and Kruse, 2008; 

Palmer 2008, 2009, 2012); tribal cultural surveys (SEIS Appendix F); visual and auditory impact 

assessments conducted by NRC staff; and commitments made by the applicant to implement 

mitigation measures for potentially impacted sites. Based on results of the environmental 

review, NRC staff conclude that the potential impacts to historic and cultural resources during 

the construction phase of the proposed project for the land application disposal option will range 

from SMALL to LARGE. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-188 

4.9.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

As discussed in the GEIS, it is expected that potential impacts to historic and cultural resources 

from operations will be less than during construction, because less land disturbance occurs 

during this phase (NRC, 2009a). In addition, there will be minimal impacts from facility 

operations or maintenance on identified historic and cultural resources because any potential 

impacts to these sites will be mitigated prior to facility construction. Potential visual and auditory 

impacts on historic properties at the proposed project site will be the same as described in 

Section 4.9.1.2.1 (potential visual impacts will range from SMALL to MODERATE and potential 

auditory impacts will be SMALL). If there is a discovery of historic and cultural resources during 

routine maintenance activities, the applicant is required by license condition to stop work (NRC, 

2013; License Condition 9.8). The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in 

accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, 

SD SHPO, and BLM to proceed. For these reasons, the potential impacts to historic and 

cultural resources during the operations phase for the land application disposal option will be 

SMALL to MODERATE. 

4.9.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

As discussed in the GEIS, it is expected that aquifer restoration impacts to historic and cultural 

resources will be similar to, or less than, potential impacts from operations (NRC, 2009a). 

Aquifer restoration activities are generally limited to the existing infrastructure and previously 

disturbed areas (e.g., access roads, satellite facility, and central processing plant). Potential 

impacts to identified historic and cultural resources will have been mitigated prior to facility 

construction. Potential visual and auditory impacts on historic properties at the proposed project 

site will be the same as described in Section 4.9.1.2.1 (potential visual impacts will range from 

SMALL to MODERATE and potential auditory impacts will be SMALL). If there is a discovery of 

historic and cultural resources during routine maintenance activities, the applicant is required by 

license condition to stop work and notify NRC, SD SHPO, and BLM (NRC, 2013; License 

Condition 9.8). The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 

36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, SD SHPO, and 

BLM to proceed. Therefore, the potential impacts to historic and cultural resources during the 

aquifer restoration phase for the land application disposal option will be SMALL to MODERATE. 

4.9.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

As discussed in the GEIS, decommissioning and reclamation activities will focus on previously 

disturbed areas, and historic and cultural resources within the APE will already be known (NRC, 

2009a). There will be minimal impacts on historic and cultural resources because potential 

impacts to identified historic properties will have been mitigated. Identified historic sites will 

have been avoided from the construction phase through the decommissioning phase. Until 

processing facilities and infrastructure is dismantled and removed, potential visual and auditory 

impacts on historic properties at the proposed project site will be the same as described in 

Section 4.9.1.2.1 (potential visual impacts will range from SMALL to MODERATE and potential 

auditory impacts will be SMALL). Potential visual impacts will be reduced to SMALL after 

processing facilities are dismantled and removed. If historic and cultural resources are 

encountered during decommissioning and reclamation activities, the applicant is required by 

license condition to stop work and notify NRC, SD SHPO, and BLM (NRC, 2013; License 

Condition 9.8). The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with 

36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, SD SHPO, and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-189 

BLM to proceed. Therefore, the overall potential impacts to historic and cultural resources 

during decommissioning for the land application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.9.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project, the applicant has proposed to dispose of liquid waste by a combination of deep well 

disposal using Class V injection wells and land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). In 

order to implement the combined option, land application facilities and infrastructure will be 

constructed, operated, restored, and decommissioned on an as-needed basis, depending on 

the disposal capacity Class V injection wells (Powertech, 2011). Increased land disturbance 

and added access restrictions associated with the addition of irrigation areas and increased 

pond capacity for storage during nonirrigation periods will result in different environmental 

impacts for the combined option. Specifically, the potential environmental impacts of liquid 

waste disposal by land application for all phases of the ISR process will be greater than for 

liquid waste disposal by Class V injection wells (see SEIS Table 4.2.1). However, because only 

a portion of land application facilities and infrastructure (e.g., irrigation areas and storage ponds) 

will be constructed, operated, and decommissioned, the impacts to historic and cultural 

resources for the combined disposal option will be less than for the land application option, but 

greater than for the Class V injection well disposal option. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that 

the potential impacts on historic and cultural resources of the combined Class V injection well 

and land application disposal option for each phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will be no greater than the impacts of the Class V injection well option and the land 

application option as summarized in Table 4.9-7. 

4.9.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, no ISR facility will be constructed or operated at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Therefore, no historic properties will be affected by the No-Action 

alternative. The potential impacts associated with current land activities, such as, cattle 

ranching and recreation will continue. 

Table 4.9-7. Significance of Historic and Cultural Resources Impacts for the Proposed 

Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE SMALL to LARGE 

Operations SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

SMALL to 

MODERATE 

Decommissioning SMALL SMALL SMALL 

*Significance of impacts on historic and cultural resources for the combined disposal option is bounded by the 

significance of impacts on historic and cultural resources for the Class V injection well and land application 

disposal options. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-190 

4.10 Visual and Scenic Resources Impacts 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.4.9, potential visual and scenic impacts from an ISR facility in 

the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region may occur during all phases of 

the ISR facility lifecycle. These impacts will come primarily from the use of equipment such as 

drill rigs; dust and other emissions from such equipment; construction of central and satellite 

plants and storage structures and site and wellfield access roads; land clearing and grading 

activities; and lighting for nighttime operations. Such impacts may be mitigated by rolling 

topography, the use of color considerations for structures, and dust suppression techniques. 

(NRC, 2009a) 

 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

Visual impacts during construction can result from the presence of equipment (e.g., drill rig 

masts, cranes), dust and diesel emissions from construction equipment, and hillside and 

roadside cuts. Depending on the location of an ISR facility relative to viewpoints, such as 

highways, facility construction and of drill rigs may be visible. For nighttime operations, the drill 

rigs will be lighted, thus creating a visual impact on elevated areas. Most impacts will be 

temporary as equipment is moved and will be mitigated by BMPs (e.g., dust suppression). 

Additionally, because these sites are located in sparsely populated areas with rolling 

topography, most visual impacts during construction will not be visible from more than about 

1 km [0.6 mi]. Therefore, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that visual and scenic impacts from 

operations will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

Visual impacts during operations will be less than those from construction because the wellfield 

surface infrastructure will have a low profile, and most piping and cables will be buried. The 

tallest structures will be expected to include the central processing plant {9 m [30 ft] in height} 

and power lines {6 m [20 ft] in height}. Because ISR sites are typically located in sparsely 

populated areas with generally rolling topography, most visual impacts during operations will be 

limited to a distance of not more than about 1 km [0.6 mi]. The irregular layout of wellfield 

surface structures, such as wellhead protection and header houses, will further reduce visual 

contrast. BMPs, design (e.g., painting buildings), and landscaping techniques will be used to 

mitigate potential visual impact. Therefore, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that visual and 

scenic impacts from operations will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

Aquifer restoration activities will be expected to take place some years after the facility has been 

in operation, and restoration activities will use in-place infrastructure. As a result, potential 

visual impacts will be similar to those experienced during operations. Mitigation measures 

(e.g., dust suppression) may be used to further reduce visual and scenic impacts. Therefore, 

potential impacts from aquifer restoration will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a). 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

Because similar equipment will be used and similar activities conducted, potential visual impacts 

during decommissioning will be similar to those experienced during construction. The greatest 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-191 

potential visual impacts during decommissioning will be temporary as equipment is moved from 

place to place and mitigated by BMPs (e.g., dust suppression). Additionally, visual impacts will 

be low, because these sites are expected to be located in sparsely populated areas of the 

Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region, and the impacts will diminish 

as decommissioning activities decrease and disturbed surfaces become re-vegetated. NRC 

licensees are required to conduct final site decommissioning and reclamation under an 

approved site reclamation plan, with the goal of returning the landscape to preconstruction 

conditions. While some roadside cuts and hill slope modifications may persist beyond 

decommissioning and reclamation, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that visual and scenic 

impacts from decommissioning will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Potential environmental impacts on visual and scenic resources from construction, operations, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

discussed in the following sections. 

4.10.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

The BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) classification of landscapes (BLM, 1984, 1986) 

was considered in assessing the significance and management objectives of visual impacts. As 

described in GEIS Section 3.4.9, most of the landscape in the Nebraska-South DakotaWyoming Uranium Milling Region is identified as VRM Class III or Class IV (BLM, 2000). These 

classes are based on a combination of scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance zones 

(BLM, 1984, 1986). This classification allows for an activity to contrast with basic elements of 

the characteristic landscape to a moderate extent for a Class III designation or to a much 

greater extent for a Class IV designation. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.10, the applicant classified the project area and the 3.2-km 

[2-mi] area surrounding the project area as VRM Class IV (Powertech, 2009a). The objective of 

this class is to provide management for activities that might require major modifications of the 

existing character of the landscape (BLM, 1986). The level of change permitted for this class is 

the least restrictive and can be high. Some VRM Class II areas have been identified around 

Devil’s Tower National Monument and BHNF along the Wyoming-South Dakota border (BLM, 

2000). VRM Class II allows an activity to contrast with basic elements of the characteristic 

landscape to a limited extent. However, these VRM Class II areas are more than 80 km [50 mi] 

from the proposed project area. As previously discussed, PSD Class I areas require more 

stringent air quality standards that can affect visual impacts (see SEIS Section 4.7). The 

nearest PSD Class I area is located at Wind Cave National Park, approximately 47 km [29 mi] 

east of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site. Other recreational areas in the broader region 

include Jewel Cave National Monument and Mount Rushmore National Memorial, managed by 

the U.S. Department of the Interior. These recreational areas are located approximately 37 km 

[23 mi] north and 71 km [44 mi] northeast of the proposed project, respectively (see 

Figure 3.2-2). In addition, the SDGFP-managed George S. Mickelson Trail parallels 

State Highway 89 between Custer, South Dakota, and U.S. Highway 18 connecting Edgemont 

to Hot Springs and comes within approximately 27 km [17 mi] of the proposed project area. 

4.10.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

The applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid wastes is deep well disposal via Class V 

injection wells (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4). EPA is currently reviewing the applicant’s UIC 

permit application for Class V injection wells. The applicant-proposed locations of the first four 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-192 

Class V injection wells are shown in Figure 2.1-10. Potential environmental impacts on visual 

and scenic resources for the Class V injection well disposal option are discussed in the 

following sections. 

4.10.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

Visual impacts related to facilities construction at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

include addition of access roads, overhead electrical lines, processing facilities (central 

processing plant and satellite facility buildings), storage ponds, wellhead covers, header 

houses, piping, and ancillary buildings (Powertech, 2009a). Additional visual impacts related to 

facilities construction associated with the Class V injection well disposal option will include the 

construction of four to eight Class V injection wells. After construction, buildings will be 

constructed around the Class V injection wells to limit access (see SEIS Section 4.2.1.1.1). 

During construction, most impacts to visual resources at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site will 

result from well development, when drilling rig masts contrast with the general topography. 

Approximately 646 wells will be installed during initial wellfield development, and approximately 

406 wells will be installed annually over the operational life of the proposed project (Powertech, 

2010b). Multiple drill rigs will likely be operating during wellfield construction. In addition, four to 

eight Class V deep injection wells will be drilled and developed for liquid waste disposal. Visual 

impacts from drilling activities will be temporary. Once a well is completed and conditioned for 

use, the drill rig will be moved to a new location to drill the next hole. In the wellfields, wellheads 

will be covered to prevent freezing and protect the wells. These covers will be low structures 

{1–2 m [3–6 ft] high} and will present only a slight contrast to the existing landscape. Unless the 

topography is extremely flat and void of vegetation, these structures will not be visible from 

distances of 1 km [0.6 mi] or more. 

Visual and scenic impacts from land disturbance associated with facilities construction at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site will be short term (1 to 2 years; see Figure 2.1-1). The applicant 

has indicated that temporarily impacted areas will be reclaimed after construction is complete 

and debris created during construction will be removed as soon as possible (Powertech, 

2009a). Roads and structures will be more long lasting, but will be removed and reclaimed after 

operations cease. The applicant proposes to minimize the potential impacts to visual and 

scenic resources by selecting building materials and paint that complement the natural 

environment (Powertech, 2009a). Construction and placement of structures and roads will 

consider the landscape topography to conceal wellheads, plant facilities, access roads, and 

areas of disturbance from public vantage points. Standard dust control measures (e.g., water 

application, speed limits, and coordinating dust-producing activities) will be implemented to 

reduce visual impacts from fugitive dust (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant is also considering 

other measures to mitigate the potential visual and scenic resource impacts, including using 

exterior lighting only where needed to accomplish facility tasks, limiting the height of exterior 

lighting units, and using shielded or directional lighting to limit lighting only to areas where it is 

needed (Powertech, 2009a). 

As discussed previously, the proposed project site is located more than 16 km [10 mi] from the 

PSD Class I area at Wind Cave National Park, VRM Class II regions, and other recreational 

areas in the surrounding region. Therefore, the visual and scenic impacts associated with ISR 

construction at the proposed project will be consistent with the predominant VRM Class III and 

IV designations for the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Milling Region (BLM, 2000; NRC, 

2009a). Based on the remote location of the proposed project site, the short-term nature of 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-193 

construction activities, and the mitigation measures that will be used to reduce potential visual 

and scenic impacts the NRC staff conclude that visual and scenic impacts from ISR facilities 

and equipment during construction activities for the Class V injection well disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

4.10.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

Most of the pipes and cables associated with wellfield operations at the Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will be buried at least 1.5 m [5 ft] below grade to protect them from freezing, and they 

will not be visible during operations (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant will sequentially 

phase in wellfields as the uranium reserves are defined (Powertech, 2009a); therefore, there 

will not be a large expanse of land undergoing development at one time. Because wellhead 

covers will typically be low {1–2 m [3–6 ft]} structures and there is no active drilling in operating 

wellfields, the overall visual impact of an operating wellfield will be the same as or less than 

from construction. 

The central processing plant, satellite facility, header houses, Class V injection well buildings, 

access roads, and overhead powerlines at the project will be the main operational facilities and 

infrastructure affecting the visual landscape. The visibility of aboveground facilities and 

infrastructure will depend on the location of the observer, intervening topography, and distance. 

The construction and placement of aboveground structures will consider the topography to 

conceal plant facilities, infrastructure, and roads from public vantage points (Powertech, 2009a). 

In addition, building materials and paint will be selected to complement the natural environment. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 4.7, standard dust control measures (e.g., water application and 

speed limits) will be implemented, which will reduce visual impacts from fugitive dust during 

operations activities (Powertech, 2009a). 

The proposed project site is located more than 16 km [10 mi] from the PSD Class I area at Wind 

Cave National Park, VRM Class II regions, and recreational areas in the surrounding region. 

Therefore, the visual impacts associated with operations will be consistent with the predominant 

VRM Classes III and IV for the region (BLM, 2000; NRC, 2009a). Because construction of 

aboveground structures will consider topography to conceal plant facilities and infrastructure 

and mitigation measures (e.g., water application to control fugitive dust) will be implemented to 

reduce impacts to visual and scenic resources, NRC staff conclude that the visual and scenic 

impacts from operations for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.10.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

Much of the same equipment and infrastructure used during the operational period of the project 

will be employed during aquifer restoration, so impacts to the visual landscape will be similar to 

those during operations. Because there is no active drilling, potential visual impacts during 

aquifer restoration are expected to be less than those during construction and of short duration. 

As with construction and operations, the visual impacts associated with aquifer restoration will 

be consistent with the predominant VRM Classes III and IV for the region (BLM, 2000; NRC, 

2009a). No modifications to either scenery or topography will occur during restoration. 

Standard dust control measures (e.g., water application and speed limits) will be implemented to 

further reduce the overall visual and scenic impacts of aquifer restoration (Powertech, 2009a). 

Therefore, NRC staff conclude that the visual and scenic impacts from aquifer restoration for the 

Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-194 

4.10.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

When project operations and aquifer restoration are complete at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

site, the applicant will return all lands disturbed by the ISR facility to their preoperational land 

use of livestock grazing and wildlife habitat unless the state justifies and approves an alternative 

use (e.g., the landowner may request to retain structures and roads for further use) (Powertech, 

2009a). Reclamation will return the landscape to baseline contours and will reduce the visual 

impact by removing buildings and associated infrastructure. After reclamation activities are 

completed, there will be no restrictions on surface use. Prior to final site decommissioning, the 

applicant will submit a decommissioning plan to NRC, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 40. 

During decommissioning and reclamation activities, temporary impacts to the visual 

environment will be similar to or less than those during the construction phase. Equipment used 

to dismantle buildings and milling equipment, remove any contaminated soils, or grade the 

surface as part of reclamation activities will generate temporary visual contrasts. In the 

wellfields, the greatest source of visual contrast will be from equipment used when production, 

injection, and monitor wells are plugged and abandoned. Temporary visual contrasts 

associated with the Class V injection well disposal option will include the dismantling of 

buildings housing the Class V injection wells and the plugging and abandonment of the wells. 

Visual and scenic resources may be affected by fugitive dust emissions from decommissioning 

activities. The applicant will implement dust suppression measures (e.g., water application and 

speed limits) to reduce dust emissions (Powertech, 2009a). Once decommissioning and 

reclamation activities are complete, the visual landscape will be returned to baseline conditions, 

with the potential exception of equipment related to longer term monitoring activities. Therefore, 

the NRC staff conclude that the visual and scenic impacts from decommissioning for the 

Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.10.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not obtained from EPA, the applicant will dispose of 

liquid waste generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by land application (see 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). The locations of land application areas for this disposal option are 

shown in Figure 2.1-12. Potential environmental impacts on visual and scenic resources during 

construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning for the land application 

option are discussed in the following sections. 

4.10.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

As with the Class V injection well disposal option, visual impacts related to facilities construction 

for the land application option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will include addition 

of access roads, overhead electrical lines, processing facilities (central processing plant and 

satellite facility buildings), storage ponds, wellhead covers, header houses, piping, and ancillary 

buildings (Powertech, 2009a). Additional visual impacts related to facilities construction for the 

land application option will include the addition of center pivot irrigation systems in land 

application areas. As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2, the Dewey area will contain 

five 20.23-ha [50-ac] pivots, two 10.12-ha [25-ac] pivots, and one 6.1-ha [15-ac] pivot. The 

Burdock area will contain six 20.23-ha [50-ac] pivots and one 6.1-ha [15-ac] pivot. In addition, 

each area will contain 26.3 ha [65 ac] of pivots on standby. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-195 

Similar to the Class V injection well disposal option, visual and scenic impacts associated with 

facilities construction for the land application option at the proposed site will be short term 

(1 to 2 years) and minimized by mitigation measures. Applicant-proposed mitigation 

measures to reduce visual impacts include (i) reclaiming temporary impacted areas after 

construction and removing debris; (ii) removing and reclaiming roads and structures after 

operations cease; (iii) selecting building materials and paint that complement the natural 

environment; (iv) considering landscape topography to conceal wellheads, plant facilities, 

access roads, and center pivot irrigation systems; and (v) implementing standard dust 

suppression techniques to reduce visual impacts of fugitive dust (Powertech, 2009a). The 

applicant is also considering other measures to mitigate the potential visual and scenic resource 

impacts, including using exterior lighting only where needed to accomplish facility task, limiting 

the height of exterior lighting units, and using shielded or directional lighting to limit lighting only 

to areas where it is needed (Powertech, 2009a). 

During construction of facilities and infrastructure for the land application option, most impacts to 

visual resources at the proposed site will result from development of wellfields (as described in 

SEIS Section 4.10.1.1.1 for the Class V injection well disposal option) and the placement of 

center pivot irrigation systems. Visual impacts of center pivot irrigation systems will last over the 

life of proposed project. Center pivot irrigation systems will not be visible to individuals on 

heavily traveled public roadways in the area (e.g., U.S. Highway 18 and State Highway 89). 

However, proposed land application areas in the Dewey area are within 1 km [0.6 mi] of 

Dewey Road (see Figure 2.1-12), and therefore center pivots in the Dewey area will be visible to 

travelers along Dewey Road. 

As discussed previously, the proposed Dewey-Burdock site is located more than 16 km [10 mi] 

from the PSD Class I area at Wind Cave National Park, VRM Class II regions, and other 

recreational areas in the surrounding region. Therefore, the visual and scenic impacts 

associated with ISR construction at the proposed project will be consistent with the predominant 

VRM Class III and IV designations for the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Milling Region 

(BLM, 2000; NRC, 2009a). Center pivot irrigation systems in proposed land application areas in 

the Dewey area will be visible to travelers on Dewey Road; however, Dewey Road is a lightly 

traveled county road with few residences. In 2009, the estimated average daily traffic count on 

Dewey Road was 25 vehicles (BLM, 2009). Based on the remote location of the proposed 

project site, the short-term nature of the construction activities and the mitigation measures that 

will be used to reduce potential visual and scenic impacts, the NRC staff conclude that visual 

and scenic impacts from ISR construction activities for the land application disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

4.10.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

For the land application liquid waste disposal option, the central processing plant, satellite 

facility, header houses, access roads, overhead powerlines, and center pivot irrigation 

systems will be the main operational facilities and infrastructure affecting the visual landscape at 

the proposed site. As with the Class V injection well disposal option, most of the pipes and 

cables associated with wellfield operations at the project will be buried at least 1.5 m [5 ft] below 

grade to protect them from freezing, and they will not be visible during operations (Powertech, 

2009a). The applicant proposes to sequentially phase in wellfields as the uranium reserves are 

defined (Powertech, 2009a); therefore, there will not be a large expanse of land undergoing 

development at one time. Because wellhead covers will typically be low {1–2 m [3–6 ft]} 

structures and there is no active drilling in operating wellfields, the overall visual impact of an 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-196 

operating wellfield will be the same as or less than from construction. As noted in the previous 

section, center pivot irrigation systems will not be visible to individuals on heavily traveled public 

roadways in the area (e.g., U.S. Highway 18 and State Highway 89). However, due to the 

proximity of proposed land application areas in the Dewey area to Dewey Road, center pivots 

will be visible to travelers along Dewey Road (see Figure 2.1-12). As noted in the previous 

section, Dewey Road is a lightly traveled county road with few residences. In 2009, the 

estimated average daily traffic count on Dewey Road was 25 vehicles (BLM, 2009). 

The visibility of aboveground facilities and infrastructure will depend on the location of the 

observer, intervening topography, and distance. The construction and placement of 

aboveground structures will consider the topography to conceal plant facilities, infrastructure, 

center pivots in potential land application areas, and roads from public vantage points 

(Powertech, 2009a). In addition, building materials and paint will be selected to complement the 

natural environment. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.7, standard dust control measures 

(e.g., water application and speed limits) will be implemented, which will reduce visual impacts 

from fugitive dust during operations activities (Powertech, 2009a). 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock site is located more than 16 km [10 mi] from the PSD Class I 

area at Wind Cave National Park, VRM Class II regions, and recreational areas in the 

surrounding region. Therefore, the visual impacts associated with operations will be consistent 

with the predominant VRM Classes III and IV for the region (BLM, 2000; NRC, 2009a). Center 

pivot irrigation systems in proposed land application areas in the Dewey area will be visible to 

travelers on Dewey Road; however, Dewey Road is a lightly traveled county road with few 

residences. Based on the remote location of the project site, the use of topography to conceal 

plant facilities and infrastructure, and mitigation measures (e.g., water application to control 

fugitive dust) that will be implemented to reduce impacts to visual and scenic resources, NRC 

staff conclude that the visual and scenic impacts from operations for the land application 

disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.10.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

Much of the same equipment and infrastructure used during the operational period of the project 

will be employed during aquifer restoration, so impacts to the visual landscape will be similar to 

those during operations. Because there is no active drilling, potential visual impacts during 

aquifer restoration are expected to be less than those during construction and of short duration. 

As with construction and operations, the visual impacts associated with aquifer restoration will 

be consistent with the predominant VRM Classes III and IV for the region (BLM, 2000; NRC, 

2009a). Neither scenery nor topography will be modified during restoration. Standard dust 

control measures (e.g., water application and speed limits) will be implemented to further reduce 

the overall visual and scenic impacts of aquifer restoration (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, 

NRC staff conclude that the visual and scenic impacts from aquifer restoration for the land 

application disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.10.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Prior to final site decommissioning, the applicant will submit a decommissioning plan to NRC, in 

accordance with 10 CFR Part 40. During decommissioning and reclamation, temporary impacts 

to the visual environment will be similar to or less than those during the construction phase. 

Equipment used to dismantle buildings and milling equipment, remove any contaminated soils, 

or grade the surface as part of reclamation activities will generate temporary visual contrasts. In 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-197 

the wellfields, the greatest source of visual contrast will be from equipment used when 

production, injection, and monitor wells are plugged and abandoned. Temporary visual 

contrasts associated with the land application disposal option will include the dismantling and 

removal of center pivot irrigation systems in land application areas. Visual and scenic resources 

may be affected by fugitive dust emissions from decommissioning activities. The applicant will 

implement dust suppression measures (e.g., water application and speed limits) to reduce dust 

emissions (Powertech, 2009a). Once decommissioning and reclamation activities are complete, 

the visual landscape will be returned to baseline conditions, with the potential exception of 

equipment related to longer term monitoring activities. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that 

the visual and scenic impacts from decommissioning for the land application disposal option will 

be SMALL. 

4.10.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project, the applicant will dispose of liquid waste by a combination of Class V deep injection 

wells and land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). For the combined Class V injection 

well and land application disposal option, land application facilities and infrastructure will be 

constructed, operated, restored, and decommissioned on an as-needed basis depending on the 

Class V injection well disposal capacity (Powertech, 2011). Because of the placement of center 

pivot irrigation systems in proposed land application areas, the potential visual impacts of liquid 

waste disposal by land application for all phases of the ISR process will be greater than for 

liquid waste disposal by Class V well injection (see SEIS Section 4.10.1.2). Furthermore, 

because only a portion of the center pivot irrigation systems will be constructed, operated, and 

decommissioned for the combined disposal option, the significance of visual impacts for the 

combined disposal option will be less than for the land application option. Therefore, NRC staff 

conclude that visual and scenic impacts of the combined Class V injection well and land 

application disposal option for each phase of the proposed will be bounded by the significance 

of visual and scenic impacts of the Class V injection well option and the land application option 

as summarized in Table 4.10.1. 

4.10.2 No Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, no ISR facility will be constructed and there will be no change 

to the existing visual and scenic resources at the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project site. No 

additional structures or uses associated with the proposed project will be introduced from the 

Table 4.10-1. Significance of Visual and Scenic Impacts for the Proposed Liquid Waste 

Disposal Options for Each Phase of the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning SMALL SMALL SMALL 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of 

environmental impacts for the Class V injection well and land application disposal options. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-198 

proposed action to affect the existing viewscapes, and the existing scenic quality will remain 

unchanged (BLM VRM Classes III and IV, as defined in SEIS Section 3.10). Natural resource 

exploration activities and cattle grazing will continue in the area. 

4.11 Socioeconomics Impacts 

Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes to the demographic and economic 

characteristics and social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by 

a proposed action could affect regional employment, income, and expenditures. Job creation 

is characterized by two types: (i) construction-related jobs, which are transient, short in 

duration, and less likely to have a long-term socioeconomic impact on the region and 

(ii) operation-related jobs in support of facility operations, which have a greater potential for 

permanent, long-term socioeconomic impacts in a region. 

GEIS Section 4.4.10 describes the socioeconomic impacts expected during the ISR facility 

lifecycle (NRC, 2009a). Potential environmental impacts to socioeconomics could occur during 

all phases of the facility’s lifecycle. The GEIS socioeconomic analysis for the Nebraska-South 

Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region was based on 2000 U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 

data. The socioeconomic analysis presented in this SEIS for the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

Project ROI is based on 2010 USCB data. Though specific numbers will differ between the 

2000 and 2010 USCB data, the NRC analysis of socioeconomics presented in GEIS 

Section 4.4.10 remains valid for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project as explained in the 

following sections and expected impacts will be similar in scale to NRC staff conclusions in 

the GEIS. 

4.11.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

As discussed in SEIS Section 3.11, the analysis for the proposed action focuses on the impacts 

of constructing, operating, restoring the aquifer, and decommissioning the proposed ISR facility 

in Custer and Fall River Counties in South Dakota and Weston County in Wyoming. The 

applicant expects to directly employ 86 workers during construction and 84 workers during 

operations of the proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). A smaller number of workers are 

expected to be involved in aquifer restoration and decommissioning activities (Powertech, 

2010a). The applicant expects nine workers to be directly involved in aquifer restoration 

activities and nine workers to be directly involved in decommissioning activities. The workforce 

for each phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is not expected to change in 

number or skill level based on the liquid waste disposal option that the applicant will ultimately 

implement (Powertech, 2009a, 2010a). In other words, the number of skilled and unskilled 

workers required for construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning for the 

Class V injection well disposal option, the land application disposal option, or the combined 

Class V injection well and land application disposal option will be the same. Therefore, NRC 

staff conclude that the demands of the workforce on existing public and social services, 

housing, and infrastructure (schools, utilities, local finance) will be similar regardless of the liquid 

waste disposal option the applicant implements. Socioeconomic impacts from construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project are discussed in the following sections. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-199 

4.11.1.1 Construction Impacts 

In GEIS Section 4.4.10.1, NRC staff discussed the potential impacts to socioeconomics from 

construction of an ISR facility. These impacts will result predominantly from employment at an 

ISR facility and demands on the existing public and social services, tourism/recreation, housing, 

infrastructure (schools, utilities), and the local workforce. In the GEIS, NRC staff estimated total 

peak construction employment at an ISR facility to be about 200 people, including company 

employees and local contractors. During surface facility and wellfield construction, local 

contractors will generally be used (e.g., drillers, construction workers), as available, and local 

building materials and building supplies will be used to the extent practical. NRC staff also 

estimated an additional 140 indirect jobs may be created to support the construction of an ISR 

facility. Indirect jobs represent employees hired by producers of materials, equipment, and 

services that are used on the project. (NRC, 2009a) 

In the GEIS, NRC staff assumed that most construction workers will choose to live in larger 

communities with access to more services. However, NRC staff expected that some 

construction workers will commute from outside the county to the construction site and that 

skilled employees (e.g., engineers, accountants, managers) will come from outside the local 

workforce. The potential also exists that some of these employees will temporarily relocate to 

the proposed project area and contribute to the local economy through purchasing goods and 

services and through paying taxes. Depending on where the workforce and supplies come 

from, the GEIS determined that potential impacts to towns and communities, in terms of housing 

and employment structure, may be SMALL to MODERATE. Given the expected short duration 

of construction activities (12 to 18 months), families are not expected to relocate closer to the 

site. For this reason, potential impacts to education and use of local services was determined to 

be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Construction of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is expected to last for 2 years (see 

Figure 2.1-1) and employ 86 people (Powertech, 2009a). In addition, 45 indirect jobs are 

expected to be created to support construction of the proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). 

Based on the smaller number of required construction workers for the proposed project 

(86 workers) when compared to the ISR construction workforce estimated in the GEIS 

(200 workers), the NRC staff conclude that the site-specific impacts of constructing the 

proposed project will be smaller than the impacts described in the GEIS. 

Because of the small relative size of the ISR construction workforce, the overall potential 

impacts to socioeconomics from construction of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

be SMALL. The following subsections describe the construction impacts related to 

demographics, income, housing, employment rate, local finance, education, and health and 

social services for the proposed project. 

4.11.1.1.1 Demographics 

A workforce of 86 employees engaged directly in construction activities is expected during the 

construction phase of the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2009a). An additional 

45 indirect jobs are expected to be created to support construction activities for a total of 

131 people (Powertech, 2009a). Construction of the buildings, initial wellfields, and waste 

disposal systems for the proposed project is anticipated to take 2 years (see Figure 2.1-1). 

Construction workers are likely to locate in nearby communities such as Edgemont and Hot 

Springs in Fall River County, Custer in Custer County, and Newcastle in Weston County. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-200 

Based on housing data presented in SEIS Section 3.11.3, all of the counties have available 

housing to manage increases in population. Likewise, based on school enrollment and 

student-teacher ratio data presented in SEIS Section 3.11.6, schools have available capacities 

to manage increases in population. Furthermore, as described in SEIS Section 3.11.7, 

surrounding communities have adequate health and social services to serve increases in 

population. Due to the short duration of construction, the expected 86 construction workers and 

45 supporting personnel will have a short-term impact on public services and community 

infrastructure in surrounding communities. 

Increases in population will have the greatest impact on small communities close to the 

proposed project site, such as Edgemont (population 774). The construction workforce will be 

made up predominantly of skilled trades (e.g., carpenters, electricians, welders, plumbers) and 

unskilled workers sourced from nearby communities and counties. The applicant 

will preferentially source the labor force for construction from within the surrounding region 

to mitigate any burden on public services and community infrastructure in the nearby towns 

(Powertech, 2009a). Further, due to the short duration of construction (2 years estimated), 

construction workers with families will be less likely to relocate their entire families to the region, 

thus minimizing impacts from an outside workforce. Therefore, the NRC staff conclude that the 

impacts to demographics on nearby communities such as Edgemont, Custer, Hot Springs, and 

Newcastle during the construction phase will be SMALL.

4.11.1.1.2 Income 

The applicant has estimated a construction workforce of 86 employees (Powertech, 2009a). 

Construction of the proposed project will preferentially draw upon the labor force within the 

region before going outside the region (Powertech, 2009a). Construction workers will likely 

come from nearby communities such as Edgemont, Hot Springs, and Custer in Custer and 

Fall River Counties and from Newcastle in Weston County, Wyoming. As noted previously, the 

construction workforce will be made up predominantly of skilled trades and unskilled workers. It 

is expected that the construction workforce will be paid at rates typical of the region. Income 

information including median household income and per capita income for Fall River, Custer, 

and Weston Counties is presented in SEIS Section 3.11.2. Because the construction workforce 

will be paid at rates typical of the region, the NRC staff conclude that the overall impacts to 

income during the construction phase of the proposed project will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.1.3 Housing 

The number of construction workers will cause a short-term increase in the demand of 

temporary (rental) housing units in Fall River, Custer, and Weston Counties. Based on 2010 

USCB housing information, the vacancy rate is 21.9 percent (919 vacant units) in Fall River 

County, 21.4 percent (992 vacant units) in Custer County, and 14.5 percent (512 vacant units) 

in Weston County (see SEIS Section 3.11.3). Hence, any changes in employment will have 

little to no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in Custer, Fall River, and Weston 

Counties. Due to the short duration of construction activities (2 years), the number of 

construction workers (86 workers), and the availability of housing in the region, there will be little 

or no employment-related housing impacts. Therefore, the impact of the proposed action on 

housing availability will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-201 

4.11.1.1.4 Employment Structure 

Construction of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will create employment opportunities 

for 86 construction workers, with the potential of up to 45 jobs being generated to support this 

activity in the local economy. As described in SEIS Section 3.11.4, total 2012 county labor 

forces were estimated to be 3,660 for Fall River County, 4,390 for Custer County, and 3,308 for 

Weston County (SDDOL, 2012; WDWS, 2012). Unemployment rates in 2012 were 4.7, 4.0, and 

5.1 percent in Fall River, Custer, and Weston Counties, respectively (SDDOL, 2012; WDWS, 

2012). Because of the short duration (2 years) and small size of the construction workforce 

(86 workers), the effect on employment in the region will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.1.5 Local Finance 

Construction of the proposed ISR facility at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site will generate 

some tax revenue in the local economy through the purchase of goods and services as well as 

contribute to increased county and state tax revenues through an increased tax base. As 

described in SEIS Section 3.11.5, the majority of state revenue in South Dakota is generated 

from a 4 percent statewide sales and use tax (SDDRR, 2011). Towns in South Dakota may 

also impose up to a 1 percent sales and use tax on various sales including lodging, restaurant 

meals, alcoholic beverages, and admissions to places of entertainment and up to a 2 percent 

sales and use tax on all products and services subject to the state sales or use tax (SDDRR, 

2011). Sales and use tax revenues totaled $6.6 million for Custer County and $5.4 million for 

Fall River County in 2011. The tax revenues are based on the 4 percent state sales and use tax 

on gross sales of $165 million for Custer County and $134 million for Fall River County 

(SDDRR, 2012). Weston County has a 5 percent sales and use tax (4 percent state base tax 

and a 1 percent optional county tax) and a 4 percent lodging tax (Wyoming Department of 

Revenue, 2010). Sales and use tax revenues totaled $11.2 million for Weston County in 2011. 

Smaller towns, such as Edgemont, experiencing increased population/public service demand 

may not receive a proportionate level of tax increase, because sales tax revenue is more likely 

to increase in larger communities, such as Custer and Hot Springs. Because of the short 

duration of construction (2 years) and small size of the construction workforce (86 workers) in 

relation to the total labor forces in Fall River, Custer, and Weston Counties (see previous 

section), construction of the proposed ISR facility at the Dewey-Burdock site will have a SMALL 

impact on local finances. 

4.11.1.1.6 Education 

If the construction workforce for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and their families secure local 

housing, an increased demand for schools will occur. However, construction workers are less 

likely to relocate their entire families to the region, especially given the relative short duration 

(2 years) of construction activities. Based on school enrollment and student–teacher ratio data 

presented in SEIS Section 3.11.6, school districts have available capacities to manage 

increases in school-aged children relocating to the area. The NRC staff concludes that the 

overall impacts on educational services during the construction phase of the proposed project 

will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.1.7 Health and Social Services 

The construction workforce is expected to cause only a small short-term increase in the demand 

for doctors, hospitals, social services, and police during the construction phase of the proposed 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-202 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Due to the short duration of construction (2 years maximum), 

construction workers with families will be less likely to relocate their entire families to the region, 

thus minimizing impacts on health and social services. As presented in SEIS Section 3.11.7, 

towns surrounding the proposed project have adequate medical facilities; social services; and 

police, fire, and emergency medical services to accommodate workers and their families. Local 

governments are expected to have the capacity to effectively plan for and manage the 

increased demands on health and social services because population increases will be small 

(86 construction workers). Therefore, impacts to health and social services during the 

construction phase of the proposed project will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2 Operations Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.4.10.2 describes employment levels during ISR facility operations and assumes 

50 to 80 workers will support this phase of the ISR lifecycle. Use of local contract workers and 

local building materials will diminish, because drilling and facility construction will diminish. 

Revenues will be generated from federal, state, and local taxes on the facility and the uranium 

produced. Employment types are expected to be more technical during operations, and as a 

result, the majority of the operational workforce is expected to be staffed from outside the 

region, particularly during initial operations. According to the GEIS, effects on community 

services (e.g., education, health care, utilities, shopping, and recreation) during facility 

operations will be similar to effects experienced during construction, except fewer people will be 

employed for a longer duration. Overall, NRC staff determined in the GEIS that potential 

impacts to socioeconomics from operations will be SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 

The operations phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is expected to last for 

8 years and employ 84 workers (Powertech, 2009a). In addition, 36 indirect jobs are expected 

to be created to support operations of the proposed project (Powertech, 2009a). The operations 

phase will impact the local economy through creating jobs, purchasing local goods and services, 

and increasing county and state tax revenues. Severance tax on the uranium extracted will also 

be collected at the state level and will contribute to the State of South Dakota general fund. 

Because the anticipated size of the ISR operations workforce (84 payroll employees) is only 

slightly larger than the 50 to 80 employees analyzed in the GEIS, the NRC staff conclude that 

the site-specific impacts of operating the proposed project will be comparable to the impacts 

described in the GEIS. The following subsections describe the operations impacts related to 

demographics, income, housing, employment rate, local finance, education, and health and 

social services. 

4.11.1.2.1 Demographics 

A peak workforce of 84 employees engaged directly in operations activities will be expected 

during the operations phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2009a). 

Although about equal to the construction workforce (86 employees), the operations workforce is 

expected to stay in the area longer (approximately 8 years) and so will be more likely to secure 

permanent or semi-permanent housing in the area than the construction workforce. The 

operations phase will require a number of specialized workers, such as plant managers, 

technical professionals, and skilled tradesmen. As described in GEIS Section 4.4.10.2, 

because of the highly technical nature of ISR operations (requiring professionals in the areas of 

health physics, chemistry, laboratory analysis, geology and hydrogeology, and engineering), the 

majority (approximately 70 percent) of the workforce during operations is expected to be staffed 

from outside the region (NRC, 2009a). Therefore, up to 59 personnel (86 employees × 0.7) for 

the operations phase of the proposed project could be sourced from outside the local area. The 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-203 

remaining workforce will most likely come from the local labor pool. The increase in population 

during the operations phase will spur additional job creation to serve the larger population. The 

applicant has estimated that an additional 36 indirect jobs are expected during the operations 

phase of the project (Powertech, 2009a). 

Because of the small size of the operations workforce (84 workers) and the potential addition 

of 36 (indirect) workers in support of facility operations, demographic conditions in Custer, 

Fall River, and Weston Counties are not likely to change. The combined effect of 84 to 

120 new jobs in the region (assuming that all of the direct and indirect workers will relocate to 

the ROI) constitutes less than 1 percent of the current combined civilian labor force in Custer, 

Fall River, and Weston Counties (see SEIS Section 3.11.4). Therefore, the impact on 

demographic conditions will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2.2 Income 

Operations at the proposed project will create skilled positions such as project managers, plant 

operators, lab technicians, and drilling contractors. These skilled workers will command salaries 

that provide income levels equal to or higher than the average local and statewide income 

levels. The total annual payroll for the proposed project is estimated at $5,600,000 (Powertech, 

2009a). The average annual salary for all full-time employees will be roughly $66,700. This is 

more than the South Dakota median household income of $46,369 and the Wyoming median 

household income of $53,802 (see SEIS Section 3.11.2). This is also above the Fall River 

County median household income of $35,833, the Custer County median household income 

of $46,743, and the Weston County median household income of $53,853 (see SEIS 

Section 3.11.2). Therefore, the proposed project will have a positive effect on local average 

annual incomes during ISR facility operations. However, because the operations workforce 

(84 workers) is small in comparison to the combined labor force in Custer, Fall River, and 

Weston Counties (see SEIS Section 3.11.4), overall impacts to local income during ISR facility 

operations will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2.3 Housing 

Housing demand is anticipated to increase during operations. The operations workforce is 

expected to stay in the area longer, approximately 8 years (see Figure 2.1-1), and so will be 

more likely to secure permanent or semi-permanent housing in the area than the construction 

workforce. Most workers moving into the area will relocate to the surrounding towns of 

Edgemont, Custer, Hot Springs, and Newcastle. Discussions with officials of the Edgemont 

Chamber of Commerce and Custer County Economic Development Committee indicated that 

housing in the towns of Edgemont and Custer will be available to accommodate the projected 

operations workforce (NRC, 2009c). Vacancy rates are currently high (14.5 to 22 percent) in 

Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties (see SEIS Section 3.11.3), and the added workforce 

will have little impact on the housing inventory. Because of the small size of both the 

operations workforce (84 workers) and the workforce indirectly supporting facility operations 

(36 workers), impacts to housing during ISR operations at the proposed project will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2.4 Employment Structure 

As previously discussed, ISR facility operations at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

generate 84 new jobs, such as project managers, plant operators, lab technicians, and drill 

contractors. Most skilled positions are likely to be filled by people moving into the area rather 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-204 

than providing employment opportunities for people living in nearby communities. As described 

in GEIS Section 4.4.10.2, because of the highly technical nature of ISR operations (requiring 

professionals in the areas of health physics, chemistry, laboratory analysis, geology and 

hydrogeology, and engineering), the majority (approximately 70 percent) of the workforce 

during operations is expected to be staffed from outside the region. The proposed project 

will provide some jobs to the local labor pool to support ISR facility operations. However, 

because the number of skilled workers drawn from areas outside of the ROI will be relatively 

small (e.g., 84 workers × 0.7 = 59 workers), ISR facility operations at the proposed project 

will not noticeably affect employment rates in Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties. 

Therefore, the impact on the employment structure will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.2.5 Local Finance 

Tax revenue will profit Fall River and Custer Counties through the projected 8-year operations 

phase. Personal property tax will be applied to the value of all equipment the project uses. In 

addition, a state mineral severance tax will be applied to the milled uranium. The State of South 

Dakota collects the severance tax and returns 50 percent of the tax to the county where the 

mineral was produced (see SEIS Section 8.3). A county ad valorem tax for production will also 

contribute to local government revenue. The counties and municipalities will indirectly benefit 

from increased sales tax revenue from the increased population and resultant demand for 

goods and services. Because the operations workforce (84 workers) is small in relation to the 

total labor forces in Fall River and Custer Counties (see SEIS Section 3.11.4), the tax-revenue 

impact from ISR facility operations on local taxing jurisdictions in Fall River and Custer Counties 

will be positive and SMALL to MODERATE. 

4.11.1.2.6 Education 

The added population associated with the additional 86 workers and their families relocating 

during operations may have an impact on local public schools and education-related services. 

The average family size in South Dakota is 2.43 (USCB, 2012). Assuming a two-parent family, 

a conservative upper estimate for the number of school-aged children that may relocate to 

the ROI will be 40 children of various ages. The potential increase in school-aged children will 

likely be split between the seven school districts in the ROI (see SEIS Section 3.11.5). The five 

closest school districts are Edgemont, Custer, Hot Springs, Weston County #1, and Weston 

County #7. Compared to the South Dakota statewide student–teacher ratio of 13.4:1, the 

Edgemont and Custer student–teacher ratios are low (10:1 and 12:1, respectively) and will not 

be significantly affected (SDDOE, 2010). The Hot Springs student–teacher ratio of 14:1 is 

slightly above the statewide ratio. Compared to the Wyoming statewide student–teacher ratio of 

12.4:1, the Weston County #1 and Weston County #7 student–teacher ratios are low (11:1 and 

10:1, respectively) and will not be significantly affected (Wyoming Department of Education, 

2010). Comprising various ages and spread across schools and classrooms in the 5 closest 

school districts (kindergarten and grades 1 through 12), the small number of children (40) will 

not likely have a noticeable effect on student-teacher ratios. In addition, city and county 

planners indicated that the schools could accommodate an increase in the number of students 

(NRC, 2009c). The impact on schools and education-related service during the ISR facility 

operations phase will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-205 

4.11.1.2.7 Health and Social Services 

A small increase in demand will be expected for health and social services during the operations 

phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project from workers and their families relocating to 

the ROI. These operational impacts are not expected to differ significantly from those during the 

construction phase of the ISR facility. Therefore, the small additional increase in demand that 

will occur for the operations phase will likely already have been met during the construction 

phase. Discussions with city and county planners indicated that current and planned upgrades 

to health care and hospitals in the region could accommodate projected increases in population 

(NRC, 2009c). Further, by license condition, NRC staff will require the applicant to coordinate 

emergency response activities with local authorities, fire departments, medical facilities, and 

other emergency services before operations begin (NRC, 2013). The applicant will be required 

to document the coordination activities and maintain the documentation onsite. Impacts to 

health and social services during operations will remain SMALL. 

4.11.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

NRC staff determined in GEIS Section 4.4.10.3 that the socioeconomic impact from aquifer 

restoration will be similar to impacts experienced during ISR facility operations. This is because 

the level of employment and demand on services will not change. NRC staff concluded in the 

GEIS the potential impacts to socioeconomics will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Socioeconomic impacts from the aquifer restoration process at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

site will be similar to those experienced during ISR facility operations. Initial aquifer restoration 

of wellfields will be conducted in conjunction with the operations phase and will not require 

additional workers with specialized skills (Powertech, 2009a). An aquifer restoration workforce 

of nine direct employees has been estimated for the proposed project (Powertech, 2010a). 

Because aquifer restoration will be short term [i.e., extending 4 to 5 years after operations cease 

(Powertech, 2009a)], workers performing aquifer restoration activities will likely be sourced from 

the operations phase workforce and any additional workers will likely be drawn from the local 

area. Impacts on demographics; income; housing; employment; tax revenue; and health, social, 

and educational services will remain unchanged because it is likely that workers taken from the 

operations workforce will have already relocated their families to the area and temporary 

workers will not relocate their families to the area. Therefore, the overall socioeconomic impact 

of aquifer restoration will be SMALL. 

4.11.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

GEIS Section 4.4.10.3 discusses the potential socioeconomic impacts of decommissioning. 

Decommissioning and reclamation activities (e.g., dismantling surface structures, 

removing pumps, plugging and abandoning wells, and reclaiming and recontouring the 

ground surface) will likely draw on a skill set similar to the ISR facility construction workforce. 

Decommissioning activities will be expected to be short in duration (24 to 30 months), and so 

employment will be temporary. Impacts to employment structure and housing are expected to 

be similar to those for construction, due to similar employment levels. NRC staff determined in 

the GEIS that overall, potential impacts to socioeconomics from decommissioning will be 

SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 

Final decommissioning of wellfields, the central processing plant, and the satellite facility at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is expected to take 2 years (Powertech, 2009a). A 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-206 

workforce of nine employees engaged directly in these activities has been estimated 

(Powertech, 2010a). Decommissioning activities for the proposed project could impact the 

demand for housing and local infrastructure, as well as health, social, and educational services 

if new workers relocate their families to the local area. However, due to the size of the expected 

workforce needed for decommissioning (nine direct employees), these impacts will be SMALL 

and further reduced if a number of the ISR facility operations and aquifer restoration employees 

remain to assist in the decommissioning activities. 

4.11.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, the ISR facility will not be constructed or operated at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site. Socioeconomic conditions in Custer and Fall River Counties in 

South Dakota and Weston County in Wyoming will not change under the No-Action alternative. 

Potential benefits from the proposed project, such as job creation and contribution to local, 

regional, and state revenues, will not occur under the No-Action alternative. 

4.12 Environmental Justice Impacts 

As required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal agencies must consider whether 

their actions may cause disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low-income 

populations. Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) (1994), “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires 

similar analysis. 

In response to Executive Order 12898, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the 

Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions 

(69 FR 52040). The Policy Statement explains that “The Commission is committed to the 

general goals set forth in Executive Order 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its 

NEPA review process.” 

In 1997, the CEQ provided the following guidance relevant to determining when an agency’s 

actions may disproportionately affect certain populations: 

Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects. Adverse health effects are 

measured in risks and rates that could result in latent cancer fatalities, as well as other 

fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Adverse health effects may include 

bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death. Disproportionately high and adverse 

human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard 

for a minority or low-income population is significant (as defined by NEPA) and 

appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another 

appropriate comparison group. (CEQ, 1997) 

Disproportionately High and Adverse Environmental Effects. A disproportionately high 

environmental impact that is significant (as defined by NEPA) refers to an impact or risk 

of an impact on the natural or physical environment in a low-income or minority 

community that appreciably exceeds the environmental impact on the larger community. 

Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social 

impacts. An adverse environmental impact is an impact that is determined to be both 

harmful and significant (as defined by NEPA). In assessing cultural and aesthetic 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-207 

environmental impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or 

dispersed minority or low-income populations or American Indian tribes are considered. 

(CEQ, 1997) 

The following environmental justice analysis assesses whether issuing a license for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR facility might cause disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. In assessing the 

effects, the following CEQ (1997) definitions of minority individuals, minority populations, and 

low-income populations were used: 

Minority individuals. Individuals who identify themselves as members of the following 

population groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or 

African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races 

meaning individuals who identified themselves on a Census form as being a member of 

two or more races, for example, Hispanic and Asian. 

Minority populations. Minority populations are identified when (i) the minority population 

of an affected area exceeds 50 percent or (ii) the minority population percentage of the 

affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the 

general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

Low-income population. Low-income populations in an affected area are identified with 

the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s Current Population 

Reports, Series PB60, on Income and Poverty. 

4.12.1 Analysis of Impacts 

Methodology 

NRC addresses environmental justice matters for license reviews through (i) identifying minority 

and low-income populations that may be affected by the proposed construction and operations 

of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR facility and (ii) examining any potential human health or 

environmental effects on these populations to determine whether these effects may be 

disproportionately high and adverse. 

In January and February 2010, the NRC staff published an advertisement in six newspapers 

circulated near the proposed project area (Rapid City Journal, Edgemont Herald Tribune, 

Custer Chronicle, Hot Springs Star, Lakota Country Times, and the Native Sun) to inform the 

public and solicit comments on the proposed action. As part of information gathering, the NRC 

staff also contacted potentially interested Native American tribes, local authorities, and public 

interest groups in person, by email, and by telephone. 

The 2010 Census provides race and poverty characteristics in Custer and Fall River Counties in 

South Dakota and Weston County in Wyoming, which are the counties potentially affected by 

the proposed project. For the year 2010, Table 4.12-1 shows the percentage of people living in 

poverty and minority populations in the United States, South Dakota and Wyoming, and in 

Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties. The table also includes the census tracts and block 

groups in these counties. Note that poverty data from the 2010 Census are not yet available at 

the block group level. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-208 

Table 4.12-1. Percent Living in Poverty and Percent Minority in 2010 

Geographic Unit 

Percent Living in 

Poverty Percent Minority 

United States 13.8 36.3 

South Dakota 13.7 15.3 

Custer County 9.7 7.2 

Custer County Census Tract 9651 8.0 6.6 

Block Group 1 NA 7.5 

Block Group 2 NA 3.9 

Block Group 3 NA 3.9 

Custer County Census Tract 9652 12.9 8.4 

Block Group 1 NA 7.1 

Block Group 2 NA 4.2 

Block Group 3 NA 12.6 

Fall River County 17.4 12.6 

Fall River County Census Tract 9641 13.4 8.7 

Block Group 1 NA 5.1 

Block Group 2 NA 6.1 

Block Group 3 NA 13.6 

Fall River County Census Tract 9642 20.5 15.2 

Block Group 1 NA 10.0 

Block Group 2 NA 12.1 

Block Group 3 NA 16.0 

Wyoming 9.8 14.1 

Weston County 7.9 6.2 

Weston County Census Tract 9511 7.7 5.7 

Block Group 1 NA 5.0 

Block Group 2 NA 6.3 

Weston County Census Tract 9513 8.1 6.6 

Block Group 1 NA 6.5 

Block Group 2 NA 3.4 

Block Group 3 NA 7.7 

Source: USCB (2012) 

NA = Not available 

Impact Analysis 

In 2010, the populations of Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties were 8,216, 7,094, and 

7,208, respectively (USCB, 2012). In 2010, 15.3 percent of the South Dakota population and 

14.1 percent of the Wyoming population was classified as minority (Table 4.12-1). The 

percentage of the population classified as minority in Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties 

was 7.2, 12.6, and 6.2 percent, respectively, which is below the state minority population 

percentages. The minority population in census tracts in Custer and Fall River Counties 

potentially affected by the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project ranged from 6.6 to 

15.2 percent which is at or below the state average of 15.3. The minority population in block 

groups in Custer and Fall River Counties ranged from 3.9 to 16 percent. In Weston County, the 

minority population in the census tracts potentially affected by the proposed project ranged from 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-209 

5.7 to 6.6 percent, which is below the Wyoming state average of 14.1 percent. The minority 

population in block groups in Weston County ranged from 3.4 to 7.7 percent. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.11.1 and summarized in Table 3.11-1, the population in Fall 

River County fell approximately 5 percent between 2000 and 2010, in comparison to 

approximately 9 and 13 percent gains in Weston and Custer Counties over the same period, 

respectively. Weston County’s population is expected to grow at a similar rate of approximately 

9 percent over the next decade (WDAI, 2011). The populations of Fall River and Custer 

Counties are expected to remain relatively constant through 2020 (Brooks, 2008). 

Demographic information on race and ethnicity in 2000 and 2010 for Custer, Fall River, and 

Weston Counties is provided in Table 4.12-2. Since 2000, minority populations have increased 

by 0.6 percent (111 persons) in Custer County, 1.9 percent (98 persons) in Fall River County, 

and 1.0 percent (100 persons) in Weston County. In Custer and Weston Counties, most of this 

increase was due to an influx of Hispanic or Latinos (72 persons in Custer County and 

79 persons in Weston County). In Fall River County, the increase was due to an influx of Black 

or African Americans (18 persons), American Indian and Alaska Natives (24 persons), and 

Hispanic or Latinos (29 persons). 

The U.S. population living below the poverty level was identified as 13.8 percent in 2010 

(Table 4.12-1). In South Dakota and Wyoming, the populations living below the poverty level 

were 13.7 and 9.8 percent, respectively. The percentage of people living below the poverty 

level in Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties is 9.7, 17.4, and 7.9, respectively. The 

percentage of people living below the poverty level within the census tracts surrounding the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project ranged from 7.7 to 20.5 percent (Table 4.12-1). 

As described in SEIS Section 3.11.2 and summarized in Table 3.11-3, the median household 

income for South Dakota and Wyoming in 2010 was $46,369 and $53,802, respectively. In 

Table 4.12-2. Demographic Profile Comparison of the 2000 and 2010 

Population in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, and 

Weston County, Wyoming 

Population Category Custer County Fall River County Weston County 

2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 

Race (Percent of Total Population, Not Hispanic or Latino) 

White 93.4 92.8 89.3 87.4 94.8 93.8 

Black/African American 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 

American Indian, Alaskan Native 3.1 2.8 6.1 6.7 1.3 1.2 

Asian 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 

Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Some other race 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 

Two or More Races 1.9 1.7 2.5 2.6 1.5 1.4 

Ethnicity 

Hispanic or Latino (number of 

people)

110 182 130 159 137 216 

Percent of total population 1.5 2.2 1.7 2.2 2.1 3.0 

Minority Population (Including Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity) 

Total minority population 481 592 797 895 346 446 

Percent minority 6.6 7.2 10.7 12.6 5.2 6.2 

Source: USCB, 2012 

 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-210 

South Dakota, 8.7 percent of families live below the federal poverty threshold (the 2012 federal 

poverty threshold is $23,050 for a family of four). In Wyoming, 6.2 percent of families live below 

the federal poverty threshold. Custer and Weston Counties had similar median household 

incomes ($46,743 and $53,853, respectively) and a lower percentage of families living below 

the poverty level (4.3 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively) than the state average (see 

Table 3.11-3). Fall River County had a lower median household income ($35,833) and a higher 

percentage of families living below the poverty level (11.4 percent) than the state average (see 

Table 3.11-3). 

If the percentage for either minority or low-income population in block groups significantly 

exceeds that of the state or county percentage, environmental justice will have to be considered 

in greater detail (NRC, 2003a). As a general matter, NRC staff consider differences greater 

than 20 percentage points to be significant (NRC, 2003a, Appendix C). Additionally, if either the 

minority or low-income population percentage exceeds 50 percent, environmental justice will 

have to be considered in greater detail. The percentages of minority populations living in the 

affected block groups do not significantly exceed the percentage of minority populations 

recorded at the state and county. No significant minority populations were identified as residing 

near the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that there will 

be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority populations from the proposed 

project. As noted previously, low-income data from the 2010 Census at the block group level is 

not yet available. However, the percentages of the population living in poverty at the census 

tract level do not significantly exceed the percentage of low-income populations recorded at 

the state or county level. In addition, the percentage of families living below the poverty level 

in the affected counties does not significantly exceed the percentage of families living in 

poverty at the state level. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that it is realistic to expect that 

low-income percentages for the counties at the block group level will not be an environmental 

justice concern. 

The closest population to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project that could be impacted by 

environmental justice concerns is the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation located approximately 

80 km [50 mi] to the east in Shannon County, South Dakota. Communities within the Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation include the towns of Oglala and Pine Ridge. Based on 2010 USCB 

data, these towns have both minority [greater than 95 percent Native American (Oglala Sioux 

Tribe)] and low-income populations (USCB, 2012). 

This environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential for disproportionately high 

and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations 

that could result from the proposed action. Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the 

risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal adverse impacts on human health. Disproportionately high and 

adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental 

hazard for a minority or low-income population is significant and exceeds the risk or exposure 

rate for the general population or for another appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately 

high environmental effects refer to impacts or risk of impact on the natural or physical 

environment in a minority or low-income community that are significant and appreciably exceed 

the environmental impact on the larger community. 

Disproportionately high effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social impacts 

(CEQ, 1997). Some of these potential effects have been identified in the resource areas 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-211 

discussed in SEIS Chapter 4. For example, ground-disturbing activities during the construction 

phase of the proposed ISR facility could disproportionately affect cultural and historic resources 

important to Native American populations. On the other hand, minority and low-income 

populations, such as Native American tribes, are subsets of the general public residing around 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. All populations, regardless of their status, will be 

exposed to the same health and environmental effects associated with construction, operations, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning activities at the Dewey-Burdock site. 

4.12.2 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations due to the construction, operations, 

and decommissioning of the proposed ISR facility and aquifer restoration at the Dewey-Burdock 

site will mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust, traffic, 

employment, housing, and cultural impacts). Noise and dust impacts will be short term and 

limited to onsite activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site access 

roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes. As 

construction and operations employment increases at the proposed project site, employment 

opportunities for minority and low-income populations may also increase. Increased demand for 

housing during peak construction could disproportionately affect low-income populations. 

According to the latest census information, 2,423 vacant housing units in the census tracts in 

Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties will be potentially affected by the proposed project 

(Table 4.12-3). Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental 

impacts presented in this chapter, there will not be disproportionately high and adverse impacts 

to minority and low-income populations from the construction, operations, and decommissioning 

of the proposed ISR facility and aquifer restoration at the Dewey-Burdock site. 

As described in GEIS Section 6.4, Native American tribes in the Black Hills region believe that 

preserving and maintaining access to sacred lands is essential to both cultural and spiritual 

aspects of traditional Native American societies of the northern plains. Protection of the cultural 

and historic resources as well as the spiritual value of the land (e.g., identification of traditional 

cultural properties) within the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area will be addressed 

through NHPA Section 106 consultation process as described in SEIS Section 4.9.1. Mitigation 

measures to minimize adverse impacts to cultural and historic resources will be developed in 

consultation with the applicant, NRC, SD SHPO, Native American tribes (Tribal government or 

designated THPO), and other government agencies (e.g., BLM, Archaeological Research 

Table 4.12-3. Housing in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, and Weston 

County, Wyoming, in 2010 

Geographic Unit 

Total Housing 

Units Vacant Units 

Custer County 4,628 992 

Custer County Census Tract 9651 3,173 715 

Custer County Census Tract 9652 1,455 277 

Fall River County 4,191 919 

Fall River County Census Tract 9641 1,940 649 

Fall River County Census Tract 9642 2,251 270 

Weston County 3,533 512 

Weston County Census Tract 9511 1,584 262 

Weston County Census Tract 9513 1,949 250 

Source: USCB, 2012 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-212 

Center). The Section 106 consultation process provides an avenue for potentially affected 

Native American tribes to become consulting parties with regard to heritage interests related to 

the proposed project site. Potential impacts to sites of religious or cultural significance to tribes 

will be reduced through mitigation strategies developed during Section 106 consultations. 

As part of addressing environmental justice associated with license reviews, NRC also analyzed 

the risk of radiological exposure through the consumption patterns of special pathway receptors, 

including subsistence consumption of fish, native vegetation, surface waters, sediments, and 

local produce; absorption of contaminants in sediments through the skin; and inhalation of plant 

materials. The special pathway receptors analysis is important to the environmental justice 

analysis because consumption patterns may reflect the traditional or cultural practices of 

minority and low-income populations in the area. 

Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) directs federal agencies, whenever practical and 

appropriate, to collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations 

that rely principally on fish and wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these 

consumption patterns to the public. For this SEIS, NRC considered whether there were any 

means for minority or low-income populations to be disproportionately affected by examining 

impacts to traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. Special pathways that were 

considered included the potential levels of contaminants in native vegetation, crops, soils and 

sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or near the proposed Dewey-Burdock site. 

Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations will mostly consist of radiological 

effects; however, radiation doses from ISR facility operations will be expected to be well below 

regulatory limits as described in SEIS Section 4.13. As described in GEIS Section 6.4, the land 

in the area of the Black Hills has historically provided sustenance to many Native American 

tribes by way of fishing, hunting, and plant food gathering. The results of background 

radiological monitoring of soils and sediments, surface water, livestock, fish, and vegetation at 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project site are described in SEIS Sections 3.12.1 and 3.6.2. In 

general, the results of the radiological monitoring indicate that radionuclide concentrations in 

soils and sediments and surface water were often elevated in abandoned open pit surface mine 

areas in the eastern and northeastern parts of the Burdock area. In addition, surface water 

samples from Beaver Creek and the Cheyenne River often exceeded EPA-regulated MCLs for 

radionuclides (e.g., uranium, gross alpha, Ra-226, and Pb-210) in drinking water as established 

in 40 CFR Part 141. In general, radionuclide concentrations in vegetation and fish were present 

at low concentrations and radionuclide concentrations in local livestock were at or below the 

lower limits of detection. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.2, fencing will be installed in areas of active ISR operations 

such as wellfields, processing plants, and possible land application areas. This will limit hunting 

within the permitted boundary of the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area. Limits on hunting will 

continue over the operational life of the project. However, substantial land surrounding the 

4,282-ha [10,580-ac] project site will remain open to big game hunting and therefore the impacts 

to hunting on Native American tribes will be SMALL. The applicant’s SWMP will limit adverse 

impacts on aquatic habitat and species within the proposed project area resulting from 

planned construction and operational activities (Powertech, 2009a). As discussed in SEIS 

Section 4.5.1.1.2, no surface water will be diverted, no process water will be discharged into 

aquatic habitat, and stormwater runoff will be managed through the applicant’s NPDES permit. 

Therefore, potential impacts to aquatic species and habitats will be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-213 

To mitigate exposure or health risks associated with contaminants reaching the food chain in 

potential land application areas, the applicant proposes treating liquid wastes applied to 

potential land application areas so that they meet NRC release limit criteria for radionuclides in 

10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B (Standards for Protection Against Radiation) (Powertech, 2009a, 

2011). During decommissioning of the proposed project, seeded soil will be returned to areas 

from which it was removed and contoured to blend with the natural terrain. At the end of 

decommissioning all lands will be returned to their preextraction use of livestock grazing and 

wildlife habitat. 

Based on this information and the analysis of human health and environmental impacts 

presented in this SEIS, the proposed action will not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects on Native American and other traditional lifestyle 

pathway receptors in the vicinity of the Dewey-Burdock project area. The impacts to Native 

American tribes will, for the most part, be no different than those other populations experience 

within the vicinity of the project area. Mitigation strategies will be developed through the 

ongoing Section 106 consultation for impacts to sites of religious or cultural significance to the 

tribes (see SEIS Section 4.9.1). 

4.12.3 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, the ISR facility will not be constructed and operated at 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. The relative conditions affecting minority and 

low-income populations in the vicinity of the proposed project site will remain unchanged. 

Therefore, there will be no disproportionately high or adverse impacts to minority and 

low-income populations from this alternative. 

4.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.11, potential radiological and nonradiological impacts from 

ISR activities may occur during all phases of the ISR facility’s lifecycle (NRC, 2009a). These 

impacts may occur during normal operations where proposed activities are executed as planned 

or during potential accident conditions when unplanned events can generate additional hazards. 

Additionally, the potential hazards and associated impacts can be either radiological or 

nonradiological. Therefore, the impact analysis in this section evaluates the radiological and 

nonradiological potential public and occupational health and safety impacts for normal and 

accident conditions in each phase of the ISR facility lifecycle. 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

Standard construction safety practices will address nonradiological worker safety during 

ISR facility construction. Construction emissions will be primarily from fugitive dust and 

diesel-powered construction equipment exhausts. Fugitive dust generated from construction 

activities and vehicle traffic will be of short duration, and because the average natural levels of 

radioactivity in soils are low, it will not result in a radiological dose to workers and the public. 

Diesel emissions from construction equipment will also be of short duration and readily 

dispersed into the atmosphere. For these reasons, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

potential impacts to public and occupational health and safety from construction will be SMALL. 

(NRC, 2009a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-214 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

Potential public and occupational radiological impacts from normal operations may result from 

(i) exposure to radon gas from the wellfields, (ii) ion-exchange resin transfer operations, and 

(iii) venting during processing activities. Workers may also be exposed to airborne uranium 

particulates from dryer operations and maintenance activities. Potential public exposures to 

radiation may occur from the same radon releases and uranium particulate releases (i.e., from 

facilities without vacuum dryer technology). Both worker and public radiological exposures are 

addressed in NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 20, which require licensees to implement an 

NRC-approved radiation protection program. NRC periodically inspects those programs to 

ensure compliance. Measured and calculated doses for workers and the public are commonly 

only a fraction of regulatory limits. For these reasons, NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

potential radiological impacts to workers and the public from operations will be SMALL. 

(NRC, 2009a) 

Nonradiological worker safety at ISR facilities will be addressed through occupational health and 

safety regulations and practices (NRC, 2009a). The potential impact from nonradiological 

accidents includes high consequence chemical release events (e.g., of ammonia) that may 

expose workers and nearby populations. However, NRC staff concluded that the likelihood of 

such a release will be low, based on historical operating experience at NRC-licensed facilities, 

primarily because operators follow chemical safety and handling protocols. Therefore, NRC 

staff concluded in the GEIS that radiological and nonradiological impacts from accidents during 

operations may range from SMALL to MODERATE. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

Activities occurring during aquifer restoration will overlap similar activities occurring during 

operations (e.g., operation of wellfields, wastewater treatment and disposal). Therefore, the 

potential impact on public and occupational health and safety will be bounded by the operational 

impacts. In the GEIS, NRC staff also stated that the reduction of some operational activities 

(e.g., yellowcake production and drying, remote ion-exchange) as aquifer restoration proceeded 

will be expected to limit the relative magnitude of potential worker and public health and safety 

hazards. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the overall impacts to workers and the public 

from aquifer restoration will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissioning Phase Summary 

During decommissioning, the degree of potential impact decreases as hazards are reduced or 

removed, soils and facility structures are decontaminated, and lands are restored to 

preoperational conditions. To ensure the safety of workers and the public during 

decommissioning, NRC requires ISR licensees to submit a decommissioning plan for review 

and approval. NRC will then periodically inspect the facility to ensure that the decommissioning 

plan is implemented properly. The plan includes details of the radiation safety program that is 

implemented during decommissioning activities. The plan is developed to minimize health and 

safety hazards and to be compliant with worker and public dose limits in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Subparts C and D limits. An approved plan will also provide “as low as reasonably achievable” 

(ALARA) provisions under 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart B to further ensure best safety practices are 

being used to minimize radiation exposures (see SEIS Section 3.12.3). Adequate protection of 

workers and the public during decommissioning will therefore be ensured through NRC review 

and approval of the applicant’s decommissioning plan, license conditions, inspection, and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-215 

enforcement. Based on the NRC review and approval of the applicant’s decommissioning plan, 

the NRC application of any site-specific license conditions, and NRC inspection and 

enforcement actions to ensure compliance with NRC radiation safety requirements, NRC staff 

concluded in the GEIS the potential public and occupational health and safety impacts for 

decommissioning will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

4.13.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant has proposed to dispose of liquid wastes 

by deep well disposal via Class V injection wells, land application, or combined deep well 

disposal via Class V injection wells and land application. The environmental impacts on public 

and occupational health and safety for each of the liquid waste disposal options are discussed 

in the following sections. 

4.13.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

wastes is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. Potential environmental impacts to 

public and occupational health and safety from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and 

decommissioning associated with the Class V injection well disposal option are discussed in the 

following sections. 

4.13.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2, construction activities at the Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will include clearing and grading for roads, building foundations and surface 

impoundments, drilling wells, trenching, laying pipelines, and assembling buildings. 

Construction activities for the Class V injection well disposal option will also involve the 

installation of four to eight Class V injection wells (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1). The 

important radiation exposure pathways during the construction phase will be through direct 

exposure, inhalation or ingestion of radionuclides during well construction, construction activities 

that disturbed soils, and fugitive dust from vehicular traffic. These activities are equivalent to the 

activities analyzed in GEIS Section 4.4.11. 

Drilling wells at the proposed project will use a common technique known as mud rotary drilling 

(see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.3.5). This technique uses fluid moving through a drill stem, out the 

drill bit, and back to the surface between the drill stem and host rock. When the fluid returns to 

the surface, it passes through a trough to a mud pit, where the cuttings settle out and the fluid 

is recycled down the borehole. Residual cuttings and drilling fluids are typically held in the 

mud pit after drilling and construction activities are completed (NRC, 2009a). Because the 

cuttings are taken from very near and within the ore deposits, they have the potential to be more 

contaminated than soil samples at the surface. Depending on state and local regulations, such 

mud pits are backfilled and graded or are alternatively emptied and cleaned, and residual solids 

and liquids transported and disposed of offsite (NRC, 2006). After well drilling is completed at 

the proposed project, the applicant proposes to redeposit the excavated subsoil in the mud pit 

followed by topsoil application and grading, usually within 30 days of the initial excavation of the 

mud pit (Powertech, 2009a). 

As described in SEIS Section 3.12.1, the average concentration of radionuclides measured in 

the soil at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site is low. With outliers removed, the mean Ra-226 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-216 

concentration of surface soils in surface mine areas and the broader permit area was 

0.048 Bq/g [1.3 pCi/g]. Fugitive dust generated from construction activities will be of short 

duration (1 to 2 years; see Figure 2.1-1), and because the average levels of radioactivity in soils 

are low, inhalation of fugitive dust will not result in a radiological dose to workers and the public. 

In addition, the applicant has proposed to implement standard dust control measures, such as 

water application and speed limits, to reduce and control fugitive dust emissions (Powertech, 

2009a). Therefore, NRC staff estimate that the direct exposure, inhalation, or ingestion of 

fugitive dust will not result in a radiological dose to workers and the general public during the 

construction phase of the proposed project. The applicant calculated the amount of radon 

released from wellfield development using methods described in NUREG–1748 (NRC, 2003a). 

Using conservative estimates, the applicant calculated a release rate of 1.35 × 106

disintegrations per second/yr [3.6 × 10−5

 Ci/yr] (Powertech, 2009a). This represents a negligible 

fraction of the amount of radon generated during operations as described in SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.1.2) and will result in a radiological dose that is well below the 10 CFR Part 20 

occupational and public dose limits of 0.05 Sv/yr [5 rem/yr] and 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr], 

respectively. Based on the low average concentration of radionuclides in soils at the 

proposed site, the proposed mitigation measures that will be implemented to control fugitive 

dust, and the negligible amount of radon that will be released during wellfield development, the 

NRC staff conclude that the radiological impacts to workers and the general public from the 

construction phase for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

The potential nonradiological air quality impacts from fugitive dust and diesel emissions are 

evaluated in SEIS Section 4.7.1. Construction equipment will be diesel powered and will emit 

diesel exhaust, which includes small particles (PM10). The impacts and potential human 

exposures from these emissions will be SMALL because the releases are usually short and are 

readily dispersed into the atmosphere. The potential impacts to air quality from proposed 

diesel emissions, including comparisons with health-based standards, are detailed in SEIS 

Section 4.7.1. In SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, NRC staff concluded that implementation of mitigation 

measures will result in fugitive dust emission levels that will not destabilize the air quality of the 

local area nor change the current attainment status of the air quality surrounding the proposed 

site areas. However, despite the use of controls, short-term and intermediate fugitive dust 

emissions are possible when vehicles travel on unpaved roads. The NRC staff conclude that 

short-term and intermediate MODERATE impacts from fugitive dust are possible, but because 

average air quality is expected to remain in compliance with ambient standards, the overall 

impacts will be SMALL. The applicant’s compliance with federal and state occupational safety 

regulations will limit the potential nonradiological impacts of fugitive dust and diesel emissions to 

levels acceptable for workers and the public. Based on the foregoing analysis, NRC staff 

conclude that overall nonradiological impacts on workers and the general public from the 

construction phase for the Class V injection well disposal option will be SMALL. 

 

4.13.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

4.13.1.1.2.1 Radiological Impacts From Normal Operations 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.1, some amount of radioactive materials will be released 

to the environment during normal ISR operations. The potential impact from these releases can 

be evaluated by the MILDOS-AREA computer code (MILDOS), which Argonne National 

Laboratory developed for calculating offsite facility radiation doses to individuals and 

populations. MILDOS uses a multi-pathway analysis for determining external dose; inhalation 

dose; and dose from ingestion of soil, plants, meat, milk, aquatic foods, and water. The primary 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-217 

radionuclide of interest at an ISR facility is Rn-222. MILDOS uses a sector-average Gaussian 

plume dispersion model to estimate downwind concentrations. This model typically assumes 

minimal dilution and provides conservative estimates of downwind air concentrations and doses 

to human receptors. 

GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.1 presented historical data for ISR operations, providing a range of 

estimated offsite doses associated with six current or former ISR facilities. For these 

operations, doses to potential offsite exposure (human receptor) locations range between 

0.004 mSv [0.4 mrem] per year for the Crow Butte facility in Nebraska and 0.32 mSv [32 mrem] 

per year for the Irigaray facility in Johnson County, Wyoming. Each value is well below the 

10 CFR Part 20 annual radiation public dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] (NRC, 2009a). 

GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.1 also provides a summary of doses to occupationally exposed workers 

at ISR facilities. As stated, doses will be similar regardless of the facility’s location and are well 

within the 10 CFR Part 20 annual occupational dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem] per year. The 

largest annual average dose to a worker at a uranium recovery facility over a 10-year period 

[1994–2006] was 0.007 Sv [0.7 rem]. More recently, the maximum total dose equivalents 

reported for 2005 and 2006 were 0.00675 and 0.00713 Sv [0.675 and 0.713 rem]. Similarly, the 

average and maximum worker exposure to radon and radon daughter products ranged from 

2.5 to 16 percent of the occupational exposure limit of 4 working-level months. NRC staff 

concluded in the GEIS that the radiological impacts to workers during normal operations at ISR 

facilities will be SMALL. 

At the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, planned ISR facility design and operations for the Class V 

injection well disposal option are consistent with the projects analyzed in the GEIS. To mitigate 

radiological exposure to workers, the applicant will (i) install ventilation designed to limit worker 

exposure to radon; (ii) install gamma exposure rate monitors, air particulate monitors, and radon 

daughter product monitors to verify that expected radiation levels are met; and (iii) conduct work 

area radiation and contamination surveys to help prevent and limit the spread of contamination 

(Powertech, 2009a). The applicant’s airborne radiation monitoring program is further described 

in SEIS Section 7.2.1. 

GEIS Section 4.2.11.1.2 noted that radon gas is emitted from ISR wellfields and processing 

facilities during operations and is the only radiological airborne effluent during normal operations 

for facilities using vacuum dryer technology (NRC, 2009a). The applicant plans to dry 

yellowcake using a rotary vacuum dryer (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, during normal 

operations, emissions other than radon are not expected. 

In its environmental report, the applicant evaluated the potential consequences of radiological 

emissions at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Powertech, 2009a, Section 4.14.2). 

Sources of radon emanation the applicant identified and modeled included land application of 

treated wastewater, wellfield operations, central processing plant operations, and resin 

transfers in the satellite facility (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant described its implementation 

of the computer code MILDOS that was used to model radiological impacts on human and 

environmental receptors (e.g., air and soil) using site-specific data that included Rn-222 release 

estimates, meteorological and population data, and other parameters. The estimated 

radiological impacts from routine site activities were compared to applicable public dose limits in 

10 CFR Part 20 {1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr]}, as well as to baseline radiological conditions (see 

SEIS Section 3.12.1). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-218 

The NRC review of the applicant’s radiological impact modeling (Powertech, 2009a, 2011) 

independently verified that appropriate exposure pathways were modeled and reasonable input 

parameters were used. The applicant also listed the origin of the input parameters and provided 

justification for their use. The applicant described the source terms, and the NRC staff review 

concluded that the source terms represented operations at full capacity and consisted of ISR 

operations at two wellfields, releases from the central plant and the satellite plant, and releases 

from one center pivot land irrigation area in the Dewey area and three center pivot land irrigation 

areas in the Burdock area. The applicant calculated the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) 

at the site boundary in 16 compass directions each from the central plant and the satellite 

facility, 7 residences, and the town of Edgemont (a total of 40 locations). 

Results of the applicant’s modeling (Powertech, 2011) indicated that the maximum TEDE of 

0.06 mSv/yr [6.0 mrem/yr] is located southeast of the Dewey satellite facility within the proposed 

project boundary (Figure 4.13-1). The applicant’s calculations also demonstrated that land 

application sources accounted for 80 percent of the TEDE at this location (Powertech, 2009a). 

Therefore, for the Class V injection well disposal option, the maximum TEDE located southeast 

of the Dewey satellite facility within the proposed project boundary will be 20 percent of 

0.06 mSv/yr [6.0 mrem/yr] or 0.012 mSv/yr [1.2 mrem/yr]. This dose is 1.2 percent of the 

10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr]. Thus, the 10 CFR Part 20 public 

dose limit is not exceeded at any property boundary. 

The maximum TEDE at a residence was 0.0448 mSv/yr [4.48 mrem/yr] at Spencer Ranch 

located approximately 2 km [1.25 mi] northwest of the proposed central processing plant in the 

Burdock area (see location AMS-02 in Figure 4.13-1). The applicant’s calculations also 

demonstrated that land application sources accounted for 62 percent of the TEDE at the most 

highly exposed residence (Powertech, 2009a). Therefore, for the Class V injection well disposal 

option, the maximum TEDE at the Spencer Ranch residence will be 38 percent of 0.0448 

mSv/yr [4.48 mrem/yr] or 0.017 mSv/yr [1.7 mrem/yr]. This is 1.7 percent of the 10 CFR Part 20 

public dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr]. Hence, the TEDE at nearby receptor locations will 

not exceed the public dose limit. 

Because Rn-222 is the only radionuclide emitted during normal operations, the public 

dose requirements in 40 CFR 190.10 and the 0.1 mSv/yr [10 mrem/yr] constraint rule in 

10 CFR 20.1101 do not apply. However, even if 100 percent of the Rn-222 contained in 

production fluids was released to the atmosphere (instead of 10 percent as assumed in the 

applicant’s calculations), the TEDE and Rn-222 air concentrations at residential receptor 

locations surrounding the facility will be less than the 1 mSv [100 mrem] public dose limit and 

the Rn-222 effluent concentration limit, respectively. Therefore, radiological dose impacts to the 

public from normal operations will be SMALL. 

In summary, for the Class V injection well disposal option, potential radiation doses to 

occupationally exposed workers and members of the public during normal operations will be 

SMALL. Calculated radiation doses from the releases of radioactive materials to the 

environment are small fractions of the limits in 10 CFR Part 20 that have been established for 

the protection of public health and safety. In addition, the applicant is required to implement an 

NRC-approved radiation protection program to protect occupational workers and ensure that 

radiological doses are ALARA. The applicant’s radiation protection program includes 

commitments for implementing management controls, engineering controls, radiation safety 

training, radon monitoring and sampling, and audit programs (Powertech, 2011). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-219 

Figure 4.13-1. Map SHowing Isodose Contours Obtained From MILDOS Modeling at the Proposed 

Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project Site 

 Source: Modified From Powertech (2011) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-220 

4.13.1.1.2.2 Radiological Impacts from Accidents 

GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2 describes and evaluates numerous accident scenarios that may result 

in impacts to public health and safety and identifies mitigation measures for each accident 

scenario. Radiological accident risks may involve processing equipment failures leading to 

yellowcake slurry spills, or radon gas or uranium particulate releases. NRC staff state in the 

GEIS that consequences of these accidents to workers and the public are generally low, with 

the exception of a dryer explosion, which may result in a worker dose exceeding NRC limits 

(NRC, 1980). However, the likelihood of such an accident is low, due to design considerations 

and operational monitoring, and therefore NRC staff considered the risk also to be low. 

GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2 also noted that in addition to accident mitigation measures, other 

measures will be in place to protect workers and members of the public. Employee personnel 

dosimetry programs are required. As part of worker protection, respiratory protection programs 

will be in place, as well as bioassay programs that detect uranium intake in employees. 

Contamination control programs will be in place, which involve surveying personnel, clothing, 

and equipment prior to their removal to an unrestricted area. 

As described in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2, a radiological hazard assessment (Mackin, et al., 

2001) considered three types of accidents, representing the sources containing the higher levels 

of radioactivity for all aspects of operations: 

• Thickener failure or spill 

• Pregnant lixiviant and loaded resin spills (radon release) 

• Yellowcake dryer accident release 

In addition, SEIS Section 4.3.1.2 evaluates the impacts of shipping uranium-loaded exchange 

resins from the Dewey satellite facility to the Burdock central processing plant. 

The following discussion presents an overview of the accident scenarios, as evaluated in the 

GEIS, along with site-specific application to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

Table 4.13-1 summarizes the potential dose to workers and the public from the accident 

scenarios using data adapted from the GEIS. 

Thickener Failure and Spill. Thickeners are used to concentrate the yellowcake (U3O8) slurry 

before it is transferred to the dryer or packaged for offsite shipment. Yellowcake may be 

inadvertently released to the atmosphere through a thickener failure or spill. The accident 

scenario evaluated in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2 assumed a tank or pipe leak that releases 

20 percent of the thickener outside of the processing building. The analyses included a variety 

of wind speeds, stability classes, release durations, and receptor distances. A minimum 

receptor distance of 500 m [1,640 ft] was selected because it was found to be the shortest 

distance between a processing facility and an urban development for current operating ISR 

Table 4.13-1. Generic Accident Dose Analysis for In-Situ Recovery 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, 2009a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-221 

facilities. Offsite, unrestricted doses from such a U3O8 spill could result in a dose of 0.25 mSv 

[25 mrem], or 25 percent of the annual public dose limit of 1 mSv [100 mrem] with negligible 

external doses based on sufficient distance between the facility and receptor (NRC, 2009a). 

Because the nearest onsite resident is located 1 km [0.6 mi] south of the proposed wellfields in 

the Dewey area and the nearest offsite resident is located 0.64 km [0.4 mi] south of the 

proposed permit boundary and 1.45 km [0.9 mi] from proposed wellfields in the Burdock area, 

the potential dose from a similar accident scenario involving a thickener failure or spill at the 

proposed project will be even less. 

The applicant also discussed the accident analysis of a catastrophic tank failure involving a 

yellowcake thickener (Mackin, et al., 2001) as a worst-case accident scenario (Powertech, 

2010a). The applicant’s analysis was based on an accident described in Mackin, et al. (2001) 

that involved a thickener containing 278 m3

 [73,500 gal] of yellowcake slurry. The applicant’s 

proposed yellowcake thickener is sized to contain 143 m3

 [37,800 gal] of yellowcake slurry. Two 

yellowcake thickener vessels are planned for the central processing plant for a combined 

capacity of 286 m3

 [75,600 gal]. The plan for the central processing plant at the proposed 

project also includes a 15.2-cm [6-in]-high concrete containment curb (Powertech, 2011). The 

capacity of the curbed area will be 304 m3

 [80,308 gal]; it will contain the entire contents of both 

thickeners in the event both thickeners failed simultaneously and spilled their entire contents 

onto the floor of the central processing plant before the contents flowed into floor sumps 

(Powertech, 2011). The sumps will provide additional temporary containment capacity. The 

total containment capacity of curbs and sumps at the proposed project will exceed 200 percent 

of the largest liquid-containing tank or vessel in the central processing plant (Powertech, 2011). 

Based on the design of the central plant, a catastrophic yellowcake thickener spill at the 

proposed project will be similar in volume to that evaluated in Mackin, et al. (2001) but will be 

contained in the central plant structure. Therefore, potential doses to the public will be smaller 

and well within the annual public dose limit of 1 mSv [100 mrem]. 

As discussed in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2, doses to unprotected workers inside the facility from a 

thickener failure or spill have the potential to exceed the annual dose limit of 0.05 mSv [5 mrem] 

if timely corrective measures are not taken. In addition, the applicant is required to implement 

an NRC-approved radiation protection program to protect occupational workers and ensure 

that radiological doses are ALARA. The applicant’s radiation protection program includes 

commitments for implementing management controls, radiation safety training, radon monitoring 

and sampling, and audit programs (Powertech, 2011). These protection measures, along with 

engineering controls such as concrete curbs and sumps to contain process spills at the central 

processing plant, will reduce worker exposures and the resulting doses to a small fraction of 

those evaluated. 

Pregnant Lixiviant and Loaded Resin Spills. Process equipment (ion-exchange columns, drying 

and packing facilities) will be located on curbed concrete pads to prevent any liquids from 

exiting the building via spills or leaks and contaminating the outside environment (NRC, 2009a). 

The total containment capacity of curbs and sumps at the proposed project will exceed 

200 percent of the largest liquid-containing tank or vessel in the central processing plant 

(Powertech, 2011). The primary radiation source for liquid releases within the facility will be the 

resulting airborne radon (Rn-222) released from the liquid or resin tank spill. 

The radon accident release scenario assumes a pipe or valve of the ion-exchange system, 

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 pCi/L]}. For a 30-minute exposure, the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-222 

dose to a worker located inside the central plant performing light activities without respiratory 

protection was calculated to be 13 mSv [1,300 mrem], which is below the 10 CFR Part 20 

occupational annual dose limit. The analysis did not evaluate public dose; however, because 

atmospheric transport offsite will reduce the airborne levels by several orders of magnitude, any 

dose to a member of the public will be less than the 1 mSv [100 mrem] public dose limit of 

10 CFR Part 20 (see Table 4.13-1). The applicant’s radiation protection program’s controls and 

monitoring measures will be expected to minimize the magnitude of any such release and 

further reduce the consequences of this type of accident. Typical control and monitoring 

measures will include radiation and occupational monitoring, respiratory protection, engineering 

controls, standard operating procedures for spill response and cleanup, and worker training in 

radiological health and emergency response (Powertech, 2011). 

The applicant also described an accident involving a process tank failure (Powertech, 2009a). 

The applicant indicated that the central processing plant at the proposed project will be 

designed to control and confine liquid spills from tanks should they occur. The central plant 

building structure will be designed with a 15.2-cm [6-in] concrete curb designed to contain liquid 

spills from the leakage or rupture of a process vessel and will direct any spilled solution to a 

floor sump (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.1). The floor sump system will be designed to direct any 

spilled solutions back into the plant process circuit or to the waste disposal system. As noted 

previously, the total containment capacity of curbs and sumps at the proposed project will 

exceed 200 percent of the largest liquid-containing tank or vessel in the central processing plant 

(Powertech, 2011). Bermed areas, tank containments, and/or double-walled tanks are designed 

to perform a similar function for any process chemical vessels located outside the central plant 

building (Powertech, 2009a). 

Yellowcake Dryer Accident Release. Dryers used to produce yellowcake powder from 

yellowcake slurry are another source of accidental release of radionuclides. A multiple-hearth 

dryer is capable of releasing yellowcake powder inside the processing building as a result of an 

explosion. This scenario was evaluated in GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2 to establish a bounding 

condition for other accident scenarios involving dryers. The analysis in the GEIS assumes that 

about 4,309 kg [9,500 lb] of uranium yellowcake is released within the building area housing the 

dryer and that 1 kg [2.2 lb] is subsequently released as an airborne effluent to the outside 

atmosphere as a 100 percent respirable powder. Due to the nature of the material, most of the 

yellowcake will rapidly fall out of airborne suspension. For the occupationally exposed worker 

using respiratory protection, which is the normal mode during dryer access and drum-filling 

operations, the dose was calculated to be 0.088 Sv [8.8 rem], which exceeds the annual 

occupational dose limit of 0.05 Sv [5 rem] established in 10 CFR Part 20. The amount assumed 

to remain airborne and to be transported outside the building for atmospheric dispersion to an 

offsite location will be 1 kg [2.2 lb] of yellowcake. The rapid fallout within the building and the 

atmospheric dispersion will significantly reduce the exposure to members of the public to about 

6.5 × 10−4

 Sv [65 mrem] (NRC, 1980), which is less than the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 

1 mSv [100 mrem]. 

The applicant proposes to use a rotary vacuum dryer with heat-transfer fluid that circulates 

through the dryer shell (Powertech, 2009a). This configuration separates the heater combustion 

source from the dryer itself, thereby mostly eliminating the possibility of an explosion, which is 

the initiating event for the assumed catastrophic failure and significant release of dryer 

radioactive content. Additionally, NRC will require the applicant to have emergency response 

procedures in place to mitigate worker exposures. Emergency training drills, dosimetry, 

respiratory protection, contamination control, and decontamination will all be required elements 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-223 

of the applicant’s radiation protection program that will further reduce the consequences of a 

dryer accident. 

Accident Analysis Conclusions. In the unlikely event of an unmitigated accident, and depending 

on the type of accident, potential doses to workers may result in a MODERATE impact to 

occupational health and safety. However, there will be only a SMALL impact to public health 

and safety. Typical protection measures, such as radiation and occupational monitoring, 

respiratory protection, standard operating procedures for spill response and cleanup, and 

worker training in radiological health and emergency response, will be required as a part of the 

applicant’s NRC-approved radiation protection program (Powertech, 2011). These procedures 

and plans will reduce the radiological consequences to workers from accidents. Therefore, 

NRC staff conclude that the overall radiological impacts from accidents for the Class V injection 

well disposal option will be SMALL. 

4.13.1.1.2.3 Nonradiological Impacts from Normal Operations 

GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.4 identifies the various chemicals, hazardous and nonhazardous, that 

are typically used at ISR facilities. The GEIS also identifies the typical quantities of these 

chemicals that are used. The use of hazardous chemicals at ISR facilities is controlled under 

several regulations that are designed to provide adequate protection to workers and the public. 

The primary regulations applicable to use and storage include the following: 

• 40 CFR Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions. This regulation lists 

regulated toxic substances and threshold quantities for accidental release prevention. 

• 29 CFR 1910.119, OSHA Standards (which includes Process Safety Management). 

This regulation lists highly hazardous chemicals, including toxic and reactive materials 

that have the potential for a catastrophic event at or above the threshold quantity. 

• 40 CFR Part 355, Emergency Planning and Notification. This regulation lists extremely 

hazardous substances and their threshold planning quantities for the development and 

implementation of emergency response procedures. A list of reportable quantity values 

is also provided for reporting releases. 

• 40 CFR 302.4, Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification–Designation of 

Hazardous Substances. This regulation lists Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act hazardous substances compiled from the Clean Water 

Act, Clean Air Act, RCRA, and the Toxic Substances and Control Act. 

Chemicals will be utilized at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project during the extraction 

process and during restoration of groundwater quality (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.3). The 

hazardous chemicals and their associated protective provisions expected to be used at the 

proposed project are as follows: 

• Sodium chloride (NaCl) and sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)—Systems utilizing these 

chemicals will be designed to industry standards. These chemicals will be stored in 

tanks inside the central processing plant. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-224 

• Barium chloride (BaCl2)—Systems utilizing these chemicals will be designed to industry 

standards. Barium chloride will be stored in tanks inside a metal building adjacent to the 

radium settling and storage ponds. 

• Hydrochloric acid (HCl) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4)—Due to the quantities that will be 

used, reporting will be required under 40 CFR 302.4. The hydrochloric acid and sulfuric 

acid storage tanks will be located away from other process tanks to prevent accidental 

mixing with other chemicals. 

• Hydrogen peroxide [50 percent (H2O2)]—Because the concentration will be <52 percent, 

no additional regulatory protective measures will be required. Bulk storage tanks for the 

hydrogen peroxide will be located outside the central processing plant. 

• Carbon dioxide (CO2)—Carbon dioxide will be stored adjacent to the plant facilities. 

Floor-level ventilation and low-point carbon dioxide monitors will be installed to prevent a 

buildup of carbon dioxide in occupied areas. 

• Oxygen (O2)—Oxygen will be stored near, but a safe distance from, plant facilities or 

within wellfield areas. The oxygen storage facility will be designed to meet industry 

standards contained in National Fire Protection Association 50—(National Fire 

Protection Association, 2001). Procedures will be developed for releases or fires in the 

oxygen system. 

• Sodium hydroxide (NaOH)—Systems utilizing NaOH will be designed to industry 

standards and stored in tanks outside the central processing plant. 

• Diesel, gasoline, and bottled gases—Systems utilizing these chemicals will be 

designed to industry standards. All bulk quantities of these chemicals will be stored 

outside of plant facilities. All gasoline and diesel storage tanks will be above ground 

and within secondary containment structures that are designed and constructed to meet 

EPA requirements. In addition, gasoline and diesel storage tanks must comply with 

SDDENR requirements in ARSD 74:56:01 and 74:56:03. 

The typical onsite quantities for some of these chemicals may exceed the regulated, minimum 

reporting quantities and trigger an increased level of regulatory oversight regarding possession 

(type and quantities), storage, use, and disposal practices (NRC, 2009a). Storage of these 

chemicals must comply with EPA-administered Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 

Act (SARA) Title III reporting requirements. Compliance with applicable regulations reduces the 

likelihood of a release, which may result in injury or illness to an exposed worker. Because 

chemicals used in the ISR process are stored and used in or near plant facilities and wellfields, 

offsite impacts of a chemical spill will be SMALL and do not typically pose a significant risk to 

the public. Workers involved in a response and cleanup to a chemical spill may experience 

MODERATE impacts if the proper emergency and cleanup procedures and worker training were 

not available or were inadequate. Risk assessments completed in NUREG/CR–6733 (Mackin, 

et al., 2001) identified anhydrous ammonia and bulk acid (sulfuric and hydrochloric) storage as 

the chemicals with the greatest potential for impacts to occupational and public safety. 

In general, the handling and storage of chemicals at the proposed project will follow standard 

industrial safety practices. The applicant has committed to developing and implementing 

standard operating procedures regarding receiving, storing, handling, and disposing of 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-225 

chemicals (Powertech, 2009a). The applicant is also required to comply with EPA, SDDENR, 

and OSHA regulations regarding inspections and the industrial and environmental safety 

aspects associated with the use of chemicals. South Dakota OSHA regulates the industrial 

safety aspects associated with the use of hazardous chemicals. At the proposed project site, 

bulk chemicals will be stored in areas at a distance from the processing facilities, which will 

minimize the risk to public and worker health and safety (Powertech, 2009a). As described in 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.1, bulk storage tanks for process chemicals, such as sulfuric acid, 

hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, and hydrogen peroxide, will be outside the central 

processing plant in concrete secondary containment basins designed to contain 110 percent of 

the tank volume plus withstand a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The secondary containment 

basins will be separate from the containment basins for other chemical systems. The types and 

quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) identified for use at the proposed project 

are consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS. The information the applicant provided 

regarding chemicals does not give NRC any reason to question the GEIS conclusions regarding 

potential impacts to public or occupational health and safety. Therefore, NRC staff conclude 

that the nonradiological impacts during normal operations for the Class V injection well disposal 

option will be SMALL. 

4.13.1.1.2.4 Nonradiological Impacts from Accidents 

The risks from accidents associated with the use of the typical hazardous and nonhazardous 

chemicals for ISR operations are not different from those for other typical industrial applications. 

Potential nonradiological accidents impacts include high consequence chemical release events 

(e.g., of ammonia) involving both workers and nearby populations. In GEIS Section 4.2.11.2.2, 

NRC staff state that the likelihood of such release events will be low based on historical 

operating experience at NRC-licensed facilities, primarily due to operators following commonly 

applied chemical safety and handling protocols. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

nonradiological impacts due to accidents will be expected to be SMALL offsite and potentially 

MODERATE for workers involved in accident response and cleanup. 

GEIS Appendix E, Hazardous Chemicals, provides an accident analysis for the more hazardous 

chemicals. This accident analysis indicates that chemicals commonly used at ISR facilities can 

pose a serious safety hazard if not properly handled. The GEIS does not evaluate potential 

hazards to workers or the public due to specific types of high consequence, low probability 

accidents (e.g., a fire or large magnitude sudden release of chemicals from a major tank rupture 

or piping system rupture). The application of common safety practices for handling and use of 

chemicals is expected to decrease the likelihood of these high consequence events. The spills 

of reportable quantities from chemical bulk storage areas must be reported to SDDENR in 

accordance with ARSD Chapter 74:34 (Regulated Substance Discharges) and to EPA in 

accordance with 40 CFR Part 302 (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act). These procedures and reporting requirements will mitigate the impacts of an 

accident involving hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals. 

The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) to be used at the 

proposed project do not differ from those evaluated in the GEIS. Nor is there any new or 

significant information that conflicts with the conclusions drawn in the GEIS regarding the 

potential nonradiological impacts on public and occupational health and safety from chemical 

accidents. Offsite impacts involving hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals will be SMALL 

and do not typically pose a significant risk to the public. Workers involved in a response and 

cleanup could experience MODERATE impacts, but training requirements and adherence to 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-226 

established procedures will reduce the impact to SMALL. Based on the foregoing analysis 

and the GEIS conclusions, for the Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the impacts from potential accidents for both occupationally 

exposed workers and members of the public will be SMALL. 

4.13.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

For the Class V injection well disposal option, the proposed aquifer restoration activities are 

similar to activities that will take place during operations (e.g., operation of wellfields, 

wastewater treatment and disposal). Therefore, the potential impact on public and occupational 

health and safety will be expected to be similar to the operational impacts. The reduction or 

elimination of some operational activities (e.g., yellowcake production and drying, remote 

ion-exchange) will further limit potential worker and public health and safety hazards. The 

radiation doses associated with restoration are included in the operations assessment in 

Section 4.13.1.1.2.1. Similarly, nonradiological hazards during aquifer restoration are assessed 

in Section 4.13.1.1.2.3. Accident consequences will be expected to be smaller than those 

evaluated in Sections 4.13.1.1.2.2 and 4.13.1.1.2.4. Therefore, for the Class V injection well 

disposal option, aquifer restoration will be expected to have a localized SMALL occupational 

impact on workers (primarily from radon gas) and to the general public. 

4.13.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

Prior to decommissioning, the applicant will have to submit a decommissioning plan for NRC 

review and approval at least 12 months before any decommissioning activities begin. The plan 

will need to include the types of safety information described in the GEIS. The applicant will 

also be required to comply with any site-specific, NRC-established license conditions. 

Additionally, the applicant will be subjected to NRC safety inspections during the course of 

decommissioning activities. 

The applicant’s proposal does not contain any new or significant information that questions the 

conclusions in the GEIS regarding potential impacts to public and occupational health and 

safety from decommissioning. The majority of safety issues that are addressed during 

decommissioning involve radiological hazards at the facility (NRC, 2009a). Removal of 

nonradiological hazardous chemicals will be conducted in accordance with applicable state and 

federal hazardous waste disposal and occupational health and safety requirements. Following 

decommissioning, the site could be released for unrestricted use in conformance with NRC 

license conditions and the dose criteria for site release in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The 

criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A limit the dose from radiological contamination that may 

exist at the site after decommissioning is completed to levels that are sufficiently low to protect 

public health and safety. 

Assuming NRC review and approval of the applicant’s decommissioning plan, the 

applicant’s compliance with any applicable license conditions, and regular NRC inspection 

and enforcement activities, the anticipated impact from decommissioning for the Class V 

injection well disposal option will be short term and SMALL. 

4.13.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application

If the applicant does not obtain a permit for Class V injection wells from EPA, it proposes to 

dispose of liquid waste by land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). The locations of 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-227 

land application areas are shown in Figure 4.13-1. The following sections discuss how the 

land application option could potentially affect health and safety during various phases of the 

ISR lifecycle. 

4.13.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

Construction activities and the potential impact on occupational health and safety for the land 

application liquid waste option will be similar to those for the Class V injection well disposal 

option. Instead of installing four to eight Class V injection wells, the land application option will 

require the installation of irrigation areas and equipment (e.g., center pivot irrigation systems) 

and the placement and construction of additional infrastructure (e.g., storage ponds for 

non-irrigation periods). 

For the land application option, the important radiation exposure pathways during construction 

will be the same as for the Class V injection well disposal option. These pathways will include 

direct exposure, inhalation, or ingestion of radionuclides during well construction; construction 

activities that disturb soils; and fugitive dust from vehicular traffic. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.1.1, the average concentrations of radionuclides in soils at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock site are low. Standard dust control measures, such as water application and 

speed limits, will be implemented to control fugitive dust, and well development during the 

construction phase will release a negligible fraction of the amount of radon generated during 

operations. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that for the land application option the radiological 

impacts to worker and the general public during the construction phase will be SMALL. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.13.1.1.1, the nonradiological impacts and potential human 

exposures from diesel equipment emissions during construction will be SMALL because the 

releases are usually of short duration and are readily dispersed into the atmosphere. 

Section 4.7.1 details the potential impacts to air quality from diesel emissions, including 

comparisons to health-based standards. Furthermore, as described in SEIS Section 4.7.1.1, 

NRC staff concluded that despite use of dust control measures, short-term and intermediate 

MODERATE impacts from fugitive dust are possible, but average air quality is expected to 

comply with ambient air standards. The NRC staff therefore conclude that overall, for the land 

application option, the nonradiological impacts on workers and the general public during the 

construction phase will be SMALL. 

4.13.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

4.13.1.2.2.1 Radiological Impacts From Normal Operations 

For the land application liquid waste option, the potential impacts on public and occupational 

health and safety during operations will be similar to the impacts for the Class V injection well 

disposal option described in SEIS Section 4.13.1.1.2.1. Radon gas is the only radiological 

airborne effluent emitted during normal operations at ISR wellfields and at processing facilities 

that use vacuum dryer technology. Because the applicant plans to dry yellowcake using a 

rotary vacuum dryer (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.1.2), emissions other than radon during normal 

operations are not expected. 

The applicant used the MILDOS computer code to model sources of radon emission, including 

land application of treated wastewater, wellfield operations, central processing plant operations, 

and resin transfers in the satellite facility (Powertech, 2009a, 2011). As discussed in SEIS 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-228 

Section 4.13.1.1.2.1, NRC reviewed the applicant’s radiological impact modeling and verified 

that appropriate exposure pathways were modeled and reasonable input parameters 

were used. 

Results of the applicant’s modeling (Powertech, 2011) indicated that the maximum TEDE of 

0.06 mSv/yr [6.0 mrem/yr] is located southeast of the Dewey satellite facility within the proposed 

project boundary (Figure 4.13-1). This dose is 6 percent of the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit 

of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr]. Thus, the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit is not exceeded at any 

property boundary. The applicant’s calculations also demonstrate that land application sources 

accounted for 80 percent of the TEDE at this location (Powertech, 2009a). 

The maximum TEDE at a residence was 0.0448 mSv/yr [4.48 mrem/yr] at Spencer Ranch, 

located approximately 2 km [1.25 mi] northwest of the proposed central processing plant in the 

Burdock area (see location AMS-02 in SEIS Figure 4.13-1). This is 4.48 percent of the 

10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr]. Therefore, the TEDE at nearby 

receptor locations will not exceed the public dose limit. The applicant’s calculations also 

demonstrate that land application sources accounted for 62 percent of the TEDE at the most 

highly exposed residence (Powertech, 2009a). 

Because Rn-222 is the only radionuclide emitted during normal operations, the public 

dose requirements in 40 CFR 190.10 and the 0.1 mSv/yr [10 mrem/yr] constraint rule in 

10 CFR 20.1101 do not apply. However, even if 100 percent of the Rn-222 contained in 

production fluids was released to the atmosphere (instead of 10 percent as assumed in the 

applicant’s calculations), the TEDE and Rn-222 air concentrations at the calculated receptor 

locations surrounding the facility will be less than the 1 mSv [100 mrem] public dose limit and 

the Rn-222 effluent concentration limit, respectively. Therefore, radiological dose impacts to the 

public from normal operations will be SMALL. 

In summary, for the land application option, potential radiation doses to occupationally 

exposed workers and members of the public during operations will be SMALL. Calculated 

radiation doses from the releases of radioactive materials to the environment are small fractions 

of the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 that have been established for the protection of public health 

and safety. 

4.13.1.2.2.2 Radiological Impacts From Accidents 

For the land application option, the types of accidents that could occur and their radiological 

impacts will be identical to those described in SEIS Section 4.13.1.1.2.2 for the Class V injection 

well disposal option. Therefore, the discussion of accident scenarios and the site-specific 

analysis in SEIS Section 4.13.1.1.2.2 for the Class V injection well disposal option applies 

equally to the land application option. Based on the discussion presented in SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.1.2.2, in the unlikely event of an unmitigated accident and depending on the type 

of accident, potential doses to workers at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project may 

result in a MODERATE impact to occupational health and safety, while doses to the general 

public will result in only a SMALL impact to public health and safety. However, typical protection 

measures, such as radiation and occupational monitoring, respiratory protection, standard 

operating procedures for spill response and cleanup, and worker training in radiological health 

and emergency response, will be required as a part of the applicant’s NRC-approved Radiation 

Protection Program (Powertech, 2011). These procedures and plans will reduce the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-229 

radiological consequences to workers from accidents. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that for 

the land application option, the overall radiological impacts from accidents will be SMALL. 

4.13.1.2.2.3 Nonradiological Impacts From Normal Operations 

For the land application option, the types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and 

nonhazardous) and the related impacts during operations will be the same as those described in 

SEIS Section 4.13.1.1.2.3 for the Class V injection well disposal option. The discussion of the 

chemicals used in the ISR process, handling and storage of these chemicals, and regulations 

designed to protect workers and the public in SEIS Section 4.13.1.1.2.3 for the Class V injection 

well disposal option applies equally to the land application option. The applicant must 

implement standard operating procedures regarding receiving, storing, handling, and disposing 

of chemicals and is required to comply with EPA, SDDENR, and OSHA regulations regarding 

inspections and the industrial and environmental safety aspects associated with the use 

of chemicals. 

The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) identified for use at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are consistent with those evaluated in the GEIS. There 

is no new or significant information that changes the GEIS conclusions regarding potential 

impacts to public or occupational health and safety. Therefore, for the land application option, 

the nonradiological impacts during normal operations will be SMALL. 

4.13.1.2.2.4 Nonradiological Impacts from Accidents During Operations 

For the land application option, the risks from accidents associated with the use of typical 

hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals are no different than those described in SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.1.2.4 for the Class V injection well disposal option. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.1.2.4, an accident analysis provided in GEIS Appendix E indicates that certain 

hazardous chemicals used at ISR facilities can pose a serious safety hazard if not properly 

handled. The applicant has committed to following standards put in place by relevant regulatory 

agencies and industries for handling and managing hazardous chemicals (Powertech, 2009b). 

The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) to be used at the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project do not differ from those evaluated in the GEIS. There is 

no new or significant information that changes the conclusions in the GEIS regarding potential 

nonradiological impacts on health and safety from chemical accidents. Offsite impacts involving 

hazardous and nonhazardous chemicals will be SMALL and do not typically pose a significant 

risk to the public. Workers involved in a response and cleanup may experience MODERATE 

impacts, but training requirements and adherence to established procedures will reduce the 

impact to SMALL. Based on the foregoing analysis and the GEIS conclusions, for the land 

application option, the impacts from potential accidents for both occupationally exposed workers 

and members of the public will be SMALL. 

4.13.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

For the land application option, the proposed aquifer restoration activities are similar to activities 

during operations (e.g., operation of wellfields, wastewater treatment and disposal in land 

application areas). Therefore, the potential impacts on public and occupational health and 

safety will be expected to be similar to the operational impacts. The reduction or elimination of 

some operational activities (e.g., yellowcake production and drying, remote ion-exchange) will 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-230 

further limit the relative magnitude of potential worker and public health and safety hazards. 

The radiation doses associated with restoration are included in the operations assessment in 

Section 4.13.1.2.2.1. Similarly, nonradiological hazards during aquifer restoration are assessed 

in Section 4.13.1.2.2.3. Accident consequences will be expected to be smaller than those 

evaluated in Sections 4.13.1.2.2.2 and 4.13.1.2.2.4. Accordingly, for the land application option, 

a localized SMALL occupational impact to workers (primarily from radon gas) and to the general 

public will be expected during the aquifer restoration phase. 

4.13.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

For the land application option, decommissioning procedures and activities will be similar to 

those described in SEIS Section 4.13.1.1.4 for the Class V injection well disposal option. Prior 

to decommissioning the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the applicant will need to submit 

a decommissioning plan that includes the types of safety information described in the GEIS. 

The applicant will also need to comply with any site-specific, NRC-established license 

conditions. Additionally, the applicant will be subjected to NRC safety inspections during the 

course of decommissioning activities. 

Typically, the initial decommissioning steps include removal of hazardous chemicals; this will be 

conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal hazardous waste disposal and 

occupational health and safety requirements. Following decommissioning, the site could be 

released for unrestricted use in conformance with the conditions of the NRC license and the 

dose criteria for site release in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. The criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, 

Appendix A limit the dose from radiological contamination that may exist at the site after 

decommissioning is completed to levels that are sufficiently low to protect public health 

and safety. 

The applicant’s proposal does not contain any new or significant information that changes the 

GEIS’s conclusions regarding potential impacts to public and occupational health and safety. 

The applicant will be required to submit a detailed decommissioning plan for NRC approval at 

least 12 months before decommissioning activities begin. With the combination of NRC review 

and approval of the plan, and compliance with any applicable license conditions and regular 

NRC inspection and enforcement activities, the anticipated impact from decommissioning for the 

land application option at the proposed project will be short-term and SMALL. 

4.13.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes, the applicant proposes to use a combination of deep 

well disposal via Class V injection wells and land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). 

For the combined disposal option, land application facilities and infrastructure will be 

constructed, operated, restored, and decommissioned on an as-needed basis depending on the 

Class V injection well disposal capacity (Powertech, 2011). Based on the discussions in SEIS 

Sections 4.13.1.1 and 4.13.1.2, the potential impacts to occupational and public health and 

safety will be similar regardless of whether Class V injection well disposal or land application is 

used, except for radiological impacts from normal operations. As described in SEIS 

Sections 4.13.1.1.2.1 and 4.13.1.2.2.1, the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1 mSv/yr 

[100 mrem/yr] will not be exceeded at the project boundary or nearby receptor locations under 

either the Class V injection well disposal option or the land application option during normal 

operations. Calculated maximum TEDEs were 0.012 mSv [1.2 mrem/yr] for the Class V 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-231 

injection well disposal option and 0.06 mSv/yr [6 mrem/yr] for the land application option. 

Calculated maximum TEDEs at a residence were 0.017 mSv/yr [1.7 mrem/yr] for the Class V 

injection well disposal option and 0.0448 mSv/yr [4.48 mrem/yr] for the land application option. 

Because only a portion of land irrigation areas will be operated for the combined disposal 

option, maximum calculated TEDEs are expected to lie between or be bounded by the 

maximum TEDEs calculated for the Class V injection well disposal option and the land 

application option. Therefore, the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit will not be exceeded at the 

project boundary or nearby receptor locations for the combined disposal option. Thus, NRC 

staff conclude that during the operations phase, the radiological impacts to occupational and 

public health and safety for the combined disposal option will be SMALL. In addition, as noted 

previously, the potential impacts to occupational and public health and safety for all other 

phases of the proposed project will be SMALL regardless of whether Class V injection well 

disposal or land application is used. Therefore, NRC staff conclude that during all other phases 

the radiological and nonradiological impacts to occupational and public health and safety for the 

combined disposal option will be SMALL, as summarized in Table 4.13-2. 

4.13.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, there will be no occupational exposure. There will be 

no additional radiological exposures to the general public from project-related effluent releases, 

and there will be no impact on long-term environmental radiological conditions. Radiation 

exposure and risk to the general public will continue to be determined by exposure from natural 

background, medical-related exposures, and exposures from existing residual contamination. 

4.14 Waste Management Impacts 

As described in GEIS Section 4.4.12, environmental impacts on waste management could 

occur during all phases of the ISR lifecycle. The proposed project will generate radiological 

and nonradiological liquid and solid materials that must be handled and disposed of properly. 

The primary radiological materials that must be disposed are process-related liquids and 

process-contaminated structures, equipment, and soils, all of which are classified as 

byproduct material. 

Before operations could begin, NRC requires an ISR facility to have an agreement in place with 

a licensed disposal facility to accept byproduct material. NRC will require by license condition 

that the disposal agreement be in place before the initiation of operations. Lack of a signed 

disposal agreement will be grounds for a cessation of operations until a signed agreement 

is obtained. 

GEIS Construction Phase Summary 

In GEIS Section 4.4.12.1, NRC staff concluded that waste management impacts from the 

construction phase of an ISR facility will be SMALL. Because construction activities will be on a 

relatively small scale, a low volume of construction waste will be generated. (NRC, 2009a) 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-232 

Table 4.13-2. Significance of Occupational and Public Health and Safety Impacts for 

the Proposed Liquid Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction 

Radiological 

Nonradiological 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

Operations 

Radiological 

(Normal 

Operations)

Radiological 

(Accidents) 

Nonradiological 

(Normal 

Operations) 

Nonradiological 

(Accidents) 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration 

Radiological 

Nonradiological 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

Decommissioning 

Radiological 

Nonradiological 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

SMALL 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance 

of environmental impacts for the Class V injection well and land application disposal options. 

 

GEIS Operations Phase Summary 

According to GEIS Section 2.7, byproduct material generated during the operations phase at an 

ISR facility will primarily be liquid consisting of process bleed (1 to 3 percent of the process flow 

rate). NRC staff also noted in the GEIS that byproduct material will be generated from flushing 

of eluant to limit impurities, resin transfer wash, filter washing, uranium precipitation process 

wastes (brine), and plant washdown water. Treatment and disposal methods described in the 

GEIS for liquid byproduct material at ISR facilities were characterized as effective at reducing 

the volume of material prior to disposal at an approved facility. Solid byproduct material will be 

decontaminated and released for other use or disposed of at approved waste disposal facilities. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-233 

NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the waste management impact from disposal of byproduct 

material will be SMALL given the required preoperational disposal agreements between an 

applicant and a licensed byproduct material disposal site. The impact from hazardous waste 

disposal was expected to be SMALL because of the small volume of hazardous waste 

generated. The impact from disposal of nonhazardous solid waste was expected to be SMALL 

based on the available disposal capacity of municipal solid waste facilities. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Aquifer Restoration Phase Summary 

GEIS Section 4.4.12.3 described waste management activities that will occur during the aquifer 

restoration phase of an ISR project and noted that the same treatment and disposal options will 

be implemented as used during operations. Therefore, the waste management impacts will be 

similar to those during the operations phase of an ISR project. Some increase in wastewater 

volumes could occur, but the increase in volume will be offset by the decrease in production 

capacity. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that the impact on waste management from aquifer 

restoration will be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

GEIS Decommissionig Phase Summary 

GEIS Section 2.6 stated that wastes generated from decommissioning an ISR facility will 

be predominantly byproduct material and nonhazardous solid waste. GEIS Section 4.4.12.4 

stated that decommissioning byproduct material (including contaminated facility demolition 

materials, process and wellfield equipment, excavated soil, and pond bottoms) will be disposed 

of at a licensed facility. As stated previously, to ensure that sufficient disposal capacity is 

available for byproduct material (including that generated by decommissioning activities), NRC 

requires a preoperational agreement with a licensed disposal facility to accept byproduct 

material for disposal. NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that because the volume of byproduct 

material, chemical, and solid wastes generated during decommissioning will be small, the 

impact on waste management will also be SMALL. (NRC, 2009a) 

Environmental impacts on waste management resources during the construction, operations, 

aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases of the proposed ISR project are discussed 

next. The environmental impacts of the proposed waste management actions on other 

resources are evaluated within the applicable subsections of each impact analysis in 

this chapter. 

4.14.1 Proposed Action (Alternative 1) 

Under the proposed action, the types of waste streams that could be generated are discussed in 

SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The primary radiological materials the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will dispose of are process-related liquid effluent and process-contaminated structures, 

equipment, and soils, all of which are classified as byproduct material. As described in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant has identified White Mesa for disposal of solid byproduct 

material. The applicant’s preferred method for disposal of liquid byproduct material is by 

Class V injection well. If a permit cannot be obtained from EPA for Class V injection, the 

applicant will pursue land application of treated liquid effluent. If the capacity of either method is 

limited, the applicant will pursue a combination of both Class V injection and land application. 

The impacts on waste management from the Class V injection well option are described in 

Section 4.14.1.1. The impacts on waste management from the land application option and 

combined Class V injection and land application are described in SEIS Sections 4.14.1.2 and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-234 

4.14.1.3. Alternative wastewater disposal options, including evaporation ponds and surface 

water discharge, are described in SEIS Section 4.14.1.4. 

4.14.1.1 Disposal Via Class V Injection Wells 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4, the applicant’s preferred option for disposal of liquid 

wastes is deep well disposal via Class V injection wells. Potential environmental impacts on 

waste management from construction, operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning 

associated with the deep Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project are discussed in the following sections. 

4.14.1.1.1 Construction Impacts 

The primary wastes to be disposed of during this phase of the ISR facility lifecycle will be 

nonhazardous solid waste, such as building materials and piping. As discussed in SEIS 

Sections 2.1.1.1.6.3 and 3.13.2, the applicant has proposed to dispose of nonhazardous solid 

wastes at the Custer-Fall River Waste Management District landfill located at Edgemont, 

South Dakota, approximately 24 km [15 mi] southeast of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site or at the Newcastle, Wyoming, landfill, approximately 64 km [40 mi] north of the 

proposed project site if additional capacity is needed (Powertech, 2010a). As described in SEIS 

Section 3.13.2, these landfills are not at or near capacity. 

The proposed activities to manage construction waste generated by the proposed project 

are discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The proposed action will annually generate a volume 

of 144 m3

 [188 yd3] of nonhazardous solid waste during the construction phase (SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3), which is 1 percent or less of the annual volume of waste disposed at 

either the Custer-Fall River Waste Management District landfill or the Newcastle landfill (SEIS 

Section 3.13.2). Nonhazardous solid waste generated at the proposed annual rate for the 

duration of the construction phase (6 years) will account for 1 percent or less of the capacity of 

either landfill. Because there is available capacity and the ISR construction phase will annually 

generate a small volume, the NRC staff conclude the impact on waste management from the 

Class V injection well disposal option at the proposed project will be SMALL. 

4.14.1.1.2 Operations Impacts 

Liquid byproduct material generated during operations is composed of production bleed, waste 

brine streams from elution and precipitation, resin transfer wash, laundry water, plant washdown 

water, and laboratory chemicals (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2). The applicant estimates the 

maximum production of liquid byproduct material at any time considering concurrent uranium 

recovery operations and aquifer restoration activities is 746 L/min [197 gal/min] for the deep 

Class V disposal well option (Powertech, 2011). The applicant proposes to treat this combined 

liquid byproduct material stream onsite to remove radium and uranium by radium settling and 

ion exchange, respectively (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2). This will reduce radionuclide activities 

below the established NRC limits under 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 prior to 

injecting the material into a deep Class V disposal well (Powertech, 2011). 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 includes effluent concentration limits for natural uranium, 

Ra-226, Pb-210 and Th-230. As stated in Section 2.1.1.1.6.2, the applicant will have to meet 

applicable EPA and NRC requirements before injection in a deep Class V injection well begins. 

When evaluating permit applications for Class V wells, EPA considers the characteristics of the 

operation, the material proposed to be injected, and the surrounding environment and 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-235 

determines whether the proposed injection will endanger public health or the environment (EPA, 

2012). An EPA permit, if granted, will also prohibit hazardous waste (as defined by RCRA) from 

being injected. NRC will require (i) liquid byproduct material to be treated prior to injection and 

(ii) treatment systems to be approved, constructed, operated, and monitored to ensure release 

standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B are met. The applicant 

proposes to have 4 to 8 Class V injection wells with a capacity of 1,136 L/min [300 gal/min], 

sufficient to accommodate the estimated 746 L/min [197 gal/min] of liquid byproduct material 

generated from the proposed operation. Based on the applicant’s proposal to obtain adequate 

disposal capacity as well as requirements to comply with EPA Class V disposal permit 

conditions, NRC effluent limits, and other NRC safety regulations, the NRC staff conclude that 

the waste management impacts from the disposal of liquid byproduct material via deep Class V 

injection wells during the ISR operation phase will be SMALL. 

Solid byproduct material generated during operations could include maintenance and 

housekeeping rags and trash; packing materials; replaced components; filters; protective 

clothing; and solids removed from process pumps, vessels, and ponds. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant estimates, during the operational period and assuming 

combined operations and aquifer restoration, the proposed Dewey-Burdock facility will produce 

22 m3

 [29 yd3] of solid byproduct material from radium settling ponds annually from the deep 

Class V disposal well option (Powertech, 2011). Solid byproduct material will be stored onsite 

within a restricted area until sufficient volume is generated for disposal. Based on the disposal 

options currently available and the disposal agreement that NRC requires prior to operations 

(SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3), the NRC staff conclude that the impacts on waste management from 

the disposal of solid byproduct material during the ISR operations phase will be SMALL. 

Nonhazardous solid wastes generated during operations could include facility trash, septic 

solids, and other uncontaminated solid wastes (e.g., piping, valves, instrumentation, and 

equipment). Because the proposed generation rate of nonhazardous solid waste (SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3) will be a small percentage of the landfill capacity (SEIS Section 3.13.2), the 

NRC staff conclude the impact on waste management will be SMALL. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant has stated it will likely be classified as a 

conditionally exempt small quantity generator (CESQG). The applicant will transport its 

hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste facility for disposal (Powertech, 2009a). 

Based on the type and quantity of byproduct material and waste expected to be generated and 

the available capacity for disposal, the NRC staff conclude the waste management activities 

during the ISR operations phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project will have a SMALL 

impact on waste management resources. 

4.14.1.1.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

For the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project, the applicant will use the same waste 

management systems for aquifer restoration as used during ISR operations discussed in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6. 

Liquid byproduct material generated during aquifer restoration is composed of reverse osmosis 

brine (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2). The applicant proposes to manage aquifer restoration 

wastewater (i.e., liquid byproduct material) by treating the wastewater by reverse osmosis and 

reinjecting the treated water (i.e., permeate) back into the aquifer production zone undergoing 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-236 

restoration (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.4.1). The applicant will combine the contaminants 

removed from water with operational wastewater and transfer the combined wastewater to the 

radium settling ponds for further treatment prior to disposal in the deep Class V wells. As stated 

in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2, the applicant will have to meet applicable EPA and NRC 

requirements before injection in a deep Class V disposal well begins. When evaluating permit 

applications for Class V wells, EPA considers the characteristics of the operation, the material to 

be injected, and the surrounding environment and determines whether the proposed injection 

will endanger public health or the environment (EPA, 2012). NRC will require liquid byproduct 

material to be treated prior to injection and treatment systems be approved, constructed, 

operated, and monitored to ensure release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and 

Appendix B are met. The applicant proposes to have 4 to 8 Class V injection wells with a 

capacity of 1,136 L/min [300 gal/min], sufficient to accommodate the estimated 746 L/min 

[197 gal/min] of liquid byproduct material generated from the proposed operation. Based on the 

applicant’s proposal to obtain adequate disposal capacity as well requirements to comply with 

EPA Class V disposal permit conditions, NRC effluent limits, and other NRC safety regulations, 

the NRC staff conclude that the waste management impacts from the disposal of liquid 

byproduct material via deep Class V injection wells during the ISR aquifer restoration phase will 

be SMALL. 

Solid byproduct material generated during aquifer restoration could include maintenance and 

housekeeping rags and trash; packing materials; replaced components; filters; protective 

clothing; and solids removed from process pumps, vessels, and ponds. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant estimates, during the operational period and assuming 

combined operations and aquifer restoration, the proposed Dewey-Burdock facility will produce 

22 m3

 [29 yd3]of solid byproduct material from radium settling ponds annually from the deep 

Class V disposal well option (Powertech, 2011). Solid byproduct material will be stored onsite 

within a restricted area until sufficient volume is generated for disposal. Based on the disposal 

options currently available and the disposal agreement that NRC requires prior to operations 

(SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3), the NRC staff conclude that the waste management impacts from 

the generation of byproduct material during the ISR operations phase will be SMALL. 

Nonhazardous solid wastes generated during aquifer restoration could include facility trash, 

septic solids, and other uncontaminated solid wastes (e.g., piping, valves, instrumentation, and 

equipment). Because the proposed generation rate of nonhazardous solid waste (SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3) will be a small percentage of the landfill capacity (SEIS Section 3.13.2), the 

NRC staff conclude the impact on waste management will be SMALL. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant has stated it will likely be classified as a 

CESQG. The applicant will transport its hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste 

facility for disposal (Powertech, 2009a). 

Based on the type and quantity of waste expected to be generated and the available 

capacity for disposal, the NRC staff conclude the waste management actions during the ISR 

aquifer restoration phase of the proposed project will have a SMALL impact on waste 

management resources. 

4.14.1.1.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The anticipated decommissioning activities occurring at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site will be comparable to those described in GEIS Section 2.6. The applicant proposed 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-237 

to conduct radiological surveys of decommissioned facilities and equipment and classify 

materials in accordance with the applicable disposition of the materials (Powertech, 2009b, 

2011), including decontamination, recycling and reuse, disposal as byproduct material at a 

licensed facility, or disposal as nonhazardous solid waste at a municipal solid waste landfill 

(Powertech, 2009b, 2011). 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant’s estimate for byproduct material 

generated from decommissioning the plant facilities and all wellfields (over a planned 2-year 

period) is 1,419 m3

 [1,856 yd3] for the deep Class V injection well disposal option (Powertech, 

2011). As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant does not have a disposal 

agreement in place with a licensed site to accept solid byproduct material, and as discussed in 

SEIS Section 4.14.1.1.2, NRC will require that the applicant enter into a written agreement with 

a disposal site to ensure adequate capacity for byproduct material disposal. The applicant has 

proposed to pursue an agreement with the White Mesa site in Blanding, Utah, for disposal of 

solid byproduct material (SEIS Section 3.13.2). Based on the disposal options currently 

available for byproduct material and the disposal agreement which NRC will require by license 

condition prior to operations, the NRC staff conclude that the impact on waste management 

from the generation of byproduct material during decommissioning will be SMALL. 

The applicant’s estimate of the total volume of nonhazardous solid waste that will be generated 

from decommissioning is 10,427 m3

 [13,638 yd3] for the deep Class V injection well disposal 

option (Powertech, 2011). From this estimate, the NRC staff derived an annual nonhazardous 

solid waste generation of 5,213 m3 [6,819 yd3

] from decommissioning by dividing the applicant’s 

total estimate by 2 (the applicant’s proposed decommissioning period in years). This estimated 

solid waste volume is greater than what was analyzed in the GEIS {715 m3

 [935 yd3]} and thus 

not bounded by the impact assessment described in the GEIS; therefore, the NRC staff 

considered additional site-specific information to evaluate impacts. 

Although permitted landfill disposal capacities of the Custer-Fall River Waste Management 

District landfill and the Newcastle landfill are currently available (SEIS Section 3.13.2), 

considering the proposed project duration and limited future disposal capacity, the NRC staff 

evaluated the estimated landfill capacities and demand at the time of decommissioning. Based 

on the current operational life of 12 years (SEIS Section 3.13.2), the Newcastle landfill will not 

be open to accept waste at the planned time of decommissioning (15 and 16 years after the 

start of construction; Figure 2.1-1) unless the landfill capacity is expanded. The Custer-Fall 

River landfill, with an estimated operational life of 17 years after midyear 2012, will still be in 

operation at the time of decommissioning if project construction started in 2013; therefore, this 

landfill was evaluated in more detail. NRC staff projections suggest the remaining capacity of 

the Custer-Fall River landfill at the time of proposed decommissioning will be insufficient to 

accommodate all decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste and serve the regional annual 

demand for disposal capacity unless existing landfill capacity and operations are expanded. 

Furthermore, the NRC staff estimate the additional demand for capacity will consume the 

remaining landfill capacity at a faster rate with the landfill reaching full capacity approximately 

1 year earlier than current projections. The NRC staff’s projections supporting these 

conclusions are detailed in the following paragraphs. 

The NRC staff’s landfill capacity analysis calculated the total disposal demand from mid-year 

2012 through the end of the proposed decommissioning period and compared it with the 

reported remaining landfill capacity as of mid-year 2012. NRC staff used this comparison of 

projected demand and capacity to evaluate whether sufficient capacity will be available to 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-238 

dispose of the additional waste from the proposed project. The total disposal demand of 

148,079 t [163,229 T] was based on the sum of the regional disposal demand1

 and the project 

disposal demand2

 from mid-2012 through the end of the proposed decommissioning period in 

2028. The projected demand exceeds the available capacity of 139,619 t [154,000 T]3

 by 

8,372 t [9,229 T].4 

The staff also evaluated the difference in the projected time the landfill will reach full capacity 

with and without disposal of waste from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The 

purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of the additional disposal demand on the 

projected operational life of the landfill. The NRC staff calculated when the landfill will reach full 

capacity with the additional disposal of proposed project waste by first calculating the available 

landfill capacity at the end of 2027 after 1 year of decommissioning waste disposal and 

15.5 years of post mid-2012 regional waste disposal.5

 Next, the NRC staff derived a combined 

monthly disposal demand6

 for year 2028 from the projected disposal rates for decommissioning 

waste and regional waste. At the combined monthly disposal demand, the projected year 2028 

remaining capacity of 6,473 t [7,136 T] will be depleted within the first half of 2028.7

 For 

comparison, the projected operational life of the landfill without disposal of waste from the 

proposed action (SEIS Section 3.13.2) is 17 years beyond mid-2012 or mid-year 2029. 

Therefore, the analysis suggests disposal of waste from the proposed Dewey Burdock ISR 

Project will cause the landfill to reach full capacity 1 year earlier than expected if the proposed 

decommissioning was executed on schedule and regional disposal demand continued at the 

current rate. 

The potential for future expansion of capacity is being considered at both landfills (AET, Inc., 

2011; SDDENR, 2010); however, specific long-term actions remain uncertain. If one of these 

landfills does not expand capacity in the future, the applicant will have to dispose of waste 

elsewhere. Anothermore distant and higher capacity landfill serving Rapid City is projected to 

be operational until 2050 (HDR Engineering Inc., 2010). Therefore, the staff consider regional 

 

1

The regional demand of 134,717 t [148,500T] was calculated based on the product of the annual average disposal 

volume received by the Custer-Fall River landfill of 8,160 t/yr [9,000 T/yr] (SEIS Section 3.13.2) and 16.5 (the number 

of years from mid-2012 to the end of proposed decommissioning in 2028). 

2

The project demand (i.e., total nonhazardous solid waste volume from decommissioning) of 13,354 t [14,729 T] is 

the volume of this waste from SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3 converted to mass using 1.08T/yd3 multiplier. 3

The available landfill capacity reported in SEIS Section 3.13.2 as of the end of June 2012 is 139,619 t [154,000 T]. 4

 The available capacity of 139,619 t [154,000 T] was subtracted from the total disposal demand of 148,079 t 

[163,229 T] (the sum of footnotes 1 and 2) to obtain the result of 8,372 t [9,229 T]. 5

The calculated available capacity at the beginning of year 2028 is 6,473 t [7,136 T]. This is the result of subtracting 

133,150 [146,865 T] of the combined disposal demand (from regional and decommissioning wastes) for mid-2012 to 

year 2027 from the available landfill capacity as of mid-2012 of 139,619 t [154,000 T] (SEIS Section 3.13.2). The 

combined disposal demand was calculated as the product of the annual average disposal volume received by the 

Custer-Fall River landfill of 8,160 t/yr [9,000 T/yr] (SEIS Section 3.13.2) and 15.5 (the number of years from mid 2012 

to the end of the first year of proposed decommissioning in 2027) added to the volume of nonhazardous 

decommissioning solid waste for year 2027 of 6,680 t [7,364 T] {half of the 2 year decommissioning total waste 

volume of 13,354 t [14,729 T]}. 

6

The combined monthly disposal demand for year 2028 of 1,237 t/month [1,364 T/month] is the sum of derived 

monthly disposal demands (i.e., waste generation rates) for proposed decommissioning and regional waste. 

Specifically, the derived monthly proposed decommissioning disposal demand is the total amount of proposed 

decommissioning waste of 13,354 t [14,729 T] for 2 years converted to a monthly rate of 557 t/month [614 T/month]. 

Similarly, the derived monthly regional disposal demand is the Custer-Fall River landfill annual average disposal 

amount of 8,160 t/yr [9000 T/yr] converted to a monthly rate of 680 t [750 T/month]. 7

The time to reach full capacity of 5.2 months was calculated as the ratio of the available year 2028 capacity of 

6,473 t [7,136 T] from footnote 4 and the combined monthly disposal demand of 1,237 t/month [1,364 T/month] from 

footnote 5. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-239 

capacity will be available during the period of decommissioning if local capacity is limited or 

otherwise unavailable. 

Based on the preceding capacity analysis, the NRC staff conclude that the potential impacts 

on waste management resources will vary depending on the long-term status of the existing 

local landfill resources. If local landfill capacity is not expanded prior to the proposed 

decommissioning period, the staff conclude that there will be no impacts to the Newcastle 

landfill because it will not be open to accept waste at the planned time of decommissioning and 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will not be able to dispose waste at that location. In 

turn, impacts to the Custer-Fall River landfill will be MODERATE because the increased 

demand for capacity will more rapidly consume the waste management resources during the 

last years of its projected operational life. Any waste disposed at the Rapid City landfill will have 

SMALL impacts based on the projected operational life and available capacity. Alternatively, if 

the local landfill capacity is expanded prior to the proposed project decommissioning phase, the 

impacts on the available capacity of the expanded landfill (Newcastle or Custer-Fall River) will 

be SMALL. 

The applicant estimates the volume of hazardous waste generated from decommissioning 

activities will be less than 91 kg [200 lb] (Powertech, 2009b). The hazardous waste streams 

from decommissioning will be similar to the waste streams generated during the ISR 

construction phase and could include used oil, batteries, and cleaning solvents. The applicant 

will have in place a hazardous material program that complies with applicable EPA and 

SDDENR requirements for its handling, storage, and disposal at approved facilities. Because 

the volume of hazardous wastes generated by the proposed action will be small and the waste 

will be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations, the NRC 

staff conclude the impacts on waste management will be SMALL. 

In summary, NRC staff conclude the impacts to waste management resources during the 

decommissioning phase of the proposed project for the deep Class V injection well disposal 

option will be SMALL for all materials except nonhazardous solid waste, which will be SMALL to 

MODERATE depending on the long-term status of the existing local landfill resources. Based 

on the type and quantity of waste expected to be generated and the available capacity for 

disposal, waste management actions during the decommissioning phase will have a SMALL 

impact on waste management resources for byproduct material and hazardous waste and a 

SMALL to MODERATE impact for nonhazardous solid waste. 

4.14.1.2 Disposal Via Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is not be obtained from EPA or the capacity of the Class V 

wells is insufficient, the applicant proposes to dispose of liquid byproduct material generated at 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project by land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2). 

The locations of land application areas for this disposal option are shown in Figure 2.1-12. 

Potential environmental impacts on waste management resources from construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning associated with the land application 

disposal option are discussed in the following sections. 

4.14.1.2.1 Construction Impacts 

The primary wastes to be disposed of during this phase of the ISR facility lifecycle will be 

nonhazardous solid waste, such as building materials and piping. As discussed in SEIS 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-240 

Sections 2.1.1.1.6.3 and 3.13.2, the applicant has proposed to dispose of nonhazardous solid 

wastes at the Custer-Fall River Waste Management District landfill located at Edgemont, 

South Dakota, approximately 24 km [15 mi] southeast of the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project 

site or at the Newcastle, Wyoming, landfill, approximately 64 km [40 mi] north of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock Project site if additional capacity is needed (Powertech, 2010a). As described 

in SEIS Section 3.13.2, these landfills are not at or near capacity. 

The proposed activities to manage construction waste generated by the proposed project 

are discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The proposed action will annually generate a 

volume of 144 m3

 [188 yd3] of nonhazardous solid waste during the construction phase (SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3), which is 1 percent or less of the volume of waste disposed at either the 

Custer-Fall River Waste Management District landfill or the Newcastle landfill (SEIS 

Section 3.13.2). Nonhazardous solid waste generated at the proposed annual rate for the 

duration of the construction phase (6 years) will account for 1 percent or less of the capacity of 

either landfill. Because there is available capacity and the ISR construction phase will annually 

generate a small volume, the NRC staff conclude the impact on waste management from the 

land application disposal option at the proposed project will be SMALL. 

4.14.1.2.2 Operations Impacts 

Liquid byproduct material generated during operations is composed of production bleed, waste 

brine streams from elution and precipitation, resin transfer wash, laundry water, plant washdown 

water, and laboratory chemicals (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2). The applicant estimates the 

maximum production of liquid byproduct material at any time, considering concurrent uranium 

recovery operations and aquifer restoration activities, is 2,080 L/min [547 gal/min] for the land 

application option (Powertech, 2011). The applicant proposes to treat this combined liquid 

byproduct material stream onsite using ion exchange and radium settling prior to land 

application. The applicant proposes to treat the liquid waste (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2) to 

reduce radionuclide activities below the established NRC limits under 10 CFR Part 20, 

Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 (Powertech, 2011) for discharge of radionuclides to the 

environment. 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, Column 2 includes effluent concentration 

limits for natural uranium, Ra-226, Pb-210 and Th-230. As stated in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2, 

the land application will be carried out under a GDP approved by SDDENR (Powertech, 2012c). 

In accordance with permit program objectives, the applicant’s proposed land application 

operations will have to meet applicable state groundwater quality standards. NRC will require 

(i) liquid byproduct material be treated prior to injection and (ii) treatment systems be approved, 

constructed, operated, and monitored to ensure release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, 

Subparts D and K and Appendix B are met. While land application capacity varies throughout 

the year, the applicant estimates that each land application area will be able to dispose of 1,173 

Lpm [310 gpm] (Powertech, 2012c). The applicant proposes two land application areas, which 

will provide 2,347 Lpm [620 gpm] of capacity. The applicant’s proposed disposal capacity is 

sufficient to accommodate the proposed maximum generation rate of liquid byproduct material. 

Based on the applicant’s proposal to obtain adequate disposal capacity and comply with state 

groundwater quality standards, NRC effluent limits, and other NRC safety regulations, the NRC 

staff conclude that the waste management impacts from the disposal of liquid byproduct 

material via land application during the ISR operation phase will be SMALL. 

Solid byproduct material generated during operations could include maintenance and 

housekeeping rags and trash; packing materials; replaced components; filters; protective 

clothing; and solids removed from process pumps, vessels, and ponds. As discussed in SEIS 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-241 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant estimates, during the operational period and assuming 

combined operations and aquifer restoration, the proposed Dewey-Burdock facility will produce 

50 m3

 [66 yd3] of solid byproduct material from the land application option (Powertech, 2011). 

Solid byproduct material will be stored onsite within a restricted area until sufficient volume is 

generated for disposal. Based on the disposal options currently available and the disposal 

agreement that NRC requires prior to operations (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3), the NRC staff 

conclude that the impacts on waste management from the disposal of solid byproduct material 

under the land application option during the ISR operations phase will be SMALL. 

Nonhazardous solid wastes generated during operations could include facility trash, septic 

solids, and other uncontaminated solid wastes (e.g., piping, valves, instrumentation, and 

equipment). Because the proposed generation rate of nonhazardous solid waste (SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3) will be a small percentage of the landfill capacity (SEIS Section 3.13.2), the 

NRC staff conclude the impact on waste management will be SMALL. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant has stated it will likely be classified as a 

CESQG. The applicant will transport its hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste 

facility for disposal (Powertech, 2009a). 

Based on the type and quantity of byproduct material and waste expected to be generated and 

the available capacity for disposal, the NRC staff conclude the waste management activities 

during the ISR operations phase of the proposed project will have a SMALL impact on waste 

management resources. 

4.14.1.2.3 Aquifer Restoration Impacts 

For the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the applicant will use the same waste 

management systems for aquifer restoration as used during ISR operations discussed in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6. 

Liquid byproduct material generated during aquifer restoration is composed of produced water 

from the ore zone aquifer (Powertech, 2009b). The applicant estimates the maximum 

production of liquid byproduct material at any time, considering concurrent uranium recovery 

operations and aquifer restoration activities, is 2,080 L/min [547 gal/min] for the land application 

option (Powertech, 2011). The applicant proposes to manage aquifer restoration wastewater 

(i.e., liquid byproduct material) by treating the wastewater onsite by ion exchange and radium 

settling prior to land application (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.2). As stated in Section 2.1.1.1.6.2, the 

land application will be carried out under a GDP approved by SDDENR (Powertech, 2012c). In 

accordance with permit program objectives, the applicant’s proposed land application 

operations will have to meet applicable state groundwater quality standards. NRC will require 

liquid byproduct material be treated prior to injection and treatment systems be approved, 

constructed, operated, and monitored to ensure release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts 

D and K and Appendix B are met. While land application capacity varies throughout the year, 

the applicant estimates that each land application area will be able to dispose of 1,173 Lpm 

[310 gpm] (Powertech, 2012c). The applicant proposes 2 land application areas, which will 

provide 2,347 Lpm [620 gpm] of capacity. The applicant’s proposed disposal capacity is 

sufficient to accommodate the proposed maximum generation rate of liquid byproduct material. 

Based on the applicant’s proposal to obtain adequate disposal capacity and comply with state 

groundwater quality standards, NRC effluent limits, and other NRC safety regulations, the staff 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-242 

conclude that the waste management impacts from the disposal of liquid byproduct material via 

land application during the ISR aquifer restoration phase will be SMALL. 

Solid byproduct material generated during aquifer restoration could include maintenance and 

housekeeping rags and trash; packing materials; replaced components; filters; protective 

clothing; and solids removed from process pumps, vessels, and ponds. As discussed in SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant estimates, during the operational period and assuming 

combined operations and aquifer restoration, the proposed Dewey-Burdock facility will produce 

50 m3

 [66 yd3] of solid byproduct material from the land application option (Powertech, 2011). 

Solid byproduct material will be stored onsite within a restricted area until sufficient volume is 

generated for disposal. Based on the disposal options currently available and the disposal 

agreement that NRC requires prior to operations (SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3), the NRC staff 

conclude that the waste management impacts from the generation of byproduct material during 

the ISR operations phase will be SMALL. 

Nonhazardous solid wastes generated during aquifer restoration could include facility trash, 

septic solids, and other uncontaminated solid wastes (e.g., piping, valves, instrumentation, and 

equipment). Because the proposed generation rate of nonhazardous solid waste (SEIS 

Section 2.1.1.1.6.3) will be a small percentage of the landfill capacity (SEIS Section 3.13.2), the 

NRC staff conclude the impact on waste management will be SMALL. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant has stated it will likely be classified as a 

CESQG. The applicant will transport its hazardous waste to a permitted hazardous waste 

facility for disposal (Powertech, 2009a). 

Based on the type and quantity of waste expected to be generated and the available 

capacity for disposal, the NRC staff conclude the waste management actions during the ISR 

aquifer restoration phase of the proposed project will have a SMALL impact on waste 

management resources. 

4.14.1.2.4 Decommissioning Impacts 

The anticipated decommissioning activities occurring at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site will be comparable to those described in GEIS Section 2.6. The applicant proposed 

to conduct radiological surveys of decommissioned facilities and equipment and classify 

materials in accordance with the applicable disposition of the materials (Powertech, 2009b, 

2011), including decontamination, recycling and reuse, disposal as byproduct material at a 

licensed facility, or disposal as nonhazardous solid waste at a municipal solid waste landfill 

(Powertech, 2009b, 2011). 

As discussed in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant’s estimate for byproduct material 

generated from decommissioning the plant facilities and all wellfields (over a planned 2-year 

period) is 1,580 m3

 [2,067 yd3] for the land application option (Powertech, 2011). As discussed 

in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3, the applicant does not have a disposal agreement in place with a 

licensed site to accept solid byproduct material, and as discussed in SEIS Section 4.14.1.1.2, 

NRC will require that the applicant enter into a written agreement with a disposal site to ensure 

adequate capacity for byproduct material disposal. The applicant has proposed to pursue an 

agreement with the White Mesa site in Blanding, Utah, for disposal of solid byproduct material 

(SEIS Section 3.13.2). Based on the disposal options currently available for byproduct material 

and the disposal agreement, which NRC will require by license condition prior to operations, the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-243 

NRC staff conclude that the impact on waste management from the generation of byproduct 

material under the land application option during decommissioning will be SMALL. 

The applicant’s estimate of the total volume of nonhazardous solid waste that will be generated 

from decommissioning is 12,496 m3

 [16,344 yd3] for the land application option (Powertech, 

2011). From this estimate, the NRC staff derived an annual nonhazardous solid waste 

generation of 6,248 m3

 [8,172 yd3] from decommissioning by dividing the applicant’s total 

estimate by 2 (the applicant’s proposed decommissioning period in years). This estimated solid 

waste volume is greater than what was analyzed in the GEIS {715 m3

 [935 yd3]} and thus not 

bounded by the GEIS impact assessment; therefore, the NRC staff considered additional 

site-specific information to evaluate impacts. 

Although permitted landfill disposal capacities at the Custer-Fall River Waste Management 

District landfill and the Newcastle landfill are currently available (SEIS Section 3.13.2), 

considering the proposed project duration and limited future disposal capacity, the NRC staff 

evaluated the estimated landfill capacities and demand at the time of decommissioning. Based 

on the current operational life of 12 years (SEIS Section 3.13.2), the Newcastle landfill will not 

be open to accept waste at the planned time of decommissioning (15 and 16 years after the 

start of construction; SEIS Figure 2.1-1) unless the landfill capacity was expanded. The 

Custer-Fall River landfill, with an estimated operational life of 17 years after mid-year 2012, will 

still be in operation at the time of decommissioning if project construction started in 2013; 

Section 106 consultation between NRC, SD SHPO, BLM, tribal representatives, and the 

applicant therefore, this landfill was evaluated in more detail. NRC staff projections suggest the 

remaining capacity of the Custer-Fall River landfill at the time of proposed decommissioning will 

be insufficient to accommodate all decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste and serve the 

regional annual demand for disposal capacity unless existing landfill capacity and operations 

were expanded. Furthermore, the NRC staff estimate the additional demand for capacity will 

consume the remaining landfill capacity at a faster rate with the landfill reaching full capacity 

approximately 1 year earlier than current projections. The NRC staff’s projections supporting 

these conclusions are detailed in the following paragraphs. 

The NRC staff’s landfill capacity analysis calculated the total disposal demand from mid-year 

2012 through the end of the proposed decommissioning period and compared it with the 

reported remaining landfill capacity as of mid-year 2012. NRC staff used this comparison of 

projected demand and capacity to evaluate whether sufficient capacity will be available to 

dispose of the additional waste from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The total 

disposal demand of 150,730 t [166,152 T] was based on the sum of the regional disposal 

demand8

 and the project disposal demand9 from mid-2012 through the end of the proposed 

decommissioning period in 2028. The projected demand exceeds the available capacity of 

139,619 t [154,000 T]10 by 11,024 t [12,152 T].11 

 

8

The regional demand of 134,717 t [148,500 T] was calculated based on the product of the annual average disposal 

volume received by the Custer-Fall River landfill of 8,160 t/yr [9,000 T/yr] (SEIS Section 3.13.2) and 16.5 (the number 

of years from mid-2012 to the end of proposed decommissioning in 2028). 

9

The project demand (i.e., total nonhazardous solid waste volume from decommissioning) of 16,003 t [17,652 T] is 

the volume of this waste from SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6.3 converted to mass using 1.08T/yd3

 as a multiplier. 10The available landfill capacity reported in SEIS Section 3.13.2 as of the end of June 2012 is 139,619 t [154,000 T]. 11The available capacity of 139,619 t [154,000 T] was subtracted from the total disposal demand of 150,730 t 

[166,152 T] (the sum of footnotes 8 and 9) to obtain the result of 11,024 t [12,152 T]. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-244 

The staff also evaluated the difference in the projected time the landfill will reach full capacity 

with and without disposal of waste from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The 

purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of the additional disposal demand on the 

projected operational life of the landfill. The NRC staff calculated when the landfill will reach full 

capacity with the additional disposal of proposed project waste by first calculating the available 

landfill capacity at the end of 2027 after 1 year of decommissioning waste disposal and 

15.5 years of post mid-2012 regional waste disposal.12 Next, the NRC staff derived a combined 

monthly disposal demand13 for year 2028 from the projected disposal rates for decommissioning 

waste and regional waste. At the combined monthly disposal demand the projected year 2028 

remaining capacity of 5,147 t [5,674 T] will be depleted within the first half of 2028.14 For 

comparison, the projected operational life of the landfill without disposal of waste from the 

proposed action (SEIS Section 3.13.2) is 17 years beyond mid-2012 or mid-year 2029. 

Therefore, the analysis suggests disposal of waste from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will cause the Custer-Fall River landfill to reach full capacity 1 year earlier than expected 

if the proposed decommissioning was executed on schedule and regional disposal demand 

continued at the current rate. 

The potential for future expansion of capacity is being considered at both landfills (AET, Inc., 

2011; SDDENR, 2010); however, specific long term actions remain uncertain. If one of these 

landfills does not expand capacity in the future, the applicant will have to dispose of waste 

elsewhere. Another more distant and higher capacity landfill serving Rapid City is projected to 

be operational until 2050 (HDR Engineering Inc., 2010). Therefore, the staff consider regional 

capacity will be available during the period of decommissioning if local capacity is limited or 

otherwise unavailable. 

Based on the preceding capacity analysis, the NRC staff conclude that the potential impacts on 

waste management resources will vary depending on the long-term status of the existing local 

landfill resources. If local landfill capacity is not expanded prior to the proposed 

decommissioning period, the NRC staff conclude that there will be no impacts to the Newcastle 

landfill because it will not be open to accept waste at the planned time of decommissioning and 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock IRS Project will not be able to dispose waste at that location. In 

turn, impacts to the Custer-Fall River landfill will be MODERATE because the increased 

demand for capacity will more rapidly consume the waste management resources during the 

last years of its projected operational life. Any waste disposed at the Rapid City landfill will have 

SMALL impacts based on the projected operational life and available capacity. Alternatively, if 

the local landfill capacity is expanded prior to the proposed project decommissioning phase, the 

 

12The calculated available capacity at the beginning of year 2028 is 5,147 t [5,674 T]. This is the result of subtracting 

the combined disposal demand (from regional and decommissioning wastes) from mid-2012 to year 2027 from the 

available landfill capacity as of mid-2012 of 139,619 t [154,000 T] (SEIS Section 3.13.2). The combined disposal 

demand was calculated as the product of the annual average disposal volume received by the Custer-Fall River 

landfill of 8,160 t/yr [9,000 T/yr] (SEIS Section 3.13.2) and 15.5 (the number of years from mid-2012 to the end of the 

first year of proposed decommissioning in 2027) added to the volume of nonhazardous decommissioning solid waste 

for year 2027 of 8,007 t [8,826 T] {half of the 2 year decommissioning total waste volume of 16,003 t [17,652 T]}. 13The combined monthly disposal demand for year 2028 of 1,348 t/month [1,486 T/month] is the sum of derived 

monthly disposal demands (i.e., waste generation rates) for proposed decommissioning and regional waste. 

Specifically, the derived monthly proposed decommissioning disposal demand is the total amount of proposed 

decommissioning waste of 16,003 t [17,652 T] for 2 years converted to a monthly rate of 667 t/month [736 T/month]. 

Similarly, the derived monthly regional disposal demand is the Custer-Fall River landfill annual average disposal 

amount of 8,160 t/yr [9,000 T/yr] converted to a monthly rate of 680t/month [750 T/month]. 14The time to reach full capacity of 3.8 months was calculated as the ratio of the available year 2028 capacity of 

5,147 t [5,674 T] from footnote 10 and the combined monthly disposal demand of 1,348 t/month [1,486 T/month] from 

footnote 11. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-245 

impacts on the available capacity of the expanded landfill (Newcastle or Custer-Fall River) will 

be SMALL. 

The applicant estimates the volume of hazardous waste generated from decommissioning 

activities will be less than 91 kg [200 lb] (Powertech, 2009b). The hazardous waste streams 

from decommissioning will be similar to the waste streams generated during the ISR 

construction phase and could include used oil, batteries, and cleaning solvents. The applicant 

will have in place a hazardous material program that complies with applicable EPA and 

SDDENR requirements for its handling, storage, and disposal at approved facilities. Because 

the volume of hazardous wastes generated by the proposed action will be small and the waste 

will be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations; the NRC 

staff conclude the impacts on waste management will be SMALL. 

In summary, NRC staff conclude the impacts to waste management resources during the 

decommissioning phase of the proposed project for the land application liquid waste disposal 

option will be SMALL for all materials except nonhazardous solid waste, which will be SMALL to 

MODERATE depending on the long-term status of the existing local landfill resources. Based 

on the type and quantity of waste expected to be generated and the available capacity for 

disposal, waste management actions during the decommissioning phase will have a SMALL 

impact on waste management resources for byproduct material and hazardous waste and a 

SMALL to MODERATE impact for nonhazardous solid waste. 

4.14.1.3 Disposal Via Combination of Class V Injection and Land Application 

If a permit for Class V injection wells is obtained from EPA but the capacity of the wells is 

insufficient to dispose of all liquid wastes generated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project, the applicant has proposed to dispose of liquid waste by a combination of deep well 

disposal using Class V injection wells and land application (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.3). 

For the combined deep Class V injection well and land application disposal option, land 

application facilities and infrastructure will be constructed, operated, restored, and 

decommissioned on an as-needed basis depending on the deep Class V injection well disposal 

capacity (Powertech, 2011). The land application option will require the construction and 

operation of irrigation areas and increased pond capacity for storage of liquid wastes during 

nonirrigation periods (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.2), whereas the deep Class V injection well 

disposal option will require the construction and operation of four to eight deep disposal wells 

(see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.2.4.1). 

The relative volumes of byproduct material generated by the two disposal options differ during 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning phases with the land application option 

generating the larger amount of material for offsite disposal in each phase. The relative 

volumes of nonhazardous solid waste generated by the two disposal options differ during the 

decommissioning phase. The significance of these differences with regard to environmental 

impacts is low and does not change the impact conclusions for each disposal option. Therefore, 

the environmental impacts on waste management resources associated with the land 

application option will be the same for the deep Class V injection well disposal option for all 

phases of the ISR process. Furthermore, only a portion of land application facilities and 

infrastructure (e.g., irrigation areas and storage ponds) will be constructed, operated, and 

decommissioned for the combined disposal option. Therefore, the significance of environmental 

impacts on waste management resources for the combined disposal option will be less than for 

the land application option alone. Based on this reasoning, NRC staff conclude that the 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-246 

environmental impacts on waste management of the combined deep Class V injection well and 

land application disposal option for each phase of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

be bounded by the significance of environmental land use impacts of the deep Class V injection 

well disposal option and the land application disposal option as summarized in Table 4.14-1. 

4.14.1.4 Alternative Wastewater Disposal Options 

If the applicant does not obtain a UIC Class V injection well permit or the necessary permits for 

land application, it will have to identify another wastewater disposal option. This section 

evaluates the environmental impacts from implementing the alternate wastewater disposal 

options identified in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2, namely evaporation ponds and surface water 

discharge. These alternative wastewater disposal options will involve treatment of the 

wastewater resulting in the generation of solid waste, which also must be managed. 

In the alternative wastewater disposal options considered in the following sections, the footprint 

of the disposal system would be similar to or increase as compared to disposal via a UIC 

Class V injection well (the applicant’s preferred waste disposal option) (SEIS Section 4.14.1.1) 

and be similar to or decrease as compared to the applicant’s land application option or 

combination of both. Increasing the size of the proposed facility would lead to more land 

disturbance and a heavier use of construction equipment, with an anticipated increase in 

potential impacts to resource areas, such as ecological and wetland systems, cultural and 

historical resources, and nonradiological air quality. The applicant would have to amend its 

license application to select one of these alternative wastewater disposal options. NRC staff 

would perform an additional environmental and safety review before deciding whether to grant 

or deny the license amendment request for the new wastewater disposal option. The applicant 

would survey the areas to be affected prior to construction, and the applicant and NRC staff 

would consult with agencies such as the SD SHPO, SDGFP, and FWS, as appropriate. 

Mitigation measures, such as avoidance of sensitive areas or documentation of cultural 

resources, would be discussed and implemented, as appropriate, as part of these consultations. 

If mitigation measures were implemented, the estimated impacts would be SMALL. 

Table 4.14-1. Significance of Environmental Impacts on Liquid Waste Management 

for the Proposed Waste Disposal Options for Each Phase of the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

Class V Injection 

Wells Land Application 

Combined Class V 

Injection Wells and 

Land Application* 

Construction SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Operations SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Aquifer Restoration SMALL SMALL SMALL 

Decommissioning SMALL, MODERATE 

depending on future 

status of local 

landfills 

SMALL, MODERATE 

depending on future 

status of local 

landfills 

SMALL, MODERATE 

depending on future 

status of local 

landfills 

*Significance of environmental impact for the combined disposal option is bounded by the significance of 

environmental impacts for the deep Class V injection well disposal and land application disposal options. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-247 

4.14.1.4.1 Evaporation Ponds 

The types of waste streams and the infrastructure necessary for the use of evaporation ponds 

as a wastewater disposal option are described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.1. The type and volume 

of wastewater that would be disposed in an evaporation pond would be the same as described 

in SEIS Section 4.14.1.1 for disposal by injection into a deep Class V UIC well. Before the 

applicant could begin disposing wastewater into an evaporation pond system, the NRC staff 

would review the design and construction of the ponds and monitoring system against the 

criteria in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A (NRC, 2003b, 2008), taking into consideration EPA 

criteria in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W. The applicant would be required to demonstrate that the 

evaporation ponds could be designed, operated, and decommissioned to prevent migration of 

wastewater to subsurface soil, surface water, or groundwater. The applicant would also be 

required to demonstrate that monitoring requirements would be established to detect migration 

of contaminants to groundwater. The NRC staff would establish needed license conditions to 

ensure that the applicant met the necessary requirements. 

Individual evaporation ponds could have a surface area of up to 2.5 ha [6.25 ac], and the total 

pond system could be as much as 40 ha [100 ac]. During the ISR operations period for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, this area would be fenced to exclude wildlife and 

livestock. A 40-ha [100-ac] footprint would be less than about 1 percent of the total permitted 

area {4,282 ha [10,580 ac]} for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (including both the 

Dewey and Burdock sites), but it would be much larger than the footprint for a central 

processing plant without evaporation ponds (Powertech, 2009b). The additional land 

disturbance required to install an evaporation pond system for wastewater disposal would be 

similar in scale to the current proposed action for the land application option {55 ha [136 ac]} for 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. It is also anticipated that the applicant would need to 

have at least one other wastewater disposal option or additional storage capacity during the 

winter months in South Dakota because of the low evaporation rates during that season. 

Although a wastewater disposal option that uses an evaporation pond system would roughly 

double the facility footprint relative to UIC Class V injection wells, the total amount of disturbed 

and fenced land would be small compared to the permitted area and comparable to the generic 

conditions evaluated in the GEIS with respect to land use. For these reasons, the overall 

impact on land use associated with an evaporation pond system would be SMALL. 

Construction of an evaporation pond system would require earthmoving equipment, such as 

bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site and construct the impoundment. The 

equipment would produce diesel emissions and fugitive dust emissions during construction that 

could have a temporary effect on nonradiological air quality. Depending on how the applicant 

elected to phase in the pond system, these effects could extend into the operational phase of 

the facility as well. BMPs, such as wetting unpaved roads, would minimize fugitive dust, and the 

anticipated impacts to nonradiological air quality would be SMALL. The applicant may also 

need to obtain a National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) review to 

evaluate whether the anticipated radiological releases to air from the evaporation ponds would 

meet the criteria in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W. The applicant would also be required to have 

an NRC-approved air monitoring system for the wastewater disposal system. Keeping the pond 

wet to reduce dust and radon emissions would effectively reduce potential air emissions, and 

the estimated impacts on radiological air quality would be SMALL. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-248 

Evaporation ponds designed and constructed following NRC guidance (NRC, 2008) would 

utilize clay or geotextile liners to reduce the potential for infiltration into the subsurface. An 

NRC-approved monitoring system would be installed to detect leaks from the ponds, and the 

applicant also implement an NRC-approved inspection plan for the ponds (NRC, 2008). Based 

on these measures, the estimated impacts on surface water and groundwater resources would 

be SMALL. 

The evaporation ponds would be constructed at the same time and with the same mitigation 

measures described in SEIS Section 4.6 (Ecological Resources) for the construction of the rest 

of the facility. For these reasons, the estimated impact on ecological resources from an 

evaporation pond disposal system would be the same as identified in SEIS Section 4.6 and 

could be reduced to SMALL. 

At the end of the operational phase of the facility, all of the pond liners and berms, as well as 

accumulated precipitates and sludges, would be classified as solid byproduct material. For 

example, the GEIS indicates that about 52 m3

 [68 yd3] of byproduct material would be generated 

during evaporation pond decommissioning. These solids would need to be transported to a 

licensed facility for disposal as part of the decommissioning program. This would increase the 

total amount of decommissioning byproduct material, increasing the number of truck trips 

needed to transport the materials to a disposal facility. Given the potential limitations on 

available byproduct waste disposal capacity, it is anticipated that the impacts from an 

evaporation pond wastewater disposal system to waste management would be SMALL to 

MODERATE during the decommissioning phase of the facility. Note that at the conclusion of 

operations, the licensee would be required to provide a decommissioning plan for NRC review 

that demonstrates it has a disposal path for any decommissioning wastes, including those 

related to the wastewater disposal system. The NRC staff would conduct detailed technical and 

environmental reviews of the proposed decommissioning program for the facility at that time. 

4.14.1.4.2 Surface Water Discharge 

For surface discharge of wastewater, the applicant would be required to meet the release 

standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B. The applicant would also be 

required to obtain a zero-release surface water discharge permit from SDDENR. In accordance 

with EPA regulations, the applicant would not be allowed to discharge process wastewater to 

navigable waters of the United States (NRC, 2003b). The applicant would need to develop 

storage capabilities prior to treatment to 10 CFR Part 20 standards. In addition, the applicant 

would need to characterize and remediate any residual radioactivity at the discharge point or 

from storage facilities (tanks, impoundments), radium settling basins, and related liners and 

sludges above NRC limits as part of the decommissioning of the facility (NRC, 2003b; Sanford 

Cohen and Associates, 2008). 

Establishing the discharge point for the treated effluent would likely require short-term use of 

earthmoving equipment to install pipelines, small berms, access roads, and fencing to exclude 

livestock and wildlife. The amount of land to be fenced for the discharge point alone would be 

limited (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.2.2), and the estimated impact on land use would likely be 

SMALL. As is the case with both land application and a deep Class V disposal well, the 

wastewater would likely require treatment to meet state surface water discharge zero-release 

permit requirements, including treatment facilities to provide an ion-exchange circuit, reverse 

osmosis, one or more radium settling basins {0.1 to 1.6 ha [0.25 to 4 ac]}, or purge storage 

reservoirs {4 ha [10 ac] or more}. These treatment facilities would also be fenced to exclude 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-249 

wildlife and livestock and limit public access. The amount of land needed for the wastewater 

treatment facilities would be similar to that for land application and deep Class V disposal wells. 

As with evaporation ponds, land application, and Class V disposal wells, the increased footprint 

for the additional wastewater treatment facilities needed to meet state surface water discharge 

requirements would be small relative to the entire permitted area {4,282 ha [10,580 ac]}, but 

large relative to the central processing plant as described for the proposed action (SEIS 

Section 4.2.1) (Powertech, 2009b). The proposed action would further disturb about 98 ha 

[243 ac] of previously disturbed land under the deep well disposal option and about 566 ha 

[1,398 ac] of previously disturbed land under the land application option or a combination of 

both for the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project. Overall, the increase in the disturbed area to 

accommodate the addition of a wastewater treatment facility would be about 1 to 4 percent and 

would have a SMALL impact on land use. 

Constructing the wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., radium settling basins) would require 

earthmoving equipment, such as bulldozers, backhoes, and trucks, to prepare the site and 

construct the impoundment(s). This would be similar to the proposed action (both deep Class V 

disposal well and land application options) because wastewater treatment facilities are included 

in the proposed plans for the Dewey-Burdock Project. The equipment would produce diesel 

emissions and fugitive dust emissions during construction that could temporarily affect 

nonradiological air quality. BMPs, such as wetting unpaved roads, would reduce fugitive dust 

emissions. Taking into consideration the likely short-term duration of the construction period, 

the anticipated impacts to nonradiological air quality would be SMALL. The applicant may also 

need to consider emissions of radionuclides such as radon from the surface discharge points. 

Because the SDDENR permit would require the applicant to monitor and maintain low 

radionuclide concentrations for the treated wastewater, the estimated impacts on radiological air 

quality would be SMALL. 

The proposed Dewey satellite facility and wellfields would be developed in the Beaver Creek 

drainage basin, while the Burdock central processing facility and wellfields would be developed 

within the Pass Creek drainage (SEIS Section 3.5.1). Beaver Creek is a perennial drainage 

with periods of low flow, but a surface water discharge option would increase water flow and 

result in the development of aquatic habitat. Pass Creek is intermittent, and surface discharge 

could result in increased erosion and suspended sediments in the existing stream channel. 

Sediment loads would likely taper off quickly both in time and distance; therefore, the long-term 

impact would be SMALL. 

As noted previously, the applicant would not be allowed to discharge treated wastewater into 

navigable waters of the United States. A recent wetlands delineation survey identified four 

potential jurisdictional wetlands in the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (SEIS Section 3.5.1 and 

Figure 4.5-1). These jurisdictional wetlands include Beaver and Pass Creeks and two 

tributaries. A Nationwide Permit 44 under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be 

required for discharges of dredged or fill material into a wetland or WUS exceeding 0.2 ha 

[0.5 ac]. The NRC staff assume that, if the applicant pursued surface discharge of treated 

effluent, the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project would avoid surface discharge points that 

might disturb any of these wetlands areas, and potential impacts to these wetlands from surface 

discharge of treated wastewater would be SMALL. 

The applicant would be required to demonstrate that any soil affected by the surface discharge 

of treated wastewater would meet 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. In addition, during operations 

the applicant would be required to routinely monitor the soils and discharged water to ensure 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-250 

predicted concentrations were not exceeded. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that 

decommissioning the surface discharge point would produce additional solid byproduct material 

for disposal. As with the land application wastewater disposal option, however, 

decommissioning wastewater treatment facilities may produce solid byproduct material, such as 

spent resins, sludges, and liners from radium settling basin(s), or contaminated building debris. 

These solids would need to be transported to a licensed facility for disposal as part of the 

decommissioning program. This would increase the total amount of decommissioning 

byproduct materials, increasing the number of truck trips needed to transport the materials to a 

disposal facility. Given the potential limitations on available byproduct material disposal 

capacity, it is anticipated that the potential impacts on waste management from 

decommissioning the radium settling basin(s) and other storage facilities associated with 

treating wastewater for surface water discharge would range from SMALL to MODERATE. 

Note that at the conclusion of operations, the licensee would be required to provide a detailed 

decommissioning plan for NRC review. The decommissioning plan would include final 

radiological surveys to identify whether there were any areas of soil contamination that would 

require disposal as byproduct material. The NRC staff would conduct detailed technical and 

environmental reviews of the proposed decommissioning program for the facility at that time. 

Topsoil that was removed and stored during construction would be reapplied during land 

reclamation. Final revegetation of the project area would involve seeding the area with a seed 

mixture approved by SDDENR, the local conservation district, BLM, and landowners. SDDENR 

would determine when final revegetation is complete and when the conditions for bond release 

have been met. 

4.14.2 No-Action (Alternative 2) 

Under the No-Action alternative, there will be no waste generated from the proposed action. 

There will be neither deep Class V well injection nor land application of liquid wastes and no 

disposal of byproduct material, hazardous wastes, or nonhazardous solid wastes. Therefore, 

there will be no impact on waste management from implementing this alternative. 

4.15 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 40. Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, 

Appendix A. “Criteria Relating to the Operations of Uranium Mills and to the Disposition of 

Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores 

Processed Primarily from their Source Material Content.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

23 CFR Part 772. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Highways, Part 772. “Procedures for 

Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910. “Occupational 

Safety and Health Standards.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-251 

36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property, Part 60. “National Register of Historic Places.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property, Part 800. “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 61. 

“National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS).” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 68. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 68. 

“Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 141. 

“National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 144. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, 

Part 144. “Underground Injection Control Program.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 146. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 146. 

“Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190. 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 302. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 302. 

“Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 355. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 355. 

“Emergency Planning and Notification.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

59 FR 7629. Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register. Vol. 59, No. 32, 

p. 7629. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. February 16, 1994. 

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice matters in NRC 

Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register. Vol. 69, No. 163. August 24, 2004. 

AET, Inc. “Solid Waste Management Permit Renewal Application, Newcastle Landfill #2, 

Newcastle, Wyoming.” AET #18-03607. Rapid City, South Dakota: American Engineering 

Testing, Inc. October 10, 2011. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-252 

ARSD (Administrative Rules of South Dakota). “Chapter 74:11:08: Capping, Sealing, and 

Plugging Exploration Test Holes.” South Dakota Legislature Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:34: Regulated Substances Discharges.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:52. Surface Water Discharge Permits.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chapter 74:56:01. Underground Storage Tanks (UST).” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Chaper 74:56:03. Aboveground Stationary Storage Tanks (AST).” South Dakota 

Legislature Administrative Rules. 

ARSD. “Section 74:02:04:67. Requirements for Plugging Wells or Test Holes Completed Into 

Confined Aquifers or Encountering More Than One Aquifer.” South Dakota Legislature 

Administrative Rules.

ARSD. “Section 74:54:01:04. Standards for Groundwater of 10,000 mg/L TDS Concentration 

or Less.” South Dakota Legislature Administrative Rules. 

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee. “Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on 

Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006.” ML12243A391. Washington, DC: Edison Electric 

Institute. and Sacramento, California: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and the 

California Energy Commission. 2006. 

Bandas, S.J. and K.F. Higgins. “Field Guide to South Dakota Turtles.” 

SDCES EC 919. ML12241A389. Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota State 

University. 2004. 

BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). “RE: Cultural Resource Review of Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Administered Surface Lands in the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium 

Recovery Project, Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota.” Letter (January 10) from 

M. Atkins, BLM, South Dakota Field Office to J. D. Vogt, South Dakota State Historical Society. 

ML14014A303. Belle Fourche, South Dakota: BLM. 2014. 

BLM. Email Subject “Mitigation and Reclamation Guideline” and attachments. From M. 

Iverson, BLM, Acting Field Manager, South Dakota Field Office, to A. Hester, CNWRA, 

Southwest Research Institute®. ML12250A802. June 25, 2012a. 

BLM. Email Subject “Appendix E Wildlife Stipulations” and attachments. From M. Iverson, 

BLM, Acting Field Manager, South Dakota Field Office, to A. Hester, CNWRA, Southwest 

Research Institute®. ML12250A838. June 25, 2012b. 

BLM. Email Subject “Sage Grouse Stipulation Meeting/Call.” From M. Iverson, BLM, Acting 

Field Manager, South Dakota Field Office, to H. Yilma, Project Manager, Office of Federal and 

State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. ML12249A030. June 28, 2012c. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-253 

BLM. Email Subject “Wildlife and Special Status Stipulations in the 1896 South Dakota 

Resource Management Plan” and attachment. From M. Iverson, BLM, Acting Field Manager, 

South Dakota Field Office, to H. Yilma, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials 

and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

ML12249A033. June 25, 2012d. 

BLM. Email Subject “Dewey-Burdock Uranium Seed Mix” and attachment. From M. Iverson, 

BLM, Acting Field Manager, South Dakota Field Office, to A. Hester, CNWRA, Southwest 

Research Institute®. ML12250A751. June 25, 2012e. 

BLM. “Re: Cultural Resource Review Dewey Burdock.” Letter (July 20) R. Blubaugh. 

ML12213A694. Belle Fourche, South Dakota: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, South Dakota Field Office. 2012f. 

BLM. “Wyoming Sage-Grouse RPM Amendments.” Released August 2011. 

<https://www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do? 

methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPageId=18704> (23 January 2012). 

BLM. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Dewey Conveyor Project.” ML12209A089. 

DOI–BLM–MT–040–2009–002–EIS. Belle Fourche, South Dakota: BLM Field Office, 

U.S. Department of Interior. January 2009. 

BLM. “Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office.” 

ML12209A103. Rawlins, Wyoming: BLM, Rawlins Field Office. 2008. 

BLM. “Newcastle Resource Management Plan.” ML12209A101. Newcastle, Wyoming: BLM, 

Newcastle Field Office. 2000. 

BLM. “Visual Resource Inventory.” Manual H–8410–1. ML12237A196. Washington, DC: 

BLM. 1986. 

BLM. “Visual Resource Management.” Manual 8400. ML12237A194. Washington, DC: 

BLM. 1984. 

Brattstrom, B.H. and M.C. Bondello. “Effects of Off-Road Vehicle Noise on Desert 

Vertebrates.” Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles, Impacts and Management in 

Arid Regions. R.N. Webb and H.G. Wilshire, eds. New York City, New York: Springer-Verlag 

Publishing. 1983. 

Brooks, T., M. McCurry, and D. Hess. “South Dakota State and County Demographic Profiles.” 

ML12237A222. Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota Rural Life and Census Data Center. 

May 2008. 

Center for Climate Strategies. “South Dakota Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference 

Case Projections 1990–2020.” 2007. <http://www.climatestrategies.us/ewebeditpro/items/ 

O25F18227.pdf> (21 December 2009). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-254 

CEQ (Council of Environmental Quality). “Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act.” Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 

December 1997. 

Chapman, S.S., S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, D.G. Despain, J. ZumBerge, and M. Conrad. 

“Ecoregions of Wyoming.” U.S. Geological Survey Map. Scale 1:1,400,000. 2004. 

EPA. “National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Aquatic Life Criteria Table.” Washington 

DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 11, 2013 

<http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm#R> 

(June 27, 2013). 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). “National Recommended Water Quality Criteria.” 

2012. <http://water.epa.gov/scitech/ swguidance/standards/current/index.cfm#altable> 

(11 May 2012). 

EPA. “ECO-SSL.” Washington DC: EPA. October 20, 2010. 

<http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/> (June 27, 2013). 

EPA. “Total Maximum Daily Loads, Section 303(d) List Fact Sheet for Watershed, BEAVER.” 

2009. <http://ofmpub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_watershed.control? 

p_huc=10120107&p_state=SD&p_cycle=&p_report_type=T> (05 November 2009). 

EPA. “Release of Guidance for Developing Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) and 

Eco-SSLs for Nine Contaminants.” Memorandum (December 29) from Marianne Lamont 

Horinko to Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1 – 10, RCRA Senior Policy Advisors, 

Regions 1–10. OSWER 9285.7-55. Washington, DC: EPA. 2003. 

EPA. “Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite To Protect Health and Welfare 

With an Adequate Margin of Safety.” EPA 550/9-74-005. ML12241A393. Washington, DC: 

EPA. 1974. 

Federal Highway Administration. “Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations.” 

FHWA–HEP–06–016. ML12241A397. Washington, DC: FHWA, Department of 

Transportation. 2004. 

Fellows, S. D., and S. L. Jones. “Status Assessment and Conservation Action Plan for the 

Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus).” Biological Technical Publication, 

FWS/BTP–R6012–2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 2009. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). “Re: Follow Up for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

Recovery Project, Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota.” E-mail (Sepetmber 9) Terry 

Quesinberry, Fish and Wildlife Biologist. ML13256A314. Pierre, South Dakota: FWS. 2013. 

FWS. “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Releases Draft Report to Help Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Objectives.” ML12276A248. August 23, 2012a. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-255 

FWS. “Re: Follow Up for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project, Fall River and 

Custer Counties, South Dakota.” E-mail (August 27) Terry Quesinberry, Fish and Wildlife 

Biologist. ML12240A317. Pierre, South Dakota: FWS. 2012b. 

FWS. ”U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment Listing Priority and Assignment 

Form, Sprague’s Pipit.” ML12276A165. May 31, 2011. 

FWS. “Environmental Comments on Powertech Dewey-Burdock Project, Custer and Fall River 

County, South Dakota.” ML100970556. Washington, DC: FWS, Department of the Interior. 

March 29, 2010. 

FWS. “Whooping Cranes and Wind Development – An Issue Paper.” April 2009. 

<ftp://wiley.kars.ku.edu/windresource/Whooping_Crane_and_Wind_Development_FWS_%20A

pril%202009.pdf> (20 November 2009). 

FWS. “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on NRC Notice of Intent to Prepare a Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for Uranium Milling Facilities (GEIS).” Letter (September 5) to 

P. Bubar from M. Stempel. ML072540098. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. 

FWS. “Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Form.” ML12241A398. Pierre, South 

Dakota: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. 

FWS. “Selenium in a Wyoming Grassland Community Receiving Wastewater from an In Situ

Uranium Mine.” Contaminant Report Number: R6/715C /00. Cheyenne, Wyoming: 

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. September, 2000b. 

HDR Engineering Inc. “Solid Waste Management Plan Rapid City Planning Area Rapid City, 

South Dakota.” HDR Project No. 00000000111705. Omaha, NE: HDR Engineering, Inc. 

January, 2010. 

Hodorff. “Habitat Assessment and Conservation Strategy for Sage Grouse and Other Selected 

Species on Buffalo Gap National Grassland.” ML120240626. Hot Springs, South Dakota: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. September 2005. 

IML (Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc). “Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact 

Analysis Dewey-Burdock Project Powertech (USA) Inc., Edgemont, South Dakota.” 

ML13196a061, ML13196a097, ML13196a118. Sheridan, Wyoming: Inter-Mountain 

Laboratories, Inc., IML Air Science. 2013a. 

IML. “D-B 1st high PM10/PM2.5 for PSD discussion.” E-mail (July 18) from R. Smith to 

B. Werling, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, San Antonio, Texas. 

ML13213A273. Sheridan, Wyoming: Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc. 2013b. 

Kempema, S., C. Marsh, and K. Marsh. “Colony Acreage and Distribution of the Black-Tailed 

Prairie Dog in South Dakota, 2008.” Pierre, South Dakota: Game Fish and Parks. August 

2009. <http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/docs/prairedog-distribution-report.pdf> (03 October 2012). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-256 

Kruse, J.M., T.V. Gillen, J.R. Bozell, L. Palmer, and A.A. Buhta. “A Level III Cultural Resources 

Evaluation of Powertech (USA) Incorporated’s Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project 

Locality Within the Southern Black Hills, Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” 

ML100670302, ML100670309, ML100670314, ML100670318, ML100670240, ML100670250, 

ML100670255, ML100670257, ML100670258, ML100670259, ML100670261, ML100670267, 

ML100670277, ML100670280, ML100670286, ML100670289, ML100670363, ML100670365, 

ML100670366, ML100670482, ML100670232. Archeological Contract Series No. 216. Sioux 

Falls, South Dakota: Archeology Laboratory, Augustana College. 2008. 

Mackin, P.C., D. Daruwalla, J. Winterle, M. Smith, and D.A. Pickett. NUREG/CR–6733, 

“A Baseline Risk-Informed Performance-Based Approach for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction 

Licensees.” Washington, DC: NRC. September 2001. 

Marquez Environmental Services, Inc. “Appendix K: Air Resources Impact Assessment 

Technical Report for the Alton Coal Lease by Application Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement.” ML13213A324. Golden Colorado. Marquez Environmental Services, Inc. 2010. 

Moechnig, Mike, D. Deneka, L. Wrage, M. Rosenberg. “2013 Weed Control, Pasture and 

Range.” Publication: 03-3020-2012. Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota State University 

Extension. October 2012 <http://igrow.org/up/resources/03-3020-2012.pdf> (07 June 2013)

National Fire Protection Association. NPFA 50 Standard for Bulk Oxygen Systems at 

Consumer Sites. 2001 Edition. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association. 2001. 

Naus, C.A., D.G. Driscoll, and J.M. Carter. “Geochemistry of the Madison and Minnelusa 

Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota.” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources 

Investigation Report 01-4129. ML12240A265. 2001. 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Draft License SUA-1600 for Powertech (USA), 

Inc.” ML13318A094. Washington, DC: NRC. March 2013. 

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

Milling Facilities.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009a. 

NRC. “Staff Assessment of Groundwater Impacts from Previously Licensed In-Situ Uranium 

Recovery Facilities.” Memorandum to Chairman Jaczko, Commissioner Klein, and 

Commissioner Svinicki, NRC from C. Miller, Director, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, NRC. ML091770187. July 10, 2009b. 

NRC. “Site Visit to the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project, Fall River and Custer 

Counties, South Dakota, and Meetings with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and Local 

Organizations, November 30–December 4, 2009.” ML093631627. Washington, DC: 

NRC. 2009c. 

NRC. NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment 

Retention Systems at Uranium Recovery Facilities.” Rev. 3. Washington, DC: NRC. 

November 2008. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-257 

NRC. “Environmental Assessment for the Addition of the Reynolds Ranch Mining Area to 

Power Resources, Inc.’s Smith Ranch/Highlands Uranium Project Converse County, Wyoming.” 

Source Material License No. SUA–1548. Docket No. 40-8964. Washington, DC: NRC. 2006. 

NRC. NUREG–1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With 

NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC: NRC. August 2003a. 

NRC. NUGEG–1569, “Standard Review Plan for In-Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License 

Applications—Final Report.” Washington, DC: NRC. June 2003b. 

NRC. NUREG–0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling 

Project M–25.” Washington, DC: NRC. September 1980. 

Peterson, R.A. “The South Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas.” Jamestown, North Dakota: Northern 

Prairie Wildlife Research Center. 1995. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/ 

resource/birds/sdatlas/index.htm> (16 March 2010). 

Petrotek. “Numerical Modeling of Hydrogeologic Conditions, Dewey-Burdock Project, South 

Dakota.” ML12062A096. Petrotek Engineering Corporation, Littleton, Colorado. 

February 2012. 

Powertech [Powertech (USA) Inc.]. “Comments From Powertech (USA) Inc. on the DeweyBurdock Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Docket ID NRC-2012-

0277.” Letter (January 8) from R. Blubaugh to C. Bladey, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Office of Administration. ML13022A386. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2013a. 

Powertech [Powertech (USA) Inc.]. “Final Air Modelling Report and Protocol (3 of 3).” E-mail 

(July 11) from J. Mays to R. Burrows, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of 

Administration. ML13196A118. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2013b. 

Powertech. "RE: Protocol received." and attachment. Email (July 16) from J. Mays to Bradley 

Werling (Southwest Research Institute®). ML13275A290. Greenwood Village, Colorado: 

Powertech (USA) Inc. 2013c. 

Powertech. “Re: Dewey-Burdock Project, Proposed Operational Facilities with Vegetation 

Overlay and Associated Table.” Letter (June 8) to H. Yilma, Project Manager, Office of 

Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission from R. Blubaugh, Vice President, Environmental Health and Safety 

Resources. ML12166A037. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2012a. 

Powertech. “Re: Dewey-Burdock Meeting with Landowners to Discuss Post-Mining Land Use, 

Reclamation Seed Mix, Entering and Commencing Operations, and Land Application of Treated 

Process Water.” Letter (May 1) to M. Atkins, U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land 

Management from R. Blubaugh, Vice President, Evironmental Health and Safety Resources. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2012b. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project Groundwater Discharge Plan Custer and Fall River 

Counties, South Dakota.” ML12195A039, ML12195A040. Edgemont, South Dakota: 

Powertech. March 2012c. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-258 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project Emissions Inventory Revisions.” Email (July 31) from 

R. Blubaugh to Bradley Werling (Southwest Research Institute®). ML12216A220. Greenwood 

Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2012d. 

Powertech. “Mitigation Regarding Archaeological Sites.” E-mail (September 14) from 

R. Blubaugh to H. Yilma, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML12262A486. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2012e. 

Powertech. “SHPO Comments and Related Commitments.” E-mail (August 3) from R. 

Blubaugh to H. Yilma, Project Manager, Office of Federal and State Materials and 

Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ML12262A491. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2012f. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project Class III Underground Injection Control Permit 

Application.” ML122440623. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2012g. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Report to Accompany Inyan Kara Water Right Permit 

Application Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” ML12192A022. Edgemont, 

South Dakota: Powertech. June 2012h. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Report to Accompany Madison Water Right Permit 

Application Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” ML12193A239. Edgemont, 

SouthDakota: Powertech. June 2012i. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota, Technical Report RAI Responses, June, 2011.” 

ML112071064. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2011. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota ER_RAI Response August 11, 2010.” ML102380516. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010a. 

Powertech. “Subject: Powertech (USA), Inc’s Responses to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) Staff’s Verbal Request for Clarification of Response Regarding Inclusion of 

Emissions from Drilling Disposal Wells; Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project Environmental Review 

Docket No. 40-9075; TAC No. J 00533.” Letter (November 17) to R. Burrows, Project Manager, 

Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission from R. Blubaugh, Vice President, Environmental Health and Safety 

Resources. ML103220208. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010b. 

Powertech. Letter (April 20) from R. Blubaugh, Vice President-Environmental Health and Safety 

Resources, Powertech (USA) Inc.,to B. Walsh, Hydrologist, Groundwater Quality Program, 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. “Re: 1) Class V 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit Application to EPA; Dewey-Burdock Project, Fall 

River and Custer Counties, South Dakota, 2) Land Application Monitoring Plan Summary for the 

Groundwater Discharge Plan Application.” Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. 2010c. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-259 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota ER_RAI Response”. Appendix WR-7, Waste Analysis Plan 

of March 2010, Page 2-1. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech . August , 2010d. 

ML102380516. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Environmental Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2009a. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Technical Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2009b. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Supplement to Application for NRC Uranium Recovery 

License Dated February 2009.” Docket No. 040-09075. ML092870160. Greenwood Village, 

Colorado: Powertech. August 2009c. 

Sanford Cohen and Associates. “Final Report Review of Existing and Proposed Tailings 

Impoundment Technologies.” ML12237A191. Vienna, Virginia: Sanford Cohen and 

Associates. September 2008. 

SDDENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). “South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources Comments on the Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery 

Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota.” Letter (January 10) to C. Bladey, 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission from S.M. Pirner. ML13017A010. Pierre, South Dakota: 

South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2013a. 

SDDENR. "Powertech's Air Quality Application Submitted on November 5, 2012 for Its 

Proposed Operations in Edgemont, South Dakota." Letter (February 21) with enclosure 

(Statement of Basis) from K. Gestring to R. Blubaugh, Powertech USA. ML13213A282. 

Vermillion, South Dakota: Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2013b. 

SDDENR. “Report to the Chief Engineer on Water Permit Application No. 2686-2, Powertech 

(USA) Inc., November 2, 2012.” ML13165A168. Pierre, South Dakota: South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. November 2012a. 

SDDENR. “Report to the Chief Engineer on Water Permit Application No. 2685-2, Powertech 

(USA) Inc., November 2, 2012.” ML13165A160. Pierre, South Dakota: South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources. November 2012b. 

SDDENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). “RE: Attn: 

Steve Kropp—Limited Request for Information (Stats for Local Landfill) for USNRC Review.” 

E-mail (December 20) to P. LaPlante, Southwest Research Institute. ML111300205. Pierre, 

South Dakota: SDDENR. December 20, 2010. 

SDDOE (South Dakota Department of Education). “Statistical Digest.” 2010. 

<http://doe.sd.gov/ofm/applications/StatDigest/default.asp> (30 April 2012). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-260 

SDDOL (South Dakota Department of Labor). “Labor Force.” Pierre, South Dakota: South 

Dakota Department of Labor, Labor Market Information Center. 2012. <http://dol.sd.gov/lmic/ 

menu_labor_force.aspx> (7 June 2012). 

SDDOT (South Dakota Department of Transportation). “Statewide Traffic Flow Map.” 

ML12240A386. 2011. 

SDDRR (South Dakota Department of Revenue and Regulation). “South Dakota Sales and Use 

Tax Report.“ ML12241A182. Pierre, South Dakota: SDDRR. January 5, 2012. 

SDDRR. “Sales and Use Tax Guide.” ML12240A388. Pierre, South Dakota: South Dakota 

Department of Revenue. July 2011. 

SDGFP (South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks). “Threatened & Endangered or Rare Species.” 

2012a. <http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/threatened-endangered/default.aspx> (25 November 2009). 

SDGFP. “Peregrine Falcon Recovery in South Dakota.” <http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/ 

management/diversity/peregrine-falcon-recovery.aspx> 2012b. (03 May 2012). 

SDGFP. Email Subject “SD GFP wildlife data” and attachments. From S. Michals, SDGFP 

Energy and Minerals Coordinator. To A. Hester, CNWRA. ML12249A230. January 31, 2012c. 

SDGFP. “Prairie Dogs.” <http://gfp.sd.gov/hunting/predator-varmint-furbearer/prairiedogs.aspx> 2012d. (4 May 2012). 

SDGFP. “Subject: Dewey-Burdock Crucial Big Game Habitats and Migratory Corridors.” Letter 

(May 7) from S. Michals, Energy and Minerals Coordinator. Rapid City, South Dakota: 

SDGFP. 2010a. 

SDGFP. “South Dakota Mountain Lion Management Plan 2010-2015.” Version 10-1. 

ML12241A406. Rapid City, South Dakota: South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks. June 2010b. 

SDGFP . “Threatened & Endangered or Rare Species.” March 16, 2010c. 

<http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/threatened-endangered/default.aspx> (17 January 2012). 

SDGFP. “South Dakota Wildlife.” ML12241A402. Rapid City, South Dakota: South Dakota 

Game, Fish, and Parks. 2009a. 

SDGFP. “Turkeys.” 2009b. <http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/private-land/turkeys.aspx> 

(25 November 2009). 

SDGFP. “Greater Sage Grouse Management Plan South Dakota.” ML12241A215. 2008. 

SDGFP. “A Birder’s Guide to the George S. Mickelson Trail.” ML12241A204. Rapid City, 

South Dakota: SDGFP. 2005a. 

SDGFP. “ South Dakota All Bird Conservation Plan.” 2005b. ML12241A195. Pierre, 

South Dakota: SDGFP. 2005b. 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and

FINAL Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions

4-261 

SD SHPO (South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office). “Section 106 Project 

Consultation.” Letter (January 14) from J. D. Vogt and P. Olson, South Dakota State Historical 

Society to K. Hsueh, NRC. ML14014A307. Pierre, South Dakota: SD SHPO. 2014. 

SD SHPO. “Comment (28) of Jay D. Vogt and Paige Olson, on Behalf of SD State Historical 

Society, on NRC–2012–0277–0001, Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Uranium Recovery Project in Custer and Fall River Counties, 

SD.” Letter (December 13) from J. D. Vogt and P. Olson, South Dakota State Historical Society 

to C. Bladey, NRC. ML13019A059. Pierre, South Dakota: SD SHPO. 2012. 

Somma, L. A. “Nonindigenous Aquatic Species, “Apalone spinifera.” 2011. 

Gainesville, Florida; U.S. Geological Survey. <http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/ 

FactSheet.aspx?SpeciesID=1274> November 2011. (08 May 2012). 

South Dakota Birds and Birding. “Clark’s Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana” 2012. 

<http://sdakotabirds.com/species/clarks_nutcracker_info.htm> (01 May 2012). 

TRC Environmental Corporation. “Appendix F: Air Quality Technical Support Document, 

Atlantic Rim Natural Gas Project and the Seminoe Road Gas Development Project, Wyoming.” 

ML13213A389. Laramie, Wyoming: TRC Environmental Corporation. 2006. 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), “American FactFinder, Census 2000 and 2010, 2006–2010 

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate, State and County QuickFacts.” 

ML12248A240. 2012. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). “Restoring and Rehabilitating Sagebrush Habitats.” Corvallis, 

Oregon: USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center. April 2009. 

USGS. “Frail Legacy, Endangered, Threatened & Rare Animals of South Dakota, Peregrine 

Falcon.” August 2006. <http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/ 

wildlife/sdrare/species/falcpere.htm> (03 May 2012). 

WDAI (Wyoming Department of Administration and Information). “Population of Wyoming, 

Counties, Cities, and Towns : 2010 to 2030 .” ML12250A716. Cheyenne, Wyoming, Wyoming 

Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division. 2011. 

WDWS (Wyoming Department of Workforce Services). “Local Area Unemployment Statistics.” 

Casper, Wyoming: WDWS , Research and Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/LMI/laus.htm> 

(07 June 2012). 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department). “State Wildlife Action Plan 2010.” 

ML12241A410. Cheyenne, Wyoming: Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2010. 

WGFD. “Sage-Grouse Habitat Management Guidelines for Wyoming.” ML12276A277. 2007. 

Wyoming Department of Education. “Wyoming School District Statistical Report Series #2.” 

2010. <http://edu.wyoming.gov/DataInformationAndReporting/StatisticalReportSeries2.aspx> 

(01 May 2012). 
Environmental Impacts of Construction, Operations, Aquifer Restoration, and 

Decommissioning Activities and Mitigative Actions FINAL

4-262 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. “Sales and Use Tax Distribution Reports.” 2010. 

<http://revenue.state.wy.us/PortalVBVS/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=3&tabid=10> 

(11 September 2010). 

Zollinger, R. “2012 North Dakota Weed Control Guide.” W-253. Fargo, North Dakota: 

North Dakota State University Extension Service. January 2012. <http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/ 

weeds/weed-control-guides/nd-weed-control-guide-1> (05 April 2012). 
5-1 

5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

5.1 Introduction 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the procedural 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) are found in 

40 CFR Parts 1500–1508. Cumulative effects are defined in 40 CFR 1508.7 as 

“the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions.” 

Cumulative effects or impacts1

 can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time. This Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS) considers the cumulative impacts of past, present, and future 

actions in the proposed project area. These actions include oil and gas production; coal 

mining and coal bed methane operations; gold, sand, gravel, and limestone mining; insitu uranium recovery (ISR) operations; conventional uranium mining; wind farms; 

transportation projects, and livestock grazing.

The identification of cumulative impacts of the proposed action resulted from an analysis of an 

extensive body of publicly available information on ongoing and proposed federal projects, 

information presented in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) (NRC, 2009a), 

and review of the literature of the environmental and socio-economic conditions in South Dakota 

and in the nearby communities. 

A number of uranium exploration and oil and gas operations are underway within 16 km [10 mi] 

of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Several ISR uranium projects within the broader 

region of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are in the operation, licensing, or 

prelicensing stages. Oil and gas operations are underway throughout the area. There is 

potential for wind energy generation within and in the vicinity of the proposed project area. The 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) anticipates growth in extraction of coal, coal bed 

methane, and limestone, as well as government support for and industry interest in developing 

transmission and transportation infrastructure at distances beyond 16 km [10 mi] from the 

Dewey-Burdock site. 

The GEIS (NRC, 2009a) provides a methodology for conducting a cumulative impacts 

assessment following CEQ guidance (CEQ, 1997). SEIS Section 5.1.1 describes past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions identified and analyzed in the cumulative impacts 

analysis. The methodology NRC staff used in conducting the cumulative impact analysis in this 

SEIS is described in Section 5.1.2. 

 

1

In this SEIS, “cumulative impacts” is deemed synonymous with “cumulative effects.”
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-2 

5.1.1 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable 

 Future Actions 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located within the Nebraska-South 

Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region defined in the GEIS (NRC, 2009a). This region 

encompasses parts of Sioux and Dawes Counties in Nebraska; Fall River, Custer, Pennington, 

and Lawrence Counties in South Dakota; and Niobrara, Weston, and Crook Counties in 

Wyoming (Figure 5.1-1). The Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region holds 

significant reserves of uranium and has a history of conventional uranium surface mining (NRC, 

2009a). Other natural resources that are currently being exploited within the milling region and 

in surrounding counties include oil and gas, wind, coal, coal bed methane, limestone, and gold. 

Federal agencies have completed several environmental impact statements (EISs) related to 

activities within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region. Most of these 

EISs are related to resource management actions on federal lands administered by the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) or U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and are focused 

on improving natural resources conditions and reducing adverse impacts from various 

human-related activities. 

The various past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are discussed next. 

5.1.1.1 Uranium Recovery Sites 

Existing and potential uranium milling operations within the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming 

Uranium Milling Region exist in the Crow Butte Uranium District located in northwestern 

Nebraska, in the Southern Black Hills Uranium District in southwestern South Dakota and 

east-central Wyoming, and in the Northern Black Hills Uranium District in northeastern Wyoming 

(Figure 5.1-2). Existing and potential uranium recovery sites in the Nebraska-South 

Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region are listed in Table 5.1-1. 

Seven existing and potential ISR facilities and one uranium recovery and mill tailings facility 

licensed under Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Title II are in the region. 

The only operating ISR facility is at Crow Butte in Dawes County, Nebraska, approximately 

105 km [65 mi] south-southeast of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Three satellite 

facilities or ISR expansions are planned for the Crow Butte site: North Trend, Three Crow, and 

Marsland. License applications for North Trend and Marsland were submitted to NRC in June 

2007 and May 2012, respectively, and are under review. A license application for Three Crow 

was submitted in August 2010 and withdrawn and has not yet been resubmitted. 

In addition to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, the applicant has identified other 

potential uranium orebodies in the region at Dewey Terrace in Niobrara and Weston Counties, 

Wyoming, and at Aladdin in Crook County, Wyoming (Powertech, 2009b). Dewey Terrace is 

just west of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project in Weston and Niobrara Counties, 

Wyoming (Figure 5.1-3). The uranium orebodies at Dewey Terrace are a continuation of the 

mapped orebodies at the Dewey-Burdock site (Powertech, 2009b). To date, the applicant has 

not submitted a letter of intent to NRC for either Dewey Terrace or Aladdin. NRC therefore has 

no specific information that the applicant plans to go forward with these projects. It is also 

uncertain whether, if either project went forward, the applicant would seek to operate these 

projects as satellite facilities and ship uranium-loaded resins from Dewey Terrace or Aladdin to 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock site for processing into yellowcake. NRC staff and other local 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-3 

Figure 5.1-1. Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region General Map With 

Current (Crow Butte, Nebraska) and Potential Future Uranium Milling 

Site Locations 

 Source: Modified From NRC (2009a) 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-4 

Figure 5.1-2. Map Showing the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

and Existing and Potential Uranium Milling Sites in the Black Hills Uranium 

Districts in South Dakota and Wyoming and in the Crow Butte Uranium 

District in Nebraska 

 Source: Modified From NRC (2009a)

 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-5 

Table 5.1-1. Past, Existing, and Potential Uranium Recovery Sites in the Nebraska-South 

Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region* 

Site 

Name 

Company/ 

Owner Type 

County, 

State Status†

Approximate 

Distance 

km [mi] Direction

North 

Trend 

Cameco 

(Crow Butte 

Resources, Inc.) 

In-situ 

uranium 

recovery 

(ISR)—

Expansion 

Dawes 

County, 

Nebraska

Potential 

site—

license 

application 

received 

June 2007 

(under 

NRC 

review) 

95 [59] SSE 

Three 

Crow 

Cameco 

(Crow Butte 

Resources, Inc.) 

ISR—

Expansion 

Dawes 

County, 

Nebraska

Potential 

site 

101 [63] SSE 

Marsland Cameco 

(Crow Butte 

Resources, Inc.) 

ISR—

Expansion 

Dawes 

County, 

Nebraska

Potential 

site 

129 [80] SSE 

Crow 

Butte 

Cameco 

(Crow Butte 

Resources, Inc.) 

ISR—

Commercial 

scale 

Dawes 

County, 

Nebraska

Operating 105 [65] SSE 

Edgemont U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) 

Conventional 

uranium mill 

Fall 

River, 

South 

Dakota 

UMTRCA†

Title II 

disposal 

site 

26 [16] SSE 

DeweyBurdock Powertech 

(USA) Inc. 

ISR—

Commercial 

scale 

Fall River 

and 

Custer, 

South 

Dakota 

Potential 

site—

license 

application 

submitted 

to NRC in 

August, 

2009 

0 — 

Dewey 

Terrace 

Powertech 

(USA) Inc. 

ISR—

Expansion 

Niobrara, 

Wyoming 

Potential 

site 

13 [8] WNW 

Aladdin Powertech 

(USA) Inc. 

ISR—

Expansion 

Crook, 

Wyoming 

Potential 

site 

137 [85] NNW 

*Sources: NRC (2009a, 2012); Powertech (2009b) 

†

Status: Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II sites are uranium mill processing or tailings sites that have 

been decommissioned. The DOE is the long-term custodian of these sites. 

government agencies will monitor these potential projects, which will be discussed within the 

context of cumulative impacts in this SEIS based on the available information. The proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located within the Edgemont Uranium District on the 

southwestern flank of the Black Hills uplift. Uranium in the Edgemont Uranium District was first 

discovered in 1951 and mined until 1972. The district derived its name from the town of 

Edgemont, South Dakota, which was the closest population center to the district. Uranium was 

extracted from small conventional underground and surface mines in sandstone deposits within 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-6 

Figure 5.1-3. Oilfields, Coalfields, and Uranium Occurrences Near the Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ

 Recovery Project  Sources: ESRI (2008); National Atlas of the United States (2009); WYOGCC (2012); NOGCC 

 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-7 

the Inyan Kara Group. The uranium ore was shipped to conventional mills for processing. The 

only uranium mill built in South Dakota was at Edgemont. The Edgemont uranium mill 

processed 1.78 million metric tons [1.98 million short tons] of ore and produced 3.11 million kg 

[6.86 million lb] of uranium oxide as U3O8 before it ceased production in 1974 (SDDENR, 2010). 

Approximately half the ore {0.9 million metric tons [1.0 million short tons] of ore containing about 

1.45 million kg [3.2 million lb] of U3O8} processed at Edgemont was produced from deposits in 

South Dakota, and the other half came from out of state. 

Most of the historic uranium mining operations within the Edgemont Uranium District were 

abandoned prior to the 1970s because they became uneconomical. Abandoned open pits and 

overburden piles associated with historic surface mining occur in the eastern portion of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site (see Figure 3.2-3). Many of the abandoned mine 

sites in the Edgemont Uranium District are on USFS-managed property. In recent years USFS 

has reclaimed several abandoned mines in Fall River County, such as the Blue Lagoon, 

Gladiator, and Dead Horse mines (SDDENR, 2010). 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) reclaimed the uranium mill at Edgemont from 1986 to 

1989. The areas excavated during cleanup of the mill site at Edgemont were backfilled with 

clean soil, graded for proper drainage, and revegetated (SDDENR, 2010). Contaminated 

uranium mill buildings, tailings sands and slimes, and contaminated soil from the mill site and 

nearby areas were removed and placed in an engineered disposal site southeast of Edgemont 

(Figure 5.1-3) (SDDENR, 2010). The Edgemont disposal site is an UMTRCA Title II site owned 

and administered by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under a general NRC license for the 

custody and long-term care of uranium pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40.28. 

Silver King Mines, Inc. (as Darrow Lease operator and manager for TVA) drilled approximately 

4,000 exploration holes in the Dewey-Burdock area during the mid-1970s. TVA’s uranium 

exploration activities in the Dewey-Burdock area ended in the early 1980s and did not result in 

conventional uranium mining or ISR uranium extraction (Powertech, 2009a). 

5.1.1.2 Coal Mining 

As discussed in GEIS Section 5.3.3, active or former coal mines have not been identified in the 

Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region (NRC, 2009a). Based on information 

exchanged with BLM staff during a site visit to the project area in December 2009, past 

resource development in the region included exploitation of small bituminous coal deposits 

located east and south of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site (NRC, 2009b). This 

information is consistent with isolated mapped coal fields located approximately 3 km [2 mi] 

southeast of the proposed project and approximately 6 km [4 mi] southeast of Edgemont 

(Figure 5.1-3). 

Unlike the sedimentary formations that host commercially extractable coal deposits in the 

Powder River Basin in Campbell and Converse Counties, Wyoming (i.e., the Wasatch and 

Fort Union Formations), the sedimentary formations beneath the counties comprising the 

Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region do not contain thick, continuous coal 

beds (NRC, 2009a). SEIS Section 3.4.1 describes the lithology of sedimentary formations 

beneath the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area as unable to support large-scale 

commercial coal mining. 

 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-8 

5.1.1.3 Oil and Gas Production 

Regional oil and gas exploration, production, and pipeline construction could potentially 

generate cumulative impacts. Coal bed methane gas extraction removes natural gas from coal 

beds. This form of mining is common in the Powder River Basin located 80 km [50 mi] west of 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (see Figure 5.1-3). Because the Nebraska-South 

Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region does not contain commercially viable coal beds, no 

ongoing or planned coal bed methane production occurs within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the 

proposed site (Figure 5.1-3). 

The status of permitted oil and gas wells in Fall River and Custer Counties in South Dakota and 

Niobrara and Weston Counties in Wyoming is provided in Table 5.1-2. In Fall River County, 

11 oil wells are actively producing (SDDENR, 2012a). One producing oil well, one underground 

injection control (UIC) permitted well for salt water disposal, and six plugged and abandoned 

wells are located in the Cheyenne Bend oilfield 11 km [7 mi] southeast of the proposed site 

(Figure 5.1-3). The 10 remaining oil wells in production are located within the Edgemont, Porter 

Ranch, Igloo, and Alum Creek oilfields (Figure 5.1-3). The Edgemont, Porter Ranch, and Igloo 

oilfields are located immediately southwest of the city of Edgemont. The Alum Creek oilfield is 

located approximately 23 km [14 mi] southwest of Edgemont. All Fall River County producing 

wells are operating within the Minnelusa Formation at depths ranging from 1,081 m [3,547 ft] at 

the Alum Creek oilfield to 786 m [2,580 ft] at the Cheyenne Bend oilfield (SDDENR, 2012a). 

In Custer County, four oil wells are in active production (SDDENR, 2012a). All four producing 

wells are located at the Barker Dome oilfield located 6 km [4 mi] east of the proposed site 

(Figure 5.1-4). The Barker Dome oilfield also contains one UIC permitted well for salt water 

disposal, one well that has been converted to water supply, and 18 plugged and abandoned 

wells. Three of the producing oil wells at Barker Dome are located in the Minnelusa Formation 

at total depths of 423 to 433 m [1,387 to 1,420 ft]. The fourth producing well has a reported 

total depth of 588 m [1,928 ft] but a completion depth of 415 to 418 m [1,363 to 1.370 ft], which 

also targets the Minnelusa Formation (SDDENR, 2012a). 

Weston and Niobrara Counties in Wyoming contain many more completed oil and gas 

production wells than Fall River and Custer Counties (Table 5.1-2). The closest producing wells 

to the proposed project are in the Plum Canyon oilfield 5 km [3 mi] to the northwest in Niobrara 

County (Figure 5.1-4) (WYOGCC, 2012). The Plum Canyon oilfield contains 4 producing wells, 

which are all located in the Leo Sandstone of the Minnelusa Formation at depths ranging from 

approximately 785 to 823 m [2,575 to 2,700 ft]. The total depths of completed wells generally 

increase from east to west across Weston and Niobrara Counties. For example, within the 

Powder River Basin, which encompasses the southwestern part of Weston County and the 

northwestern part of Niobrara County, many completed wells reach total depths of more than 

1,981 m [6,500 ft] (WYOGCC, 2012). 

Demand for drilling permits for oil and gas exploration in the vicinity of the proposed project has 

been low. Since 2005, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

(SDDENR) has issued 16 permits for oil and gas exploration drilling in Fall River County and no 

permits in Custer County (SDDENR, 2012b). 

The potential effects of oil well drilling include the need to build temporary access roads to reach 

and construct 1.2-ha [3-ac] drill pads for each drill site (BLM, 2009a). The length of time 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-9 

Table 5.1-2. Status of Permitted Oil and Gas Wells in Fall River and Custer Counties, 

South Dakota, and Niobrara and Weston Counties, Wyoming 

County, State 

Number of 

Plugged and 

Abandoned 

Wells 

Number of 

Completed 

Wells 

Number of 

New Permits 

to Drill 

Permits 

Issued*

Fall River, South Dakota 342 11 2 396 

Custer, South Dakota 72 4 0 86 

Niobrara, Wyoming 1,661 383 21 2,281 

Weston, Wyoming 5,252 1,568 7 7,317 

Sources: SDDENR (2012a); WYOGCC (2012) 

*The “Permits Issued” category includes wells currently being drilled, wells never drilled, Underground Injection 

Control permitted wells, wells converted to water supply, dormant wells, and wells with expired permits 

required for drilling varies with the depth of each drillhole. Seven tracts of USFS-managed land 

are available for oil and gas leasing in Custer County in the vicinity of the project area (BLM, 

2009a). All the tracts are located within Township 6 South, Range 1 East immediately east of 

Dewey (see Figure 3.2-5). Two of the tracts (SDM79010BO and SDM79010BN) border the 

perimeter of the proposed project (Figure 5.1-4). If lease applications were filed and approved 

by USFS and if the leaseholders apply for SDDENR drilling permits, it is expected that 

exploratory drilling for oil would be conducted. 

5.1.1.4 Wind Power 

Because of the proximity of currently operating wind energy projects, the potential exists for the 

development of wind power facilities in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium 

Milling Region, and these facilities would contribute to meeting forecasted electric power 

demands. There are wind energy projects currently operating and under construction in 

South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska (see Table 5.1-3). South Dakota’s wind resource is 

882,412 megawatts (MW), which ranks 5th in the United States (AWEA, 2012b). Wyoming’s 

wind resource is 552,073 MW, which ranks 8th in the United States (AWEA, 2012c). Nebraska’s 

wind resource is 917,999 MW, which ranks 4th in the United States (AWEA, 2012a). The 

current online capacity of wind energy projects is 784 MW in South Dakota, 1,412 MW in 

Wyoming, and 337 MW in Nebraska (AWEA, 2012a–c). 

Wind projects in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska range in capacity from one turbine 

producing 0.1 MW to 105 turbines producing 210 MW (AWEA, 2012d). The wind power 

projects closest to the proposed Dewey-Burdock project site are 161 km [100 mi] to the 

west-southwest near Glenrock in Converse County, Wyoming. Wind power projects in 

Wyoming are located primarily in the southeastern part of the state (AWEA, 2012c). In 

South Dakota, wind power projects are located in the central and eastern parts of the state more 

than 241 km [150 mi] from the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (AWEA, 2012b). Wind power 

projects in Nebraska are located primarily in the north-central and eastern parts of the state and 

are also more than 241 km [150 mi] from the proposed Dewey-Burdock site (AWEA, 2012a). 

The Dewey-Burdock Wind Association, LLC is a landowner group formed to explore the 

possibility of a wind farm (referred to herein as the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project) on privately 

owned land within and surrounding the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site (Powertech, 

2010). Land designated as having potential for wind power electrical generation is shown in 

Figure 5.1-4. The Dewey-Burdock Wind Project is in the conceptual phase. 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-10 

Figure 5.1-4. Existing, Pending, and Future Projects Within and in the Vicinity of the 

Proposed Dewey-Burdock In-Situ Recovery Project 

 Source: Modified from Powertech (2010)

 

Table 5.1-3. Summary of Wind Energy in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska 

State 

Current Online 

Capacity (MW) 

Capacity Added 

in 2010 (MW) 

Wind Resource 

(MW at 80 m 

Hub Height) 

U.S. Wind 

Resource 

Rank 

South Dakota 784 396 882,412 5th

Wyoming 1,412 311 552,073 8th 

Nebraska 337 60 917,999 4th 

Source: AWEA, 2012a–c 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-11 

The development of wind energy projects in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium 

Milling Region is limited by availability of transmission lines to end users. Existing transmission 

capacity for wind-generated power is low, and there are no plans to expand existing or construct 

new transmission corridors in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

(AWEA, 2012d). 

5.1.1.5 Transportation Projects 

Dewey Conveyor Project 

In 2007, GCC Dacotah Inc. submitted an Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and 

Facilities on Federal Lands for the Dewey Conveyor Project. If constructed, the Dewey 

Conveyor Project will transport limestone mined from the Minnekahta Limestone to a rail 

load-out facility near Dewey, South Dakota (BLM, 2009a). The conveyor project lies north of the 

Dewey-Burdock Project area in portions of Township 5 South, Range 1 East, Section 36; 

Township 6 South, Range 1 East, Sections 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20; and 

Township 5 South, Range 2 East, Section 31 (Figure 5.1-4). The area proposed for limestone 

quarrying operations is several kilometers [miles] north, where the Minnekahta Limestone lies at 

or close to the ground surface (BLM, 2009a). The town of Dewey is located along the existing 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad transportation corridor. 

The proposed conveyor route crosses BLM-administered public lands, USFS-administered 

National Forest System land, and GCC Dacotah Inc.’s privately owned land (Figure 5.1-4). The 

project anticipates construction of an elevated, enclosed conveyor 10.6-km [6.6-mi] in length, a 

one-lane service road, and access points (BLM, 2009a). The elevated conveyor would be about 

5 m [16 ft] high and would provide a minimum vertical clearance of 2 m [6 ft] beneath the 

structure. Depending on terrain, structural supports would be required at intervals of 7.6 to 

12 m [25 to 40 ft]. BLM and USFS will evaluate the application and decide whether to approve 

it, grant GCC Dacotah Inc. a right-of-way (ROW) to allow the conveyor to cross federal lands, 

and issue a special use permit. BLM and USFS will decide whether stipulations or mitigation 

measures must be attached to the ROW grant and special use permit. 

Powder River Basin Expansion Project 

The Dakota Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad filed an application to construct the 

Powder River Basin (PRB) Expansion Project with the federal Surface Transportation Board 

(STB) in February 1998. The project seeks approval to construct and operate a new rail line 

and associated facilities in east-central Wyoming and southwest South Dakota (STB, 2001). If 

approved and completed, the project will add rail coal-hauling capacity and establish a 

dedicated, direct route to transport coal from the Powder River Basin to Midwest markets. 

DM&E’s proposed rail expansion will extend DM&E’s existing northern line near Wall, South 

Dakota, southwest to Edgemont, then northwest to Burdock, and finally west into Wyoming. 

The extension will add 418 km [260 mi] of rail line and connect the northern DM&E line to 

operating coal mines located south of Gillette, Wyoming (see Figure 5.1-5). The proposed rail 

expansion route is south of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site (see Figure 5.1-4). 

At this time, Canadian Pacific—DM&E’s parent company—has not yet decided whether to build 

the extension. The decision to build is contingent on several factors: (i) acquiring the 

necessary ROW to build the line, (ii) executing agreements with Powder River Basin mining 

companies for the right of DM&E to operate loading tracks and facilities, (iii) securing 

 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-12 

Figure 5.1-5. Map Showing Proposed New Rail Construction (Alternative C) for Dakota Minnesota and Eastern Railroad  Powder River Basin Expansion Project From Wall, South Dakota, West Into the Powder River Basin  of Wyoming  Source: Modified from STB (2001) 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-13 

contractual commitments from prospective coal shippers to ensure revenues from the proposed 

line are economical, and (iv) arranging financing for the project. 

5.1.1.6 Other Mining 

Gold mining is not extensive in South Dakota; however, gold is the leading mineral commodity 

by dollar value. Only Wharf Resources Inc. actively mines gold in the state, and it holds four 

permits for gold operations in the northern Black Hills (Holm, et al., 2008). Wharf Resources is 

the only company to report silver production, which is a byproduct of its gold recovery process. 

Sand and gravel are the major nonmetallic mineral commodities produced in South Dakota. 

Sand and gravel are quarried in every county in South Dakota, mainly for road construction 

projects. Limestone is quarried in the Black Hills, primarily for the production of cement for use 

in construction projects. 

5.1.1.7 Environmental Impact Statements as Indicators of Past, Present, and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Indicators of present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are draft and final EISs federal 

agencies prepare within a recent time period. Using information in GEIS Section 5.2.2 (NRC, 

2009a) and other publicly available information, several EISs were identified for the 

Nebraska-South Dakota Wyoming Uranium Milling Region (see Table 5.1-4). A majority of 

EISs in Table 5.1-4 are related to resource management actions in the Black Hills National 

Forest (BHNF) or associated management units. These EISs are for actions that are focused 

on improving natural resource conditions and reducing adverse impacts from various 

human-related activities. Three exceptions are the draft EIS that BLM prepared for the Dewey 

Conveyor Project (BLM, 2009a), the final programmatic EIS that BLM prepared for wind energy 

development on BLM-administered lands in the western United States (BLM, 2005), and the 

final EIS that the STB prepared for the DM&E proposal to build the PRB Rail Expansion Project 

(STB, 2001). 

5.1.2 Methodology 

In calculating and assessing potential cumulative impacts, the NRC staff developed a 

methodology that follows CEQ guidance (see NRC, 2009a and CEQ, 1997). 

1. Identify the potential environmental impacts of the federal action, and evaluate the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions for each resource area. Potential environmental impacts are 

discussed and analyzed in Chapter 4 of this SEIS. 

2. Identify the geographic scope for the analysis for each resource area. This scope will 

vary from resource area to resource area, depending on the geographic extent to which 

the potential impacts of the resource area could be at issue. 

3. Identify the timeframe for assessing cumulative impacts. The NRC staff use the period 

from 2009 to 2030 for identifying and assessing cumulative effects. The timeframe 

begins with NRC acceptance of the application for an NRC source material license to 

operate the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project in October 2009. The cumulative impact 

analysis timeframe ends in 2030, the date estimated for license termination after 

completion of the decommissioning period (see Figure 2.1-1). 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-14 

Table 5.1-4. Draft and Final National Environmental Policy Act Documents Related to 

 the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region 

November 19, 2001 Surface Transportation Board (STB), Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad 

Corporation Powder River Basin Expansion Project 

June 2005 U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Final Programmatic EIS on 

Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the 

Western United States 

June 3, 2005 U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Final EIS, Dean Project Area, Proposal 

To Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, Black Hills 

National Forest (BHNF), Bearlodge Ranger District, Sundance, 

Crook County, Wyoming (resource management) 

August 12, 2005 USFS, Final EIS, Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation and 

Management on the Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units, 

Implementation, Dawes, Sioux, Blaine, Cherry, Thomas Counties, 

NE, and Custer, Fall River, Jackson, Pennington, Jones, Lyman, 

Stanley Counties, South Dakota (resource management— 

prairie dog) 

October 28, 2005 National Park Service, Draft EIS, Badlands National Park/North Unit 

General Management Plan, Implementation, Jackson, Pennington, 

and Shananon Counties, South Dakota (resource management) 

November 20, 2005 USFS, Final EIS, Deerfield Project Area, Proposal To Implement 

Multiple Resource Management Actions, Mystic Ranger District, 

BHNF, Pennington County, South Dakota (resource management) 

November 25, 2005 USFS, Final EIS, Bugtown Gulch Mountain Pine Beetle and Fuels 

Projects, To Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, 

BHNF, Hell Canyon Ranger District, Custer County, South Dakota 

(resource management) 

October 31, 2005 USFS, Final EIS, Black Hills, National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan Phase II Amendment, Proposal To Amend the 

1997 Land and Resource Management Plan, Custer, Fall River, 

Lawrence, Meade, Pennington Counties, South Dakoa; Crook and 

Weston Counties, Wyoming (resource management) 

February 3, 2006 USFS, Final EIS, Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation and 

Management on the Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units, 

Implementation, Dawes, Sioux, Blaine, Cherry, Thomas Counties, 

Nebraska, and Custer, Fall River, Jackson, Pennington, Jones, 

Lyman, Stanley Counties, South Dakota (resource management—

prairie dog) 

May 12, 2006 USFS, Final SEIS, Dean Project Area, Proposal To Implement 

Multiple Resource Management Actions, New Information To 

Disclose Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Environmental Impacts, 

BHNF, Bearlodge Ranger District, Sundance, Crook County, 

Wyoming (resource management) 

June 1, 2007 USFS, Final EIS, Norwood Project, Proposal To Implement Multiple 

Resources Management Actions, BHNF, Hell Canyon Ranger 

District, Pennington County, South Dakota, and Weston, Crook 

Counties, Wyoming (resource management) 

 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-15 

Table 5.1-4. Draft and Final National Environmental Policy Act Documents Related to 

 the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Uranium Milling Region (Cont’d)

June 8, 2007 USFS, Draft EIS, Nebraska and South Dakota Black-Tailed Prairie 

Dog Management, To Manage Prairie Dog Colonies in an Adaptive 

Fashion, Nebraska National Forest and Associated Units, Including 

Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 3, Dawes, Sioux, 

Blaine Counties, Nebraska, and Custer, Fall River, Jackson, 

Pennington, Jones, Lyman, Stanley Counties, South Dakota 

(resource management—prairie dog) 

June 29, 2007 USFS, Final EIS, Mitchell Project Area, Proposal To Implement 

Multiple Resource Management Actions, Mystic Ranger District, 

BHNF, Pennington County, South Dakota (resource management) 

September 14, 2007 USFS, Final EIS, Citadel Project Area, Proposal To Implement 

Multiple Resource Management Actions, Northern Hills Ranger 

District, BHNF, Lawrence County, South Dakota 

(resource management) 

February 22, 2008 USFS, Draft EIS, Upper Spring Creek Project, Proposal To 

Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, Mystic Ranger 

District, BHNF, Pennington County, South Dakota 

(resource management) 

January 2009 USFS/BLM, Draft EIS, Dewey Conveyor Project, Whether or Not to 

Issue Special Use Permit For 6.6 Mile Conveyor Along Dewey Road 

and Limestone Claims Northeast of Dewey, Custer County, 

South Dakota 

May 7, 2010 USFS, Final EIS and Record of Decision, Black Hills National Forest 

Travel Management Plan, To Designate a Motorized Travel System, 

Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer, and Fall River Counties, 

South Dakota; and Crook and Weston Counties, Wyoming 

January 27, 2012 USFS, Final EA and Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant 

Impact, Southern Black Hills Water System Argyle Road Service 

Area Special Use Permit, Approve Occupancy of National Forest 

System Lands by Proponent to Provide Potable Water to Customers 

Along Arygle Road, BHNF Custer County, South Dakota 

December 10, 2012 USFS, Final EIS and Record of Decision, Mountain Pine Beetle 

Response Project, Black Hills National Forest, To Implement Multiple 

Resource Management Actions to Reduce Threat to Ecosystem 

Components, Including Forest Resources, from the Existing Insect 

and Disease (Mountain Pine Beetle) Epidemic and Help Protect 

Local Communities and Resources from Large Scale, Severe 

Wildfire, Lawrence, Meade, Pennington, Custer, and Fall River 

Counties, South Dakota; and Crook and Weston Counties, Wyoming 

(resource management) 

NRC source material licenses for ISR facilities are typically granted for a 10-year period. 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project has an estimated 17-year operational 

lifespan (see Figure 2.1-1). If NRC grants a source material license, the applicant must 

apply for license renewal before the initial license period expires to continue operations. 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-16 

4. Identify ongoing and prospective projects and activities that take place or may take place 

in the area surrounding the project site. These projects and activities are described in 

Section 5.1.1 of this chapter. 

5. Assess the cumulative impacts for each resource area from the proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives, and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. This analysis would take into account the environmental impacts of concern 

identified in Step 1 and the resource-area-specific geographic scope identified in Step 2. 

The following terms describe the level of cumulative impact: 

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

would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 

resource considered. 

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

destabilize, important attributes of the resource considered. 

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

destabilize important attributes of the resource considered. 

The NRC staff recognize that many aspects of the activities associated with the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project would have SMALL impacts on the affected resources. It is 

possible, however, that an impact that may be SMALL by itself, but could result in a 

MODERATE or LARGE cumulative impact when considered in combination with the impacts of 

other actions on the affected resource. Likewise, if a resource is regionally declining or 

imperiled, even a SMALL individual impact could be important if it contributes to or accelerates 

the overall resource decline. The NRC staff determined the appropriate level of analysis that 

was merited for each resource area potentially affected by the proposed action and 

alternatives. The level of analysis was determined by considering the impact level to that 

resource, as described in Chapter 4, as well as the likelihood that the quality, quantity, and 

stability of the given resource could be affected. 

Table 5.1-5 summarizes the cumulative impacts of the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project on 

environmental resources NRC staff identified and analyzed. The cumulative impacts are based 

on analyses the NRC staff conducted and take into account the other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities identified in SEIS Section 5.1.1. 

Table 5.1-5. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources 

Resource Category Cumulative Impacts Comment 

Land Use MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts to land use. 

Transportation MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts to transportation. 

 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-17 

Table 5.1-5. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources (Cont’d) 

Resource Category Cumulative Impacts Comment 

Geology and Soils MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts to geology and soils. 

Water Resources 

Surface Waters and 

Wetlands MODERATE to LARGE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE to LARGE 

cumulative impacts to surface waters 

and wetlands. 

Groundwater MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE cumulative 

impacts on groundwater. 

Ecological Resources 

Terrestrial Ecology MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to terrestrial 

ecological resources. 

Aquatic Ecology SMALL 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the SMALL 

cumulative impacts to aquatic 

ecological resources. 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact when 

added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts to threatened and 

endangered species. 

Air Quality SMALL to MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL to MODERATE incremental 

impact on air quality when added to the 

MODERATE cumulative impacts. 

Noise MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact on noise 

when added to the MODERATE 

cumulative impacts. 

 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-18 

Table 5.1-5. Cumulative Impacts on Environmental Resources (Cont’d) 

Resource Category Cumulative Impacts Comment 

Historic and Cultural 

Resources MODERATE to LARGE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL to LARGE incremental impact 

on historic and cultural resources when 

added to the MODERATE to LARGE 

cumulative impacts. 

Visual and Scenic 

Resources MODERATE to LARGE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact on visual 

and scenic resources when added to 

the MODERATE to LARGE cumulative 

impacts to the viewshed. 

Socioeconomics SMALL to MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL to MODERATE incremental 

impact on socioeconomic resources 

when added to the SMALL to 

MODERATE cumulative impacts. 

Environmental Justice SMALL 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact on 

environmental justice when added to 

the SMALL cumulative impacts. 

Public and Occupational 

Health and Safety SMALL 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact on public 

and occupational health when added to 

the SMALL cumulative impacts. 

Waste Management SMALL to MODERATE 

The proposed project will have a 

SMALL to MODERATE incremental 

impact on waste management when 

added to the SMALL to MODERATE 

cumulative impacts. 

5.2 Land Use 

NRC staff assessed cumulative impacts on land use within a 16-km [10-mi] radius of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project permit boundary, which includes parts of Custer and 

Fall River Counties, South Dakota, and Weston and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming. Land use 

impacts result from interruption to, reduction, or impedance of livestock grazing areas, open 

wildlife areas, and land access. The assessment of cumulative impacts on land use beyond 

16 km [10 mi] was not undertaken, because at this distance the impacts on land use from the 

proposed project will be minimal. The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative impacts is 2009 

to 2030, as described in SEIS Section 5.1.2. 

The majority of land within the 16-km [10-mi] radius of the proposed project is in private 

ownership; however, USFS manages tracts of forest, grassland, and recreational land in the 

vicinity (see Figures 5.1-1 and 5.1-4). The BHNF borders the project to the north and east, 

and the Buffalo Gap National Grassland is 4.8 km [3 mi] south of the project. USFS-managed 

lands provide recreational activities, including camping, hiking, fishing, and hunting. 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-19 

BLM-administered lands are distributed among other federal and private lands to the north, 

west, and south of the proposed project site. Cattle grazing is the predominant land use on 

both public and private rangeland. 

Short-term cumulative impacts from the loss of rangeland include a decrease in the area for 

foraging, temporary loss of animal unit months (AUMs), and temporary loss of water-related 

range improvements (e.g., improved springs, water pipelines, stock ponds). These impacts 

would be reduced after an area had been reclaimed. Long-term cumulative impacts result from 

the permanent loss of forage and forage/cropland productivity in un-reclaimed areas. Other 

impacts could include dispersal of noxious and invasive weed species both within and beyond 

areas where the surface had been disturbed, which reduces the area of desirable forage by 

livestock. The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will disturb 98 ha [243 ac] if Class V deep 

injection wells are used to dispose of liquid wastes or 566 ha [1,398 ac] if land application is 

used to dispose of liquid wastes (see SEIS Section 4.2.1). These amounts of land are small in 

comparison to the available grazing land within the land use study area {i.e., land within a 16-km 

[10-mi] radius of the proposed project site}. These amounts of land will also be fenced from 

grazing at different times over the life of the project. 

Past, ongoing, and future conventional uranium mines and ISR facilities in the vicinity of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and within the broader regional area are described in 

SEIS Section 5.1.1. The Crow Butte ISR facility lies 105 km [65 mi] to the south-southeast in 

Dawes County, Nebraska, and is the closest operational ISR facility to the Dewey-Burdock site. 

Three ISR expansion or satellite projects are in the planning or licensing stages in the 

immediate vicinity of the Crow Butte ISR facility (North Trend, Three Crow, and Marsland) (see 

SEIS Section 5.1.1.1). 

In the land use study area, the applicant has identified a potential ISR project at Dewey Terrace. 

The Dewey Terrace project would be located approximately 13 km [8 mi] west of the proposed 

project area in Weston and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming (Figure 5.1-3). If developed, the 

potential Dewey Terrace project will have impacts on land use (i.e., surface disturbances and 

fencing to restrict livestock grazing) within the land use study area. To assess the projected 

land area that will be affected by the development of the potential Dewey Terrace project, the 

NRC staff assumed that approximately the same area affected by the proposed action {98 to 

566 ha [243 to 1,398 ac]} will also apply to other potential ISR projects. Like the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, this amount of land area is small in comparison to the land use 

study area. 

Land disturbed by past conventional surface mining is present in the eastern part of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site, where abandoned open mine pits and mine waste overburden 

piles are found (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.1). Wellfields are planned within these areas (see 

Figure 3.2-3). If wellfields in the mine waste areas are constructed and operated, additional 

land disturbance and access restrictions will occur. 

 

Impacts on land use from oil and gas drilling include building temporary access roads and 

constructing 1.2-ha [3-ac] drill pads for each drill site (BLM, 2009a). There are no active oil- and 

gas-producing wells within the proposed Dewey-Burdock permit area. SEIS Section 3.2.3 

identifies three plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells in the Burdock portion of the site in 

Fall River County. There are few producing oil wells in the land use study area {i.e., within a 

16-km [10-mi] radius of the proposed Dewey-Burdock project area}. The Barker Dome oilfield 

in Custer County and the Plum Canyon oilfield in Weston County each have four producing oil 

wells (see Figures 5.1-3 and 5.1-4). The Cheyenne Bend oilfield in Fall River County has one 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-20 

producing oil well (see Figure 5.1-3). In addition, demand for oil and gas leasing in the vicinity 

of the proposed project is low (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.3). The majority of active oil and gas 

development in the region takes place on USFS-managed land (see Figure 5.1-3). This 

development occurs west and south of Edgemont and in the PRB, which is more than 80 km 

[50 mi] west of the proposed project (see Figure 5.1-3). 

Ongoing and proposed coal bed methane operations and wind energy operations in the region 

are located in the Powder River Basin west of the cumulative impacts land use study area (see 

SEIS Sections 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.4). Sedimentary formations hosting potential coal bed methane 

reserves are not present in the land use study area. The nearest existing wind power projects 

to the land use study area are located approximately 161 km [100 mi] to the west-southwest 

near Glenrock in Converse County, Wyoming. The potential Dewey-Burdock Wind Project 

is in the conceptual phase and would be located within and surrounding the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock site (Figure 5.1-4). If developed, the wind project will be constructed on ridges 

to exploit the best wind conditions rather than low areas where uranium deposits within and in 

the vicinity of the proposed project tend to be located (e.g., see Figure 4.5-1). Development of 

wind energy projects is generally compatible with other land uses, including livestock grazing, 

recreation, and oil and gas production activities (BLM, 2005). 

Two proposed transportation projects are within the cumulative impacts land use study area: the 

GCC Dacotah Inc.’s Dewey Conveyor Project and the DM&E PRB Expansion Project (see SEIS 

Section 5.1.1.5). 

Lands along the route of the Dewey Conveyor Project are owned by GCC Dacotah and private 

landowners or are public lands managed by BLM or USFS. About 16.2 ha [40 ac] of land 

disturbance will be created during the 1-year conveyor construction phase, resulting in 

temporary loss of forage. After construction, about 6.5 ha [16 ac] of land disturbance will 

remain, resulting in long-term losses in available forage. These long-term losses will be 

confined to the conveyor and maintenance road footprints. The conveyor will be designed to 

allow livestock and wildlife to freely cross beneath. Adequate signage will be posted to prevent 

potential trespass by GCC Dacotah employees, and GCC Dacotah employees will be trained 

regarding property boundaries. The conveyor project is designed so as not to interfere with the 

operation and maintenance of existing electric transmission and oil and gas distribution lines. In 

addition, changes in road easements and other infrastructure are not expected. (BLM, 2009a) 

 

The proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project will have a significant impact on use of private 

agricultural land by farmers and ranchers, grazing allotments leased by ranchers on federal 

lands, and mineral and mining rights on federal lands in western South Dakota and Wyoming. 

State-owned land and utility corridors are also expected to have impacts. Construction of the 

rail extension will involve direct and indirect takings of privately held land and the destruction of 

wells, windmills, corrals, fencing, outbuildings, irrigation systems, fire prevention and 

suppression systems, and other capital improvements. Access roads, hauling roads, and 

borrow pits will be built. DM&E will be required to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to 

private agricultural and ranch lands, federal lands, state lands, and utility corridors. DM&E will 

negotiate these mitigation measures with landowners and federal and state agencies. DM&E 

will be required to restore all federal, state, and privately held agricultural lands disturbed by the 

project to pre-construction conditions as promptly and fully as possible. (STB, 2001) 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on land use within the land use 

study area (i.e., Fall River, Custer, Weston, and Niobrara Counties) resulting from all past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. This finding is based on the 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-21 

assessment of existing and potential impacts on land use within the study area from the 

following actions: 

• Land disturbance from past conventional surface mining in the eastern portion of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site 

• Surface disturbance and restrictions on livestock grazing and recreational activities 

(e.g., hunting and off-road vehicle use) from development of potential ISR projects, such 

as the potential Dewey Terrace project 

• Land disturbance from development of the proposed Dewey Conveyor Project 

• Direct and indirect taking of privately held land tied to construction of the DM&E PRB 

Expansion Project, with resulting destruction of wells, windmills, corrals, fencing, 

outbuildings, irrigation systems, fire prevention and suppression systems, and other 

capital improvements 

Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected to have a 

significant impact on land use within the cumulative impacts study area. There are few 

producing oil wells within the study area, and demand for oil and gas leasing is low. Coal bed 

methane reserves are not present within the study area. Potential wind energy projects, such 

as the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, are generally compatible with the primary land uses in 

the study area, including livestock grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat conservation 

(BLM, 2005). 

The NRC staff conclude the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL 

incremental effect on land use after evaluating its effects and those of all the other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the land use study area. As discussed in 

SEIS Section 4.2.1, land use impacts related to the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

be SMALL for all stages of the project lifecycle. The estimated land disturbance of 98 to 566 ha 

[243 to 1,398 ac] for the proposed action is a small amount of land in comparison to the 

cumulative impacts study area. About this same amount of land will be fenced over the life of 

the proposed project to restrict livestock grazing and public access to the ISR facilities and to 

infrastructure, wellfields, and potential land application areas. Fencing around wellfields will be 

temporary. As wellfield production ends, fencing will be removed and the land reclaimed in 

accordance with applicable BLM and SDDENR requirements. At the end of operations, the 

applicant will decommission the site and restore the land to its previous use (with the possible 

exception of access roads that land owners may request to remain) in accordance with an 

NRC-approved decommissioning plan (see SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.5). 

5.3 Transportation 

Cumulative impacts on transportation systems of Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, 

and Weston and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming, were identified and evaluated. Local highways, 

existing county roads, and access roads were the focus of this analysis over the 2009–2030 

timeframe (see SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating life of the facility). 

As described in SEIS Section 4.3.1, the impacts to the principal access road to the 

Dewey-Burdock site (Dewey Road) and heavily traveled regional and local highways will be 

SMALL during all phases of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. As described in SEIS 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-22 

Section 4.3.1, daily traffic on Dewey Road will increase by 42 percent during the construction 

phase and by 24 percent during the operations phase of the proposed project. The increase in 

traffic will incrementally accelerate the degradation of the road surface, increase fugitive dust 

emissions, and increase the potential for traffic accidents and wildlife or livestock kills. 

Secondary access roads connecting Dewey Road with the proposed plant facilities and the 

plant facilities within the wellfields will also experience long-term transportation impacts. 

However, the transportation impacts to secondary access roads are not considered permanent, 

because the land will ultimately be returned to its natural condition when production and 

decommissioning are complete (Powertech, 2009b). 

In the cumulative impacts study area, transportation will be impacted by ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable future activities. These include impacts to livestock grazing, uranium 

exploration and mining, and oil and gas exploration and development. The many unimproved, 

two-track dirt roads and one lane gravel roads in the cumulative impacts transportation study 

area were constructed to access livestock grazing lands, to facilitate natural resource 

exploration and extraction, to provide access to recreational areas, and for off-road vehicle 

recreational activities. County roads in the transportation study area have intermittently 

provided access for uranium exploration and mining, as well as oil and gas exploration activities, 

since the mid-1970s. Reasonably foreseeable future uranium, oil, and gas exploration will result 

in additional trucks and heavy equipment using existing county roads. For example, 

the potential Dewey Terrace uranium project would be located 13 km [8 mi] west of the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area in Weston and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming (see SEIS 

Section 5.1.1.1). If developed, the Dewey Terrace project may contribute to additional traffic on 

Dewey Road from commuting workers, construction and operations deliveries, and yellowcake 

and byproduct transport. These future activities may require or benefit from the construction of 

new road surfaces or the improvement of existing county roads, including Dewey Road. 

As noted in SEIS Section 5.1.1, other reasonably foreseeable future projects, such as wind 

energy and transportation projects, contribute to the analysis of cumulative impacts. 

Wind energy projects will impact transportation on local roads; however, these impacts would be 

temporary. During the 1- to 2-year construction period for a wind energy project, the vehicles of 

100 to 150 workers and vehicles used to transport construction equipment, blades, turbine 

components, and other materials to the site will cause a relatively short-term increase in the use 

of local roadways. Shipments of materials, such as gravel, concrete, and water, are not 

expected to significantly affect local primary and secondary road networks. Shipments of 

overweight and/or oversized loads are expected to cause temporary disruptions on primary and 

secondary roads used to access construction sites. It is possible that local roads might require 

fortification of bridges and removal of obstructions to accommodate overweight and oversized 

shipments. Once completed, wind energy projects will require a relatively low number of 

workers to operate and maintain. For example, the operation and maintenance of a 

180-MWcapacity wind energy project with about 150 turbines will require 10 to 20 workers. 

Consequently, transportation activities will be limited to a small number of daily trips by pickup 

trucks, medium-duty vehicles, or personal vehicles. Shipments of large components required 

for equipment replacement in the event of major mechanical breakdowns are expected to be 

infrequent. Transportation activities during site decommissioning will be similar to those during 

construction but will involve a much smaller workforce. Heavy equipment will be required for 

dismantling turbines and towers, breaking up tower foundations, and regrading and recontouring 

the site. (BLM, 2005)
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-23 

The proposed Dewey Conveyor will not impact transportation on heavily traveled regional and 

local roadways but will temporarily impact transportation on Dewey Road. Dewey Road is the 

primary transportation corridor along the 10.6 km [6.6 mi] length of the proposed conveyor 

alignment (Figure 5.3-1). Dewey Road continues both north and south of the proposed 

conveyor project. The construction workforce for the conveyor project will come primarily from 

Hot Springs, Custer, and Edgemont and use Dewey Road to access the site from the south. 

Construction of the conveyor will involve approximately 50 workers and take 1 construction 

season. During construction, deliveries and commuting workers will increase traffic counts 

on Dewey Road between Edgemont and Dewey. Following construction, approximately 

12 workers will oversee quarrying, transport, and load-out operations related to the project. Due 

to the short duration of construction and relatively low number of workers needed to operate the 

conveyor operation, the proposed Dewey Conveyor Project is not expected to have a significant 

impact on transportation in the cumulative impacts study area. (BLM, 2009a) 

The proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project will have temporary impacts on transportation in 

western South Dakota and Wyoming. The project will require the construction of temporary 

roads to access the rail line ROW. In the cumulative impacts study area for transportation, the 

rail line will parallel the BNSF rail line from Edgemont to Burdock before turning west toward 

Wyoming (see Figure 5.1-4). Therefore, the project will have an impact on Dewey Road from 

commuting workers and deliveries of equipment and materials during construction of the rail 

line. DM&E has proposed mitigation measures as part of the proposed PRB Expansion Project 

to address potential adverse impacts to transportation. To the extent possible, DM&E will 

confine all project-related construction traffic to a temporary access road within the ROW or 

established public roads. Any temporary access roads constructed outside the rail line ROW 

will be removed and the land reclaimed upon completion of construction. As a result of road 

closures after construction and during operation of railyards, DM&E will provide or develop 

alternative access for the safe movement of farm and ranch equipment and livestock to fields 

and pastures. (STB, 2001) 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on transportation within the 

transportation study area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is MODERATE. Regional and local highways in the transportation study area have 

sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic of ongoing actions and increases in traffic from 

other reasonably foreseeable future actions. However, county roads will be impacted. County 

roads have been used to access uranium exploration and mining and oil and gas exploration 

activities in the transportation study area since the mid-1970s. Reasonably foreseeable future 

uranium, oil, and gas exploration and development in the transportation study area will result in 

additional trucks and heavy equipment using existing county roads. Construction and operation 

of potential wind energy and transportation projects will also impact county roads in the 

transportation study area. For example, the potential Dewey-Burdock Wind Project and the 

proposed Dewey Conveyor Project and DM&E PRB Expansion Project would utilize 

Dewey Road. Transportation impacts will be most significant during the construction phase of 

wind energy and transportation projects because construction activities involve more workers 

and deliveries of materials and equipment. 

The NRC staff have concluded that the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a 

SMALL incremental effect on transportation when considered with all the other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the transportation study area. As described in 

SEIS Section 4.3.1, increased vehicular traffic associated with the proposed 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-24 

Figure 5.3-1. Map Showing Location of Dewey Road and Pass Creek in Relation to the Proposed  Dewey Conveyor Project  Source: Modified From BLM (2009a) 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL impact. Because regional and local roadways 

have sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic associated with the proposed project, the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL incremental impact on regional and 

local roadways within the transportation study area. As described in SEIS Section 4.3.1, Dewey 

Road would experience an increase in daily traffic of 42 percent over current levels during the 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-25 

construction phase and a 24 percent increase in daily traffic during the operations phase of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Therefore, the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

will have a SMALL incremental impact on Dewey Road within the transportation study area. 

5.4 Geology and Soils 

Cumulative impacts on geology and soils within Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota, 

and Weston and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming, were identified and evaluated focusing on 

an area within a 16-km [10-mi] radius of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. This 

area was chosen for the assessment of potential cumulative impacts on geology and soils 

because the uranium mineralization at other potential uranium deposits within 16 km [10 mi] of 

the proposed site would be located in the same geologic unit (the Inyan Kara Group). The 

timeframe for the analysis is 2009 to 2030 (see SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating 

life of the facility). 

As assessed in SEIS Section 4.4.1, all phases of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will 

have a SMALL impact on geology and soils. The primary impacts on geology and soils will 

result from earthmoving activities. Earthmoving activities that might impact soils include the 

clearing of ground and topsoil and preparing surfaces for the Burdock central processing plant, 

Dewey satellite facility, header houses, access roads, drilling sites, and associated structures. 

Excavating and backfilling trenches for pipelines and cables, and preparing surfaces for 

potential land application of process-related liquid wastes, will also impact soils. Operations at 

the proposed site may produce spills of process fluids or chemical materials that may 

contaminate soils. Best management practices (BMPs) and required monitoring and mitigation, 

such as spill prevention and cleanup programs, will reduce these potential soil impacts. 

Subsurface impacts, such as subsidence and activation of nearby faults, will not occur at the 

proposed project site, because of the relatively small net withdrawal of fluids from production 

zone aquifers and because of the low pressures during operations relative to those needed to 

produce small earthquakes. As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.2, data from aquifer pumping 

tests indicated a hydraulic connection between the Lakota and Fall River Formations through 

the intervening Fuson Shale in the Burdock area resulting from unidentified structural features 

or old, unplugged exploration holes. A numerical groundwater model developed by the 

applicant using site-specific geologic and hydrologic information suggested that leakage through 

the Fuson Shale is caused by improperly installed wells or improperly abandoned exploration 

holes completed in the Fall River and Lakota Formations (Petrotek, 2012). 

Historical, present, and future natural resource development activities that relate to geology and 

soils in the geological and soil resources study area include stock grazing, uranium 

exploration/mining, and oil and gas exploration. Geologic formations hosting potential coal 

bed methane reserves are not present in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. 

Surface-disturbing activities related to uranium, oil, and gas exploration activities, such as 

construction of new access roads and drill pads, will have direct effects on geological resources. 

During construction of these roads and drill pads, direct impacts on geology will be limited to 

excavation and relocation of disturbed bedrock and unconsolidated surficial materials 

associated with surface disturbances. Impacts from these activities include loss of soil 

productivity due primarily to wind erosion, changes to soil structure from soil handling, sediment 

delivery to surface water resources (i.e., runoff), and compaction from equipment and livestock 

pressure. No geological mineral resources will be lost due to grazing. BMPs and reclamation 

and restoration of soils disturbed by historic livestock grazing and exploration activities will 

mitigate loss of soil and soil productivity. However, indirect long-term effects, such as 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-26 

cross-contamination of aquifers, may occur if boreholes associated with uranium, oil, and gas 

exploration are not properly abandoned. 

Geology and soil resources have been impacted by past conventional uranium mining in the 

eastern part of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, where abandoned open mine pits and mine 

waste overburden piles are found (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.1). Radiological conditions of soils in 

the areas of past conventional uranium mining are discussed in SEIS Section 3.12.1. There are 

underground mine workings associated with four former shallow underground uranium mines 

and two open pit adits (horizontal tunnels). The underground mines consist of declines 

(downward sloping ramps) ranging from 0 to 24 m [0 to 80 ft] below ground surface. The adits 

were driven into the sidewalls of the open pits. All of the underground workings were within 

sandstones of the Fall River Formation. At this time, there are no plans to reclaim or restore the 

abandoned open mine pits and mine waste overburden piles. 

Development of future ISR projects in the geological and soil resources study area, such as 

the potential Dewey Terrace project, will have impacts on geology and soils due to increased 

vehicle traffic, clearing of vegetated areas, soil salvage and redistribution, discharge of 

ISR-produced groundwater, and construction and maintenance of project facilities and 

infrastructure (e.g., roads, well pads, pipelines, industrial sites, and associated ancillary 

facilities). The NRC staff assume that development of future ISR projects within the cumulative 

impacts study area will be similar to the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, with similar potential for 

surface impacts to geology and soils. The construction and operation of the infrastructure for 

these future projects, however, will be subject to the same monitoring, mitigation, and response 

programs required to limit potential surface impacts (e.g., erosion and contamination from spills) 

as at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. With respect to compaction and surface 

subsidence, the groundwater will be from the same aquifers and at similar depths as those at 

Dewey-Burdock, with a small net withdrawal. BMPs and reclamation and restoration of 

disturbed areas will mitigate loss of soil and soil productivity associated with ISR activities. 

Salvaged and replaced soil will become viable soon after vegetation is established. 

Other reasonably foreseeable future activities in the vicinity of the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project site that may impact geological resources and soils include wind energy projects 

(see SEIS Section 5.1.1.4), and proposed transportation projects, such as the Dewey Conveyor 

Project and the DM&E PRB Expansion Project (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.5). 

Impacts to geological resources and soils from wind energy projects, such as the potential 

Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, include use of geologic resources (e.g., sand and gravel), 

activation of geologic hazards (e.g., landslides and rockfalls), and increased soil erosion. Sand 

and gravel and/or quarry stone will be needed for access roads. Concrete will be needed for 

buildings, substations, transformer pads, wind tower foundations, and other ancillary structures. 

These materials will be mined as close to the potential wind energy site as possible. Tower 

foundations will typically extend to depths of 12 m [40 ft] or less. The diameter of tower bases is 

generally 5 to 6 m [15 to 20 ft], depending on the turbine size. Construction activities can 

destabilize slopes if they are not conducted properly. Soil erosion will result from (i) ground 

surface disturbance to construct and install access roads, wind tower pads, staging areas, 

substations, underground cables, and other onsite structures; (ii) heavy equipment traffic; and 

(iii) surface runoff. Any impacts to geology and soils will be largely limited to the project site. 

Erosion controls that comply with county, state, and federal standards will be applied. 

Operators will identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce slope instability. 

Implementation of BMPs will limit the impacts from earthmoving activities. Foundations and 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-27 

trenches will be backfilled with originally excavated material, and excess excavation material will 

be stockpiled for use in reclamation activities. (BLM, 2005) 

The construction of the proposed Dewey Conveyor Project will have direct impacts on 

geological resources, although these will be limited to surface disturbances associated with 

excavation and relocation of disturbed bedrock and unconsolidated surficial materials along the 

various ROWs during construction. The surface disturbances resulting from construction of the 

conveyor will not result in any loss of known mineral resources. Approximately 16.2 ha [40 ac] 

of soils along the conveyor route will be directly impacted due to excavation and disturbance. 

These impacts would include loss of soil to wind and water erosion and decreased soil 

biological activity. Implementation of BMPs and revegetation of disturbed areas and stockpiled 

topsoil will minimize soil erosion. (BLM, 2009a) 

The proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project will have a significant impact on the geology and 

soils of western South Dakota and Wyoming. Along the route of the proposed rail line, geology 

and soils will be disturbed by increased traffic, clearing of vegetated areas, and soil salvage and 

redistribution. To limit the impacts, DM&E has proposed mitigation measures as part of the 

proposed PRB Expansion Project to address potential adverse impacts on geology and soils. 

DM&E will limit ground disturbance to only the areas necessary for project-related construction 

activities and will commence reclamation of disturbed areas as soon as practicable after 

project-related construction ends. During project-related earthmoving activities, DM&E will 

stockpile topsoil for application during reclamation to minimize erosion. DM&E will implement 

appropriate erosion control measures at stockpiles to prevent erosion. DM&E will be required to 

restore and revegetate soils disturbed by the project to pre-construction conditions as promptly 

and fully as possible. (STB, 2001) 

The NRC staff determined that the cumulative impact on geology and soils within the study area 

resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. 

Past conventional underground and open pit surface mining has impacted geology and soils in 

the eastern part of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site, where abandoned open pits and mine 

waste overburden piles are not reclaimed or restored. Surface-disturbing activities associated 

with ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future uranium and oil and gas exploration and 

development, wind energy, and transportation projects would have direct impacts on geology 

and soils. Direct impacts will result from increased traffic, clearing of vegetated areas, soil 

salvage and redistribution, and construction of project facilities and infrastructure. Indirect 

impacts, such as cross-contamination of aquifers, may also occur if boreholes associated with 

uranium and oil and gas exploration are not properly abandoned. 

The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL 

incremental effect on geology and soils when considered with all the other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area. As described in SEIS Section 4.4.1, 

limited areas of the proposed project site will be disturbed by construction, and implementation 

of BMPs will limit soil erosion and compaction. Systems and procedures will be in place to 

monitor and clean up soil contamination resulting from spills and leaks. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) will evaluate the suitability of deep geologic formations proposed for 

deep well disposal of liquid wastes prior to granting a Class V UIC deep injection well permit. 

The EPA UIC Class V permit will impose an upper limit to the allowable injection pressure and 

will not allow injection at or above the fracture pressure of the injection zone formations. In 

potential land application areas, the applicant will be required to routinely collect and monitor 

soils for contamination and comply with discharge limits for treated liquid wastes applied to 

irrigation areas. When production and aquifer restoration are complete at the proposed project, 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-28 

reclamation and decommissioning will return the site to preproduction conditions through return 

of topsoil, removal of contaminated soils, and reestablishment of vegetation. 

5.5 Water Resources 

The impact to surface and groundwater resources was evaluated within an 80-km [50-mi] radius 

of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (Figure 5.1-3). The 80-km [50-mi] radius for the 

water resources study area encompasses the watersheds, including the Beaver Creek, Upper 

Cheyenne, and Angostura Reservoir watersheds, that would be potentially impacted by past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (see Figure 3.5-1). The timeframe for the 

analysis is 2009 to 2030 (see Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating life of the facility). 

5.5.1 Surface Waters and Wetlands 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is located in the Beaver Creek and Pass Creek 

watersheds (see SEIS Section 3.5.1). Beaver Creek is a perennial stream, while Pass Creek is 

dry for most of the year. Both creeks have ephemeral tributaries that flow after snowmelt or 

heavy rains. Pass Creek joins Beaver Creek southwest of the project area. Beaver Creek flows 

into the Cheyenne River 4.8 km [3 mi] south of this confluence, which eventually flows into the 

Missouri River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) identified four jurisdictional 

wetlands within the proposed site (see SEIS Section 3.5.2). The jurisdictional sites were 

Beaver Creek, Pass Creek, and an ephemeral tributary to each. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.5.1.1, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act the applicant must obtain a permit 

from USACE for any activities that may potentially impact jurisdictional wetlands. Prior to 

operations, the applicant must obtain construction and industrial stormwater National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits from SDDENR. The NPDES permits will 

include plans and programs for spill prevention and cleanup, erosion control, and stormwater 

runoff control, which will mitigate the impacts to surface waters and wetlands. 

There are no operating ISR facilities located within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed site, which is 

the cumulative impacts surface water study area. Several abandoned open pits and overburden 

waste piles associated with past surface mining activities are located in the Burdock portion of 

the site (see SEIS Figure 3.2-3). Radiation surveys reveal that soils near old surface mines 

have higher than background radiation levels (see SEIS Section 3.12.1). Runoff from snowmelt 

and heavy rains may leach and transport contaminants from the waste piles associated with 

these mines to surface waters and wetlands in the Beaver Creek and Pass Creek watersheds 

(Powertech, 2009c). Water within the Beaver Creek watershed and Pass Creek watershed 

flows south into the Cheyenne River. The Cheyenne River empties into the Angostura 

Reservoir east of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as 

Superfund, has been used to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned legacy uranium mines in 

western Colorado and eastern Utah. EPA is authorized to implement Superfund. Superfund 

site identification, monitoring, and response activities in South Dakota would be coordinated 

through SDDENR. 

The potential Dewey Terrace ISR project in Weston and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming, would be 

located 13 km [8 mi] west of the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site. This potential future project 

would necessitate new roads, power lines, facilities construction, underground piping, and well 

drilling, all of which may have adverse impacts on surface waters and wetlands. As discussed 

previously for the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, potential impacts to surface waters and wetlands 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-29 

at the potential Dewey Terrace ISR project site would also be subject to mitigation through 

BMPs, required NPDES stormwater permits, and permits from USACE for any activities that 

may potentially disturb jurisdictional wetlands identified at the site. 

Surface water quality within the 80-km [50-mi] area of the proposed site may be impacted by 

conventional oil and gas development, rangeland grazing, wind energy projects, and 

transportation projects. Cattle grazing is a source of nonpoint pollution to streams and wetlands 

in the Beaver Creek and Pass Creek drainages. SEIS Section 3.5.1.1 describes Beaver Creek 

as impaired for all beneficial uses because of high total dissolved and suspended solids, high 

salinity, presence of fecal coliform, high conductivity levels, and high water temperature. A 

water quality data report points to livestock as the source of fecal coliform in Beaver Creek 

(SDDENR, 2008). Poor management of livestock grazing may restrict flow in intermittent 

streams such as Pass Creek due to erosion and sedimentation resulting from decreased 

vegetative cover in the drainage area. 

Oil wells within 80 km [50 mi] of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site are shown in 

Figure 5.1-3. As discussed in SEIS Section 5.1.1.3, no producing oil and gas wells are located 

within the proposed Dewey-Burdock permit boundary and, at present, there is low demand for 

oil and gas leasing within the project boundary and in its immediate vicinity. Within 80 km 

[50 mi] of the proposed project site, oil wells are clustered west of the site in Weston and 

Niobrara Counties, southwest of Edgemont in Fall River County, and east of the site at Barker 

Dome in Custer County. Impacts to surface waters and wetlands from oil and gas exploration 

activities will be from surface runoff as new access roads and drill pads are constructed. Runoff 

degrades surface water quality, causes erosion, and leads to siltation of streambeds 

and wetlands. 

Licensees must obtain construction and industrial NPDES permits from the Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) in Wyoming and SDDENR in South Dakota prior 

to conducting oil and gas exploration and production activities. NPDES permits include plans 

and programs for spill prevention and cleanup, erosion control, and stormwater runoff control. 

These plans and programs significantly mitigate the potential impacts to surface sediment load 

and turbidity from exploration activities. USACE Section 404 permits are also required for any 

disturbances in or near jurisdictional wetlands. Section 404 permits include provisions that must 

be followed to mitigate impacts when conducting activities in and near jurisdictional wetlands. 

Impacts to surface waters and wetlands from potential wind energy projects in the western 

United States, such as the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, may include changes in water quality 

and alteration of natural flow systems. The quality of surface water could be degraded by soil 

erosion and stormwater runoff from construction activities that disturb the ground surface, and 

by heavy equipment traffic. Surface water flow may be diverted by access road systems or 

stormwater control systems. Operation of a wind energy project uses very small amounts of 

water and results in virtually no discharges to surface water. Operators of these facilities 

implement stormwater management plans to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and 

prevent offsite migration of contaminated stormwater or increased soil erosion. (BLM, 2005) 

The proposed Dewey Conveyor Project is located principally within the Pass Creek drainage. 

Pass Creek and Hell Canyon merge near the southeast portion of the project area and flow 

southwest to the confluence of Beaver Creek (see Figure 5.3-1). The proposed conveyor 

project crosses several ephemeral tributaries within the Pass Creek drainage. Some sediment 

runoff from road and general construction activities associated with the 10.6-km [6.6-mi]-long 

conveyor is expected, and this could impact surface water bodies. Expected runoff 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-30 

contaminants will predominantly be in the form of suspended or dissolved solids and increases 

in turbidity. These impacts will be partially mitigated by the fact that many area streambeds in 

the vicinity of the project area are dry for most of the year. Runoff potential will also be 

mitigated by the implementation of BMPs for runoff control. (BLM, 2009a) 

The DM&E PRB Expansion Project will have a significant impact on surface water and 

wetlands, if completed. The new rail line will pass south of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site (see Figure 5.1-4), through the Beaver Creek and Pass Creek watersheds. DM&E 

has proposed mitigation measures to address potential adverse impacts on surface waters and 

wetlands within the PRB Expansion Project area. Before project-related construction could 

begin, DM&E must obtain all federal permits, including Clean Water Act Section 404 permits 

and USACE permits required for project-related alteration or encroachment of wetlands, 

streams, and rivers. In addition, DM&E must obtain NPDES permits for regulation of 

stormwater discharges to surface waters. DM&E will employ BMPs, such as silt screens and 

straw bale dikes, to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, runoff, and surface instability during 

project-related construction. These mitigation measures will minimize sedimentation into 

streams and wetlands. (STB, 2001) 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on surface water and wetlands 

within the surface water study area resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions is MODERATE to LARGE. Leaching and transport of contaminants from 

overburden waste piles associated with past conventional uranium mining in the eastern part of 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock site may impact surface waters and wetlands in the Beaver Creek 

and Pass Creek watersheds. Livestock grazing will continue to have the potential to degrade 

water quality in streams within the study area. Construction activities associated with other 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including uranium and oil and gas 

exploration and development, wind energy projects, and transportation projects, will have 

impacts on surface water and wetland resources. All of these actions will necessitate 

construction of new roads, power lines, facilities, and infrastructure, which could degrade water 

quality and alter natural surface water flow systems. 

 

The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project will have a SMALL 

incremental effect on surface water and wetlands when added to all other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the surface water study area. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.5.1, potential impacts to surface waters at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site will be 

mitigated through proper planning and design of facilities and infrastructure, the use of proper 

construction methods, and implementation of BMPs. Prior to initiating ISR operations at the 

proposed project, the applicant must also obtain a construction and industrial stormwater 

NPDES permit from SDDENR. The NPDES permit will include plans and programs for spill 

prevention and cleanup, erosion mitigation, and stormwater runoff control. In addition, to 

comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the applicant must obtain a permit from 

USACE for any activities that may potentially disturb the four jurisdictional wetlands identified 

within the proposed project area. 

5.5.2 Groundwater 

As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.3, ISR methods will be used to extract uranium from 

sandstone-hosted uranium orebodies in the Fall River and Lakota aquifers at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock site. The combined Fall River and Lakota aquifers are referred to as the 

Inyan Kara Group aquifer. Consumptive water use during construction at the Dewey-Burdock 

site will be generally limited to dust control, cement mixing, pump tests, delineation drilling, and 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-31 

well drilling and completion. The applicant estimated that groundwater consumption during the 

construction phase in the Dewey and Burdock areas will be 0.8 × 105

 m3 and 1.2 × 105 m3

[21.8 × 106

 and 30.6 × 106 gal], respectively (Powertech, 2010). Initially, water for construction 

activities will be withdrawn from existing wells in the Inyan Kara Group aquifer. The applicant’s 

estimated consumptive groundwater use during the construction phase is of the same 

magnitude as current withdrawals for domestic and livestock water use from the Inyan Kara 

Group aquifers within a 2-km [1.2-mi] radius of the proposed project (see Section 4.5.2.1.2.2). 

The applicant plans to install wells in the deeper Madison aquifer early in the construction 

phase, and once available, Madison water will become the primary water source for the 

construction, operation, and aquifer restoration phases (Powertech, 2010). 

Assessments of environmental impacts to groundwater resources at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.2. Impacts to groundwater are 

most likely to occur during the operations and aquifer restoration phases of the ISR facility’s 

lifecycle, but may occur during other phases. Potential groundwater impacts during the 

operations phase of the proposed project will be mitigated and reduced through implementation 

of leak detection and cleanup programs, mechanical integrity testing of wells, and adherence to 

EPA UIC permit requirements. During operations, the applicant commits to monitoring all 

domestic wells within 2 km [1.2 mi] of the wellfields and providing replacement wells to the well 

owners in the event of significant drawdown or degradation of water quality in these wells. The 

applicant’s excursion monitoring program will ensure the protection of water quality in aquifers 

underlying production zone aquifers. After uranium production and aquifer restoration are 

completed and groundwater withdrawals are terminated at the proposed project, groundwater 

levels will recover with time. Groundwater restoration will also restore impacted aquifers to 

acceptable water quality levels. The proposed injection zones for the UIC Class V deep 

disposal wells are the Deadwood Formation and the Minnelusa Formation. EPA will not 

authorize injection into the Class V deep disposal wells unless the permittee demonstrates the 

well is properly sited, such that confinement zones and proper well construction minimize the 

potential for migration of fluids outside of the approved injection zone. 

Rural population growth, oil and gas exploration development, and ISR uranium extraction are 

expected to contribute to the cumulative impact on groundwater resources within an 80-km 

[50-mi] radius of the Dewey-Burdock site. These activities create an increased demand for 

groundwater and have been the subject of the Black Hills Hydrology Study (USGS, 2010). The 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted this study during 1992–2002 to assess the quantity, 

quality, and distribution of groundwater in the Black Hills area of South Dakota and to evaluate 

alternatives for management of water resources in the area. This study is used by federal, 

state, and local government agencies to set water development policy and protect area 

groundwater resources. 

Groundwater in the Black Hills area of South Dakota is used for residential, municipal, industrial, 

and recreational purposes. Forty-five percent of the recent population growth in the Black Hills 

area of South Dakota has taken place in unincorporated areas without municipal water supply 

systems (Carter, et al., 2003). Population has grown mainly around Rapid City, but has 

occurred in rural areas in the southwestern Black Hills. Custer Highlands is a new housing 

development built approximately 16 km [10 mi] northeast of the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

site. Recent residential developments 19 to 24 km [12 to 15 mi] east of Dewey-Burdock include 

the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints facility (NRC, 2009c). The 

Southern Black Hills Water System has begun constructing a 24-km [15-mi] water transmission 

pipeline along Argyle Road northwest of Hot Springs, which will serve rural customers in 

south-central Custer County (USDA, 2012). The western extension of the pipeline will be 24 km 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-32 

[15 mi] east of the Dewey-Burdock site boundary. The pipeline will transmit water pumped 

from a Madison aquifer well near Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, 72 km [45 mi] east of the 

Dewey-Burdock site (Figure 5.1-3). The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is not expected 

to impact the Southern Black Hills Water System project because the pipeline and Madison 

aquifer well are upgradient of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site. 

The Madison aquifer is the most important regional aquifer supplying Rapid City, Edgemont, 

and numerous communities in southwestern South Dakota (see Figures 3.5-4 and 3.5-5). As 

described in SEIS Section 4.5.2, the applicant submitted an application for a water appropriation 

permit to SDDENR to pump groundwater from the Madison aquifer during ISR construction, 

operations, and aquifer restoration (Powertech, 2010). Edgemont is the closest community to 

the project site that obtains municipal water supply from the Madison aquifer. Edgemont lies 

21 km [13 mi] southeast of the Dewey-Burdock site, and it is expected that any impacts on 

groundwater levels in the Madison aquifer at a regional level from the proposed project will be 

SMALL (SEIS Section 4.5.2). The applicant’s excursion monitoring program described in SEIS 

Section 4.5.2.1.1.2 will ensure the protection of water quality in aquifers underlying the 

production zone. The Madison aquifer is separated from the Deadwood Formation, one of the 

proposed injection zones for the applicant’s UIC Class V deep disposal wells, by the Englewood 

Formation (see Figure 3.5-5). The Englewood Formation is expected to provide confinement 

above the proposed Deadwood Formation injection zone (Naus, et al., 2001). The Minnelusa 

Formation is the other proposed injection zone for the UIC Class V deep disposal wells. 

Confining units at the base of the Minnelusa Formation are expected to provide hydraulic 

separation between the Minnelusa Formation and the Madison aquifer. In some locations, these 

confining layers may be absent or provide ineffective confinement; this could enhance the 

hydraulic connection between the Minnelusa aquifer and the underlying Madison aquifer 

(Naus, et al., 2001). However, SDDENR concluded based on water levels in Minnelusa and 

Madison observation wells in the area that there is a significant difference in the potentiometric 

surfaces of the two aquifers, which suggests that the aquifers are hydraulically separated in the 

vicinity of the proposed project area (SDDENR, 2012c). Further, the UIC permit will not allow 

injection into the Class V deep disposal wells unless the permittee demonstrates the well are 

properly sited, such that confinement zones and proper well construction minimize the potential 

for migration of fluids outside of the approved injection zone. 

The USFS-managed J.H. Keith Cascade Springs aquatic recreational area where Cascade 

Springs is located is approximately 40 km [25 mi] east-southeast of the proposed project site. 

These springs discharge groundwater from the Madison and/or Minnelusa aquifers (Driscoll, 

et al., 2002). As described in SEIS Section 3.5.3.1, regional groundwater flow moves outward 

radially from the Black Hills, which results in a northeast to southwest regional flow direction in 

the vicinity of the proposed project site. Because the J.H. Keith Cascade Springs recreational 

area is located 40 km [25 mi] from the project site and is upgradient of the proposed project site 

with respect to regional groundwater flow, it is expected that estimated withdrawals of water 

from the Madison aquifer for operations and aquifer restoration and potential disposal of liquid 

wastes via deep Class V injection wells into the Minnelusa will have no impact on groundwater 

quantity and quality at Cascade Springs. The applicant’s excursion monitoring program will 

ensure the protection of water quality in aquifers underlying production zone aquifers. 

The former Black Hills Army Depot (BHAD) is approximately 14 miles south of the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The BHAD was established in 1942 and remained in continuous 

operation until 1967. It consisted of approximately 8,537 ha (21,095 ac) and was used to store, 

maintain, demilitarize, and issue conventional and chemical munitions. Three areas are 

associated with chemical munitions and chemical agent disposal: BG-1, BG-2, and the 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-33 

Chemical Plant Area (USACE, 2012). The most likely mechanism by which the Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project could affect contaminant migration at the former BHAD is by changing the 

groundwater gradients of the Inyan Kara aquifers during pumping to redirect groundwater 

toward the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. However, the Inyan Kara aquifers must first be 

contaminated with constituents from the former depot in order for such a change in groundwater 

gradients to be of any consequence. In 2012, USACE reported that chlorinated solvents and 

fuel residues were discovered in shallow groundwater samples from the BHAD; however, no 

groundwater contamination was discovered in the BG-1 and BG-2 areas (USACE, 2012). 

According to USACE, the Fall River aquifer is approximately 335 m (1,100 ft) deep at the former 

BHAD and is overlain by thick sequences of shales (USACE, 1992). Any surface contamination 

would be unlikely to penetrate such a thick shale sequence and contaminate the Fall River. 

Furthermore, the Fall River aquifer is artesian in this area (USACE, 1992). Therefore, if the 

overlying shales were perforated, water would move upward toward the ground surface, 

essentially preventing contamination from migrating downward into the aquifer. Considering the 

isolated nature of the Inyan Kara aquifers and the lack of significant groundwater contamination 

at the site, the NRC staff conclude that proposed operations at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

will have no impact on site conditions at the former BHAD. 

 

Within an 80-km [50-mi] radius of the proposed project, ongoing and planned ISR facilities, oil 

and gas exploration, wind energy projects, and transportation projects activities may contribute 

to impacts on groundwater resources. 

The applicant has identified a potential ISR project at Dewey Terrace in Wyoming (Powertech, 

2009b). The Dewey Terrace project would be located about 13 km [8 mi] west of the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area in Weston and Niobrara Counties, Wyoming (Figure 5.1-3). If 

future ISR operations occurred at Dewey Terrace, there would be uranium extraction from the 

same aquifer (i.e., the Inyan Kara aquifer) as the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The 

combined ISR projects may impact groundwater levels in the ore zone aquifer and impact the 

water quality of the ore zone aquifer at the two sites. Licensees of ISR facilities are required to 

implement excursion detection, control, mitigation, and remediation plans under NRC 

regulations to reduce the potential impact on groundwater quality and quantity. 

Impacts on groundwater resulting from the interaction of ISR activities and oil and gas 

exploration and production are not likely because these activities are conducted in 

stratigraphically separated aquifers. ISR activities at the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will take 

place in sandstone aquifers of the Fall River and Lakota aquifers at depths of 61 to 244 m 

[200 to 800 ft] (see SEIS Section 3.4.1.2). Oil and gas producing wells in Fall River and 

Custer Counties are located in the Minnelusa Formation at depths ranging from 415 to 1,081 m 

[1,363 to 3,547 ft] (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.3). In Wyoming, the producing wells closest to the 

project are in Niobrara County and are located in the Leo Sandstone of the Minnelusa 

Formation at depths ranging from approximately 785 to 823 m [2,575 to 2,700 ft] (see SEIS 

Section 5.1.1.3). The NRC-required excursion monitoring programs at ISR facilities will ensure 

that water quality in aquifers underlying production zone aquifers, including the Madison, 

Minnelusa, and Deadwood aquifers, would be protected. 

Deep well injection of process-related water is a disposal method ISR and oil production 

facilities use. For deep well disposal in South Dakota, the applicant must obtain UIC permits for 

the targeted deep aquifer from the EPA. The applicant has proposed injecting process-related 

effluents from the Dewey-Burdock Project into the Deadwood and Minnelusa Formations, below 

the Morrison Formation (see Figure 3.5-5), using Class V (nonhazardous) wells (Powertech, 

2010). EPA will evaluate the suitability of the proposed deep injection wells and would only 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-34 

grant a permit if the deep disposal practice is safe for public health and safety and will not 

impact potential underground sources of drinking water. To ensure water quality, the liquid 

waste injected via Class V wells into deep aquifers must not be classified as hazardous under 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and must be treated to meet NRC release 

standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D and K and Appendix B. 

 

Impacts to groundwater from potential wind energy projects in the western United States, such 

as the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, will not be significant. During construction, water is 

required for mixing of concrete and for dust control along access roads and other areas of 

disturbance around the turbines, but these uses will be temporary. Development and 

construction of wind energy projects will use BMPs to mitigate impacts to both groundwater and 

surface water. Once a wind energy project is operating, minimal quantities of water are needed. 

(BLM, 2005) 

Groundwater for the Dewey Conveyor Project will likely be used to suppress dust during road 

building and use activities, and for the construction of concrete foundation supports for the 

conveyor along its 10.6-km [6.6-mi] course. In addition, groundwater will be used for dust 

control/mitigation once the proposed quarry and conveyor are operational. This water demand 

will be supplied by one or more production wells (one at the quarry site and one at the rail 

load-out facility). The source for the supply well at the rail load-out facility will likely be 

developed in the Inyan Kara Group aquifer. This supply well will likely be used solely for dust 

suppression at the rail load-out area, and therefore the groundwater demand will be quite low, 

around 94.6 L/min [25 gpm] or less. (BLM, 2009a) 

The proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.5) will have an impact on 

groundwater. Groundwater will be used to suppress dust during rail and bridge construction 

activities. Once operational, the PRB Expansion Project will use negligible amounts of 

groundwater. Water demand during construction activities will be supplied by existing municipal 

and private wells. DM&E will ensure that any wells that may be affected by project-related 

construction or reconstruction activities are appropriately protected or capped to prevent well 

and groundwater contamination. If wells are located on private land, DM&E will secure 

permission from the landowner before undertaking any actions. (STB, 2001) 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on groundwater resources within the 

water resources study area resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is MODERATE. This finding is based on ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions that will (i) increase demand on the regional Madison aquifer, which is used for 

residential, municipal, and recreational purposes in the study area; (ii) impact groundwater 

quantity and quality in the Inyan Kara Group aquifer, which hosts uranium deposits surrounding 

the proposed Dewey-Burdock site; and (iii) potentially impact water quality in deep geologic 

formations that are used for deep disposal of liquid wastes. In addition, ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions will use groundwater for construction of concrete foundations and 

supports and for dust suppression during construction and operations activities, which will 

potentially impact water quantity in regional and local aquifers in the study area. 

The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL 

incremental effect on groundwater resources when added to all other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the groundwater study area. Based on the foregoing 

analysis, the potential impact of the proposed project on the existing and future use and quality 

of water for local and surrounding residential, municipal, and recreational purposes will be 

minimal. Impacts on groundwater resulting from interaction between ISR activities at the 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-35 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site and oil and gas production are unlikely because the ISR 

production zone aquifers are separated from underlying oil and gas bearing formations by 

hundreds to thousands of meters [hundreds to thousands of feet]. EPA permitting requirements 

will protect groundwater in aquifers used for deep well injection of process-related liquid 

effluents from the proposed action. The liquid waste injected via Class V wells into deep 

aquifers will have to be treated to meet NRC release standards in 10 CFR Part 20, Subparts D 

and K, and Appendix B. After uranium production and aquifer restoration are completed and 

groundwater withdrawals are terminated at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, 

groundwater levels will recover with time. Groundwater restoration will restore impacted 

aquifers at the proposed project to acceptable water quality levels. Therefore, the NRC staff 

conclude that the potential impact on groundwater resources from operating the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be SMALL (SEIS Section 4.5.2). 

5.6 Ecological Resources 

The cumulative impact to ecological resources was evaluated for the area within an 80-km 

[50-mi] radius surrounding the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The proposed project is 

located within the Great Plains physiographic province on the edge of the Black Hills uplift. The 

area under consideration includes the Sagebrush Steppe, Black Hills Foothills, Black Hills 

Plateau, and Black Hills core highland ecoregions. The timeframe for the analysis of cumulative 

impacts is 2009 to 2030 (see SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating life of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock project). Older data are considered where applicable to demonstrate 

historical trends. 

5.6.1 Terrestrial Ecology 

Activities occurring in the area of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project boundary include 

grazing and herd management, hunting, and uranium, oil, and gas exploration. There may be 

cumulative impacts to ecological resources, including both flora and fauna. These impacts 

include a reduction in wildlife habitat and forage productivity; modification of existing vegetative 

communities; and the potential spread of invasive species and noxious weed populations. 

Concerning wildlife, impacts may involve loss, alteration, or incremental fragmentation 

of habitat; displacement of and stresses on wildlife; modification of prey and predator 

communities; and direct or indirect mortalities. Land disturbance resulting from reasonably 

foreseeable future actions (e.g., potential wind farm and transportation projects discussed in 

Sections 5.1.1.4 and 5.1.1.5) in the ecological resources cumulative impacts study area will 

have small ecological impacts, individually, if mitigative measures are employed (BLM, 2005, 

2009a; STB, 2001). However, assuming that adjacent habitats for each disturbed parcel of land 

will be at, or near, carrying capacity, and considering there will be an unavoidable reduction or 

alteration of the habitats, development activities in the Black Hills Foothills and Sagebrush 

Steppe ecoregions could cumulatively reduce wildlife and plant populations and alter population 

structure. For some species that may require specific conditions for their habitats, future use 

will be strongly influenced by the quality and composition of the remaining habitats. 

Additionally, grasses and noxious weeds tend to replace sagebrush after disturbances. 

Loss and degradation of native sagebrush shrubland habitats has imperiled much of this 

ecosystem type as well as sagebrush-obligate species, including the Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus). Sage-grouse are found in the sagebrush shrubland habitats, and 

sagebrush is essential during all seasons and for every phase of their lifecycle (USGS, 2009). 

Most of the sagebrush lands in the region have been changed by land use, such as livestock 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-36 

grazing, agriculture, or resource extraction. These uses can influence habitats either directly or 

indirectly, and they can alter the disturbance regime by changing the frequency of fire (USGS, 

2009). The long-term viability of the sage-grouse rangewide continues to be at risk because of 

population declines related to habitat loss and degradation. Sage-grouse populations have 

declined overall from 1965 to 2007 with the greatest decline occurring before the mid-1980s. 

The total rangewide population decline is estimated at 45 to 80 percent from historic levels 

(Becker, et al., 2009). Populations have been declining at 2.0 percent per year from 1956 to 

2003 (Connelly, et al., 2011). Because of its spatial extent, oil and gas resource development is 

regarded as playing a major role in the decline of the sage-grouse species in the eastern portion 

of the species’ range (Becker, et al., 2009). Future oil and gas development is projected to 

cause a 7 to 19 percent decline in sage-grouse lek population counts throughout much of the 

current and historic range of the sage-grouse (Connelly, et al., 2011). As of this writing, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has designated the Greater sage-grouse a “candidate 

species” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). FWS will consider the bird on an annual 

basis for listing as a threatened or endangered species. The State of Wyoming is critical for 

sage-grouse as it currently contains 64 percent of all known sage-grouse habitat and more 

active leks than any other state (Doherty, et al., 2011). 

According to the South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks (SDGFP), there are no crucial big game 

habitats or migration corridors in the ecological resources study. However, the area does 

provide habitat for a variety of big game, including deer, antelope, turkeys, elk, and bighorn 

sheep. Destruction or alteration of portions of this habitat in conjunction with human 

disturbance associated with ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions could result in 

SMALL incremental impacts to herd animals. 

As discussed in SEIS Section 4.6.1, the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project has the potential to 

impact vegetation, small- to medium-sized mammals, reptiles, and a number of avian species. 

These species include raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds, upland game birds, and nongame birds 

known to occur as seasonal, migratory, or year-round residents. Impacts may occur to species 

during all phases of the proposed project and are expected to be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Potential SMALL to MODERATE impacts to avian species (e.g., habitat loss, fragmentation, 

noise disturbance) will also be likely to occur at other present and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions (e.g., oil and gas facilities, wind energy projects, and transportation projects; see SEIS 

Section 5.1.1) throughout the cumulative impacts study area and potentially impact other 

localized populations. Wind energy projects, such as the potential Dewey-Burdock Wind 

Project, have the potential to increase avian mortality resulting from bird and bat collisions, 

particularly in bird migration routes. BLM reported that the number of bird and bat collisions at 

wind energy projects is generally relatively small, when compared with collisions from other 

human-made structures (BLM, 2005). 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on terrestrial ecology within the 

ecological resources study area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions is MODERATE. This finding is based on habitat disturbance resulting from 

actions including (i) uranium and oil and gas exploration and development, (ii) potential ISR 

projects such as the Dewey Terrace ISR Project in Niobrara and Weston Counties in Wyoming, 

(iii) potential wind energy projects such as the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, and (iv) potential 

transportation projects such as the Dewey Conveyor Project and the DM&E PRB Expansion 

Project. Habitat disturbance associated with these actions will impact vegetation by promoting 

the spread of noxious weeds and fragmenting vegetative communities. Impacts to wildlife could 

include loss, alteration, or incremental fragmentation of habitat; displacement of and stresses on 

wildlife; and direct and indirect mortalities. 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-37 

The NRC staff concludes that the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project will have a SMALL 

incremental effect on terrestrial ecology when considered with all other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the ecological resources study area. The proposed action will 

disturb a maximum of 566 ha [1,398 ac] of habitat with most of the habitat disturbance 

consisting of scattered, confined drill sites for wells and potential land irrigation areas. These 

disturbances will not dramatically transform large expanses of habitat from their original 

character; therefore, no substantial long-term impact will generally be expected. Furthermore, 

the applicant will control and monitor potential land application areas to ensure observed 

impacts to soils and vegetation that could adversely affect flora and fauna are addressed. For 

vegetative species with specialized habitat requirements, future population viability will be 

strongly influenced by the quality and composition of the remaining habitat. Because the area 

of disturbed land will be a small percentage of the ecological resources study area, and 

because of stated mitigative measures the applicant has committed to as described in SEIS 

Section 4.6.1, impacts on vegetation from the proposed Dewey-Burdock project will have only a 

SMALL incremental impact when considered with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. Although sage-grouse have been present in Fall River County in the past, and 

although a potential habitat for sage-grouse exists, Greater sage-grouse are not reported within 

6.4 km [4 mi] of the proposed project boundary (SEIS Sections 3.6.3 and 4.6.1.1.1.2). Because 

NRC staff expect that similar habitat is present in the project area that FWS evaluated for the 

nearby Buffalo Gap National Grassland (see SEIS Sections 3.6.3 and 4.6.1.1.1.2) (Hodorff, 

2005), it is unlikely that optimum canopy coverage of sagebrush habitat is present to support 

breeding and wintering populations within the proposed project area. 

5.6.2 Aquatic Ecology 

As described in SEIS Sections 4.6.1.1, 4.6.1.2 and 4.6.1.3, because of the limited and 

ephemeral nature of surface water at the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project, the occurrence of 

aquatic species is also limited. No loss of aquatic habitat will result from planned construction 

activities or land application sites at the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project (Powertech, 2009a). 

In addition, no surface water will be diverted, no process water will be discharged into an 

aquatic habitat, and stormwater runoff will be managed through the NPDES permit (as 

discussed in SEIS Section 4.5.1.1.1.2). Therefore, during all phases of the proposed 

Dewey Burdock Project lifecycle, the potential impacts to aquatic species and habitats will 

be SMALL. 

The NRC staff determined that the cumulative impact on aquatic ecology resulting from all past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is SMALL. Cumulative impacts from oil and 

gas exploration and development, other ISR activities, wind energy projects, and transportation 

projects described in SEIS Section 5.1.1 will not affect the aquatic ecosystem across the 

ecological resources study area. This conclusion is based on the limited and ephemeral nature 

of surface water in and surrounding the study area. The Beaver Creek and Pass Creek 

systems are the main surface water drainages in the study area. As discussed previously, 

Beaver Creek does not support sensitive aquatic species and is impaired due to high dissolved 

and suspended solids, high salinity, and fecal coliform (SDDENR, 2008). Pass Creek, on the 

other hand, does not provide a year-round source of water sufficient to maintain a population of 

aquatic species. In addition, all proposed activities in the study area will employ BMPs and 

comply with federal and state water quality regulations, which will reduce impacts on 

aquatic ecology. 

The NRC staff have concluded that the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project will have a SMALL 

incremental effect on aquatic ecology when considered with all other past, present, and 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-38 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. This conclusion is based on the limited and 

ephemeral nature of Beaver Creek and Pass Creek and other surface water features on the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site, and on the existing impaired status of Beaver Creek. 

5.6.3 Protected Species 

As discussed in SEIS Sections 4.6.1.1.1.1.4 and 4.6.1.2.1, no federally listed species are 

present within the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project license area. Potentially suitable habitat 

for migrating whooping cranes exists where standing water is present, which will occur primarily 

along Beaver Creek and Pass Creek and their drainages, and old mine pits. Direct impacts 

from the proposed project are unlikely because whooping cranes are not known to breed in 

South Dakota; however, cumulative impacts from oil and gas exploration and development, 

other ISR activities, wind energy projects, and transportation projects described in SEIS 

Section 5.1.1 could distress migrating cranes. 

Rangewide, the long-term viability of the sage-grouse continues to be at risk because of 

population declines related to habitat loss and degradation. Because of its spatial extent, oil 

and gas resource development is regarded as playing a major role in the decline of the 

sage-grouse species in the eastern portion of species’ range (Becker, et al., 2009). Future oil 

and gas development is projected to cause a 7 to 19 percent decline in sage-grouse lek 

population counts throughout much of the current and historic range of the sage-grouse 

(Connelly, et al., 2011). 

 

Not including federally listed species, the NRC staff determined that the cumulative impact on 

protected species within the ecological resources study area resulting from all past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. Cumulative impacts to federally 

listed species would be SMALL. This finding is based on habitat disturbance to potential 

non-federal protected species resulting from actions described in SEIS Section 5.1.1 including 

(i) uranium and oil and gas exploration and development, (ii) potential ISR projects such as the 

Dewey Terrace ISR expansion project in Niobrara and Weston Counties in Wyoming, 

(iii) potential wind energy projects such as the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, and (iv) potential 

transportation projects such as the Dewey Conveyor Project and the DM&E PRB Expansion 

Project. Impacts to protected and threatened species from these actions could include loss, 

alteration, or incremental fragmentation of habitat; displacement of and stresses on species; 

and direct and indirect mortalities. 

The NRC staff have concluded that the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project will have a SMALL 

incremental effect on protected species when considered with all other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the study area. No federally listed protected species are 

present within the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project license area, and the proposed license 

area does not contain critical habitat for any protected species. Furthermore, habitat 

disturbance at the proposed project site will consist primarily of scattered, confined drill sites for 

wells and potential land irrigation areas that will not result in large expanses of habitat being 

dramatically transformed, lost, or degraded. 

5.7 Air Quality 

Cumulative impacts to air quality were assessed primarily for the portions of the 

Black Hills-Rapid City Intrastate Air Quality Control Region located within an 80-km [50-mi] 

radius of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. This area, hereafter called the air quality 

region of influence, covers the majority of Custer and Fall River Counties, the eastern portion 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-39 

of Pennington County (excluding Rapid City), and a very small portion of southwestern 

Lawrence County (see Figure 5.1.3). 

5.7.1 Non-Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

As described in Section 5.1.1, past, present, and foreseeable activities that may contribute to 

pollutant emissions include uranium exploration and extraction, oil and gas exploration and 

production, coal mining and coal bed methane operations, wind energy projects, the proposed 

Dewey Conveyor Project, and the proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project. Air pollutants 

emitted by these sources potentially have a cumulative impact within the region and include, but 

are not limited to, carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from internal combustion 

engines used at natural gas pipeline compressor stations; CO, NOx, particulates, sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from gasoline and diesel vehicle tailpipe 

emissions; dust generated by vehicle traffic on unpaved roads and agricultural activities; NO2

and particulate emissions from railroad locomotives; and air pollutants transported from 

emission sources located outside the region. The contribution of past and present activities will 

be addressed first. Then the analyses will examine the foreseeable activities. 

The past and present contributions of projects in the region that emit air pollutants are 

represented in the ambient air quality monitoring results described in SEIS Section 3.7.2. 

These monitoring results indicate the air quality is in attainment for all National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). Table 3.7-3 contains data primarily from Wind Cave National 

Park, the nearest ambient air quality monitoring station, and a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Class I site. This monitoring station was established in 2005 to determine air 

pollution background levels and whether the site was impacted by the long-range transport of air 

pollutants, such as pollution from the increase in oil and gas development in Colorado, 

Wyoming, and Montana (SDDENR, 2009). According to the South Dakota Ambient Air 

Monitoring Annual Network Plan (SDDENR, 2009), the annual PM10 concentrations at the Wind 

Cave site are the lowest in the state and the annual PM2.5 concentrations are some of the lowest 

in the state. The nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and SO2 annual concentrations are very low and are at 

the monitoring equipment’s detection limit (i.e., the ability of the equipment to detect the 

presence of a compound). The 8-hour average ozone levels at the Wind Cave station are 

similar to those at the state’s other monitoring sites and are below NAAQS. Since 2007, trends 

at the Wind Cave site, as well as some of the other monitoring sites, show decreasing ozone 

concentration levels. Ongoing ambient air monitoring, such as that conducted at Wind Cave 

National Park, provides an avenue to continually assess air quality from the cumulative 

emissions observed at a particular location. The air permitting process provides a mechanism 

for regulatory authorities such as SDDENR to protect air quality through permit conditions and 

restrictions. The permitting process, including the Prevention of Significant Deterioration, is 

described in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.6.1.1 and 3.7.2. 

Regional air modeling and other studies in the region of influence often focus on Wind Cave 

National Park, the Class I area located in Custer County about 46.7 km [29 mi] from the 

proposed site. As a Class I area, these analyses examine impacts to visibility. Visibility 

impairment occurs when the pollution in the air either scatters or absorbs the light. Both natural 

and man-made sources contribute air pollution which impairs visibility. Natural sources include 

windblown dust and smoke from fires. Man-made sources include electric utilities (i.e., power 

plants), industrial fuel burning, and motor vehicles. 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-40 

The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SDDENR, 2011) provided pollution emission inventories and modeling 

results and also indentified the sources of the pollutants that affect the visibility. The plan 

provided information based on 2002 actual emissions and 2018 projections. This plan identified 

sulfate, organic carbon, and nitrate as the major contributors to visibility impairment at Wind 

Cave National Park. The modeling indicates that only about 3 percent of the sulfur dioxide 

pollution affecting visibility at Wind Cave National Park comes from sources within South Dakota 

and at most, about 10 percent of the nitrogen dioxide pollution comes from sources within 

South Dakota. The state that contributes the most sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide pollution 

that affects visibility at this Class I area is Wyoming. The state that contributes the most organic 

carbon is South Dakota, with the predominant source coming from natural fires. The state that 

contributes the coarsest particulate matter is South Dakota, accounting for up to 45 percent of 

the total. However, between 60 and 71 percent of this coarse particulate matter is attributed to 

natural sources. 

BLM also evaluated potential long-range air impacts to the Wind Cave National Park from 

activities in Wyoming, specifically the Powder River Basin west of the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project. Emission sources for these activities included coal-related facilities (i.e., mines, 

power plants, railroads, conversion facilities), permitted sources in Wyoming and Montana, coal 

bed methane production sources, and miscellaneous (i.e., roads, urban areas, conventional oil 

and gas, noncoal power plants). Emissions were developed for base year 2004 (NO2, SO2, 

PM2.5, and PM10) and were projected for year 2020. For the Wind Cave site, year 2020 

projected impacts were well below NAAQS standards. All modeled NOx and SO2 levels were 

near or less than 1 percent of the NAAQS, and the highest PM level was about 12 percent of 

the NAAQS (BLM, 2009b). Visibility impacts were identified for the Wind Cave site. When 

comparing the year 2004 baseline case to the projected year 2020 impacts, the number of days 

with greater than a 10 percent change in visibility increases by 31 days per year. (BLM, 2009b) 

The analyses will now consider the various reasonably foreseeable future actions starting with 

the proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project. This project would impact air quality in eastern 

Wyoming and southwestern South Dakota. Mitigation measures have been recommended as 

part of the proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project to address potential adverse impacts to air 

quality. DM&E would be required to meet EPA emission standards for diesel-electric 

locomotives (40 CFR Part 92). To the extent practicable, DM&E would adopt fuel-saving 

practices, such as throttle modulation, dynamic braking, increased use of coasting trains, and 

shutting down locomotives when not in use for more than an hour, to reduce overall emissions 

during project-related operations. To minimize fugitive dust emissions during project-related 

construction activities, DM&E would implement fugitive dust suppression controls, such as 

spraying water, tarp covers for haul vehicles, and installation of wind barriers. (STB, 2001) 

The only ISR site listed in Table 5.1-1 that occurs within the entire Black Hills-Rapid City 

Intrastate Air Quality Control Region is the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. The 

Edgemont site associated with conventional uranium milling is within the air quality region of 

influence and currently serves as a UMTRCA Title II disposal site under DOE ownership. As 

described in SEIS Sections 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.3, coal mining and oil and gas well development 

activities within the air quality region of influence are minimal. 

None of the wind energy projects listed in Table 5.1-3 are within the air quality region of 

influence. The nearest existing wind power project is located about 161 km [100 mi] 

west-southwest in Converse County, Wyoming. As described in SEIS Section 5.1.1.4, a 

landowner group has organized to explore the possibility of a wind farm on privately owned land 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-41 

within and surrounding the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (see Figure 5.1-4). For wind 

energy projects, such as the potential Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, the construction phase 

would generate more air emissions than the operation phase (BLM, 2005). Multiple concurrent 

construction projects could contribute to regional pollutant emissions loads from construction 

and worker vehicle exhaust emissions. Localized incidences of fugitive dust along unpaved 

roads could occur if multiple construction projects occurred simultaneously. However, 

programmatic BMPs would include mitigation measures to reduce airborne dust at project sites. 

The dust emission contribution to cumulative impacts to regional air quality would be minimal, 

because they would be localized and temporary. Air emissions from vehicles involved in 

operational activities at wind energy projects would be minimal because of the small number of 

employees needed onsite at any one time (see SEIS Section 5.3). The small number of 

employees and associated trips during project operations would not have a noticeable effect on 

cumulative regional air quality (BLM, 2005). 

The proposed Dewey Conveyor Project has the potential to cumulatively impact air quality in the 

vicinity of the proposed project. The aboveground conveyor system would be fully enclosed, 

preventing material and most dust from escaping into the atmosphere. Fugitive dust would be 

monitored during construction and during the initial stages of operation using particulate dust 

collectors (PM10 and PM25 samplers). The State of South Dakota’s Air Quality permit requires 

this monitoring for various facilities associated with the conveyor project. The rail load-out 

facility located approximately 1.6 km [1 mi] from the northwestern boundary of the proposed 

project site would require an air quality permit from SDDENR, which would include requirements 

for minimizing dust generation by using air pollution control equipment and other applicable 

operational BMPs (BLM, 2009a). 

The NRC staff determined that the cumulative impact on air quality within the study area 

resulting from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. 

The current ambient air pollution concentrations relate to the air quality impacts from past and 

present actions. As described in SEIS Section 3.7.2, the area is classified as in attainment for 

each of the NAAQS pollutants. However, the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan and 

BLM regional analyses discussed in this SEIS section indicate that Wind Cave National Park 

does experience visibility impacts. 

Cumulative impacts on air quality include the incremental effects from the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project when added to the aggregate effects of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The NRC staff conclude in SEIS Section 4.7.1 that the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL to MODERATE effect on air quality. 

As stated in the preceding paragraph, NRC staff find that the impact on air quality within the 

study area resulting from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is 

MODERATE. When combining the Dewey-Burdock impacts with all other impacts from other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area, NRC staff conclude 

that the overall cumulative impact would be MODERATE. Comparing the total pollutant 

concentration (i.e., the modeling results for the project emissions when added to the 

background concentration levels) to the NAAQS is useful in making a cumulative impacts 

assessment. For the final AERMOD modeling run, the peak year total concentration for all of 

the pollutants are below the NAAQS. Due to short-term PM10 fugitive emissions, which are 

primarily generated from travel on unpaved roads, the proposed project impacts are considered 

MODERATE at times. However, the modeling shows that this impact is limited to the immediate 

vicinity where the fugitive emissions are generated. For the visibility analysis, the peak year 

project-specific results were below the contribution threshold, which indicates whether a source 

can be reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment. For the acid 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-42 

deposition analysis, combining the peak year project-specific modeling results with the 

measured values at Wind Cave National Park, and comparing these to the critical load, provides 

another type of cumulative impacts assessment. All of the combined acid deposition results are 

below the critical load. 

For information purposes, NRC staff has also presented the impact analyses using the PM10

modeling results that do not implement the AERMOD dry depletion option (i.e., the initial 

modeling run) and the staff has included the PM10 emissions in the CALPUFF visibility analysis. 

The NRC staff conclude in SEIS Section 4.7.1 that for analysis under these modeling 

assumptions and without additional considerations, the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project 

will have a LARGE effect on air quality. As stated preveiously, NRC staff determined that the 

impact on air quality within the study area resulting from other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. When combining the Dewey-Burdock impacts with 

all other impacts from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 

study area, NRC staff conclude that the overall cumulative impact will be LARGE. 

5.7.2 Global Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

NRC staff determined that a meaningful approach to address the cumulative impacts of 

greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, is to recognize that (i) such emissions 

contribute to climate change, (ii) climate change is best characterized as the result of numerous 

and varied sources, each of which might seem to make a relatively small addition to global 

atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, (iii) carbon footprint is a relevant factor in 

evaluating potential impacts of an alternative, and (iv) analysis may include both the proposed 

action’s contribution to atmospheric GHG levels and the potential effects of climate change to 

the proposed action. These concepts are more fully developed in Sutley (2010). 

GHG emissions are described in SEIS Sections 2.1.1.1.6.1.1, 3.7.2, and 4.7. As described in 

SEIS Section 4.7.1.1.2, the operation phase emissions bound the other phases in terms of 

carbon dioxide levels generated. However, the peak year carbon dioxide annual emission 

estimate (when all four phases occur simultaneously) of 38,621 metric tons [42,572 short tons] 

represents the highest amount of emissions the proposed action will generate in any one project 

year (see Table 2.1-6). Electrical consumption is the source that generates the most emissions 

followed by mobile sources and then the stationary sources. The mobile sources include 

equipment associated with the drilling activity with the primary contributor being the drill rig (IML, 

2013). As described throughout SEIS Section 4.7.1.2, NRC staff do not expect to see any 

appreciable difference in the overall greenhouse gas emission levels between the land disposal 

option and the deep well disposal option. 

As described in SEIS Section 3.7.2, South Dakota accounted for approximately 36.5 million 

metric tons [40.2 short tons] of gross carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions in 2005 and 

forecast levels of 39.1 and 46.6 million metric tons [43.1 and 51.4 short tons] in 2010 and 2020, 

respectively (Center for Climate Strategies, 2007). The 2005 total is reduced to 34.9 million 

metric tons [38.5 short tons] as a result of annual sequestration (removal) due to forestry and 

other land uses (Center for Climate Strategies, 2007). The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project peak year emission estimate of 38,621 metric tons [42,572 short tons] equates to less 

than 1 percent (0.11 percent) of the overall GHG emissions for South Dakota in 2005. The low 

level of GHG emissions from the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project relative to the state 

estimates provides the basis for the NRC staff conclusion that the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project would have a SMALL incremental impact on air quality in terms of GHG emissions 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-43 

when added to the MODERATE cumulative impacts anticipated from other GHG emissions from 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

NRC also examined the potential effect of climate change on the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project. While there is general agreement in the scientific community that some climate change 

is occurring, considerable uncertainty remains in the magnitude and direction of some of the 

changes, especially predicting trends in a specific geographic location. As described in SEIS 

Section 3.7.2, the recent report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program (GCRP) 

served as a source for climate change information (GCRP, 2009). From 1993 to 2008, the 

average temperature in the Great Plains increased by approximately 0.83 °C [1.5 °F] compared 

to the 1961 to 1979 baseline. South Dakota and the proposed Dewey-Burdock site are 

considered part of the Great Plains in this study. From 2010 to 2029, the average temperature 

in the Great Plains is projected to increase approximately 1.7 °C [3 °F] relative to the 1961 to 

1979 baseline. Although GCRP did not incrementally forecast a change in precipitation by 

decade, it did project a change in spring precipitation from the baseline period (1961 to 1979) to 

the next century (2080 to 2099). For the region of South Dakota where the proposed DeweyBurdock ISR Project would be located, GCRP forecasted a 10 to 15 percent increase in spring 

precipitation (GCRP, 2009). 

Based on the previous analyses, the overall effect of projected climate change on the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is SMALL. The predicted increases in temperature and 

precipitation over the project lifespan are small. Much of the activity associated with ISR milling 

occurs below ground, whereas the listed climate change parameters are associated with the 

surficial and atmospheric environments. The predicted increase in precipitation and subsequent 

infiltration into the groundwater could result in an increase in recharge to the aquifer in the 

future. This could affect the proposed project by increasing the volume of groundwater in the 

orebody and improving the effectiveness of the aquifer restoration process. Similarly, potential 

changes to the site environment and resources, such as ecology during the period when the 

proposed activities would be conducted, would not be sufficient to alter the environmental 

conditions at the proposed site in a manner that would change the magnitude of the 

environmental impacts from what has already been evaluated in this SEIS. 

5.8 Noise 

Cumulative impacts from noise were assessed within an 8-km [5-mi] radius of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. This area served as the cumulative assessment geographic 

boundary and was chosen because noise dissipates quickly from the source. GEIS 

Section 4.4.7 stated that sound levels as high as 132 dBA will taper to the lower limit of human 

hearing (20 dBA) at a distance of 6 km [3.7 mi] in this region, so a larger 8-km [5-mi] study area 

will be appropriate to evaluate potential cumulative impacts on noise (NRC, 2009a). The 

timeframe for the analysis is 2009 to 2030 (see SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating 

life of the facility). 

Noise associated with the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project includes the operation of 

equipment such as trucks, bulldozers, and compressors; traffic due to commuting workers or 

material/waste shipments; and wellfield, central processing plant, and satellite facility activities 

and equipment. Other noises would include traffic noise from nearby roads and railroads. As 

detailed in SEIS Section 4.8.1, noise impacts to onsite and offsite residential and wildlife 

receptors and onsite workers from ISR activities at the proposed project would be SMALL for all 

stages of the project lifecycle. 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-44 

Present and reasonably foreseeable future noise-generating activities in the vicinity of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project would primarily be from operating heavy equipment and 

traffic noise associated with (i) uranium and oil and gas exploration and development, (ii) wind 

energy projects, and (iii) transportation projects. 

Oil and gas operations generate noise during construction, well drilling, and operation of 

compressor stations. However, noise levels from these activities are reduced to ambient levels 

at distances of approximately 488 m [1,600 ft] (BLM, 2003). Noise-related impacts are generally 

limited to the 610 m [2,000 ft] immediately surrounding each discrete source (e.g., drill rig, 

compressor station). Within the cumulative impacts from noise study area, there are four 

producing oil wells at the Barker Dome oilfield 6 km [4 mi] east of the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

site and another four producing oil wells at the Plum Canyon oilfield 5 km [3 mi] northwest of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site (see Figure 5.1-4). As described in SEIS Section 5.1.1.1, 

demand for oil and gas leasing in the vicinity surrounding the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

project area is low and the level of oil and gas exploration and development is not anticipated to 

increase significantly in the foreseeable future. 

At this time, no future ISR projects have been identified within the cumulative noise impacts 

study area {i.e., within a 8-km [5-mi] radius of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site}. The applicant 

has identified a potential ISR project at Dewey Terrace located 13 km [8 mi] west of the 

Dewey-Burdock site (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.1). If developed, Dewey Road may be used to 

access the potential Dewey Terrace project from Edgemont, which is the nearest community to 

the south. Therefore, the potential Dewey Terrace project may contribute to noise within the 

study area from additional traffic on Dewey Road from commuting workers, construction and 

operations deliveries, and yellowcake and byproduct transport. 

 

Construction of a wind energy project, such as the potential Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, will 

produce noise from activities including access road construction, grading, drilling and blasting 

(for tower foundations), construction of ancillary structures, cleanup, and revegetation. In 

general, construction activities will last for a short period (e.g., 1 to 2 years) and will occur during 

the day; accordingly, their potential impacts will be temporary and intermittent in nature. Noise 

generated by turbines, substations, transmission lines, and maintenance activities during the 

operational phase of a wind energy project will approach typical background levels for rural 

areas at distances of 610 m [2,000 ft] or less. Like construction activities, decommissioning 

activities will occur during the day and would last for a short period compared with wind turbine 

operation, and therefore the potential impacts will be temporary and intermittent in nature. 

(BLM, 2005) 

Noise sources associated with the proposed Dewey Conveyor Project include the conveyor, 

conveyor drive motors, locomotives, and diesel-powered loaders. Noise levels from the 

proposed Dewey Conveyor Project are predicted to be below the EPA guideline of 55 dBA 

within 21 m [70 ft] from the conveyor drive motors and below the estimated existing 40 dBA 

within 111 m [365 ft] from the conveyor drive motors. Noise levels due to the rail load-out are 

predicted to meet the EPA guidelines of 55 dBA within 320 m [1,050 ft] from equipment and 

meet the existing ambient 40 dBA within 1,288 m [4,225 ft] from equipment. Mitigation 

measures the conveyor operator, GCC Dacotah, proposes to reduce noise impacts include 

installing high-grade mufflers on diesel-powered equipment, combining noisy operations to 

occur for short durations, and limiting rail loading to daytime hours. (BLM, 2009a) 

The proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project will have a significant impact on noise in western 

South Dakota and Wyoming. Noise will be produced by heavy equipment use and vehicular 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-45 

traffic during construction and by locomotive engine and wheel/rail noise during rail line 

operations. DM&E has proposed mitigation measures as part of the proposed expansion 

project to address potential adverse impacts on noise. DM&E will maintain project-related 

construction and maintenance vehicles in good working condition with properly functioning 

mufflers to control noise. DM&E will comply with Federal Railroad Administration regulations 

(49 CFR Part 210) for decibel limits for train operations. DM&E will mitigate train wayside noise 

(locomotive engine and wheel/rail noise) for noise-sensitive receptors along project-related new 

rail line construction to within 70 dBA. To minimize noise, DM&E will properly maintain rails and 

regularly service locomotives, keeping mufflers in good working order to control noise. 

(STB, 2001) 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on noise within the noise study area 

resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE. 

Operation of reasonably foreseeable future actions, such as the Dewey Conveyor Project and 

DM&E PRB Expansion Project, would have significant noise impacts within the cumulative 

impacts study area. Noise associated with operation of the conveyor project will include the 

conveyor, conveyor drive motors, locomotives, and diesel-powered loaders. Locomotive engine 

and wheel/rail noise will have long-term noise impacts during operation of the DM&E rail line 

project. In addition, the potential Dewey Terrace ISR project may contribute to noise along 

Dewey Road from commuting workers, equipment and materials deliveries, and yellowcake and 

byproduct transport. Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions are not expected 

to have a significant impact on noise within the cumulative impacts study area. There are only 

eight producing oil wells within the study area, and demand for oil and gas leasing is low. Coal 

bed methane reserves are not present within the study area. Potential wind energy projects, 

such as the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, are generally compatible with the primary land uses 

in the study area, including livestock grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat conservation (BLM, 

2005). During operation of a wind energy project, noise generated by turbines, substations, 

transmission lines, and maintenance activities will approach typical background levels for rural 

areas at distances of 610 m [2,000 ft] or less (BLM, 2005). 

The NRC staff have concluded that the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project would have a 

SMALL incremental effect on noise when considered with all other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions in the noise study area. There are few sensitive noise receptors 

(e.g., residences, communities) in the cumulative impacts noise study area. As described in 

SEIS Section 4.8.1, noise generated by construction and operational activities at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will dissipate or be reduced by mitigation measures before reaching 

onsite and offsite residential and sensitive wildlife receptors. Additionally, noise levels will be 

mitigated by administrative and engineering controls to maintain noise levels in work areas 

below Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulatory limits. 

5.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 

Cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources were assessed within a 16-km [10-mi] 

radius of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. This area delineates the geographic 

boundary utilized for the cumulative analysis of historic and cultural resources and will be 

collectively referred to as the “historic and cultural resources study area.” The assessment of 

cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources beyond 16 km [10 mi] was not undertaken 

because at this distance the impacts on historic and cultural resources from the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project on other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

will be minimal. The timeframe for the analysis is 2009 to 2030 (see SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-46 

estimated operating life of the facility). In 2009, the applicant submitted a license application to 

NRC; year 2030 represents the license termination at the end of the decommissioning period. 

Potential impacts to cultural and historic resources could result from energy development, 

erosion, and grazing activities. These impacts would result primarily from the loss or damage to 

historical, cultural, and archaeological resources, but also from temporary restrictions on access 

to these resources. Applicants for ISR facilities would conduct appropriate historic and cultural 

resource surveys as part of prelicense application activities. Impacts to cultural resources are 

often minimized for projects located on federal or tribal lands or that are part of a federal action, 

because such projects are subject to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the 

Section 106 consultation process, and other applicable statutes. 

Cultural resources may be affected indirectly by the consequences of nearby projects, such as 

erosion, destabilization of land surfaces, increased area access, and increased vibration from 

locomotive and heavy truck traffic. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.9, the impact of the 

proposed ISR project on historic and cultural resources in the Dewey-Burdock project area has 

been categorized as SMALL to LARGE, depending on the phase of the facility lifecycle. 

The analysis of cumulative impacts on historic and cultural resources at the proposed project 

focused on identification and the assessment and implementation of mitigative measures to 

protect resources within the area of potential effect (APE). As described in SEIS Section 3.9, 

the APE is defined as the area that may be directly or indirectly impacted by construction, 

operations, aquifer restoration, and decommissioning activities associated with the proposed 

action. As described in SEIS Section 4.9.1, archaeological field investigations identified 18 

historic sites within the proposed project area that are listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) or are eligible for listing in the NRHP. As further described in SEIS 

Section 4.9.1, tribal cultural surveys recommended 17 known archaeological sites and 12 

newly discovered cultural sites as eligible for listing in the NRHP. Mitigation measures that will 

be implemented to protect NRHP-eligible sites are described in SEIS Section 4.9.1. 

The applicant stated that site avoidance is the goal during development and production of the 

proposed project (Powertech, 2009a, Section 3.8.1). Sites in areas of activity where ground 

disturbance is planned will be fenced to avoid accidental disturbance. Furthermore, personnel 

will be made aware of the presence of sites prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities 

(Powertech, 2009a). If it is determined that NRHP-eligible sites described in SEIS Section 4.9.1 

cannot be avoided, then treatment plans will require that the applicant complete mitigation prior 

to construction. Treatment plans will be established following the development of an agreement 

between the applicant, NRC, South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office (SD SHPO), 

interested federal and state agencies (e.g., BLM and EPA), and interested Native 

American tribes. As described in SEIS Section 4.9.1, if historical or cultural resources are 

encountered during ISR activities, the applicant is required by license condition to stop work 

(NRC, 2013; License Condition 9.8). The discovered artifacts will be inventoried and evaluated 

in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. Work will not restart without authorization from the NRC, 

SD SHPO, and BLM to proceed. 

The rock art sites in Craven Canyon are the most significant cultural resource that has been 

identified in the vicinity of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Craven Canyon is located 

approximately 10 km [6 mi] east of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project boundary (see 

Figure 5.1-4). The rock art in Craven Canyon consists of both petroglyphs, the oldest form of 

rock art, and pictographs. Recently, there have been increased prohibitions on the extraction of 

uranium and other minerals in the Craven Canyon area, which is designed to protect cultural 

resources such as rock art. 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-47 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have the potential for cumulative 

effects on historic and cultural resources identified in the cumulative impacts study area include 

uranium exploration and extraction, oil and gas exploration, wind energy projects (e.g., the 

Dewey-Burdock Wind Project), and transportation projects (e.g., the proposed Dewey 

Conveyor Project and the proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project) (see SEIS Sections 5.1.1.1 

through 5.1.1.5). 

Uranium extraction, and oil and gas exploration and drilling have occurred in the cumulative 

impacts study area, and additional drilling is likely to occur in the future. In the case of oil and 

gas exploration, areas have been proposed for lease sales, but neither applications nor permits 

to drill have been filed to date (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.3). Activities associated with exploration 

drilling will include access road and drill pad construction. All access roads and drill sites 

proposed for any type of exploration drilling will need to be surveyed for historic and cultural 

resources. Surveys by professional archaeologists and cultural specialists to identify and 

evaluate NRHP eligibility prior to project construction activities will need to be conducted. In 

addition, identification of properties of importance to Native American tribes will also need to be 

undertaken as part of consultation. If NRHP-eligible sites are found, appropriate levels of 

evaluation and mitigation will be required prior to construction. 

One project that may have a cumulative impact on historic and cultural resources in the vicinity 

of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project is the potential Dewey Terrace ISR project. As 

with the current proposed project, the potential Dewey Terrace ISR project will be surveyed for 

historic and cultural resources prior to licensing and, if NRHP-eligible sites are indentified, 

appropriate levels of evaluation and mitigation will be required. 

Surface-disturbing activities from wind energy developments, such as the potential 

Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, could uncover and destroy cultural resources. However, the 

development and implementation of programmatic agreements and BMPs will limit the potential 

impacts at a wind energy project site. For example, a cultural resources management plan will 

be developed to determine the mitigation activities needed for cultural resources found at a site. 

Avoidance of the historic and cultural resources will be the preferred mitigation option. Other 

mitigation options will include archaeological surveys and excavation (as warranted), 

monitoring, and inadvertent discovery procedures. The programmatic agreements and BMPs 

will also require consultation under NHPA Section 106, including consultation with SD SHPO 

and Native American tribes. The implementation of agreements and BMPs would greatly limit 

impacts from wind energy projects on cultural resources, which are expected to be mainly 

archaeological sites. However, impacts to cultural resources with a visual component 

(i.e., sacred landscapes) may occur. (BLM, 2005) 

As described in SEIS Section 5.1.1.5, the proposed GCC Dacotah Inc. Dewey Conveyor Project 

would use an elevated, enclosed conveyor to transport limestone quarried from the Minnekahta 

Limestone to a rail load out facility near Dewey, South Dakota (see Figure 5.3-1). GCC 

Dacotah Inc. controls minerals rights to areas of potential limestone exploitation north of the 

proposed conveyor, where the Minnekahta Limestone lies at or near the ground surface (BLM, 

2009a). These mineral rights are controlled either by ownership or leasing of private lands, or 

have been acquired by the staking of claims on lands underlain by federally held mineral rights. 

To date, the location of quarrying operations has not been finalized. However, federal mineral 

lands acquired by GCC Dacotah Inc. for potential limestone mining have been previously 

surveyed for cultural resources and over 60 sites were identified (Buechler, 1999; Sundstrom, 

1999; Winham, et al., 2001). It is expected that many sites would be impacted during quarrying 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-48 

activities. Therefore, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that identified cultural 

resource sites are avoided and protected during quarrying operations (BLM, 2009a). 

NRHP-eligible historic or cultural resource sites have not been identified along the proposed 

Dewey Conveyor Project route or within a 30-m [100-ft]-wide buffer zone on either side of the 

proposed construction zone (see Figure 5.3-1). However, the implementation of alternatives for 

the proposed Dewey Conveyor Project will result in direct impacts to NRHP-eligible properties. 

To address these impacts, the following mitigation measures have been proposed: (i) GCC 

Dacotah Inc. will make a reasonable effort to design the project in a manner to avoid 

NRHP-eligible properties; (ii) unless authorized by BLM, USFS, and SD SHPO, no surface 

disturbance will occur within 30 m [100 ft] of the boundary of identified NRHP-eligible properties; 

and (iii) unless authorized by BLM, USFS, and SD SHPO, no surface disturbance will occur 

within 30 m [100 ft] of the boundary of 14 unevaluated sites and until their NRHP eligibility has 

been determined. GCC Dacotah Inc. has also indicated that measures will be taken to ensure 

that even those sites that are not NRHP-eligible will be avoided and protected, wherever 

possible. (BLM, 2009a) 

The proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project will have a significant impact on cultural and 

historical resources. The project area has a long history of human occupation. Known sites of 

archaeological and historical significance occur throughout the area. The Department of 

Transportation Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) identified 408 cultural resources sites 

within 0.6 km [1.0 mi] of Alternative C for the proposed DM&E project (see Figure 5.1-5). Of 

these, 96 sites were in South Dakota and 312 were in Wyoming. Within 0.6 km [1.0 mi] of an 

alternate route (Alternative B) for the proposed project, SEA identified 298 cultural resources 

sites, 70 in South Dakota and 228 in Wyoming. SEA determined that the project will have 

significant impacts to these resources because of the likelihood that construction of the 

proposed project will encounter significant cultural resources. To address potential adverse 

impacts on cultural resources, DM&E has proposed mitigation measures, including (i) informing 

workers of applicable federal, state, and local requirements for the protection of archaeological 

resources, graves, and other cultural resources and training them on how to recognize and treat 

resources; (ii) complying with a programmatic agreement and identification plan developed 

through the NHPA Section 106 consultation process; and (iii) implementing mitigation measures 

documented in a memorandum of agreement (MOA) developed to ensure that the concerns of 

Native Americans are considered and addressed. (STB, 2001) 

Because the cumulative impacts study area has a long history of human occupation, it is 

expected that historic properties of religious and cultural importance to Native American tribes 

occur throughout the area and that many will be affected by the ongoing and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions discussed previously. Certain historic properties may be eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community that are rooted in its history and are important in maintaining its continuing cultural 

identity (National Register Bulletin 38). Historic properties that might be present within the 

cumulative impacts study area include camp and burial sites, plant collection areas, and sacred 

and worship sites. 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on cultural and historic resources 

within the cultural and historic resources study area resulting from all past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions is MODERATE to LARGE. Archaeological and historic 

sites and artifacts are present in the area of the proposed site, and any present and future 

projects could potentially cause adverse impacts to these sites and artifacts. 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-49 

The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL to 

LARGE incremental impact on historic and cultural resources when added to the MODERATE 

to LARGE cumulative impact to these resources expected from other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. As discussed previously, archaeological field 

investigations identified 18 historic sites listed on or recommended as eligible for listing in the 

NRHP within the proposed Dewey-Burdock project area. In addition, tribal cultural surveys 

recommended 17 known archaeological sites and 12 newly discovered cultural sites as eligible 

for listing in the NRHP. ISR activities, especially ground-disturbing activities during the 

construction phase at the proposed project, may result in a cumulative loss of historic and 

cultural resources. The mitigation of adverse impacts at the proposed project will be addressed 

in an agreement between the applicant, NRC, SD SHPO, interested federal and state agencies 

(e.g., BLM, SDDENR), and interested Native American tribes. 

5.10 Visual and Scenic Resources 

Cumulative impacts to visual and scenic resources were assessed within a 3.2-km [2-mi] radius 

of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Beyond this distance, any changes to the 

landscape would be in the background distance zone for the purposes of visual resource 

management (VRM) defined by BLM, and would be either unobtrusive or imperceptible to 

viewers (BLM, 1984, 1986). The timeframe for the analysis is 2009 to 2030 (see SEIS 

Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating life of the facility). 

As described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1, the proposed Dewey-Burdock site encompasses 4,282 ha 

[10,580 ac] of mostly private land in northern Fall River and southern Custer Counties, 

South Dakota. BLM has not assigned a VRM class to the region that encompasses the 

proposed project area. However, similar areas adjacent to the proposed project in Wyoming are 

identified as VRM Classes III and IV (BLM, 2000). At present, human-made features within and 

in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site include roads, power lines, ranch residences, 

fence lines, and abandoned open pits and overburden piles associated with past conventional 

uranium mining. The primary visual feature superimposed on the proposed project landscape is 

the transportation and utility corridor consisting of Dewey Road, the BNSF railroad, and 

overhead power lines. The abandoned open pits and overburden piles from historical mining 

that are located within the eastern and northeastern parts of the proposed project site contribute 

adversely to the scenic and visual quality of the area. However, the abandoned open pits and 

overburden piles are not visible from surrounding county roads and highways. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.10.1, potential impacts on visual and scenic resources from the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be the contrast of surface facilities and infrastructure 

(e.g., drilling rigs, powerlines, process buildings, header houses, wellheads, irrigation center 

pivots) with the existing visual inventory. These types of visual impacts are consistent with the 

management objectives of the VRM Class III and IV areas that include similar areas adjacent to 

the proposed project in Wyoming (BLM, 2000). As described in detail in SEIS Section 4.10.1, 

the impacts to visual and scenic resources from the surface structures and equipment will be 

SMALL for all phases of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. NRC staff base this 

conclusion on the remote location of the project site and mitigation measures that will be used to 

reduce potential visual and scenic impacts (e.g., selecting building materials and paint that 

blend with the natural environment, dust suppression). 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities that could have cumulative impacts 

on the visual and scenic resources in the vicinity of the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-50 

include uranium exploration/extraction, potential oil and gas exploration and development, wind 

energy projects, and potential transportation projects (i.e., the proposed Dewey Conveyor 

Project and the proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project). 

Surface disturbances and fugitive dust emissions associated with access roads and drill pad 

construction developed for uranium and oil and gas exploration should have only a minor 

cumulative impact on the visual and scenic resources in the area. Access road segments will 

be considerably shorter than Dewey Road. Truck and equipment traffic for both construction 

and drilling activities will be relatively minor, consisting of one or two pieces of equipment per 

day for construction and two to four pick-up truck trips per day to support drilling activities. All 

surface disturbances and equipment associated with exploration drilling will be temporary, and 

the affected ground surface will be fully reclaimed after use. Demand for oil and gas leases is 

low, and there are no producing oil wells within the 3.2-km [2-mi] radius that could potentially 

contribute to cumulative impacts related to visual and scenic resources (see SEIS 

Section 5.1.1.3). Furthermore, there are no reasonably foreseeable future ISR operations in the 

3.2-km [2-mi] radius that could potentially impact visual and scenic resources (see SEIS 

Section 5.1.1.1). 

Wind energy projects, such as the potential Dewey-Burdock Wind Project (see Figure 5.1-4), 

will have an impact on visual and scenic resources within the cumulative impacts study area. 

The heights, type, and color of turbines, together with their placement with respect to local 

topography (i.e., on a ridge or mesa), are factors that will contribute to visual intrusion on the 

landscape. Also, the need for additional transmission lines to connect wind energy projects to 

the regional power grid could contribute to cumulative impacts. On U.S. government-owned 

lands, flexibility in locating turbines and transmission line towers to avoid visual impacts to 

important view sheds will be considered through consultation with the wind energy developer 

and the managing federal agency (e.g., BLM, USFS) on a project-specific basis. (BLM, 2005) 

The proposed 10.6-km [6.6-mi]-long Dewey Conveyor Project will have an impact on visual and 

scenic resources within the cumulative impacts study area (see Figure 5.1-4). The proposed 

conveyor will consist of elevated 1.5 m by 2.4 m by 12.2 m [5 ft by 8 ft by 40 ft] conveyor 

segments attached to supporting concrete piers or foundations spaced 7.6 to 12.2 m [25 to 

40 ft] apart. The average conveyor height will be 4.9 m [16 ft] with approximately 2.7 m [9 ft] of 

clearance beneath the conveyor segments. The conveyor alignment is proposed to begin at 

Dewey Road approximately 1.8 km [1.1 mi] south of the town of Dewey and approximately 

1.6 km [1 mi] north-northwest of the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project boundary. The alignment 

will head east-northeast, progressively away from the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project area. 

(BLM, 2009a) 

The DM&E PRB Expansion Project will impact visual and scenic resources in the cumulative 

impacts study area by the visual intrusion of the railroad on the landscape (see Figure 5.1-4). 

Construction and operation will affect the current scenic character of the cumulative impacts 

study area as well as the remoteness and feeling of vastness this undeveloped area provides. 

Some visual mitigation will be accomplished by the use of nonreflective rails and color matching 

of facilities where possible. For example, DM&E will comply with USFS color coordination 

requirements for facilities associated with the railroad. Any facility more than 41 cm [16 in] tall 

will be required to be olive drab, flat tan, or desert brown except where they are required by law 

to be a specific color. (STB, 2001) 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on visual and scenic resources in 

the study area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is 

MODERATE to LARGE. This finding is based on the structures and infrastructure from potential 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-51 

future actions that could significantly alter the viewshed within 3.2 km [2 mi] of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project including (i) turbines and transmission lines associated with future 

wind energy projects (e.g., the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project), (ii) the elevated conveyor and 

supporting concrete piers associated with the Dewey Conveyor Project, and (iii) rails and 

facilities associated with the DM&E PRB Expansion Project. 

The NRC staff have concluded that the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a 

SMALL incremental impact on visual and scenic resources when considered with all the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area. As described in 

SEIS Section 4.10.1, visual and scenic impacts from the equipment used to construct buildings 

and drill wells will be temporary and visual impacts from structures and fugitive dust will be 

mitigated by the rolling topography and BMPs (e.g., color consideration for structures and 

dust suppression). 

5.11 Socioeconomics 

As described in SEIS Section 5.1.2, the timeframe for this cumulative impacts analysis for 

socioeconomics resources begins in 2009 and ends in 2030. The following socioeconomic 

indicators were evaluated as part of this analysis. 

• Population 

• Employment 

• Housing 

• School enrollment 

• Public services 

• Fiscal revenue 

The geographic boundary varies for the socioeconomic resource indicators listed and is 

described as part of the analyses for each subcategory. The potential socioeconomic impacts 

for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be SMALL. These impacts are described in 

SEIS Section 4.11. 

5.11.1 Population 

The geographic boundary for the cumulative population analysis includes Custer and Fall River 

Counties in South Dakota and Niobrara and Weston Counties in Wyoming. Population change 

over time is generally an excellent indicator of cumulative social and economic change in a 

given area. South Dakota’s population has grown from 696,004 in 1990 to 814,180 in 2010 and 

is estimated to decline modestly to 801,939 in 2020 (Brooks, 2008; USCB, 2012). Population in 

Custer County grew from 6,179 in 1990 to 8,216 in 2010 and is projected to decline slightly to 

8,186 in 2020 (Brooks, 2008; USCB, 2012). In Fall River County, population decreased slightly 

from 7,353 in 1990 to 7,094 in 2010 and is projected to increase to 7,423 in 2020 (Brooks, 2008; 

USCB, 2012). Wyoming population has grown from 453,588 in 1990 to 563,626 in 2010 and is 

projected to increase to 622,360 in 2020 and 668,830 in 2030 (WDAI, 2011, 2012). Niobrara 

County population has declined slightly from 2,499 in 1990 to 2,484 in 2010 and is projected to 

increase to 2,660 in 2020 and 2,710 in 2030 (WDAI, 2011, 2012). Weston County population 

has grown from 6,518 in 1990 to 7,208 in 2010 and is estimated to increase to 7,900 in 2020 

and 8,120 in 2030 (WDAI, 2011, 2012). 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-52 

The relatively flat county population projections do not take into account the current economic 

conditions, climate change legislation (including cap and trade components), and future 

technological changes (e.g., wind energy and clean coal innovations). If the reasonably 

foreseeable future actions described in SEIS Section 5.1.1 go forward and become functional 

within the boundary of the cumulative population analysis study area, workers will be required to 

build and operate these facilities. These future actions include potential wind energy projects, 

such as the Dewey-Burdock Wind Project, and proposed transportation projects, which include 

the Dewey Conveyor Project and the DM&E PRB Expansion Project. Additional workers will 

also be required to staff any expansion in uranium extraction projects, such as the development 

of the potential Dewey-Terrace project in Weston and Niobrara Counties. It is likely that any 

additional workers will desire to live closer to their place of employment and become active in 

their community. The towns of Custer (population 2,067), Hot Springs (population 3,711), 

Edgemont (population 774), and Newcastle (population 3,532) may see population increases 

associated with future actions in the population analysis study area. Assuming that energy 

development and transportation projects are developed and constructed, the addition of new 

workers in these towns will have a MODERATE cumulative impact on population. The relatively 

small pool of workers associated with the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (86 short-term 

positions during construction, 84 positions during operations, 9 positions during aquifer 

restoration, and 9 positions during decommissioning) will have only a SMALL incremental 

impact on population. If a disproportionate number of workers associated with the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock project elect to reside in small towns like Edgemont, the incremental impact on 

population could be MODERATE. 

5.11.2 Employment 

The geographic boundary for the cumulative employment analysis includes Custer and Fall 

River Counties in South Dakota and Niobrara and Weston Counties in Wyoming. While no 

individual county employment projections are available, the State of South Dakota is expected 

to experience modest growth through 2020, with an average annual growth rate of 0.9 percent 

(SDDLR, 2012). Employment in mining is expected to increase annually by 4 jobs or 

0.5 percent through 2020, while employment in heavy construction is expected to increase 

annually by 50 jobs or 1.5 percent through 2020. The State of Wyoming is expected to 

experience modest growth through 2021, with an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent 

(WDWS, 2012). Employment in mining (including oil and gas extraction) is expected to increase 

annually by 846 jobs or 3.2 percent through 2021. 

The cumulative employment analysis study area may experience an increased rate of 

employment from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions that may occur (see SEIS 

Section 5.1.1). If the potential Dewey-Burdock Wind Project and the proposed Dewey Conveyor 

Project and DM&E PRB Expansion Project are financed and developed, workers will be 

required to build and operate these projects. Wind energy projects are expected to employ 

100 to 150 workers during a 1 to 2 year construction period and 10 to 20 workers to operate and 

maintain the project (BLM, 2005). The proposed Dewey Conveyor project is expected to 

employ 50 workers during the 1 year construction period and about 12 workers afterwards to 

operate the project (BLM, 2009a). The proposed DM&E project will employ more than 

900 workers over the 2 to 3 year construction phase (STB, 2001). However, only a small 

portion of the overall construction workforce will be located in a single location at any one time. 

Once a particular phase of DM&E project is complete, workers will relocate to other job 

locations (STB, 2001). Workers will also be required to staff potential ISR facilities in the study 

area, such as the potential Dewey-Terrace project. It is assumed that potential ISR facilities in 

the study area will employ the same number of workers as the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts

5-53

Project (86 during construction, 84 during operations, 9 during aquifer restoration, and 9 during 

decommissioning). This projected growth related to future actions will result in SMALL to 

MODERATE cumulative impacts to employment in the form of additional job opportunities. 

Based on the number workers expected at the proposed action, the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

ISR Project will have a SMALL incremental impact on employment.

5.11.3 Housing

The geographic boundary for the cumulative housing analysis includes Custer and Fall River 

Counties in South Dakota and Niobrara and Weston Counties in Wyoming. With the projected 

growth from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions, new employees moving into 

the study area will require housing. Smaller communities, such as Edgemont, are likely to 

experience MODERATE cumulative impacts due to limited housing availability. Assuming, 

however, that new employees relocate to one of the larger communities, such as Custer, Hot 

Springs, or Newcastle, there should be adequate housing opportunities to absorb the influx of 

facility workers. Therefore, the cumulative impact will be SMALL. Given the number of 

Dewey-Burdock ISR facility employees (86 during construction, 84 during operations, 9 during 

aquifer restoration, and 9 during decommissioning), there will be SMALL incremental impacts to 

housing markets, prices, and real estate development in larger communities such as Custer, 

Hot Springs, and Newcastle. However, housing impacts may be MODERATE if a 

disproportionate number of employees at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR project elect to 

reside in smaller communities, such as Edgemont.

5.11.4 Education

The Custer School District, Hot Springs School District, Edgemont School District, Weston 

County School District No. 1, and Weston County School District No. 7 represent the 

geographic boundary for the school enrollment resource analysis. These school districts were 

selected because most permanent Dewey-Burdock ISR Project employees will be likely to live 

in one of these districts. Most of the construction workforce, however, is not expected to 

relocate entire families during the relatively brief construction phase (1 to 2 years). Student 

enrollment in these school districts totaled 2,915 in 2010 and ranged from 150 students in the 

Edgemont School District to 882 students in the Custer School District (see Table 3.11-5).

Most of the construction workforce for the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

described in SEIS Section 5.1.1 is not expected to relocate entire families into the school 

enrollment study area. The construction phases of future actions, such as wind projects, ISR 

facilities, and transportation projects, are relatively brief, ranging from 1 to 3 years. During 

operations of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions, new employees will be more 

likely to move their families and send their children to schools in the study area. The potential 

increase in school-aged children will likely be split between the school districts in the school 

enrollment study area. Based on the number of permanent employees needed to operate 

reasonably foreseeable future actions (e.g., 84 for ISR facilities, 10 to 20 for wind projects, and 

about 12 for transportation projects), cumulative impacts to school enrollment are expected to 

be SMALL. Based on the number of workers (84) needed for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project, the proposed action will have a SMALL incremental impact on school resources in the 

larger school districts within the school enrollment study area, such as the Custer and Hot 

Springs school districts. However, school enrollment impacts may be MODERATE if a 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-54 

disproportionate number of employees at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project elect to 

reside in smaller communities, such as Edgemont. 

5.11.5 Public Services 

The geographic boundary for the public services socioeconomic resource cumulative impact 

analysis includes Custer and Fall River Counties in South Dakota and Niobrara and Weston 

Counties in Wyoming. There may be incremental impacts to local government facilities and 

public services as population increases in affected counties and communities, which generally 

result in across-the-board increases in the demand on services. Even small changes in 

population size may result in additional demand for health and human services, such as 

doctors, hospitals, police, and fire response. Additionally, the various reasonably foreseeable 

future actions described in SEIS Section 5.1.1 may result in increased demand for specific 

services (e.g., road maintenance). Operational impacts to public services and public 

infrastructure, as a result of the workers relocating with their families, will be area-specific, and 

may be long term. As described in SEIS Section 3.11.7, there are a number of existing medical 

and emergency facilities that will be capable of handling issues related to increased population. 

Additionally, the State of South Dakota Social Services has offices located throughout the state, 

including in Custer and Hot Springs. The State of Wyoming has numerous social services 

offices located throughout the state as well. There is an office for Niobrara and Weston 

Counties, as well as other local offices located in Newcastle. It is not anticipated that additional 

population from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions will stress the current social 

services capabilities in the public services resource study area. Therefore, cumulative impacts 

to public services are expected to be SMALL. Given the number of workers required for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project (86 during construction, 84 during operations, 9 during 

aquifer restoration, and 9 during decommissioning), incremental impacts from the proposed 

action will have a SMALL impact on public services. 

5.11.6 Local Finance 

The geographic boundary for the local finance socioeconomic resource is Fall River and Custer 

Counties. Tax revenue will accrue mainly in Fall River and Custer Counties and to the State of 

South Dakota, and because of the structure of the taxing system, taxes may not accrue or be 

distributed to the localities proportionate to the population/public service impacts experienced by 

those entities. The tax system in place helps capture tax revenue during construction, 

operation, and decommissioning of industrial facilities. Additionally, a county ad valorem tax 

from current and future mineral extraction operations will contribute to local government 

revenue. Indirectly, counties and municipalities will benefit from increased sales tax revenue 

from increases in population and resultant demand for goods and services. If reasonably 

foreseeable future actions are constructed and operated, there will be a MODERATE 

cumulative impact on local finance. Contributions from the Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

expected to have a SMALL to MODERATE incremental impact on local finance. 

The NRC staff determined that the cumulative impact on socioeconomic resources resulting 

from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions ranges from SMALL to 

MODERATE. Impacts to population and local finance will be MODERATE; impacts to 

employment will be SMALL to MODERATE, and impacts to housing, education, and public 

services will be SMALL. 

The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL to 

MODERATE incremental effect on socioeconomic resources when considered with other past, 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-55 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Impacts to population, housing, local finance, and 

education will be SMALL to MODERATE, while impacts to employment and public services will 

be SMALL. 

5.12 Environmental Justice 

Impacts relating to environmental justice for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project are 

described in detail in SEIS Section 4.12. The geographic boundary for this resource includes 

Custer and Fall River Counties in South Dakota, Weston County in Wyoming, and the Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation in Shannon County, South Dakota. The timeframe for the analysis is 

2009 to 2030 (see SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating life of the proposed project). 

As described in SEIS Section 4.12.1, NRC staff determined that the percentage of minority 

populations living in affected block groups in the vicinity of the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project site in Custer, Fall River, and Weston Counties does not significantly exceed the 

percentage of minority populations recorded at the state and county levels and is well below the 

national level. Furthermore, NRC staff determined the percentage of low-income populations 

living in affected census tracts in the vicinity of the proposed project site in Custer, Fall River, 

and Weston Counties does not significantly exceed the percentage of low-income populations 

recorded at the state or county level. Based on an analysis of potential impacts to minority and 

low-income populations described in SEIS Section 4.12.2, NRC concluded that there will be no 

disproportionally high or adverse impacts to minority or low-income populations residing near 

the proposed project area. 

In GEIS Section 6.4, NRC staff identified the Native American Oglala Sioux Tribe as a minority 

population in the Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming Milling Region and the Pine Ridge Indian 

Reservation as a low-income population (NRC, 2009a). The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is 

located in Shannon County, South Dakota, approximately 80 km [50 mi] from the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. Environmental justice impacts related to the protection of cultural 

and religious resources of significance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe and other potentially affected 

Native American tribes are being addressed through the NHPA Section 106 consultation 

process as described in SEIS Sections 1.7.3.5 and 4.9.1. As described in SEIS Section 4.12.1, 

environmental justice impacts to Native American tribes will primarily be no different than those 

experienced by other populations within the vicinity of the project area. Although the proposed 

action may potentially affect certain sites of religious or cultural significance to the tribes, the 

impacts to such sites would be reduced through mitigation strategies developed during 

Section 106 consultations. 

Because the economic base of the study area is includes ranching, government, tourism, and 

resource extraction, low income areas are not only widely dispersed but small in size. 

Furthermore, it is unlikely that race and poverty characteristics in regions surrounding the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project area will change significantly as a result of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future projects discussed in Section 5.1.1. For reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, the extent to which there will be potential environmental impacts 

(e.g., visual impacts of wind turbines and transmission infrastructure associated with wind 

energy projects) and health and safety risks that create an environmental justice concern will 

depend on the precise location of low-income and minority populations in relation to specific 

projects. Full analysis of the potential impacts of specific projects on low-income and minority 

populations will be undertaken as part of site-specific environmental justice reviews of each 

proposed development site. 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-56 

Based on available minority and low income population information and the analysis of human 

health and environmental impacts presented in Chapters 4 and 5, NRC staff conclude that the 

potential for adverse incremental impacts within the study area will be SMALL. The NRC staff 

also conclude that the proposed project will have a SMALL incremental impact on 

environmental justice populations when added to the SMALL cumulative impacts from other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

5.13 Public and Occupational Health and Safety 

Cumulative impacts on public and occupational health and safety were evaluated within a 

105-km [65-mi] radius of the proposed Dewey-Burdock site. This distance was chosen because 

the nearest operating ISR facility to the proposed Dewey-Burdock site is located approximately 

105 km [65 mi] south at Crow Butte in Dawes County, Nebraska. The timeframe for the 

analysis is 2009 to 2030 (see SEIS Section 5.1.2 for the estimated operating life of the facility). 

The public and occupational health and safety impacts from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR 

Project will be SMALL and are discussed in detail in SEIS Section 4.13.1. During normal 

activities associated with all phases of the project lifecycle, radiological and nonradiological 

worker and public health and safety impacts will be SMALL. Annual radiological doses to the 

population within 105 km [65 mi] of the proposed project will be far below applicable NRC 

regulations. For accidents, radiological and nonradiological impacts to workers may be 

MODERATE if the appropriate mitigation measures and other procedures intended to ensure 

worker safety are not followed. Typical protection measures, such as radiation and 

occupational monitoring, respiratory protection, standard operating procedures for spill response 

and cleanup, and worker training in radiological health and emergency response, will be 

required as a part of the applicant’s NRC-approved Radiation Protection Program (Powertech, 

2011). These procedures and plans will reduce the overall radiological and nonradiological 

impacts to workers from accidents to SMALL. 

Past, existing, and anticipated future uranium recovery facilities in the vicinity of the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and within the broader regional area are described in 

Section 5.1.1.1. Abandoned open pits and overburden waste piles associated with past surface 

mining activities occur in the Burdock portion of the proposed site (see Figure 3.2-3). Radiation 

surveys have revealed that soils in and near the old surface mining works have elevated 

radiation levels (see SEIS Section 3.12.1), which could potentially increase radiological doses to 

onsite workers. Within a 105-km [65-mi] radius of the proposed project, there is one operating 

ISR facility at Crow Butte in Dawes County, Nebraska. In addition, three satellite facilities or 

ISR expansions for the Crow Butte site are in the planning or licensing stages: North Trend, 

Three Crow, and Marsland. The applicant has also identified a potential ISR project at Dewey 

Terrace in Niobrara and Weston Counties, Wyoming (Powertech, 2009b). If constructed and 

operated, each of these facilities will have similar radiological and nonradiological impacts on 

public and occupational health and safety to those at the proposed Dewey-Burdock site. 

Potential cumulative impacts from these facilities will result from incremental increases in annual 

radiological doses to the population when combined with the impacts of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project. 

As stated in Section 4.13.1, for normal operations, Rn-222 will be the only significant 

radionuclide anticipated to be released at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project; the 

primary sources will be from wellfield venting and releases from within the central plant for 

process operations (predominantly via vent stacks on the ion-exchange columns and various 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-57 

tanks). As further described in SEIS Section 4.13.1, the maximum expected exposure to a 

member of the public is located southeast of the Dewey satellite facility within the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock project permit boundary (see Figure 4.13-1). This maximum exposure is 

estimated to be 0.06 mSv/yr [6.0 mrem/yr] and is consistent with estimates of expected 

exposure levels at other operating ISR facilities in the United States (NRC, 2009a). This 

exposure, combined with exposures from other operating and potential ISR facilities in the study 

area, will remain far below the 10 CFR Part 20 public dose limit of 1.0 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] and 

have a negligible contribution to the 6.2 mSv [620 mrem] average yearly dose received by a 

member of the public from all sources. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.13.1, both worker and public radiological exposures are 

addressed in NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 20. Licensees are required to implement an 

NRC-approved radiation protection program to protect occupational workers and ensure that 

radiological doses are “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA). The applicant’s radiation 

protection program includes commitments for implementing management controls, engineering 

controls, radiation safety training, radon monitoring and sampling, and audit programs 

(Powertech, 2011). Measured and calculated doses for workers and the public are commonly 

only a fraction of regulated limits. Analysis of three separate accident scenarios (thickener 

failure and spill, pregnant lixiviant and loaded resin spills, and yellowcake dryer accident 

release) will also result in hypothetical exposures that are less than NRC regulatory limits and 

produce SMALL potential impacts (SEIS Section 4.13.1.1.2.2). 

The types and quantities of chemicals (hazardous and nonhazardous) for proposed use at the 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project do not differ from those evaluated in the GEIS. The use of 

hazardous chemicals at ISR facilities is controlled under several regulations (see SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.1.2.3 for a list of these regulations) that are designed to provide adequate 

protection to workers and the public. The handling and storage of chemicals at the facility 

will follow standard industrial safety standards and practices. Industrial safety aspects 

associated with the use of hazardous chemicals are regulated by the South Dakota OSHA. 

Nonradiological worker safety will be addressed through occupational health and safety 

regulations and practices. 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the vicinity of the 

Dewey-Burdock Project that could contribute to nonradiological public and occupational health 

and safety include oil and gas exploration, wind energy projects, the proposed Dewey Conveyor 

Project, and the proposed DM&E PRB Expansion Project (see SEIS Sections 5.1.1.3, 5.1.1.4, 

and 5.1.1.5). Increased risk to human health and safety will occur during development and 

operation of these projects from the inherent hazards associated with construction and 

maintenance activities. However, these risks will be minimized by implementation of BMPs, 

development and implementation of health and safety programs, safety setbacks to nearest 

residences, mitigation measures, and compliance with applicable federal and state occupational 

and public safety regulations (BLM, 2005, 2009a; STB, 2001). Hazardous materials that are 

likely to be used during these ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future projects include diesel 

fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluids, motor oil/grease, and compressed gasses used for welding 

(e.g., acetylene or propane). A large-scale release of diesel fuel or several of the other 

substances used at the projects may have implications for public health and safety. The 

location of the release will be the primary factor in determining its importance. However, the 

probability of a release anywhere along a proposed transportation route is extremely low, the 

probability of a release within a populated area will be even lower, and the probability of a 

release involving an injury or fatality will be still lower (BLM, 2009a). Therefore, it is not 

anticipated that a release involving a severe effect on human health and safety will occur during 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-58 

these ongoing and potential future actions. In addition, ongoing and potential future actions will 

have federal- and/or state-mandated spill prevention and control plans to prevent spills of oil 

and other petroleum products and other hazardous materials during construction and operation 

activities (BLM, 2009a; STB, 2001). 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on public and occupational health 

and safety in the study area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions is SMALL. This finding is based on estimates of combined radiological exposures from 

currently operating and proposed future ISR facilities in the study area, which are estimated to 

remain far below the regulatory public limit of 1.0 mSv/yr [100 mrem/yr] and have a negligible 

contribution to the 6.2 mSv [620 mrem] average yearly dose for a member of the public from all 

sources. Nonradiological exposures to workers and the general public from hazardous 

chemicals and materials resulting from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

will be minimized by implementation of BMPs, mitigation measures, and compliance with 

applicable federal and state occupational and public safety regulations. 

The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL 

incremental impact on public and occupational health when considered with all the other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area. The maximum expected 

exposure to a member of the public at the proposed Dewey-Burdock Project is estimated to be 

0.06 mSv/yr [6.0 mrem/yr] and is consistent with estimates of expected exposure levels at other 

operating ISR facilities in the United States (NRC, 2009a). Because the facility is located in a 

remote, sparsely populated area, the exposure to members of the public will be limited. 

Occupational health hazards will be limited because licensees are required to implement an 

NRC-approved radiation protection program to protect workers. As described in SEIS 

Section 4.13.1.1.2.3, the handling, storage, and disposal of chemicals at the proposed project 

would follow standard industrial safety standards and practices and the applicant must comply 

with EPA, SDDENR, and OSHA regulations regarding the industrial and environmental safety 

aspects associated with the use of chemicals. 

5.14 Waste Management 

Waste management impacts from the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project would be SMALL 

to MODERATE and are detailed in SEIS Section 4.14.1. Cumulative impacts on waste 

management were considered within a 105-km [65-mi] radius of the proposed Dewey-Burdock 

Project site, and the timeframe for the analysis is 2009 to 2030 (see Section 5.1.2 for the 

estimated operating life of the facility). This distance was chosen because the nearest 

operating ISR facility that could generate waste volumes consistent with those projected for the 

proposed Dewey-Burdock site is located approximately 105 km [65 mi] south at the Cameco 

Crow Butte operation in Crawford, Nebraska. 

The proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will generate radiological and nonradiological liquid 

and solid wastes that must be handled and disposed of properly. Waste streams and the 

types and volumes of wastes to be disposed are described in SEIS Section 2.1.1.1.6. The 

primary radiological wastes are process-related liquid wastes, waste treatment solids, and 

process-contaminated structures and soils, all of which are classified as byproduct material 

waste. As discussed in SEIS Section 4.14.1, liquid byproduct material generated during 

operations is composed of production bleed, waste brine streams from elution, laundry water, 

plant washdown water, laboratory chemicals, and aquifer restoration water. Liquid byproduct 

material will be treated onsite using a combination of ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-59 

radium settling followed by deep disposal in Class V injection wells, land application, or 

combined deep well disposal in Class V injection wells and land application. State- and 

federal-permitting actions, NRC license conditions, and NRC and state inspections ensure that 

proper waste disposal practices will be used to comply with safety and environmental 

requirements to protect workers, the public, and the environment. 

As described in SEIS Section 4.14.1, the overall impacts from the disposal of process-related 

liquid wastes at the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will be SMALL. In addition, impacts 

associated with disposal of solid radioactive wastes will be SMALL based on the required 

preoperational disposal agreements made between the licensee and the licensed byproduct 

material waste disposal facility. Hazardous waste disposal impacts at the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock Project will be SMALL based on the low volumes of waste generated. Impacts 

from disposal of nonradioactive, nonhazardous solid wastes will be SMALL during the 

construction, operations, and aquifer restoration phases of the proposed project based on 

estimated volumes and the available capacity of local municipal solid waste landfills. However, 

impacts from disposal of nonhazardous solid wastes will be SMALL to MODERATE during the 

decommissioning phase depending on the long-term status of existing local landfill resources. If 

local landfill capacity is not expanded prior to the proposed decommissioning phase, impacts 

will be MODERATE because the projected capacity of the local landfill (i.e., the Custer-Fall 

River landfill) will be insufficient to accommodate all the decommissioning nonhazardous solid 

waste. If local landfill capacity is expanded prior to the decommissioning phase, impacts from 

disposal of nonhazardous solid wastes will be SMALL. 

Past, existing, and anticipated future uranium recovery facilities in the vicinity of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project and within the broader regional area are described in 

Section 5.1.1.1. Abandoned open pits and overburden waste piles associated with past 

surface mining activities occur in the Burdock portion of the Dewey-Burdock site (see SEIS 

Figures 3.2-3). Radiation surveys reveal that soils near the old surface mining works have 

higher than background radiation levels (Powertech, 2009a). At present, there are no plans to 

clean up and reclaim the old surface mines. However, potential future state- or federal-funded 

cleanup and reclamation of the abandoned open pits and overburden waste piles will have an 

impact on waste management if the radioactive soils require disposal in a licensed byproduct 

disposal facility. As noted previously, within a 105-km [65-mi] radius of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, there is one operating ISR facility at Crow Butte in Dawes County, 

Nebraska, which will generate waste volumes consistent with those projected for the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR project. In addition, three satellite facilities or ISR expansions are in the 

planning and licensing stages at the Crow Butte site: North Trend, Three Crow, and 

Marsland (see SEIS Section 5.1.1.1). Powertech has also identified a potential ISR project at 

Dewey Terrace in Niobrara and Weston Counties, Wyoming (Powertech, 2009b). All of these 

potential ISR facilities will generate solid and liquid waste volumes consistent with those 

projected for the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project, which could contribute to waste 

management impacts within the cumulative impacts study area. Generation of nonhazardous 

solid wastes at the planned and potential ISR facilities could impact landfill resources in the 

cumulative impacts study area. Impacts to landfill resources will be MODERATE if current 

landfill capacities are not adequate to accept nonhazardous solid wastes generated by the 

planned and potential ISR facilities and an expansion is necessary to accommodate added 

volume. Before ISR operations begin, NRC requires ISR facilities to have an agreement in 

place with a licensed disposal facility to accept byproduct material. Because radioactive wastes 

are so closely monitored throughout the United States, the impact on waste management from 

these potential facilities is anticipated to be SMALL. 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-60 

Regarding the potential cumulative impacts of liquid waste disposal, the applicant is seeking 

permits from EPA for four to eight Class V deep disposal wells for liquid byproduct materials 

(Powertech, 2011, Appendix 2.7–L). Additional deep disposal well use in the region is 

anticipated as additional ISR facilities are licensed. The EPA-permitting process for these wells 

evaluates the suitability of proposals to ensure groundwater resources are protected and 

potential environmental impacts are limited to acceptable levels. Based on the assumption that 

EPA will not permit deep injection wells that will have a significant potential to impact 

groundwater resources, the NRC staff conclude the cumulative impacts of using deep disposal 

wells for the proposed action along with the potential impacts from present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions will be SMALL. 

Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the vicinity of the proposed 

Dewey-Burdock ISR Project site that may generate nonradiological hazardous wastes include 

oil and gas exploration, wind energy projects, and proposed transportation projects, such as the 

Dewey Conveyor Project and the DM&E PRB Expansion Project (see SEIS Sections 5.1.1.3, 

5.1.1.4, and 5.1.1.5). Each of these projects will require shipment, storage, use, and disposal of 

hazardous materials and generation of solid and hazardous wastes; however, BMPs addressing 

these activities will effectively mitigate potential impacts. Each project will also be 

responsible for complying with applicable federal and state regulations and site-specific 

license agreements that manage generated wastes. For example, applicants will be required to 

comply with Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials regulations (49 CFR Parts 171 

and 179) when handling, storing, and disposing hazardous materials. The types of hazardous 

substances that will likely be present during activities associated with these projects include 

diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluids, motor oil/grease, and compressed gases used for welding 

(e.g., acetylene, propane). Potential impacts will result from accidental releases of these 

substances during transportation, or during use and storage. The environmental effects of a 

release will depend on the substance, quantity, timing, and location of the release. The event 

could range from a minor oil spill on the project site where cleanup equipment will be readily 

available, to a severe spill during transport involving a large release of fuel or other hazardous 

substance. Some of the chemicals could have immediate adverse impacts on water quality and 

aquatic resources if a spill entered a flowing stream. With rapid cleanup actions, contamination 

will not result in a long-term impact to soils, surface water, or groundwater. 

The NRC staff have determined that the cumulative impact on waste management in the study 

area resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is SMALL to 

MODERATE. All present and reasonably foreseeable future actions will implement BMPs to 

address shipment, storage, use, and disposal of radiological and nonradiological hazardous 

materials (both liquid and solid) and will be required to comply with applicable federal and state 

regulations and site-specific license agreements that manage generated wastes. Impacts to 

landfill resources will be MODERATE if current landfill capacities are not adequate to accept 

nonhazardous solid wastes generated by the planned and potential ISR facilities and an 

expansion is necessary to accommodate added volume. 

The NRC staff conclude that the proposed Dewey-Burdock ISR Project will have a SMALL to 

MODERATE incremental impact on waste management when considered with all the other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the study area. The applicant will be 

required to obtain the necessary permits and contractual agreements for disposing of its solid 

byproduct material, hazardous waste, and nonradiological, nonhazardous solid and liquid 

wastes. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with applicable federal and state 

regulations and site-specific license agreements for the management and disposal of 

process-related liquid wastes. Impacts from disposal of nonradioactive, nonhazardous solid 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-61 

wastes will be SMALL during the construction, operations, and aquifer restoration phases of the 

proposed project based on estimated volumes and the available capacity of local municipal solid 

waste landfills. However, impacts from disposal of nonhazardous solid wastes will be SMALL to 

MODERATE during the decommissioning phase depending on the long-term status of existing 

local landfill resources. If local landfill capacity is not expanded prior to the proposed 

decommissioning phase, impacts will be MODERATE because the projected capacity of the 

local landfill (i.e., the Custer-Fall River landfill) will be insufficient to accommodate all the 

decommissioning nonhazardous solid waste. If local landfill capacity is expanded prior to the 

decommissioning phase, impacts from disposal of nonhazardous solid wastes will be SMALL. 

5.15 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20. “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40. “Domestic Licensing 

of Source Material.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property, Part 800. “Protection of Historic Properties.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 92. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 92, 

“Control of Air Pollution from Locomotives and Locomotive Engines.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

40 CFR Part 1500 to 40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of 

the Environment, Parts 1500–1508. “Council on Environmental Quality.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

49 CFR Part 171. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 171. “General 

Information, Regulations, and Definitions.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

49 CFR Part 179. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 179, 

“Specifications for Tank Cars.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

49 CFR Part 210. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 210. “Railroad 

Noise Emission Compliance Regulations.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). “Wind Energy Facts: Nebraska.” ML12243A234. 

Washington, D.C.: AWEA. 2012a. 

AWEA. “Wind Energy Facts: South Dakota.” ML12243A243. Washington, D.C.: 

AWEA. 2012b. 

AWEA. “Wind Energy Facts: Wyoming.” ML12234A254. Washington, D.C.: AWEA. 2012c. 

AWEA. “U.S. Wind Energy Market Reports.” Washington, D.C.: AWEA. 2012d. 

<http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/reports/AWEA-US-Wind-Industry-MarketReports.cfm> (20 August 2012). 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-62 

Becker, J.M., C.A. Duberstein, J.D. Tagestad, and J.L. Downs. “Sage-Grouse and Wind 

Energy: Biology, Habits, and Potential Effects of Development.” Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind & 

Hydropower Technologies Program under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. ML12243A257. 

Richland, Washington: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2009. 

BLM (U.S. Bureau of Land Management). “Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Dewey 

Conveyor Project.” DOI–BLM–MT–040–2009–002–EIS. ML12209A089. Belle Fourche, 

South Dakota: BLM Field Office, U.S. Department of Interior. January 2009a. 

BLM. “Update of Task 3A Report for the Powder River Basin Coal Review Cumulative Air 

Quality Effects for 2020.” ML12243A338. Washington, DC: BLM. December 2009b. 

BLM. “Chapter 5: Potential Impacts of Wind Energy Development and Analysis of Mitigation 

Measures.” Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy 

Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. FES 05-11. 

ML12243A271. Washington, DC: BLM, U.S. Department of the Interior. June 2005. 

BLM. “Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report, Rawlins Resource Management 

Plan Planning Area.” Rawlins, Wyoming: BLM, Rawlins Field Office. 2003. ML12243A327. 

BLM. “Newcastle Resource Management Plan.” ML12209A101. Newcastle, Wyoming: BLM, 

Newcastle Field Office. 2000. 

BLM. “Visual Resource Inventory.” Manual H–8410–1. ML12237A196. Washington, DC: 

BLM. 1986. 

BLM. “Visual Resource Management.” Manual 8400. ML12237A194. Washington, DC: 

BLM. 1984. 

Brooks, T., M. McCurry, and D. Hess. “South Dakota State and County Demographic Profiles.” 

ML12237A222. Brookings, South Dakota: South Dakota Rural Life and Census Data Center. 

May 2008. 

Buechler, J.V. “An Intensive (Class III) Cultural Resources Inventory Survey of the 

Dacotah Cement Land Exchange Proposal in Southwestern Custer County, South Dakota.” 

(Submitted to Dacotah Cement, Rapid City, South Dakota). Project No. 99-9. Rapid City, 

South Dakota: Dakota Research Services. 1999. 

Carter, J.M., D.G. Driscoll, and J.F. Sawyer. “Ground-Water Resources in the Black Hills Area, 

South Dakota.” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4049. 

ML12243A344. 2003. 

Center for Climate Strategies. “South Dakota Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case 

Projections 1990–2020.” 2007. <http://www.climatestrategies.us/ewebeditpro/items/ 

O25F18227.pdf> (21 December 2009). 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act.” ML13343A349. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, 

CEQ. 1997. 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-63 

Connelly, J.W., C.A. Hagen, and M.A. Schroeder. “Characteristics and Dynamics of Greater 

Sage-Grouse populations.” Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape 

Species and Its Habitats. S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, eds. Studies in Avian Biology. 

Vol. 38. pp. 53–67. ML12250A648. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 2011. 

Doherty, K.E., D.E. Naugle, H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, and J. Kiesecke. “Energy Development 

and Conservation Tradeoffs: Systematic Planning for Sage-Grouse in Their Eastern Range.” In 

Greater Sage-Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats. 

S. T. Knick and J. W. Connelly, eds. Studies in Avian Biology. Vol. 38, pp. 505-516. 

ML12250A651. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 2011. 

Driscoll, D.G., J.M. Carter, J.E. Williamson, and L.D. Putnam. “Hydrology of the Black Hills 

Area, South Dakota.” U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 02-4094. 

ML12240A218. 2002. 

ESRI (Environmental Systems Research Institute). “ArcGIS 9 Media Kit, ESRI Data and 

Maps 9.3.” Redlands, California: ESRI. 2008. 

GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States. Washington, DC: Cambridge University Press. 2009. 

Hodorff. “Habitat Assessment and Conservation Strategy for Sage Grouse and Other Selected 

Species on Buffalo Gap National Grassland.” ML120240626. Hot Springs, South Dakota: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. September 2005. 

Holm, E.H., T. Cline, Jr., and M. Lees. “South Dakota—2008 Mineral Summary Production, 

Exploration, and Environmental Issues.” ML12243A352. Pierre, South Dakota: South Dakota 

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Minerals and Mining Program. 2008. 

IML (Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc.) "Ambient Air Quality Final Modeling Protocol and Impact 

Analysis Dewey-Burdock Project Powertech (USA) Inc., Edgemont, South Dakota." 

ML13196a061, ML13196a097, ML13196a118. Sheridan, Wyoming: ML, IML Air 

Science. 2013. 

National Atlas of the United States. “Map of the United States.” September 17, 2009. 

<http://nationalatlas.gov> (29 October 2010). 

Naus, C.A., D.G. Driscoll, and J.M. Carter. “Geochemistry of the Madison and Minnelusa 

Aquifers in the Black Hills Area, South Dakota.” ML12240A265. U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigation Report 01-4129. 2001. 

NOGCC (Nebraska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission). “Oil and Gas Conservation.” 

2012. <http://nogcc.ne.gov> (22 August 2012). 

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). “Draft License SUA-1600 for Powertech (USA), 

Inc.” ML13318A094. Washington, DC: NRC. March 2013. 

NRC. “Expected New Uranium Recovery Facility Applications/Restarts/Expansions: Updated 

August 13, 2012.” ML12243A367. 2012. 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-64 

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

Milling Facilities.” ML091480244, ML091480188. Washington, DC: NRC. May 2009a. 

NRC. “Site Visit to the Proposed Dewey-Burdock Uranium Project, Fall River and Custer 

Counties, South Dakota, and Meetings with Federal, State, and County Agencies, and Local 

Organizations, November 30–December 4, 2009.” ML093631627. Washington, DC: 

NRC. 2009b. 

Petrotek (Petrotek Engineering Corporation). “Numerical Modeling of Hydrogeologic 

Conditions, Dewey-Burdock Project, South Dakota.” ML12062A096. Littleton, Colorado: 

Petrotek. February 2012. 

Powertech (Powertech (USA) Inc.). “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC 

Uranium Recovery License Fall River and Custer Counties, South Dakota.” Technical Report 

RAI Responses. ML112071064. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. June 2011. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota ER_RAI Response August 11, 2010.” ML102380516. 

Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2010. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Environmental Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2009a. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Application for NRC Uranium Recovery License Fall River 

and Custer Counties, South Dakota—Technical Report.” Docket No. 040-09075. 

ML092870160. Greenwood Village, Colorado: Powertech. August 2009b. 

Powertech. “Dewey-Burdock Project, Supplement to Application for NRC Uranium Recovery 

License Dated February 2009.” Docket No. 040-09075. ML092870160. Greenwood Village, 

Colorado: Powertech. August 2009c. 

SDDENR (South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources). “Online 

Oil/Gas/Injection Well Data.” Rapid City, South Dakota: Minerals and Mining Program, Oil and 

Gas. 2012a. <http://www.sddenr.net/oil_gas/> (07 August 2012). 

SDDENR. “Oil and Gas Drilling Permits Issued From 2005-2011.” South Dakota Department of 

Natural Resources. 2012b. <http://denr.sd.gov/des/og/newpermit.aspx> (21 August 2012). 

SDDENR. “Report to the Chief Engineer on Water Permit Application No. 2685-2, Powertech 

(USA) Inc., November 2, 2012.” ML13165A160. Pierre, South Dakota: SDDENR. November 

2012c. 

SDDENR. “South Dakota’s Regional Haze State Implementation Program.” ML12243A371. 

Pierre, South Dakota : SDDENR. 2011. 

SDDENR. “Uranium Question and Answer Fact Sheet.” ML12243A369. Pierre, South Dakota: 

SDDENR. 2010. 

SDDENR. “South Dakota Ambient Air Monitoring Annual Network Plan 2009.” 2009. 

<http://denr.sd.gov/des/aq/aqnews/South%20Dakota%20AP2009.pdf> (14 December 2010). 
FINAL Cumulative Impacts 

5-65 

SDDENR. “The 2008 South Dakota Integrated Report for Surface Water Quality Assessment.” 

ML12240A378. Pierre, South Dakota: 2008. 

SDDLR (South Dakota Department of Labor and Regulation). “South Dakota Industry 

Employment Projections.” Pierre, South Dakota: SDDLR Labor Market Information Center. 

2012. <http://dlr.sd.gov/lmic/industry_projections.aspx> (25 June 2012). 

STB (Surface Transportation Board). “Final Environmental Impact Statement, Finance Docket 

No. 33407—Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation, Construction into the Powder 

River Basin, Powder River Basin Expansion Project.” ML12243A381. Washington, DC: STB, 

Section of Environmental Analysis. 2001. 

Sundstrom, L. “Living on the Edge: Archaeological and Geomorphological Investigations in the 

Vicinity of Tepee and Hell Canyons, Western Custer County, South Dakota.” Day Star 

Research, Shorewood, Wisconsin. 1999. 

Sutley, N. “Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of Effects of Climate Change and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Memorandum (February 18) to Heads of Federal Departments 

and Agencies. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality. 2010. 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). “Final Work Plan for Black Hills Army Depot Remedial 

Investigation and Feasibility Study at Fall River County, South Dakota.” ML13053A152. 

Huntsville, Alabama: USACE. 2012. 

USACE. “Final Archives Search Report, Preliminary Assessment of Ordnance Contamination at 

the Former Black Hills Army Depot, South Dakota.” ML13053A145. Huntsville, Alabama: 

USACE. 1992.

USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). “American FactFinder, Census 2000 and 2010, 2006–2010 

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate, State and County QuickFacts.” 

ML12248A240. 2012. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). “Southern Black Hills Water System Argyle Road 

Service Area Special Use Permit Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact.” 

ML13213A393. Black Hills National Forest, Hell Canyon Ranger District, Custer County, 

South Dakota: USDA. January 2012. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). “Black Hills Hydrology Study.” Pierre, South Dakota: USGS, 

South Dakota Water Science Center. 2010. <http://sd.water.usgs.gov/projects/bhhs/Intro.html> 

(09 November 2010). 

USGS. “Scientific Information for Greater Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Habitats.” 

U.S. Department of Interior, United States Geological Survey Briefing Paper. ML12250A713. 

September 29, 2009. 

WDAI (Wyoming Department of Administration and Information). “Population of Wyoming, 

Counties and Municipalities: 1980 to 1990.” ML12250A719. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDAI, 

Economic Analysis Division. 2012. 

WDAI. “Population of Wyoming, Counties, Cities, and Towns: 2010 to 2030 .” ML12250A716. 

Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDAI, Economic Analysis Division. 2011. 
Cumulative Impacts FINAL

5-66 

WDWS (Wyoming Department of Workforce Services Research and Planning). “Wyoming 

Occupational Projections, 2011-2021.” ML12243A386. Cheyenne, Wyoming: WDWS 

Research and Planning, 2012. 

Winham, R.P., L. Palmer, F. Sellet, and E.J. Lueck. “Intensive (Class III) Cultural Resouces 

Inventory Survey of the Dacotah Cement Land Exchange Proposal with the Bureau of Land 

Management in Southwestern Custer County, South Dakota.” Vols. 1–6. Sioux Falls, 

South Dakota: Augustana College, Archeology Laboratory. 2001. 

WYOGCC (Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission). “County Reports.” Casper, 

Wyoming: WYOGCC. 2012. <http://wogcc.state.wy.us/> (07 August 2012).





UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG-1910

Final

Supplement 4, Vol. 1

Environmental Impact Statement for the Dewey-Burdock Project in 

Custer and Fall River Counties, South Dakota